The Holy Roman Catholic Church...

Matt, I understand the position you are espousing, but for the price of $2800 the first marriage could be annulled by the church and then communion could be received and she could rejoin the choir.

Principles shouldn't be for sale.

 

Of course a friend of mine who is divorced says she'll never divorce again...if she can't get along with her husband she said she would just kill him...because murderers have an easier time being forgiven than divorcees!!! (She just kidding, I think!!)

 

I agree that the fee smacks of the abuse of indulgences; I don't mind an admin fee being charged I suppose but that sounds a bit steep.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Okay, JCF, I'll answer some of your rebuttals:

But how do your know yours is the correct interpretation? Myriads of sects claim they are going by God's standard but their different interpretations of this standard are mutually contradictory. How are we to decide whose (if any) interpretation is correct? (Without replying, "Well it's mine/my group's, of course", which continues to beg the question)

Right. This Apostolic Tradition is how the Church determined which books (among the many circulating) actually belong in the Canon, and how to interpret the books in the Canon. One could say the Bible is the core (or the summit) of this Tradition, but it does not exist in an interpretive (or historical) vacuum.

And you have asserted, without proving, that Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans are calling their clergy "father" in place of God which is not true.

The Church worships on the Lord's Day which is not the same as the Sabbath.

Who's giving icons the place of deity? They're windows into heaven and are treated reverently because of Whom they represent.

So Psalms 136 is not prayer? Or is it not vain repetition? Me thinks you are engaging in special pleading to allow folks to repeat the same Psalms (which were and are used liturgically) but not the say the Lord's Prayer on a regular basis.

Mary is not exalted to a place of worship which is reserved for God alone, but she is honored with the highest praise among God's saints for her unique role in our salvation as the Theotokos. She is in real sense our spiritual mother as she brought our Salvation into the world. As Eve was the "mother of all living", so Mary is the new Eve who is the mother of all living in Christ. (see John 19:26-27)

As to Jesus correcting the woman in question, I agree but not in the way you suggest. The Greek word translated "rather" can also be translated "indeed, truly, or really", in which case Christ would have been emphasizing Mary's obedience which is an example for us to follow. Those who keep God's Word, like Mary, are indeed a part of his family.

Did Enoch and Elijah die? If not, does that mean they were completely sinless? (Also, note that I was answering that Mary was born without personal sin) Also, the Church--Eastern and Western--has believed that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven at the end of her life, but that she "fell asleep" first (the Dormition). But even if she did not "fall asleep", why couldn't Mary have been translated into Heaven like Enoch and Elijah?

It's obvious you're not sure what I'm saying because my point was that it was not clear from God's word that Mary ceased being a Virgin. Read my paragraph again--"until" does not imply one way or another a change in status subsequent to it's object (event) taking place. (Read the verse I quoted again)

How am I resisting the truth? Nowhere in Scriptures does it specifically say that Jesus' "brothers" were the biological children of Mary or that she herself had any other children.

So Jesus was not God Incarnate from conception? Jesus was not the Eternal Logos who became flesh and dwelt among us? If you are suggesting He was not, then you're a heretic. Jesus was not merely given the title "god", He was and is and always will be GOD.

If you deny that the Son is the Co-eternal Word who is of the same essence of the Father, then you are an Arian heretic.

Obviously not, since it can be misinterpreted in dozens of self-contradictory ways when one leaves the Apostolic Tradition and embraces private interpretation.

 

jcf, may I ask what denomination you are? Your profile leaves me none the wiser. If you are part of a body that denies the Deity of Christ, as your post suggests you do, then unfortunately I cannot consider you to be a Christian.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

And you still didn't answer Matt's question...

Sheila

 

"The curse of the Nicene Creed", eh? So you're not Trinitarian, then?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Yes, the Roman Bishop probably erred when he pulled his see out of the Orthodox Catholic Church. Will God condemn every Catholic because of this?

 

Jcf, do you believe Jesus is not merely Son of God, but God the Son -

"και θηοσ ην 'ο λογοσ "?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I have already given you one example of chapter and verse with my quote from John 1:1 in my last post. Here's another one: John 20:28

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I have done my research into John 1:1 - I even quoted the critical section in the original κοινη Greek. I think, with respect, that it is you who are twisting the verses here: it goes on to say not that the Word dwelt in Jesus (as you would have it) but that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us"; there's a massive difference.

No correction is issued from Jesus in John 20:28! Here's another, put forward by Jesus Himself: John 8:58-59 - what more proof do you need than Jesus' Own use of the Tetragrammaton to describe Himself!

I find it someone ironic that a person who professes an heretical belief outwith Christian Trinitarian orthodoxy can accuse the Catholics of being heretical..."those who live in glasshouses" and all that...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men." (Phil 2:5-7)

Jcf, I submit that the Jesus you worship doesn't quite fit into what is described in this passage. And, as Matt has shown, it's you who seem to be twisting the clear meanings of John 1:1, 14.

 

Matt and Thomas, I think it is funny that if we take verses literally and they disagree with someone's denominational belief, then we are "twisting" that verse. How many times have you heard that arguement?

 

In John 1:1-3 we find that evolutionism is DEAD - because JESUS IS The CREATOR who creates ALL THINGS!!

In John 1 THIS is the foundation and BASIS for the Gospel.

In Rev 14 we are told to WORSHIP the one who CREATED ALL THINGS on earth!

EVEN by the standards of the non-trinitarians this would make Jesus fully God!

I don't know any of them that deny that GOD ALONE is to be worshipped!

In Christ,

Bob