Monday, March 16, 2015
what björn (farmer) thinks...: Javier Solana now calls for a negotiated settlemen...
what björn (farmer) thinks...: Javier Solana now calls for a negotiated settlemen...: ...the situation in Europe must be bad enough as we see Mr.Solana now popping up suddenly again from behind his veil back to every podium...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
507 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 507 of 507Thanks for the link Susanna.
I have been keeping up with this business with the German Cardinal Marx of late too and really wonder at his audacity.
From OZ
Christine, you are obtuse about many things.
The least little bit of humility would have you taking the advice given time and time again (by multiple people) to stop pontificating here.
You botch topics repeatedly, you go google google google instead of read and meditate and apply the bible to your own life and that is noticeable by the way you use scripture.
It is grieving how you handle scripture (you need some real context yourself!) and that makes the self-righteousness in you especially ugly. You need to repent of your attitude "that knows more than God".
You are one who darkens counsel like the Lord warned Job's friends in Job 38:1&2.
You are a "Job's friend" to this blog.
I hope you get the drift because this is no game.
Christine,
YOU are the one trying to create a "context" where there is none.
When I open my Bible, I read:
Romans 10:17
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
There was an oral tradition as well as a written one.
If you want to talk about "context, St. Paul also said:
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15
I am not referring to that matter in particular.
I am talking about your approach to the bible period.
One minute you talk easy believism and the next religion on steroids.
So exactly how do you believe a person is saved? In answer to the question what must I do to be saved, what is your answer?
If someone came to you wanting to know how they can be sure they are going to heaven when they die your response would be......?
anon 1:01
St. Basil the Great listed the still unwritten traditions which were few,
and had to do with practice: triple immersion in baptism, praying towards the east, making the sign of the Cross, I forget the rest, a short list.
Paul also refers in some letters to having talked already with the recipients about something which he then repeated or developed more in the letter.
There is no reason to apply "tradition" to how we assume God inspired the Bible writers. It is stated for us already in The Bible, and going beyond this is to open the door to new age practices like automatic writing, and frankly I would put "locutions" in that category also. The detailed descriptions of events involving Abraham, Moses, Ezekiel and I think another, and of course Paul and John in Revelation, involve very real visual and auditory phenomenon. Not "inspiration" like is applied to poets and artists (from the pagan concept of "muses" spirits that inspired these type people) or things you can hardly tell from imagination.
Imaginary things can be totally correct on doctrine, since if you are immersed in this and your imagination gets going, you will produce what is already there. This is why the usual approach of examining doctrine to determine the validity of a vision is only a start. Did anyone tell them how to test the spirits, or give them oil of exorcism to try on these visitors? St. Catherine of Siena of an order that rejected the Immaculate
conception had a visit from Mary where
Mary said she was NOT Immaculately conceived, and the rival order that
supported this doctrine had a visit from Mary saying she WAS Immaculately conceived.
What does the MAgisterium do? it weasles that the person receiving the
revelation is not infallible and can make mistakes, misremember, etc. I am
sure I could find a lot of stuff like this if I went through all the visionaries.
Roman Catholic official doctrine does not exalt Mary above Jesus, but the CULTURE so to speak, call it "corporate culture" for a comparison, definitely throws the focus off Him and on her, due to the influence of these visionaries and the messages they got.
As for the oral tradition in Judaism that is overblown, includes some of
the sort of thing Jesus referred to as traditions of men not of God, and
in some cases is off track with Torah. I won't get into that now.
Your Pastor Knows When Martial Law Will Be Declared
March 30, 2015
http://beforeitsnews.com/police-state/2015/03/your-pastor-knows-when-martial-law-will-be-declared-1002.html
Christine, cease and desist posting lies about the Catholic Church on this blog. You will have to stand before GOD some day and account for all of your slanderous statements.
anon 3:00
I say no lies, I have observed what I have observed, others have also. I
know what is stated in some visions as supposedly from Mary. I know that
there are many laity, priests and probably some bishops who want Mary
declared co-redemptrix. I pray God this will not happen.
I also know that this opinion that there is something wrong with RC
spirituality and visions is shared by the Orthodox, those who give it much
time to think about.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/marian_apparitions.aspx
I used to give credence to Lourdes, but learned too much about details
surrounding it to do so anymore. I excused the "I am the immaculate
conception" line as being a statement in line with maybe her womb was
rendered immaculate not her entire being, but it is still odd EVEN FROM
AN RC PERSPECTIVE and she wouldn't say "deliver us from evil" or
"deliver us from the evil one" and some other part of the Our Father
when praying the rosary with Bernadette.
The constant refrain over the past couple hundred years of appearance to
children is blatant exploitation of sentimentality about children.
When you Roman Catholics left the real Catholic church (the Orthodox)
you lost some grace, and the questionable visions began out of
control. discernment left. Too much politics and power and worldly focus
incorporated not merely into your conduct but your very self image as a
church. this developed over time of course. But Eucharistic miracles
(though I think none as extreme as that of pre schism Lanciano) and the
effectiveness of your blessed medals, holy water and oil of exorcism show
you have not lost grace altogether.
Whether Honorius was a heretic or teaching heresy ex cathedra or not
doesn't matter. What matters is that his being pope didn't keep him from
being anathematized, and Leo being
pope didn't make him feel free to change the Creed. Clearly popes and the rest of the Catholic Church you "Catholics" went into schism from did not see you in quite the way you see yourselves.
Don't actually know the plan of salvation, Christine, in answer to the 1:16 PM post do you?
If you do, let's "hear" it because faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God.
I know that at times you can bring good points forward, but how about be specific in this, the single biggest issue people face? For all die and after this the judgment...making it crucial to know where a person will spend eternity.
Christine,
I'm trying to imagine what it must have been like for your poor teachers in school.
Did you ever make any of them actually cry?
anon 1:16 and 4:13
"I am talking about your approach to the bible period.
One minute you talk easy believism "
WHEN?! perhaps you misinterpreted some reference to accepting Jesus
Christ as King and God I would think you would know a king is a BOSS as I
have said, your commander, your overlord to be obeyed. that is not easy believism.
Perhaps it is just my background in knowing what a lord or a king is
thanks to Prince Valiant comics as a child and some medieval relevant
reading later. but isn't that kind of obvious?
"and the next religion on steroids."
you seem to use the word "religion" a lot like its a bad word, are you the
same one sniping about my having a "religious spirit"? that's the same
line that some hypercharismatics use against anyone who would rebuke their
new age mentality, contemplation and eschatology. But I suppose it is also used of anyone who takes some church
history and Bible precedents seriously.
"So exactly how do you believe a person is saved? In answer to the
question what must I do to be saved, what is your answer?
If someone came to you wanting to
know how they can be sure they are going to heaven when they die your response would be......?"
Jesus has to be your first priority, above your self, your own survival
and that of your children and loved ones.
Jesus spoke about eating His Body and Blood but also said His words were
meat indeed, so the sacramental life is not instead of but presupposes the
spiritual life but also helps it.
Jesus also said that "who perseveres to the end will be saved," your
salvation isn't complete when you believe or even get baptized, that
isn't the end of the journey but the start. Jesus spoke of judgement of
the believers as did Paul that we will all stand before the judgement seat of Christ.
If we have saving faith it will show in our works.
A good safe spot would be an Orthodox church but be wary there can be
trouble there. After that, older type Lutheranism and conservative
anglicanism. RC as last resort they will probably want you to swear
allegiance to the pope and specifically accept the filioque.
Wary always, test everything against Scripture.
It was commented earlier that I have issues not only with the Roman
Catholics but the Protestants with population figures thrown in, as if
the number of adherents means anything.
Of course I have issues with both categories. Haven't you got it
through your head yet I'm ORTHODOX we aren't in either category, we are older than both.
And it was Orthodox convert Fr. Seraphim Rose who beat Constance to
writing about the New Age. Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future first
published 1975. Constance has spoken well about him.
A point of debate in modern Orthodox Church writers is concern about the "toll houses" demons grabbing at you after death. People with near death experiences have reported this. I won't go into the debate. Basically anyone who thinks they can live as they please and believe next to nothing and either a one time prayer to Jesus or occasional communion and last rites is the way to game the system are in trouble. your unrepented sins make you vulnerable. RC has a warped view of this as purgatory.
Protestants think all ends at death, citing the last few verses of Revelation, ignoring the context which is AFTER THE LAST JUDGEMENT which is AFTER THE RESURRECTION OF ALL THE DEAD which is not the resurrection of believers at the Second Coming.
RC think you can't get out of hell only out of purgatory, and Orthodox tend to not pray for the dead who are not Orthodox.
That NONE OF THIS was taught in the early church is shown by martyr Perpetua praying for her brother who died an unbeliever at nine years old and who she dreamed was in hell, then dreamed he was in heaven.
So we need to be praying to Jesus Christ when we die, sorting out our sins and quitting them incl. quitting approving of them throughout life and especially as we approach death. If something grabs us we need to fight and call to Jesus for help. We should pray for the dead since Jesus said that nothing is impossible with God, David said God's Holy Spirit could find him anywhere even in hades aka hell in the nasty parts of it, and Jesus said He has the keys of death and of hell (argue all you want about hades hell is part of it and this is not about Gehenna which is AFTER the last judgement) and Peter in his first (never questioned) epistle twice speaks of Jesus preaching to the dead, uses both euangelion and kerygma words. And Paul asks for mercy "on that day" for Onesiphorus. Same general request the Maccabbees made for their dead they discovered had been wearing pagan talismans and they made sin offering for them and prayed to God to have mercy on them on the day of judgement.
You did not answer the question, Christine.
What must I do to be saved?
how on earth can you say that I didn't answer that?
"believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" it says, well, what does that mean? that phrase encapsulates the Christology and the orientation of your priorities and life to Jesus as your LORD which is not a nice sounding word equivalent to a God you sometimes give honor to but the boss of your life your commander your king.
all follows from that.
of course, perhaps this is not an honest question and you are lying and intend to continue lying. just like you did about daniel 7 when you said I needed to give a detailed biblical presentation, and WHEN I DID SO YOU LIED AND SAID I DIDN'T though I went verse by verse and recently YOU REPEATED THE LIE.
So I suppose you are going to lie about this also.
So this is what you would say to a dying person?
A bunch of Christology something something something?
Have a heart and give the gospel will ya?
to a dying person, atheist maybe? "do me a favor because I worry about you and do yourself a favor. when your dying and dead, anything comes at you call out to Jesus Christ and keep doing so."
But you didn't specify dying person. And what do you consider the gospel?
How is the gospel anything but Jesus is God in the flesh died for our sins rose from the dead, death has no power over Him accept Him as King and God? And how is all that not in what I said? so I left out death and Resurrection, that is generally the whole point the person asking how may I be saved has already heard that point or they wouldn't be asking. And I didn't even deal in heavy duty Christology issues
Christine,
Re:There is no reason to apply "tradition" to how we assume God inspired the Bible writers.
How can you present yourself as Eastern Orthodox while making a comment like this? As long as you make statements like that, you may claim to be Eastern Orthodox, but it is an Eastern Orthodoxy of your own devising.
A remark like the aforementioned one which you posted at 2:40P.M. seems to indicate that you have never left Protestantism.
Don't get me wrong. I don't have the least problem with you sincerely believing in Protestantism.
What I have a problem with is your calling yourself Eastern Orthodox while continuing to sincerely hold the beliefs of certain Protestant communions that reject "holy tradition."
In Eastern Orthodoxy as well as in Roman Catholicism and some branches of Protestantism, there is every reason to apply "tradition" to how we assume God inspired the Bible writers.
Sacred tradition or holy tradition is a theological term used in some Christian traditions, primarily in the Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox traditions, to refer to the fundamental basis of church authority.
The word "tradition" is taken from the Latin trado, tradere meaning to hand over, to deliver, or to bequeath. The teachings of Jesus and the Apostles are preserved in writing in the Bible as well as word of mouth and are handed on. This perpetual handing on of the Tradition is called a living Tradition; it is the transmission of the teachings of the Apostles from one generation to the next. The term "deposit of faith" refers to the entirety of Jesus Christ's revelation, and is passed to successive generations in two different forms, sacred scripture (the Bible) and sacred tradition (apostolic succession).
In the theology of these churches, sacred scripture is the written part of this larger tradition, recording (albeit sometimes through the work of individual authors) the community's experience of God or more specifically of Jesus Christ. Hence the Bible must be interpreted within the context of sacred tradition and within the community of the church. Sacred tradition, and thus sacred scripture as well, are "inspired," another technical theological term indicating that they contain and communicate the truths of faith and morals God intended to make known for mankind's salvation. This is in contrast to many Protestant traditions, which teach that the Bible alone is a sufficient basis for all Christian teaching (a position known as sola scriptura).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_tradition
______________________________
See also....
TRADITION IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7116
_____________________________
P.S. You keep peddling that meme about how Roman Catholics left the true Church.
But it was Photius who was the chief author of the Great Schism between East and West.
I could bury you in documentation, but I will confine myself to the following.
After Photius was lawfully given the See which he had usurped, he was still not content.
That Photius was one of the greatest men of the Middle Ages, one of the most remarkable characters in all church history, will not be disputed. His fatal quarrel with Rome, though the most famous, was only one result of his many-sided activity. During the stormy years he spent on the patriarch's throne, while he was warring against the Latins, he was negotiating with the Moslem Khalifa for the protection of the Christians under Moslem rule and the care of the Holy Places, and carrying on controversies against various Eastern heretics, Armenians, Paulicians etc. His interest in letters never abated. Amid all his cares he found time to write works on dogma, Biblical criticism, canon law, homilies, an encyclopædia of all kinds of learning, and letters on all questions of the day. Had it not been for his disastrous schism, he might be counted the last, and one of the greatest, of the Greek Fathers. There is no shadow of suspicion against his private life. He bore his exiles and other troubles manfully and well. He never despaired of his cause and spent the years of adversity in building up his party, writing letters to encourage his old friends and make new ones.
cont...
cont...
And yet the other side of his character is no less evident. His insatiable ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to the extreme of dishonesty. His claim was worthless. That Ignatius was the rightful patriarch as long as he lived, and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by any one who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government. And to keep this place Photius descended to the lowest depth of deceit. At the very time he was protesting his obedience to the pope he was dictating to the emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction. He misrepresented the story of Ignatius's deposition with unblushing lies, and he at least connived at Ignatius's ill-treatment in banishment. He proclaimed openly his entire subservience to the State in the whole question of his intrusion. He stops at nothing in his war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have known were lies. His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible. For instance, as one more grievance against Rome, he never tires of inveighing against the fact that Pope Marinus I (882-84), John VIII's successor, was translated from another see, instead of being ordained from the Roman clergy. He describes this as an atrocious breach of canon law, quoting against it the first and second canons of Sardica; and at the same time he himself continually transferred bishops in his patriarchate. The Orthodox, who look upon him, rightly, as the great champion of their cause against Rome, have forgiven all his offences for the sake of this championship. They have canonized him, and on 6 Feb., when they keep his feast, their office overflows with his praise. He is the "far-shining radiant star of the church", the "most inspired guide of the Orthodox", "thrice blessed speaker for God", "wise and divine glory of the hierarchy, who broke the horns of Roman pride" ("Menologion" for 6 Feb., ed. Maltzew, I, 916 sq.). The Catholic remembers this extraordinary man with mixed feelings. We do not deny his eminent qualities and yet we certainly do not remember him as a thrice blessed speaker for God. One may perhaps sum up Photius by saying that he was a great man with one blot on his character---his insatiable and unscrupulous ambition. But that blot so covers his life that it eclipses everything else and makes him deserve our final judgment as one of the worst enemies the Church of Christ ever had, and the cause of the greatest calamity that ever befell her.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm
Susanna,
that is totally beside the point. ever hear of "Tradition with a big T as distinct from
tradition with a small t?" there are traditions and there is Tradition which
is non negotiable and is essentially the Creed, The Bible, the Holy Liturgy, Sign of the Cross, etc.
NO ONE makes it a point of any tradition that God merely stirred
the imagination or feelings and didn't SPEAK AUDIBLY and if they do
they err because Scripture says He DID speak audibly at times and DID
make visual events.
Right now in Orthodoxy you got rival claims of what is Tradition of The Fathers
regarding some issues I won't get into here. Saints are not infallible - your own tradition admits as much in explaining conflicting revelations.
there is a limit to how the Bible can be interpreted in that context. THE CREED DOES NOT APPEAL TO ORAL LEGENDS ON A PAR WITH ANY PAGAN CRAP IN RELIABILITY TO SPEAK OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.
IT APPEALS TO THE SCRIPTURES. "and rose on the third day according to the Scriptures."
The Fathers at Nicea fought over whether to use the word homousios precisely because it was not in The Bible.
The farther back you go, the more the writers resemble protestant writers, because they are constantly appealing to the Scriptures.
Irenaeus appeals to both traditional teaching and written Scripture.
Some mishandling of Church Fathers to support liberal protestant notions
that messers khrapovitsky and kalomiros have heresy presented as Tradition and it has crept into some seminaries, unknown before the 20th century and begun among a few cranks among the clergy in the late 1800s.
Eventually it will be sorted out.
Scripture needs to be interpreted in that context, sure. But it still speaks for itself, and shows WHICH traditional context is correct.
For example, you got people with a protestant de facto magisterium which is calvinist infected semi lutheranism and denies the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
RC and EO traditions agree on real presence.
Scripture is interpreted figuratively by the first and literally by the second two.
What do those who learned from aged men who learned from people close to the Apostles themselves say?
Its literal. Real Presence is the correct interpretation.
That's one example. But the idea presented by St. John of Damascus and to a lesser degree by St. John Chrysostom and probably St. Gregory of Nyssa, whose Philokalia of Origen included exactly all the things Origen was anathematized for later, and is considered therefore traditional by many is that Adam and Eve were not densely physical before the Fall and that God would have developed non sexual modes of reproduction for them if the Fall never occurred.
Where does this come from? Origen. The Panarion which describes many heresies addresses Origen (and repeats an unlikely story of denying Christ under duress) as teaching this non physicality of prelapsarian bodies and calls it "NONSENSE." which shows that nothing like this is part of the body of tradition in the early days.
Yet because it was accepted by some men who were dead and published and glorified before Origen was anathematized it has snuck into "tradition" at some level.
you people have Augustine and Tertullian as your plagues. We have Origen.
And you can blame a brew of Augustine and bogomil subclinical influence for Luther and Calvin and Zwingli.
whatever is correct or mere slander about Photius, by the time he penned
The Mystagogy of The Holy Spirit where he shows what a mess the filioque would
lead to if not artifically restrained by preexisting rejection of places it
can lead to,
Photius is irrelevant.
because what happened is that after some mutual provocations, Humbert put
a pre fabricated papal bull of excommunication on the altar of Hagia
Sophia, which only affected Constantinople and not the other Patriarchates.
Constantinople responded in kind. The complaints against you were various
the filioque a big deal, but also you had gone against the canons dating to
the Apostles prohibiting eating meat without exsanguination, used azymes (I think the Miracle of Lanciano
proves the Orthodox wrong on the issue of legitimacy of azymes) and I think the demand for clerical celibacy
was an issue, which is against Bible and canons of the seven ecumenical
councils which only require that a man who is single when ordained remain single and I forget the rest.
Subsequently the rest of the real Catholic Church sided with Constantinople.
you guys took the initiative, and the excommunication wasn't even legal as
per Lee Penn's research http://www.mgrfoundation.org/PapalBull1054.html
AND YOU CAN'T EVEN TELL THE TRUTH.
WE ARE NOT SCHISMATIC WE ARE EXCOMMUNICATED ACCORDING TO YOUR RULES.
YET YOU CALL US SCHISMATIC.
no one I bring this up with even tries to explain it. The fact is, RC lies.
Whether you have the authority to excommunicate us or not, whichever one of us is wrong and needs to repent, the fact is we ain't schismatic.
either we are the real thing and you are schismatic, or you are the real thing and WE ARE NOT SCHISMATIC YOU EXCOMMUNICATED US that means WE ARE NOT SCHISMATIC WE ARE EXCOMMUNICATEES.
get it? got it? good.
why does Rome lie? why can't they say what happened, that they
excommunicated us? you won't get this stated in popular cultural statements, only in the official
histories most don't read.
answer me that. why do you mislabel us schismatic instead of excommunicatees?
never mind who's right in this, WHY THE WRONG LABEL? I think this is the tip of an iceberg.
"Defenders of the Hierarchy say that (a) even the worst of Popes never formally taught heresy, and (b) that the evil behavior of some Popes does not impair their authority and accuracy as teachers of the Faith. This defense fails on both counts:
1. Several Popes have indeed fallen into heresy,[28] at least for a time, and one Pope was anathematized by an Ecumenical Council.
Liberius (352-366): Initially opposed the Arian heresy (which denied the divinity of Christ), and was exiled in 355 by the Arian emperor Constantius II. Under duress, Liberius approved a semi-Arian creed that had been produced by a church synod, and excommunicated the orthodox bishop Athanasius. The Emperor allowed the Pope to return to Rome in 358. Only after the Emperor died in 361 did Liberius return to orthodoxy, reinstating Athanasius and urging all bishops to adhere to the faith that had been stated at the Council of Nicaea.
Zosimus (417-418): Initially revoked the prior Pope's condemnation of Pelagius (who promoted the heresy that men can be saved by their own efforts, without the need for divine grace). After protests from bishops in North Africa, including St. Augustine), the Pope reversed himself and restated Rome’s opposition to the heresy.
Vigilius (537-555): Vacillated between support for orthodox theology (as taught by Chalcedon– that Christ is fully God and fully man, thus having two natures) and the Monophysite heresy, which teaches that Christ has only one nature. (As with Liberius, coercion by the Emperor explained some of Vigilius’ conduct.)
Vigilius ’greatest crime had been the way he obtained the Papacy: he had aligned himself with the dissolute Empress Theodora, posed as a Monophysite sympathizer to gain her support, and went to Rome with her money to buy election as Pope. The clergy there had already elected Silverius as Pope; the Imperial authorities responded by sending Silverius into exile and declaring the Holy See to be vacant. Vigilius won then Papal election, arrested Silverius as soon as the former Pope returned to Rome, and exiled him again – leading to Silverius’ early death by starvation. As a historian of the Papacy reports, “To all intents and purposes, one Pope, and he the son of a pope, had been deposed and murdered by another.”[29] These acts raise a question: shouldn't posing as a heretic, and doing so with such lethal effect, “count” against a Pope in the same way that intentionally issuing a heretical encyclical would?
Honorius I (625-638): Adhered to Monothelitism, which held that there is only one (divine) will in Christ. After Honorius died, he was solemnly condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople, (680-681 – the Sixth Ecumenical Council).[30] Pope Leo II (682-683) affirmed the verdict, saying, “We anathematize …Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”[31] The Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) restated this condemnation.[32] Even though Honorius did not formally define his view as Church teaching,[33] this event clearly shows that Popes can be heretical." http://www.mgrfoundation.org/TruthAboutSomePopes.html rest of article for scandals without heresy.
Paul @ 4:57 PM
Re: "Christine, I'm trying to imagine what it must have been like for your poor teachers in school. Did you ever make any of them actually cry?"
LOL. Well, all I know is that she doesn't make any of us cry. She just makes our eyes glaze over with boredom from her long rambling, incoherent rants.
HA . . . not even close!!!
and of course, no answer to my question.
Speaking of NOT answering questions, Christine. You have been asked this question a couple of times in the past . . .
WHAT WILL YOU DO IF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC AND EASTERN ORTHODOX COMMUNIONS REUNITE?
I am sure as usual you are lying and I did answer it. I don't recall the question, I will take your word for it you asked.
firstly Orthodoxy is not a monolithic thing like RC. such unification let's say it occurred with the Ecumenical Patriarchate would likely result in some jurisdictions joining in this, some ignoring and some denouncing it.
My own reaction would depend on the terms of the reunification.
That was a hypothetical.
I wanted to see if you could answer about the gospel without all of the added religiosity of which you write reems and reems and argue continually.
"so I left out death and Resurrection, that is generally the whole point the person asking how may I be saved has already heard that point or they wouldn't be asking."
That is often not so. These days many people want the fast track to feel good or just get me out of this trouble, this circumstance God, but is not a commitment born in brokenness from a heart that sees it is lost forever without the robe of His righteousness to cover the rags of their sinful nature and sinful be-ing.
We should not give a gloss coat, a lick and a promise type of answer. The Holy Spirit will not in any way slight the sinless Son of God-Son of Man, (who is fully God and fully man), who died on the cross, was buried, and rose again from the dead to reign eternally as LORD of ALL.
To downplay the cross and the empty tomb leaves out what good news it truly is. The word gospel means good news. To downplay the need for repentance before Holy and righteous God and faith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ who died to give God justice and us mercy, so that skipping right past that to easily mouthed words of easy believeism does not let the Holy Spirit work in the life of that one who stands condemned without God, to recognize what a gift of salvation it is. Nor does any of us thinking we can somehow merit in any way by religious exercises what He had to pay in blood to purchase, show us what an undeserved gift yet freely given gift it is.
"salvation isn't complete when you believe or even get baptized, that
isn't the end of the journey but the start."
Your statement can lead one to believe that we are left with something to complete our own salvation when our justification is immediate! The dying thief nailed to a cross next to Jesus can testify to this as he was not able to go do a single good deed or be baptized....but......Jesus heard his repentance over his sin and his faith that called Jesus Lord. Sanctification is after the fact and what the indwelling Spirit of God works out in our lives as good fruit unto God from what He brought in at the moment of salvation.
True humility accepts God's atonement as a deep work in the soul to see it's degradation but also it's new found freedom from it and the Holy Spirit will not neglect to bring this understanding to the heart. Both produce love and devotion to God as nothing else will.
He will not neglect the sin and shame that the cross must point out so that pride in the heart may be slain and the heart cry for righteousness can be fulfilled.
Mere professors rather than possessors of Christ are a dime a dozen in every denomination out there in christendom. Neither spiritually lazy (talk but no walk) "faith" nor is the overachieving type of busy (work to have) "faith" can be considered saving faith and also produces no glory unto God.
you can't have Jesus as Savior if you don't have Him as Lord. my supposed mumbo jumbo is the exact opposite of the easy believism stuff.
the thief on the cross was about to die. he is hardly relevant to issues of growth in Christ as some call it. read paul sure we got justification from Jesus but we have
to keep it. we have to stay with Him not fall away. we are a peculiar people created to do good works. This is a phrasing out of the NT if you don't recognize it, flip through the pages till you find it.
Jesus warns in several parables about gradations of bearing fruit to Him and that some don't bear fruit at all and end up cut off. some are a midrange kind, get some flogging but stay in the kingdom. This is the sort of stuff the church was concerned about when it developed penances.
if you think you are representative of the early church, but deny the
sacraments you are in error. the second century church taught by those of the first century believed what
you in your semi gnosticism scorn, that God works through matter.
salvation is a process. there is a starting point for sure. you break it
into justification and sanctification and whatnot, but it is all phases of the same thing. some
protestant writers probably influenced by Wesley himself drawing on the Patristic writers talked about
growing in Christ. whatever you want to call it.
salvation process is not complete now at any point. it is only the
salvation of the spirit and soul, while the salvation or redemption of
our bodies is in the future in the resurrection of the dead. the faith healing crew mistakenly claim it for now.
as for the Bible being to transform not inform, you can't be transformed
without being first informed, as Paul says about you can't be calling on Him Whom you never heard of, you need someone to tell you. that's information.
some people have the broken situation more than once.
making out like The Holy spirit does all the work and we don't struggle also
lets people think they don't need to take any responsibility for themselves,
Jesus warns we must abide in Him and if we don't we become dry dead branches.
He also warns that the cares of the world and riches can choke the seedling
and that persecution or tribulation can cause some seedlings on these rocks
to take offense at Him.
exactly how do YOU use the Bible to be transformed instead of informed?
"as for the Bible being to transform not inform, you can't be transformed
without being first informed,"
No.
People say show me and i will believe but Jesus says believe Me and I'll show you. That is the role faith plays. (and we cannot believe without first being drawn by the Lord's Spirit to convict us and gift us with repentance and faith).
The bible is the word of God and it is supernaturally discerned we are told in 1 Corinthians 2:10-14. The Paraclete accompanies the Word. It is foolishness to natural mind of natural man without the Spirit breathing Life into them and into us.
You are all about information and attempt to teach man's wisdom. Your discernment is quite lacking. (did you read the verses above?)
There is no life in your words even when you talk about God. Perhaps you should read and apply the words of bible by faith (and be transformed inside out) instead of inform yourself with them. Ask Jesus for the Spirit to impart this to you.
God does the saving and the keeping. Our part is the believing for both. Faith that is alive will live this out in dying to our own self-interest and letting Him increase while we decrease. The more excellent way that 1 Cor 13 shows us how to produce the fruit of the Spirit to the glory of God and is all due to His power to complete us in Himself.
Sanctification (after salvation) is a process.
Salvation is not a process. Salvation is a gift.
Take it or leave it.
" as Paul says about you can't be calling on Him Whom you never heard of, you need someone to tell you. that's information."
No.
That is the work of the Holy Spirit to bring you and I to faith. He will no doubt use someone but
why do you downplay the Spirit's role in the calling?
See what I mean? Your words are only information (and probably just googled).
His Words are Life.
By the grace of God I am what I am.....and not what I once was.
Transformed.
Working out what He has worked in...rain..or shine.
I don't downplay the role of The Holy Spirit, you downplay the cooperation of the human.
show me and I will believe vs. believe and be shown, BOTH occur. take for example
Thomas a classic show me and I will believe type.
The brokenness you describe may occur at some point AFTER accepting Jesus
as
Lord as the result of The Holy Spirit working on you.
What you don't get (and would if you would go through the Bible like you
would some longwinded spiritual sounding worded Christian fiction
book probably and see with your eyes and understand words in English and
get the information) is that it IS NOT EITHER/OR. MORE LIKE BOTH/AND.
I repeat my question HOW DO YOU READ THE BIBLE? do you read just some
verse some book or preacher threw at you, or do you read entire chapters
for context?
Do you USE YOUR MIND or do you consider that having the mind
darkened is a good thing?
Do you soak to get in a mood and figure out what the Word means to
you?
'My Utmost for His Highest' from Oswald Chambers
for April 2
"The Lord … hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight."
Acts 9:17
When Paul received his sight, he received spiritually an insight into the Person of Jesus Christ, and the whole of his subsequent life and preaching was nothing but Jesus Christ - "I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." No attraction was ever allowed to hold the mind and soul of Paul save the face of Jesus Christ.
We have to learn to maintain an unimpaired state of character up to the last notch revealed in the vision of Jesus Christ.
The abiding characteristic of a spiritual man is the interpretation of the Lord Jesus Christ to himself, and the interpretation to others of the purposes of God. The one concentrated p assion of the life is Jesus Christ. Whenever you meet this note in a man, you feel he is a man after God's own heart.
Never allow anything to deflect you from insight into Jesus Christ. It is the test of whether you are spiritual or not. To be unspiritual means that other things have a growing fascination for you.
"Since mine eyes have looked on Jesus,
I've lost sight of all beside,
So enchained my spirit's vision,
Gazing on the Crucified."
Your own words are enough to show you your lack in the things of God.
I will pray that you will come to the light to see the many ways you slight and grieve the Holy Spirit.
You argue and fight with yourself because your fight is not with me.
Come to terms by simple faith that surrenders to Him and the Lord will indeed show you.
He is waiting for you.
It is your move.
That part is up to you.
Christine 11:43 P.M.
The question concerned the RAVENNA DOCUMENT (a.k.a. Declaration of Ravenna) issued October 13, 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Ravenna
_____________________
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/27doya
_________________________
http://www.byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/ecumenical-documents-mainmenu-99/4377-the-ravenna-document-ecclesiological-and-canonical-consequences-of-the-sacramental-nature-of-the-church-ecclesial-communion-conciliarity-and-authority
or
http://tinyurl.com/molwvd7
__________________________
Christine,
Re: Photius is irrelevant.
because what happened is that after some mutual provocations, Humbert put
a pre fabricated papal bull of excommunication on the altar of Hagia
Sophia, which only affected Constantinople and not the other Patriarchates.
Photius is most certainly relevant!!! He is relevant because he was the author of the Schism between the East and west.
The only provocation was from Photius who talked out of both sides of his mouth.....acknowledging the Pope from one side and betraying him to the Emperor from the other.
Photius was a layman and the Emperor's Secretary of State when he usurped the see of Ignatius with the help of Bardas who was the maternal uncle of profligate Emperor Michael III.
ST. IGNATIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE
(Ignatius was) born about 799; died 23 October, 877; son of Emperor Michael I and Procopia. His name, originally Nicetas, was changed at the age of fourteen to Ignatius. Leo the Armenian having deposed the Emperor Michael (813), made Ignatius a eunuch and incarcerated him in a monastery, that he might not become a claimant to his father's throne. While thus immured he voluntarily embraced the religious life, and in time was made an abbot. He was ordained by Basil, Bishop of Paros, on the Hellespont. On the death of Theophilus (841) Theodora became regent, as well as co-sovereign with her son, Michael III, of the Byzantine Empire. In 847, aided by the good will of the empress, Ignatius succeeded to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, vacant by the death of Methodius. The Emperor Michael III was a youthful profligate who found a worthy companion for his debauchery in Bardas, his maternal uncle. At the suggestion of the latter, Michael sought the assistance of Ignatius in an effort to force Theodora to enter a convent, in the hope of securing for himself an undivided authority and a free rein for his profligacy. The patriarch indignantly refused to be a party to such an outrage. Theodora, however, realizing the determination of her son to possess at any cost an undivided rule, voluntarily abdicated. This refusal to participate in his iniquitous schemes, added to a courageous rebuke, which Ignatius had administered to Bardas for having repudiated his wife and maintained incest intercourse with his daughter-in-law, determined the Cæsar to bring about the disgrace of the patriarch.
cont...
cont...
An insignificant revolt, led by a half-witted adventurer, having broken out, Bardas laid the blame at the door of Ignatius, and having convinced the emperor of the truth of his accusation, brought about the banishment of the patriarch to the island of Terebinthus. In his exile he was visited by the emissaries of Bardas, who sought to induce him to resign his patriarchal office. Their mission failing, they loaded him with every kind of indignity. Meanwhile a pseudo-synod, held under the direction of Gregory of Syracuse, an excommunicated bishop, deposed Ignatius from his see. Bardas had selected his successor in the person of Photius, a layman of brilliant parts, and a patron of learning, but thoroughly unscrupulous. He stood high in the favour of the emperor, for whom he acted as first secretary of state. This choice having been approved by the pseudo-synod, in six days Photius ran the gamut of ecclesiastical orders from the lectorate to the episcopate. To intensify the feeling against Ignatius, and thereby strengthen his own position, Photius charged the exiled bishop with further acts of sedition. In 859 another synod was called to further the interests of Photius, by again proclaiming the deposition of Ignatius. But not all the bishops participated in these disgraceful proceedings. Some few, with the courage of their episcopal office, denounced Photius as a usurper of the patriarchal dignity. Convinced that he could enjoy no sense of security in his office without the sanction of the pope, Photius sent an embassy to Rome for the purpose of pleading his cause. These ambassadors represented that Ignatius, worn out with age and disease, had voluntarily retired to a monastery; and that Photius had been chosen by the unanimous election of the bishops. With an affectation of religious zeal, they requested that legates be sent to Constantinople to suppress a recrudescence of Iconoclasm, and to strengthen religious discipline.
cont...
cont...
Nicholas I sent the required legates, but with instructions to investigate the retirement of Ignatius and to treat with Photius as with a layman. These instructions were supplemented by a letter to the emperor, condemning the deposition of Ignatius. But the legates proved faithless. Itimidated by threats and quasi-imprisonment, they agreed to decide in favour of Photius. In 861 a synod was convened, and the deposed patriarch cited to appear before it as a simple monk. He was denied the permission to speak with the delegates. Citing the pontifical canons to prove the irregularity of his deposition, he refused to acknowledge the authority of the synod and appealed to the pope. But his pleading was in vain. The prearranged programme was carried through and the venerable patriarch was condemned and degraded. Even after this, the relentless hatred of Bardas pursued him, in the hope of wringing from him the resignation of his office. Finally an order for his death was issued, but he had fled to safety. The legates returning to Rome, merely announced that Ignatius had been canonically deposed and Photius confirmed. The patriarch, however, succeeded in acquainting the pope, through the archimandrite Theognostus, with the unlawful proceedings taken against him. To the imperial secretary, therefore, whom Photius had sent to him to obtain the approval of his acts, the pope declared that he would not confirm the synod that had deposed Ignatius. In a letter addressed to Photius, Nicholas I recognized Ignatius as the legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople. At the same time a letter was dispatched to the eastern patriarchs, forbidding them to recognize the usurper. After another unsuccessful effort to obtain papal confirmation, Photius gave vent to his fury in a ludicrous declaration of excommunication against the Roman Pontiff.
cont...
cont...
In 867 the Emperor Michael was assassinated by Basil the Macedonian, who succeeded him as emperor. Almost his first official act was to depose Photius and recall Ignatius, after nine years of exile and persecution, to the patriarchate of Constantinople, 23 November, 867. Adrian II, who had succeeded Nicholas I, confirmed both the deposition of Photius and the restoration of Ignatius. At the recommendation of Ignatius, Adrian II, on 5 October, 869, convoked the Eighth cumenical Council. All the participants of this council were obliged to sign a document approving the papal action in regard to Ignatius and Photius. Ignatius lived ten years after his restoration, in the peaceful exercises of the duties of his office. He was buried at St. Sophia, but afterwards his remains were interred in the church of St. Michael, near the Bosphorus. The Roman Martyrology (23 Oct.) says: "At Constantinople St. Ignatius, Bishop, who, when he had reproved Bardas the Cæsar for having repudiated his wife, was attacked by many injuries and sent into exile; but having been restored by the Roman Pontiff Nicholas, at last he went to his rest in peace."
cont...
Here is the link
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07647a.htm
Susanna,
insofar as you actually love Jesus Christ, peace to you.
but as usual, neither you nor any RC apologists answers the question:
why do you call us schismatics, when we are excommunicatees, which is different from schismatic?
Why the wrong label? don't quote me newadvent showing excommunication
initated by Rome as admitting we are excommunicatees so what am I talking
about. Over and over we are called "schismatic" which your own history shows is incorrect.
WHY THE WRONG LABEL?
and can you do it in your own words not some longwinded tiresome stuff cut and pasted?
that article focusses on Ignatius, which is a good excuse to leave out
the rest, you have to search on the site for Photius to find
"In 878, then, Photius at last obtained lawfully the place he had
formerly usurped. Rome acknowledged him and restored him to her communion."
It is ludicrous to call him the author of the Great Schism when he
was almost 200 years prior, and the issues driving it were in operation
already, as can be seen from his complaints against Rome
"The reasons he gives for this, in an encyclical sent to the Eastern patriarchs,
are: that Latins
fast on Saturday
do not begin Lent till Ash Wednesday (instead of three days earlier, as in the East)
do not allow priests to be married
do not allow priests to administer confirmation
have added the filioque to the creed."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm
Everything cited about Photius is IRRELEVANT, because the issues stand
or fall on their own. And because the arguments in Mystagogy of The Holy
Spirit stand or fall ON THEIR OWN.
Whether Photius had never been born or not, these issues stand or fall on their own.
Any of the complaints much be answered with the question:
is it true? (yes on all)
does it matter? (given they are a break with Holy Tradition, yes, and
the filioque is unbiblical so invalid and the addition to the Creed done
without Ecumenical Council authorization, so illicit, and done
IN REBELLION AGAINST POPE LEO III WHO REFUSED TO DO SO EVEN THOUGH HE
PERSONALLY BELIEVED IN THE FILIOQUE.)
double origin is now downplayed as the meaning of the filioque by RC,
but that
is just part of a drift towards Orthodoxy.
The original purpose and
meaning were very clear. And this was not what even Augustine considered a good idea.
here is the complaint of Rome against Constantinople.
http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf
you will notice in it some accusations of heresy that make no
sense whatsoever. There are perhaps one or two legitimate issues. And of
course the rejection of azymes to the point of trampling the Holy Eucharist
done with unleavened bread the
Greeks committed was sacrilege but
this was done because they thought it
was not a real Eucharist but fake because unleavened. (there is as good
a biblical basis for unleavened bread, to mimic the Passover and
Christ is our Passover, as for
leavened bread, based on Paul's
remarks about purge out the old
leaven and put in the new leaven of Christ. The Miracle of Lanciano was
pre schism and validates azymes, the doubt in the mind of the priest was because he was visiting from a
Byzantine location and practice, and given azymes or unleavened bread to
do the Eucharist.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism
shows a background which is only partly relevant to St. Photius the Great.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx
We keep hearing from the foolish Galatians.
When will it ever end?
Christina said regarding Susanna's post:
and can you do it in your own words not some longwinded tiresome stuff cut and pasted?
You know Christina, I have to agree with you. I've been saying for quite awhile that people should not be so impressed by Susanna's ridiculously long posts because they are almost always from a pro catholic source. And I guarantee you that you can find just as must to post as she does that WILL REFUTE much of what she does post. All one Ned's to do is be objective and check multiple sources whether good or bad and make a comparison. Not strictly adhere to slanted church father or pro catholic sources.
Unfortunately the Susanna worship around here has been out of control for a long time and even Constance feeds it every other thread or so.
Even some of the FEW intellectuals here walk on eggshells around her beliefs even though they KNOW it is WRONG because they value the accolades and mutual admiration given to them by Susanna and Constance as more important then the truth.
It's not that hard to see how much Susanna's research is flawed.
But...of course I'm wrong because we should see s response soon about how valuable and indispensable her research is, and after that Constance can ask for some long dissertation on why the sky is blue some of the time and what her take on it is.
anon 12:13 said
"We keep hearing from the foolish Galatians.
When will it ever end?"
This is in ref to Gal. 3:1 but what is Paul talking about? not "works" the prots refer to!
here is the whole chapter, and read the rest of the epistle in one sitting by
yourself.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3&version=KJV
Even from this chapter, it is clear he is talking about
the works of the MOSAIC RITUAL LAW. not about worship liturgical vs. freewheeling,
not about the necessity or lack thereof to do good deeds
not about the necessity to avoid sin
It is about CIRCUMCISION, FOOD LAWS, OBSERVING NEW MOONS AND HOLY DAYS AND THE SABBATH, which he addresses briefly in some other epistles.
It isn't about what anon 12:13 thinks it is.
Indeed, anon 12:13 you are wrenching the Scriptures and I hope not to your
own destruction 2 Peter 3:16
The traditions of the fathers-traditions of men-were called beggarly elements by Paul that he said they were in bondage to.
Then, as now, many people put their faith in beggarly elements to have special offices and persons to bring them closer to God. Images and rituals and relics and special observances that make them feel more 'holy'. They are seeking religious 'goose bumps' and love how old (ancient) their religion is. More emphasis on those things as only the beggarly elements than on Christ himself.
Jesus has been replaced by 'church' in so many hearts among people who say they believe in Him. They can do a mental ascent, they can speak the lingo but hearts are far from him.
It is the difference between knowing about God....and actually knowing God. Lots of supposedly right looking perhaps even right sounding extras are in the way to distract the affection away from the Lord.
It is emptiness when the Lord would have us filled with His Spirit instead then and only then do right motives and words and actions follow and glorify Jesus above it all.
again, CONTEXT. what was Paul referring to? the clinging to the Mosaic Law
(not writings of church fathers or for that matter of whoever you prefer to
read among exegetes who didn't exist yet then).
Gal. 4:9-11 "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known
of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye
desire again to be in bondage?
"YE OBSERVE DAYS, AND MONTHS, AND TIMES, AND YEARS.
"I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."
larger context, Galatians chapter 3 in fact the whole epistle.
as usual, anon 4:57 etc., YOU ARE WRENCHING THE SCRIPTURES.
The idea is the same just a different era.
You want a loop hole or something to claim that that only applied to them and not our day and time and the things that the church is guilty of doing that is exactly the same way in heart and mind and spirit that caused them to strayed does not happen with 'beggarly'-'churchy' notions and ways that distract from God? This crosses all denominational lines as all have their own brand of elements they cling to.
Shame on you for limiting God's Word and it's application.
Nothing new for you though.
Acts 2:46 "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the Temple, and
breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and
singleness of heart."
(meat originally meant any food, later it came to mean what is also called
"flesh meats" or animal, fish etc. meat.)
Acts 3:1 "Now Peter and John went up together into the Temple at the hour
of prayer, being the ninth hour."
not only to witness to the Jews but the believers worshipped in the Temple
since Christians had not yet been separated by Jews from among Jews.
Acts 5:12b "(And they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.)"
following the pattern of the synagogues, supplementary to the
Temple, house churches and where possible larger houses dedicated to
being churches developed you can see this in the Epistles.
This style of worship is still in Orthodox services which a Jewish visitor
recognized as similar enough that "you stole our liturgy"
Acts. 20:7 "On the first day of the week we came together to break bread...."
I Cor. 16:2 "On the first day of every week..." collection for the help for famine stricken Jerusalem Christians taken.
Hebrews 13:10 "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat
which serve the tabernacle" sacrificial character of Eucharist,
BTW it is the bread and wine sacrificed to God which "unbloody sacrifice" He returns to us to eat as
His Son's Body and Blood.
Heb. 13: 7, 17 "remember them which have to rule over you, who have spoken unto the word of God:....
"Obey them that have the rule over you....they watch for your souls, as that must give account..."
elders term morphed from presbyter to priest in English, and bishops or episkopoi, overseers.
Heb. 10:25 "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another:..."
Rev. 7:3,4 worship of God with incense which is NOT the prayers of
the saints, NOT symbolic of them, but is offered "WITH the prayers of all saints...."
Liturgical worship on earth, both in the Temple and in the early churches
to now is a duplication of worship of God in HEaven.
anon 5:17 said, while I was working on the last post,
"The idea is the same just a different era.
You want a loop hole or something to claim that that only applied to them and not our day and time and the things that the church is guilty of doing that is exactly the same way in heart and mind and spirit that caused them to strayed does not happen with 'beggarly'-'churchy' notions and ways that distract from God? This crosses all denominational lines as all have their own brand of elements they cling to.
Shame on you for limiting God's Word and it's application.
Nothing new for you though."
On the contrary. first, my post just made shows churchy stuff goes back
to Apostolic times
second, it is not about time and place it is subject.
THIS APPLIES NOW AS MUCH AS IN PAUL'S TIME, IF SOMEONE IS TRYING TO REVIVE
MOSAIC COVENANT DISTINCTIVE LAW
which is explicitly what that is about
and which Hebrew Roots Movement and sabbatarianism is about.
It can also be applied to whatever in pagan backgrounds was used by God to
get you into Christianity. Leave it all behind.
Go on ahead and miss it by miles, Christine. You want no personal accountability from scripture or anyone saying the truth with them so you can skirt the issues that apply-and maybe to you yourself? You sure are dancing as fast as you can to keep from looking deeper.
Your life has to be a hellish mess that you need to keep googling, etc over here and avoid the mess your home - your own heart is?
Why don't you deal with what distracts you from a real relationship with the Lord?
Why not start by forgiving your mother who has passed away but you've showered this place with the toxic details about how you hate her and are glad she is dead (you have said that right here on this blog). You treat people and even the dead badly here.
And what you do to the scriptures....terrible.....because
you do not speculate with them. No...you use their authority as your own.
Jesus is coming soon. Not in 48 years or 500 and who knows...maybe you could pass away yourself tonight? Is your heart right with the Lord? Are you washed in the Blood of the lamb?
You need a prayer closet, not a computer and a blog.
It is way beyond that Christine in your 6:06 post.
You write lavishly here about all your pagan understanding! You broadcast it all over this place and say you are only "teaching" us while you are adhering to it yourself? You dabble in new age ideas all the while you you are exposing it.
We read what Frank posted about what your mind is full of! Talk about distraction! And worse..because you are a soul in deep deep trouble making you live on the fight! With anything, anybody, anytime!!!! There's no peace in your heart!
And then have the unmitigated gall to inform and educate us as to how to worship God. Heaven help you.
I don't wish hell on anybody so repent and turn to the Lord and be cleansed and forgiven of your idolatries--the many-the ongoing...
Christine 12:08
Re:why do you call us schismatics, when we are excommunicatees, which is different from schismatic?
Why the wrong label? don't quote me newadvent showing excommunication
initated by Rome as admitting we are excommunicatees so what am I talking
about. Over and over we are called "schismatic" which your own history shows is incorrect.
You are just plain wrong. If you can't provide documentation for your claims, then as far as I am concerned, these are merely your faux definitions which may be safely ignored.
Re:and can you do it in your own words not some longwinded tiresome stuff cut and pasted?
It is comments like that which show that you have never left Protestantism even though you call yourself Eastern Orthodox.
Anonymous 1:12 P.M.
Re: "It's not that hard to see how much Susanna's research is flawed."
Prove it!
Susanna, she is making this up as she goes. The truth should be the divider and we are all wanting to get to it to see how that fits the picture we are seeing but she will always divide people no matter what denomination.
She must be better than all the rest of us to be so exclusive ;) .
i showered this place with toxic details because I was asked questions
and told the truth, or because of specific issues she was an example of
and then some people either don't read well or are reprobate themselves defended
her behavior and ignored her psychic attacks - that's PSYCHIC ATTACKS not
just psychological attacks though she did that too, and slandered and deceived
everyone and stole from my grandmother her mother in law and slandered
her and drove my father to his death and was in general merciless and
had an incestous seeming fixation on her father.
And that is all I am going to say about my personal issues and who caused
them.
as for forgiving her, she never apologized. Jesus' words applied to this
situation are therefore NOT those of Matt. 18:21, 22 but Jesus' words in
Matt. 16:15-17. Granted this never got dealt with much before witnesses
let alone a church congregation (and how many would be willing in this
modern day and age to sit in judgement on a "private, family matter"?). But the most extreme and ILLEGAL behavior towards me I typed up and got her to sign admitting she'd
done this. the person who saw it recognized it was bad and probably
others too, I never got criticism for this. I would say that praying God to
grant her repentance and forgiveness in the afterlife though she never apologized to me shows some Christian
charity.
Anon 6:39
It's easy to prove! Just look at her sources!
Your another brain dead follower I see!!
No you volunteered the over the top toxics. And we have no way to verify what you said making it hearsay for us and wrong to be exposed to so that puts you in the realm of gossip (even if true which we can't know).
You are to be blamelss in this matter if you say you are a christian. Holding her accountable was right where you should or could if that was possible, and if that was the case, but your heart should already be in forgiveness mode nonetheless.
What good are your prayers for her now? They are for earth time-too late in eternity.
You have a bitter root and it puts you in jepoardy don't you see that?
Susanna,
congratulations, you are the RC to even respond to the issue.
""Over and over we are called "schismatic" which your own history shows is incorrect.
You are just plain wrong. If you can't provide documentation for your claims, then as far as I am concerned, these are merely your faux definitions which may be safely ignored."
HERE YOU GO.
"...the Eastern Schism always means that most deplorable quarrel of which the final result is the separation of the vast majority of Eastern Christians from union with the Catholic Church, the schism that produced the separated, so-called "Orthodox" Church.....
"...a vast "Orthodox" Church exists, apparently satisfied with being in schism with the bishop whom it still recognizes as the first patriarch of Christendom...."
"...revive this charge of heresy against Latins. Certainly from the time of Photius hatred and scorn of Latins was an inheritance of the mass of the Byzantine clergy. How deeply rooted and far-spread it was, is shown by the absolutely gratuitous outburst 150 years later under Michael Caerularius (1043-58). For this time there was not even the shadow of a pretext. No one had disputed Caerularius's right as patriarch; the pope had not interfered with him in any way at all. "
NO ISSUE WAS NOT INTERFERENCE IT WAS HERESY
"... after he had begun by striking the pope's name from his diptychs, the Roman legates excommunicated him (16 July, 1054)."
YOU SEE? WE ARE NOT SCHISMATICS WE ARE EXCOMMUNICATEES.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
"What good are your prayers for her now? They are for earth time-too late in eternity. "
See how you know nothing about what the early Christians taught and did, you
know only the traditions of men, formulated a few hundred years ago.
2 Timothy 1:16-18 "the Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he
oft refreshed me,....
"THE LORD GRANT UNTO HIM THAT HE MAY FIND MERCY OF THE LORD IN THAT DAY;..."
and then later Paul says 2 Tim 4:19 "Salute Prisca and Aquila, AND THE
HOUSEHOLD OF ONESIPHORUS."
Prisca and Aquila and Onesiphorus' household are addressed....BUT NOT ONESIPHORUS.
Because, obviously, he is dead.
the phrasing that the Lord give him
mercy on that day, is comparable to the prayer of the Maccabbeans for
their dead who they found had sinned, and they offered sacrifice for them
and prayed God have mercy at the last judgement day. 2 Maccabbees 12:38-46.
Jesus said that with God all things are possible. And that He Himself has
the keys of death and of hell. And David said though he were in hell
there would God's Holy Spirit find him.
On that basis, I was praying for the dead while I was still Protestant.
later I found out about martyr Perpetua who during Roman persecution
of Christians prayed for her dead brother who had died in unbelief and
would not have done this if the Christians in those days thought it pointless.
So you are a closet Mormon.
:)
while the New Advent article says the Great Schism was not over heresy, this
is incorrect. It was over heresy. Latin heresy and uncanonical practice of serious nature, more serious than the more circumstance bound canons.
Filioque - already discussed.
Fasting on Saturday - not a canonical issue I THINK but in violation of ancient
monastic standard.
Fasting only on Friday not also on Wednesday - This double fast goes
back to earliest times, is Christocentric in reason, and with Holy Week is the only fasting that
you can get excommunicated for not doing unless you have a health reason.
Fish on Friday - should not be allowed any more than meat.
Meat with blood added or from animals killed without exsanguination (e.g.,
chicken neck wrung instead of head cut off) - a law given by God to
Noah, OLDER THAN MOSES, and reiterated in the Apostolic Council
of Acts 15 and by at least two Ecumenical Councils accepted by Rome.
Immaculate Conception
papal infallibility - only Ecumenical Councils were held to be infallible
and, since Trullo changed at least one rule and loosened others where their application would have a sin
enhancing rather than sin eradicating effect, only applies to doctrine.
Scholasticism - the mechanistic thinking and rationalism (not the more fluid sensible kind of rational exposition of St. John of Damascus for instance) which gave rise to atheist rationalism, and which "does theology" ass backwards.
instead of starting with Persons and going through energies or actions which is DYNAMIC, and ending with essence, you start with an abstract idea of essence
WHICH IN TURN LAYS THE GROUNDWORK FOR IMPERSONAL IDEAS OF GOD BEING ACCEPTABLE TO SOME THINKERS LATER
and you then get to attributes, which is static i.e., mechanistic, non living, and end with persons (where you should have started).
Miracle of Lanciano validates azymes so leave that out.
Papal supremacy (which is not what primacy meant it was first among equals).
ALL THIS HAS TO GO, BE DUMPED IN THE TRASH, BE REPUDIATED if you are going to rejoin Orthodoxy, which is the only legitimate reuinion format possible. anything else is merely Orthodoxy caving in to Rome, which I doubt any Orthodox jurisdiction outside of maybe slop job Finland and the Ecumenical Patriarchate would do.
In which case a rival Greek Patriarchate would spring up and maybe Finland would see this happen also, and I wouldn't go along with it.
I might take communion in an honestly RC church, after such a reunion
ocurred, because their Eucharist is still a valid one, and they are
brainwashed on the other stuff, if such intercommunion even with
Orthodox that didn't do reunion with Rome occurred, since the issue is
EATING CHRIST, but not in an ex Orthodox church that should know
better.
Or I might not.
anon 7:36
I pity your ignorance of the Bible and of Christian history.
I abhor Mormonism, and I agree with Webster Griffin Tarpley that "sui generis it is a whole other religion."
You'd make a good mormon.
And i pity you.
Have a nice life (if you can).
"And we have no way to verify what you said making it hearsay for us and wrong to be exposed"
WRONG IT IS TESTIMONY OF THE EYEWITNESS/VICTIM
you are a partner of EVIL.
What does Paul say in Ephesians? that we should EXPOSE EVIL and that WHAT EXPOSES IS LIGHT translations vary from rebuke to expose so it is public rebuke.
Ephes 5:8-13 vs. 11 sounds contradictory to all this but in
context it is emphasizing that the things done are so bad they are
shameful to speak of casually but clearly would have to be named to be
rebuked as the Greek word is both rebuke and expose, which would be a
public rebuke, not titillating gossip but denunciation.
anon 8:09
you have no idea what mormonism teaches if you think I'd make a good mormon.
and they don't pray for the dead last I heard, they go and grab names from graveyards,
and perform baptism by proxy ceremonies to baptize them into their cult post mortem
which is of course of no validity.
they base this on an odd statement by Paul about being baptized for the dead,
which no one has been able to figure out. whatever he referred to, is not
a practice that survived long enough to get noted in early church fathers,
or someone would have found the reference by now.
You'd make a good Mormon because they blow by the cross just like you did in your answer earlier when asked what you would say to someone on their deathbed and needing to know the gospel. You blew by it. Shame shame shame. You need the cross right now. You are a christian?
anon 8:29
"believe on Jesus Christ and be saved" the typical Gospel message "blows by the Cross."
by not mentioning it explicitly even though this is contained in the statement by implication.
But if you talk about the Cross paying for your sins, and you don't
discuss the issue of OBEDIENCE TO THE KING which I did you miss an essential part of the Gospel, you don't just say a prayer, believe He died for you and then run off and forget about it and live and think like everyone else and make no effort.
This is easy believism.
Worse yet is the hyper grace that lets you go on sinning in major
things if you please, because it is all covered so now you can do
anything and plead His Blood. And crucify Him afresh and put His Name
to an open shame. SUCH PEOPLE AS YOU PROBABLY THINK THAT NOT UNDER THE LAW
MEANS NO BIBLICAL MORALITY AND LEGALISM IS WHEN SOMEONE REBUKES YOU
FOR PERVERSION OR LYING OR CORRUPTION. This is easy believing on steroids.
Susanna,
Sorry for my lateness on this, but it’s been a busy week.
You wrote, in response to me:
Actually, my own opinion is that the "hearing" of the Word of God prior to committing it to writing is Biblical, literal and historical. Biblical because it was St. Paul who said in Romans 10:17 that "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." Literal and historical, because many of the Apostles didn't know how to read or write.
Catholics believe that there was a strong oral and apostolic tradition within the early church…
Certainly, there was a strong oral tradition, based, in part, because of illiteracy. And there may well have been some NT writings which were recorded in written form by amanuenses for that very reason (among others). But my question – in response to my understanding of your position – which I’ll rephrase a bit, was/is strictly on whether the Biblical authors wrote upon the literal, audible voice of God, or whether they wrote by inspiration. There’s no doubt the Gospels record the words of Christ, who is, of course, God, as God in the flesh (though, as I’ve written before on here, these aren’t necessarily verbatim, considering the passage of time and comparison amongst the Synoptics); however, aside from that, were the writers recording the audible words of God, whether verbatim or paraphrased? I’m not so sure.
I wonder if our variance has more to do with differences regarding particular nuances of the words literal and hear/d/ing?
In any case, reluctantly, I agree with Christine that Romans 10:17 doesn’t illustrate your point – at least as per my interpretation of your position of this exemplifying literally “hearing” the Word of God. In the first verse of that chapter in Romans Paul is clear he is speaking about the salvation of the Israelites. And, in verse 14 Paul asks rhetorically, “And how can they hear without someone to preach [to them]?” (NAB – the NIV renders this “…preaching to them”). And that provides the context for verse 17: “Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ” (NAB). Paul’s point is that they need the Gospel (“good news,” εὐαγγέλιον, euangeliov of vv. 15 & 16), preached to them. I’ll quote J.D.G Dunn’s excellent commentary on Romans here:
…The rhetorical chain in vv 14-15 most naturally invited a possible explanation of Israel’s unbelief in terms of their not having heard, or of their not having had preachers sent to them. And that is indeed the way Paul develops the point in v 18… (p 629)
[cont]
[cont]
Next, so that I don’t just source from Protestant sources (though Dunn can be liberal, and I don’t always agree with him), I’ll quote Roman Catholic theologian and Jesuit, Joseph Fitzmyer from his Anchor Bible Commentary on Romans (ellipses are references to other commentaries):
what is heard comes through the word of Christ. Lit[erally], “the report (is) through the utterance of Christ.” But this vague expression can be variously interpreted…, and Paul does not further explain it. It could mean “through the message that Christ himself has brought” (gen. of origin)…Or, more likely in this context, “through the message about Christ” or “through the message of the Messiah” (objective gen.)…See 10:8, “the word of faith that we preach.” Thus Christ would be speaking his message through the mouths of his authorized heralds… (p 598; emphasis added).
That is, per Fitzmyer, “the word of Christ” refers to the preaching of the Gospel message by the evangelists, as Christ ‘speaks’ through them. And, I understand this ‘speaking’ as divine inspiration, rather than Christ literally speaking, and the spokespersons reiterating His exact words. Put another way, the evangelists, led by Christ / His Spirit, are to preach the message about Christ – the Gospel message – and this is how the Israelites are to be evangelized.
Susanna,
are you a liar, blind, or only limit yourself to a few sources? Orthodox
aren't called schismatics all the time?
MORE EXAMPLES.
http://www.romancatholicism.org/eastern-schism.html
"Today, I shall concern myself to document from clear and authoritative sources, that the Eastern so-called “Orthodox” are damned, too, unless they leave off their schism and submit to Our Holy Father the Pope, and accept all Catholic teaching. Really, they are no better than any non-Catholic, even the pagans, and indeed, they are worse in several respects, due to their sacrilegious misuse of the Church’s sacraments, and their abuse and insult of Our Holy Father the Pope, and their rending of the Faith and the Church. But we are getting ahead of ourselves. We shall present our documentation of the damnation of the Eastern Schismatics under the following four headings:" goes on
to various ex cathedra statements over the centuries.
yet calls us schismatics not excommunicatees. This is apparently a traditional catholic site, and such rely on pre Vatican II documents.
http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=1187505.0
"A couple of questions to the Eastern Orthodox schismatics:"
never mind the questions just look at the terminology.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B138_CounselsSchismatic.html
"Counsels to a Convert
From the Schismatic Church"
https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm
"Finally, the person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom Vatican I defined as having a universal primacy of authority over the whole Church, is at least a material schismatic. It was thus common in the past to speak of the schismatic Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. As with heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as schismatics."
The break of striking the pope from the dyptichs is not as severe an
action as excommunication.
The logic shown here, is that while the initial generations were culpable for schism the present bunch can't help it so they don't even call them schismatics. I guess that's the answer to my question
BUT NOT REALLY. because ORthodox are thus left without any label, except Christian, so is this some propaganda move to attempt to get them into the Roman orbit again make them feel comfortable?
romanita is the term for how sneaky and two faced and speak with forked
tongue the Vatican crew is. you always have to read (or listen) very
carefully, check for multiple interpretations or meanings and read
between the lines. Note not only what is said, but what is NOT said and wonder about the latter.
In other words, you are dealing with a pack of liars and manipulators,
"diplomats."
that being the case, I can only assume that the reason given to EWTN
and promulgated by it, is not the real reason.
Craig and Susanna,
"whether the Biblical authors wrote upon the literal, audible voice of God, or whether they wrote by inspiration."
inspiration means God breathed. His Spirit spoke. He breathes out His words.
Given that Paul would have gone by the Jewish standard, which has only Torah and Prophets as inspired and authoritative, and Writings being less authoritative but presumably divinely influenced, Paul would have been talking about Torah and Prophets.
Modern writers seem to figure it was all influenced not dictated.
"And we have no way to verify what you said"
wanna email me and get a copy of that signed statement of hers admitting to various actions without admitting this was wrong doing or reflected on her sanity?
then you will argue I forged her name.
Christine,
First of all, quite frankly, this is a conversation between Susanna and I, and I’d like to keep it that way. I grow weary of having to correct your dogmatic assertions. Yes, this is a public forum; but, really Christine, you don’t have to butt yourself into every conversation or comment. Please show some restraint. The only reason I put your name in my comment above is to give you credit – but you surely noted that I did this with some reservation, as I don’t care for much of what you spew here.
You wrote: inspiration means God breathed. His Spirit spoke. He breathes out His words
In my very first response to Susanna regarding this I wrote, “All Scripture is, as Paul records in 2 Tim 3:16, θεόπνευστος, theopneustos, “God-breathed.” Certainly, the Scriptures are of divine inspiration…”
Now, watch this closely. While θεόπνευστος, “God-breathed” is defined as inspired by God (specifically in the context of 2 Tim 3:16), one cannot necessarily state the converse as you did: “inspiration means God breathed”. Qualifying your statement with “divine inspiration means God breathed,” it isn’t necessarily true – at least you cannot back this up by using Scripture, or, as far as I know, EO Tradition. Put another way, being led by the Spirit is certainly being divinely inspired, but this isn’t necessarily an example of ‘God-breath.’
And, your last sentence, “He breathes out His words,” is your own exposition, in which you appear to be literalizing a metaphorical expression. Clearly “God-breathed” is anthropomorphic, much like Exodus 6:6 in which God reaches out his arm:
…I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment.
Since God has no physical form, surely he has no arm to stretch out and, more importantly, for our purposes here, no lungs with breath with which to “breathe out His words”.
You wrote: Given that Paul would have gone by the Jewish standard, which has only Torah and Prophets as inspired and authoritative, and Writings being less authoritative but presumably divinely influenced, Paul would have been talking about Torah and Prophets.
Maybe, maybe not. George W. Knight III, in his well-regarded commentary, disagrees with your view.
Craig,
you want a private conversation you go offblog. This is a public forum.
However, I apologize for any offense I gave you.
Now getting antropomorphic, God can talk about an outstretched arm to give
a mental picture people can relate to His power. Obviously it is figurative, and so is breathing as
relating to having lungs.
But the word inspired in Greek as you note means "God breathed" and that is
what the word MEANS and that is the point I made when this Greek word is
used that is the issue.
It is straight from God, and if some prophet says "God spoke to me" I think
we can take it for granted that he heard an audible voice. Because God can make you hear His voice if He wants to.
If we start messing around with appropriate to the recipient of
revelation and what does inspired mean and stuff like this, down the
road Scripture will be wildly denigrated and decreased in authority. And there is nothing in Scripture to validate this.
I am not spending $36.somethng for a kindle version of anything.
I know what the Jewish standard is. Paul spoke to Timothy of Timothy having
been learned in Scripture from his childhood which made him wise to get saved.
Obviously he was talking about OT because most of the Gospels hadn't been written yet and Timothy wasn't THAT young.
But it doesn't matter how the Jews viewed Scripture vs. how we do. The point is, does Scripture contain any description of the process of inspiration
that is other than visions or voice? secondarily God guiding a compilation
of information to be sure it is accurate and giving something like an OT version of "word of wisdom"?
This whole line of talk creates a slippery slope, and don't tell me that's
a logical fallacy because whoever decreed it be so either had an agenda,
or knew nothing of what goes on in real life and history.
btw I've read lots of books saying what The Bible says and how it was written
and so forth.
and (usually Calvinist inclined) statements about what the Bible says. and not all of this adds up to what the Bible DOES say. so whatever Knight has
to say I have probably run into it, in print or online, already or more likely something similar.
Craig & Marko
You are in agreement with me on certain issues regarding RCC viewpoints if I have understood your responses correctly.
But at the same time you are in disagreement with me over what you perceive as personal attacks on Susanna?
I find it hard to understand this logic. I have addressed certain issues that I feel are in direct opposition to the Word of God. If any part of my take on scripture is even remotely correct then, it would not be a personal attack but rather a truth that should be told, without respect to who Susanna is, or how many here are impressed by her.
Many of her explanations regarding catholic interpretation are steeped in condescension as if there is some over simplified truth to church father writings that the rest of us are just not getting.
We should be vigilant in "testing the spirits" regardless if it seems to offend someone's personal belief system or if that person is well liked on a particular blog.
I do not claim to know the inner workings of Susanna's mind or the status of her salvation. I do, however, have insight to how her Jesus differs from from the one I know. A few examples:
- intercessions are made or brought to her Jesus for various reasons. My Jesus IS the intercessionist as by His own words He is "the ONE TRUE MEDIATOR between man and God.
- her Jesus seems to require a myriad of rituals and hoop jumping to aid in or bring about salvation.
My Jesus only requires accepting His gift of grace and unconditional love.
- her Jesus seems to promote absolution of sin by confessing to an "earthly father".
My Jesus requires only confession from a sincere heart anyplace, anytime, anywhere.
- her Jesus seems to need His earthly mother Mary to help/aid in building and edifying His church.
My Jesus needs no such thing as He IS God.
There are many more but you get the idea.
In my zeal to defend what I perceive as the truth, I am capable of being overly harsh and appearing condescending as well without intending.
Given some of the examples I have listed above, I do not feel as though I am personally attacking Susanna.
"According to T.D. Lea and H.P. Griffen, "[n]o respected Evangelicals maintain that God dictated the words of Scripture." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration
a good article by the way.
I don't give a hoot who is "respected" or not. Obviously not all of the Bible
is directly dictated, and obviously some of it is. Since there are several
ways of saying the same thing, copyist errors aren't that important.
I think none of the theories presented in the article are
ironclad. The best approach is start with Gospels and Epistles as from
eyewitnesses of an incredible event, the REsurrection, which validates
whatever Jesus Christ has to say. And He cites as do His Apostles several
OT books and a few deuterocanonical. Backtracking from there, we get the whole Bible.
This is a bit similar to the tradition of the church idea, but doesn't depend on it. If I had landed here from MArs and didn't know squat about the Church and picked up a Bible and some side material on how the Apostles all died rather than recant what had happened, I'd be inclined to believe it.
This eliminates the circular arguments of the evangelicals. It
also keeps things more Christocentric, and if Jesus directly
or through His APostles validates the OT, then what's in it is accurate
which is the basis of authority, and that's what counts not HOW God got it all done. OBviously in some cases it
was audible and visible, in other cases not.
"wanna email me and get a copy of that signed statement of hers admitting to various actions without admitting this was wrong doing or reflected on her sanity? "
What gives you the idea that I am even remotely interested in your issues past or present?
I brought it up because that highlights your hatefulness and unforgiveness which disqualifies you very pointedly to speak about biblical topics. The whole theme of the bible is God and his creation reconciling. You obviously take issue with reconciliation. Oh yes, you blew by the cross alright. It is there that Jesus brings up your sin like he does for all of us. You by-pass the cross because it involves repentance which you obviously need to do and leaving that crucial element out of belief in Christ is easy believeism and mere head knowledge because it is in the heart that we are convicted by the Spirit and then in repentance our mouths confess Christ as Lord. (see Romans 10 for reference). There is your whole issue handed to you. Deal with it.
You only possess some head knowledge but your heart is far from Him or you would be a forgiving person. Only the truly forgiven can forgive. How's that for obedience since you bring that up? We are to forgive as Christ forgave us Eph 4:31 &32. That is only one reference to this resounding theme of the Lord.
Paul called you on it. You turn the saving grace of Jesus the Savior who died in agony on the cross to forgive you into a mere intellectual exercise. it is you who is shallow though that is what you called Paul who told you the truth (as several have).
That actually sickens me that you can be so callus with the redemption message and insist that you are a follower of Christ.
I hope you come into right relationship with the Lord.
But if you don't, you don't. Whatever. The fallout will be on you.
Yes Craig. She makes this up as she goes.
Craig 8:52
Re: But my question – in response to my understanding of your position – which I’ll rephrase a bit, was/is strictly on whether the Biblical authors wrote upon the literal, audible voice of God, or whether they wrote by inspiration.
Perhaps I didn't present my position as clearly as I should have.
Of course I believe the Biblical authors were inspired. I don't think we necessarily disagree.
In terms of whether the Biblical authors wrote upon the literal, audible voice of God, or whether they wrote by inspiration, my understanding is not that it was "EITHER/OR. My understanding is that it was BOTH. Both the literal voice of God AND inspiration.
Since Jesus Christ was truly man as well as truly God, I believe He spoke TO the Apostles
literally and historically in an ordinary human way as man as well as THROUGH the Apostles as God by way of inspiration.
John 21:25 tells us
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
In order to know which elements of the Gospels that it was most necessary to commit to writing, I believe the Apostles would have to have been inspired.
But in terms of the aforementioned two-fold mode of revelation, the importance of the historicity and literalism of the Gospel message has to do with its preventing the Gospel message from being degraded by unbelievers to the status of a myth.
Apparently, this is also why the inspired authors of the Gospels Apostles were also literal, historical eyewitnesses to the Resurrection or the disciples of these eyewitnesses.....most of whom were said to have died as martyrs for the faith.
I am sure that as knowledgable as you are about the Bible, you must be well aware of modernists like Rudolph Bultmann and his friend Martin Heidegger who were out to "demythologise" the Bible.
Or better still, the creatures who, several years ago, set out to use Jacques Derrida's "deconstructionism" ( i.e. ultimately, words have no inherent meaning) to "deconstruct" the Bible.
Of course, the best way to take the wind out of the sails of deconstructionists is to deconstruct deconstructionism by pointing out that deconstruction is itself a word with no inherent meaning and as such can be safely ignored. :-)
But I digress.
In any case, for my part, I hope I have understood you correctly.
Christine 9:09 P.M.
With the exception of the EWTN link, at least two of the links you posted ( probably without fully realizing it ) are to radical traditionalist sites that do not speak for the Roman Catholic Church and are therefore not reliable sources of information about Roman Catholicsm - especially the radical and anti-Semitic "Tradition in Action" which Roman Catholics have been advised to avoid.
The EWTN site makes the distinction between formal and material schismatics. But said distinction notwithstanding, the Roman Catholic Church has not officially referred to the Eastern Orthodox as "schismatics" for many years now.
The following reflects the official Roman Catholic position regarding the Eastern Orthodox.
Are the Orthodox Schismatic: Aren't Orthodox Christians schismatics since they refuse to submit to the Pope?
I concur with the judgment of Colin Donovan, EWTN's Vice President for Theology, who addressed this issue in his FAQ on Heresy and Schism:
"It was thus common in the past to speak of the schismatic Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. As with heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as schismatics."
Moreover, as the Orthodox and Catholic Churches move towards reconciliation, I don't see how it is particularly helpful to label them as "schismatic."
I believe that it is best to follow the current teaching of the Magisterium and the example set for us by our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II. He has spent a considerable amount of energy working towards reconciliation with the Orthodox Churches, and never once has he denounced them as "schismatics" or "heretics." For us to begin hurling such derogatory names would be counterproductive, and on a large scale would sabotage his efforts.
If we are indeed faithful to the Holy Father, we must honor his wishes and address our Orthodox brothers and sisters with love and respect.
http://www.east2west.org/ecumenism.htm
____________________________
And again, there is the 2007 Ravenna Document
"What gives you the idea that I am even remotely interested in your issues past or present?"
because you raised the issue of no way to prove anything, and incorrectly
called victim/witness testimony so to speak hearsay. This is a confession
signed by the perpetrator.
"I brought it up because that highlights your hatefulness and unforgiveness which disqualifies you very pointedly to speak about biblical topics"
If you knew all the dirt on major shapers of evangelical thought incl
Darby you would throw most of it out which you should anyway based on its failure to stand up to biblical analysis
of its content.
" leaving that crucial element out of belief in Christ is easy believeism"
on the contrary, I focussed on what ELIMINATES easy believeism, the issue
of total dedication to Jesus. Do that and whatever sins you aren't aware of He will bring to your attention.
Some people actually call this
(accurately enough I guess) Lordship salvation or something like that and call it (wrongly) a heresy.
As for repentance, you have no idea what I have had to sort out and repent
of and I'm not going to tell you. Meanwhile you dismiss the words of
Jesus in Matt. 18 about ostracizing the many times confronted person who
harms you and refuses to listen to you or anyone else and won't repent.
Bible analysis stands or falls on its own. Either something is what the Bible
says or it isn't. the cause of an error and especially of clinging to it
may come from a sin, but it can also be from human finiteness.
And taking a general principle and running it with it to the exclusion
of details, such as you are doing, is probably part of the trend to try to
reintegrate children back into abusive families (even when there is sexual abuse).
Failure to notice the drivers behind behavior and the clinging to them,
which means the behavior will continue, regardless of apologies, will
also result in disastrous keeping near and being victimized repeatedly.
when these are not mere irritants but reduce your mental capacity and leave you with no reason to live, this is
not a situation where "forgiveness' like you define is important. Getting
out of it is important.
If you want to put the onus on the interests of the "poor sinner,"
consider that continuing in the situation also continues them in sin.
Now I am going to ostracize you i.e., ignore you. of course I don't know
which anon is who, I might deal with you again if you have something
decent or sensible to say or spew something that has to be dealt with
lest it deceive others.
"The EWTN site makes the distinction between formal and material schismatics. But said distinction notwithstanding, the Roman Catholic Church has not officially referred to the Eastern Orthodox as "schismatics" for many years now. "
etc. the sites in question are not sedevacantist and THEY BASE THEIR POSITIONS
ON OFFICIAL PAPAL STATEMENTS. the present trend away from this, does
not deny the status of schism, merely says that the moral guilt of this does
not apply because we are caught up in a situation created centuries ago
by the guilty.
THAT EFFECTIVELY AFFIRMS WE ARE SCHISMATIC JUST SAYS YOU WON'T SAY WE ARE, and ignore the real status (in your official actions) of being not
in schism but in excommunication.
THE PRESENT TREND CAN CORRECTLY BE VIEWED AS A DEVIATION FROM PAPAL
AUTHORITY OF THE PAST, AND THEREFORE INCORRECT I say correctly in terms
of the standards of evaluation.
that things are changing is indicative of a drift in the right
direction, away from the errors of the "magisterium" but unfortunately
this same trend, though it softens
the stance towards Orthodox and
admits antisemitism is error, also is
part of the driver towards coddling perverts, though that went on ALL ALONG USUALLY IN SECRET.
the notion of "developing doctrine" may help pull you out of the mess
this idea got you in in the first place, some evils are self limiting.
As for reading the Bible, hearing it in pieces over 3 to 7 years is not
reading The Bible. it does not have the effect of sitting down and reading huge chunks at one time.
what present popes do or say is irrelevant. Either they are right AND PRIOR POPES ARE WRONG,
OR THE PRIOR POPES ARE RIGHT AND THE PRESENT POPES ARE WRONG.
This also shows that a lot of the softening is a trick to get us to fall into the Romanist error, though some actual changes in Romanism may
be due to some figuring the past was your error and an eventual repentance
would have to be done in future only after generations of "Catholics"
getting used to an Orthodox trend and
not noticing when the pope becomes again the Orthodox Patriarch of Rome.
I recall something about increasing
the collegial sense over the sense of
pope as top of hierarchy.
Christine,
You wrote: But the word inspired in Greek as you note means "God breathed" and that is
what the word MEANS and that is the point I made when this Greek word is
used that is the issue.
You’ve still got it backwards, and you didn’t qualify inspired with divinely once again. While theopneustos means “God-breathed” (theo = God), which translates to inspired by God (or divinely inspired), as I’ve stated earlier, you cannot necessarily state the converse. For example, 2 Tim 3:16 is translated to English as, “All Scripture is God-breathed;” however, we cannot necessarily state “All that is God-breathed is Scripture.” In fact, the term theopneustos was used in extra-biblical literature (see BDAG), and even at Ephesus I in condemning Nestorius.
Here’s the lowdown on the Greek:
πνέω, pneō means, according to BDAG:
1) to move as wind with relatively rapid motion, blow, (used twice in NT)
2) to emit an odor, breathe out, (not used in Scripture)
3) breathe someth[ing] out (used once in LXX)
ἐμπνέω, empneō means:
1) to emit breath, breathe (in Scripture, only in Acts 9:1: “…breathing out (ἐμπνέων, empneōv) murderous acts…”)
2) to give another a share in one’s breath and thus have influence, inspire (not used in Scripture)
It seems you think translation involves mostly, if not solely, a one-to-one correspondence with words in one language having an exact equivalent in another. It doesn’t work that way. If you look up the word inspire on Biblegateway, or some other Bible language site, and you search the various English translations, you’ll find the word in different passages amongst the translations. For example, you’ll find inspire in only two of the translations here for Rev 22.6 for the Greek word πνεῦμα, pneuma, while most use spirit.
Christine
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but for your information, there are many different types of "Traditionalists."
Some of the more moderate traditionalists are in good standing with the Holy See and prefer to simply be called Catholic. Other "traditionalists" of the more radical variety are not in good standing with the Holy See.
Sedevacantists are merely one branch of those ultra "Traditionalist" Catholics who are not in good standing with the Holy See.
Many of the modern "antipopes" have emerged from the ranks of radical Traditionalist Catholics who are not in good standing with the Holy See.
Among the most notorious of these was the late Clemente Domínguez y Gómez (Pope Gregory XVII)who headed up the so-called "Palmarian Catholic Church."
I am posting the following articles from Wikipedia which is not a Catholic site.
TRADITIONALIST CATHOLIC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_Catholic
______________________
SEDEVACANTISM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism
______________________
SEDEPRIVATIONISM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedeprivationism
_______________________
CONCLAVISM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclavism
______________________
"Bishop" Michael who claims apostolic succession as a bishop from the Palmarian Catholic Church through the episcopal lineage of Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục, the former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Huế in Vietnam is the "bishop" who "ordained" female rock singer Sinead O'Connor to the priesthood.
PALMARIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmarian_Catholic_Church
___________________________
Here are some of the "traditionalist" antipopes.
LUCIAN PULVERMACHER -a.k.a. (anti) "POPE PIUS XIII".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucian_Pulvermacher
_______________________
DAVID BAWDEN - a.k.a. (anti)"POPE MICHAEL"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bawden
_______________________
CLEMENTE DOMINGO Y GOMEZ - a.k.a. (anti)"POPE GREGORY XVII"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemente_Dom%C3%ADnguez_y_G%C3%B3mez
________________________
Susanna, that doesn't change the facts of the papal documents they cite.
that doesn't change the fact that the modern stance of denying us having moral
culpability like our ancestors for schism means we don't get called schismatics,
which means we are still viewed as actually schismatic
AND
that in all that time and in the present double talk which does not
deny our supposed schismatic status, our real legal (per RC) status of
being excommunicated is not stated.
AND
that article that discussed schisms preferred to refer to the nestorian
and monophysite situations as "schisms" rather than heretical.
odd.
the use of the term schism puts the onus entirely on us, and even when
it is denied we modern Orthodox are morally culpable the STATUS is not denied
while the excommunication thing is passed over if mentioned at all.
This perhaps means that RC doesn't have to reconsider the terms on which
it excommunicated us, leaves the ball totally in our court? I think that would be the implication.
your remarks are as mealy mouthed romanita as Rome's are.
I KNOW about traditionalists that are not with the pope, I deliberately chose
sites that acknowledge the pope as far as I could tell from a glance,
AND SEDEVACANTIST OR NON ALIGNED ATHEIST EVEN, HAS NO BEARING ON THE
PAPAL DOCUMENTS THEY CITE.
THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE EITHER FORGED OR VALID, IF VALID THEY ARE BINDING
UNLESS POPES CAN ERR IN SUCH MATTERS AND THE PRESENT LOGIC IS AN EFFORT
TO WEASLE OUT OF ADMITTING THERE IS A PROBLEM.
I don't recall if I posted another quote but the issue of the Magisterium
overall being infallible is implicit or semi explicit in the issue of canonization.
if a saint is to be considered wrongly canonized, that throws the whole
system into doubt.
So what do we make of the delisting of some saints on the basis they
never existed? Isn't that an admission that the charism of bishops to infallibly determine such things
and of the magisterium itself isn't
that reliable?
some may think that the only basis for believing in Jesus Christ and His
atoning death and REsurrection is RC Magisterium. This is not correct, as
protestants show. The early church writers who testify to the existence
of the Gospels and Epistles and a few pagan writers mentioning these beliefs
and the eyewitness status of the Gospels and Epistles is all that is
really needed. That and the practical experience of many who have turned to Jesus.
You cannot explain your unforgiving hatefulness away Chritine we are all witness to it and it's ongoing. You have a bitterness attached to all you write. So you have to be lying to say you are clean in this issue. No. It is glaring and are also in denial. You are an equal opportunity scorner--you scorn all of us not like yourself.
And you cannot explain away your crap pile of an answer about slighting the cross of Christ. You skipped right over it. That has shame written all over it. The bible does not imply it-it states it!!!!!!!!!!!! Emphatically in fact, that that was God's Son there on that cross that day and why. Being forsaken by His father while wearing your sin and mine there as a sinless sacrifice. Taking the hit in the demands of justice and you treat it-treat HIM on it-as only background.
Our mercy came from that transaction. You dare hold a "spiritual ruler" out to measure all things - all of us - all the time. That is the way of the Pharisee. Jesus had very very harsh words for them! And you rap people beside the head with your "ruler" when we do not agree with you!!!
This is grievious behavior in the light of the cross. And you don't see --- because unforgiveness has blinded you.
"Bible analysis stands or falls on its own"
See what you are saying? Bible analysis instead of the Spirit of God teaching the heart within and moving the spirit of man to do God's will. You can have your "analysis". I'll take the Holy Spirit's tender leading for conviction and teaching and comfort and grace to lead when where I cannot understand or see the path clearly......but He does and He has the power to keep me on it. Who needs or wants your spiritual ruler, you cruel queen of virtual (internet) christianity! ?? !
You make me ill that you think yourself a model christian able to speak His word over people in all of your "bible analysis". You have grieved the Spirit away from you because HE is not in the words you post. (wist not that the Spirit had left..)
Your pride stinks clear up to heaven.
You want to ignore somebody? Ignore this blog.
And pack up your odious "christianity" and peddle it elsewhere.
Christine---------this is from my daily devotional today. Note the date is today.
And it speaks exactly to what issue you have made so apparent here in your behavior. Please take this to heart. It is intended for your good.
Hear my heart tell you this through this key Spirit filled writing form long years past.
'My Utmost for His Highest' from Oswald Chambers
for April 3
"If thou hadst known … in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes."
Luke 19:42
Jesus had entered into Jerusalem in triumph, the city was stirred to its foundations; but a strange god was there, the pride of Pharisaism; it was religious and upright, but a "whited sepulchre."
What is it that blinds me in this "my day"? Have I a strange god - not a disgusting monster, but a disposition that rules me? More than once God has brought me face to face with the strange god and I thought I should have to yield, but I did not do it. I got through the crisis by the skin of my teeth and I find myself in the possession of the strange god still; I am blind to the things which belong to my p eace. It is an appalling thing that we can be in the place where the Spirit of God should be getting at us unhinderedly, and yet in crease our condemnation in God's sight.
"If thou hadst known" - God goes direct to the heart, with the tears of Jesus behind. These words imply culpable responsibility; God holds us responsible for what we do not see. "Now they are hid from thine eyes" - because the disposition has never been yielded. The unfathomable sadness of the "might have been!" God never opens doors that have been closed. He opens other doors, but He reminds us that there are doors which we have shut, doors which need never have been shut, imaginations which need never have been sullied. Never be afraid when God brings back the past. Let memory have its way. It is a minister of God with its rebuke and chastisement and sorrow. God will turn the "might have been" into a wonderful culture for the future.
Hey Christine, if you insist on being called a "schismatic," far be it from us to rain on your parade.
Anon 11:24,
You wrote: You are in agreement with me on certain issues regarding RCC viewpoints if I have understood your responses correctly.
But at the same time you are in disagreement with me over what you perceive as personal attacks on Susanna?
One can disagree without making a personal attack on the other. You’ve identified your own problem near the end of your comment:
In my zeal to defend what I perceive as the truth, I am capable of being overly harsh and appearing condescending as well without intending.
If one feels particularly passionate about a topic, it can be difficult to temper comments; however, it’s certainly possible to disagree without being ‘disagreeable.’ You’ll have to really search out your motives before you make a particular comment. You are never going to win someone over to your way of thinking by brow-beating, so to speak. It may be prudent to construct your comment in MS Word, or something of the sort, and carefully read it, and edit as necessary before posting. For example, consider if it be construed as personal attack rather than a critique on the position held.
The crux of your comment is fine. There are no personal attacks (however, calling someone else’s words “crap” can be deemed so, and see just below) as I read them. Stating facts and personal opinions can be OK, depending on the tone. That said, I disagree with the following, as I don’t read her comments in the way you describe and “are steeped in condescension” can be understood as a personal attack:
Many of her explanations regarding catholic interpretation are steeped in condescension as if there is some over simplified truth to church father writings that the rest of us are just not getting.
Keep in mind that this is Constance’s blog. Whether one agrees with Constance or not matters little, as, again, this is her blog, and we should all respect that fact. Even though I have very strong convictions on the subject of RCC-ism, out of respect for Constance, I don’t state all of them here. I’ll state generally that I think the RCC institution is severely flawed. On the flip-side, Susanna thinks Protestantism is flawed (I won’t state “severely,” as I cannot speak for her, though she may well find it so).
Since your rule of faith is sola Scriptura (hopefully in the manner I described earlier and not “solo” Scriptura, as I’ve noted some adhere to) it will be at odds with the RCC “Scripture + Tradition”. Some key Scripture is interpreted differently between the two, and, because of this, ‘the twain shall never meet.’
Susanna 1:58am,
It seems we are on the same page, with the relative differences of the RCC and Protestantism understood. Sorry if I’ve been pedantic; but, I just wasn’t sure what you meant. I initially thought by “heard” you meant it strictly in an audible sense.
I’m familiar with Bultmann, but not Derrida. It is certainly rather hypocritical, not to mention ironic, to coin a new meaning for a word (assuming this is Derrida’s word and not someone else describing his method), with said word referring to the premise that words have no meaning.
I will state that words in and of themselves only have meaning within particular contexts.
Craig,
Re:I’m familiar with Bultmann, but not Derrida. It is certainly rather hypocritical, not to mention ironic, to coin a new meaning for a word (assuming this is Derrida’s word and not someone else describing his method), with said word referring to the premise that words have no meaning.
Derrida's deconstruction taught that ultimately, words have no INHERENT meaning.
Writing, according to Derrida "is either meaningless or an ever changing interpretation imposed by the reader."
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/01/death_by_deconstructionism.html_____________________________
Following this line of thinking, certain ideologues ( i.e. Marxists), have proceeded to empty words of their traditional meaning and assign new meanings that correspond with their own ideological narrative. Liberation Theology is but one example.
Italian communist Antonio Gramcsi and his Cultural Hegemony seems to have been a kind of precursor of this line if thinking.
See also....
PDF]
Language and Hegemony in Gramsci - Algum Lugar
www.algumlugar.net/flavia/politeia/Language-nHegemony-nGramsci.pdf
_____________________________
There is a section on Derrida on page 131.
American Thinker doesn't pull any punches when they refer to deconstructionism as "historical relativism on crack cocaine."
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/01/death_by_deconstructionism.html_____________________________
I welcome your views if you have anything more to add to what I can only perceive as a "down the rabbithole" line of thinking.
Susanna,
I suppose I’d have to read Derrida myself in order to offer proper critique. After reading the American Thinker article, I’m not 100% sold that Derrida’s meaning for violence is the same as the usual meaning. Perhaps it is. But, violence can mean “distortion,” as in the following: “His untrained hands wreak violence to the piano.” But, then again, if words are devoid of meaning that it could mean anything. Or nothing.
Reading the section on Derrida in the pdf you supplied, here’s my takeaway. All words are in binary pairs. Using his speech/writing pair, speech is the predominant, “privileged” one, while writing is the supplementary aspect. The written word is for the poor sap who wasn’t there to hear the speech. Yet, paradoxically, “speech cannot exist before or without writing.” So, while speech precedes the writing of it, speech “cannot exist” prior to its writing. Uh huh, right. It’s self-contradictory, the way I read it.
In reading this material, I’m reminded of a lyric from a Peter Gabriel-era Genesis song, and an associated true story. “Seven Stones” is from their 1971 Nursery Cryme; and, the particular lyric I’m thinking of, which ends each of 3 stanzas of the song, reads: “And the changes of no consequence will pick up the reins from nowhere.” I’ll provide context:
I heard the old man tell his tale…
Sailors, in peril on the sea,
Amongst the waves a rock looms nearer, not yet seen.
They see a gull flying by.
The captain turns the boat and he asks not why.
And the changes of no consequence will pick up the reins from nowhere. Nowhere
OK, so the gull is seen as a sign of some sort, inducing the captain to turn the boat, thereby averting the catastrophe, avoiding the “consequence” of striking the unseen rock. Presumably, this would be “the changes of no consequence.” Of course, I’d argue that this is still a consequence, but a positive rather than a negative one. But I digress.
But, what of the “pick up the reins from nowhere” line? Perhaps I’m too obtuse to understand this profound statement in toto. Maybe it’s ‘above my pay grade.’ Or, perhaps since “nowhere” does not exist, one cannot pick up reins from it; and, hence the resultant positive consequence in the above (averting the rock) allows one NOT to pick up the reins from the results of what would have been the negative consequence (striking the rock). Or…?
I think it just a clever lyric devoid of actual meaning. Something “deep” to ponder. Don’t get me wrong, I actually like this kind of stuff, but I don’t take it too seriously.
[cont]
[cont]
Now onto the associated story. When I was serving in the US military many blood red moons ago, I met this rather quiet, introspective guy in my training school. I reached out to him, as he didn’t seem to make friends very easily; and, I invited him to listen to some music, one of my favorite pastimes. I figured he’d like this more introspective stuff, so I played the Genesis album containing “Seven Stones.” He really liked the line “and the changes of no consequence will pick up the reins from nowhere.” Shortly thereafter, he proudly showed me a shirt on which he placed the lyric. I found it a bit odd.
A short time later I learned that he was released from military service purportedly based on some sort of psych evaluation. I’ve often wondered what happened and where the guy is today.
In the bridge of the song are the following words:
Despair that tires the world brings the old man laughter.
The laughter of the world only
Grieves him;
Believe him,
The old man's guide is chance.
So, was it by chance that the gull flew by, or was it a sign? Oh well, the song doesn’t have to actually make sense, does it? And, for me, it’s better than “silly love songs.”
Craig
I have a favorable opinion of you and like a lot of your research because it is just that, actual research that seems to me, unbiased and searching for the truth.
I agree that using the word crap would not be a Godly thing.
My issue is not with your respect for Constance as the blog owner as that is your right. It is that this blog is in the public domain, accessible to the public, with Constance as the author. Just like most blogs out there.
Constance and Susanna have no problem posting adverse information about other blogs here that they deem new age, wrong, or unwholesome. In some instances posting themselves.
This blog is supposedly dedicated to exposing the new age movement. Yet the RCC is loaded with new age mysticism, symbolism, and false teachings. I don't know you but I have a feeling that you see these things s well. Yet it is openly applauded and celebrated by both (as well as the numerous anon Catholics).
Don't you think it's more important to expose the truth (whether it's viewed as opinion or not) than to worry about respecting Constance or Susanna?
And Susanna can be very condescending in responses to some who question the RCC (not talking about the inflammatory ones as I have seen many that are not).
The only reason she is not condescending to you is because your research is miles above hers with a straight forward approach, not a slanted one.
You are one of the only people that keeps me looking in on this blog because of the unbiased and informative research you share, so, I do not intend this to insult you.
But isn't it time to place more importance on the truth than Constance or Susanna's opinions?
I'll call myself Deepwater so not to be confused with others.
Craig @ 7:12,
Re:I suppose I’d have to read Derrida myself in order to offer proper critique. After reading the American Thinker article, I’m not 100% sold that Derrida’s meaning for violence is the same as the usual meaning.
I hope that you will be able to perceive the cheerful good humor in the comment I am about to make.....which echoes something you suggested.
If it is true that ultimately, words have no inherent meaning, then any critique whatsoever that you may have to offer will be the "proper" one.....as will any that I may have to offer....and Derrida's alleged meaning re: for violence and the "usual" meaning are both equally "proper."
More seriously, depending on how radical the deconstruction, you ultimately get to impose whatever meaning you want on any given word.....including the Word of God found in the Sacred Scriptures.
Now this is not to say that some passages of the Bible do not have various levels of meaning.
But these levels of "meaning" are various levels of the same meaning ( i.e. allegorical,metaphorical, literal, etc.) - not something contradictory or radically different.
DECONSTRUCTION AND RELIGION
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction_and_religion
As mentioned in an earlier post, Derrida is associated with Marxism.....i.e. critical theory. On some occasions, Derrida referred to deconstruction as a radicalization of a certain spirit of Marxism. "Spectres of Marx" by Jacques Derrida (1993)(in French) p. 92.
http://www.critical-theory.com/derridas-specters-of-marx-gets-reviewed/
__________________________
Derrida's philosophy is said to have begun worming its way into our American culture around the mid-sixties.
We are certainly seeing the consequences of this philosophy being played out on our own American political landscape, aren't we?
However, Derrida's philosophy didn't fool everybody. Derrida's unflattering obituary from the New York Times on October 10, 2004speaks volumes.
Moreover, the fact that this obituary was published in the very liberal/leftist New York Times seems to me to suggest that "political correctness" had not yet run amok to the point where it managed to gain such a chokehold on our culture as it has today.
The aforementioned New York Times obituary was published in the December 13,2004 edition of The Nation.
Jacques Derrida, Abstruse Theorist, Dies at 74
By JONATHAN KANDELL
Published: October 10, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/obituaries/10derrida.html
____________________________
Re:Yet, paradoxically, “speech cannot exist before or without writing.” So, while speech precedes the writing of it, speech “cannot exist” prior to its writing. Uh huh, right. It’s self-contradictory, the way I read it.
In terms of Natural Philosophy, I am an Aristotelian ( Moderate realist)
Philosophically, Aristotle (a.k.a.) the common sense philosopher )taught:
1. All knowledge is rooted in sense experience. There is nothing in the mind that was not first in some manner in the senses.
2. All speech is preceded by ideas. Ideas are the formal signs produced by the mind of things reported to the mind by the senses.
3.Words are the informal signs of the ideas produced by the mind which can be communicated to other minds by way of the sense experience (i.e. speaking, hearing, sign language..... )
4. Writing is a subset of informal signs by which we communicate words. Writing is preceded by words.
Please keep in mind that I am talking natural philosophy here as taught by Aristotle....not sacred theology.
cont..
cont...
Truth cannot be invented or created. It must either be discovered or revealed. If something is objectively true, it is true at all times and in all places and for anyone who might happen to discover it....including wise pagans like Aristotle. One does not have to accept his false gods in order to acknowledge the truth of the natural philosophy he codified.
_____________________________
Derrida's philosophy is among the latest of a long line of so-called "Enlightenment" philosophers who revived the errors of Platonists who in turn went even farther than Plato in their so-called "Idealism."
Among their chief philosophical errors was the error according to which "We directly perceive our own ideas." ( See Mortimer J. Adler TEN PHILOSOPHICAL MISTAKES )
We do not directly perceive our own ideas.
What we directly perceive is the external world of the mind via sense experience.
The notion that we directly perceive our own ideas results in an embarrassing disconnect between the mind and the external world outside the mind. Beginning with Descartes, this disconnect was a consequence of "Enlightenment" philosophy.
According to this "rabbithole thinking," which was supposed to ultimately provide "certainly of faith" in terms of religion, how can we be certain that there is even such a thing as "other people?"
Unfortunately, instead of going back and correcting their false premises, the successors of the "Enlightenment Philosophers" kept reasoning in various directions.....but from the same false premises.
I recall one amazing philosopher who once pointed out that once you begin your reasoning process from a false premise, the more you use strict logical reasoning, the farther you will get from the truth. The only solution is to go back and correct your original false premise.
*****************************
Re:Despair that tires the world brings the old man laughter.
The laughter of the world only
Grieves him;
Believe him,
The old man's guide is chance.
So, was it by chance that the gull flew by, or was it a sign? Oh well, the song doesn’t have to actually make sense, does it? And, for me, it’s better than “silly love songs.”
The English mystic Julian of Norwich seems to agree with you when she said ( and I am paraphrasing here) that "Nothing happens purely by chance. It is only our lack of prescient wisdom that leads us to think that anything happens purely by chance."
Moreover, there is not one jot or tittle of creation that is without its sublime and/or hidden meaning.....
*************************
Re: When I was serving in the US military many blood red moons ago.....
Thank you for your service! What branch?
Happy Easter!
Deepwater,
Thanks for adopting a name, thereby differentiating you from the other anons here.
Let me just say first and foremost that this blog is for exposing the New Age movement. There are many others posting on this topic with more knowledge in this area than I. Susanna is one of those.
If you are of the opinion that the RCC is “loaded with New Age mysticism,” then I’d suggest posting evidence to support your stance. I’ll look at fairly and may weigh in.
You wrote, But isn't it time to place more importance on the truth than Constance or Susanna's opinions?
I don’t think this is necessarily an either/or thing. However, as this blog is open for anyone to comment (for better or worse), you are free to post your specific findings and opinions.
mulberry handbags
ralph lauren polo
tory burch outlet online
police sunglasses
cheap nfl jerseys
cheap ray ban sunglasses
coach outlet
ugg outlet store
tiffany and co
nba jerseys
nike air max 90
kobe 9 elite
cheap oakley sunglasses
ugg clearance
ralph lauren outlet
chrome hearts
michael kors outlet
michael kors handbags clearance
christian louboutin online
canada goose outlet
polo ralph lauren
michael kors handbags
uggs outlet
cheap uggs
tiffany and co
christian louboutin shoes
mulberry handbags
mbt shoes outlet
cartier watches
oakley sunglasses
ralph lauren
coach outlet
nike air force 1
cheap ugg boots
michael kors outlet
czq20160824
Thanks for sharing, nice post! Post really provice useful information!
Giaonhan247 chuyên dịch vụ mua hàng mỹ từ dịch vụ order hàng mỹ hay nhận mua nước hoa pháp từ website nổi tiếng hàng đầu nước Mỹ mua hàng ebay ship về VN uy tín, giá rẻ.
Post a Comment