Just when we thought it couldn't/wouldn't get much worse, it has. It is not taking long for major denominations to start caving in on millennia of established moral and religious principles.
 |
| From Huffington Post July 2, 2015 |
 |
| From Washington Post July 1, 2015 |
They call it "love" and "tolerance". I call it apostasy that is harmful to both "gays and straights." Are they really preparing their congregations for eternity? Or for eternal damnation?
It clearly is not an easy time to be a true committed Christian who takes God at his unchanging word. Perhaps they have changed the warning of Revelation 14 to reflect an angel flying overhead preaching the "everchanging gospel" rather than the "everlasting gospel".
How much worse can it get. I suspect we shall rapidly find out.
Stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
389 comments:
1 – 200 of 389 Newer› Newest»Among people who call themselves Christian there will always be a faithful remnant. Don't worry until the practice of homosexuality is made compulsory, as it effectively was in ancient Sparta for instance.
This nation is no longer 'one nation under God', if it ever truly was.
It's now 'one nation under its sodomite king, and his God!
No real surprise. The Episcopalians voted in a Homosexual Bishop several years ago. In reality, they have been apostate for decades ... same is true for the Presbyterian USA (apostate "church" I grew up in).
Let's not forget that "pope" Francis stated that "gays that do good (atheists too) go to heaven ... who am I to judge?" Yet he HAS JUDGED by saying they will enter heaven, in spite of the clear teachings of God's word. I look for these types of lies from the RCC to increase in the coming days.
Homosexuality is one of the sledge hammers that is being used in an attempt destroy Biblical Christianity along with God's sanctioned structure of the family. In the end, true believers will be driven into hiding ... while apostates will flurish and their popularity with the WORLD will increase. Christ foretold: "When the Son of Man cometh, will he find faith on the earth?"
"Enter ye in at the straight gate, for wide is the way that leadeth unto destruction and many there be the go in thereat; for straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
Agreeing with these first 4 posts of this thread and can only say : hang on to your hat, because things will get increasingly worse and the "apostates" will be in lock step with it all to excuse it or explain it away.
Abandon religion and only trust Jesus Christ is what I say.
Abandon religion and only trust Jesus Christ is what I say.
AMEN!
For months I've checking in to read the comments. I appreciate the clear thinking commenters and their valuable input.
But every time I read the comments, this Scripture goes through my mind that says,
"I’ve accepted the fact that factions are sometimes useful and even necessary so that those who are authentic and those who are counterfeit may be recognized." I Cor. 11:19
I think I finally got it. Thank you to all who are authentic--- God bless you.
CWarner
The Scripture that comes to mind for me is that ( paraphrasing here) "They worshipped the creation instead of the Creator so God gave them up to their degrading passions and they exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural".
As of September, the push at UN for severe measures to "combat climate change" will be agreed on and there will most likely be some pressure, if not a Security Council resolution to divide the Land of Israel.
These arrogant leaders who think they are gods, will try to control the natural resources, by saying they are the saviors of the planet. Creation is more important that man who is created in God's image, so the natural progression after this is to glorify homosexuality and every other perversion.
The great irony is that the rainbow, which was a sign of peace and no more flooding for Noah's family is being used as a symbol to celebrate perversion which was the VERY thing that cause the flood in the first place. This may cause some to raise eyebrows, but the fallen angels intermixed with daughters of men creating hybrids, Nephilim or giants. A perversion of the divine order of creation or as Jude said, "angels who left their first estate".
God is giving man over to his apostasy. Those of us who want to live according to the instruction book ( the Bible) that our Creator gave us will become more and more sickened by what we see in this perverse world. It will get worse because there is nothing new under the sun, and the powers and principalities behind this perversion will not stop at gay marriage. It's so sad to see the blinding of so many and this is not hatefulness towards gays. Gay is not an identity. It's a behavior. Transgender is just demonic and we can see this because Baphomet has both sets of parts. Look at this sickness if you don't believe it ( sorry bad stuff)
http://theblogofbaphomet.com/2012/09/18/radical-sex-radical-transformation/
Take heart though, because God will not allow this forever. He will enter into judgement with those who are pushing this agenda on us and judge them, just as he did Pharaoh and the rest. Satan knows his time is short on planet earth so he's pulling all the stops out.
http://remnantrocor.blogspot.com/2014/01/metropolitan-anthony-on-name-worship.html
this article may get tedious, but several things in it will be immediately
recognizable to those with charismatic or hypercharismatic background who have
come out of it, or who have had dealings with all this incl. the new apostolic
reformation. try to wade through it. whether they spoke in tongues or not, khlystism
essence has definitely infiltrated protestant especially evangelical churches.
Khrapovitsky had his own heretical tendencies but he was correct about this.
the form of this deception varies per context, but you will find a lot in this
article that is oddly familiar.
before someone screams there is no historic connection between Russia
and the charismatic movement, my remarks about the spirit of the
phenomenon the kind of spiritual deceptions. as I said, denominational
context and culture cause variations from this article but the results
and some manifestations are the same.
I have a question for the episcopalians. Do you believe that, on the Day of Judgement, God will regard acts of gay sex as not sinful if the two men involved held a marriage certificate from their State, as is the case with heterosexual acts? Please give reasons.
12:20 AM.
THANK YOU.
Is Protestantism going down in flames?
http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-protestant-house-of-cards.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/why-the-episcopalians-voted-for-gay-marriage
Cathy,
Unlike Catholicism, "protestantism" is not centralised. Some of it is going down in flames; some of it isn't.
To Anonymous @12:20 AM ....
Reminded me of this passage in 2 Thessalonians 2:9 - 11
"Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousnes in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
Cathy,
" It was this branch of government that gave us Roe v. Wade, which usurped state laws and constitutions, making the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies a 'protected legal right'."
two things. first usurping state laws and constitutions is what the Supreme Court
is supposed to do, the Constitution says of itself that it is the supreme law
of the land, along with any treaties, anything to the contrary in any state laws or
constitutions to the contrary notwithstanding. Its purpose is among other things
to settle disputes between states and to determine if a law is in violation of
the Constitution.
secondly, Roe v. Wade flies in the face of common sense and a body of law and
medical sense which opposed abortion and recognized the child as human life. As
such, absent a direct conflict with the survival of the mother its rights supersede
her privacy as much as the rights of anyone to not get beaten or murdered or raped
supersedes the privacy of the person on whose property this occurs.
thirdly, this didn't happen in a vacuum. various perverts, Mafiosi and pornographers
had through their lawyers, gotten free speech and search and seizure rules
reinterpreted to protect them.
There is no personal right to privacy in the Constitution, the search and seizure
thing addresses the issue of security of your PERSON and papers, and was in context
of the experience of the British General Warrant, which was a violent search of
entire blocks on sheer speculation with thefts and destruction and even murders
occurring in that situation. This is not applicable to wiretapping, but applied
it was.
Griswold v. Connecticut the basis of Roe v. Wade dwelt on the privacy of a married
couple within their marriage to do what was not harmful to either of them and was
okay with both of them, regarding use of contraception and purchase of this by
them and sale of this to them. Privacy of the marital relationship is not individual
privacy.
Finally, when you have a Supreme Court you have people who orient to law not on
the basis of any conservative ideology of theirs but on the basis of what is in
the text of the laws and what is in the text of prior decisions. Aside from the
mechanistic quality of the law, a constant search to create a system that you
punch in something and it spits out something like a servo system, if abortion was
written into the Constitution as a right, they would have to go along with it or
be accused of violating the Constitution.
Free speech was about political talk not catering to depravity, something the
signers would have never thought of, even if privately depraved they valued the
stability an anti depravity bias society gives, so the walk on the wild side would
have to be done when and where it did not endanger their personal safety and
stability zones.
"Do you struggle with the idea that a body that presents as a Christian church would adopt a secular, atheistic worldview? It already has.
You have to understand that what they do is dress up their secular atheism in religious language. Just like they dress up like Catholic priests and bishops, so they will don the garb of the religious believer and mouth those words, while all the time they have “re-interpreted” those words.
Thus a typical Anglican-Episcopalian will say he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God incarnate. What he really means is that Jesus was such a good man–even a perfect human being so that when we see him we see what God is like. He will say he believes in the Virgin Birth, but what he means is that “in some sort of marvelous way the girl Mary was especially pure and innocent” On Easter Day he’ll say “Alleluia! Christ is Risen!” What he means is that “Isn’t it wonderful how, despite his tragic death, the teachings of Jesus continued to live on in the lives of his disciples…”
You get the idea."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/why-the-episcopalians-voted-for-gay-marriage great article, and this kind of talk and reinterpretation described is
exactly what goes on with a lot of people of other denominations.
Anonymous said...
Cathy,
Unlike Catholicism, "protestantism" is not centralised. Some of it is going down in flames; some of it isn't.
12:44 PM
Anonymous, you obviously get the point. Protestantism is divided and different factions have differing opinions. Does Protestantism profess there is such a thing as objective truth? The teachings of the Catholic Church are based on objective truth rather than on the subjective opinions of individual Catholics.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html
Cathy,
While you have a good point that doesn't stop individual Catholics
which might even be a majority (given the estimated 65% of American
public that supports gay marriage) doing as they damn well please
whether in private and "don't ask don't tell" the priest, and at the
voting booth.
pro abortion Congresspeople do their thing without getting excommunicated.
of course you are talking about what happens in Church, what is taught,
etc., but even that is being undermined somewhat, because a priest can
get away with saying anything his closet pervert superiors approve of
and the congregation doesn't just leave and attend elsewhere. Many may
ignore him quietly and live Christian lives, get the sacraments and
get out as I suggested to do elsewhere. Others are corrupted.
Christine, my point is that the teachings of the Catholic Church are not subject to the current secular trends. Whether or not individual Catholics adhere to these teachings is a different matter altogether. The fact is that the Catholic Church does not bend to pressure to conform to secularization.
CAthy,
how long will that last, how long can that last, with these processes creeping
for generations now coming, literally, out of the closet, it is only a matter
of time until the general atmosphere, fueled by misapplication of "love"
and of rejecting "hypocrisy" (meaning in that case to be openly what one is
secretly instead of stopping being evil and be secretly what one appears to be
openly, that is, virtuous) and of not "judging" and so forth, is such in
hierarchy and laity that no outburst will occur, and the "right" (or rather wrong)
pope at the (tactically) "right" time will announce a sea change in doctrine
and/or morals and affirm that yes he IS speaking ex cathedra.
as it was, it was by the grace of God and a traditional veto never used for several
papal elections, that a secret satanist was not elected pope back in the 1950s
or was it 1960s I forget, Rampolla. Perhaps this will always happen.
If God kills a pope about to do such a thing, likely in his papers will be found
the intent and the speech prepared, including that he is affirming he is speaking
ex cathedra.
at that point, some will treat this as equivalent to a formal statement anyway,
others will say no, and you will probably see a major RC schism with both claiming
legal and spiritual legitimacy.
Christine, heresy is not a new phenomenon, and the barque of Peter has sailed through many difficult periods for 2000 years and has not succumbed. This is not because the Pope is a superhuman who is perfect. It is because Jesus Christ founded His Church on Peter the Rock, and proclaimed that the gates of hell would not prevail against her. If the Papacy was not divinely protected, it is highly unlikely that in 2000 years the Church would not have produced a Pope who apostatized. Various attempts in the course of history have been made to destroy the Catholic Church, but have not been able to succeed, because Jesus Christ is in control of the barque of Peter.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope
Cathy 3:29
Re:This is not because the Pope is a superhuman who is perfect. It is because Jesus Christ founded His Church on Peter the Rock, and proclaimed that the gates of hell would not prevail against her. If the Papacy was not divinely protected, it is highly unlikely that in 2000 years the Church would not have produced a Pope who apostatized.
BRAVO!!!
At 3:05, Christine writes without citing any reliable evidence:
.....as it was, it was by the grace of God and a traditional veto never used for several papal elections, that a secret satanist was not elected pope back in the 1950s or was it 1960s I forget, Rampolla. Perhaps this will always happen.
While Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro was accused by anti-Semite and Masonic conspiracy theorist Monsignor Ernest Jouin of being a member of the so-called "irregular" form of Freemasonry known as O.T.O., there is no other conclusive evidence besides the couple of rosters upon which his name appears.
Historically, the Freemasons do not seem to have been above padding their pedigree with illustrious names out of the mists of antiquity such as Pythagoras, Euclid, Simon Magus” and “Apollonius Tyanaeus” etc. So why not a Catholic Cardinal - especially if it can cause trouble for the Catholic Church?
However, the issue of troublemaking notwithstanding, what many do not know is that the Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria, who was petitioned by Monsignor Jouin to invoke the Jus exclusivae had a personal axe to grind with Rampolla.
It is embodied in what had come to be known as "the Meyerling Incident" which consisted of the murder/suicide of Franz Joseph's son, Crown Prince Rudolf and his adulterous affair with lover Baroness Mary Vetsera.
The Mayerling Incident is the series of events leading to the apparent murder-suicide of (MARRIED) Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria (21 August 1858 – 30 January 1889) and his lover Baroness Mary Vetsera (19 March 1871 – 30 January 1889). Rudolf was the only son of Emperor Franz Josef I of Austria and Empress Elisabeth, and heir to the throne of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. Rudolf's mistress was the daughter of Baron Albin Vetsera, a diplomat at the Austrian court. The bodies of the 30-year-old Archduke and the 17-year-old baroness were discovered in the Imperial hunting lodge at Mayerling in the Vienna Woods, fifteen miles southwest of the capital, on the morning of 30 January 1889.
The death of the crown prince had momentous consequences for the course of history in the nineteenth century. It had a devastating effect on the already compromised marriage of the Imperial couple and interrupted the security inherent in the immediate line of Habsburg dynastic succession. As Rudolf had no son, the succession would pass to Franz Joseph's brother, Karl Ludwig and his issue, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This destabilization endangered the growing reconciliation between the Austrian and the Hungarian factions of the empire, which became a catalyst of the developments that led to the assassination of the Archduke and his wife Sophie by Gavrilo Princip, a Yugoslav nationalist and ethnic Serb at Sarajevo in June 1914 and the subsequent drift into the First World War....read more...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayerling_Incident
________________________________________________________________
cont.
cont.
Count Carl Lonyay, in his book Rudolf : the tragedy of Mayerling, gives an explanation for the veto of Rampolla as pope based on the murder/suicide of Franz Joseph's son, Crown Prince Rudolf. Rampolla was the Papal Secretary of State at the time of the Mayerling events, and he personally refused the dispensation which would allow Rudolf's burial in sacred ground, for which he incurred the undying enmity of the Emperor, who exacted his revenge twenty years later by vetoing the Cardinal's election as Pope.
That Emperor Franz-Joseph of Austria had vetoed Cardinal Rampolla's election to the papacy does not constitute conclusive proof that he was a freemason.
Moreover, Franz-Joseph would not have needed Monsignor Jouin's investigative talents since his own secret services had all means to check the truth about this cardinal.
I would say that in order to justify believing the claims that Cardinal Rampolla was a member of the Freemasons/O.T.O., the following things would have to be proven:
(1) Original documents, or true and accurate copies of original documents, contain reports of observed events that, if true, would establish that Cardinal Rampolla was a member of an anti-Catholic secret society.
(2) The original documents were prepared by people who had verifiably acquired knowledge of the events reported.
(3) The reporters' character was such that they could be relied upon to have truthfully reported the facts known to them.
Susanna,
that's all very well. but the only trouble the OTO could make for the RC regarding
Rampolla was that he was tolerated as a cleric who is such an organization, when
the rules at that point only allowed laity to be freemasons not clergy, assuming I
have my facts right on the timing.
the padding of lists of membership is obviously to ac complish one thing only, to
claim that the wisdom of those people either resides in the organization and/or
that the organization in question is the source of their wisdom which they claimed
was theirs to protect the secret society but now eve ryone can be in on it.
The OTO is not merely irregular freemasony. it is far more overt satanism than
that, and closet paganism and wild immorality is indicated regarding renaissance
popes.
Rampolla was within his rights to forbid burial in consecrated ground and there is
plenty of tradition regarding suicides, no one expect this to be done. What is far
more likely, is that Rampolla had a hand in that, that it was not murder suicide,
but a double murder made to look like suicide or else they had been manipulated into
this direction by a scheme Rampolla was involved in to change the line of inheritance
of the throne.
I am of course speculating here, but these scenarios are something to consider.
As for the three points, I would say that a "roster" fits them all, because a
"roster" is not a public advertisement but a membership meeting list.
I don't consider the veto proof he was a freemason, rather, I consider that he was
a satanist, and that b y the grace of God that veto was available and used.
David Yallop I forget the title and others have made a case for the
death of Pope John Paul I being murder, connived at the highest
levels of the Vatican, either by neglect or by interfering in access
to his meds or flat out poison. the reason? in those days it was
an excommunicable offense for clergy to be masons, and there were
masons at the highest ranks in the Vatican.
There is very good case made online somewhere, that John XXIII was
a member of some Turkish masonic secret society. That would explain
some slipshod phrasing that allowed far more than most of the
Vatican II Council intended. But God saw to it the phrasing didn't
go so far it couldn't be corrected if it went really wrong.
The paper on overhauling liturgy and allowing variations said that
any such variations had to be approved by the local bishop before
the priest could do it, this is not about vernacular Mass.
This merely means that an infiltrator bishop could okay the worst.
But it did slow things down, and gives the general impression, by
the wording, that a free for all was not intended.
Now, John Paul I was intending a major overhaul including
kicking out the secret masons. and probably exposing and
defrocking the many priests who are involved in satanic
black masses, I read somewhere that reports of this come
across the pope's desk every week.
That this isn't done publicly is because of the fear of
loss of credibility of the church resulting in loss of
faith of people who rely on the RC establishment rather
than on the roots of the tradition, not only the Bible
but the early pre Nicene and near Nicene Fathers.
John Paul I was also very much a pope of the people and
was focused on the poor and I THINK but not sure he
was planning some financial overhauls also. Both these
are motive for murder.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nathan-collier-montana-man-inspired-by-samesex-marriage-ruling-requests-right-to-wed-two-wives-10361612.html
by the way, sorry for so many posts. but after I had deleted a post a couple
of months ago to rework it, someone claimed the original (which hadn't been
there more than a few minutes) was full of obscenities which was a total lie.
Therefore I am not going to simply delete and repost with what I forgot to
write in the original, or do this because I thought of something later.
Cathy,
I wrote: "Unlike Catholicism, "protestantism" is not centralised. Some of it is going down in flames; some of it isn't."
You responded: "Anonymous, you obviously get the point. Protestantism is divided and different factions have differing opinions. Does Protestantism profess there is such a thing as objective truth? The teachings of the Catholic Church are based on objective truth rather than on the subjective opinions of individual Catholics."
You seem to believe that the church worldwide should consist of one hierarchy, but in the New Testament I can find NO hierarchy. With a decentralised structure there is no question of division. And if by "going down in flames" you mean adhering to counter-scriptural doctrine, I'm sorry but Rome is going down in flames. Moreover some of the teachings of the Catholic church are indeed based on "the subjective opinion of one individual Catholic" - namely the Pope. Pius XII pronounced the direct assumption of Mary in a way that makes it impossible for Catholics to do anything other than acquiesce (ie, "infallibly") even though there is zero historical evidence for it. The earliest documents asserting it are from centuries later. Would you believe stuff about the pilgrim fathers if it asserted things never before stated and had been written yesterday?
Cathy and anon 7:15
there is very clear hierarchy in the NT the laity, deacons elders term for which
became "priest" and bishops or episkopos which means "overseer." that all might
be called elders as a collective body of caretakers over the laity, this doesn't
mean they were themselves all the same thing, because the Apostles were clearly
over the lot and they called themselves "elders" also. The one bishop per city
(which as the population of Christians grew would mean one bishop over several
small congregations) is an ideal, but Titus being over ALL Crete is a biblical
precedent for the patriarch or metropolitan.
meanwhile, Assumption is not that dangerous an idea and it has a legendary basis
in the first 400 or 500 years the Immaculate Conception is far more dangerous.
many devotions and customs have their origin in visions which although supposedly
not creating new doctrine or qualifying as new revelation, since belief in them
is allowed a lot of people believing in them sooner or later results in some of
these becoming priests, even bishops even a pope. over time these visions become
sources of dogma like revelation to the church at large, in effect, the visionary
and speculative origin of some practices being forgotten.
meanwhile, Christianity started in Jerusalem, at Peter's preaching, but he had James
be the bishop there! Peter was bishop first at Antioch, then in Rome but had replaced
himself with an appointee and was not bishop when he died. Chalcedon 28 makes
clear that the real history of all this is that the father put Rome in a position
of honor not rule because of it being the first city of the empire. PEter isn't
even mentioned, and as for being the "mother church" only Jerusalem qualifies. yet
because of its near destroyed then backwater status in the empire, it was not
a patriarchate until later. Clearly theological history had nothing to do with
Roman pre eminence.
NOT ONE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL WAS CALLED BY A POPE (the ones in the west after Rome
went into schism and semi heresy don't count). Come home to the Eastern Orthodox
Church.
You need Adobe Flash Player to watch this video.
Download it from Adobe.
STAR SPANGGLED BANNER AS YOIU'VE NEVER HEARD IT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YaxGNQE5ZLA
.
Something from Wendy Cuckierski
"So...what is BenOp? Well, let me first say I have no doubt we are headed to a new "Dark Age".
America is the new Roman empire.
The more decadent, the more applause...a political system that is incompetent on so many levels (not to mention corrupt), cultural norms have changed to cater to the lowest nature, ongoing breakup of the family, if it feels good..do it and don't you dare say it's immoral or we'll fine you...you intolerant Christian, you!
I don't think I really need to keep painting a picture...for anyone with eyes to see...it's all there.
So, what do we do? Sit back and take it? Oh.no! Oh.no.no.no!
We prepare ourselves, our friends, our family and our parishes.
I have felt like St. Benedict who was sent to Rome to study and was so disgusted by the city’s decadence...he fled to the forest to pray as a hermit.
There were other monks who took notice and followed him. They could see it (just like us!)
He went out to found a dozen monastic communities and wrote his Rule which guided them through tumultuous times. We have used this manual (he can be easily adapted to the family with a few changes).
During that time people forgot how to read, how to farm, how to build....if you study that time period, you see total chaos...operating in the lower nature was their modus operandi.
Yet..behind monastery walls, things were different. If it weren't for the Benedictines, civilization may have never re-emerged!
Many peasants gathered around these monasteries and were taught many things...such as how to read, about the Christian faith, etc. They were also taught practical skills like farming and building. The monasteries became islands of sanity and serenity in a world gone insane.
Stay tuned! I promise to write more about it as I know I need to get the word out. We are heading for the new "Dark Ages" and WE (you and I) have a responsibility for future generations. "
Christine,
You declared that Rampolla was a "secret Satanist" without providing evidence. There is no conclusive evidence that he was a member of O.T.O.
Since having Rampolla as a member would have benefitted the O.T.O. much more than membership in the O.T.O. would have benefitted Rampolla, the mere appearance of his name on any of their membership rosters without any corroborating evidence is itself suspect.
Don't get me wrong. I am not sticking up for Rampolla just for the sake of sticking up for him. If he were proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been a member of O.T.O. he would deserve to be excoriated as an apostate.
I put the "irregular" in quotation marks when referring to O.T.O. as "irregular" masonry because this is how the Freemasons themselves refer to O.T.O. But you are right in describing it as a form of Satanism.
Its Ecclesiastical arm is the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica which began as the Gnostic church founded by Jules Doinel who was commissioned to do so at a séance he attended at the home of Lady Caithness who headed the Parisian branch of Madame Blavatsky's Theosophical Society. Occultist Gerard Encausse ( a.k.a. Papus ) functioned as a "bishop" in Doinel's gnostic church. What eventually came to be known as the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica began functioning as the ecclesiastical arm of the O.T.O. when Papus exchanged initiations with O.T.O. head Theodor Reuss.
The Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica went to a great deal of trouble obtaining valid but illicit orders from schismatic churches so that their clergy could administer the Sacraments to those who had been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church for joining ANY Masonic lodges whether "regular" or "irregular."
regarding interpreting Daniel, I had long assumed that we are NOT in the very
end times and the whole euro scene is nonsense. the latter I still figure.
But BECAUSE OF WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS EXPLICITLY, needing nothing but the ability
to read and refusal to ignore any part of it regarding this in Daniel, I found
two things that changed my mind on the first part of this paragraph.
you see, I didn't let assumptions get in the way.
Daniel is told that the last days will be characterized by people running to and
fro (lots of travel) and that knowledge will increase. This has been going on
for nearly maybe over 300 years now, and shows no tendency to decrease.
So that points to now. nothing comparable went on in the past to what goes on
now, with the ships and planes and Internet and massive population and military
movements. the exploration and colonization was a start.
Secondly, that doesn't mean the end is right around the corner. the leopard is
not established yet as to what empire it refers to but because prophecy centers
on Israel and the Middle East, and everything else is peripheral and only
figures if it is a player in the Middle East (Rome was euro but in the Middle
East, while China's great history get no mention unless it is some tiny half
sentence that isn't readily recognizable as relevant). So the leopard is EITHER
something that will become a power there, and IS there or it is China fed up
and charging in and staying there to solve its own jihadi problems and secure
oil. The angel's WORDS rule out the standard interpretation of this being a
rehash of the statue dream because the angel would have said THREE kingdoms
in the future, not FOUR because Babylon was already an empire then. But the
angel said FOUR.
finally, sequeing into the last judgement shows that this is indeed up to the
end, while the statue dream doesn't do so. In the days of those kings the Kingdom
of Heaven was set up but not brought in power like at the Second Coming of Christ.
If th is means we got another 400 to 1000 years that is no reason to get slack.
more reason to work and keep alert. Because the parables Christ gives about
watchfulness show that lack of this leads to slackness and sin. live AS IF
Christ were due back today, even though much must happen before that can happen.
but gaming the system and figuring you got time to be bad is precisely what
can get you kicked out altogether, go read all Christ's parables about worthy
and unworthy servants.
regarding purgatory, and any punishment being impossible because of Christ's
Sacrifice for us, conside4r the servants who did not prepare themselves for
their Lord's returning, and were beaten for this, those who did things
worthy of stripes (lashes) and did not know better got fewer lashes, those
who did know better got more lashes.
Susanna,
"Since having Rampolla as a member would have benefitted the O.T.O. much more than membership in the O.T.O. would have benefitted Rampolla, the mere appearance of his name on any of their membership rosters without any corroborating evidence is itself suspect."
it wouldnot benefit them one way or another. "membership roster" sounds like
internal material that the public weren't supposed to see. I am acquainted
with that other history unfortunately.
"Craig Heimbichner, writing in the August 2003 Catholic Family News, states that Monsignor Jouin is said to have intervened personally with Emperor Franz Joseph to ask for the Jus exclusivae to be invoked, having procured some evidence that Cardinal Rampolla had at least a close affinity with the Freemasons.See “Pope Saint Pius X” in From the Housetops, No. 13, Fall, 1976, St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire. The OTO itself, in the November, 1999 newsletter for Thelema Lodge in Berkeley, California, acknowledges that Msgr. Jouin accused Cardinal Rampolla of belonging to the OTO.See http://www.billheidrick.com/ tlc1999/tlc1199.htm for information. Bill Heidrick of the OTO tries to distance the OTO from the accusation made by Msgr. Jouin; however, he is contradicted by the foremost OTO archivist, Peter Koenig.Theodor Reuss and Aleister Crowley, edited by Peter Koenig: O.T.O. Rituals and Sex Magick, pp. 79-107. "
http://www.fampeople.com/cat-mariano-rampolla
so this was apparently information kept secret (but some would know of it in
those years, rumors and little slip ups creep about) and held in archives,
published later by a thelemic groups in Berkeley as part of their internal
literature, at a time and in a location they had nothing to lose or gain by this.
"While the Dimond brothers deserve to be ignored, the accusation against Cardinal Rampolla has nothing to do with them. It came from Mgr Ernest Jouin, who accused the cardinal before the conclave of 1903. This priest later published a journal called in French Revue Internationale des Societes Secretes. Mgr Jouin had the blessing of two popes, Pius XI and Benedict XV. "
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=204832
"Monsignor Ernest Jouin, founder of the Internaltional Revue of Secret Societies, and papally approved, is the one who uncovered documented evidence that Cardinal Rampolla belonged to a Masonic sect called the Ordo Templis Orientis.
Why Roscoe and McMaster accuse people of being liars, and think that this information will destroy the characters of Popes is beyond me. "
"Cardinal Rampolla's name appears on the Manifesto of the OTO. The names on the list are either actual members, or those who embody the spirit of the OTO. Why would his name appear on this list?
And why would Msgr. Jouin, a papally improved investigator in these matters, intervene personally with Franz Josef if not for valid suspicions?
Pius X's prudence has nothing to do with the matter, because Rampolla resigned from office upon Sarto's election. Besides, the secret nature of Freemasonry makes these matters difficult to deal with, and should not sully the characters of the Popes. "
http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=2401754.5;wap2
yes this was a small circulation publication for internal use.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=27181&min=18
Cathy,
The Protestant Rule of faith is "Sola Scriptura." The Catholic Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition. In fact the Scriptures themselves are part of that Sacred Tradition and are inseparable from it.
Ergo, it is understandable why most Protestants cannot accept belief in the Assumption. But here is why Catholics believe it.
The Assumption of Mary into Heaven
by Father William G. Most
Evidence for the Assumption
https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya5.htm
____________________________________________________
According to the article from Wikipedia which is not a religious source per se:
Assumption vs. Dormition
The Assumption of the Virgin Mary into Heaven, informally known as the Assumption, according to the beliefs of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and parts of Anglicanism, was the bodily taking up of the Virgin Mary into Heaven at the end of her earthly life.....
......The Latin Catholic Feast of the Assumption is celebrated on August 15, and the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos (the falling asleep of the Mother of God) on the same date, preceded by a 14-day fast period. Eastern Christians believe that Mary died a natural death, that her soul was received by Christ upon death, and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her death and that she was taken up into heaven bodily in anticipation of the general resurrection. Her tomb was found empty on the third day. "...Orthodox tradition is clear and unwavering in regard to the central point [of the Dormition]: the Holy Virgin underwent, as did her Son, a physical death, but her body – like His – was afterwards raised from the dead and she was taken up into heaven, in her body as well as in her soul. She has passed beyond death and judgement, and lives wholly in the Age to Come. The Resurrection of the Body ... has in her case been anticipated and is already an accomplished fact. That does not mean, however, that she is dissociated from the rest of humanity and placed in a wholly different category: for we all hope to share one day in that same glory of the Resurrection of the Body which she enjoys even now."
cont....
cont....
Many Catholics also believe that Mary first died before being assumed, but they add that she was miraculously resurrected before being assumed, while others believe she was assumed bodily into Heaven without first passing through death. As mentioned earlier, this aspect of the Assumption is not authoritatively defined in Catholic theology, and either understanding may be legitimately held by Catholics. Eastern Catholics observe the Feast as the Dormition. Many theologians note by way of comparison that in the Catholic Church, the Assumption is dogmatically defined, while in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Dormition is less dogmatically than liturgically and mystically defined. Such differences spring from a larger pattern in the two traditions, wherein Catholic teachings are often dogmatically and authoritatively defined – in part because of the more centralized structure of the Catholic Church– while in Eastern Orthodoxy, many doctrines are less authoritative...
Anglican views
Although the Assumption of Mary is not an Anglican doctrine, 15 August is observed by some within Anglicanism as a holy day in honour of Mary. The Book of Common Prayer in the versions of the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada mark the date as a commemoration of 'The Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary'. In the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the day is observed as the holy day of 'Saint Mary the Virgin, Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ'. In the Church of England the day is a Festival of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
In some churches of the Anglican Communion and the Continuing Anglican churches, many Anglo-Catholics observe the feast day as the Assumption.
The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission agreed statement on the Virgin Mary assigns a place for both the Dormition and the Assumption in Anglican devotion...........read entire article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary
___________________________________________________
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was the miracle that would prove that Jesus was who He said He was...namely, God. Because Mary is simply a creature like we are, her assumption body and soul into heaven is intended to serve as a sign and a preview of our own resurrection on the last day.
Oh,and by the way, as the aforementioned article states, before defining the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Pius XII first asked the opinions of all the Bishops of the world on the Assumption. Their response was almost unanimous in the affirmative. The universal teaching of the authorities of the Church by itself, he tells us, gives us a proof (Cf. Lumen gentium ## 25 and 12).
So whether one happens to believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary or not, Pope Pius XII did not simply make up this dogma out of whole cloth as some would have us think.
Maybe someone could point me to the Scripture or Scriptures that refers to the Assumption of Mary. I would be glad to entertain this teaching if it is in the Scriptures.
I consider myself a good Berean, so I want to search the Scriptures to see for myself.
Since all Christians are Kings and Priest unto our God we don't need any other mediator but Christ Jesus the Lord and the Holy Spirit who is a wonderful teacher.
"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him."
I'm confused is this a catholic site?
Christine and Susanna, a while back I read the Catholic Family News article about the Rampolla affair. This is an example of the Holy Spirit protecting the Papacy from coming under the influence of a secret society. Pope Leo XIII wrote an encyclical on freemasonry and Catholics are forbidden from being freemasons.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/reviews/detail/articolo/massoneria-masonry-massoneria-11373/
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18840420_humanum-genus.html
Christine,
I have read Heimbichner's book and while I agree with some of the things he has to say, he has not adequately made his case that Rampolla was a member of O.T.O.
As for Monsignor Ernest Jouin, his notion of the "Judeo-Masonic plot" remains a shibboleth among radical anti-Semitic traditionalists who are unshakably certain that Jews founded the Craft and use it to undermine Christianity.
At the end of the day, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Emperor Franz Joseph was more likely to have been heavily involved in Freemasonry than was Rampolla.
Cathy,
You are right. Catholics are still forbidden to become Freemasons.
Moreover, whether Rampolla was a Freemason or not, he never did become Pope.
CLARIFICATION CONCERNING STATUS OF CATHOLICS BECOMING FREEMASONS
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFMASN1.HTM
________________________________________________________________
Many Protestant communions have also come out with statements to the effect that Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity.
anon 9:21
""As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him."
I'm confused is this a catholic site?"
no but there's Catholics here and we all get into little disputes now and then.
that Scripture cite, like all of them, should be read in context, I John chapter two. the immediate context is a contrast between the believers in the core faith
that all Christian categories RC EO and protestant and event the monophysites and
left over Nestorians to some extent share, as opposed to heretics who flat out
deny Jesus and/or His Incarnation, and usually were gnostics. they often argued
they had a superior "anointing" like some charismatics do now.
Susanna,
MSGR Jouin's anti-Semitism is not relevant to the facts he dug up. This anti-Semitism
is totally consistent with the views of the RC prior to Vatican II. the heavy use
of Jewish Kabalistic ideas and imagery by occultists of the time would lend itself
to such interpretation.
So if some KKK guy told you it was raining, would you disbelieve him because he's
also a racist and usually anti-Semitic? If he launched into a lecture on the
life of Washington based entirely on documents not his daydreams, would you dismiss
the lecture because he throws in "notice none of the founders were Jewish" ?
Christine,
I know EO individuals who also support gay marriage, and hope for change in the church.
"Orthodox Christians who are gay have been seriously maligned and hurt by antiquated interpretations of Scripture and canon law. Numerous bishops and priests, “pastors” of the Church, have done serious spiritual damage to a great number of gay Orthodox Christians including members of the clergy. Throughout the ages the Church has changed its position on various pastoral issues, accepting new discoveries, adapting to contemporary situations, and showing mercy to its faithful. By expressing our stories, Orthodox Christians who are gay have the opportunity to hopefully one day change the official position of the Church on issues such as sexual orientation and gay marriage. Certainly our stories have already changed the views of numerous faithful members of the Orthodox Church."
http://www.orthodoxandgay.com/
Franz joseph could have been freemasonic also, who knows, who cares? these
people fight among themselves and there is a hilarious account of such a
witch war involving Papus. The issue is Rampolla, masonic infiltration of
the RC hierarchy, and it might be that the issuer of the veto was in the
same lodge, but didn't want to have the whole world become part of this
in effect, because he liked a safe zone and a wild zone. Also it could have
been an issue of "balance," that good and evil must be both maintained
in the world and neither gain too much control. Also could have been mere
rivalry.
"The Protestant Rule of faith is "Sola Scriptura." The Catholic Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
I think if I remember correctly, Jesus totally refuted the sacred tradition of the Pharisees along with any other "tradition", that is what Galatians is all about, so I wonder what He would think of those who hold the Scriptures higher than Christ or the "Sacred Tradition" of the Catholic Faith higher than Christ?
I'm not arguing for "Sola Scriptura" or "Scripture and Sacred Tradition" but for Christ Jesus the Lord.
He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the "preeminence."
It still puzzles me why some protestants and Catholic use outside sources instead of pointing people to Jesus instead away from him. Why must they point people to a denomination?
Jesus had a scathing rebuke for those who drew others away from the truth. I was in that category once, until the Holy Spirit convicted me that what I was doing, was sin in the Father's eyes. I repented (changed my mind. In other words I was obedient, and have tried since that day to point people to Jesus Christ, the true head of His church.
anon 9:43
this is as much an embarrassment as those who support gay marriage or
just freedom to be gay and acceptance for them among the RC. and Protestants
is for the rest of you.
A prounouncement by some priest online recently got seriously shot down by Orthodox
clergy. The fact that the quote you give complains of damage done the gays
by clergy and "antiquated interpretation" of canons shows that it isn't nearly
as entrenched as you are trying to make out, and that it is prohibited by
canons that are not ambiguous or vague and are rooted in the Bible and in
common sense. right and wrong are not a matter of what is modern and what is
old fashioned or out of date, I think we agree.
" so I wonder what He would think of those who hold the Scriptures higher than Christ or the "Sacred Tradition" of the Catholic Faith higher than Christ?"
Scriptures and Sacred Tradition are not higher than Christ, they point to Christ. The Episcopal church accepts marriage as a sacrament, but has changed, the nature of the sacrament, which points to Christ, because they do not understand that BOTH scripture and tradition point to Christ.
"It still puzzles me why some protestants and Catholic use outside sources instead of pointing people to Jesus instead away from him. Why must they point people to a denomination?"
I am willing to bet that your interpretations of scripture come from church or Bible study group you attend.
This is just an observation from the comments about church fathers.
Why not speak about what "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" say?
I'm curious.
What would be the reason for someone to try to persuade someone to be a catholic, baptist, or lutheran but never mention the name of Christ?
What would their motive be?
Cathy, tell that to the P2 lodge , to the murderer(s) of John Paul I and the patriarch who died some 10 days before him, and the Ambrosia bank , and its links to the Vatican bank embroiled in the scandal that resulted in the murder of Calvi, found hanging in a Freemasonic ritual fashion from Blackfriars Bridge in the Templar originated banking district in the City of London, London.
Or should we begin with Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, tried by the Dominicans during the Inquisition for being a senior member of the Alumbrados (Spanish for Illuminati). This was of course several hundred years before the founder of the Bavarian Illuminati, Adam Weishaupt , who incidentally was a professor of Canon Law at the Jesuit University of Ingolstadt in 1776 (3 years after the ((afterwards murdered)) Clement V banned the Jesuit Order on the advice of the French King. Now where have I seen that year before? Ah yes, Revolution, with all the conniving Antichrist occult deists (Jefferson and Franklin for example) backed by the banned Jesuit aka Illuminati order! Now I see why many of the weapons had IHS engraved on them! Virginia, anybody? And we all know what happened in France some 13 years later (that number sounds familiar) ... then of course , there is the real smallest sovereign state in the World, the Roman Catholic Palazzo of the SMOM (successors to the Templars). How many US Presidents have diplomatic passports from there I wonder? With their Grand Master (where have we heard that title before?), and other noted members such as several Rothschilds!
I could go on about how many RC buildings are covered in occult symbology, such as the confession boxes at Milan Cathedral, which are adorned with Silver plates embossed with the Pyramid and eye, just like the US Dollar, etc, etc ...
I suggest you look up dodgy Opus Dei too, and learn about the Ultras , the Saturnalian brotherhood, etc, etc, etc.
All roads lead to Rome.
By a former Roman Catholic who left so he wouldn't suffer her plagues!
I am willing to bet that your interpretations of scripture come from church or Bible study group you attend.
I don't attend a bible study group but I did have a very wise Bible teacher years ago that taught the women--- "no matter what I teach, search the scriptures for yourselves, don't take what someone else says the Bible says, search the Scriptures yourself.
Sad to say, I believe there is a great percentage of people who don't study the Bible for themselves both (protestants and catholics) but rely heavily on their pastor or priest to interpret the Bible for them.
If that is the case, they are still living under the old covenant, where everyone had to go to Moses (as their mediator)--- that's been done away in Christ. Each person now can hear God for themselves. How liberating and freeing!
And believe it or not, I've had to change my mind on things others have taught me over the years. It was not truth.
My wise bible teacher also said, "if you have not changed your mind over the years about some of the things you believe or have been taught, you probably are believing some lies." She called those lies, strongholds of the mind.
II Corithians 10:4-6 explain these strongholds.
"The weapons of the war we’re fighting are not of this world but are powered by God and effective at tearing down the strongholds erected against His truth.
5 We are demolishing arguments and ideas, every high-and-mighty philosophy that pits itself against the knowledge of the one true God. We are taking prisoners of every thought, every emotion, and subduing them into obedience to the Anointed One.
6 As soon as you choose obedience, we stand ready to punish every act of disobedience."
Everybody has them--- but the key is wanting to know the one true God--- then being obedient to do what the Scriptures says. Some people do not have the courage or want to subdue the lies so pass them on to poison someone else's mind.
I must admit I had to confess for passing on some of the lies I believed about my heavenly Father. It's been a journey but I have more joy and grace since I was obedient.
For the churches and leaders who have passed their ideas on to others about same sex marriage--- it is a clear indication of a "stronghold" of the mind but it's not too late to repent (change their minds) and turn back to God the Father.
Cindy Warner
"no but there's Catholics here and we all get into little disputes now and then."
Thanks for the clarification.
anon said " so I wonder what He would think of those who hold the Scriptures higher than Christ "
how in Jesus
Name do you hold the Scriptures higher than Christ? what are you on about?
or are you not following JESUS the real and only Christ, but "the Christ" of
the NEw age and some charismatic and "new apostolic" scenes who doesn't always
square with the Jesus Christ of the Scriptures,
the Scripture the only way we know about Him to call on Him, except for preachers
who learned from them!
Christine, who is the real Jesus in your opinion, according to Scripture?
Oh, and just to mention, JPI was only pope for 33 days when he was poisoned ... (where have we heard that number in degrees before?) ... he was an honest and humble man who I don't doubt for a second was a true Christian refusing the pomp of Coronation). Who was he succeeded by? Well , to add insult to assassination, his successor was given the same name becoming John Paul II. JPII was presented by the media as the people's pope and tried to fake the true humility of his predessor. Yes, the same John Paul II you can see mockingly making the owl sign (Bohemian Club / Grove, US Dollar, Illuminati, Athena / Minerva) , as though he is illumined and can see in the dark (World of secret knowledge /occult). The very same JPII who kissed the Koran and held the diabolical sharade of false religions uniting , including wiccans etc at Assissi, and allowed a Hindu pagan priest to mark his head with ashes dedicated to devils!
You see Cathy, much of my family are sadly still caught up in Roman Catholicism, yet like many Catholics, they don't believe the Pope is any less fallible than any other human being EVER, the only time the words eminating from of ANY human are infallible is when the Holy Spirit is working through them, and I don't see JPII bearing fruits which may attest to him being Spirit filled! Yes, there are many Roman Catholics who do bow down to God and not to Rome and they are true Christians ... yet the Holy Bible urges them to come out from her so they suffer not in her plagues! I pray this for my family and for all those caught up in the golden chalice of Rome!
Anonymous 9:48
Re:I think if I remember correctly, Jesus totally refuted the sacred tradition of the Pharisees along with any other "tradition", that is what Galatians is all about, so I wonder what He would think of those who hold the Scriptures higher than Christ or the "Sacred Tradition" of the Catholic Faith higher than Christ?
There was nothing "sacred" about the "traditions" of the Pharisees refuted by Christ......which is precisely why He refuted them.
For Catholic Christians, the Scriptures are part of the Sacred Tradition and inseparable from it. Sacred Tradition is the Revelation that Christ directly gave to the Apostles which they have preserved and handed on intact to their successors.......the same tradition embodied in the Creed you profess if you profess the Creed of Chalcedon and/or Nicaea.
Since the Apostles received the Christian revelation directly form Christ Himself, they would be in the best position to know the interpretation of that revelation and impart it to their disciples known to us as the "Apostolic Fathers."
In John 21:25 we read:
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.
At the end of the day, nothing is higher than Christ. God creates nothing equal to or greater than His Word. Both the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition are the sacred means to one sacred End......the End being Christ. If the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition did not point us to Christ, then they would not be the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition.
Anonymous 9:57
Re:This is just an observation from the comments about church fathers.
Why not speak about what "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" say?
Were it not for the historic succession by which the Christian faith has been preserved and handed on to us down through the centuries, we might not even know about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit period.......never mind about what the Father, Son and Holy Spirit say.
Anonymous at 10:12 PM
As a former Roman Catholic you surely know that the Catholic Church forbids membership in freemasonic organizations. Can you provide evidence to substantiate your claims about the Jesuits, Opus Dei, etc? Are you familiar with conspiracies about supposed tunnels under the Vatican with ET's, UFO's and the giants of Genesis? Also, what does all roads lead to Rome mean? I am a proud member of the Roman Catholic Church and have never heard of any plagues associated with being a Christian.
Anonymous 9:57 P.M.
Re:What would be the reason for someone to try to persuade someone to be a catholic, baptist, or lutheran but never mention the name of Christ?
What would their motive be?
I think it is taken for granted that Catholic, Baptist and Lutheran denominations.....are all CHRISTIAN denominations. I cannot imagine why anyone would try to persuade another person to become a member of one of these Christian communions without ever mentioning the name of Christ.
But let us define our terms. How is "denomination" defined?
A denomination in Christianity is a generic term for a distinct religious body identified by traits such as a common name, structure, leadership and doctrine. Individual bodies, however, may use alternative terms to describe themselves, such as church or sometimes fellowship. Divisions between one group and another are defined by doctrine and church authority; issues such as the nature of Jesus, the authority of apostolic succession, eschatology, and papal primacy often separate one denomination from another. Groups of denominations often sharing broadly similar beliefs, practices, and historical ties are known as branches of Christianity....read more...
As a Catholic Christian, I believe that while non-Catholic Christian communions that embrace the Creed of Chalcedon and/or Nicaea are authentically Christian, I also believe that the fullness of truth is to be found in the faith taught and preached by Roman Catholic faith.
If I did not honestly believe that the fullness of truth ( Christ who is TRUTH ) is to be found in the faith taught and preached by the Roman Catholic Church, then I would have no business being or remaining a Roman Catholic Christian.
But just for the sake of this discussion, I think it is important to point out the fact that if a non-Catholic Christian has been Baptised with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and decides to enter the Catholic Christian communion, the Catholic Church acknowledges that baptism and there is no need for the person to be re-baptized.
If Catholics don't go around aggressively trying to "convert" people ( a.k.a. "sheep-stealing" ) it is because Catholics understand that if someone is "converted," it is the Holy Spirit Who does the "converting."
Catholics also understand that sometimes the Holy Spirit chooses to allow people to "bloom where they have been planted" in terms of their having been BORN into the Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican or other non-Catholic Christian communions.
"Yes, there are many Roman Catholics who do bow down to God and not to Rome and they are true Christians ..."
I agree, my husband and I have wonderful Roman Catholic friends. We knew several Priests from St.Saint Vincent College, a top-ranked private liberal arts catholic college located in the Laurel Highland of PA.
They truly knew the Jesus of the bible and were Spirit filled and led many to Christ and not to any man.
We still remember them. They felt called by God to be there and God used them mightily to lead others to Jesus. They held to the testimony of Jesus and never compromised their faith.
anon 10:49
the real JEsus is the God man (God become man not man become God) whose goings forth have been from of old from the beginning Micah chapter 4 I think it is, John 1:1-14 God the Second PErson of God the Trinity (Isa 48:16 gives a hint) died for
our sins as the Passover for all humanity who would accept Him, prefigured in the
Mosaic Passover, came back physically to life ascended physically to heaven, never
dies, and will come back from heaven with His angels and those believers who have
died and take the earth back from the antichrist who will come first. 2Thess. chapter 2.
Rev. last two or three chapters. Col. 1 chapter gets into some of the big picture
about Jesus as Kyrios, Lord over Lords, the term applied to YHWH by the Septuagint.
"I am a proud member of the Roman Catholic Church and have never heard of any plagues associated with being a Christian. "
not with being a Christian b ut with being part of Babylon the great whore and
mother of harlots, which is what the Roman Church is seen as by some.
11:11 PM
Christine, would you consider yourself a christian? How do you know for sure?
from anon 10:49
Thanks Christine.
RayB,
Yes, that very is also appropriate. It's a very sad world we are living in and the only thing that makes it bearable is that we probably don't have to put up with this too, too much longer because the King is coming to reign one day soon and not from UN headquarters but from Jerusalem.
May God give us all strength and wisdom for what lies ahead as we watch for the signs of his coming. I don't think many are really prepared as they need to be, but his grace will carry us through.
We're in for a wild ride though.
yes I consider myself a Christian. Jesus said it isn't enough to call Him Lord,
Lord you have to do His will HIs words the will of the Father in heaven. I have
been taking that approach on the basis of understanding a lord is a boss you obey.
I had better medieval and dark ages kind of training I guess from fiction as a
child than most moderns do so "lord" was never just a nice sounding word, it means
something.
So I first years ago went looking to get baptized because He said to get baptized,
I having read the Bible a lot knew this. I was zig sagging but committed. I believe
in HIs death and Resurrection and Second Coming.
And no one would know anything of this without the Bible which was written by
eyewitnesses and passed on by them to people they taught. The unwritten tradition
is a very short list St. Basil the Great puts in writing, making the sign of the
cross, triple immersion baptism and praying facing east and so forth. no specific
doctrines more like practices.
I have also had some experiences in prayer and other situaitons but it
is better to let Scripture validate or invalidate your experiences than
vice versa.
Cathy,
Anonymous 10:12's account of St. Ignatius of Loyola's alleged involvement with the Alumbrados is mistaken. I am posting the Wikipedia account here so I won't be accused of being historically "biased"
Although the alumbrados [Illuminated; Illuminati; Enlightened Ones] of Spain were linked in their zeal and spirituality to the Franciscan reforms of which Cardinal de Cisneros was a promoter, the administrators of the Inquisition had mounting suspicions. These female disciples, Doña Leo, Doña Maria, and Doña Beatriz, were so hysterically zealous that "one fell senseless, another sometimes rolled about on the ground, another had been seen in the grip of convulsions or shuddering and sweating in anguish." This suspicious activity had taken place while Ignatius and his companions were regularly preaching in public. Because of his "street-corner perorations" being identified "with the activities of the alumbrados", Ignatius was naturally singled out for inspection as one of these visionaries; however, he was later released. After these adventurous activities, he studied at the ascetic Collège de Montaigu of the University of Paris, where he remained for over seven years. In later life, he was often called "Master Ignatius", due to his having obtained a master's degree from that university at the age of forty-three......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Loyola
_______________________________________________________________________
Doesn't sound like St. Ignatius was a "senior member of the Alumbrados" to me.
"but it is better to let Scripture validate or invalidate your experiences than
vice versa."
I agree.
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
not with being a Christian b ut with being part of Babylon the great whore and
mother of harlots, which is what the Roman Church is seen as by some.
Christine, and those same people also claim that the Vatican sits on the seven hills of Rome.
http://www.catholicbible101.com/thewhoreofbabylon.htm
yeah, I know. isn't it a hoot? not only that they got the harlot
Babylon the antichrist and the false prophet all confused with
each other.
"The Protestant Rule of faith is "Sola Scriptura." The Catholic Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition. In fact the Scriptures themselves are part of that Sacred Tradition and are inseparable from it. Ergo, it is understandable why most Protestants cannot accept belief in the Assumption. But here is why Catholics believe it. The Assumption of Mary into Heaven by Father William G. Most..."
But tradition may err whereas Catholics and evangelical protestants affirm that it does not. It is therefore misleading to categorise scripture as part of tradition without explaining it is special in this sense.
Fr Most writes: "There had been a problem of how the Pope could define the Assumption. There seemed to be nothing in Scripture on it, and what things there were in the Tradition of the Fathers seemed to come not from an apostolic origin, but from some apocryphal stories that circulated chiefly beginning in the fourth century."
Indeed. Good scholars recognise that sources written several hundred years after the events they purport to describe are not to be treated as reliable. (The earliest literature on the subject is reviewed and translated in Stephen J. Shoemaker's book "Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption" published this century.) So there is no historical evidence for it, and the absence of any contemporary source for such a notable event suggests its falsehood. The Catholic arguments for it, as reviewed by Fr Most, are all theological, as follows (all quotes in inverted commas are henceforth from Most's essay):
"God wished that the Blessed Virgin Mary be exempt from this general law. For she, by a completely singular privilege, conquered sin in her Immaculate Conception, and thus was not liable to that law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, nor did she have to wait for the end of time for the redemption of her body" [Here Fr Most is quoting Pius XII.]
The Bible is clear that sin was conquered ON THE CROSS BY JESUS CHRIST and not by Mary or anybody else. She facilitated it by being his mother, but no amount of dissembling can legitimately assign the conquering of sin to her and to do so is grave heresy.
"Pius XII next said he had asked the opinions of all the Bishops of the world on the Assumption. Their response was almost unanimous in the affirmative. The universal teaching of the authorities of the Church by itself, he tells us, gives us a proof"
It merely shows that they all got it in the same way, from the same sources.
"Some, even a few of the Fathers, had denied that she ever died, basing this on the fact that death was the result of original sin, which she lacked."
If Mary lacked original sin, why then did she need a saviour? She affirmed her need in the Magnificat: "My spirit hath rejoiced in God my saviour" (Luke 1:47). In Romans 3, St Paul wrote that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." We are all descended from Adam who fell, and that includes Mary.
continued from 7.18am...
"the Virgin Mary has been presented by the Holy Fathers as the New Eve, who, although subject to the New Adam, was most closely associated with Him in that struggle against the infernal enemy which... was to result in that most complete victory over sin and death [at the Cross]. Wherefore, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and final sign of this victory, so also that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her Son had to be closed by the 'glorification' of her virginal body" [Fr Most quoting Pius XII again]
Supposedly Mary is "most closely associated with" Jesus in his victory over Satan, sin and death. Yet, while He remained totally respectful of her, the gospels make it obvious that He distanced his ministry from her. She nags him into doing a miracle prematurely in John 2:3 and his reply in verse 4 is an idiom meaning "don't interfere"; he never calls her "mother" in conversation during his ministry, but only "woman" (which is respectful in that culture but less personal); she does not travel with his ministry; and above all in Matthew 12:46-50:
While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
This gentle distancing is because He and only He is the sinless sacrifice for sins who can save us from our own (and Mary from hers), and He will not share his glory with another. "[T]herefore... that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her Son had to be closed by the 'glorification' of her virginal body". The struggle - or at least the victory - is not shared, but even if it were then Pius presents no logic by which it follows that her body had [?!] to be assumed. Pius' use of "Therefore/Wherefore" is specious. It is evidently wish-fulfilment and Pius made sure he could not be called on his faulty logic by Catholics by asserting that this was an infallible statement. Christians who are not Catholic are free to call his bluff.
Granted that there are truths which do not appear in scripture, BUT there is no remotely contemporary source for it even though it would have been widely commented on if true, and no decent theological argument for it. I believe these inflated claims about her are offensive to her as well as to her Son.
"there is very clear hierarchy in the NT the laity, deacons elders term for which
became "priest" and bishops or episkopos which means "overseer." that all might
be called elders as a collective body of caretakers over the laity, this doesn't
mean they were themselves all the same thing, because the Apostles were clearly
over the lot and they called themselves "elders" also."
Thank you for that clear exposition. A congregation was founded by an apostolos who had authority over it until he passed on and it was mature. Thereafter it was led by an internal council. No hierarchy ABOVE it. That is scriptural and by what authority was any deviation from it made?
Well Christine has finally taken over this blog site. People don't even bother to challenge her anymore because she just kept on keeping on; ignoring everyone and detailing her every opinion and her every guess on every subject, every day, with great self- appointed authority and a penchant for mixing the sacred with the profane.
Most people who don't have any credentials at all, have a little voice inside that says maybe I should just cool it with the endless opinions and maybe I should just shut up since I DONT HAVE ANY CREDENTIALS, OR DEGREE from an accredited college.
But such is Aspargers, I guess, combined with unlimited free time and nothing else to do, all day, every day.
Without Wikipedia there would be no Justina Infowolf Christine Mary Erikson.
anon 7:33
you clearly missed the point about Titus. he was authority over ALL of Crete, all
its cities. there is a precedent in the NEw Testament for authority outside or
over the congregations in various cities.
the sheer fact of growing population would necessitate having the one congregation
authority be also the authority over the other congregations in the same city.
But here beyond common sense, is the explicit model, Titus over ALL of Crete which
had several cities, being a large ISLAND not a city.
I guess you must not have realized that Crete is a LARGE ISLAND not a city all this
time, because I keep bringing it up and you keep ignoring it.
without an overarching authority, how is heresy or other problems to be dealt with
at the local level? and among the bishops such on the part of any would be dealt
with in the synod or meeting of bishops of a general location.
there WAS NO CHANGE just a continuation and adapatation to changing circumstances.
the adoration of the independent congregation that goes its own way sounds like
a veiled form of pride . no one can tell your group what to do . sorry, it doesn't
work that way. such insularity by the way is exactly how cults of the most abusive
sort work.
Spot on brother Paul.
http://authorityresearch.com/Sources/Total%20Quality%20Management%20-%20General%20Systems%20Theory%20-%20Marxist%20Theory-Praxis%20by%20JudyMcLemore.pdf
"you clearly missed the point about Titus. he was authority over ALL of Crete, all
its cities"
Yes, because he founded them all. but, as I said, once the founding apostolos had passed on each congregation was autonomous under God, being run by an internal council.
"the adoration of the independent congregation that goes its own way sounds like
a veiled form of pride . no one can tell your group what to do . sorry, it doesn't
work that way. such insularity by the way is exactly how cults of the most abusive
sort work."
Wild psychological guesswork. Actually such cults invariably have one-man leadership rather than by a council. Sometimes that man even claims to be infallible.
anon 8:09
wow, that is quite an example of eisegesis. Titus didn't found a single one of
them. Paul did. Paul then appointed Titus over all of the Cretan cities. which
by definition would put him also in charge of any new congregations that developed
later. Timothy on the other hand was only in charge of Ephesus, but given the size
of that city and suburbs, you can count on it that more than one place was where
Christians met regularly and Timothy was bishop over them all.
exactly where do you get the idea that there is a mandate for autonomous
congregations with no accountability or interaction outside itself? "under God"
yeah right, that's how you exalt yourself as practically God, you are not
accountable to anyone even your equals, perish the thought of your inferiors, you
answer only to God. I 've heard at least one representative of the criminal
subculture take that line. you are in great company. reminds me of the snobs
something like one family of note talks only to the Cabots and the Cabots talk
only to God or something like that.
anon 8:12
where do you get the idea of a council running things anyway? there is an overseer
the bishop doesn't sound like a council except secondary to him. a low dominance
gradient most likely but still a subordination. sure he can be voted out by the
council maybe. I suppose you could have more than one overseer but it could get
dicey.
some cults run on single leaders some have councils taking the role of defunct
leaders.
Its not wild psychological guesswork, IT IS PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE MINE AND OTHERS'.
And you can have a council consisting only of people who replace themselves (to
some extent this might be necessary) and who have an entrenched problem you have
to put up with to be acceptable. Some corruption then can proliferate as only
this kind of person gets to be in the initial council made for a new congregation
that splits from or develops from the missionary work of the first congregation.
Practical Experience????
Please go out and get a job Christine!!! Put 'Practical Experience' on the application.
Your a welfare fraud, a religious fraud, a scientific fraud. And because you know everything, everything fraud!!!
"where do you get the idea of a council running things anyway? there is an overseer
the bishop doesn't sound like a council except secondary to him. a low dominance
gradient most likely but still a subordination. sure he can be voted out by the
council maybe. I suppose you could have more than one overseer but it could get
dicey."
You want to complain to God about the way he set things up? Here is the situation, with scripture references included. Congregations were founded in various places, and each congregation was run, once its founding apostolos or church planter had passed on, by a council of men known as its presbyteroi or episkopoi. The presbyteroi and episkopoi are the same men, for St Paul calls for the presbyteroi of the congregation at Ephesus (Acts 20:17) and then addresses them collectively as episkopoi (20:28). Further plurals in James 5:14 and Acts 14:23 & 20:17 show that each congregation had more than one. The word presbyteros denotes seniority and is best translated as ‘Elder,’ while episkopos refers to their function, oversight. This is the word translated as ‘bishop,’ but in Catholicism today (and some other church systems) one bishop/episkopos oversees many congregations – a reversal of the scriptural relation. The change came about in two steps, first (early on) to one-man leadership of each congregation (‘the bishop’). A few centuries later many congregations had come under one bishop, in a hierarchy. By what authority were these changes made?
You would do well to reconsider your tone of lecturing.
"under God" yeah right, that's how you exalt yourself as practically God, you are not
accountable to anyone even your equals, perish the thought of your inferiors, you
answer only to God. I 've heard at least one representative of the criminal
subculture take that line."
Bless you, Christine.
practical experience - I have heard how people talk, how they act. I noticed
the don't judge and that's between men and God line of talk among the
criminal subculture I got to know. Other people have reported things, written
here and there. it adds up.
"Titus didn't found a single one of them. Paul did. Paul then appointed Titus over all of the Cretan cities. which by definition would put him also in charge of any new congregations that developed later."
Accepted about who founded them and thanks for the reminder but, as stated, they were still too immature to have elders appointed from amongst their members and Paul needed to move on so he asked Titus to oversee them until their maturity.
anon 9:10
you forget that Paul and PEter and I think John refer to THEMSELVES
as "elders." the term incl. deacons, bishops or overseers which is what
episkopos means, and presbuteros which is elder and the term priest
morphed out of that. Justin Martyr speaks of the PResident of the
Assembly who makes the Eucharistic Prayers after which the bread and
wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. c. AD 150, himself taught by
a very old man who was old enough to have heard Apostles or first
generation of their converts.
Now, Ephesus was a big city. in a certain sense an elder oversees others,
but an elder over other elders or over each congregation in a city
(figure 100 or 20 maximum then you get new locations to meet in which
by definition are different congregations in the same city not all can
fit in one location, so you got a few congregations in the city, and
you have a city overseer over them and likely a head elder over each one
that could be considered a kind of overseer.)
Naturally with your prideful love of independence you keep ignoring Titus.
a bishop over all the cities on the island of Crete, which right there is
non independent non autonomous status of the Cretan congregations.
there is NO NT PROHIBITION on the "change" you think occurred. the setup
is top down on the face of it, and the hierarchy is present both internally
and externally in the case of Titus explicitly and in the case of a large
city with more than congregation implicitly since Timothy is over the whole
city. THERE WAS NO CHANGE, MERELY DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING SMALLER PATTERNS.
"Accepted about who founded them and thanks for the reminder but, as stated, they were still too immature to have elders appointed from amongst their members and Paul needed to move on so he asked Titus to oversee them until their maturity."
you are reading something into the text and intent that isn't there.
what of Ephesus, a big city with suburb s that would have to have more than one
congregation, because you can't fit all believers in one building. different
meeting places to accommodate population issues is by definition different
congregations. yet you still have Timothy over all Ephesus so over all congregations
in Ephesus.
you are assuming what you want to prove.
WHERE does it say that Titus is to oversee them UNTIL any time in future then end?
the guideline in Ephesians about all these offices and skills to help the church
"For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith of and the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" Ephesians 4:11-13
is both about individuals aned the collective organism the church which is both
local and general, and do you see any indication that this condition exists
outside of a few individuals and a few congregations perhaps? or is it perhaps not
even about something you can expect to happen before the Second Coming, given
I cor. 13:12 which sounds like SEcond Coming situation, though a previous verse might well relate to the finishing of the Scripture NT canon.
and if so mature, then not prideful, arrogantly independent but devoted to the truth
even if that is sometimes divisive in effect, and appreciating orderliness ergo the
structure would remain.
If Mary lacked original sin, why then did she need a saviour? She affirmed her need in the Magnificat: "My spirit hath rejoiced in God my saviour" (Luke 1:47).
In Romans 3, St Paul wrote that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." We are all descended from Adam who fell, and that includes Mary.
AMEN!
Let me state from the outset that I’m not setting out to defend the RCC in toto, as I have many issues with its very structure (which I won’t get into here). As for the ‘Assumption of Mary’, though, I don’t have as much an issue with it as there is Scriptural precedent for such a thing in Enoch and Elijah. On the other hand, from a strictly historical perspective there's no mention of Mary's 'Assumption' till the 4th century. But, again, just because a particular event is not explicitly noted in Scripture does not make it anti-Biblical.
Having gotten that out of the way, I wanted to address the tired ‘Rome is the woman riding the beast because it is self-admittedly the city on seven hills.’ First of all, looking at the context of Rev 17:9, the “beast” (“seven ‘hills’”) is the thing the “woman” sits atop, and it’s clear that the ‘woman’ is not “sitting” on literal geographic/topographic “hills” but figurative ones. And these “hills” correspond to seven heads/kings, five of which have fallen, one is currently standing, and the other is yet to come. Therefore, in the context provided by Rev 17:9 “hills” refer to kings/kingdoms.
In addition, most translations render “hills” in Rev 17:9 as “mountains” – from the Greek: ὄρη (orē) – which is the better translation. From the BDAG, ὄρη is defined: a relatively high elevation of land that projects higher than a βοῦνος (‘a minor elevation, hill’), mountain, mount, hill. Luke 3:5 (Isaiah 40:4) provides a comparison between ὄρος and βοῦνος:
καὶ πᾶν ὄρος καὶ βουνὸς ταπεινωθήσεται = and every mountain and hill will be made low/levelled
At its highest elevation, Rome is a mere 456 feet above sea level, obviously not enough to consider it an ὄρη (orē) – especially in comparison with the nearby Apennine Mountains, which peak at 9554 feet. It is absolutely horrendous eisegesis to construe the RCC as the “woman riding the beast” of Revelation 17 by using the fact that Rome is considered the “city on seven hills.”
Christine, I never said that the NT prescribed a church structure. (Hence the question of "prohibition" of altering it doesn't arise.) Rather, I said it described one, and then asked by what authority this was changed - a question you continue to avoid.
That original structure was the synagogue structure adopted by Jews in the diaspora throughout the Greek world, by the way. The centralised Temple structure was obsolete after Christ, was it not?
Please provide references for where Paul, Peter and John refer to themselves as presbyteroi in the sense of within a congregation. (Like diakonos = servant, the word can have a general meaning as well as a specific meaning in church polity.)
Craig,
Anyone reading "seven hills" in the ancient world would immediately think of Rome. In the Renaissance world, the Reformers saw the Roman Catholic church persecuting Bible-believing Christians, while the capital city of Eastern Orthodoxy had recently fallen (to Islam in 1453) and Spain and Portugal were conquering huge tracts of land on far continents for the first time and imposing Catholicism there. You can see why the Reformers thought that the Roman Catholic church was the scarlet woman of Babylon in Revelation. In the modern world, however, Catholicism is a much reduced political power, while plenty of other cities are sited on seven hills and the scarlet woman would fit the world financial system or a New Age religious system. So I agree with your conclusions.
I have never avoided the question of who authorized the change I DENIED THE
CHANGE OCCURRED merely that elements already present became the more common
set up to deal with changing circumstances of population and the need to
close ranks against heresy.
Hebrews speaks of a change of priesthood not an absence of such and a concurrent
resulting change of law, not an absence of law.
Of course they don't speak of within a congregation but addressing a congregation(s)
they refer to themselves as elder, or "I am also an elder" like you elders,
it is a CATEGORY within which are ranks. this is obvious because you can't equate
Apostles who have powers no one else had and who had a direct mandate from Jesus
Christ that no one else had, with overseers and elders that in fact had been
appointed by them and were answerable to them. yet they refer to themselves as
elders, an act of humility but also showing that the term covered several ranks.
your isolationism is definitely not NT mentality, look at the people who traveled
from one congregation to another and Paul said receive them, this appears in at
least two epistles. you are desperately clinging to some Congregationalist ideal
which is silly.
Craig,
Rev. 17 says they are seven mountains or hills AND seven kings. There are many
cities which are built on seven hills, and the USA has as least 20 of them by
one count (12 by another count not as extensive).
oros "probably from an obsolete oro (to rise or "rear"; perhaps akin to 142; compare 3733); a mountain (as lifting itself above the plain): -hill, mount(-ain"
http://www.godrules.net/library/kjvstrongs/kjvstrongsrev17.htm click on the
number after the word, would fit either hill or mountain, and Zion is called a
mountain but is not like one of the Rockies. I read somewhere that that other
term you cite is strictly from modern Greek, not ancient. so you can't draw such
a comparison.
Rome is not a port city and is not a major importer of goods and services, which
Babylon the great is described as being, notice the merchants mourning who can see
her smoking from the sea and the kind of things they won't be able to sell to her
anymore.
I consider that a response but not a reply, Christine (at 10.02am), and am content at this point to let readers decide between us on the basis of what is written above. As for your insults and attempted psychoanalysis of me, Bless you.
response, reply, what's the difference? I have stated the same thing repeatedly
as anyone can see who goes over several blog comments segments.
you are asking why did something happen, who authorized it, and I am saying
your question makes no sense. This change as a sea change did not happen, the
roots of it existed already, and a gradual development of adaptation to reality
occurred.
THERE WAS NO RADICAL CHANGE. a gradual change of emphasis on which style of operation to use, not a sudden extreme change.
One person here has set more "fires" than anyone else ever dreamed of.
That person is Cristine Erikson.
Look at how she revels in starting several blazes at once and sits on her arse to send out reems of verbosity, that all conclude nothing, except that one can draw this conclusion......she keeps her "can of gas and lit match" ready at all times. No matter to her that the truth gets lost here, truth is not her destination. That she have the last word is her goal. Her clanging cymbals tone and relentless argument for the sake of fighting is her method. But, Jesus is Lord of her right? How is it that her approach to His word and His people can be so poor and yet she is somehow "obeying" Him? Doing your lord a big favor aren't you, Cristine?
No wonder this blog, for being a place to learn effectively about the issues Constance Cumbey posts of, has gone down in flames.
Paul and 9:05 AM addressed this very thing and called it correctly.
just dig through whatever you can find in the ante Nicene fathers and eusebius church history and you will get the picture.
Well, show didn't go this morning. Joe McNeil and the TMERadio family took day off for holiday and played random replays. I'm embarrassed as Cliiff Kincaid and I were ready to go and the chatroom was full.
Constance
To 7:09 and 12:20
Such excellent and thoughtful comnents. THANK YOU!
Constance
Christine,
Yet again you illustrate that having a discussion on this blog is futile, as you continually and consistently obfuscate the issues and the refutations one provides in your zeal to argue incessantly – apparently just for the sake of argumentation.
1) You wrote: Rev. 17 says they are seven mountains or hills AND seven kings. Isn’t that what I just stated? I wrote: “And these “hills” correspond to seven heads/kings…Therefore, in the context provided by Rev 17:9 “hills” refer to kings/kingdoms.”
2) Your point about Mt. Zion does not help your cause, as Mt Zion is 2510 ft. above sea level – over 5 times that of Rome’s elevation.
3) You wrote: I read somewhere that that other term you cite is strictly from modern Greek, not ancient. so you can't draw such a comparison. I can safely assume the “other term” to which you refer is βοῦνος, which I quoted directly from Scripture above, Luke 3:5 to be precise, in which the two terms βοῦνος and ὄρος are, in fact, contrasted with each other. Hence, your point is both fallacious AND moot.
As with many times, you miss the forest for the trees – in this case the mountain for the hill. Perhaps you (or any other reader here) can show me and the readers a reference anywhere that Rome and/or the RCC specifically refers to Rome as “the city on seven ‘ὄρη’ (‘orē’),” the latter term being the plural form of oros (ὄρος), as it is used in Rev 17:9.
Anonymous said...
Christine, who is the real Jesus in your opinion, according to Scripture?
@10:49 PM
To Anonymous ...
The "real Jesus" IS the WORD OF GOD .... "And the word became flesh (Christ)." One of His names is "The Word of God." God's word is called "truth" ... Christ said "thy word is truth" and Christ said "I am THE way, THE TRUTH, and the life; no man cometh unto the father but by me."
There are MANY false Christs ... just as Jesus foretold there would be. If one rejects the authority of the word of God, he rejects Jesus Christ. In fact, that is exactly what every man-made cult and religion does; they reject and pervert the Word of God and in the process reject the very Person they profess to believe in. That is the test ... if your "religion" rejects the full authority of God's Word, you are definately in a false religious system.
Jesus Himself addressed this very same issue to the "believing" Jews (which He later called children of Satan): "If ye CONTINUE IN MY WORD, then are ye my disciples indeed. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
Jesus Christ CANNOT be separated from the Word of God ... because HE IS THE WORD OF GOD.
anon 11:47
"1) You wrote: Rev. 17 says they are seven mountains or hills AND seven kings. Isn’t that what I just stated? I wrote: “And these “hills” correspond to seven heads/kings…Therefore, in the context provided by Rev 17:9 “hills” refer to kings/kingdoms.”"
no its not the same you are making like the hills ARE kings instead of there
are BOTH hills indicated by the heads AND kings.
it is not for the sake of argumentation it is to clarify because there is a
tremendous amount that protestants and RC got terribly WRONG. I used to have
some of these same errors too.
To fit the prophecy, Rome would have to fit ALL the details and it doesn't.
that the name is a "mystery" shows this is not Rome itself since popular slang
like Rome called Babylon is hardly mysterious.
"2) Your point about Mt. Zion does not help your cause, as Mt Zion is 2510 ft. above sea level – over 5 times that of Rome’s elevation."
whether something is a mountain or a hill depends on its elevation relevant to
its surroundings not relevant to something across a small ocean from it.
Mt. Zion is only 2510 ft elevation, because Jerusalem which it is outside of
is 2474 feet, the whole thing on a plateau, making "Mt." Zion a 36 foot peak
on the larger plateau of the Judaean mountains.
a real good case has been made that Jerusalem would be end times Babylon, but
that is not likely since it is already styled Sodom and Egypt in Revelation
where it specifies our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified there so "Sodom and Egypt" refers to Jerusalem.
Neither Rome nor Jerusalem are port cities on the sea coast, though Rome is a bit
closer to it.
Anon 12:00 I am not sure what you are saying, but it sounds like you are starting from a sound perspective and equating being a Christian with following what Jesus
said, and ending up with equating the written Bible with Jesus' Person Himself.
almost like the name worshiping heresy. God the Word was begotten eternally by
The Father but the Words that God the Word spoke once HE was Incarnated were then
written down on paper. and lately electronic copy. Those things are not His body
which is localized in Heaven since His Resurrection is physical and permanent.
Anonymous 7:18 7:19
Re:But tradition may err whereas Catholics and evangelical protestants affirm that it does not. It is therefore misleading to categorise scripture as part of tradition without explaining it is special in this sense.
Man made traditions may indeed err. This is why the Catholic Church makes clear distinctions between things which are a matter of Church discipline which can be changed and things which are part of the divinely revealed data of faith which cannot be changed because Catholics believe that they have been explicitly or implicitly revealed by Christ Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life and cannot err.
When I speak of the Catholic Rule of faith, I refer to "Tradition" as SACRED Tradition ( with a capital "T" ) which is inseparable from Sacred Scriptures.
RE:If Mary lacked original sin, why then did she need a saviour? She affirmed her need in the Magnificat: "My spirit hath rejoiced in God my saviour" (Luke 1:47). In Romans 3, St Paul wrote that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." We are all descended from Adam who fell, and that includes Mary.
Catholics do not believe or teach that Mary did not need a Savior. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way — by anticipation.
Since Adam and Eve were "immaculately conceived" and were without sin when they accepted the serpent's invitation to disobey God, it was seemly that the Blessed Virgin Mary should also be "immaculately conceived" when she accepted the invitation of God's ambassador the Archangel Gabriel to become the Mother of the Word Incarnate.
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION AND ASSUMPTION
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
If you do not believe in the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, fine. But to say that the Popes merely invented these dogmas and imposed them on all Catholics without so much as a "by your leave" is patently false. Not only that, but the things Catholics believe about Mary are not primarily important for what they tell us about Mary but for what they tell us about Jesus. Mary's last recorded words in the Gospels were at the wedding feast at Cana where she says "Do whatever He (Jesus) tells you." If Mary is not pointing us to Jesus, then Mary is not doing what she is supposed to do.
While I am here, I would like to point out that there are certain groups that go by the name of "Catholic" who do worship Mary. This is idolatry pure and simple.
Marie Paule Giguère was one who not only believed that she was the reincarnation of the Blessed Virgin, but also rejected the Trinity claiming that Mary was "fully divine" and was the fourth person of what she called the "quinternity."
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=3d091048-5392-483a-a8c1-0d57a9f0c4f1&k=0
___________________________________________________________________________
Needless to say, the Roman Catholic Church has never taught reincarnation. Moreover, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary body and soul into heaven precludes any and all "reincarnation" of Mary!!!
Christine,
As to your counterpoint to my point 1, I’ll just quote the NIV 1984 study Bible: That seven heads symbolize both seven hills and seven kings illustrates the fluidity of apocalyptic symbolism, unless the hills are figurative for royal (or political) power.
As to your counterpoint to 2, it was you who initially made the comparison using Zion, not me, when you wrote that oros can mean either a mountain or a hill. You wrote in your most recent comment: whether something is a mountain or a hill depends on its elevation relevant to its surroundings not relevant to something across a small ocean from it. You are right on this (and, again YOU brought up Zion as compared to the Rockies), and Rome cannot be considered sitting on mountains in comparison with its nearby Apennine Mountains, nor by its immediate surroundings, as this article, by an archaeologist who studies geography, illustrates:
The author notes that [w]alking around in modern Rome, you’re aware of the ground rising and falling, but in the jumble of buildings it’s difficult to get a sense of the underlying topography, which would probably have been rather clearer in Roman times. However, she quickly notes: It’s important to remember that the famous hills are really more ridges of land than hills.
These pictorials illustrate that one could hardly call them “oros” understood as “mountains”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatine_Hill#/media/File:Palatineterracing.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiber#/media/File:0_Tibre_-_Pont_Vittorio_Emanuele_II_-_San_Spirito_in_Sassia_-_St-Pierre_%28Vatican%29.jpg
I should note also the the NIV 1984 used "hills", while the new NIV uses "mountains", along with most translations.
Actually, my error, as the NIV STILL uses "hills", though most others render it "mountains".
"Jesus Himself addressed this very same issue to the "believing" Jews (which He later called children of Satan): "If ye CONTINUE IN MY WORD, then are ye my disciples indeed. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
Jesus Christ CANNOT be separated from the Word of God ... because HE IS THE WORD OF GOD."
Right on 12:00 PM.
Mary C Erikson is grabbing a straws, not even remotely knowing what is being clearly said. She will have a comeback though, no matter, how confusing it will be.
Susanna,
I didn't say, nor mean to imply, that Popes in the last 200 years invented the dogmas of Mary's immaculate conception and direct assumption into heaven. What they did was make belief in these things mandatory, for Pius IX said that deniers of the former were “by their own judgment condemned [and] have made shipwreck concerning the faith" while Pius XII proclaimed the latter under the doctrine of papal infallibility. I don't accept that my faith in Christ is shipwrecked because I am skeptical of the former. Do you know protestants whom you consider committed believers yet who don't believe this claim?
"The Catholic Church teaches that Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences."
What is the Vatican's argument for that conclusion, please?
I'm sorry, but I can't see any takedown of my arguments against Mary's Assumption in what you say.
1:44 PM
Anonymous said...
"I didn't say, nor mean to imply, that Popes in the last 200 years invented the dogmas of Mary's immaculate conception and direct assumption into heaven.
What they did was make belief in these things mandatory, for Pius IX said that deniers of the former were “by their own judgment condemned [and] have made shipwreck concerning the faith" while Pius XII proclaimed the latter under the doctrine of papal infallibility.
I don't accept that my faith in Christ is shipwrecked because I am skeptical of the former. Do you know protestants whom you consider committed believers yet who don't believe this claim?
"Do you know protestants whom you consider committed believers yet who don't believe this claim?"
What a good question to ask any true catholic in my opinion.
Would a true catholic have the courage to answer that question honestly on this site?
Cindy Warner
NEW HOUSE OF APOSTATE HORRORS - EPISCOPALIANS VOTE TO ALLOW SAME SEX MARRIAGE
I totally agree.
It's always the darkest before the dawn they say.
From history, before each of the last Great Awakenings, the people of God thought it was hopeless—-- but I am convinced God wants to turn this around—and I am convinced God can turn this around.
Nothing is impossible with God--- but I do believe a Great Awakening is our only hope for America. He's done it before, He can do it again.
Anonymous 1:44
These Marian beliefs are mandatory for Catholics, not Protestants.
The reason why they are mandatory is because, as I have said before, their importance is not because of what they tell us about Mary, but because of what they tell us about Jesus. Jesus is truly God as well as truly man. Only God, Who is not subject to space and time, could have redeemed Mary by the grace of Christ in a special way - by anticipation.
With regard to the Assumption, there isn't anything explicit about Mary's Assumption,
The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven....
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
_________________________________________________________________________
Protestant beliefs aside, we have a lot of Catholics who pick and choose which Church teaching(s) they will - or will not- accept. We call them "cafeteria Catholics." But that is between them and their Maker.
Re: I'm sorry, but I can't see any takedown of my arguments against Mary's Assumption in what you say.
It wasn't my intention to "take down" your argument since your argument is obviously a satisfactory one for you and I am not trying to convert you. My intention was to discuss Catholic teaching with a fellow Catholic who has been posting here.
Not only that, but if, as I am assuming, we are coming from different "Rules of Faith" we have an authority issue to begin with.
"I don't accept that my faith in Christ is shipwrecked because I am skeptical of the former. Do you know protestants whom you consider committed believers yet who don't believe this claim?"
A heretic is a baptized Catholic, who rejects something the church holds to be definite.
A Protestant would not qualify for this.
In this case, it's the Catholic whose faith will be shipwrecked in Christ.
To give an example, I know Catholics who ask me, why can't we change x, i.e. the sacrament of marriage to include gays, but still keep y, the Creed.
I end up explaining how getting rid of x, will also get rid of y.
Catholicism is deeply interconnected. It's like a puzzle, where all the pieces come together to make a whole picture.
http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.php
http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/mary_in_the_early_church.php
Dear 2.51pm, According to you a Pope can say that those who deny Mary's Immaculate Conception make shipwreck of their faith yet protestants who deny it don't make shipwreck of their faith. Do you realise how postmodern that is, ie "that's your truth"?
Cathy 2:51
logically the Creed which says nothing about marriage is a separate issue
from the morality thing. But it validates the morality thing, because
Christ said "repent of your sins" to people who alredy knew homosexual acts
(which is what homosexual marriage is about) were abomination. Paul had
to go into details because of cultural baggage of pagans, and he was taught
by Christ in person in the desert see Galatians first couple of chapters or so.
so you could argue (wrongly) that homosexuality is okay, but the Creed is
still true, but then you'd have to argue that you can ignore what the Apostles
under Jesus' and The Spirit's ergo also The Father's influence had to say.
the problem with Catholicism or any system that makes an entire tapestry
seamless of EVERYTHING including issues like clerical celibacy and other
things not as clearly defined as homosexuality a single piece, is that you
mess with any one part incl. Marian assumption, ever virginity and immaculate
conception, and you tear it all apart, while the protestant focus on Creed
content (with or without Creed itself just a "statement of faith" that adds
up to the same thing) and then from that validates Christ's words and the
Apostle's words you keep the faith and the morals and those things not
clearly stated in Scripture are optional.
in EO a similar problem exists for some people, where ALL tradition is
the same to them, put pews in church or shorten the service or change the
dress of clerics (all of these historical point of origin and optional)
assume EVERY detail is the same back to the Apostles (it isn't but a lot of
laity think this since they only see their own jurisdiction's way of doing
things and the jurisdictions differ) and you endanger the whole thing,
though others correctly see a difference between Tradition with a capital T
and traditions small t.
if your faith depends on a structure a style and a lead man instead of
"this is what the Apostles and Jesus said, this is what the Apostles handed
the church on morals and faith and we know this because of writings from
the first 300 years involving aged people overlapping by a very few jumps
back to the Apostles, so the tradition and the documents passed to them
couldn't have gotten messed up in that time" then you have a risk.
anon 4:58 yes it sounds postmodern but what I think is being said is that
the core faith is shared Prot and RC and the secondary doctrines (Mary is
only important or miraculous because of Jesus and not vice versa) are
not going to mess up prots by not being believed, but the RC believer by
picking and choosing instead of depending on the God provided structure
and pope is either at risk or denying part of the fullness of the faith
which includes the idea that The Holy Spirit has controlled and dictated
ev erything about the church.
And while the RC is responsible to understand and keep this view, the protestant
who doesn't know any better is not responsible for anything but the core faith
as I call it.
pardon my rambling on and on, but Cathy is this what is being said here?
I think Benedict 16 said that protestant churches are sodalities in which
you can be saved but are not proper churches with sacraments because no
Apostolic Succession.
Craig
"As to your counterpoint to my point 1, I’ll just quote the NIV 1984 study Bible: That seven heads symbolize both seven hills and seven kings illustrates the fluidity of apocalyptic symbolism, unless the hills are figurative for royal (or political) power."
a. the NIV is nothing to pay any attention to being the worst (except for more
recent editions that have started reverting to Textus Receptus readings in some
places) before you get to the paraphrases unless there is a worser one. This
commentary note is an example of the mentality, because it takes a statement
that there are hills AND kings, and turns it into a possible hills still mean
kings most likely, not hills at all.
b. there is no fluidity of apocalyptic symbolism, where the symbolism is explicitly
explained in the apocalypse and this is.
the problem with typical interpreters is that they focus on one or two major points, like Christ vs. antichrist and the church and so forth, and spiritualize
away things as political that look more like they are literal, some cataclysms.
if it doesn't fit it is ignored. The bias of course in this matter was that
the Roman church is the harlot and/or antichrist and/or false prophet, so anything
that compromises this is ignored.
so we get to text types and the mentality back of picking which then generates
arguments for the pre conceived hatred Hort and Wescott had for the TR or Byzantine text family. The
Byzantine as category has to be the oldest and best text family, regardless of
the age of earliest surviving samples, because the Byzantine geography is where
the originals were written, possible exception being Mark's Gospel and Matthew's
Gospel, which might have been first written in Alexandria and Jerusalem respectively.
Christine,
Even more attempts at obfuscation. There are absolutely ZERO textual variants in Rev 17:9-10, which means the base Greek text underlying the N/KJV and all the newer versions is exactly the same. So, your meanderings about TR, Byzantine, Hort & Westcott have absolutely no bearing on the issue.
And I won't restate my position re: heads/hills/mountains/kings.
If there are any newcomers here, note this. This blog doesn't deal any more with New Age. It is Christine's parsonage. Christine has some kind of expertise in that kind of topic. Her relationship with Constance allows this. No complaints. Just a clarification.
the NIV not having textual variants there is irrelevant. the fact of how it
operates discredits its commentary.
its commentary, despite the CLEAR STATEMENT THAT THE HEADS ARE BOTH HILLS AND
RULERS, argues that the hills might still refer only to rulers.
Who gives a damn about the commentary?
THE VATICAN DOES NOT SIT ON 7 HILLS; JERUSALEM DOES AND WILL BE THE SEAT OF ANTICHRIST.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-antichrist
MCE sure does 7:02 PM.
No picnic, no fireworks, no celebration (got to do that while we can as all is quickly changing in the U. S. of A)--- no life.
Just commentary.
Pitiful ain't it?
Jerusalem is not on the sea. Check what the Book of Revelation says. For my money it's Istanbul.
yes Istanbul is a better candidate than either Rome or Jerusalem.
America in the NYC scene and maybe as the entire nation's major
centers of evil is an even better candidate. But this isn't just
around the corner necessarily, though we may get a taste of it.
Mark S. Watson (yes I listen to other people if they make a good
case) suggests that Babylon is a "moving stronghold." each time it
takes up residence it is near hills and water, each time it is
destroyed sooner or later.
America hosts at least 20 cities built on 7 hills, and every one
I know anything much about has a major problem. Several are
reasonable target for nuclear or enhanced fuel air explosive
attacks. It may be that end times Babylon will be some segment
of ex USA after a huge break up geographically and politically.
Several of the 20 cities are port cities, and human trafficking
plays a big role note that slaves are mentioned in the trade list,
doesn't have to be legal just a serious trade item.
Another possibility would be either a city that hasn't been built
yet, or a city in Africa in Nigeria which is not a port city b ut
might become one after a cataclysm. The complaints of the merchants
after her destruction make this sound very literal not merely a
mess of secret societies and cults, not that those can't be part of
it.
antipas ministries takes the "come out of her" literally and tried
to relocate to Canada, didn't work. now living out of a trailer
somewhere. But you don't need to leave USA to come out of USA
Babylon or whatever evil USA is or hosts. Just move out of any
place that is a center of the evil.
Rev. " 11:8, which states that the bodies of God’s two witnesses "will lie in the street of the great city, which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified." " http://www.catholic.com/tracts/hunting-the-whore-of-babylon is part of the case for Jerusalem as end times Babylon. But there
is a problem here, Jerusalem did not reign over the kings of the earth, and unless
something radically changes it won't before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
now, if there is a cataclysm that tears a channel close to Jerusalem, it could
become a port city. Shoebat of course argues it is Mecca. Again, there is a problem.
if it were burning would this be visible from the sea? A lot of the disaster
eschatology is a bit strained in his theories, and seems to presuppose the
antichrist is islam per se instead of an individual, though noting the idolatrous
attitudes of Erdogan followers to Erdogan he is arguing Erdogan is the antichrist.
That if true would make Istanbul the great city on seven hills. time will tell.
but Daniel 7 says the little horn arises from the fourth empire which conquers
the other three concurrent great kingdoms. That would mean Turkey would have to
conquer most of the world to qualify, and ERdogan could not be the antichrist unless
he lives through all this, not as a ruler, then regains power in the days of the
8th ruler which would be a triumvirate.
there are a lot of forerunners of the antichrist. meanwhile, being prepared to
face persecution is a good attitude to take, because this has gone on and goes
on now without THE antichrist being in power.
Meanwhile we got people saying the white horse rider is the antichrist, but this
is more likely the conquests by arabs and turks.
anon@4:58 p.m.
It's not postmodernism, it's just that the whole of Catholic theology intersects.
Christine,
I am assuming you were responding to me, not Cathy.
Gender theory replaces biological sex with gender. Male/Female, are seen as just social constructs. The son of God is therefore a social construct and Jesus could well be the daughter of God.
The Gospel is about the Son of God who came into the world to save sinners. He did this as the "Son" of God. His being male is of great significance. Only a son could receive a kingdom from his Father and Jesus' kingdom is an eternal one, as we recite in the Creed.
At the day of Resurrection we will rise in our bodies as male and female, not as genderless angels.
Gay marriage erases distinctions, such as Father-Son, Christ-Chuch, God-Humanity. It's pantheistic paganism.
Embracing it results in a slow, but eventual rejection of the Apostles Creed.
This is why I said, that changing the fundamental nature of the sacrament of marriage, could change Christianity itself.
Christine, the early Church tradition is that the Apostles Creed was composed by the Apostles.
http://www.pamphlets.org.au/docs/cts/A/004.html
28. How the Apostles Composed the Creed. -
A learned ecclesiastic, named Rufinus, who lived in the year 400, assures us, on the authority of tradition, that the twelve Apostles, before they went their several ways to preach the Gospel, composed the Creed which bears their name. It is even stated that each of them drew up his own particular article; but that is not very certain. Still, it appears that there is yet preserved in the library of the Emperor of Austria, at Vienna, an old Greek manuscript, containing the Apostles' Creed, divided into twelve articles, bearing each the name of him who composed it.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2.htm
194 The Apostles' Creed is so called because it is rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the apostles' faith. It is the ancient baptismal symbol of the Church of Rome. Its great authority arises from this fact: it is "the Creed of the Roman Church, the See of Peter the first of the apostles, to which he brought the common faith".13
If according to some, the Antichrist will be seated in the Vatican in Rome, why will the two witnesses Enoch and Elijah go to Jerusalem to prophesy against the Antichrist? Rome is not located in Jerusalem.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Mar/030407sm.htm
"And I will give unto my two witnesses: and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days dressed in sackcloth...And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the abyss shall make war against them and shall overcome them and kill them. And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt: where their Lord also was crucified.
Cathy
the Creed that has always been recited in Holy Liturgy and the Mass
is the Nicene Creed.
The Apostle's Creed CANNOT be apostolic in origin except in a general
sense of containing a summary but not itself produced because it
includes the filioque, which was invented long after and is in
opposition to Jesus' own words and contains in itself the seed of
revival of all heresies and even pagan polytheism, if it were left
to itself as a main driver of developing thought without these
potentials having already been prohibited.
Peter did not bring the common faith to Rome, he came to Rome with
Paul to give them an establishing of Apostolic Succession the
faith itself had already been brought there by travelers, exiles,
etc. as can be seen from Paul's letter to them.
Paul says he wants to give them a spiritual establishing gift,
which would not be necessary if Peter were already there. Also
he didn't want to build on another's work, so no Apostle had
anything to do with the faith of Rome, but rather, it was the
work of some missionaries and believers who labored in Rome
themselves from other already Apostolically established
churches.
Roman pretentions are solely political in origin, and Chalcedon
28 argues that the fathers gave Rome pre eminence in the Church
because it was the first city of the empire, and that therefore
on that same basis Constantinople should be second city of
the Church because second city of the empire, instead of
Alexandria.
Rome is actually more north African in origin, Tertullian is called
the father of Latin Christianity, Augustine was from north Africa
and so was the drive to clerical and even episcopal celibacy, an
excess the canons tolerated in north Africa only but which somehow
became established re bishops everywhere, but not by canon but by
practice they must be monastics (among us the Orthodox).
That is why, with its strong ties to Alexandria, Rome opposed
moving Alexandria down a notch to admit Cosntantinople to the
patriarchate status, instead of last on the list. Rome was outvoted
and Constantinople established as second city and the matter finally
settled at I or II Constantinople I forget which by that time Rome
had caved in and so had Alexandria or they couldn't gather enough
support any more.
Rome only had one vote in any Ecumenical Synod. Each present bishop
and Patriarch had only one vote.
Peter was bishop of Antioch BEFORE he was bishop of Rome so Antioch
is more Petrine than Rome. That Antioch was never first city in the
Church Patriarchate system when that developed, shows that Peter
had nothing to do with it, it was mirroring the world in the Church.
The keys, consisting of binding and loosing, which Jesus gave to
Peter, He gave him when PEter was the only one to recognize exactly
WHo Jesus is. Later after the Resurrection He gave the same binding
and loosing power to ALL the Apostles who by that time understood
Who Jesus is.
"Peter was bishop of Antioch BEFORE he was bishop of Rome so Antioch is more Petrine than Rome."
It's not the place, it's the office of Peter.
Anglicans, make the same claim, that All Bishops are successors of Peter, and not just the Bishop of Rome.
Thankfully, they are no longer in a position to lecture us on Apostolic succession, when they are on their way to rejecting the Apostles Creed.
The Nicene (or rather Nicene-Constantinopolitan) Creed recited
in the Mass includes the filioque, only because it was added
two popes after pope Leo III expressly forbade its use in the
Mass, tolerated its use privately, and put up two silver
shields on the Vatican with the original Nicene Constantinopolitan
Creed which does NOT have the filioque in it, and held that only
an Ecumenical Council, not himself, not even in his own jurisdiction,
had the authority to change the Creed.
We the Orthodox (parent church to you schismatic semi heretical
but not entirely without grace Roman "Catholics") never had the
filioque in the Creed, and filioque resembling statements by
some eastern fathers are more like from the Father through the
Son into the Church not double origin.
At present, RC apologists says double origin is not meant, but
until recently that is exactly what was meant, and exactly what
was attacked.
The first to present the idea of a filioque were the Eunomian
heretics, who held both Son and Holy Spirit to be creatures
albeit most exalted creatures.
Also, I understand that RC anathematized traducianism, and
formally committed to separate creation of each soul and spirit.
In doing this, you go against Hebrews 7:9-12 which presupposes
traducianism in arguing for the superiority of the Melchizedec
priesthood, weakening thereby the argument against the Aaronic
priesthood being relevant and sort of yank the rug out from
under yourselves as a church.
This also goes against some early fathers who were not as influenced
by pagan philosophical presuppositions as others who adopted
separate soul/spirit creationism. Traducianism is frankly a lot
safer ground on which to argue against abortion at any stage, and
contrary to some ignorant person on youtube has nothing to do with
apollinarianism (someone argued that opposition to abortion lies in
this).
This and other little things (incl. the filioque) shows that you
have deviated from the original faith, not enough to make total
shipwreck of your faith, but enough to have a problem. The rise
of visionaries with a sensual and spiritual deception indicator
laden kind of experience was after the Great Schism of AD 1054
when you left us the true original trunk line church, and having
less spiritual protection fell easier into deception.
the entire notion of an age of Mary before the Second Coming
and Mary as crushing the serpent (to be seen on some statues
with her foot on a snake's head) come from Jerome's mistranslation
of Genesis 3:15, where he has God say that the woman will crush
the serpent's head, instead of the woman's SEED will crush the
serpent's head.
Jerome was obsessed with Mary and likely did this on purpose, i.e.,
he lied. Because Hebrew, Septuagint Greek and I think Samaritan
all agree that it is the woman's SEED who will crush the serpent's
head. not the woman.
Peter's office resides in both Antioch and Rome. if its not the
place but the office then it is both those cities maybe more.
keys of the kingdom which are binding and loosing are given to all the
Apostles after the Resurrection. John 20:21-23
it doesn't matter who uses what argument. what matters is, is the argument
good or not?
so this is what they call the Apostle's Cred now? it is nothing of the sort.
this is a slightly reworked Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed without the filioque
The Apostle's Creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.
http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=220
the one I first saw years ago took three pages to print out.
Christine, here is the Catholic Church's explanation on the keys of the kingdom.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-do-the-words-bind-and-loose-mean-in-matthew-1619
anon 2:23
"The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head. (CCC 1444)
The words bind and loose mean: Whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God. (CCC 1445)"
effectively admits what I pointed out the Bible said.
"The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head. (CCC 1444)"
so I see RC is finally admitting the obvious.
"Who's The Bigot Now?"
Click on "Who's The Bigot Now" above.
This article may be offensive to some but he does make a good point about what these comments are to be about.
Who's The Bigot Now?This article may be offensive to some but he does make a good point about what these comments are to be about.
" I speak specifically of the fact that the Supreme Court turned what was formerly an unalienable human right into a mere privilege through the demand that one be issued a license. "
This has always been the case wherever there was secular marriage, this
is nothing new. I don't know where this writer has been in some well?
you can't get married without a license anywhere. The state has to know
whether you are legal to get married in the first place (age and lack of
disease and lack of consanguinity). then they allow it, or if you do it
anyway could punish it if the law allowed.
Mary Christine Erikson--- I've done enough research over the months on who you are and places you visit on the internet and have made the choice to collapse the comments when I come here and read only what others posts.
Cindy, your loss others learn. link given admits all apostles had same power
Re:"Peter was bishop of Antioch BEFORE he was bishop of Rome so Antioch is more Petrine than Rome."
By that standard, Buenos Aires would be more "Petrine" than Rome too since Pope Francis was bishop of Buenos Aires before he became Bishop of Rome.
For a time, the Popes also resided in Avignon.....but returned to Rome.
For Catholics, the Petrine charism is attached to the PERSON of Peter and HIS successors and not to a place.
Ergo the ancient phrase "Where Peter is THERE is the Church." Because where Peter is, THERE is the Holy Spirit.
And what is the unique mission of Peter?
"In the divine plan for the primacy as "the office that was given individually by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be handed on to his successors",15 we already see the purpose of the Petrine charism, i.e., "the unity of faith and communion" 16 of all believers."
....These "Reflections" - appended to the symposium - are meant only to recall the essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy, Christ's great gift to his Church because it is a necessary service to unity and, as history shows, it has often defended the freedom of Bishops and the particular Churches against the interference of political authorities...."
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFPRIMA.HTM
Why Rome?
"In Peter's person, mission and ministry, in his presence and death in Rome attested by the most ancient literary and archaeological tradition - the Church sees a deeper reality essentially related to her own mystery of communion and salvation: "Ubi Petrus, ibi ergo Ecclesia".12 From the beginning and with increasing clarity, the Church has understood that, just as there is a succession of the Apostles in the ministry of Bishops, so too the ministry of unity entrusted to Peter belongs to the permanent structure of Christ's Church and that this succession is established in the see of his martyrdom.
4. On the basis of the New Testament witness, the Catholic Church teaches, as a doctrine of faith, that the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter in his primatial service in the universal Church;13 this succession explains the preeminence of the Church of Rome,14 enriched also by the preaching and martyrdom of St Paul......
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFPRIMA.HTM
It is understood and respected that Protestants and Eastern Orthodox do not accept this, but these are the reasons why Catholics do.
"Re:"Peter was bishop of Antioch BEFORE he was bishop of Rome so Antioch is more Petrine than Rome."
By that standard, Buenos Aires would be more "Petrine" than Rome too since Pope Francis was bishop of Buenos Aires before he became Bishop of Rome."
Pope Francis has nothing papally petrine except from the papal succession in Rome. Therefore he can't bring anything papal from Buenos Aires to Rome. Since the entire
Petrine hinges on Rome this doesn't fly.
The pope to be can only acquire the ultimate petrineness so to speak in Rome, no where else. so he can't bring it to Rome.
Rome may be special because of Peter and Paul's deaths there, but bear in mind
that a pope who rejected the term universal or ecumenical father (later forced onto
the Patriarch of Constantinople by the Turks in their millet system), said that
Peter was not universal Apostle over other Apostles, and so forth.
The notions you rely on developed later than Apostolic times, and were making
themselves evident before that pope spoke, but a pope speaking ex cathedra denounced
the filioque and a pope speaking ex cathedra officially protesting to the emperor
denounced the very notion you hinge your church identity on. Go look into this
for yourself.
Cindy Warner
Just read the article. Wow thanks for that and thanks to the author.
I get too emotional when I know that a thing is wrong; I lose my
articulation and often lose track of the gist of the dispute. I'd make a
lousy attorney.
That's why this beautiful articulation of the real facts of the now
Supreme Court sanctioned debauchery called "Gay Marriage",
is so good to hear.
Also, good idea about the collapse-comments comment.
I can guarantee you that she won't miss a beat though. There
will probably be another lengthy comment from her before I
send this one.
I call it JAMMING, and i believe it's deliberately confusing.
One minute it's perfectly legit Christian theology and the next
minute it's the video that claims that Michelle Obama is a man.
It's Pride and Prides' little pet shitzu, Conceit.
Apostolic Succession is nothing other than an invention to assert that breakaways from apostate Rome are not legitimate churches even though they fit the Biblical description much better. It's not in the Bible but it's the Catholic "rule of faith" - well yes, it would be, wouldn't it?
Cathy
There is no basis to suspect that Jerusalem will be the seat of the antichrist. The antichrist will defile the temple and proclaim himself God but, this does not mean it will be the "seat" of the antichrist.
You may be correct, I'm not sure myself.
I'm just pointing out that the mystery of where the "seat" of the antichrist will be has been well hidden to all.
Your theory of Jerusalem is one of many but, definitely not a given. There are other places that fit better.
Take it with a grain of salt people. Research for yourself and don't believe everything you read.
Christine 6:12 P.M.
I said this is what Catholics believe about the Pope. You can believe whatever you like.
Anon. 6:35
RE: It's not in the Bible but it's the Catholic "rule of faith" - well yes, it would be, wouldn't it?
Actually, the Catholic rule of faith IS in the Bible. 2 Tim 2:2 and 2 Thess. 2:15 just to name two. It is "sola scriptura" which is not in the Bible.
The usual proof text - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - does not read that the Bible is the only source of Christian teaching. So whatever the source is for "sola scriptura," it is itself extra-biblical.
To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else.
That this passage has been taken out of context is indicated by the two verses immediately before it which state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So 2 Timothy 3:16-17 must be taken out of context to arrive at the theory of "sola scriptura." But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
And here, note that it is the Bible being quoted here, and not the Pope.
I know this is what Catholics believe about the pope. I am saying you
need to reexamine your beliefs, and others here who read what you
post need to be careful.
"Christian theology [then] Michelle...is a man" ALL THESE ISSUES ARE RELATED.
All these different subjects are appropriate for a current events anti new
age blog. I AM THE ONLY ONE HERE DOING A GOOD JOB EXCEPT CONSTANCE.
"I call it JAMMING, and i believe it's deliberately confusing.
One minute it's perfectly legit Christian theology and the next
minute it's the video that claims that Michelle Obama is a man.
It's Pride and Prides' little pet shitzu, Conceit. "
I THINK YOU ARE TRYING TO CONFUSE EVERYONE OR ELSE YOU ARE A PATHETIC MESS.
How can you possibly think that theology to Michelle Obama the tranny range
of discussion is in any way contradictory or confusing? are you a brain
damaged retard on constant IV sedative drip? how can you possibly complain
when a poster touches on all the subjects that this kind of blog or that
someone on the comments discussed?
your hypocrisy is CONTEMPTABLE. Exactly this kind of posting behavior is
shown by Constance who ranges from current events to abominations in the legal
system to theology and prophecy and back again.
Anonymous, the antichrist is supposed to claim he is the christ. The antichrist according to many Christians will sit in the rebuilt third temple in Jerusalem. What's your rationale for choosing an alternate location?
Cindy beware of paul he knows about collapse comments its been told him and everyone here many times. I don't know what he's up to, but if you let him
near your situation, he will try to shatter it by demanding it stay on one
track only however important multiple angles are.
"paul said...
Cindy Warner
Just read the article. Wow thanks for that and thanks to the author.
I get too emotional when I know that a thing is wrong; I lose my
articulation and often lose track of the gist of the dispute. I'd make a
lousy attorney.
That's why this beautiful articulation of the real facts of the now
Supreme Court sanctioned debauchery called "Gay Marriage",
is so good to hear.
Also, good idea about the collapse-comments comment. "
Cathy,
Babylon the great does not have to be the seat of the antichrist. the picture
of the vision is more like he's the seat of her! in some way she is a city
or empire founded on an antichristian influence and premise, and the heir of
prior empires and this brings her to power, only to be turned on when she is
of no more use.
So were any arguing for Jerusalem as end times Babylon among ancient writers?
I have read some things from ancient writers but I was usually trying to establish
doctrine or history not interpretation of prophecy.
Christine, it makes sense for an antichrist claiming to be the christ/messiah promised in the Old Testament, to set himself up in Jerusalem rather than any other city. The Catholic Church Fathers also state the antichrist will most likely be of Jewish origin. What basis are those who reject Jerusalem as the seat of antichrist using to construct their theories?
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-antichrist
http://www.bing.com/search?q=islamic+antichrist&form=MSSEDF&pc=MSSE
here's one theory that places him in Mecca. various articles pro and con.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=america+babylon&form=MSSEDF&pc=MSSE
America as Babylon. various articles pro and con.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=constantinople%20as%20%20babylon%20the%20great&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=constantinople%20as%20babylon%20the%20great&sc=0-22&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=43e4bc08eb294f0598404af08e64cfa0
the case for Constantinople as Babylon the Great. various articles.
we've all heard about Rome, it is a nonstarter.
The prophecy has the beast she rides on destroying her, so antichrist
wouldn't destroy his seat, more like this happens in the process of
him coming to power or after he is announced as antichrist and maybe
she and her people are so into worshipping assorted pagan false gods
and/or themselves they got no place for him so he kills them. remember,
he will exalt himself over all that is called god and claim to be
God. (whether this includes calling himself Jesus Christ returned or not
beyond maybe claiming a reincarnation angle on that is not clear.)
details about Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled remarkably exactly, in
Daniel 11 and 12 will a lot of them be replayed by the antichrist.
Christine 7:40
Apparently you DIDN'T know that this was what Catholics believed about the Pope, because otherwise, you wouldn't have gone into your incoherent and unsubstantiated little diatribe.
Cathy,
According to the New Age, their leader, claims to be Madhi to the Muslims, the promised Messiah, to the Jews, and Christ to the Christians.
The age of aquarius is also said, to be a gender fluid, age, neither male or female. So he's likely to be an androgenous being.
"The New Age which is dawning will be peopled by perfect, androgynous beings who are totally in command of the cosmic laws of nature. In this scenario, Christianity has to be eliminated and give way to a global religion and a new world order. "
—‚Jesus Christ, The Bearer of the Water of Life, n. 4, Pontifical Councils for Culture and Inter-religious Dialogue
anon 9:35
"Catholics" or rather Roman Catholics believe that to be on track with
Jesus you have to be on track with the organization He founded and that
means being in communion with the pope. While earlier papal statements
ex cathedra denied the possibility of salvation to any not in communion
with the pope, this has been softened in the past several decades.
the pope in turn has his special anointing or charism by being the one
in the see (seat) of Peter which is held to be Rome, where Peter died.
This is for some reason considered the mother church, though Jerusalem
is where Christianity started (by the preaching of Peter at Pentecost
so indeed Jesus founded His Ekklesia on Peter, but things are more
nuanced than the mechanistic approach RC takes. ALL the Patriarchates
originally had a petrine connection, direct or indirect.
the pope is now considered infallible if speaking ex cathedra and
speaking about morals or doctrine, not climate change etc. it is an
open question whether any pope since this doctrinal development has
spoken ex cathedra except to proclaim the immaculate conception
to be required belief. or was it the Assumption? one of them came I
think before the papal infallibility thing one after.
The pope has his apostolic succession directly from Peter. (So does
Antioch, and Mark Peter's son was appointed bishop of Alexandria by
Peter, Jerusalem church was founded at Peter's preaching though James
was the first bishop, and Constantinople was renamed Byzantium, whose
first bishop was appointed by Andrew, Peter's brother, on his way to
Russia then called Scythia by way of Thrace.
protestant hostility to the papacy often overstates his position.
does that clarify what I know?
anon 9:35
which diatribe? please copy and paste the first paragraph so I can
find what you are reacting to.
Anonymous said...
Cathy,
According to the New Age, their leader, claims to be Madhi to the Muslims, the promised Messiah, to the Jews, and Christ to the Christians...
Anonymous, I read the Vatican's document on the New Age. The holy land is important to the three monotheistic religions, and no other city in the world has the same significance. Jerusalem is also considered to be the center of the earth and is the perfect location for the headquarters of a one world religion.
http://templemount.org/komsky/
archive.wired.com/wired/archive/12.04/holyland_pr.html
SCOTUS Steps In It, Part 1 (Gay Marriage)"So we got the gay marriage opinion and there was much rejoicing. How foolish you are...," says Karl Denninger.
SCOTUS Steps In It, Part 2 (Gay Marriage) Karl Denninger's take on this issue.
Cindy Warner
Can anyone refute Karl Denninger's facts?
Greece voted NO. Drudge Report has several articles. http://drudgereport.com
Karl Denninger says that Catholic couples (at least) should just get married in church and ignore the authorities; let the authorities consider the couple not married if they wish. Denninger says that the main reason the authorities insisted on the right to declare people married was the improper one of preventing interracial marriage. That is not true. The authorities have a right to know who is married because of inheritance law - who is the legitimate heir? - and because of laws against adultery in some places (including ancient Israel). Marital status also has tax consequences in many jurisdictions. Of course Denninger is right in the sense that that if marriage were wholly derecognised by the authorities, who told the people that henceforth it was a private matter, with the law were changed correspondingly, then couples who exchanged pledges with each other before witnesses would not be committing fornication before God. Nevertheless, as a matter of historical fact, the authorities introduced a mandatory ceremony for recognition of marriage in Britain in the 18th century because couples who just informed the authorities that they were married without getting married in church were a lot more likely to break up rapidly, and social instability was the result.
Saying that sola scriptura is not in the Bible is like saying the Trinity isn't. Not in those words it isn't, but certainly it is readable in it. Jesus regarded what Christians call the Old Testament as having unique authority. And the (sufficient) context for the New Testament is the Old. No church tradition is needed to make sense of the Old Testament, as it is not about the church. The Old Testament builds upon itself from the Creation onward, an event for which there is obviously no context. So neither Old nor New Testament requires an extra-biblical tradition to interpret it.
" I AM THE ONLY ONE HERE DOING A GOOD JOB EXCEPT CONSTANCE."
Truly you are a legend in your own mind.
Where shall we start Christine at 9:53? There are ever so many to choose from...
Anon 6:34
You are right on!
It is simply NOT needed. You won't ever get that truth from certain people of a certain denomination around here.
Be prepared to hear how we are mistaken and what the church fathers really meant. For now, we have another here mentioning "church fathers". As if one wasn't enough.
Hebrews 10:7 hearkens back to Psalms:
"Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of THE book it is written of me."
(emphasis mine)
Jesus wrote the whole thing. Jesus is the author and finisher of the faith.
Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and all the prophets were taking dictation from Jesus.
Jesus is the Word of God and so is the Bible. Jesus is the bread of life and so is the Bible.
It's all about Jesus and no ThD or academic degree is required, much to the dismay
of scribes and hypo religionists ( Pharisees )
Joshua 1:8 says: "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt
meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do all that is written therein:
for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success."
What is lacking from the Bible that we need traditions of men to fix anything?
Viva sola scriptura, which is a term made up by men and then refuted by the same men.
whoops, I meant hyper, not hypo
Christine 9:52AM
Re:"Catholics" or rather Roman Catholics believe that to be on track with
Jesus you have to be on track with the organization He founded and that
means being in communion with the pope. While earlier papal statements
ex cathedra denied the possibility of salvation to any not in communion
with the pope, this has been softened in the past several decades."
Did you know this before you were challenged?
Did you know that the reason why Catholics believe this is not just because the Pope says so but because it is clearly and explicitly RECORDED IN THE BIBLE that it was to Peter that the Father revealed who Jesus was and to Peter that Christ gave the keys to the kingdom. and then the Apostles that Jesus said "He who hears you hears me."
Catholics do not minimize the role of the Apostles and they do recognize that the bishops - both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox - are the successors of the Apostles.
But it was uniquely to Peter that Christ gave the special Petrine charism whose purpose is "the unity of faith and communion" of all believers."
Peter was first to name Jesus as Messiah, who immediately replied “you are Peter [Petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build my church,” promising Peter the keys of God’s kingdom (Matthew 16:13-19). Petra means a loose rock cut from the strata; Peter himself used the image to call Christians living stones being built into Jesus’ church, quoting the Old Testament to show Jesus is the cornerstone (1 Peter 2:4-8). Peter was simply the first stone of many to be laid. Paul makes the distinction clear in Ephesians 2:19-22. Comparison with Matthew (18:18) and John (20:23) shows that the keys and promises were for all the disciples. If Peter were appointed as senior, why did a dispute break out over which of the disciples was greatest at the Last Supper (Luke 22:24)? Paul’s letter to the congregation in Rome nowhere indicates that it has a privileged role, moreover, and no scripture prophesies it. As for the Apostolic Succession, that is not in scripture either and it is merely a tool used by those churches that claim it (Rome is not the only one) to assert the invalidity of other churches which fit the scriptural criteria much better.
What Would Jesus Say About Homosexual Sex?
A Traditional Catholic Priest--- Fr. Peter Carota, gives his view on homosexual sex.
What are your opinions about his article?
Cindy Warner
Anon 6:34 A.M.
\
RE:"Saying that sola scriptura is not in the Bible is like saying the Trinity isn't. Not in those words it isn't, but certainly it is readable in it. Jesus regarded what Christians call the Old Testament as having unique authority. And the (sufficient) context for the New Testament is the Old. No church tradition is needed to make sense of the Old Testament, as it is not about the church. The Old Testament builds upon itself from the Creation onward, an event for which there is obviously no context. So neither Old nor New Testament requires an extra-biblical tradition to interpret it."
********************************
Not meaning any disrespect, but you have not only contradicted yourself, but you have made the Catholic case for me.
Sola Scriptura is only "readable" in the Scriptures to those who ignore the verses preceding the "sufficient" verse (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and take the word "sufficient" out of context in 2 Tim. 3:16-17
***************************
Re:So neither Old nor New Testament requires an extra-biblical tradition to interpret it."
This is not only wrong, but it is also unbiblical. The Bible states that private interpretation is not allowed. Neither does the Bible interpret itself.
And which Old Testament canon are you talking about in the first place? The Septuagint which was the Old Testament canon most often quoted at the time of Christ? ( i.e. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint.)
Or the Hebrew Bible which came out of the so-called "Jamnian School" which functioned at the pleasure of the Emperor Vespasian around the time just preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkat_haMinim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism
Jamnia is mentioned in "The Wars of the Jews; Or, The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem by Josephus"
The Jewish leaders of this "school" were anti-Christian.
History reports, that there, around 85-90AD they expelled all the Jewish followers of Jesus from Judaism. Not only expelled them, but 'cursed' them in the 'curse of the 'Minim' (the inferiors), and in the 'Curse of the 'Nozerim' (the Nazereenes'.
Therefore, non-Catholic Christians might want to ask themselves, how can they be so sure that this group of Rabbis correctly discerned what constituted the Word of God..... that is, what belonged in the Old Testament.
The biblical canon put together by the rabbis at Jamnia was not universal either. For example, the African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews were apparently unaware of the canonical pronunciamentos of Jamnia and consequently their Old Testament Canon is the Septuagint to this very day.
********************************
cont.
cont.
As a Jew called to become a follower of Christ, Peter would have known the Jewish Rule of Faith.
Before the coming of Christ, the Rule of faith for the Jews of the Old Testament was not "sola Scriptura." It was "Mishneh Torah." The oral and written tradition.
In 2 Peter 1:20, we read: "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishneh_Torah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah
When St. Paul said what he said in Timothy about adhering to "tradition" - especially in 2 Tim. 3:14-15 - he certainly knew what he was talking about, because before his dramatic conversion at Damascus, he was a devout Pharisee who studied at the feet of the great Jewish rabbi Gamaliel. This is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles......Acts 22:3 to be precise.
Again, in 2 Tim. 3:14-15 St. Paul says to Timothy:
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it,( namely, Paul himself) and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings
(Old Testament) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
As for the word "Trinity," you are correct in saying that it is not found in the Bible. As someone else here has already pointed out, it is simply a shorthand term coined by Tertullian for "three Persons in one God" - Father Son and Holy Spirit...which IS EXPLICITLY in the Bible.
The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Creeds of Chalcedon or Nicaea either....or in the Apostles Creed. "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is what appears in these Creeds. "Trinity" is a theological label meant to summarize the passages of the Bible, which teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each fully God. Ergo, if you prefer to say or write "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" every time you refer to "three Persons in one God," I don't think you will wind up going to hell in a handbasket.
Sola scriptura not only does not appear in the Bible, but the verses preceding it indicate that sola scriptura is not the rule of faith. Reading "sola scriptura" into the "sufficient" verse is more than a stretch because the passages preceding it which preclude sola scriptura are clear.
So saying that sola scriptura is not in the Bible is NOT like saying the Trinity isn't in the Bible.
Did you know the Roman Catholic church did away with one (the 2nd.) of the 10 Commandments?
Theirs is: "Thou shalt not take the Lord thy God's name in vain." That is all it states.
The REAL 2nd. Commandment delcares:
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them."
Knowing how much the RCC has always loved their pagan images in their churches, do you see why they had to remove this Commandment from God ?
This is no little matter .... it is huge and reveals an evil desire on their part to negate God's Word and teach in its place the "commandments of men."
anon 12:35
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
three columns, Ex. 20:2-17 version, Deut. 5:6-21 version, and "A Traditional Catechetical Formula" THEY ARE ALL THERE,
incl. the prohibition on idolatry. Which itself is a subdivision of the first
commandment, having no gods other than YHWH,
and the graven image thing is what is made to bow down to, to the idol
itself as a god or as image of some false god,
even if the idol is seen only as referent to that. Nor any attempt
to depict the invisible YHWH Himself.
The Deut. version is shortened leaving out the idols part, the Exodus version is not.
but the idea (whatever the popular mentality is) is that the image of Jesus
or a saint is not that being itself, and the honor given to the
copy goes to the original, and the honor given to the saint is less than
the honor given to Jesus. That's the official idea anyway.
in Ex. 25:18-22 God ordered that two cherubim be placed over the mercy seat.
as http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/did-the-catholic-church-change-the-ten-commandments points out, "By lifting out part of the first commandment appearing to prohibit the making of “any likeness of anything,” not only do you have God contradicting himself in later commanding the making of statues, but you also end up making the first two commandments repetitive. They are both essentially condemning idolatry."
Anonymous said...
Christine 9:52AM
Re:"Catholics" or rather Roman Catholics believe that to be on track with
Jesus you have to be on track with the organization He founded and that
means being in communion with the pope. While earlier papal statements
ex cathedra denied the possibility of salvation to any not in communion
with the pope, this has been softened in the past several decades."
Did you know this before you were challenged? "
you must be knew here. I have been on this subject many times and I've
known this for decades. you think your view of truth is self evident and
biblical. it isn't.
"Did you know that the reason why Catholics believe this is not just because the Pope says so but because it is clearly and explicitly RECORDED IN THE BIBLE that it was to Peter that the Father revealed who Jesus was and to Peter that Christ gave the keys to the kingdom. and then the Apostles that Jesus said "He who hears you hears me.""
I know that's why you THINK that's why you believe it, actually you believe
it because you're used to thinking this and received from people you trusted,
with an interpretation that in fact doesn't fit the entire Scriptures on the
subject. only when you take one point out of the larger context and ignore it.
"Catholics do not minimize the role of the Apostles and they do recognize that the bishops - both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox - are the successors of the Apostles."
THIS ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTS YOUR POSITION. IF THOSE WHO REJECT THE POPE CANNOT
BE IN THE ARK OF THE CHURCH, THEN THEIR APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION IS BROKEN. of course
you have the once a priest always a priest indelible mark idea from I think
Augustine.
But the earlier RC position that there is no salvation or validity outside of RC
is more consistent with your view, than the later (and earlier during and
after the Great Schism) that there is validity in both RC and the parent Church.
"But it was uniquely to Peter that Christ gave the special Petrine charism whose purpose is "the unity of faith and communion" of all believers."
NO. Peter was the first to receive it. LAter after His Resurrection, Jesus gave
the same binding and loosing power to the rest of them.
Bear in mind PEter denied Christ, which by your logic would definitely mean that
a pope could be apostate or heretic or something.
yes in practice, you do minimize the other Apostles with this theory.
Why is this idea never mentioned in any of the authoritative canons of the Ecumenical Councils of the east? When Alexandria protested about being put third
instead of second, why did it not argue that having Peter's son as first bishop
by Peter's order make it higher than Constantinople which had Peter's brother
appointing its first bishop without Peter's direct order on this town?
The argument was from the positions of the cities in the world not in Church
history. the petrine argument wasn't even given or canon 28 would have addressed
it to dismiss it before going on to say that the fathers (not Jesus and not
Peter) gave Rome a first seat at the table because of Rome's position in the
world, and therefore Constantinople should have second place because it was the
second city of the empire.
the petrine conceit was later (except in a few min ds perhaps) than the Council
of Chalcedon, which elevated Constantinople. Rome protested because backing
Alexandria, but the majority passed it anyway. The next council reiterated
Constantinople's position and by then Rome was signing on all the canons. Its lack
of accepting Chalcedon 28 didn't keep the rest of the church from accepting it.
I did all this research years ago while deciding whether to
join RC or EO coming out of Protestantism. I decided for
EO. I had no dog in either fight. I have been ORthodox officially
since April 15, AD 2008, and orthodoxified increasingly over
a few years before because of Bible reading and early church
fathers reading.
Ray,
The Roman Catholic church did not alter the text of Exodus setting out the 10 Commandments. What it did was break them up differently and then mess about with them in its catechism.
" The Bible states that private interpretation is not allowed. Neither does the Bible interpret itself."
first off this phrasing is NOT about interpretation as we use the word. the
context is HOW PROPHECY CAME that it came not from human
mind or heart but from God speaking to the prophet.
so this rules out having an impression and doing some calculation and then speaking
that forth.
What do you mean the Bible doesn't interpret itself? it most certainly does. aside
from visions being explained by angels to the vision receiver,
where there is a problem in understanding the Bible you always check everything
else on the subject in the Bible. In some places God explains reasons for some
of His decisions or orders.
sola scriptura - when you run into a tradition, you look at the
Bible and see if there is a conflict. if there is a non resolvable
conflict the tradition is false. if the tradition is compatible
with the Bible, then it is not false.
St. Basil the Great gives a list of what the unwritten traditions
were, and these are not doctrine but practice. Things like making
the sign of the Cross and praying facing east (which is explained
elsewhere I think as the direction we expect Jesus to come from
because He said He will be obviously appearing like the light comes
from the east to the west.
the so called oral law in Judaism is a bunch of exegesis and
interpretation and not additional laws from God, though they
so exalted some rabbis that any view such held were in practice
treated as this.
Anon@5:26 a.m.
Right now, people can get a two-in one marriage. When you get married in the church, it's also registered in the state. Let people first have a civil marriage, and then those who want a church marriage can get one.
Will a Christian marriage be any less Christian if the church marriage is not recognized by the state?
Keeping with the original post about same sex marriage. It also was popular with the pagan Romans.
Benjamin Wiker is a senior fellow at the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, a contributor to Catholic World Report, and the author of several books, including the recently published Worshipping the State: How Liberalism Became Our State Religion (Regnery, 2013).
I read Wiker's book in 2013--- what an eye opener.
Wiker says, "We realize why when we learn that the pagan Romans heartily affirmed contraception, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, easy divorce, easy sex, pornography, pedophilia homosexuality, and yes, even homosexual marriage! In other words, the first Christians were born into a pagan state, a pagan culture, that looks suspiciously like ours! Or to put it the other way around, secular liberalism has brought us right back to paganism, and contemporary Christians should have an unpleasant feeling of déjÀ vu.”
Cindy Warner
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
"Christian theology [then] Michelle...is a man" ALL THESE ISSUES ARE RELATED. All these different subjects are appropriate for a current events anti new age blog. I AM THE ONLY ONE HERE DOING A GOOD JOB EXCEPT CONSTANCE.
--
Even more interesting than arguing the roles of Peter, Paul and Mary, and I guess also the RC Pope, is trying to understand the Christine Erikson religion being taught here. What is the line of authority between Cristine and Constance who loves her? Christine has not said she loves Constance, a telling authority point. How does that relate to God's love? Does Christine report to Constance or Constance to Christine? By the praise given above, Constance reports to Christine as an employee reports to an employer. Christine attempts to teach Catholicism, Judaism, Protestantism in which she claims expertise. Although she says EO is her belief of choice, she doesn't do any kind of missionary work for that group. Although one might think I should direct this comment to Christine, the blog authority, I prefer to ask any more neutral individuals how all of this is perceived. This information is needed to make sense of these long threads.
Cindy Warner,
Emperor Nero had a gay marriage. The only difference is that it was not made the law of the land.
"Emperor Nero had a gay marriage. The only difference is that it was not made the law of the land."
I also read sometimes he was the man and other times he was a woman.
Dear 12.26pm,
Allow me to rephrase my derivation of sola scriptura from the Bible in such a way as to overcome your objections. Please note that I never mention Paul's letters to Timothy and if you still think that they offer an objection to my words below then please be specific.
Jesus regarded the scriptures of his time, which Christians call the Old Testament, as having unique authority. And the context for the New Testament is the Old. No church tradition is needed to make sense of the Old Testament, as it is not about the church. The Old Testament builds upon itself from the Creation onward, an event for which there is obviously no context. So neither Old nor New Testament requires an extra-biblical tradition to interpret it.
QED.
As for your objections:
I couldn't care less what the Jews' rule of faith was. Jesus' is good enough for me.
Which version of the OT is irrelevant. The differences are less than 1%, just as with the NT.
Using the phrase "Private interpretation" in this context just means "something my denomination disagrees with". Of course, Christians must subject their views to mutual discussion.
As for mention of Christian traditions in the NT, this clearly means the traditions about Jesus that had yet to be written down in the gospels. Many people think Paul wrote before the gospels.
Christine 1:12 P.M. and 1:14 P.M.
Hey, rave on, Christine. But when all is said and done, YOU are the one who thinks your incoherent view of truth is self evident......if only by your lack of objective reliable documentary evidence for many of the incoherent beliefs you peddle here.
Not only that, but you spend a lot more time ripping Roman Catholicism than Roman Catholics spend ripping Eastern Orthodoxy......which begs the question....
Who are you trying to convince? Roman Catholics who post here? Or yourself?
We Catholics don't agree with some of your outrageous incoherent beliefs either - especially your "New Agey/occult-tinged/UFO Martian - reptilian aliens" beliefs, but we have been a lot more respectful of you and your beliefs than you ( and others ) have been of ours. We don't feel that we have to trash your beliefs in order to validate our own.
**************************************
Re: "I did all this research years ago while deciding whether to
join RC or EO coming out of Protestantism. I decided for
EO.
Well apparently you didn't do enough.......because the things you have posted here suggest that you never came out of Protestantism. The minute you say the Bible interprets itself, you are in Protestant territory. Not good. Because in the final analysis, the main difference between the Eastern Orthodox and many evangelicals/Protestants is the doctrine of sola Scriptura. The following is from an Orthodox Website:
The Unbiblical Doctrine of Sola Scriptura
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/articles/37-the-unbiblical-doctrine-of-sola-scriptura
***********************************
Also.....
What Are the Tenets of the Greek Orthodox Religion?
Scripture and Tradition
"The Church both guards and interprets the Bible. The Old Testament is preparatory to Christ’s arrival while the New Testament testifies about him and his church. Although the Bible is very important, it has not operated in isolation because it does not contain the fullness of revelation. In answer to Protestants who abide by sola scriptura (only scripture), the Greek Orthodox Church would remind them that the church wrote and preserved the scriptures, not the other way around. What has been handed down over the millennia includes, besides scripture, the Eucharist (one of the sacraments—of more, see below), hymns, icons, and other active elements, such as councils and creeds, of a living, breathing church....."
http://people.opposingviews.com/tenets-greek-orthodox-religion-7005.html
**********************************************************
Don't get me wrong. If you want to be a Protestant, fine and dandy. Knock yourself out. But don't go around calling yourself "Eastern Orthodox" as long as you continue to cling to Protestant beliefs. There is a word for that kind of behavior. It is called hypocrisy.
cont.
RE: "I had no dog in either fight.....
Really??? That is interesting since a couple of my friends and I saw an online petition a few years ago with your name on it in support of another Protestant convert to the Orthodox Church of America.....namely, Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen whose agenda included the eventual merging of the Episcopalian church with the Orthodox Church of America (OCA).
WOW! Looks like the OCA dodged a huge bullet given the recent ruling of the Episcopalian Church on "gay marriage."
The OCA was also not happy with Metropolitan Jonah cozying up to the Russian Orthodox Church - especially the Moscow Patriarchate for which he once worked - and which one day hopes to take over all of Orthodoxy.
When he was given the boot, the story about his mishandling of a sex abuse scandal seems to have merely served to shift the spotlight away from some of his other activities.
http://www.virtueonline.org/moscow-metropolitan-jonah-rejects-rumors-his-forced-leave
*******************************************
RE:I have been ORthodox officially
since April 15, AD 2008, and orthodoxified increasingly over
a few years before because of Bible reading and early church
fathers reading.
Could have fooled me. Again, it sounds to me like you have never left Protestantism.
On the other hand, the Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church not only have very cordial relations despite their differences, but also a special agreement concerning the reception of the Sacraments from one another.
So when you rant and rave as if there were some big enmity between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, you may want to do a little reality check and ask yourself if this enmity is more a matter of wishful thinking on your part than it is a historical reality.
Anon 5:05
I think I have been specific enough about Paul's letters to Timothy.
**************************************************
Re:As for your objections:
I couldn't care less what the Jews' rule of faith was. Jesus' is good enough for me.
Which version of the OT is irrelevant. The differences are less than 1%, just as with the NT.
Using the phrase "Private interpretation" in this context just means "something my denomination disagrees with". Of course, Christians must subject their views to mutual discussion.
*************************************************
And that is why there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations each claiming "guidance by the Holy Spirit."
anon 5:36
all the traditions from the fathers of Orthodoxy are themselves totally dependent
on and defended by the writers by referral to the Bible. the current attitude is
one borrowed from RC reaction to Protestant mishandling of Scripture
(an example of the latter is the failure to notice the nuanced quality in Scripture
of the issue of predestination, while on the other hand the Orthodox do not have
such a problem. We don't deny predestination but we deny double predestination we
deny predestination without reference to the individual's belief or actions, and
the whole free will vs. predestination is in the category of Mystery that can't
be comprehended except in part by a finite mind. Protestantism on the other hand
as someone pointed out, is Roman Catholicism lite. the key identity of problems
lies in the scholastic mindset, which may or may not give lip service to the
incomprehensibility issue, but its effort and message by behavior is that the finite
mind CAN comprehend absolutely everything. incl. the essence of God Himself. Aside
from this being the ancestor to atheist rationalism and the cult of "reason,"
which is what you get when you strip scholasticism of theology, this also led to
a lot of odd things.)
Now this identity of the Bible as part of Tradition and root of it and that Tradition
is BASED IN IT and a continuation or putting into practice of it, WITHOUT DOCTRINAL
EVOLUTION, is not Protestantism.
Protestantism ironically has its own tradition it elevates above Scripture, in
that it claims "the bible says" what Calvin, Zwingli and occasionally the less
heretical Luther said it says.
The main objects of attack by Protestantism, in RC and EO, miracle working relics,
blessed objects, holy water, real presence of Jesus Christ's Body and Blood in
the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession are all present in the Bible.
The Apostolic Succession thing is indicated in Romans 1:11 "For I long to see you,
that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established."
Peter was not there already, did not found that church or convert the Romans, or
they would already have been "established." They had no Apostle, and apparently
those who brought the faith there did not have a consecration. This did not
prevent them being saved, in a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, nor did
it prevent The Holy Spirit being in them as believers, but they were lacking a
fullness. Apparently something that required an Apostolic action, directly or
through someone with the Succession from an Apostle.
cont.
"On the other hand, the Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church not only have very cordial relations despite their differences, but also a special agreement concerning the reception of the Sacraments from one another."
The Balamand Agreement which you refer to was solely involving the Moscow Patriarchate,
and was deplored by many jurisdictions and especially traditionalists. NO ONE
HONORS IT ANY MORE. absent an in extremis situation, you can't swap sacraments.]
However, both recognize each other's Apostolic Succession and RC are received by
chrismation alone and repudiation of their errors, not by rebaptism. This was
the rule for several centuries, then was changed in the middle ages to require
rebaptism, and our traditionalists go by this and want them rebaptized.
RC traditionalists do not consider us to have salvation.
The current cordial relations may be the work in part of masonic involvement by
those who initiated it, but if so it is a case of God using His enemies to
accomplish His own purposes, like He used Babylon to enforce the land Sabbaths.
Lev. 26:32-35 II Chronicles (4 Kingdoms) 36:20, 21.
the changes in RC though they include deplorable things, which RC traditionalists
think are toadying to Jews and Protestants, actually begin preparing them to be
amenable to an eventual rejoining to Orthodoxy, which would have to involve
serious changes in RC. Even the use of the Apostle's Creed without the filioque
looks like a move to acclimatize everyone to forget the filioque.
My error ab out the Apostles' Creed, which I thought was a three page lecture, apparently that was the Apostles' Creed plus explanations without showing a break
between Creed points and lecture.
cont.
"So when you rant and rave as if there were some big enmity between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, you may want to do a little reality check and ask yourself if this enmity is more a matter of wishful thinking on your part"
you need to do more serious research about the issues of ORthodoxy that are not
just whatever some patriarch or a group of believers says it is. We hold the
fullness of the faith and others have only part of the faith, in varying degrees.
Rapproachments between Orthodoxy and RC or monophysitism/miaphysitism have
happened before, presently the second crew is claiming they were misunderstood,
but whatever the average copt or Armenian priest or laity actually believes, which
may be diophysite, the official doctrine and the words of their saints who we
anathematize, confuse essence with person and have the union of the two natures
at the level of the natures themselves, not at the level of person as we see it,
and as has to be the truth, otherwise the divine nature of Jesus ceases to be
fully consubstantial with The Father and His human nature is not fully consubstantial
with ours. confusion and mingling ARE involved here, even if denied by Copts who
handle the Chalcedonian definition but disregard chalcedon itself. There seems to
have been a lot of work by RC among Armenians and copts and perhaps this created
a tendency to interpret heretical statements in a non heretical way so that they
inched towards Orthodoxy in the chalcedonian sense.
Mostly people who are either wrapped up in this RC Orthodox rapproachment, or take
it too seriously are whether themselves Orthodox, RC or Protestant, not understanding
the underlying issues at all.
If such a reunion occurred without RC abandonment of serious errors of faith and
practice, then the more seriouisly Orthodox would have to break from this. It would
depend on how much RC was allowed to potentially reshape Orthodoxy. For instance,
full intercommunion (I don't doubt the real Body and Blood of Christ is present
in both Eucharists for reasons I won't get into here, and in this I differ from
Orthodox Traditionalists who deny RC has grace at all) would mean that priests
from either tradition could be running churches of opposite tradition bishops ditto and the false ideas of RC be in our seminaries.
you really need to study the matter more from Orthodox sources that are not just
blindly accepting anything that comes out of the Phanar neighborhood of Istanbul
where the Patriarchal throne is. there is a lot of misinformation and a lot of
error on the part of more worldly minded Orthodox.
RE: "I had no dog in either fight.....
Really??? That is interesting since a couple of my friends and I saw an online petition a few years ago with your name on it in support of another Protestant convert to the Orthodox Church of America.....namely, Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen whose agenda included the eventual merging of the Episcopalian church with the Orthodox Church of America (OCA). "
That had nothing to do with his background. I supported him because he was
willing to crack down on the power grab games by the not so Holy Synod, and
the committee next level down which was using a financial scandal as a bid for
power over them. The Holy Synod itself had usurped the role of the Metropolitan.
In addition there was and probably still is a serious closeted homosexual
problem in the OCA Holy Synod and elsewhere.
I didn't know he had any plans to merge the OCA with the Episcopalians, there
was sometime ago a mutual recognition by Orthodox and Episcopalian of their
Apostolic Succession, but issues that more research turned up about the Episcopalian
Apostolic Succession wrecked that. I did know he apparently mishandled some
sex case, but he was the least objectionable among the candidates for Metropolitan
when Met. Job died suddenly after supporting the financial investigation.
Moscow Patriarchate is not trying to take over the world. There is a dispute as
to whether it should have the preeminence in north America because the Russians
were the first to bring Christianity of any kind to north America. Rivalling this
is an interpretation of Chalcedon canon 28, which aside from what I've quoted
stipulates that the lands of the barbarians that do not as of that canon's time
have a patriarch are under the authority of Constantinople, which means the
Ecumenical Patriarch or Greek ORthodox jurisdiction claims the primary jurisdiction
over all the new world, because we classify as barbarians.
this is the sort of thing most people ignore unless they want to not ignore it.
"What is the line of authority between Cristine and Constance who loves her? Christine has not said she loves Constance, a telling authority point. How does that relate to God's love? Does Christine report to Constance or Constance to Christine? By the praise given above, Constance reports to Christine as an employee reports to an employer."
yes I love Constance but am uncomfortable with sentimentality which has got me
in trouble over the years. But she is one of my favorite people. Constance doesn't
report to me. I on the contrary felt the need to explain myself a couple of times
to her.
Even if we hated each other's guts, this is her blog. AND ONLY SHE THEREFORE CAN
AND DOES, EXCEPT FOR QUOTES FROM OTHERS SHE POSTS, POST ON HER BLOG PROPER.
This is the comments section which she graciously allows to operate and let us
blow off steam at each other or share useful stuff.
well said Cindy Warner 3:46
there were laws in Rome against a lot of that, but the enforcement was nonexistent
what you can expect when the enforcers are into it themselves.
So, as I understand it, Christine, you are a closeted Protestant blowing off steam. Question..no comment comes about without a background yet you added out of the clear blue, "Even if we hated each other's guts, this is her blog..." followed by a string of caps which to intelligent people can make no sense. Why would that thought even enter your head unless you know something readers here don't know.
Costance's first book was successful because the average person could read it and understand the connections network. Yet this blog has bogged down into discussions between individuals familiar with religious intellectual minutia and jargon. Yet Constance stays out of the way. Why? It's still unclear to me who is who in the authority chain. "But she is one of my favorite people." That's called damning with faint praise.
Dear 5.53pm,
I too am content to let readers decide re Timothy. You wrongly said, however, that "there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations each claiming "guidance by the Holy Spirit." You are approximately a factor of 100 out, or 10000%. The source of this claim is the World Christian Encyclopedia compiled by David Barrett in 1982. Its second edition (Oxford Univ Press, 2001) refers to 33000+ total Christian denominations, but it defines the word ‘denomination’ as an organised Christian group within a specific country. That is an eccentric use of the word, for denominations run across national borders. As there are several hundred countries (and as smaller denominations are not represented in all of them) we should divide the figure of 25,000 by about 100. This gives a few hundred genuine denominations, consistent with the list recorded in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
Provided that you are happy for the Roman Catholic church in Canada and the USA to count as two denominations, I'll accept the figure you quote. Are you?
"'So, as I understand it, Christine, you are a closeted Protestant blowing off steam. Question..no comment comes about without a background yet you added out of the clear blue, "Even if we hated each other's guts, this is her blog..." followed by a string of caps which to intelligent people can make no sense. Why would that thought even enter your head unless you know something readers here don't know."
because I cover all possible scenarios, and you are raising a question of authority
tied to the irrelevant question of love, though granted in any relationship of any
kind, the one who loves less is less controllable than the one who loves more, if
that is the kind of love that is dependent or blinding.
"AND ONLY SHE THEREFORE CAN
AND DOES, EXCEPT FOR QUOTES FROM OTHERS SHE POSTS, POST ON HER BLOG PROPER. "
well if you can't figure out the use of commas, I will try again. and you ain't that
intelligent if you come up with the prior paragraph.
this is her blog, and only she posts on the blog proper, except for those quotes
from others that she herself posts there.
"Costance's first book was successful because the average person could read it and understand the connections network. Yet this blog has bogged down into discussions between individuals familiar with religious intellectual minutia and jargon."
the latter is my expertise, but frankly lists and lists of networked organizations
makes my eyes glaze over. I can't remember the names of individuals or organizations
unless something is unusual about them.
" Yet Constance stays out of the way. Why? It's still unclear to me who is who in the authority chain. "But she is one of my favorite people." That's called damning with faint praise."
you are reading stuff in there. "authority chain" should be obvious. neither one
of us is in authority over the other as long as we are each on our own turf. Constance
has the authority on her blog and comments section. I have tried to comply with
requests to trim or limit but she also requested the Christine bashers do the
same which they did not, and some things were so outrageous they had to be dealt
with before someone dropping by left with the wrong idea. Also some things CANNOT
be dealt with briefly.
religious minutiae may not mean much to you. it obviously means something to the
several other people involved in it here.
Christine, so Constance posts quotes from others on her blog. Proper?? There are other places that are improper? Who knew??? Is her love of you dependent or blinding? Who knew? Thank you for cluing us in.
Now if someone could let me know what religion you follow I appreciate it. The doubletalk is confusing. The other possibility. Christine, is that you are answering your own posts as Anonymous.
Post a Comment