G
guanophore
Guest
But the Jews did not receive Him as Messiah, and did not discontinue their Levitical practices. The Pharisees were still teaching the Levitical laws, and added a few other “extras” that Jesus spoke against.
- Status
S
sadie2723
Guest
I have. Problem with that is that not all of the law did change. For instance, we still have the ten commandments.
The bottom line here is that Jesus is telling them to follow the teaching…but not the example.
Cheers!
S
Sheeniac
Guest
I actually consider myself to be a fool, jerk, sinner, sometimes b!tch, etc. There are days I find myself asking how a Christian can think the way I do. So no, I do not consider myself a Saint, at least the way the word is popularly used.
T
truthnlight
Guest
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of JESUS CHRIST of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. NEITHER IS THERE SALVATION IN ANY OTHER: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby WE MUST BE SAVED (Acts 4:10-12).
I am the LORD: THAT IS MY NAME: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images”
“I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no SAVIOUR”
“For unto you is born this day in the city of David a SAVIOUR, WHICH IS CHRIST THE LORD” (Luke 2:11).
God will NOT share His glory with another. No religion died for me!
Romans 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 15:13. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
I am the LORD: THAT IS MY NAME: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images”
“I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no SAVIOUR”
“For unto you is born this day in the city of David a SAVIOUR, WHICH IS CHRIST THE LORD” (Luke 2:11).
God will NOT share His glory with another. No religion died for me!
Romans 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 15:13. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Catholics are free to believe and say as they wish. But I must say that I’m not too moved to reach out anymore after spending years defending Catholics to bigoted Protestants in my area.
I will probably quit attending Catholic weddings, funerals, masses, and ordinations. The O.P. wants me to see the light of things. All I see is darkness.
Pax vobiscum.
O+
I will probably quit attending Catholic weddings, funerals, masses, and ordinations. The O.P. wants me to see the light of things. All I see is darkness.
Pax vobiscum.
O+
B
blacktiger057
Guest
Maybe you need to explore some other faiths then…have hope! Find someting that you can truly believe in with your heart. Do not let others tell you what to believe. Find it for yourself.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
No worries, Blacktiger; I am home.
B
blacktiger057
Guest
Good. All that matters is that you are following some path of light and love.
Many blessings!
Scott
B
believers
Guest
On the grounds that one MUST be born from the tribe of Levi to be a Levitical Priest. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah.
The Gospel to the Jews while Jesus was with them was that they (the Jews) MUST repent and believe he is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Jesus preached an entirely different program… no longer a program of works but of grace.
M
Man
Guest
You quote scripture as a proof. You are taught to read scripture in the context of your own faith (baptist?) dating back a couple of centuries. The founders, finding it impossible follow the Catholic Church, which is plagued in time by the same problems as man, being made up of men. In that way, however, you are taught to reject pieces of Catholic Tradition in certain ways. The founders of the Baptists passed down their method of interpreting the Scripture, which you use. So, that which you see as a proof, has no power against the same Church that interpreted it in line with those things passed down to it through the decades and centuries after Jesus death and resurrection. It continues to have an agreeable interpretation with the Catholic Church, which you reject.
True?
We see, in this way, that the Holy Father, a position passed down through time from St. Peter, hold a position that the leader of your church determined for himself (the pope is instead a lay person who presents himself for discernment and humbly advances to the level of Bishop of Rome). He wrote the doctrine of the Church, rather than humbly submitting to the rich history of the Catholic Church. The Church has been changed through the centuries in to the just and reasonable persons of time into the Organization it is today. And that, almost always, from within.
G
guanophore
Guest
Which darkness is that?
G
guanophore
Guest
The law was never a program of works, but was of faith. However, those born under it were, for the most part, unable to grasp and follow it by faith. There were a few, but the vast majority fell in to salvation by works.
E
estesbob
Guest
And your’e a pastor?
M
Man
Guest
His All Holiness Bartholomew has stated that the Orthodox needs to respect his ecumenical authority. I think there is division from the proud.
The discussion, it seems, revolves around the authority of the Synod of bishops and who is the primary interpreter of it.
There are disagreements as to what is valid baptism and so forth, but these may eventually be relegated to something tied to rite rather a cause of division.
There is a deep bias that remains, however, especially among certain proud individuals. There was a monestary that broke away for instance, the monks need to be evicted.
The discussion, it seems, revolves around the authority of the Synod of bishops and who is the primary interpreter of it.
There are disagreements as to what is valid baptism and so forth, but these may eventually be relegated to something tied to rite rather a cause of division.
There is a deep bias that remains, however, especially among certain proud individuals. There was a monestary that broke away for instance, the monks need to be evicted.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Well, though the conversation has taken a turn down a different path, allow me to explain for those who wondered pages ago, my question about saints, and how it applies to this thread.
My understanding, based in the practice of Paul to call those who were living though imperfect brethern in Christ saints, is that all who belong to Christ as set apart to be holy as he is holy and can properly be termed saints. I see this not only in the writings of Paul, but of Luke (who quotes Ananias as refering to the believers in Jerusalem as saints), and also in the writings of such church fathers as Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Iraneus, and Ignatious of Antioch just to name a few. Though, I understand that the Catholic church today has appropriated the word to refer nearly exclusively to individuals that it has canonized, I here desire to use it as did the Catholic Church in its infancy, as a general term applicable to all who were in Christ.
It was in this climate, and with this usage that the wondeful phrase of our creed was articulated: “I believe in …the communion of saints.”
Now, what is this communion of saints which the creed speaks of? Obviously it was not a refernce to those who have been canonized. It somehow had to do with the whole of the Church. My understanding is that the communion of saints is inclusive of all Christians, both those living on earth and those resurrected. Indeed, the glossary of terms from the CCC states:
It seems to me that if one is a Christian, and the Catholic church readily admits that even non-Catholics can be considered to be Christian and are also redeemed by Christ, and if there is a unity of in Christ of all who are redeemed, then there is indeed a unity of all Christians. I believe in this communion of the saints, yet the Pope will NOT recognize that members of this communion are also members of the body of Christ which is the Church. To hold both positions at the same time is not something that I can understand. We non-Catholics are good enough for Christ, but not good enough for Christ’s Church is what it seems to come down to. And I would think that to be an untenable position for any Christian to hold.
My understanding, based in the practice of Paul to call those who were living though imperfect brethern in Christ saints, is that all who belong to Christ as set apart to be holy as he is holy and can properly be termed saints. I see this not only in the writings of Paul, but of Luke (who quotes Ananias as refering to the believers in Jerusalem as saints), and also in the writings of such church fathers as Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Iraneus, and Ignatious of Antioch just to name a few. Though, I understand that the Catholic church today has appropriated the word to refer nearly exclusively to individuals that it has canonized, I here desire to use it as did the Catholic Church in its infancy, as a general term applicable to all who were in Christ.
It was in this climate, and with this usage that the wondeful phrase of our creed was articulated: “I believe in …the communion of saints.”
Now, what is this communion of saints which the creed speaks of? Obviously it was not a refernce to those who have been canonized. It somehow had to do with the whole of the Church. My understanding is that the communion of saints is inclusive of all Christians, both those living on earth and those resurrected. Indeed, the glossary of terms from the CCC states:
Now, I concur whole-heartedly with the first sentence in that defintion, once again my problem is with the interpretation (it even labels it as an interpretation) given in the second portion.
It seems to me that if one is a Christian, and the Catholic church readily admits that even non-Catholics can be considered to be Christian and are also redeemed by Christ, and if there is a unity of in Christ of all who are redeemed, then there is indeed a unity of all Christians. I believe in this communion of the saints, yet the Pope will NOT recognize that members of this communion are also members of the body of Christ which is the Church. To hold both positions at the same time is not something that I can understand. We non-Catholics are good enough for Christ, but not good enough for Christ’s Church is what it seems to come down to. And I would think that to be an untenable position for any Christian to hold.
E
estesbob
Guest
The Body of Christ is NOT The Church-the Body of Christ is CONTAINED in the Catholic Chuch. You are good enogh for the Church Christ founded-we will welcome you any time with open arms.
That does not change te fact that for whatever reasn you have rejected the Church Chist founded. This does not preclude you from beng saved but anysalvation you obtain will be via the Church whether you acknowledge or not. The Chuirch and Christ are one and the same. When the Pope says you can only be saved through the Church he is saying you can only be saved by Christ as manifested by his church.
M
Man
Guest
Because, there are those whom we know are in Heaven and we associate the term saint with them, it is… improper to simply associate the term with “just any Christian.” That would be “bringing Jesus down.” (citation required). Surely you can understand that.
The biggest differences between the Orthodox and Catholic and other Protestants is the sacramental nature of the ancient churches. These Traditions passed down for hundreds of years. Those who created the other churches, the founders of those faiths, saw fit to remove these, because it wasn’t what they saw when they read the Bible.
Can we agree on that?
I converted from the United Methodist Church by the way.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
You may feel that it would be “bringing Jesus down”, but I remind you that this is your opinion and not one shared found in the historic usage of tradition you are now a part of. If the teachings of the Catholic church have supposedly not changed over the ages, then the term may be applied equally to Christians on earth (as those that I cited did) as it is to those in heaven. To say that this is improper is to refer to those on earth as saints is to say that Paul, Luke, Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Iraneous and many others throughout the life of the Catholic church used the term improperly. Is that something you really want to say?
M
Man
Guest
- You are prepared to assume that everyone in your church goes to Heaven. How is that not “bringing Jesus down?”
- The teachings of the Catholic Church are updated as our ability to understand the Truth improves.
That we know these people are in Heaven? Yes.
Now, will you answer my question?
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Could you expand on this a little more, please. I thought that Paul used the imagery of the body in reference to the Church specifically to make the point that the Church is the body of Christ.
In saying that the Body of Christ is CONTAINED in the Catholic church, it seems to me that you are going even farther than what I understood the Pope to be saying. I’ve understood that Catholics view their Catholic church to be synonymous with the Church of Jesus Christ, which I also understood to be synonymous with the Body of Christ. But to say that the Catholic church contains the Body of Christ, to me sounds like you are saying that the Catholic church is bigger than Christ himself. How can any church be bigger than Christ?
So, you must be saying something different than what I understand you to be saying. Can you try again?
- Status