I find these sort of discussions fascinating:
Mary's Assumption
"I was watching a video that Steve Ray produced about a quick run through Jerusalem and he showed the church where the BVM died and was assumed into Heaven. What got me thinking is this, why did the BVM needed to die in order to be assumed? Elijah didn't die when he was taken up in the chariot. Also, I know that based on Tradition, it is said that the BVM didnt suffer the pangs of child birth because she was immaculately conceived and therefore was not subject to the effects of sin, but, if this is part of the Tradition, why did she have to die in order to be assumed into Heaven?"
-snip-
"it is not defined dogma that she did die, and I have seen this video several times and don't think he said definitely that she died. There is a long tradition in the Eastern Church in fact that she fell asleep, the Dormition."
-snip-
"The Church does NOT teach that Mary died before being assumed. Catholics are free to believe she died first or did not die first."
-snip-
"This falls under Common Teaching [Sententia Communis. This means Common Teaching is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by thelogians generally."
-snip-
"The document that pronounced the dogma of the Assumption is called Munificentissimus Deus. The specific paragraph containing the definition, remains open to whether or not Mary did or did not have a temporal death."
-snip-
"...I always thought that Mary was assumed with out dying, especially when I compared Elijah's assumption with that of Mary."
-snip-
"It was not necessary that Mary die. She chose to out of the imitation of Jesus."
-snip-
"There is a Scripture, and I hope that someone who knows where this is in Scripture will respond to this thread, that it has been appointed unto all men that they are to die once..."
-snip-
"Hebrews 9:27 (Douay Rheims) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment"
-snip-
"And this is a good example of exactly the kind of problem there is with proof-texting...the context of that Scripture has nothing to do with the context of our thread here."
-snip-
"That is one acceptable intrepretation. However the other intepretation is also acceptable as well."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
28 comments:
One has to question the value of the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary. If Mary died and was assumed, was assumed without dying, or died and was not assumed. Among Christians is there any real doubt that Mary is with Jesus in spirit?
So what is the problem?
The point is that Mary was assumed into Heaven: body and soul. There is nothing in Scripture to state otherwise and the fact that Elijah was also assumed shows that God already did this before. This time He did it for His most perfect creature and the one creature who knows God better than any other, after all, she is the Mother of God.
So being specially prepared to be the Mother of God made flesh would have some special benefits no? So why wouldn't Jesus assume Mary into Heaven?
There is nothing in Scripture to state otherwise…
There is nothing in Scripture that says Mary didn’t have three nostrils or fourteen toes. Can we believe that, too? (That is an argument from ignorance.)
…and the fact that Elijah was also assumed shows that God already did this before.
Sounds a little too much like the post hoc fallacy to me. Just because God did it before doesn’t mean, necessarily, He was obligated to do it again.
This time He did it for His most perfect creature
Because “perfect” is an absolute concept, it cannot be modified. One is either perfect or they are not. One cannot be “more perfect” therefore one cannot be “most perfect”. Besides God's revelation says that there is "no one perfect..." And in case there is doubt, "...No, not one." (Romans 3:10)
So being specially prepared to be the Mother of God made flesh would have some special benefits no?
Yes, those of being “specially prepared”. Anything beyond that is just wishful thinking.
So why wouldn't Jesus assume Mary into Heaven?
Why would He? Do you believe God is unable to complete His Will for creation without the bodily assumption of Mary?
Peace.
"So what is the problem?"
I don't have ANY problem with Christians believing in a pious tradition or even legend if it doesn't contradict Scripture. The problem I have is when I am told that I must believe a dogma that has no direct Biblical attestation or be damned.
Other than that, an argument based on something being "fitting" according Jesus' regard for His mother is blank check; "So why wouldn't Jesus assume Mary into Heaven?"
So why wouldn't Jesus give Mary a Mercedes Benz? So why wouldn't Jesus make Mary a millionaire?
@Constantine: On the issue of "most" perfect, you are nitpicking because you got nothing. And if Romans 3:10 were absolute then Jesus, fully human, would not be perfect now would he? Then there were Adam and Eve, they were created perfect as well. In fact, they had pretty much everything we are promised under the New Covenant but blew it all in disobedience. Mary, however, was conceived without the stain of Original Sin (Jesus' first save) and never choose to disobey God - all the way to the foot of the Cross.
Oh, and why wouldn't Jesus assume Mary into Heaven? Mary is His mom - He is her son. I guess you wouldn't do the same for your mom if you could huh? (God does not need to assume Mary as much as He did not need to redeem us let alone by dying violently on a cross.)
@EA: The Church does not say you must believe such or be damned. She says this is fact and is binding for Catholics. In her wisdom she lets non-Catholics slide because they do not have the benefit of the Fullness of Truth, usually through no fault of there own. There is a couple of passages that say something about binding & loosing and something like if you are given much, much is expect of you...
Eric,
On the issue of "most" perfect, you are nitpicking because you got nothing.
I’m not nitpicking. Language has meaning. That is why God uses it. As for as “got nothing”, we’ll see.
And if Romans 3:10 were absolute then Jesus, fully human, would not be perfect now would he?
Romans 3:10 is absolute, in context. Paul is writing to the Jews in Rome, and his subject is them, not Christ. Sorry you missed that.
Mary, however, was conceived without the stain of Original Sin
You’re begging the question Eric. I just showed you, from Scripture, that that is not true. You have yet to refute it, your feelings to the contrary notwithstanding.
Oh, and why wouldn't Jesus assume Mary into Heaven?
I wish you wouldn’t change the subject. The question is why WOULD Jesus assume Mary into Heaven? Not why wouldn’t He?
Mary is His mom - He is her son. I guess you wouldn't do the same for your mom if you could huh?
Awww, isn’t that sweet? But it is completely irrelevant. We are not the least concerned here with what Christ can do, what He could do or what He might have done. What we really want to know is what He did. And it is very clear He did not assume Mary, body and soul into Heaven.
If God saw fit to let us know in the Scripture that he assumed Elijah (and Enoch) then why would He leave out such a critical detail like Mary’s Assumption?
Your answer to that question will say volumes about what you really believe about God, Scriptures and His church.
Peace.
@Constantine: If God saw fit to let us know that He assumed Elijah - only - into Heaven then why not let us know about Mary? He did. Through His Church. Besides, God, through John, tells us that He he did much more than what could be written and contained in a book - even His Inspired Word.
On the matter of Scripture being clear that God did not assume Mary into Heaven. Well, you need to prove that because no where in the Bible have I ever read that God did not assume her body and soul into Heaven. On the contrary, assuming Elijah set precedent and indeed, Mary being the Mother of God has a more important role in salvation history than Elijah.
That is I ask why would He not assume Mary. What is stopping Him. Besides, having her sit next to Him would be fitting for a Jewish King. As Jewish kings had their mothers for their queens. We have great examples in the OT such as Solomon.
On the matter of Romans 3:10, that in no way contradicts the Immaculate Conception for you yourself admit that if the text is absolute yet excludes Jesus (fully human) then by definition it is not absolute. Moreover, you state that St. Paul is speaking to the Jews in Rome, he is speaking to the Jews in Rome about their situation. Of course we learn much from his words but would you consider yourself to be one that does not seek God (v11), to have turned away from God and become unprofitable for Him (v12)? Think carefully about your response on this one.
Lastly, on the matter of language. I agree that in theology the precise use of language is key. Thus the more I think about the more most perfect is fitting as Adam and Eve were created perfect but they sinned and "became unprofitable" for God (see above reference). Mary on the other hand, is the "handmaid of the Lord" (Lk 1:38) never became unprofitable for God as she never committed any sin.
"Mary on the other hand, is the "handmaid of the Lord" (Lk 1:38) never became unprofitable for God as she never committed any sin."
Mary never sinned, and therefore Romans 3:10 doesn't apply to her as having sinned, because she was never unprofitable to God, because she never sinned.
Try it the other direction. Try starting with ignorance and letting Scripture teach you.
Starting with a sinless Mary and requiring the texts to accomodate her is not a good way to do things, I don't think. You are making the sinlessness of Mary a foundation and shaping understanding around it, which sounds like a dangerous thing to do.
In Christ,
JL
@Eric
If God saw fit to let us know that He assumed Elijah - only - into Heaven then why not let us know about Mary? He did. Through His Church.
The church isn't very reliable then. I took it 1950 years to get the message to us.
On the matter of Scripture being clear that God did not assume Mary into Heaven. Well, you need to prove that because [sic] no where in the Bible have I ever read that God did not assume her body and soul into Heaven.
As I mentioned earlier, nowhere in the Scriptures does it say that Mary did not have three nostrils or fourteen toes. If we follow your logic, we must, then affirm Mary’s bodily abnormalities. You can’t prove a negative.
On the contrary, assuming Elijah set precedent and indeed, Mary being the Mother of God has a more important role in salvation history than Elijah.
There is absolutely no warrant for any of your assumptions. This is just wishful thinking.
That is I ask why would He not assume Mary. What is stopping Him. Besides, having her sit next to Him would be fitting for a Jewish King. As Jewish kings had their mothers for their queens. We have great examples in the OT such as Solomon.
I explained this to you earlier. Your asking the wrong question. The question is NOT, “Why wouldn’t God have assumed Mary?”; the question before us is “DID God assume Mary?” Until you address the correct question you will never get to the right answer.
Think carefully about your response on this one.
So far, Eric, you have employed the argument from ignorance, question begging, attempted to prove a negative and have used unwarranted assumptions. I hope you won’t be terribly offended if I don’t take critical thinking advice from you.
Lastly, on the matter of language. I agree that in theology the precise use of language is key. Thus the more I think about the more most perfect is fitting as Adam and Eve were created perfect but they sinned and "became unprofitable" for God (see above reference). Mary on the other hand, is the "handmaid of the Lord" (Lk 1:38 ) never became unprofitable for God as she never committed any sin.
As I tried to explain to you earlier, ‘most perfect’ is an oxymoron so to use that term is to engage in the most imprecise language. But keep thinking, Eric. You’ve a long journey ahead.
Peace.
Amen to what John Lollard added.
Time to kick the dust from my sandals boys. I have Jesus' assurance concerning the persons and organization He left in charge of His flock.
Just keep this in mind: without the Church you would have no Bible.
Christianity is not a religion of the Book but rather a religion of the Word. And there is more to the Word than what is contained between two covers.
May the Lord bless you and keep you always.
PS. You all might like this read: http://blog.adw.org/2012/01/on-the-indefectibility-and-infallibility-of-the-church-as-seen-on-t-v/
I hear this a lot from Roman Catholics. I don't think it's accurate, but suppose it were. Then we have the following conversation:
A: "Here, this book came from God. Read it and believe it."
B: "Okay! Hey, this book says X is true."
A: "What? Give me that!"
B: "Right there, 'X is true'."
A: "It doesn't actually mean that. What it means is that X is false and Y is true."
B: "But, you said this book came from God?"
A: "It did. But you should just listen to me, and not worry about what this book says."
B: "What? Why shoukd I listen to you?"
A: "Why, it says right there in the book, 'the true believers' - meaning me of course - 'will never teach falsely'."
B: "But this book teaches X and you teach Y. Doesn't that mean you do teach falsely?"
A: "Look, I'm the one who gave you the book in the first place."
Then thank you very much for the book that you claim came from God, please read it yourself and obey it.
In Christ,
JL
May I re-publish that, JL?
I read, hear, sing and pray it every day: Devotional Reading, Daily Mass, Divine Office and All of the Above.
TF, I would consider it an honor :)
Erik,
I am thrilled to hear that you are so pious in regards to Scripture.
So, for instance, when Colossians 2:16 tells you to not let anyone judge you by religious festivals or Sabbaths, you of course hear and obey. When the Roman Catholic Church tells you that it is a mortal sin to skip Sunday mass and that there are various other "days of obligation" besides Sunday that require your attendance, you completely ignore them.
After all, Scripture continues, "These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." So you don't let their "false humility" disqualify you from the prize.
You don't let them, because you love the Bible and you love to read it every day and obey what it tells you.
Praise God :)
Also, Erik, since you love and honor Scripture, when you read in Hebrews 9:23-28 that
It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
you believe it. When the priest in the Daily Mass you attend claims that the bread and wine are a representation of the sacrifice of Christ that you must receive again and again and again every week, you don't listen to him. You listen to Hebrews, that Christ was offered once and doesn't need to be offered as the every other priest offers (Hebrews 10:11); that He is a perfect priest who died once to take away sin (Hebrews 10:12).
And so you, believing Scripture and reading it and loving it as you do, clearly obey this beautiful teaching. Amen :)
In Christ,
JL
@John: Thankfully I do follow Scripture to a T with concern to the Mass on Sundays (and other Holy Days of Obligation) and the Sacrifice therein by:
1. Keeping the Sabbath (the Day of the Lord in the NT); "Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant." Ex 31:16
2. Attending Holy Days much like the feast God-mandated Passover for which the Church is given Authority now; "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Mt 16:19, cf Mt 18:18)
3. And worshiping and adoring my savior in the most intimate way as He instructed; "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." (Jn 6:51)
I believe in Scripture so much that I know its pages affirm the Church, the sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (among other revealed truths).
Hey Erik,
Thank you for responding to me, yet again.
You will notice, the Scriptures that you quote don't say the things you quote them as saying. You quote Exodus 31 on Israel obeying the Sabbath. By which you intend to convey that Christians are obligated to attend a mass every Sunday. Different people, different day, different understanding of what it means to "observe" a Sabbath. This is observing the Sabbath:
While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-36 (c.f. Exodus 31:14, two verses before the one you cited)
I guarantee that you don't do this.
All this to say, you are saying more than the Bible is saying (again). The Bible says that Israel is to observe the Sabbath in perpetuity. You are saying that Christians are to go to Sunday morning services in perpetuity.
So now take the stoning in Numbers 15 and the requirement of death in Exodus 31, in regards to observing the Sabbath, and compare it to this:
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. [...]
Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. Colossians 2:9-23 (NIV)
You likewise cite Matthew 16:18,19 and claim that this means the Church is in charge of Passover. You cite John 6 where Jesus describes His body as bread and drink as stating that eating thereof is the most intimate way to worship him.
The things you are saying are not the things said in the verses you are citing, is all I'm trying to say, and you haven't interacted with any of the passages I've cited.
Also, check the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist
Notice that Roman Catholicism is not the only understanding on wikipedia's list, but also Reformed and Methodist understandings (and others). I think everyone who writes, reads, and comments here would affirm the Real Presence. Transubstantiation is a particular formulation of Real Presence that we would deny.
In short, I think you need to do a lot more work in this Sword fight we are now engaged in. En garde!
In Christ,
JL
@John: Let us assume that you are correct. How does God assure me that you are the infallible interpreter of His Word?
Because if you read one thing in Scripture, such as Jesus NOT being fully present - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - in the Eucharist despite the OT prophesies and His very own words, then I read another. How are you correct and infallible and my interpretation is not? Not to mention that of the Church Fathers in addition to the very "human" authors of Scripture?
There is no sense to toss Scripture around. That is your weapon of choice. Mine is reason because as a Catholic Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are part of what God left for His Bride. They are actually the inheritance of the baptized Christian in full communion with Holy Mother Church.
You see John, your Bible is Catholic in origin. Most of your understanding, such as the Triune Godhead, is Catholic. In fact, the basis of your man-made religion is built on the Church but perverted to by sin and personal desire of men who early on decided that they knew more than Church Jesus founded 1,500 years earlier.
So I speak to you directly John and challenge you to seek the Truth. Immerse yourself in the Word and learn about the History of your faith. Do this with the willingness to be the "handmaid" of the Lord (to use a Scriptural term) and you may find yourself with a decision to make.
I mean, who is the Lord speaking of when He says, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" in Luke 10:16? Was He speaking of you or any one of the more than 20,000 to 30,000 different Protestant denominations?
Sadly, the heresy of Protestantism is the oldest in the Book. That of disobedience - of man choosing himself over God.
"How does God assure me that you are the infallible interpreter of His Word?"
He does not. Praise God that he does not :)
Erik, you started off your conversation with me by professing knowledge of Scripture. It is the only record of the actual teachings of Jesus and the actual teachings of the Apostles that exists.
I am sorry that you aren't willing to fence off with me for your beliefs. Apparently you don't feel that Scripture can defend them. That isn't a good thing, Erik. Scripture is a gift. If you can access all of the concordances, commentaries, and lexicons in our possession, and still can't answer Colossians 2 and Hebrews on the mass, that is not a good sign, man.
If you want me to put down Scripture and just use "reason", then we can do that. But why should we? After all, if you've been reading along, you know that Colossians 2 tells us to be distrustful of the deceptive philosophies that try to persuade us to abandon liberty (Colossians 2:8). Are you telling me that in order to counter my citation of Colossians 2, that you have to invoke the very thing Colossians 2 warns me of? Why?
But if you'd prefer to just stick to reason and logic in our communication, then we can do that.
You keep claiming that your communion is the Church Christ founded. But you define "Church Christ founded" by resembling your communion. For instance, you reject the ordinations and successions in Protestant churches - which are just as traceable to the Apostles as yours - merely because they take place in Protestant churches and not yours. You reject churches that "teach falsely" as being "true" churches as use this to bolster your faith in Rome, but you only believe that teaching is false in the first place because Rome told you it was.
You keep claiming Rome has unbroken succession to the Apostles to always teach Truth, and you know this because Rome tells you so, and you know from earlier in this sentence that Rome has unbroken succession to the Apostles to always teach Truth and hence you can trust Rome when she tells you that she always teaches the Truth.
My inner Vulcan isn't buying it.
You claim that Protestants are rejecting the Church Jesus founded. No! We are affirming it! We are affirming His Church because we affirm the teachings of Him and the Apostles who labored to build it. You instead ask me to ignore those teachings and turn to "reason".
You can't reject our claims that your communion teaches in error just because they state that your communion teaches in error. You can't insist that your communion isn't perverted in its theology from selfish ambitions on the basis that can never teach in error, as that is the exact thing being contested. When we claim that your communion is teaching in error, your rebuttals esentially amount to "nu-uh", only in more flowery prose. My inner Vulcan us not impresses.
When Jesus said "He who hears you hears me" in Luke 10:16, he was speaking to the 72 that he was sending out to proclaim the good news of the Kingdom of God. What makes you think this applies in perpetuity? Because Rome says it does? Why Rome and not any of the other "30,000" denominations? Why are you so dismissive about the "30,00"? Again, you are essentially arguing for the special privileged status of Rome on the basis of Rome having a privileged status. We keep pointing this out, but now that you've appealed to reason, I hope it will stick.
You are being circular and repeating the same thing, and what you are repeating is precisely the thing under question.
Erik, I thank you for your invitation and for your patience in replying to me. I hope you receive this post in the humble tone in which I offer it.
In Christ,
JL
@John: Don't be a fool. God left us the Church and guides the Church to all Truth. One Truth, One Church, One Baptism, One God. There are not many churches, many truths, many baptisms and certainly many gods.
On Col 2: Your sect informs you in one fashion but St. Paul was speaking on the Jewish practices, which were prefiguring practices of the New Covenant, precisely the Sacrifice of the Mass for it is prophesied in Malachi 1:11 and all throughout the OT. Furthermore, St. Paul is instructing his fellow Catholics not to be fooled by those who "invent" teaches (remember the line he also wrote about not listen even to angels that bring a different Gospel... Protestants altered it to their own designs by divining themselves from the Church an inventing Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, denying the Mother of God and even fact that Jesus IS the Consecrated Bread and Wine..."and the bread I give is my flesh...") or require the observance of the old laws, unclean vs. clean, the worship/adoration of angels, etc.
On the matter of your Hebrews quotes: First, the author of the book is not speaking of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Secondly, you have no clue as to what the Mass is and why it is the central worship of God under the New Covenant. To try and explain it to one who apparently does not have the ear, yet, to hear: the Mass is what makes the ONE bloody sacrifice of Christ efficacious for each ONE of us. That re-presentation is an unbloody sacrifice of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine for He (and the priests that allows to share in his priesthood, think Aaron and the Levites) is a priest in the line of Melchizedek (offers bread and wine) and does not need to offer a bloody sacrifice for He already died once and is risen for good. Those in communion with His Body, the Church, receive Him in the Eucharist because He told us that He would feed us the Bread from Heaven, His Flesh, and without it we would not have Eternal Life and we not abide in Him nor He in us.
Keep that in mind because, again, the Hebrews is speaking on the matter of the priests of the OT not the New and giving a testimony that the NT and the priesthood of Jesus is what fulfills the Law and the Prophets - IT DOES NOT ABOLISH THEM. (Sound familiar?)
Lastly, I never said I was Scripture scholar or anything near that. Simply an amatuer Catholic that, by the Grace of God, has the FAITH to believe in Him and to "WORK out my Salvation in fear and trebling (Phil 2:12)."
Hey Erik,
Thank you for your patient response. I see we have abandoned reason now and are going back to Sword fighting. As you wish :)
Yes. One Church, One Truth, One God, One Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen.
But not Rome.
On Colossians 2, St. Paul was explicitly referring to Jewish customs of worship, yes, and those are precisely the customs you alluded to in Exodus 31:16 in support of your refusal to obey Colossians 2:16. Yes, St. Paul is referring to people who will invent false teachings; false teachings that require Sabbath observation, feast days, and all sorts of regulations and false humility.
No, the author of Hebrews is not speaking of the sacrifice of the mass, because the author of Hebrews knows of no such concept. He is also not speaking of the American moon landing, as you will note. He is, however, speaking of sacrifice, comparing the sacrifice of Christ to the sorts of sacrifices the high priests had to offer. He contrasts them with great strength. The sacrifice of Christ was once, for all, final and complete. It saves completely. It is not offered over and over for it was offered once. The sacrifice of the other priests is offered repeatedly, over and over, as often as necessary. It cannot save completely, for if it could then it would have ceased to be offered. It must be offered over and over because it cannot save. Hence the Mass, offered over and over, cannot be a Christian sacrifice.
"Those in communion with His Body, the Church, receive Him in the Eucharist because He told us that He would feed us the Bread from Heaven, His Flesh, and without it we would not have Eternal Life and we not abide in Him nor He in us."
Amen and amen. But that has nothing to do with sacrifice.
Thank you, as always, for responding to me, and I look forward to our continued communication.
In Christ,
JL
"Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise." 1 Corinthians 3:18
PS The verse you are referring to about "no other gospel" is in Galatians 1:8 Paul then goes on to explain what that Gospel is in the third chapter of that epistle.
John, not sword fighting just addressing your concerns over Colossians and Hebrews.
You say not Rome. Why not? To deny the Church is do deny Christ, like it or not.
No Church = no Bible just like No Mary = No Jesus (Know Mary, Know Jesus).
Like Apollos in Acts, you do not even have the full understanding of the saving grace of baptism. Again, denying Jesus by denying the Church which He established to "Feed His Sheep."
If you are opposed to feast days and the like (nothing wrong with them BTW) then why celebrate birthdays, Christmas and even Easter - better yet why even go to your Sunday service (aside from following the cult of personality surrounding a particular pastor, thankfully I go to Mass to adore Jesus Christ a good homily from a great orator is just a bonus but not the draw). That is just a bit too Jehova's Witness for me.
It is ALL about THE Sacrifice as Malachi 1:11 prophesies, "For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts."
Lets see:
1. The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered somewhere on this earth every hour of every day except Good Friday - can't supplant the observance of THE Sacrifice.
2. The majority of Christians are "Gentiles" - in fact the largest Rite within the Church is the ROMAN or LATIN Rite: Gentiles.
3. The Clean Oblation offered is none other than God Himself, Jesus under the appearance of Bread and Wine. He is not being Sacrificed again in the manner of Calvary but the offering is perpetual and continues until His return.
Oh and on the "Other Gospel" keep in mind that you would not know the Gospel were it not for the Church. And as she is the one given the authority to teach it and the mission to preach it (more so than the general baptized Christian) to stray from her teaching is again, to stray from Jesus Himself.
John, I would like to actually speak further on these matters in a better forum. I have yet to experiment with the Google+ Hangouts feature and want to invite you "hangout." If you are in the DC metro area I would invite you to do so physically as well - I'll buy the Five Guys.
I try to get together with a very good friend of mine (happens to be Baptist/Arminian) do eat good burgers and discuss our love of God and His Word.
Hey Erik,
Wow, that was fast! If you haven't caught on, "Sword fighting" is a silly and semi-ironic term that Prots (at least those my age) use when arguing over Scripture, based in part on Ephesians 6:17. You shouldn't read too much in to it, besides me trying to introduce levity in to an otherwise heated discussion.
"You say not Rome. Why not? To deny the Church is do deny Christ, like it or not."
Because Rome is not the Church. Rome is a heretical organization that has excommunicated the Church and pronounced anathema upon the Gospel. As you said to deny the Church is to deny Christ, and further to deny Christ is to declare oneself not-the-Church. Rome is guilty of both, sadly.
If there were no Church, there would be no Bible, correct, because God would have no one to give the Bible to. Praise God for both :)
How do I not even understand baptism? How do you even understand me as understanding baptism? All I've said on baptism is that it's Trinitarian in nature - what about that do you take such issue with?
You are being circular again. I am not denying His Church. Which church is His Church is the exact issue under contention, in case you forgot. You deny Jesus by denying His Church, because you deny the authority of the Bible and of the Apostles who wrote it by not listening to them in their writings.
You asked why I should go to church services in the first place if I'm so against them, and I am glad you asked this question. I'm not against them. I'm against people with false humility proclaiming that I must attend them and rendering judgment upon me based on my attendance. I go to Sunday services (most of the time) because I want to gather with other Christians of all generations to sing and proclaim the honor of Jesus Christ and to hear His word preached. I go to Wednesday worship services to sing His praises and to know the peace that surpasses all understanding (Philippians 4:17). Glory to God, who has enabled me to seek these things.
"Oh and on the "Other Gospel" keep in mind that you would not know the Gospel were it not for the Church. And as she is the one given the authority to teach it and the mission to preach it (more so than the general baptized Christian) to stray from her teaching is again, to stray from Jesus Himself."
I say, amen and amen. Physician, heal thyself. Return to the Church, and accept again the teaching of Christ and His Apostles.
In Christ,
John Lollard
Erik,
It would be nice to have this conversation in a better environment. I hate treating James Swan's blog like a forum. Sadly, I am not in any position to use Google+ at the moment, and I live hundreds of miles from DC. But thank you all the same. Maybe later when I have more stable internet access.
If you would like to take the conversation to a different medium, then you may email ee4820@gmail.com until I can try this Google+ feature.
In Christ,
JL
Post a Comment