Merry Christmas to all and thank you for your patience. I'm also behind in reading comments. I had several rough days with the "cold" or whatever it was last weekend and beyond. I'm still coughing up part of it. We plan a quiet Christmas with Church, family and close friends. Clearly our world is in a real mess. Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus! This day reminds us all of the Hope we have!
Constance
530 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 530 Newer› Newest»Re read the list of "traditions" you asked for Scriptural support of. I gave them except where lacking which are maybe three or four. Mt. Athos and Rome and Jerusalem point to Heaven. some do look to these places instead of past them as pointers to Heaven. they are not supposed to take that attitude. I don't.
Try reading the Bible straight through without any aids but linguistic (Strong's Concordance) and archaeological and ancient history. do this in four months. if possible. it will mean you keep more you have read recently in your mind when reading the later materials. they fit together better. the end result with surprise you.
In any case, if you believe in God The Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, and the incarnation death and resurrection and eventual second coming of Christ, then you believe the core Tradition of Rome and of Constantinople. Scripture is core of that tradition, and things grow out of that but some things have gone beyond and are wrong, like immaculate conception and papal infallibility. The Apostles gave the Tradition big T as distinct from secondary and supportive traditions small t, like having periodic synods of bishops, and wrote the Gospels and Epistles and saw to it these were copied and transmitted, to keep the Tradition from being altered. All the heresies later were fought with Scripture not with bishop so and so said on the basis of being a bishop not on the basis of and in spite of Scripture.
Woe to him who is wise in his own eyes... and advises everyone on how to interpret the Bible and how to read it and to NOT
avail themselves of any of the wisdom of 20 centuries of sincere prayerful Biblical study.
Who, Christine, has ever said that you are a Bible expert, other than yourself, I mean.
You're a real peice of work.
I before E except after C
piece of work...
I mean really Christine who cares about your bloated intellectual approach to Bible study?
Nobody cares ! Please go back to your infowoof and stay there. Please.
There's no heart, no love, no still small voice in your self aggrandizing blather.
Crawl back in the hole you were in when everyone, everyone here was glad you were missing,
but you were really just saving up a huge bombardment of self serving comments, again.
More spiritual "food" for thought ... and WARNINGS!
“For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.” Proverbs 2:6
“Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.” Psalm 119:128
“A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.” Proverbs 14:5
“A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.” Proverbs 19:5
“A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish.” Proverbs 19:9
“There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord.” Proverbs 21:30
paul
"Woe to him who is wise in his own eyes... and advises everyone on how to interpret the Bible and how to read it and to NOT
avail themselves of any of the wisdom of 20 centuries of sincere prayerful Biblical study."
exactly what have I posted that is contrary to 2000 years of such study? details please. and leave out chakras that is anthropology not theology. and don't throw verses at me out of context. what you are used to is not 2,000 years old if you reject most of what RayB rejects. but it does fit with the interpretive methods of the ancient and modern heretics who take a verse here and there and run with it ignoring the rest of the verses on the matters at issue.
And since she is wise in her own eyes, her words are not going to be few this thread either.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) @11:58 AM said:
"RayB on the other hand has flung some very hostile remarks at Susanna, check the last comments thread."
Christine,
I wasn't going to respond to this, but being it is an outright lie, I thought it necessary.
I have NEVER been "hostile" to anyone on this site. Please back up your baseless assertion by copying and pasting the "very hostile remarks" I made to Susanna. If you can't (which I already know you can't) ... at least have the decency to apologize for your false representation.
Christine, I honestly do not care what you personally think of me, but what DOES bother me is that you are using lies in order to attack the messenger's character, and by doing so, you imply the message is tainted ... which it is not.
RayB,
searching for keywords on several threads, the remarks are no longer there. Constance deleted them. you and some anons went to town on Susanna not last thread but earlier. I detailed the remarks in a post that Constance deleted. It is conceivable that you were not the one who talked about having "quickly discerned"
that Susanna's post was something like Jesuit connivance and hellish reflections and whatnot but you were right in there with the remarks that after detailing I said "and you all consider me rude and arrogant and self exalting? quickly discerned indeed!"
since I posted the remark of the wait and see type you all scaled it back.
as for lies, I may have misascribed a specific remark at times in answering it, but I NEVER MAKE THINGS UP and have been repeatedly lied about my words twisted and falsely accused by various people none of whom have called the others to account (and you were in it) except on tone not content.
Constance had occasion to make this remark to you still on a prior thread:
"Dear Ray,
I'm tired of being either misinterpreted or carelessly read. Clearly we know there is no Messiah other than Jesus. " https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11772087&postID=1491143024591263788
misinterpretation and/or careless reading is your forte and that of others.
so is scornful disregard of Scripture when it goes against your Hislopism or anything else.
Christine ...
I have NEVER had one of my posts deleted by Constance ... NOT A SINGLE ONE.
What amazes me about you, among other things, is your rampant and careless disregard for the truth, along with how you consistently make all kinds of wild PERSONAL accusations, all based on nothing other than your fertile imagination. Surely, God is not pleased by such disregard of the truth.
Here is just one illustration of the typical over-the-top, baseless, careless and mean-spirited statement that is characteristic of you:
"misinterpretation and/or careless reading is your forte and that of others.
so is scornful disregard of Scripture when it goes against your Hislopism or anything else."
and another:
“The sarcastic remarks given him recently are a direct result of his nonsense and appropriate to them. Frankly, I suspect that his Bible is Hislop and if Hislop had decided to dump any core Christian doctrine RayB would also. probably join the JWs.”
Although I own a copy of Hislop’s “The Two Babylons,” and agree with his basic conclusions, I last read it over 35 years ago … that hardly qualifies for it being my “Bible!” Also, for literally several decades now, I almost always invite JWs into my home, where I take the time to present the real truth of the Gospel of Christ and God’s Word to them. More often than not, I have been thanked for taking the time to talk with them … “unlike many Born Again Christians that slam the door in our face.” I completely understand that JWism is a cult. For you to accuse me of “probably” joining “the JWs” is complete, utter nonsense.
I don’t expect a retraction, or an apology from you. Your reputation in here is apparently well earned.
How it is that Constance allows you to post ANYTHING is a complete mystery.
Christine,
How about this: (and I'm sorry that I don't summarize the preceding chapters and exposit
the historical setting as well as "what Jesus really meant to say" or why it is that in 2000 years,
no one has been able to correctly interpret it until you, now.)
Blessed are the POOR IN SPIRIT: for theirs is the kingdom of the heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the MEEK: for they shall inherit the earth.
There is nothing meek about you Christine. You are conceited and arrogant.
You are grandiose. You are not a Bible authority, or God would have raised
you up as such and we would probably all know it.
I understand that "Little professors" is a nickname that doctors have given
to people with Aspergers, but that's for children who have the condition. You
should have begun to see by now how much you irritate people with your air
of authority whichis not backed by any degrees or the endorsements of any
actual authorities.
How about I quote Bob Dylan;
"Whole lot of people crying tonight from the disease of conceit.
Whole lot of people dying tonight from the disease of conceit.
They say conceit is a disease for which there is no cure.
Doctors are working on it, but they're really not sure... "
RayB,
"What amazes me about you, among other things, is your rampant and careless disregard for the truth, along with how you consistently make all kinds of wild PERSONAL accusations, all based on nothing other than your fertile imagination. Surely, God is not pleased by such disregard of the truth."
that is a perfect description of what has been done to me over the past few years
and as for my remarks to you those were not accusation but SPECULATION, and since you haven't read it in 35 years I suggest you re read it with Woodrow's other book and if possible check the cites of sources some of which are spelled out by Woodrow.
of course, you have NOT responded to the answer to your challenge to give Scriptural support for various traditions in the RC. have you read it? Also the more extensive thing on my blog which starts with that and goes on to address the total misrepresentation of one Eucharistic argument (both sides believed in the real presence) and the falsehood that the real presence was only vaguely believed until that time. The issue of the dispute was the condition of Jesus' Body and Blood in the Eucharist not its presence.
paul
"You are not a Bible authority, or God would have raised you up as such and we would probably all know it." not unless I bothered to get published other than online.
"your air of authority whichis not backed by any degrees"
most of which are issued by nearly worthless institutions that are either pretrib and won't issue to a post tribber, and/or deny or compromise key doctrinal points.
" or the endorsements of any actual authorities." firstly, I doubt anyone who agreed with me on anything would continue to be viewed by you as an "actual authority." secondly, on the points EO shares with RC and high church Anglican, I have the backing of all their authorities that aren't modernist automatically by virtue of my agreeing with them. And I might add 2,000 years of Bible scholars say
substantially the same as I do.
For your information, I was reading Augustine and Aquinas when I was a bored teenager. I've read a lot more since. But that doesn't matter. What matters is piecing together all the Bible statements on a matter. That is how the Fathers of Nicea I put the Creed together. Before that the same doctrine was taught by those who had this from the Apostles, but heretics made it necessary to carefully state and to close ranks.
It would be nice if you would clarify exactly what your theological positions are and why before you attack.
And your remarks on my blog show you have not been paying attention to all the historical and conspiracy research of decades. Or even current events, except maybe as spoon fed you by Fox or CNN or something like that.
As for meekness and humility, look to yourself. you have a problem in those departments.
I have a nephew who was diagnosed Aspergers, and though he can still be quite stubborn, when he became a christian he became someone that could be reasoned with. He is now in his upper 20's and when shown a bad attitude or position he is apt to argue less now and at least listens (without constant interrupting). He may not follow the advice, but will at least hear us out, because he is held accountable and doesn't get away with the behavior. Not from family and not from his workplace. He's becoming a godly young man.
God does overcome for those who leave the choice up to Him.
Chritine at 5:01 PM wrote: " details please. and leave out chakras that is anthropology not theology."
Yet you have claimed chakras are evident in the Holy Bible, specifically in Ecclesiastes 12. So, despite Ecclesiastes 12 having NOTHING to do with chakras, your past and never retracted claims that it has makes your assertions a theological one besides the fact that chakras are already a theological concept, a concept straight out of Hinduism aka from Mystery Babylon Religion: you'd know all about that, wouldn't you Chritine?!
"There's no heart, no love, no still small voice in your self aggrandizing blather."
Paul, you hit the nail square on the head regarding her posts.
She needs to go back to her wolf den and stay there.
FYI if you want to learn about New Age from Constance, you have to turn to her Microeffect show on Saturday mornings where information goes out to her friend group who need an adjective. Not much there, but better than the blog.
anon 7:49 chakras are not a theological concept. any more than the soul itself is. you can posit a soul, based on ghost stories, out of body experiences or anything else, and be an atheist.
it is according to you and others without the additional info the guy spoke from that Eccles. 12 does not refer to paraphysical wheels. I notice ONE wheel is mentioned, not several. (chakra is Sanskrit for wheel.) that might be a basis for
a more serious re examination of soul-body interface wheels, perhaps there is one main driver and the rest depend on it?
It has been suggested, more sanely than by you who give no alternative worth looking at, that it MIGHT refer to the heart. But the heart doesn't look like or
act like a wheel.
even if the ether (once a standard in physics and might be restored in another 50 years given the direction some are going in and I don't mean new age) is established it is, as St. Basil the Great pointed out, just one more thing God created and is not God Himself.
If chariots had never been found by archeologists and the wheel lost and not reinvented so we didn't have any, and people did the protestant proof text thing and focused on the chariots of God that Elisha refers to when Elijah was translated to heaven, any discussion of possible physical ground based chariots especially if new agers were experimenting with redeveloping them, would be classed as a. theological issues and b. new age.
MEANWHILE YOU ARE MISSING OUT ON A POWERFUL ARGUMENT AGAINST NEW AGE CREDIBILITY ESPECIALLY WHERE IT INTERSECTS WITH CHRISTIANITY I.E., EMERGENT CHURCH
http://politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com/2015/02/your-chakras-target-of-new-age-deception.html
that's TARGET OF NEW AGE DECEPTION not as new age deception. I didn't come up with this, I got it from another Christian writer online, who is as crazy in some respects as the rest of you anti RC crowd.
You're as New Age as they come, Christine!
I wouldn't trust the info on your site at unclassifiableconfusion or whatever it is any more than I'd trust a site Benjamin Creme's!
Chakras, cities on Mars,illuminating ether jello or whatever it was your resident possessed 'seer' conjured up, Nibiru, etc, etc, etc, and the list of your ridiculous assertions here goes relentlessly on as you sadly do!
You're as New Age as they come, Christine!
I wouldn't trust the info on your site at unclassifiableconfusion or whatever it is any more than I'd trust a site of Benjamin Creme's!
Chakras, cities on Mars,illuminating ether jello or whatever it was your resident possessed 'seer' conjured up, Nibiru, etc, etc, etc, and the list of your ridiculous assertions here goes relentlessly on as you sadly do!
Christine ...
Please clarify ... do you actually believe there are or were "cities on Mars?"
A Possible History of Life on Mars - Kindle edition by Christine Erikson.
If it's in paperback too then I am not sure if its publishers are Findhorn, Lucis Trust or who they are.
Yikes! Now it all begins to make sense!!
I wonder if discounts are available for those that post on this site. I might ... MIGHT ... be willing to pay 1 cent for a Kindle download, but not a penny more.
RayB, if you subscribe to Kindle Unlimited for I think 9.99 you can read that
book and ANY of the kindle ebooks that are available on Kindle Unlimited for FREE.
(just figure how much they'd cost, add that up, deduct 9.99 and that's all you spent.)
RayB
I found the sections I was after, and it was anonymice not you who posted the real insulting stuff. So I retract that accusation, it was not a lie but an honest mistake because your name was sandwiched in close to the rest and it had been some time since I read it. I apologize for the error. (I would not be surprised if you are an anonymous at times, such a status is real convenient. but I will assume not.)
However, the sarcasm you drew is not persecution, does not match the intensity with which you and the anonymice stalk Susanna here when there is nothing else to do, and is earned by your and their inveterate failure to deal with any Scriptural basis for RC or EO "traditions" when such are provided.
you have not responded to my answer to your challenge, partly here, and the entirety at http://politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-such-roman-catholic.html HAVE YOU READ THEM?
I don't know about intelligent life on Mars, but sometimes I think there isn't much here on earth...
Brother Ray B, she feins apology then insists you, "stalked Susanna", with, "intensity", which to any HONEST observer here you have NOT done, you have merely and rightly questioned Roman Catholicism. You merely engaged in dialogue with Susanna as discourse ensued. Christine has an agenda here.
Christine, don't try it! It is obvious Ray B isn't serious about buying your nonsense, he is merely being generous in offering a cent for something no doubt he has NO INTENTION of reading at this juncture!
Did your Resident Seer's 'resident' 'inspire' your book? I wouldn't be surprised!
As I said,
You're as New Age as they come, Christine!
I wouldn't trust the info on your site at unclassifiableconfusion or whatever it is any more than I'd trust a site of Benjamin Creme's!
Chakras, cities on Mars,illuminating ether jello or whatever it was your resident possessed 'seer' conjured up, Nibiru, etc, etc, etc, and the list of your ridiculous assertions here goes relentlessly on as you sadly do!
Ray B has NO NEED to go to your den of scorpions over at unclassifiableconfusion or whatever you call it, Christine and nor does anybody else when our discourse has been and is here.
I think it is high time we all wipe the dust off our feet as far as you're concerned, Infowolf!
To Anonymous @ 7:15 AM ...
Thank you for your comments. I agree. And let's not forget who it was that started this thread re: Roman Catholicism by posting a rant against Bible believing Christians:
Susanna @ 2:39 AM said (in part) ...
"Dear Constance,
"Thank you for your confidence."
"As for Dave Hunt, there was a time when I thought he knew what he was talking about until his writings degenerated to the bottom-feeding level where groundless irrational rants of people like Alexander Hyslop, Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, et al prevailed."
"Don't get me wrong. I have no problem if someone honestly disagrees with Catholic beliefs and practices."
"What I have a problem with is when someone cannot base said disagreements on sound logical arguments and instead resorts to false accusations that are short on facts and long on innuendo."
Christine,
Thank you for your sort of, kind of, almost, somewhat elusive, "I'm really, really not guilty of anything" apology along with your retraction of your lies, sorry, I meant to say "honest mistake" as you so aptly put it. The fact that you have used these exact same tactics upon numerous other Bible believing Christians in here is just some kind of fluke, as in purely "innocent" coincidence on your part ... I'm sure (wink, wink).
As to your suspicion (based upon a another totally baseless assumption ... whoops ... I meant to say "innocent mistake")that I have posted at times as "Anonymous" ... I have not. Not once, as in NEVER. I'm sure Constance has some manner in which to verify that fact, so you can check that out with her to see if you have posted another whopper or not. Of course, being that I am not a Roman Catholic, but rather, a Bible believing Christian (rather than believing & following MAN made doctrines), that information from Constance might experience a slight delay. LOL!!
Vatican Accord with Palestine comes in to effect:
mobile.reuters.com/,article/idUSKBNOGOMA20160102
RayB
you just blew your etiquette or whatever high ground, your talking about tactics, etc.
"And let's not forget who it was that started this thread re: Roman Catholicism by posting a rant against Bible believing Christians:" at 8:52.
that was not a "rant."
And you have refused to deal with the answer to your challenge to give Scriptural support for RC traditions. THEY ARE HERE ON THE "older" page, and about 3/4 down at 5:44 am. SOME ARE NOT SUPPORTED SOME ARE, AND THE PRACTICES OF THE EARLY CHURCH TESTIFY TO THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE APOSTLES SUCH AS ST. IGNATIUS TAUGHT BY THE APOSTLE JOHN AND CLAIMING THE BREAD AND WINE ARE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.
innuendo is your long shot, you and the anonymice who I lump together.
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/words.htm
'My Utmost for His Highest' from Oswald Chambers
for January 4
"Clouds and darkness are round about Him."
Psalm 97:2
A man who has not been born of the Spirit of God Will tell you that the teachings of Jesus are simple. But when you are baptized with the Holy Ghost, you find "clouds and darkness are round about Him." When we come into close contact with the teachings of Jesus Christ we have our first insight into this aspect of things. The only possibility of understanding the teaching of Jesus is by the light of the Spirit of God on the inside. If we have never had the experience of taking our commonplace religious shoes off our commonplace religious feet, and getting rid of all the undue familiarity with which we approach God, it is questionable whether we have ever stood in His presence. The people who are flippant and familiar are those who have never yet been introduced to Jesus Christ. After the amazing delight and liberty of realizing what Jesus Christ does, comes the impenetrable darkness of realizing Who He is.
Jesus said: "The words that I speak unto you," not the words I have spoken, "they are spirit, and they are life." The Bible has been so many words to us - clouds and darkness - then all of a sudden the words become spirit and life because Jesus re-speaks them to us in a particular condition.
This speaks to exactly the problem that so many have with your posts trying to lecture us about the Bible, Chritsine. You believe you know it all already. Proof that you actually know very little indeed.
And you screech when you preach on top of how incorrect you often are. That is beyond pathetic and truly arrogant on your part. You need to sit quietly at the feet of Jesus and get off the internet.......
on the contrary. The Bible is a major reason I became Orthodox. and I have experienced God enlightening some Scriptures or guiding me to them or reminding me of some when appropriate.
Have you read that series of posts answering RayB's challenge? some RC traditions are very biblical some are not and some are trackable to the Bible. As for forbidding to marry that hardly applies to a rule that married men can be priests but not marry after ordination, and forbidding meats is not about fasting on certain days, Jesus said that His disciples would fast after He was gone. The earliest fast is Wednesday in mourning for the conspiracy against Christ, and Friday in mourning for the sufferings He went through for us on Friday. That is pretty biblical. And it is testified to in the Didache c. AD 100. St. Ignatius of Antioch TAUGHT BY THE APOSTLE JOHN HIMSELF testified to the Body and Blood of Christ being in the Eucharistic bread and wine, and to the role of the bishop.
That shows what the early church really taught, and it isn't what you teach apparently.
The idea all sins are equal is also UNBIBLICAL as shown in that list. several Scripture cites show that not all sins are equal.
"Have you read that series of posts answering RayB's challenge?"
I quit reading your "stuff" long time ago. Your lecture series are hopelessly vain, merely endless empty pursuit.
I come here to hopefully read everyone else (if anyone can successfully cut through the quagmires you leave behind). Rich of Medford (and others) have told you how unhelpful and generally unpleasant you are here.
You need to get real.
anon 11:14
you have made yourself a liar. if you quit reading my "stuff" then you would not have read what I posted and been able to answer.
And I knew you would say that! I saw your name and my eye caught the line I quoted and the one I responded to.
Your one-liner @ 11:14 was easy to spot so here ya go..
Actually r e a d i n g your posts is something I stopped doing long time ago like I told you. Of the thousands upon thousands of words you post, I might actually catch .001%.
I just read what others responses to you are. That tells me all I need to know from your empty lectures.
Happy now?
You, MICE (Mary Infowoof Chritine Erikson AKA Helena), are a viper hissing venom at every humble Christian passing.
You are a liar and an accuser of the brethren like your father the Devil who has been a liar from the very beginning!
Yes, you are a false accuser of true Christian brethren and you are a liar like your spiritual father the Devil, the father of lies.
Repent! You owe a good many here a sincere apology: Ray B, Paul, Rich in Medford, Dorothy and Constance, to name but a few!
At 8:52 AM, RayB said...
To Anonymous @ 7:15 AM ...
Thank you for your comments. I agree. And let's not forget who it was that started this thread re: Roman Catholicism by posting a rant against Bible believing Christians:
Susanna @ 2:39 AM said (in part) ...
"Dear Constance,
"Thank you for your confidence."
"As for Dave Hunt, there was a time when I thought he knew what he was talking about until his writings degenerated to the bottom-feeding level where groundless irrational rants of people like Alexander Hyslop, Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, et al prevailed."
************************************************************************
The comments made by Susanna were not against ordinary Bible believing Christians, but against professional anti-Catholics like Dave Hunt with whom ex-Catholic Jeremy James was being compared. Dave Hunt appears to have close New Age ties according to Constance Cumbey.
I notice that no mention is made by RayB at 8:52 AM about Susanna's other comment at 9:14 P.M. and Constance's comment at 1:21 A.M. in which Constance thanked Susanna for the heads up on Jeremy James and stated that Dave Hunt had lied about his association with Norman Grubbs!!!
*********************************************************************
Constance @1:21 AM
"I worked closely with Dave Hunt between 1982 and 1987 when I broke completely with him in October of that year for many compelling reasons. Later, it was brought to my attention that Dave Hunt had a publishing relationship with Norman Grubb. Dave Hunt was vigorously pushing the works of William Law. William Law was Jacob Boehme's translator from German to English. Boehme was the inspiration for the very name of the Theosophical Society. Dave told me he had never met Norman Grubb. Clearly he had. Norman Grubb published Dave's first two books, including the one Dave claimed to have finished for William Law, POWER OF THE SPIRIT, and then Dave's autobiography, CONFESSIONS OF A HERETIC. William Law's painting, THE ILLUMINATION OF JACOB BOEHME appears in the Manly Palmer Hall book (The Secret Teachings of All Ages) as a glossy plate in the edition in my library.
I've just started reading Jeremy James, but I'm glad for your heads up as I'm now justifiably cautious about where Dave Hunt was really coming from."
****************************************************************************
""Anonymous Anonymous said...
And since she is wise in her own eyes, her words are not going to be few this thread either.
5:04 PM""
We can get the gist of her posts by reading other responses to them and avoid all the toxicity but she's so ego-centric (self-important)she thinks her posts are required reading!
LOLOLOL!
Christine,
I've never left any comments on your blog, and I only scanned it once about four years ago. That was all I needed. Don't you even know who it is that comments on your own blog ? And you're an expert on (along with everything else), attribution and authority?
Yet you completely devoured Aquinas and Augustine when you were a "bored teenager", so I guess that means that you know all that. Too bad those two hacks weren't more of a challenge for your otherworldly intellect.
You're a riot.
What wisdom from the post above @ 10:50 AM.
"The only possibility of understanding the teaching of Jesus is by the light of the Spirit of God on the inside." (Amen to that)
"If we have never had the experience of taking our commonplace religious shoes off our commonplace religious feet, and getting rid of all the undue familiarity with which we approach God, it is questionable whether we have ever stood in His presence." (Yep)
"The people who are flippant and familiar are those who have never yet been introduced to Jesus Christ." (Sure sounds like the relentless know-it-all poster of this blog)
RayB,
Your comments are very interesting to me and we are probably on the same page on this one. My entire program Saturday morning was on it. I have the 1979 publication of the late 1978 Consultation sitting on my desk and have read a good share of it. I've ordered the materials from the 1977 event. What is also interesting to me is that some of the names in the consultation came against me viciously on the very issue of the existence and goals of the New Age Movement, e.g. Richard Lovelace. I rather suspect that I received the opposition I did because the truth was probably 1000 times worse than even I realized and they probably thought I knew a thousand times more than I did then.
Leighton Ford is a proponent, I have learned from a search of my own computer of "Centering Prayer" which is in reality not so thinly disguised Transcendental Meditation. His publication, THE MENTORING COMMUNITY OF LEIGHTON FORD MINISTRIES (2011) tells proudly that this is one of the techniques employed in their "small group process" of his "Mentoring Community."
Pat Robertson's SHOUT IT FROM THE HOUSETOPS recounted that they had heard that the Billy Graham team, led in a 1957 prayer session by Leighton Ford, was "overcome by the Holy Spirit (page 53, 1995 Revised and Reprinted edition of SHOUT IT FROM THE HOUSETOPS.
Everything I know about the Wainwright House leads me to believe it is most likely NOT a typical Holy Spirit hangout. It is and always has been a prominent NEW AGE CENTER.
Constance
Constance
Constance,
To which of Ray B's comments are you referring, please, at your 9:37 P.M. comment?
I am not asking this for the purpose of challenging RayB. With every intention of giving credit where credit is due, I, like you, am also probably on the same page with RayB on this one as well.
The following might be of interest to you.
Why was a Theosophist teaching Christians about the future?
It is interesting that Dr. Tom Sine is commended for role as facilitator for this 1979 Consultation. Constance Cumbey warned about Sine’s New Age activities and beliefs during this same era in her 1985 book A Planned Deception: The Staging of a New Age “Messiah.” In a lengthy challenge to Sine's claims to be an evangelical Christian, she concludes by noting that Sine was associated closely with Willis Harman:
“Since [Sine] says he is also a member of the World Future Society, and is on a first name basis with William Irwin Thompson, Hazel Henderson, Willis Harman, and other New Agers of distinction, again, and his books advocate their programs, I fail to see just how he can plead innocence with a straight face.” (p. 114)
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/007/discernment/9-21-harman-theosophist.htm
To RayB:
For clarification, the posting I referred to as us being "on the same page" are the 12:23 and 12:25 postings. That was largely the focus of my Saturday program this past weekend which is available from the archives at TMERadio.com. This referred to the Evangelical consultations. I also referred to the shameless adulation of Anthroposophical society leader Owen Barfield by the supposedly Evangelical Wheaton College.
Constance
this shows the non sequitur (it does not follow) nature of new age logic.
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/paradigm-shift/harmon-willis.htm
"A Changing worldview: "This emerging trans-modern worldview, involves a shift in the locus of authority from external to 'inner knowing.' It has basically turned away from the older scientific view... and trusts perceptions of the wholeness and spiritual aspect of organisms, ecosystems, Gaia and Cosmos. This implies a spiritual reality, and ultimate trust in the authority of the whole. It amounts to a reconciliation of scientific inquiry with the "perennial wisdom" at the core of the world's spiritual traditions. It continues to involve a confidence in scientific inquiry, but an inquiry whose metaphysical base has shifted... to a more holistic and transcendental metaphysical foundation...."
a change from mechanistic to more fluid biological quality of view does not have any bearing on spiritual aspects or lack thereof. the presence of spiritual aspects to bugs and bioplasmic films and plants and animals has no bearing on "the cosmos" being conscious.
anyone can see this by looking at how water flowing around things, the behavior of some complex systems including machines and weather and so forth SEEM almost conscious but this is an illusion of the complexity of the motions and their interaction with objects and other things moving.
There is no "perennial wisdom at the core of the world's spiritual traditions" they are all pretty different, and as far as mysticism goes, R. C. Zaehner in Mysticism Sacred and Profane details three categories, found Rimbaud had pursued all three to illumination as defined by them, found they were indeed different experiences, dismissed them all as illusion and died reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church.
The only thing in common is an agreement that something exists or doesn't, something created everything or didn't, er,...that's not an agreement.
People like Harman talk like some developments lead to this kind of thinking, but rather I think he had a preset bias and USED these developments to support it though they don't, and to persuade others they do and to persuade others to think like this. Then a preset bunch of buttons to push exists in minds.
The fact is, you can appreciate and study to exploit complex environmental interactions in order to more easily dominate them and extract resources and kill competition and make money, as much as to submit to them. Or to merely extract resources and work out deals and make money with minimal damage to what you will need 20 years down the road.
And being more alert to an outdoors environment because you might get stabbed, poisoned, bit, eaten or fail to catch your prey or take more effort than you want to is not being more "spiritual" it is being more situationally aware.
And that state can be used to heal or kill.
Constance 11:57 P.M.
Thank you.
Chritsine, we are conscience of what 'non sequitur' signifies: ¿estás siguiendo?
"... a shift in the locus of authority from external to 'inner knowing."
I put it to you that that is precisely what you are 'feeding' into by applauding sycophantically over the sorcery and clairvoyance of your veritable charlatan Seer in Residence!
And then there's your unscientific and unbiblical and moreover Gnostic ideas of chakras, cities on Mars, glowing ether blobs, Nibiru, etc, etc, etc.
New Age? I'm surprised your book isn't on sale already in a well known store in Berkley!
what I am saying is that the "spiritual" view Harmon espouses as following from changes in knowledge of how things work and affect each other, in fact DOES NOT FOLLOW (non sequitur) from that change in knowledge.
I am not interested in "inner knowing" which is exactly how we do NOT get to understand how things work. it is by external focused observation. This whole new age thing, aside from being a big money maker, is a step backward from the means of knowing that got us to realize things are not just machines but more complicated.
The typical animist primitive society had a lot of problems. And an eskimo in one village commented that no one lives in igloos anymore except white people. survival oriented primitives with some common sense will go for improved conditions while either new age noodles or just extreme sports types will go for doing things the hard way.
Christine,
That paul or Paul is not I.
As I said before and am proud to say now, I've never commented on your blog.
Why would I? Why would anyone?
It appears that I do agree with that Paul, though.
I'm the one who has consistantly called you out as a blog Jammer, although
I'm leaning now more towards blog Carpetbomber.
Can a fig tree put forth thorns?
Can a waterspring put forth fresh and salty water?
No. But you put forth both Christian doctrine and the doctrines of devils.
Paul has someone pretending and posing as him to post over there at the wolf pit. Has happened before.
Could be Christine herself. Who knows?
She owes the whole world an apology.
She wrongfully judges everybody (but does not heed the admonition of scripture to examine her own self).
It is her god-complex striking out again, and again, and again.........
Beyond pathetic.
http://jezebel.com/
'Woman Preparing for One Way Trip to Mars'.
Is it one of Chritine's sites?
Paul wrote: "No. But you put forth both Christian doctrine and the doctrines of devils."
Brother, you've coined the nut in a nutshell!
To get this blog back to its purpose would be great. The best thing to do with AKA is ignore her!
More blasphemy from Jesuit Pope Francis; Who claims the cross is: "The failure of God".
This is a matter of faith is it not? Is he not therefore speaking 'ex-cathedra'?
Only Father God is infallible in matters of faith, morals and every other thing,and to Him alone belongs the title, Holy Father,not some supposed pope!
https://youtu.be/Yqzqi4X617c
Did Pope Francis Really Say Jesus Was a Failure?
Jimmy Akin
September 29, 2015
1) What did Pope Francis actually say?
In his Sept. 24 vespers homily at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, addressing a group of priests and religious, Pope Francis said:
We can get caught up measuring the value of our apostolic works by the standards of efficiency, good management, and outward success which govern the business world.
Not that these things are unimportant!
We have been entrusted with a great responsibility, and God’s people rightly expect accountability from us.
But the true worth of our apostolate is measured by the value it has in God’s eyes.
To see and evaluate things from God’s perspective calls for constant conversion in the first days and years of our vocation and, need I say, it calls for great humility.
The cross shows us a different way of measuring success.
Ours is to plant the seeds: God sees to the fruits of our labors.
And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus . . . and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, in the failure of the cross.
2) People are really upset about that?
Yes.
3) Really?
Yes. Next question.
4) Why would they be upset about it?
I’m not going to go into the psychology of the outrage mongers, beyond noting that they appear to have an anti-Francis animus that distorts their ability to read straightforward texts.
However, they are objecting to the statement that Jesus’ “life . . . ended in failure, in the failure of the cross.”
5) But wait! Didn’t you just omit an important qualifier in what the pope said?
Yes. The ellipsis (i.e., the “ . . . ”) in the above statement replaces the all-important qualifier “humanly speaking.”
It’s only by omitting or ignoring or misunderstanding this qualifier that one could take offense at the pope’s remark.
This qualifier tells the listener (or reader) that the statement is only an apparent, not an actual, description of affairs.
Pope Francis means that from a superficial, human point of view, Jesus’ death might look like he was a failure, but, from God’s perspective, this was not so.
.........
9) Isn’t this contrast between the human and the divine perspective on Jesus’ ministry reflected in the New Testament?
Yes. Multiple times. One example is 1 Corinthians 1, where St. Paul writes:
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men (1 Cor. 1:18, 22-25).
The fact that Jesus’ death on the cross was scandalous and a mark of failure to people in Paul’s own day (“folly . . . a stumbling block to Jews and folly to the Greeks”) is being contrasted with the true perspective, according to which it is “the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
It is precisely this contrast in perspective that Pope Francis is referring to.....read entire article.....
http://www.catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-pope-francis-really-say-jesus-was-a-failure
_________________________________________________________________
cont.
cont.
Jimmy Akin is an internationally known author and speaker. As the senior apologist at Catholic Answers, he has more than twenty years of experiencing defending and explaining the Faith.
Jimmy is a convert to the Faith and has an extensive background in the Bible, theology, the Church Fathers, philosophy, canon law, and liturgy.
Jimmy is a weekly guest on the national radio program Catholic Answers Live, a regular contributor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a popular blogger and podcaster. His personal web site is JimmyAkin.com.
http://www.catholic.com/profiles/jimmy-akin
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
Susanna, He uses the phrase: el fracaso de Dios.
This translates as: the failure of God.
You can do as many gymnastics as you want, what he said, he said! Anyone who watches the video on the link provided at 6:19 PM can see and hear for themselves!
I should have written he not He. That is due to a typographical error rather than wrongly conveying the title of Holy Father and infallibility onto a mere man, things which belong to God the Infallible Holy Father in Heaven alone.
Several thoughts re: "pope" Francis' comments re: "the failure of God."
First, the ONLY time (if you don't believe this, check it out), Francis publicly used the name of the Lord Jesus Christ during his entire North American visit was during his homily at St. Patrick's in New York. Amazingly, the ONLY time he mentions Christ's name is in connection to "failure." Candy coat this all you want ... this is nothing short of blasphemy.
Next, as the you tube video shows, Francis AGAIN, during remarks at the Vatican, states that the "two things he carries with him at all times is a Rosary and this little book ... God's FAILURE ... the way of the cross." Just try to imagine the Apostle Paul speaking to a group and referring to the "way of the cross" as a "failure."
I posted this you tube video here on a previous thread and am glad that it is getting more attention. It is paramount to understand that absolutely NOTHING takes place or is said by the Vatican and its "popes" without a private purpose behind it. I stated this before, and I will repeat it again. The Vatican is part of the global elite cabal, and they are not going to be left out of the coming One World Government and its One World Religious system. AGAIN, in order for this global religion, it must unite the world's religions, and will do so under the false guise of "world peace." Also, in order to unite Christ's enemies, Jesus Christ must be eliminated (dethroned) as THE ONLY WAY to the Father (John 14:6). By presenting Christ and the Father as "failures" the Papacy brings Christ down to man's level and by doing so, is making a broad appeal to the world's Christ denying religions.
Aside from all that, these statements, made on two separate occasions, is nothing short of blasphemy.
RE:Susanna, He uses the phrase: el fracaso de Dios.
I am not the one doing the verbal gymnastics. The clowns who are falsely interpreting the Pope's meaning are.
Pope Francis used the phrase "la historia del fracas de Dios" - "the history of the failure of God." He clearly states that this "history" - represented by an item he always carries in his pocket - is a Catholic devotion known as "The Way of the Cross." And since Jesus is God made man and died on the cross, the reference is to Jesus......and is exactly in the context described by Jimmy Akin who cites (1 Cor. 1:18, 22-25).
THE WAY OF THE CROSS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stations_of_the_Cross
_______________________________________________________
“I’m going to tell you something private,” Pope Francis said to a crowd during his recent trip to Africa. “In my pocket, I always carry two things.”
First, he pulled out a rosary. “To pray,” he said.
Second, he pulled out “something that seems odd.” He raised a small square item. “This here, in this item, is the history of God’s failure.”
“It’s the way of the cross. A small way of the cross.”
He opened the square like a little book and pointed to the small images inside. “As Jesus suffered, and when they condemned him, to where when he was buried.”
“With these two things,” he concluded, “I do the best I can. And thanks to these two things, I never lose hope.”
Here’s a video of Pope Francis showing the items and explaining their meaning:
https://churchpop.com/2015/12/03/the-two-things-pope-francis-carries-everywhere-in-his-pockets/
________________________________________________________________________________
As for Infallibility, I agree that Infallibility belongs to God alone, but I also believe that the successor of Peter participates in this Infallibility (Petrine charism) in a special and unique way because Jesus said so - IN THE BIBLE!
The Church is founded on Peter's profession of faith
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16: 16): this is the confession of faith made by Peter - who, because of this profession which was revealed to him personally, directly and INFALLIBLY by God the Father and was confirmed by Christ - held primacy among the Apostles.
Well said RayB.
My Lord did not fail me. He saved me.
The pope must not personally know Jesus Christ's saving power or he would have exalted, rather than debased Him. He certainly has a megaphone and the world's ear to do so.
You're right. No one can candy coat this or torture the facts enough to explain it away.
Peter "held primacy among the Apostles." Really? Why is it then that the Apostle Paul severely corrected him for Peter's error in the Book of Acts?
Also, Roman Catholicism claims that Jesus was referring to Peter (petros ... that is "Peter" in Greek means "stone") as the "rock" upon which His church would be built. Yet, the Bible refers to Jesus as the "ROCK" and God as the only "ROCK" in the OT. NOWHERE does the term "rock" apply to ANY human being in the entire Bible other than as the RC claims regarding Peter. Furthermore, Jesus also refers to Peter as "Satan" as in "get the behind me Satan" while speaking to Peter. Based on RC typical Bible "interpretation" ... should we believe that Peter is "Satan?"
One more point ... Apostles had one thing in common ... they all personally saw the Lord Jesus Christ. And yes, that includes the Apostle Paul who met Him on the road to Damascus. Nowhere does it indicate anything even remotely close to the establishment of the Papacy.
Susanna claims:
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16: 16): this is the confession of faith made by Peter - who, because of this profession which was revealed to him personally, directly and INFALLIBLY by God the Father and was confirmed by Christ - held primacy among the Apostles."
This same "Peter" denied Jesus Christ THREE TIMES. So much for INFALLIBILITY!
I'm really beginning to suspect our "Susanna" is a full-time, RC disinformation agent. LOL
Only God is infallible, and His Name is Abba Yahweh, Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit. He is the Great I Am!
Not some puffed up man pontificating round Rome like the wizard of Oz!
I'm nobody and yet I know this........the cross of Jesus Christ is about my failure,
and the failure of every human being since the beginning. I take this remark personally about my Savior and it hurts me to think of Him lessened in any way.
Because sin is failure, the falling short of the glory of God, the missing the mark, the knowing what is right and failing to or just unable to do it. Our sin and shame and utter failure in righteousness is why Jesus hung there while His father had to turn His holy eyes away because Jesus became sin for us through no...failure...of....His....Own!
No, that cross was and it is, victory, because my Champion, and your Champion too, Jesus Christ the Lord, covered our naked failure in the sacrifice of His own body and blood. Someone had to pay for the shortfall in the broken Holy Law of God and Revelation 5 shows us only ONE qualified to buy back the title deed of the earth for God the father.
The debt I owe is Love. Love to Him is to renounce my sin, turn from it, and toward Him, by laying claim to His Righteousness in surrender of myself to this grace to be transformed in it's power. The power to make us new again, clean in the pure eyes of God our creator, and back in right relationship to Himself as it was before sin's ruin.
How can I, a nobody, any of us nobody's,..."what is man that thou art mindful of him",...possibly repay Him for unspeakable mercy freely gifted to us for the asking, of no value in and of ourselves, but valued by Jesus who seeks to save, that we may belong to Him forever?
Don't tell me Jesus' cross was a failure. I know better.
Hell is for failure.
Please, anyone,...........don't fail to repent and believe.
Since it has never been my intention to "convert" anyone here, I am not going to get into a debate about Catholic beliefs concerning the papacy. But I will defend the Pope against false accusations. And this accusation of blasphemy is bogus. Since the video has been around for more than a month, I have to wonder how long the "accusers of the brethren" had to go digging around before they were able to find a video suitable for spinning by them.
I am really beginning to suspect that those engaging in Catholic bashing are doing so with a view to shifting the spotlight off of the fact that they can't prove their own "sola scriptura" rule of faith along with its unbiblical "private interpretation" rule.
Finally, in the annals of "disinformation agents," so-called "Bible only" Christians who cite bizarre, extra-biblical, "theology fiction" such as Alexander Hislop, Loraine Boettner, Jack Chick, Charles Chiniquy, etc. would deserve a chapter all their own if they deserved to be taken seriously in the first place.
Susanna, you are free to do just as you say. Defend all you want to. That's just fine isn't it? Of course!
Others are free too, to see it and say it as they believe as well. Really it serves no real purpose to think of it as bashing, since the truth is in no danger because it has nothing to lose....so actually none of this should be about us, however...and across the board, our feelings in our understandings can be wounded, so that should be considered no matter where any of us stand, that we may be fair-minded toward one another. may we be more careful there.
And just agree to disagree and let it all come out in the wash, when the Lord shows everyone where they're falling short.
Has been said that the most important thing about any one of us is what we believe about God,
so we better be sure of what we know hadn't we?
....and God has the last word.
I have felt and stated it before that Susanna is a Vatican plant!
Disinformation Queen Susanna!
And I think you have the wrong heart toward her @ 11:10 PM.
Religion(s) (any brand) is fair game, not persons.
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/nick-ferrari/628158/European-army-marches-into-sight-Nick-Ferrari
The pope’s “word” … EQUATING "allah" with Jesus Christ and God the Father!
“Jesus Christ, Jehovah, Allah. These are all names employed to describe an entity that is distinctly the same across the world. For centuries, blood has been needlessly shed because of the desire to segregate our faiths. This, however, should be the very concept which unites us as people, as nations, and as a world bound by faith. Together, we can bring about an unprecedented age of peace, all we need to achieve such a state is respect each others’ beliefs, for we are all children of God regardless of the name we choose to address him by. We can accomplish miraculous things in the world by merging our faiths, and the time for such a movement is now.” -- Pope Francis
vs God’s Word …
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12
“I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” John 14:6
“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:26
"for we are all children of God"
No, Pope Francis. We are all God's creation (made in his image).
We must be born again to become his children.
John 3:3-10, John 1:12, 1 John 5:12,13, Eph 2:1-9 .........
(what RayB sited above and many more)
Notice that RayB didn't provide a link for his Pope Francis "quote?" That is because this quote is FAKE NEWS that originated from National Report.
It comes from the National Report which is a troll "news" site which panders to people like RayB.
National Report is a website which posts fictional articles related to world events. It is described by Snopes.com as a fake news site, by FactCheck.org as a satirical site and by Caitlin Dewey of the Washington Post as part of a fake-news industry, making profits from "duping gullible Internet users with deceptively newsy headlines." The National Report describes itself as a "news and political satire web publication" and provides a disclaimer that "all news articles contained within National Report are fiction".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Report
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/National_Report
http://realorsatire.com/nationalreport-net/
_______________________________________________________________
Here is the lowdown on the fake Pope story.
Did Pope Francis say the Bible and Koran were the same?
12th June 2015 by thatsfake.com
http://www.thatsfake.com/did-pope-francis-say-the-bible-and-koran-were-the-same/
_______________________________________________________________
So now we know who the REAL "disinformation agent" is, don't we??? LOL
Has anyone noticed that RayB did not post a link for his pope quote at 11:31 P.M.?
The reason is likely because the quote is from a fake pope story published at the fake news site known as the National Report.
http://www.snopes.com/religious-replicates/
NATIONAL REPORT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Report
___________________________________________________
Did Pope Francis say the Bible and Koran were the same?
12th June 2015
http://www.thatsfake.com/did-pope-francis-say-the-bible-and-koran-were-the-same/
___________________________________________________
So now we know who the REAL disinformation agent is, don't we? LOL
Susana,
Jesus accusing the religious leaders said,
"Why do you forsake the word of God for your traditions?"
"Then he said, Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you as it is written "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me, but in vain they worship me teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."" Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men. "
Now granted he was talking about Jewish traditions that were added. Jesus didn't have a problem with tradition unless it was put above or annulled the commandments of God.
But in Revelations it does say that anyone who adds of subtracts to the prophecies in this book will be cursed.
Torah also speaks against adding and taking away. It is hard to avoid some traditions because traditions are mans way of living out what they perceive as God's commands and instructions. The problem and I emphasize, is when any church or institution, not only the Catholic but Protestant, Evangelical, Judaism or whoever annul the Word of God with their traditions.
This can include anything such as having graven images, praying to the mother of Jesus, having gay marriage, celebrating things that are based on pagan traditions and the list goes on. The traditions when, they interfere with a direct command like "Worship the Lord your God only." are errant and thus in violation of God's Word. This is not Catholic bashing because many churches do this and the traditions become so much a part of their ritual, they cannot separate their tradition from what the Bible says.
Again, we as humans all develop our traditions in family or in our congregations but they must NEVER EVER supersede the word of God. This is the not so subtile difference between sola scripture and the position you outline. I would apply that to Judaism as well because Jesus was speaking with Jews who brought their oral traditions from Babylonian exile and used them to annul his word. He himself observed traditions such as a Passover seder, but with his traditions he was incapable of annulling God's word because he was God's word in flesh.
Anonymous Susanna said...
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
6:52 PM
Dear Susanna,
Thanks for the apologetic write up on Infallibility.
The title of this piece should be: When the Infallible is Not? Or the Deaf Dare not Listen?
adjective in·fal·li·ble \(ˌ)in-ˈfa-lə-bəl\
Simple Definition of infallible
: not capable of being wrong or making mistakes : not fallible
: certain to work properly or succeed
Full Definition of infallible
1 : incapable of error : unerring
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals
I understood this article correctly, but what the article did not broach is 'When is the Pontiff Speaking From the Chair.' The first deflection that is always presented in papal defense is 'He was not speaking from the Chair'
Maybe you can provide that detail for me? Thanks,
Just go with Christ. He never fails!
Christine,
I'm catching up on much reading -- I've been busy with medical appointments lately. In the meantime, I just deleted your 11:42 post for violating the instructions I gave not to go back and forth naming other posters and insults to them. Please don't engage in that practice and limit your postings to the limit of 1 per day and that of reasonable length. I've had many drop out of the blogspot forum because they privately indicated to me felt you had cluttered it with many extraneous issues. I'm aware of Ms. Shriner, but if you want to post comments about her, why not post them to her spot, not here?
Constance
Dear 12.06am,
Perhaps Pope Francis had this passage in mind:
God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[b] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring'. (Acts 17:27-8).
There is nothing wrong with tradition, so long as it does not take the place of the Word, and so long as the people holding to that tradition do not have hearts that are far from God.
constance, you didn't say anything about NAMING other posters, and paul has called me a liar about posting on my blog. I don't object to people harassing me there instead of here. but I object to lying about it, and dishonesty has been a major part of attacks here usually against me but I think against some others in past years to recent also. I provided the proof. anyone interested in the matter can draw your own conclusions at http://politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com/2015/12/alliance-and-clash-of-civilizations.html#comment-form
I should probably have limited my post to this statement, but I wanted to get the truth to everyone instead of relying on them going elsewhere.
re Shriner, did you realize that the entire post was lifted from my blog, from the comments section, showing what the conversation between me and paul was? I answered his accusation that Shriner would be a big deal with me with the truth, that I don't pay attention to her. she proposes to be an anti New Age and anti evil crusader, so why should she not be discussed here? False accusations fly at me, which deliberately or ignorantly confuse NEw Age with some things New Age exploits and have no bearing on it. Frankly I think some who do this are New Age or witch themselves and worried someone will take seriously what I say, which hits against many points and advocates a set breaking kind of thinking that undermines their ability to deceive.
Officials of a Christian college in suburban Chicago on Tuesday said they have begun efforts to fire a professor who was placed on leave after asserting that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
Wheaton College announced its action against Larycia Hawkins in a statement on its website, saying Provost Stanton Jones initiated the termination-for-cause proceeding after Hawkins refused to participate in "clarifying conversations" about theological issues.
http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx/?nodeid=708297
Finally a little light, a little righteousness in a sea of darkness.
We will wait and see if this is in fact a religious 'false flag' where Wheaton will be 'forced' to retrace its actions by some civil action against termination?
This will indeed be interesting!
Susanna,
Can you honestly (gymnastic free) explain why a pope would Kiss the Koran (which denies Jesus Christ's deity) and freely receive the mark of Shiva on his forehead from a Hindu priestess, etc?
Dear Dan 2:26 AM,
MY intention in posting the article about papal infallibility was not for the sake of engaging in religious polemics.
It was in reply to anonymous 6:19 PM who asked if the "blasphemy" the Pope was being falsely accused of was an "infallible teaching."
But to answer your question about when the Pope IS speaking from the "chair of Peter,".........
"Cathedra" and "sedes" are Latin words for a chair, the symbol of the teacher in the ancient world: we still refer metaphorically to the "chair" as the office of a university professor, and to the "see" of a bishop (from "sedes"). The pope is said to occupy the "chair of Peter" or the "Holy See," since Catholics hold that, as Peter had a special role among the apostles as the preserver of unity, so the pope as successor of Peter holds the role of spokesman for the whole church among the bishops, the successors of the apostles.
In connection with papal infallibility, the Latin phrase ex cathedra (literally, "from the chair") has been defined as meaning "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, (the Bishop of Rome) defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."
The response demanded from believers has been characterized as "assent" in the case of ex cathedra declarations of the popes and "due respect" with regard to their other declarations.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Ex_cathedra
_________________________________________________________________________
As for instances of infallible declarations.....
The Catholic Church does not teach that the pope is infallible in everything he says; official invocation of papal infallibility is – apart from canonizations of saints – extremely rare.....
....There is no complete list of papal statements considered infallible. A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on L'Osservatore Romano in July 1998 listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated (at no. 11) that this was not meant to be a complete list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Ex_cathedra
______________________________________________________________________________
cont.
Marko said... There is nothing wrong with tradition, so long as it does not take the place of the Word, and so long as the people holding to that tradition do not have hearts that are far from God.
8:21 AM
Marko, I completely agree with you, providing that the tradition does not counter God's word or diminish or replace our faith. I believe when tradition replaces faith it is sin.
For example if we do an act of penance as a substitute for the economy of salvation instituted by Christ's finished work on the cross, we are in fact negating that work of the cross as ineffective, aka sin.
Also, Susanna, (still on faith and morals) could you explain what was holy about these supposed fathers aka popes of Rome by their hosting the assembly of false religions (including witch-doctors, Wiccans, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc) and practising of such at Assisi in 1986 and 2011?
In light of EVERYTHING I have just written in this post, we're JPII and Benedict XVI therefore acting 'infallibly'?
cont.
Ad tuendam fidem (English: To Protect the Faith) is an apostolic letter of St. John Paul II issued motu proprio on May 18, 1998. The apostolic letter made modified the Oriental and Latin codes of canon law specifying the form of profession of faith to be made by ministers of the Church before assuming office.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith accompanied publication of the document with a doctrinal commentary, clarifying the three levels of authoritative teaching of the Church. The highest level is that of doctrines solemnly propounded as revealed by God. These call for divine faith. The second level is that of doctrines likewise infallibly taught not as revealed by God but as truths inseparably connected with revelation. The third category is that of teachings on matters more or less loosely connected with revelation that without being set forth with the solemnity of infallible doctrines are nevertheless authoritative. For this last category, what is required of Catholics is "religious submission of will and intellect". The other two call for firm and definitive assent, an assent that in the first category is one of divine faith.
The congregation's doctrinal commentary gave several examples of teachings of the first category, including the articles of the Creed.
AD TUENDAM FIDEM
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html
___________________________________________________________
Again, papal infallibility is what Catholics believe. If Protestants disagree with it, fine. But certain Protestants here would be well advised to follow your good example and at least try to find out what Catholics actually believe instead of setting up bizarre straw man scenarios that they then pretend to "refute."
Dear Susanna,
Thanks for sharing your faith,
I have spent allot of time on Catholic Forums and you basically confirmed what I have come across. There is always a way of escape for the Pontiff by those that apologize. When argued into the corner, out comes the statement, 'He was not speaking ex cathedra'.
'Plausible deniability' is the hallmark of every religious leader regardless of tradition.
Susanna, you have avoided the matter contained in my posts at 10:39 AM and 10:52AM respectively. Neither of these posts contain strawman arguments because the very issue of RC doctrine on infallibility centres upon the men themselves when they hold the office you call Pope.
Specifically, these men (John Paul II and Benedict XVI were acting and speaking in areas of faith and morals in the examples provided).
Their actions prove that infallibility is an erroneous doctrine held by Roman Catholicism as these men's actions surely run contrary to that even by Roman Catholic standards.
Is it acceptable for a man holding such office to kiss the Koran? Saint Peter sure wouldn't have venerated and kissed the Egyptian book of the dead, doing so would be the action of Judas and Pharaoh!
The sad thing is that you don't want to follow Jesus Christ alone, who comes in the Name of the Only True Infallible Holy Father, Who is in Heaven! If another were to come in his own name, him you would follow and you do!
What makes you so different from the Pharisees who rejected the true High Priest, Jesus Christ in favor of their own Worldly one? If Jesus Christ were to walk into Rome today as he did in Jerusalem 2000 years ago (speaking out against the vain traditions of men there, overturning the tables selling images of popes and statues etc), the whole of St. Peter's Square would ring out with the echo of, "crucify him, crucify him" ("so what shall we do with the head of Daesh?" "Release him, they would say"), yet isn't that what is done everytime Mass is held? Doesn't Roman Catholicism attempt to re-enact the sacrifice of Jesus Christ? Do you really believe you are eating human flesh and the RC priest is also drinking human blood? I thank God for protecting me that during my time as a Roman Catholic as a child and young adult I never fully understood the concept of transubstantiation. I always saw the wafer as representative only.
My High Priest is Jesus Christ and He is the Word I trust in, relying on the true infallibility of the Holy Spirit, to which I am a child of God and can cry,'Abba, I love you ' to my Holy Father in Heaven.
May God have mercy on you and open your eyes.
Dear Dan,
REThere is always a way of escape for the Pontiff by those that apologize. When argued into the corner, out comes the statement, 'He was not speaking ex cathedra'.
I can see where it may appear to you that "ex cathedra" is synonymous with "plausible deniability." That the Pope was "not speaking ex cathedra" is sometimes an argument for those Catholics who choose not to live up to Catholic teachings in matters of faith and morals.
Notice I said "CATHOLICS." Protestants, by virtue of their having been born into their non- Catholic Christian communion, are bound by their own Rule of Faith which is "Sola Scriptura" and "Private Interpretation" as long as they choose to remain in the Christian communion into which they were born. So unless someone is aggressively trying to "convert" you, ( which would be an instance of obnoxious proselytizing and disapproved of by the Church since only the Holy Spirit can "convert" a person ) I am not clear about what you are saying at 11:01 AM.
But I will say that the Pope is just as subject to the Catholic Rule of Faith as I am and THERE IS NO WAY OF ESCAPE if the Pope were to OFFICIALLY proclaim a falsehood like "Jesus isn't God" or OFFICIALLY deny the Creeds of Chalcedon and/or Nicaea. Of course, it would be bad enough if he were to say something like this "unofficially," but it cannot be repeated often enough that Infallibility ( inability to err ) is not the same thing as Impeccability ( inability to sin ), and the Pope's private opinions are not infallible - even if they have to do with religion.
Again, the Catholic Church does not teach that the pope is infallible in everything he says; official invocation of papal infallibility is – apart from canonizations of saints – extremely rare.....
By the way, have you ever heard of "PRIMA SCRIPTURA?"
PRIMA SCRIPTURA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura
___________________________________________________
Craig ( a non-Catholic Christian commenter here ) and I once had a very interesting discussion about Prima Scriptura on a past thread.
Don't forget, that Sacred Sacriptures which have been handed down to us by the Church is also the Catholic Rule of Faith. Come to think of it, certain Protestants here ( you know who you are ) have quoted the Pope a LOT more often than I have!!! LOL
Pax!
Susanna,
I think it would help if instead of giving the usual longwinded explanations you simply answered this: Does the pope have to be sitting in the official papal seat at the Vatican in order to make an infallible pronouncement?
secondarily, since there have been antipopes in the past (which eventually got resolved), and since you agreed that a pope might personally hold heretical ideas but would be restrained by The Holy Spirit from promulgating them ex cathedra, what is the likelihood that you and we are looking at exactly such a situation now?
thirdly, even if none of these words and actions can be construed as relevant to the faith of Catholics (i.e., they don't have to assent to them), are they not INCAUTIOUS, that is, the typical pop Catholicism type Catholic who doesn't know
Latin, doesn't know the faith that well, WILL give assent (excepting those who
don't give assent to anything but their own desires) to these words and actions,
because they don't know what is and isn't ex cathedra? It is all very well to talk about HUMANLY SPEAKING Christ's Crucifixion was a "failure," certainly those who expected Him to bring the Kingdom of God into worldly power right then viewed it as such likely, until the Resurrection. BUT WHY NOT SPEAK IMMEDIATELY OF THE RESURRECTION? a secretly apostate pope is perhaps going to be withheld from making a faith deadly kind of pronouncement ex cathedra, but he can still do a lot of damage by his casual remarks and actions. at the very least, the apostate/heretical
inclined Catholics who identify with the RC on account of family, culture, personal
history, or aesthetics, will find in them validation for everything they support
which is wrong.
Does a "papal bull" an encyclical count as ex cathedra? if not why not?
Here is a link to a New York Post article covering Jewish, Muslim, Christian “prayers” at the Vatican.
http://nypost.com/2014/06/08/first-ever-jewish-muslim-christian-prayers-at-vatican/
Once again, the Vatican vs the Word of God:
“He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” Proverbs 28:9
“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.”
“If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:”
“For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” 2nd. John 9-11
“He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” John 8:47
Speaking of the Crucifixion as a "failure"...
The disciples got over that thought rather quickly, wouldn't you say?
The pope should have gotten to the headlines of the Day as they did, since he says this is part of his "faith" too. He needs to reread the gospels, actually believe them, and then teach it straight from the book and not leave out the finale!
Why justify dead thinking?
I know why this goes on though. The pope would be out of a job as a middle man. And a whole denomination would have to move forward in time with that message!
Jesus needed no middle man. His work got finished at the cross. He left nothing undone for human priests to do! We can go straight to the top with no stop-overs to the pope, priests, or pastors needed. (or inquisitions, or denominational millions of dollars misspent, etc....)
Think of it...Jesus is Lord and we don't have to be contortionists to tell His story. It speaks for itself for 2000 years and counting.
Video released by the "Catholic News Service" where "Islamic Prayers" along with "Jewish Prayers" are said at the Vatican. Towards the end of the video, the "pope" ... in his own words ... states "we are all children under one Father." Those that deny Jesus Christ have NO access whatsoever to God the Father. Judaism denies even the teachings of Moses, and has not followed the Old Testament since the time of Christ. What it follows is the Babylonian Talmud (that is what THEY call it). Within the Talmud, Jesus Christ is spoken of in the most blasphemous manner imaginable. Mary is depicted in the Talmud as a "well known prostitute" and is thoroughly mocked as a "virgin." Do I even have to state what Islam is??
Yet, the Vatican holds "prayers" by these religious "leaders" ... what a mockery to the true God of the Bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDVbPQxrRc0
The following passage, taken from a book written by the Jesuits themselves, leaves a Roman Catholic with only one of two options:
Either:
1. Accept that papal infallibility is an erroneous doctrine within their faith.
Or:
2. Accept the Jesuits (at least at the time the Papal Bull in 1773 was declared , ex Cathedra), are a," ... Society ... inherently wicked and mischievous, dangerous to the peace of the World, and unworthy of any longer toleration", as proclaimed by Clement XIV.
"The Jesuits within little more than two centures (1555 to 1773) had suffered thirty-seven expulsions from various states. Such of these took place during the 18th Century had occurred in those states of Europe which are most devoted to the Romish faith: viz Savoy, 1729; Portugal, 1759; Spain and the two Sicilies, 1767; Parma, 1768; Malta, 1768. Lastly, as if to crown the whole by a most signal and exemplary instance, THEY WERE IN 1773, SUPPRESSED at Rome and in all Cristendom BY A BULL OF POPE CLEMENT XIV. This Prelate was cautious and temperate in disposition, not unaware of the importance to the Church of the services of this Order, nor of the scandal which must arise from the suppresssion of it. He had within his reach the archives of his propaganda, sources of information to which the rest of the World had not access. He deliberated upon these and upon the pleadings of the Society in its own justification during four years, and at the conclusion of that interval, deliberately set his hand to the instrument of suppression. THUS, EX CATHEDRA HE PRONOUNCED THE SOCIETY TO BE INHERENTLY WICKED AND MISCHIEVOUS, DANGEROUS TO THE PEACE OF THE WORLD, AND UNWORTHY OF ANY LONGER TOLERATION."
From: Constitutiones Societatis Iesu, 1838. Page 138.
I hold that the Jesuits, which emerged from the Alumbrados in the 1500´s (Spanish for Illuminati) have always been and still are an organization exactly as Clement XIV described in his Bull of 1773. However, I also reject the claim that any pope is infallible (a doctrine which became official in the 1840´s).
It is sadly telling that a Jesuit Pope has finally taken power and openly so!
Christine:
Re:I think it would help if instead of giving the usual longwinded explanations you simply answered this: Does the pope have to be sitting in the official papal seat at the Vatican in order to make an infallible pronouncement?
The Latin term "ex cathedra" does translate as "from the chair," but it does not mean - as professional anti-Catholic Loraine Boettner falsely stated - that the pope has to be sitting in the literal chair Peter owned for his decree to be infallible and to qualify as an ex cathedra pronouncement. To speak "from the chair of Peter" is what the pope does when he speaks with the fullness of his authority as the successor of Peter. "The chair of Peter" is a metaphor that refers to the pope’s authority to teach, not to where he sits when he teaches.
Similarly, when we say that a judge rules "from the bench," the "bench" is a metaphor for judicial authority whether or not a judge happens to be sitting on a literal "bench" when he renders the ruling.
Also...the term ex cathedra, as a reference to teaching authority, was not invented by the Catholic Church. Jesus used it. In Matthew 23:2–3 Jesus said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat (Greek: kathedras, Latin: cathedra); so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." Even though these rabbis did not live according to the norms they taught, Jesus points out that they did have authority to teach and to make rules binding on the Jewish community.
RE:Does a "papal bull" an encyclical count as ex cathedra? if not why not?
If it contains a defined teaching it is......whether defined in the bull itself or elsewhere.
RE:Secondarily, since there have been antipopes in the past (which eventually got resolved), and since you agreed that a pope might personally hold heretical ideas but would be restrained by The Holy Spirit from promulgating them ex cathedra, what is the likelihood that you and we are looking at exactly such a situation now?
It is generally believed by Catholics that if the Pope were to attempt to teach error "ex cathedra," the Holy Spirit would restrain him even up to the point of striking him dead.
If God didn't strike the scribes and Pharisees and leaders of the Sanhedron dead who were in control of His own temple, in the time of Christ, and Jesus himself told us that they were a brood of vipers...
Anonymous Susanna said...11:50
By the way, have you ever heard of "PRIMA SCRIPTURA?"
Dear Susanna,
Yes I have and thanks for the link.
My mom (RIP)was Roman Catholic but she rejected that and raised us Protestant.
Her reason for leaving Rome, I will not mention here, but suffice to say I have been studying Roman Catholicism off and on ever since. Not with any intention of returning to Rome, but to understand my mother's decision.
My problem with Rome is that of authority. One can point to one scripture and say that Jesus bestowed the church into Peter's hand. Matthew 16:18
That is not the most curious of verses, because Jesus, was speaking of Himself as the Rock, Yet Peter's name means stone.
Additionally I believe that Jesus had been speaking to the disciples corporately as a group, and not individually to Peter.
Yet fast forward to Matthew 18:1 the disciples debate as who would be greatest in the Kingdom, and did not know it was Peter, he is 'the one'?
Additionally one would have thought that Jesus had every opportunity to set the record straight, but he did not make such a pronouncement.
I agree that the bible is not of anyone's individual private interpretation, but it takes the Holy Spirit within us to lead us into all truth.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/journey-of-the-magi-symbolizes-destiny-of-man-says-pope/
Once the witchcraft wears off it's impossible to read this stuff without cringing.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/magus?s=t
http://christiandiscussionsmsn.yuku.com/topic/11998/Simon-Magus-was-the-founder-of-the-Roman-Catholic-Church#.Vo2iclK1Mwg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rrm8usaH0sM
When they say in the headlines.... More Robots Than People!! Robots smarter than people!! Do they mean undetectable MK Ultra slave-broom-robots or machine type robots?
1:30 PM Ray, Jews, Muslims, Catholics ---good--- Protestants bad, come on, get it right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwk8n8eixBI
yuck, just in time for more drug and weapons sales, I am not helping I am praying for all
This is a good piece by a former Protestant which will help readers discern what is going on here:
http://catholicozarks.blogspot.ie/2016/01/the-great-apostasy.html
Dear Dan,
I am assuming that you are a cradle Protestant. I am a cradle Catholic. If so, then neither of us has actually experienced anything other than the Christian communions into which we were respectively born and in which we were raised.
Yes, the authority issue is a major bone of contention between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics and Protestants not only have different Rules of Faith, but they also use different Scriptures. The Old Testament canon for Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) is the Septuagint, while the Old Testament canon for Protestants is the Hebrew Bible.
The interpretation of the "Rock" dialogue you gave is the Protestant interpretation.
The Gospel according to Matthew which has been handed down to us in Greek was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic according to the Church Fathers Papias and Irenaeus. And the word for "rock" was "Cephas" ("Kephas") which Christ applied to Simon bar Jonah (a.k.a. Peter).
Here is the Catholic interpretation of the "rock dialogue" in case you are interested:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/peter-the-rock
Anonymous 6:57 P.M.
Thank you!!! I just now purchased Shane Schaetzel's book.
Dan Bryan @ 6:15 PM.
Thank you. That was an excellent, well said post.
My aunt in her old age (rip) left the catholic church and was not hateful in the least about that.
She knew to leave because when she looked at the same question about authority, she concluded the same. Why? Because the bible itself told her so and the Holy spirit made that understanding real to her heart and mind as she relayed that to us.
The ground is level at the foot of the cross.
Yet St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, declared Jesus Christ the Rock, not Peter!
www.excellent-valley.org/Augustine/augustine_exegesis_rock.htm
Unfortunately Susanna you are happy in that unchristian communion into which you were born. You stubbornly resist the new birth because your vain religion satisfies your carnal mind.
10:52 am
I hate to tell you but it is not only the Catholic Church that are assembling with other faiths ( not defending them for this) but plenty of Christians hand in hand with Muslims under the so-called guise of promoting peace. The only peace is in Jesus. All the other false displays of unity are counterfeit and nothing more than feel good gatherings that mislead people and bypass the gospel.
Susanna said... Dear Dan,
The interpretation of the "Rock" dialogue you gave is the Protestant interpretation.
Dear Susanna,
The Protestant position is based in the Bible.
I pulled the references for you, but you can confirm them at the link included.
In my estimation all roads lead to Christ/God, not Peter.
http://www.catholic.org/bible/
Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are equitable. A trustworthy God who does no wrong, he is the Honest, the Upright One!
1 Samuel 2:2 There is no Holy One like Yahweh, (indeed, there is none but you) no Rock like our God.
2 Samuel 22:2,3 He said: Yahweh is my rock and my fortress, my deliverer is my God. I take refuge in him, my rock, my shield, my saving strength, my stronghold, my place of refuge.
Psalms 18:2 Yahweh is my rock and my fortress, my deliverer is my God. I take refuge in him, my rock, my shield, my saving strength, my stronghold, my place of refuge.
Psalms 31:2,3 turn your ear to me, make haste. Be for me a rock-fastness, a fortified citadel to save me. You are my rock, my rampart; true to your name, lead me and guide me!
Psalms 62:2 He alone is my rock, my safety, my stronghold so that I stand unshaken.
Psalms 62:6,7 He alone is my rock, my safety, my stronghold, so that I stand unwavering. In God is my safety and my glory, the rock of my strength. In God is my refuge
Psalms 71:3 Be a sheltering rock for me, always accessible; you have determined to save me, for you are my rock, my fortress.
Psalms 78:35 (Speaking of the Exodus)... recalling that God was their rock, God the Most High, their redeemer.
Psalms 95:1 Come, let us cry out with joy to Yahweh, acclaim the rock of our salvation.
Isaiah 26:4 Trust in Yahweh forever, for Yahweh is a rock forever.
Daniel 2:34,35 While you were gazing, a stone broke away, untouched by any hand, and struck the statue, struck its feet of iron and clay and shattered them. Then, iron and clay, bronze, silver and gold, all broke into pieces as fine as chaff on the threshing-floor in summer. The wind blew them away, leaving not a trace behind. And the stone that had struck the statue grew into a great mountain, filling the whole world.
I Corinthians 10:4 (Speaking of the Exodus)... and all drank the same spiritual drink, since they drank from the spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ.
rock dialog etc. both positions prot and rc are wrong.
Peter received the keys first, when he was first to recognize Jesus for Who He is. Matt. 16:18 WHAT ARE KEYS? A KEEPER OF KEYS IS ONE WHO LETS PEOPLE IN OR LOCKS THEM OUT OF WHAT HE HAS THE KEYS TO. bearing that in mind, keep looking.
all Apostles who by now know Who Jesus is, that He is God in the flesh, receive the keys John 20:22, 23 this doesn't say "keys" but it talks about remitting and retaining sins, which is the same issue and the same issue as binding and loosing.
in some circumstances a congregation can have this power Matt. 18: 15-19
ALL THE APOSTLES ARE ROCKS, I.E., STONES, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE FOUNDATION STONES ON WHICH THE CHURCH IS BUILT WITH CHRIST AS CHIEF CORNERSTONE Ephes. 2:20-22.
Peter was the first to preach in Acts when the Holy Spirit came. PETER WAS NOT HOWEVER THE BISHOP OF JERUSALEM, notice that after the discussions at the first council at Jerusalem, JAMES says "THEREFORE I [NOT WE, "I"] JUDGE THAT....." and the decree went forth. Peter was also the first to directly take the Gospel to gentiles, aside from any that were present at Pentecost out of curiosity. Acts. 10:1 et. seq.
HOWEVER, Jesus didn't surrender the keys, more like handed out copies of them. He has the key of David Rev. 3:7 quoting Isa. 22:22, and the keys of death of Hades Rev.1:18
Susanna,
"RE:Secondarily, since there have been antipopes in the past (which eventually got resolved), and since you agreed that a pope might personally hold heretical ideas but would be restrained by The Holy Spirit from promulgating them ex cathedra, what is the likelihood that you and we are looking at exactly such a situation now?
It is generally believed by Catholics that if the Pope were to attempt to teach error "ex cathedra," the Holy Spirit would restrain him even up to the point of striking him dead."
that isn't what I asked. I asked although the pope would be held from officially promulgating apostasy or heresy IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE POPE IS SECRETLY HERETICAL OR EVEN SECRETLY APOSTATE and/or IS IT POSSIBLE HE IS AN ANTIPOPE since such have existed before and been dismissed as such later after the dust settled and therefore he MIGHT if he lacks the special charism in fact make such a promulgation, which would be indicative of his being an antipope?
protestant bible vs. catholic bible - the Septuagint was translated from an earlier copy of the OT than the Masoretic was. There are several verses that are in NT but either absent or radically different yet sort of recognizable when you find them in the OT. This is because the APOSTLES USED THE SEPTUAGINT.
"all English Protestant (including the King James) Bibles included the so called Apocryphal books before the early 1820's. For some reason these books were removed in all the later printing." i.e.,
KJV 1611 was the same pretty much except for Masoretic deviations, often inspired by rejection of Christ, from the LXX underlying text. http://ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/
We need no lessons from an unrepentant Hinduism dabbler and bs bubbler such as you, Chritine!
In the following I will challenge the RCC position that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, as well as the Protestant understanding that the petras (rock) in Matthew 16 refers to Jesus – though, of course, Jesus is referred to as the rock quite a bit in Scripture.
Regarding the Aramaic priority view in Matthew, from what I can see there is not strong proof for it, and though it seems possible, I remain skeptical. The Patristic references to this can be understood as originally emanating from Papias, who wrote that Matthew was written in hebraidi dialekto (~ a Hebraic dialect/language), which the RCC understands as indicating that Matthew’s Gospel was originally in Aramaic; however, recent NT scholarship construes this as Matthew having been written in a Hebraic rhetorical style, though in Koine Greek.
Most scholars believe that Jesus taught in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Koine Greek. There is certainly some Aramaic in the Scriptures, with K/Cephas used elsewhere (though curiously not at all in Matthew like in John, e.g. John 1:42 with both Cephas and Peter used). In addition, interestingly, the word “Messiah” for John 1:41 and 4:25 is actually transliterated into Greek from the Aramaic (Μεσσίας, Messias) and not the Hebrew (Mashiach) – something I discovered a few years ago.
This issue is discussed implicitly a bit throughout Stanley E. Porter’s Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice ((Studies in Biblical Greek 6), New York: Peter Lang, 1996), in various individual essays authored by Porter. Unfortunately, this series as a whole, is not very accessible (it alternates between being somewhat technical and very technical) and pricey. In one essay, “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek,” Porter concludes that the highly complex syntax of Matthew 16:19 indicates originality, with Porter adding that it is “quite possibly by Jesus himself” (p 169) i.e. a direct quotation of Jesus, rather than the presumed paraphrasing in the Gospels – there’s a recognized difficulty in recalling another’s words verbatim 20+ years later, hence the differences in Synoptic parallel passages.
cont.
Cont.
HOWEVER, the Greek of Matthew 16:18 is best exegeted as Peter being the “foundation.” Quoting Porter:
…While some scholars would argue that the word-play does not work well in Greek because two different Greek words are used rather than simply citing the statement of an Aramaic original [ED: here Porter is not arguing against Matthew being written solely in Aramaic, but whether this particular passage was originally spoken in Greek rather than Aramaic], the use of cognate forms (possibly indicating paronomasia [ED: pun]) points to the importance of Greek formulation. According to this reasoning, the use of Πέτρος (Petros), a masculine noun, and the name given to Simon…is frequently in Greek literature understood to mean a simple “stone”….πέτρᾳ (petra), a feminine noun and inappropriate as a man’s name, often is used to refer to a mass of rock…Jesus thus says, “You are Πέτρος (a name for an individual male and single stone) and upon this πέτρᾳ (firm foundation of stone) I intend to build my church.” This accounts well for the alternation of Greek words, unnecessary if it merely translates the same Aramaic word, and it accommodates general Greek usage of the two words as well… (pp 167-168).
In a separate essay in this same volume, “Vague Verbs, Periphrastics and Matthew 16:19,” he borrows most of the words above, adding, …Despite the alternation of terms, however, it seems clear from the parallelism that Jesus intends to found his church upon Peter himself, though early exegetes, as well as a few more recent ones, have argued for such things as Peter’s confession, Peter’s faith, or even Christ himself… (pp 105-106). In his conclusion Porter states, …Peter’s role in the formation of the church, while certainly significant, cannot be institutionalized on the basis of this passage alone, but rather points to a primary though not exclusive function…. Porter concludes with an assertion to consider, and properly untangle, the difficult syntax of Matthew 16:19 in one’s analysis, which I’ll not quote here due to its very technical nature, and my own inability to explain this well to those who haven’t studied this.
The bottom line is that Porter, a Greek scholar of renown, sees Matthew 16 as indicating that Peter had a leadership role among the Apostles. This does not indicate that Peter’s role was to continue on in the form of some sort of succession. In fact, I’d say that, logically, if Peter is the foundation (petras), then this is to be built upon, not continued, as we don’t continue to put foundations on top of a foundation.
Dan Bryan @ 1:01 AM.
Thank you for letting the absolute Authority speak. God Himself.
Clear as a bell for those willing to let all rest upon the Rock, Jesus.
Makes me ask, why isn't His the final Word, for some who say they believe in Him?
All other back and forth in this discussion sure depends upon a lot of scaffolding and props.
Jesus cut to the chase and so many of the religious of His day took real issue with Him about His authority. Still going on in our time, but He will be coming soon to fix this.
Dear Christine, Craig,
Here are additional references from scripture of Jesus being the chief corner stone.
Apparently a stumbling block to the Jews and also to the Catholic, who's replacement theology has lifted up Peter as that Rock?
Do you believe that any of these references and the ones I listed prior, point to Peter?
And if not maybe Constance can speak to us about what it means by the preponderance of evidence?
Gen 49:24 But their bows were broken by a mighty One, the sinews of their arms were snapped by the power of the Mighty One of Jacob, by the Name of the Stone of Israel, (By his name every knee shall bow ~ Dan 2:34)
Psalms 118:22 The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; (Mat 21:42-44, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17-18 Acts 4:11 Eph 2:20, 1 Peter 2:6-8)
Isaiah 8:14 He will be a sanctuary, a stumbling-stone, a rock to trip up the two Houses of Israel; a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
Isaiah 28:16 So the Lord Yahweh says this, 'Now I shall lay a stone in Zion, a granite stone, a precious corner-stone, a firm foundation-stone: no one who relies on this will stumble.
Zechariah 3:8,9 'So listen, High Priest Joshua, you and the colleagues over whom you preside -- for they are an omen of things to come -- for now I shall bring in my servant the Branch, and I shall remove this country's guilt in a single day. For this is the stone which I have put before Joshua, a stone on which are seven eyes; (Rev 1:4, 4:5 and 5:6) and I myself shall cut the inscription on it -- Yahweh Sabaoth declares."
pretty obviously none of them refer to Peter except the one and only NT statement addressed to Peter. That he is in fact only one of eventually many foundation stones, and we are lively stones built on those foundations with Christ as chief cornerstone, is evident.
I like your point that "if Peter is the foundation (petras), then this is to be built upon, not continued, as we don’t continue to put foundations on top of a foundation."
The RC looks to Christ and is like a company that obeys its founder who is now semi
retired by obeying the top manager he put in charge in his absence and checks up on
occasionally. be in revolt against or running separate from that chain of command,
and you are not in the organization or its chain of command.
the protestant and the EO and the RC both consider Christ is head of the Church,
the pope is just the visible physical head, who is Christ's appointed representative. (vicar is not upstart replacement but official authorized representative. Given the use of this word this way in Hislop's time and experience, he was flat out lying to treat it as some oppositional in place of in the sense of rebelliously replacing, pushing aside, not in place of in the sense
vicar always has meant.)
Ah, perhaps that was first intent in vicarage, but history tells us that these in the papal positions did usurp the Lord's authority. You can't have it both ways, in your definition of the vicars. They did become the instead of-the replacement. And "lorded" over the people who followed them. What lies one has to believe otherwise to make that hold up in court! Abuse of all types well documented and rubber-stamped by the small and elite numbers of those who benefited by it....outright going against the Word of God. God's courtroom will see this bring the gavel down on all such heresy one day. That day is not too far out now.
Apostle Paul warned the church about those who acted in preeminence to counter what the Lord was teaching through him and the other apostles. It started very early in church history.
The old testament model of priesthood was done away with when Christ came and made it obsolete by fulfilling it, He is never to be replaced as the new and living way. Check and see if correct and read with fresh eyes and the aid of the Holy Spirit, Hebrews 7-9 specifically, and see it spelled out precisely! Woe to those who have and still attempt this. They're wrong not to bow out and bow down to the new order of things established, that Jesus was and is, the head of His church, with no need of human aid. we, the church, are the respective parts thereafter of His headship.
He is not semi-retired or off on a cruise while his company managers run the store. That is the perception from those who are willfully ignorant of Who He is and what He has done to reset His earthly program, those who go about reworking and reestablishing what was of the old testament past, other than His new testament eternal covenant. Jesus wasn't setting up a new and improved version of that. He is that.
Woe to those who diminish Him in any way, churches of any of the denominations, that have varying degrees of apostasy within them to lessen Him, at this late hour.
Dear Dan,
Re:Dear Susanna,
The Protestant position is based in the Bible.
I am sure Protestants sincerely believe that their position is based on the Bible. But Catholics just as sincerely believe that their position is based on the Bible as well.
I am not denying that Christ was referred to as "the Rock" on several occasions in Scripture. But Catholics believe that Christ delegated His authority to Peter immediately after the Father revealed personally, individually and ONLY to Peter that Jesus was "the Christ the Son of the living God." The Petrine succession is historic. The historical facts, can be easily backed up with original source documentation, dating back to the time period, written by the very people who died for their faith. History proves these facts and history cannot be changed. It can only be ignored, which is exactly what many non-Catholic groups do.
That said, I will repeat, Catholic and Protestant Rules of Faith are different as are our Scriptures. The Petros/petra issue is a PROTESTANT interpretation. It is NOT a Catholic interpretation. I wasn't trying to argue who was right and who was wrong. I was simply stating a fact after YOU brought up the "rock" issue. If you honestly believe your interpretation is correct, then good for you. I cheerfully agree to disagree.
Dan,
To be clear, I identify as a Protestant (more or less), though I disagree that petras refers to Christ in Matthew 16:18. However, it is abundantly clear that Christ is the cornerstone (Greek ἀκρογωνιαῖος, akrogōniaios) in Eph 2:20, as well as 1 Peter 2:6, the latter being a quote (LXX) of Isaiah 28:16. Note that in Eph 2:20 that Christ, as “chief cornerstone” (NIV), is part of the foundation that includes the “apostles and prophets” (however one wishes to construe the latter exactly). I think this is what we must keep in mind in Matthew 16:18.
Unfortunately Susanna you are happy in that unchristian communion into which you were born. You stubbornly resist the new birth because your vain religion satisfies your carnal mind.
Actually there are plenty of smart people around freely choosing Catholicism over Protestantism, including Shane Schaetzel (mentioned above), Tim Staples, and Sam Guzman (the son of a prominent Protestant blogger). It's commonly referred to as "crossing the Tiber." It has continued to happen for hundreds of years.
How do you account for conversions like this from people who know the Bible just as much as you do (perhaps even more)?
Dear 2:29 PM,
It is called spiritual wantoning. A feeling or feelings based on a perception of something missing. When this occurs in the spiritual realm something must change or happen to appeal to that "feeling" and satisfy it, but is nothing more than carnality.
Empty husks can make a belly "feel" full.
This is only a dissatisfaction and discontent with Jesus, which is an oxymoron.
Not so smart afterall......
It is the Laodiceaian stage cycling through again...for one last time.
2:45,
On what do you base this conclusion? Do you know Schaetzel, Staples, or Guzman personally? Do you base your conclusions about their motives on objective facts? Do keep in mind that it is sinful to bear false witness.
Don't have to. It is human nature.
A deeper walk with Christ is more christ-likeness, not more filler.
If these were writing about walking deeper with Jesus that way, it wouldn't be about denominations one way or another.
Merely a lateral move. Still a horizontal view with little vertical (if any? that part I can't know) to it.
anons 2:45, 2:54 and 3:06
here is how Shane Schaetzel became RC and it had nothing to do with feelings so it wasn't "spiritual wantoning."
"You see I am a Protestant convert to the Catholic Church myself, and not just any type of Protestant, but three types to be exact. I was raised as a nominal Baptist. As a young adult I became a passionate Evangelical, and a staunch Fundamentalist one at that. It was here I was instructed on how to be an anti-Catholic, that the Church of Rome was really the "Whore of Babylon" written of in the Apocalypse, and the Roman Catholic Church was a counterfeit Christian "cult." I was part of the fastest growing Evangelical movement in the United States during the 1990s -- Calvary Chapel. I even studied to become a pastor in this movement, and nearly gained a pastoral role at my local affiliate before turning it down to pursue a more traditional form of Protestantism. You see my pastoral studies of Church history and the Jewish roots of the Christian faith led me to understand that the early Christians were much more "catholic" than I was comfortable with. So I decided to study and experience these "catholic" practises in a good safe Protestant environment. That's why my wife and I joined a local Episcopal Church. We spent some time as Episcopalians, learning how to genuflect and make the sign of the cross. We learnt the meaning of liturgy and that church "services" were really supposed to be an act of worship that is a sacrifice, not just a fellowship for mutual edification. In time however, we had difficulty accepting the liberal practises of the national province (female priests and acceptance of homosexuality). My wife also wanted to be part of a larger church that was in communion with a larger number of Christians. I agreed with her on this, and so, on the Easter Vigil of 2000, Penny and I were received into the Catholic Church."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2939994/posts
How Tim Staples became RC.
"Tim Staples was a fallen-away Southern Baptist who as a teen came back to faith in Christ through the witness of televangelists. During his four-year tour with the U.S. Marine Corps, he became friends with a Marine well-versed in his Catholic Faith who challenged Tim to study Catholicism from Catholic and historical sources. That sparked a two-year search for the truth. Immediately after his tour of duty, Tim attended Jimmy Swaggart Bible College and became a youth minister in an Assembly of God community. He was determined to prove Catholicism wrong, but he studied his way to the last place he thought he would ever end up: the Catholic Church. He converted in 1988 and spent six years in formation for the priesthood, earning a degree in philosophy and studying theology at the graduate level. Realizing that his calling was not to be a priest, Tim left the seminary in 1994 and has been working in Catholic apologetics and evangelization ever since."
http://www.catholic.com/timstaples
3:06,
Running down the spirituality of Christians you know next to nothing about whilst implicitly elevating yourself smacks of pride, not of "christ-likeness" (as you call it). Moreover YOU are the one obsessed with "denominations," not me. I merely mentioned that these men converted from Protestantism.
Your attitude toward Catholic converts reminds me of how secularists mischaracterize Christian doctrine and dismiss all those who believe in it as ignorant, brain-dead, hypocritical morons.
So what?
Still stuck talking preferred ever cycling denominationalism.
All stages of a lateral wantoning cycle.
I am not talking denominations at all.
You must have missed that part.
anon 3:22 is then talking house church, which is the outer court of the NAR heresy.
or something similar. and is deceived.
Anonymous 2:29 P.M.
I account for these Protestant conversions to Roman Catholicism being primarily due to an authority issue.
It cannot proven that "Sola Scriptura" is taught in the Bible. Neither can it be proven that "private interpretation" is taught in the Bible either.
Shane Schaetzel has likewise said that in his estimation, the major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, is the issue of authority - which was untimately the issue that lay behind his own conversion to Roman Catholicism.
But let's allow Schaetzel to speak for himself.
So given that Sola Scriptura cannot be proved from the Bible, is Sola Scriptura (the "Bible Alone" doctrine) really worthy of belief? Is it worthy to be imposed on all Christians as a universal dogma? Should Catholics subscribe to it? Should Protestants subscribe to it? Should anybody subscribe to it? Is this really something that can honestly be used to condemn the Catholic Church, or any church for that matter? Or have modern Protestants overstepped their boundaries by attempting to impose a private discipline on all Christians as a universal doctrine?.......
.....The Bible itself doesn't even tell us what books belong in the Bible...
....In fact, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says everything we need to know is in the Bible. That idea itself is a man-made "tradition." .....
cont.
Then have "fun" with the topic, getting tangled in more comparative denominational tit for tat, if you prefer. Take or leave the point I made as you care to.
Jesus trumped denomination....all of it, and the point that they, and you should have been making, too.
cont.
When put to the Biblical test, Sola Scriptura falls flat on its face. The doctrine (or discipline) is itself non-Biblical. I suppose any Christian could use it if he wants to, as a private discipline, but in doing so, he would have to simultaneously admit that other Christians cannot be obligated to do the same. .......
I think I've laid out here a pretty good case for why the Bible does not stand alone, as in a vacuum, without some kind of outside interpreting context. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) was invented in 1520 AD by Martin Luther in response to his own excommunication bull from the pope. It has later been reinterpreted to mean that Christians can condemn as "false" anything that is not specifically taught in the Bible Alone. It has even been used to attack Catholic Christianity as a "false religion" because Catholicism relies on some Traditions that don't necessarily come from the Bible Alone. Yet the Bible Alone doctrine itself has no basis in Scripture. Furthermore, the Bible is an inanimate book. It can no more interpret itself than read itself. Context can come from Scripture, but it is certainly not limited to it, and it is the reader who interprets, not the book. Therefore, based on its own premise, Sola Scriptura (the "Bible Alone" doctrine or discipline) cannot be binding on any Christian. At best, it is just a private discipline, used by individual Protestants who want to personally reject doctrines they can't find in the Bible. We can debate whether it is right to do that or not, since the Scriptures seem to tell us authority not only comes from Tradition (1st Corinthians 11:2 and 2nd Thessalonians 2:15), but also the Church, which it calls the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1st Timothy 3:15). Yet so long as the Protestant leaves it as a personal matter, without imposing it on others, the only one he potentially brings harm upon is himself. However, once a Protestant attempts to impose this very extra-Biblical, and seemingly unbiblical, teaching upon other Christians, he has overstepped his boundaries. He has become far worse than any corrupt pope in the pages of Medieval history. For he has attempted to impose an absolute dogma upon ALL Christians, one that has no Biblical merit, contradicts the Scriptures in so many places, and is in actuality a perversion of what the doctrine originally meant.
http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2012/07/bible-is-not-alone.html
@ 3:27 PM.
Wrong. I attend a church and it makes no difference which one it is (to me at least).
Your guessing game can be construed as making sport of this, MCE.
That is wrong in itself, if that is what you're up to.
anon 3:27
if you are doing the generic Christian thing I used to do, which is what I call what you describe doing, then you are far more hostile to denominations than I was. But you are prime picking for a house church. whether you think so or not. its just human nature patterns.
and you do NOT understand church or denominations at all. The reason (aside from cliqueishness and family history) that a denomination forms, or that someone gets into one, is because they feel it gets them closer to Jesus than another does. or than no denomination does. This may be because of the way the typical preaching
is done, or it may be that their understanding of the Bible meshes to that denomination. it may be that where they were was shallow and the present church is better at teaching from the Bible and the parishioners lead more Christlike lives than where they were before.
Susanna,
Sam Guzman's conversion story is quite interesting. Apparently, when he was in college he didn't think Catholics were Christians (sounds like some of the commenters at this blog!):
While attending a fundamentalist Baptist university in college, I began to feel a strong disconnect between the faith I knew and the faith of the early church. Would St. Augustine (my hero at the time) really have gone to Victory Independent Fundamental Baptist Church and ended each service with an altar call? How did the earliest Christians worship? Baptist worship just didn’t seem to fit with the little I knew about church history. I began to delve into the history of Christianity and to read the early church Fathers as much as possible.
Also, at the same time, I was a guard at the school’s art museum. Ironically, this virulently anti-Catholic Baptist school had an art gallery filled with priceless Catholic art. It spanned the 2nd to the 19th centuries. It was incredibly beautiful stuff.... Again, though, I felt distant from the Christians who created this art work. Obviously, they had strong faith. Yet, according to what I believed, they weren’t true Christians. What did they really believe, and why?
In short, I was drawn to the beauty, depth, and richness of historic Christianity. The impression grew that the Protestant Christianity I knew was missing something essential, and was actually foreign to the faith of Christians through the ages. The search for a more historic faith lead me to the Anglican tradition. I thought, “Here is a middle way between Catholicism (which I would never consider) and Protestantism.” I considered the ministry and becoming an ordained Anglican priest. However, in choosing an Anglican denomination in which to pursue ordination, the division that characterizes Protestantism really hit home. I always knew Protestants were divided, but it never really bothered me. But when I saw dozens of Anglican “churches” all claiming to be the true Anglicans, co-existing with whacked-out liberal Anglicans like the Episcopal Church in the USA, I knew there was a deeper problem. Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17 told me this shouldn’t be. Why such confusion in the name of Jesus? So I began to study the break with Rome that had started the chaos.
For about three years, I studied church history and theology in my spare time. After graduating college, I began to study more earnestly. I vacillated between repulsion and attraction, fascination and disgust. After much internal struggle and turmoil, I eventually came to the conclusion that the Catholic church was the one True Church that Jesus had founded in 33 A.D. It was the body of Christ, and if I wanted to be true to Jesus, I would have to become Catholic.
http://badgercatholic.blogspot.ie/2013/07/an-interview-with-pro-life-wisconsins.html
Laodicea is a state of heart, mind and spirit. Was all about the laterals and the externals.
Just what I'm witnessing here, right now.
Neither hot nor cold, but stuck in the status quo of denominationalisms lukewarmness.
Enjoy if you can, it won't last too much longer.
In my two previous essays (Are Catholics Christians? and The Bible Is Not Alone) I explored the problems of relying on the Bible alone, or Sola Scriptura, for all religious authority. I pointed out that all Christians, including Protestants (and even Baptists), rely on some extra-Biblical traditions just to function. Where there is tradition however, there must likewise be authority. For if we do not have some authority, some group or institution, telling us what extra-Biblical traditions to follow, then we will have nothing but chaos. For example; most Protestant churches have a central body (or individual) who dogmatically proclaims that the Bible shall be used as their sole source of authority. Since the Bible nowhere claims this for itself, (see The Bible Is Not Alone), you need to have an extra-biblical authority make such a claim. This same central body (or individual) will pontificate "which Bible" they shall use. For not all Bibles are the same. Catholic Bibles contain more books than Protestant Bibles, so it would be common for such central bodies (or individuals) to pontificate the shorter 66-book Protestant Bible, as opposed to the longer 73-book Catholic Bible. Some of these central authorities (or individuals) will even pontificate which particular English translation they will use in their Protestant churches. Some will insist on the King James Version (KJV) only. Others prefer to use the New King James Version (NKJV). Some prefer the New International Version (NIV), and still yet others insist on the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Now that doesn't include the various doctrines they will sometimes insist on. Some Protestant churches are Calvinist, while others are not. Some are Dispensationalist, and others are not. Some believe in consubstantiation when it comes to Holy Communion, others believe it is just a symbolic "Lord's Supper." Some believe in infant baptism, others do not. The list goes on and on. Why is this? How can there be such uniformity of doctrine in the Catholic Church, shared by the Eastern Orthodox as well (over 2/3 of all Christians), yet in Protestantism there is so much diversity in doctrine? Literally, you can go to any Catholic Church, anywhere in the world, and the doctrine is the same. You can go to any Eastern Orthodox church in the world, and while their form of worship may look different, their doctrine is virtually identical to the Catholic Church. Yet, when you go from one Protestant church to another, the beliefs change depending on where you are. How can this be? Perhaps this is where a little knowledge of history comes in handy.
http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2012/07/christian-authority-in-focus.html
You see, prior to the 16th century, all Christians in the Western world were Catholic. That's right, the word "Catholic" and the word "Christian" were totally synonymous. People just used them interchangeably. This had been the case in the West since the age of the apostles. However, in the late 15th century, certain corruptions set into the Catholic Church, so that by the early 16th century, these corruptions were quite profound in Northern Europe. This gave way to political instability in Northern Europe, which gave rise to many attempts at reformation. There had been reformation movements in the past, and most of them were quite successful. However, in the 16th century, these new reformers were different from the old.
What is the difference between St. Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther? They were both great reformers, where they not? They were both misunderstood by their contemporaries, where they not? They both fought against insurmountable odds and overwhelming religious corruption in their time, did they not? So what's the difference? Why isn't Martin Luther regarded as "Saint Martin Luther?" Well, I'll tell you, and for me this is a bit personal. You see my direct ancestors were some of the first Christians baptised under Martin Luther's religion. My surname comes from Guntersblum Germany, which is just about 12 miles north of Worms on the Rhine River. I can trace this line of my ancestry directly to baptismal records in the local Lutheran church going back to the late 1500s. My family was among the first Protestants ever, and they remained faithful Lutherans (for the most part) for nearly 500 years! I myself was baptised in the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church in the United States back in 1970. So how come the reformer Francis of Assisi is a Saint and the reformer Martin Luther is not? The answer is simple really. Saint Francis of Assisi sought to change corruption within the Church, while Martin Luther sought to change the doctrine of the Church itself. That's the difference. Saint Francis of Assisi claimed no authority of his own, outside of that which was given to him by the pope to govern his religious order. Martin Luther on the other hand, claimed all authority under heaven, putting himself on equal authority with the bishops, pope and the apostles of Jesus Christ. He assumed for himself the authority to redefine Christian doctrines that had been defined for centuries. He not only reinterpreted the Bible to his own fancy, but he even removed books from the Bible that he disagreed with (Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, in addition to the 7 Old Testament books sometimes called the Apocrypha). So sweeping were the powers he assumed that he quickly became known as "that pope in Wittenberg," though one must historically observe that no real pope in Rome ever dared to claim so much authority for himself. Martin Luther effectively made himself a "super-pope." Luther was not alone in his time. Others followed his example; John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli just to name a couple. The English Reformation was a bit different, but in the end, the cause was the same. In this case, King Henry VIII, and later his daughter Elizabeth I, simply adopted the same position as Martin Luther, taking on all authority under heaven to remake Christianity however they saw fit. For all of the quibbling over this doctrine or that, the entire Reformation of the 16th century could easily be simplified to just calling it a crisis of authority within the Western Church. The so-called "Reformers" simply assumed for themselves a level of authority not seen since the apostolic era. That they assumed such authority is indisputable, let the historical records show, but the real question is: Did they have the right to assume such authority?....
cont.
Today, there are many Protestant churches. I really don't know how many. Open up any citywide phone book, turn it to the yellow pages, and under the listing for "churches" one can easily find literally dozens of Protestant denominations to choose from. One of the more recent trends is the so-called "non-denominational" church. These too are Protestant churches no doubt, as they usually cling to all of the basic tenets of Protestantism, including the 66-book Protestant Bible. However, they are not always affiliated with any centralised authority structure. Thus the individual "non-denominational" church becomes a denomination unto itself, completely free and independent of all others. There the pastor serves as priest, bishop and pope, all in one. There is also the house-church or small-group trend within Protestantism which may, or may not, have a centralised authority structure. Of course the ultimate example of Sola Scriptura run amok is the "individual church movement." What's that? You might ask. Well, it's been around for a long time, but there is no official structure of any kind behind it. I doubt you would find a specific website devoted to it. It is simply the growing Protestant notion that one doesn't really need a church at all. It is Sola Scriptura taken to such an extreme, that each individual becomes a church unto himself, with his own authority to interpret the Bible for himself, as he sees fit, without the aid of anyone else. I'm sure you've heard about it. Every time a Christian says, "I don't need a church, I can worship Christ just fine in my own home," this is what is meant by the "individual church movement." Ultimately, under this ideology, a single passage of Scripture can be interpreted literally a thousand different ways, by a thousand different people, and to be consistent, one would have to say that no one interpretation is better than another (i.e. "Biblical relativism").
http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2012/07/christian-authority-in-focus.html
This blog is sure getting beaten down this all the do's and don't's about church again.
Sure takes up a lot of room on the blog to explain it all too death.
I thought it was about Jesus, not his kids.
cont...
Christian authority comes from Jesus Christ and no other. It cannot come from an inanimate object, a book, such as the Bible. It is not something that is earned academically or just assumed by opening up a church building. It is easy to lay hands on a man and call him "ordained," but if that ordination cannot be traced back to an apostle, it has little to no value. No, Christian authority came from the hands of the man (Jesus Christ) who ordained Peter, James, John and all the rest. Outside of this, there is no Christian authority. It either comes directly from the physical hands of Jesus Christ, or else it does not exist at all. This is the only reasonable explanation for the doctrinal chaos that has plagued Protestantism for the last five centuries and most intensely in the last five decades.
Without apostolic authority we are left with the inevitable result of Biblical relativism. For without apostolic succession, one pastor's interpretation of Scripture cannot be any more authoritative than another.
This in no way diminishes the pastoral care that Protestant ministers give to their flocks, and what I have written here should not be misinterpreted to disparage the fine work often performed by dedicated Protestant pastors. What I have written here should be interpreted in the most strict sense when it comes to the issue of authority. Indeed, many Protestant ministers have done excellent work tending to the needs of their congregations. All I am saying here is that none of them can speak with absolute authority on the meaning of the scriptures, since none have apostolic succession, and I think it's safe to say that most Protestant ministers would actually agree with me on that. For few of them would claim a level of authority on par with the apostles.
The author makes no attempt to hide his bias here. I've lived as a Christian on both sides of the fence. I know what the Protestant side is like, as I've been through more than a few Protestant denominations. I know what the Catholic side is like. Neither is without its share of problems. However, when forced to choose between the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism, verses the doctrinal consistency of Catholicism, I have chosen the latter. Are the Catholic Church's leaders perfect? No. Are they without sin? Of course not. Nothing in my faith requires me to believe they are. Do they make mistakes? Of course they do. Can they be corrupt? Unfortunately the answer is yes. However, when they teach authoritatively, exercising their apostolic offices, You can rest assured their teaching is as good as if it came from the original apostles themselves. I can go to a Catholic Church in Springfield Missouri on one Sunday, then attend another in Myrtle Beach South Carolina the next Sunday, knowing with absolute certainty that the beliefs are the same, the liturgy is the same, and the sacraments are the same. This is the result of the gift of authority. Jesus gave it to his Church for a reason.
http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2012/07/christian-authority-in-focus.html
Anonymous 4:03 P.M.
For all we know, you are probably the one who starts the trouble by throwing out little anonymous stink bombs and then whines about "all the room it takes on the blog to EXPLAIN it all to death."
Why aren't you complaining at the beginning when the same questions get ASKED to death?
Yeah, for all you know.
The blog needs to get off this "unmerry-go-round".
It is like the which came first chicken and the egg thing with people.
Thankfully one day this will end.
That will be when the Lord puts an end to it.
Do you mean the stink bomb, Jesus trumped denomination?
That is a hard concept for some, I notice.
Anonymous 3:44 P.M.
Thank you for the Sam Guzman story and the link.
If Obama, Hillary, and Donald all convert to Catholicism, then we will have whirled peas.
I think if you take a good look at photos of Bill Clinton taking the Eucharist (G W Bush too) you'll find she has! Rome runs America via the Jesuits. Do your own research.
Susanna wrote: One of the more recent trends is the so-called "non-denominational" church. These too are Protestant churches no doubt, as they usually cling to all of the basic tenets of Protestantism, including the 66-book Protestant Bible. However, they are not always affiliated with any centralised authority structure. Thus the individual "non-denominational" church becomes a denomination unto itself, completely free and independent of all others. There the pastor serves as priest, bishop and pope, all in one.
That is an abuse of the English language. A denomination is defined by a hierarchy governing multiple congregations. Also, apostolic congregations were governed according to the New Testament by a council of men, not by one man (Acts 14:23, 20:17, 20:28, James 5:14). And all Christians were understood to be priests (Rev 1:6, 1 Peter 2:9), which is why none of the NT letters is to "the priest at Corinth/Ephesus/wherever".
This is how the Chinese house church movement runs itself. They are run via sola scriptura but they would be mystified at the term "protestant" - thy worked up their structure from the New Testament when they had only the Bible after Chairman Mao kicked out all of the missionaries and persecuted them. Manifestly this movement has the Holy Spirit and if you have God's anointing you need no other.
"prior to the 16th century, all Christians in the Western world were Catholic. That's right, the word "Catholic" and the word "Christian" were totally synonymous."
Which is why the Church of England calls itself Catholic - but not Roman Catholic. Catholic is, properly speaking, an adjective. Moreover "Catholic and "Christian" might have been synonymous before the Reformation in the Western world, but not in the whole world: for the previous 500 years, protestants travelling to Constantinople or Moscow would have found a non-Roman-Catholic church system that also claimed the apostolic succession, namely Orthodoxy.
"And all Christians were understood to be priests (Rev 1:6, 1 Peter 2:9), which is why none of the NT letters is to "the priest at Corinth/Ephesus/wherever"."
that draws on Exodus 19:6, "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."
Did they not have a special category of priests called "priests" and the rest were the people in Greek laos or laity? We have a permanent High Priest, Jesus Christ, where there is a HIGH priest there are lesser priests. In the RC and EO the laity are also lesser priests who offer the sacrifices of praise, worship, thanks, prayer for themselves and for others, help to the sick or poor, lighting of candles, providing candles and oil and bread for the unbloody sacrifice, burn incense in our homes. It is not the Aaronic or levitical but Melchizedec priesthood we are under.
There is not reason a letter to be read to all would be addressed only to the priest or bishop. Timothy and Titus letters were addressed to the single persons who were set as rulers over the Christians in Ephesus and over the many cities in Crete but were also used to teach the laity.
Speaking of the Chinese Christians.... a great book to read is "The Heavenly Man", by Brother Yun. It is a story of how God works to bring many people to Him through the working of the Holy Spirit in one person's life - a person who was willing to submit to God, no matter what the cost.
http://www.amazon.com/Heavenly-Man-Remarkable-Chinese-Christian/dp/082546207X
There are stories like this throughout history, from the Catholic Church, from Protestant churches, Anglican, etc, etc. God uses people from all walks of life, all denominations, to accomplish His will and increase His Kingdom. He does this in spite of our ideas about which church or communion or denomination is the Right One.
He even brings people to Himself through visitations and dreams, and goes where no person has gone with the Gospel! Pretty amazing God we serve, yes? Try not to take His place when pronouncing which earthly vessel He can or can't use, or which earthly authority He is or isn't working through. I don't think He would care for that very much.
Yes, error needs to be confronted. Yes, we can and should be watchful for deception and false teachers and the like. But be careful how you judge, yes? In the same way you show mercy, it will be shown to you when you come face to face with the One who made you.
"Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person." (Colossians 4:6 - NASB)
Christine, was it in the Septuagint you allegedly found your reference to chakras?
anon 9:42
no. KJV Ecclesiastes 12:6 makes no sense outside of the context of the subtle body and its interface to the physical body.
Christine, so if I understand rightly, you assert that Ecclesiastes 12:6 refers to the chakras as long as it is within:"the context of the subtle body and its interface to the physical body"?
Could you please explain exactly what you mean by the subtle body, how it is constructed in your opinion and then how it interfaces with the physical body?
Given such necessary contextual conditions as you have stated, specifically, how does Ecclesiastes 12:6 refer to chakras?
And finally, given all that, would you therefore say that the version of Ecclesiastes 12:6 of the Septuagint is rather more reliable in its reference to chakras than the Masora is?
Anonymous 5:24 A.M.
Ultimately,there is no such thing as a truly "non-denominational" Christian church which is self-contradictory in the sense that the moment a person professes a particular set of Christian beliefs and practices, those beliefs are in and of themselves "denominational" - regardless of whether or not they are part and parcel of a more formal ecclesiastical structure and/or leadership. I am not saying this in any pejorative sense. I am simply stating a fact.
As for the house church movement in China, both the Catholic house churches and the Protestant house churches are among the many ways in which Christianity is managing to survive in China.
No doubt that the Holy Spirit is at work in this movement which is under persecution.
Back in 2010, China declared Christian ‘House Churches’ a "Cult" and launched a new crackdown on “house churches,” apparently with a focus on Protestant congregations that do not belong to the country’s state-sanctioned, “patriotic” church organization.
There are a lot of Catholics who, like their non-Catholic Christian brethren, do not belong to the state-sanctioned "patriotic" church organization - which is analogous to the Stalin approved "Moscow Patriarchate" in the former Soviet Union. They are part of the underground Catholic church in China. An estimated 12 million Roman Catholics loyal to the Pope – rather than a Beijing-appointed leadership – meet in unapproved congregations.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/china-declares-christian-house-churches-cult-advocacy-group-reports
How China Plans to Wipe Out House Churches
Report: Govt.-sponsored persecution rose 42 percent in 2012.
Morning Star News February 18, 2013
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/february-web-only/how-china-plans-to-wipe-out-house-churches.html
anon 10:17
you do not understand me correctly. it does not refer to them as long as it is in this context, rather IT IS UNINTELLIGIBLE IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION CONTEXT TO READ IT IN. This is evident from the many and conflicting efforts to interpret it, ending in puzzlement and confusion.
information context is not extrabiblical in the sense of unbiblical. A person who never saw a sheep, didn't know they existed, didn't know what shepherds do and what sheep act like and predators, etc. and didn't know about the PAssover sacrifice of the lamb, would be as mystified by remarks about "the Lamb of God" one missionary
to eskimo had to replace lamb with seal because of this to make it intelligible.
I am not going to discuss this any more here it will only tie up blog space. you can re read what I have said and search the archives if you are puzzled. you can also look at http://fightthenewage.blogspot.com
Marko,
Re:Chinese Christians There are stories like this throughout history, from the Catholic Church, from Protestant churches, Anglican, etc, etc. God uses people from all walks of life, all denominations, to accomplish His will and increase His Kingdom. He does this in spite of our ideas about which church or communion or denomination is the Right One.
He even brings people to Himself through visitations and dreams, and goes where no person has gone with the Gospel! Pretty amazing God we serve, yes? Try not to take His place when pronouncing which earthly vessel He can or can't use, or which earthly authority He is or isn't working through. I don't think He would care for that very much.
Well said!
And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints. Romans 8:28
"Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
and the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
and the wheel broken at the well,
7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it."
This is a highly poetic description of death, from Ecclesiastes 12. Christine takes it to refer to chakras. I'd like to see her make the case, including a definition of a chakra.
Thank you 5:24 AM.
Exactly. That is why when people start telling their stories (like Guzman, Staples, etc) it falls short compared to what you've relayed in your post. That is too confining within denominational decisions based on comparisons and preferences and personal experiences, but the Holy Spirit does not go there in pitting one against another. That flatlines compared to the Work of God transcending the lateral thinkings and doings of men. And no real glory given to the Lord which is what human nature and thinking does. The fleshly mind and spirit (as the bible says) cannot do the works of God. The Supernatural gives understanding and glory to God exceedingly above that.
And plenty of evidence for this if people are willing to acknowledge it by taking off their denominational blinders.
Anonymous 11:40 AM
Re:And plenty of evidence for this if people are willing to acknowledge it by taking off their denominational blinders.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to give us an example of this "evidence."
The 5:24 AM post already gives us much to look into.
Check out Iranian pastor Hormoz Shariat, too. Just some of what is going on..
Information is not hard to find.
Anonymous Susanna said...
Anonymous 5:24 A.M.
Ultimately,there is no such thing as a truly "non-denominational" Christian church which is self-contradictory in the sense that the moment a person professes a particular set of Christian beliefs and practices, those beliefs are in and of themselves "denominational" - regardless of whether or not they are part and parcel of a more formal ecclesiastical structure and/or leadership. I am not saying this in any pejorative sense. I am simply stating a fact.
Dear Susanna,
I have to agree with you on this point, but if you agree with me or not on my next, it is also true.
Ultimately,there is no such thing as a truly "Roman Catholic" church outside the fact that there are 5 or so set traditions, Eucharist, Baptism etc.. When Catholicism came to Espanola it embraced every sort of African pagan tradition? Instead of a complete conversion of the people, they were allowed to keep their Voodoo traditions as long as they recognized the key traditions of the Catholic Church?
http://ojs.globalmissiology.org/index.php/english/article/view/434/1116
Here is a paper explaining the same process being carried out among the South American pagans. If syncretism is a function of Catholic evangelism, then disregard this post. As I understand it, we need to be all things to all people that we may win a few? So regardless of formal ecclesiastical structure and/or leadership, God will call a people unto himself, I believe. I am not saying this in any pejorative sense either. I am simply stating a fact that there is room for improvement in both houses.
The early Apostolic church was conducted in the homes of believers over a meal, yet we hear people belittling that expression.
Thanks,
dan
Christine, this is 10:17AM here, you are being a New Age coward as usual. That is why you won't answer my points because you can't! There is no reference to chakras in Ecclesiastes 12:6 at all, no matter how much not so subtle and far fetched eisegesis you attempt to apply to it.
There is no such thing as a subtle body as you put it, and that's why you won't describe it. You are Gnostic yet ignorant when it comes to your NAM interpretations of Biblical Truth.
We are made up of body, soul and spirit.
Anonymous10:29 AM, you rightly wrote :
"Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
and the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
and the wheel broken at the well,
7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it."
This is a highly poetic description of death, from Ecclesiastes 12. Christine takes it to refer to chakras. I'd like to see her make the case, including a definition of a chakra."
I would like to see her make the case but the deceiver of old refuses!
Some people are part of quite loosely held types of denominations and are real believers, not all deceived as Miss Erikson is all too ready to pounce upon to judge them. These are autonomous and yet have an identity, and certainly there are those that have very particular denominational strictures they go by. Big deal.
I am a christian first. Where I choose to fellowship as to a denomination, is way after the fact, and a only label.
My allegiance is not to that, it is to my Lord and to the Word He has spoken, that I may know how He has determined what real worship to Him (in Spirit and Truth) is and actually looks like, lived out in every day life, to love my neighbor as myself (& proof I love and obey Him first and most). That is where I am answerable to God.
Eyes should be on Jesus the Author and Finisher of the faith, as He is the Yes and the Amen of God, not my pastor nor your priest (or pope). Why dumb that down in any way, when it is Jesus Christ that is God's perfect standard?
A lot of anx comes with an overly horizontal view of church. The more vertical a heart and life becomes, the more that disappears.
Are you telling us you've seen a chakra, Ms Erikson? Was it one the Res Seer conjured up?
"The early Apostolic church was conducted in the homes of believers over a meal, yet we hear people belittling that expression."
The house church phenomenon nowdays, with individual exceptions, is part of the NAR seduction and functions as overtly part of it, or as a recruiting ground for it. no matter how much NAR and Viola and Barna lie (and they misquote and twist their sources) there is nothing pagan about growing beyond emergency or startup situations into a church building type operation. Even the house church and Dura-Europa they mention was, by virtue of the wall knock out modification, no longer a mere home but a dedicated building.
The meal was more than a meal Ignatius was taught by the Apostle John. Justin Martyr by an old man old enough to have known an Apostle or been taught by a man taught by an Apostle. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who was taught by the Apostle John.
all testify to the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharistic bread and wine after the Eucharistic prayers have been said.
Viola etc. seem to ignore that Scripture says God is not a God of chaos but of order. Orderliness was part of the teaching in the Pauling and Petrine Epistles.
anon 3:17 and 2:16,
I told you already I will not discuss this here. go to http://fightthenewage.blogspot.com/2016/01/chakras.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6FfTxwTX34
No Christine, you made claims HERE so QUALIFY them Here! Otherwise it must be concluded you cannot!
the word is CLARIFY not QUALIFY. and I have done so several times in the past. I am not going to tie up this blog with lengthy explanations. Chakra is Sanskrit for wheel. go to that link.
It is obvious to all Christians here and many others that there is no reference whatsoever to chakras in Ecclesiastes 12:6. Perhaps it is obvious to you too, Christine, by your implied recognition of the fact you cannot and dare not back up your outlandish claims that such Hindoo nonsense is NOWHERE to be found in the Holy Bible. You should burn your Unholy Bagavadgita and stick to the truth of the Holy Tanakh and the Holy Gospel!
Crafty Christine says: "I am not going to tie up this blog with lengthy explanations".
Thanks Christine, its a dreary gray New England day here. I needed a good laugh!!! Hilarious!!!!!
Oh, and about Constance's fresh plea, to post just one time a day. How is that going Christine?
3:24 PM,
Do you ever cease your bloviating pomposity?
You always tie up this blog with lengthy explanations Christine, you are the blog carpet-bomber but you know you've been caught with your pants down here yet dare not look in the mirror by addressing the posts and seeing what a New Ager you are. I am surprised the EO hasn't excommunicated you already for your heresies!
Christine,ne prenez pas ce petit ton avec moi! ¿Me entiende? ¡Señora bruta!
You are truculent, arrogant and well above your station!
When I asked you to qualify your points I meant exactly that, if I had wanted clarity you are the last person I would ask!
To qualify your points is to give them credence by backing them up, by offering descriptions and explanations for your assertions. You haven't and you can't because chakras are nowhere to be found in Ecclesiastes 12:6!
Rather than be a self-appointed and only self-recognized keyboard professor, educate and humble yourself!
Dear Dan, 1:30 P.M.
Re:Ultimately, there is no such thing as a truly "Roman Catholic" church
While there may be many Christian denominations there is ultimately only one church.
It is Christ's Church. That is why it is called Christianity. And all whose religious beleifs are in conformity with the Creeds of Chalcedon and/or Nicaea are authentically Christian as far as I am concerned - regardless of other theological or ecclesiological differences we might have.
The term "Roman Catholic" appeared in the English language at the beginning of the 17th century to differentiate members of the Catholic Church (in communion with the Pope) from other Christians who use the term "Catholic" but were not. By the way, "Catholic" means "universal" and as applied to Christianity it means that the truths of Christianity are true at all times and in all places.
Being "catholic" is one of the Four Marks of the Church set out in the Nicene Creed, a statement of belief accepted by many churches even if not in communion with the Pope.
Within the "Roman Catholic" Christian communion itself there are various rites. While ordinarily, Roman Catholic most often refers to the largest among the rites which is the "Latin Rite," there are other rites which are also in full communion with the Pope. Examples are the Maronite Church, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, and the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. They differ from each other in liturgy (ceremonies, vestments, chants, language), devotional traditions, theology, canon law, and pastors (even if in the same territory as another), but they all hold the same faith, and all see union with the bishop of Rome, the pope, as essential to being a Catholic.
cont.
cont.
Re: When Catholicism came to Espanola it embraced every sort of African pagan tradition? Instead of a complete conversion of the people, they were allowed to keep their Voodoo traditions as long as they recognized the key traditions of the Catholic Church?
Historically, this is not true and the reason I know this is because it is a special area of research for me.
First, the pre-Columbian inhabitants of Espanola ( a.k.a. Hispaniola (from Spanish, La Española)a.k.a. Haiti ) were not African. They were Native American.
Vodou later originated in the Caribbean and developed in the French Empire in the 18th century among West African slaves when African religious practice was actively suppressed, and enslaved Africans were forced to convert to Christianity. It was not a matter of their being allowed to keep their Vodou traditions as long as they recognized the key traditions of the Catholic Church. It was a matter of their secretly preserving their pagan tradition by syncretizing Catholicism with their pagan beliefs vis a vis disguising their pagan deities with the names of Catholic saints, etc.. Santeria is similar. Voudon incorporates African, Taíno-Arawak ancestors and those of the Catholic saints in a syncretistic spiritual structure and has their own parody of the Catholic Eucharist.
Among the European occultists who contributed to the Voudon culture in the Carribean was Martinez de Pasqually who was the original founder of Martinism ( Elus Cohens ) in Europe. The Martinism founded by Pasqually was a dark sinister affair in which spirits were ritually conjured and evoked.
RE: If syncretism is a function of Catholic evangelism, then disregard this post.
Syncretism is regarded as a serious heresy by the Catholic Church. The first few centuries of Christianity were devoted to combatting the syncretistic pantheistic system known as Gnosticism.
Unfortunately, many do not know the difference between ecumenism and syncretism.
Syncretism is the attempted merging/combining of different, often contradictory beliefs.
Ecumenism, on the other hand, is a willingness on the part of Christians to work together for the sake of those beliefs that they agree on while honestly acknowledging their differences.
It encourages greater cooperation among Christians and their churches, whether or not the specific aim of that effort is full, visible unity.
Pax
Dear Susanna,
I have worked in a mission in Haiti, and yes it is not the natives but the imported slaves and yes syncretism is tolerated there.
I support a missionary that serves and travels to South America and he has confirmed to me the environment as described in the paper I sent to you.
Be it Ecumenism or Syncretism, I see both as a mixture that should not occur in Christ's church.
Deuteronomy 12:30 ....beware of being entrapped into copying them, after they have been destroyed to make way for you, and do not enquire about their gods, saying, "How did these nations worship their gods? I am going to do the same too."
Thanks for your detailed reply.
Dan
MY PAPERS HAVE ARRIVED ON THE December 14-17, 1977 Evangelical Consultation on the Future held in Atlanta, Georgia. They were BLATANTLY NEW AGE and featuring many of those who later attacked me over the existence of the New Age Movement. They were centered about Club of Rome Reports, World Future Society events and the Church co-creating the future. I will be discussing them in the morning. I've had a relatively rough week on health concerns. Pray for me! I will be on the air in the morning with these materials for 2 hours. WWW.TMERADIO.COM
A quote from Donald E. Hoke on Views of the Future as Reflected in Reports to the Club of Rome
"These Club of Rome studies have resulted in five books, called "report to the Club of Rome." . . . These well-intentioned men of highest intelligence and sophistication are grappling with the issue of nothing less than world survival. Can we evangelical Christians do less?"
The morning program will be interesting. Please join me!
Constance
Because of the week I've had, I'm behind in my reading. Is Christine advocating chakras? If so, I'm disappointed in her. There is no biblical support for that whatsoever -- it is purely a "doctrine of devils" as Scripture puts it.
Constance
Dan,
Might I suggest that as Susanna defined it, Ecumenism is not a mixture of any consequence? It is certainly not the kind referenced in the verse you quoted from Deuteronomy.
Constance, chakras are not a "doctrine" of any kind. what they are put to work for to warp one's internal system and create delusions of godhood, THAT is the doctrine of devils. not their existence. the so called subtle body is just the soul. the immortal part. check the links on the page I posted. we think of soul and body as totally separate, no overlap, THAT IS GNOSTIC BAGGAGE. we think we HAVE souls, when Genesis 2:7 says we ARE souls. the soul body opposition and total distinction are more gnostic baggage. http://politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com/2015/02/your-chakras-target-of-new-age-deception.html
possible extra planet somewhere out there isn't new age. what use it is put to by some new agers is another matter. electricity and magnetism isn't new age but it
plays a big role in some of the theosophical society literature trying to validate its ideas. the moon effects on mood and tides is not new age. worship of it is pagan, and astrologers use its known effects to validate astrology which is totally different.
Post a Comment