Tags
I have been listening to one of the most sublime recordings of ELizabethan music I have ever heard. It is by Gallicantus and can be heard on Radio 3 here for a short while yet. Called ‘Queen Mary’s Big Belly’, it celebrates that short period in 1554 when English history could have taken an entirely different route; on the basis of that one event, everything could have changed.
Mary, the first queen regnant in English history, was the eldest daughter of Henry VIII, and the only surviving child of his first (and longest-lasting) marriage to Catherine of Aragon. As a woman, her younger brother, Edward, took precdence, but when he died without an heir in 1553, she came to the throne. There was an attempt by Edward’s ministers to stop her, because, unlike Edward and Henry, Mary remained a faithful Catholic. Even though she was, at one stage, disinherited, and even though it could have cost her the throne, Mary remained faithful to the Church. Her advent to the Crown transformed the position of the Catholic Church in England. Altar-pieces and reredos and statues which had been carefully hidden away under the iconoclastic reigns of Henry and Edward, were brought out, dusted off, and restored, and the old Missals were also brought back into the light of day; much had been destroyed by the philistine Protestants, but new Church plate was made, and England, which, for the most part, had consented sullenly to the religious policy of Edward, happily went back to the good old ways.
Mary was 37 when she came to the throne, and already, by the standards of the day, elderly to be contemplating pregnancy. She married quickly – her cousin, Philip II of Spain, and in 1554 it was announced that she was pregnant. The child, if it had been male, would have been the heir to the throne of England and Wales, and to the great Spanish Empire; any son of that union would have been a figure of world importance. For a while it seemed as though God was smiling on Queen Mary and her husband, and the music on the album reflects the music created in that environment, such as Thomas Tallis’s Missa puer natus est along with the fascinating interaction between the choirs of the English Chapel Royal and the Spanish Capilla Flamenca. But it was not to be. The pregnancy was a phantom one, and when Mary died in 1558, at the age of 42, she died childless; the throne went to her Protestant sister, Elizabeth, and with that all hope of England returning permanently to the Catholic fold vanished. Under the logn Protestant ascendency, Mary’s reign was portrayed as one of great violence against the Protestants, when, in fact, it was no more so than that of her successor or two predecessors; but history, was we know, is written by the victors.
In fact, by the final year of Mary’s reign, the number of trials and burnings was declining, and Eamon Duffy is of the opinion that the relatively small rump of ardent Protestants had either decamped to Holland, or decided to weather the storm; the majority of the population seemed quite content to see the old religion back again. But it was not to be, although it took a campaign of State enforced terror during Elizabeth’s reign to ensure that was the case; not, of course, that anyone ever called her ‘Bloody Beth’.
Whatever one’s views on the history, I recommend the music – which is sublime.
famphillipsfrancis said:
“Good Queen Bess” does rather stick in the throat. And poor Queen Mary: to have seen her mother ignobly put aside, to have endured the taint of ‘illegitimacy’, to have watched her father become a murderous despot, to have had to watch her younger brother behave as a fanatical Protestant and to have endured a loveless marriage – alongside a phantom pregnancy. A tragic Queen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I agree, Francis – a true daughter of the Church
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Ah yes, the King that never was. This bit of history has been revised and retold and reinterpreted so many times, many have no idea what really happened. That’s the shame of it.
“Mary’s reign was portrayed as one of great violence against the Protestants, when, in fact, it was no more so than that of her successor” I would propose that her “violence” was justified on many occasions as simply a sentence carried out for the most unjust treatment of Catholics, murder after murder, false witnesses by the hundreds and rape and rapine covered over as if they were nothing to be alarmed about! And all of it was just getting started. Justice requires a fair telling to the tale. Those Protestants who claim their own criminals as martyred when justice prevailed upon them have lost all sense of right and wrong. In God’s eyes a Martyr is one who has died for the true Church. Sts. Thomas More and Bishop Fisher being the protomartyrs of the new Anglican “Church.” The Anglican “Church” that was emerging in England was a deliberate severance of all ties to the One Chruch that Christ founded. Looking at the past with Protestant glasses only obscures the real events and their purpose. The Anglican “Church” was a new ecclesial entity borne from revolt and disobedience. Its formation was forced upon the populace. England became a theocracy. Those who spoke against this most outrageous usurpation of the rights and privileges of the Church and her ministers could very well be called traitors as the theocrat on the throne was also their king. Many of Mary’s retaliations were just sentences carried out on criminals. No, none them were martyrs, not one.
“but history, was we know, is written by the victors.” Well, in some sense this may be true, but ultimately the Truth will prevail. Christ Jesus is the Victor. Those who seek to free themselves from the lies that bind them to a false worship of Christ, meet Him as He is and leave behind the lies as they become exposed to the Light that never fades. At the Second Coming, all of creation will see the perfect Justice of God as sentence is given over those who martyred those who followed the Lamb. Every single drop of the Martyrs blood will be avenged at that time. It will happen. And no te-telling of history will help any escape the Sentence of our God. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Let’s be fair, with some 300 people burnt at the stake, it would be hard to characterise that anything else but extreme violence. It has never been part of the teaching of the Church that a bad action by someone else justifies us in responding in kind. Most of the trials were not against those who had acted against Catholics in the previous reigns, but against those who persisted in heresy. In that sense, both sides abided by the custom of the times, and morally, from our point of view, both were equally barbarous.
Your view about the Anglican Church is simply erroneous ginny, and I don’t know where you get it from. It is not a claim Henry made, neither is it one which the Anglican Church made for itself. Indeed, theologically, it is an interesting mix of Catholic theology and practice with some Protestant features; certainly it was too Catholic for the Puritans.
On martyrs, each to their own, but such a partisan statement as yours simply confirms the view in some quarters that some Catholics try hard to be as offensive as they can and are more Catholic than the Pope; if that’s the intention, it succeeded. Those who die for their faith show more courage than most of us would.
All of that said, yes, the official Protestant story is just that, an official Protestant version. It is quite clear that nothing short of extreme violence by the State would have shifted people from their allegiance to the Catholic Church.
As to what will happen at the Second Coming, those who can think with the mind of God are welcome to tell us; for my part, it’s above my pay grade.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
The State has a right to punish with a just penalty those persons who violate its laws, even including the death penalty. This is Catholic teaching. Always has been, always will be.
Your interpretation of the historical record is the reason why you say this: “It has never been part of the teaching of the Church that a bad action by someone else justifies us in responding in kind.” The Church is not the arbiter of disputes of nations nor is there any such imagined teaching of the Church as you propose it. That is your distortion, not mine. Jesus was standing before Pilate who sentenced Him to death and even stated Pilate would not have the power to take His life if he hadn’t had it given to him by God Himself, thus validating the sentence and the person doing the sentencing. (John 19:11)
Here it is in black and white Chalcedon: CCC Para. 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
This is the exact reason I just outlined to Bosco why the State can justly take lives, even if the reason is heresy. This very solid teaching of the Church has been always upheld. Those legitimate representatives of the State in which the sentence is given and carried out have always had the right to use lethal force when necessary.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You stated that the punishments meted out by Mary were justified by what her predecessors had done; I pointed out that this was not the case; nor was it. I further pointed out that the Church teaches that one wrong turn does not deserve another. Which, if any, of these statements do you find yourself disagreeing with?
The Church has developed its teaching on the death penalty, and now takes the view that it can be justified only in exceptional circumstances. I think even your own country, one of the few, along with Iran and North Korea (really, is that company you’re proud to keep), which permits the death penalty, is coming into line with this.
So no, the line that the death penalty is permitted has not been maintained in its old form, as I suspect you well know.
Still, if you, North Korea and the Mullahs want to kill people, I guess the rest of us know what to think of you.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Good sisters quote from CCC2267 says the catholic church can kill someone for heresy. She then says that is the justification for states to deal the death penalty. But, the CCC is just for the catholic church, not a treatise for every nation state. In the 1400 the CC ruled over the kings of the earth. The kings did the bidding of the CC. And that was to stamp out people who took the bible into their own hands. Good brother Napoleon put an end to CC rule.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Bosco, God is over all and in all. Every Nation is subject to Him. He is the source for all the information about Him contained in the Catechism, even though men are its progenitors. When we speak of States in the Catechism, we mean all states, those that are now, those in the past, those in the future, until the end of time. For 2000 years the Church has known that God is the Almighty over all and that the powers nations have are used by Him over us, the Church. As I’ve already stated, Christ tells Pilate his authority to judge and sentence Him is of God, and so it is. If I look to the OT, I will also find Prophets who spoke regarding this same fact. Pharoah was also given his powers over the Chosen People of Isreal by God, so as to glorify Him all the more when God saved them from his grip. There is nothing in Heaven or on earth that is not subject to Him, yet we are to submit to all lawful authority. Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s et. al. You may not agree with me. I don’t expect you to. I’ve come to learn that is impossible for you dear ole Bosco. That is a shame and sad. You’d be much more content as a practicing Catholic rather than a blaspheming fool. However, you choose the later and I cannot change that one whit. Oh well. Your loss. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Most of the trials were not against those who had acted against Catholics in the previous reigns, but against those who persisted in heresy.
Killing people because of heresy. I guess heresy is not believing what the CC wants one to believe.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Or, if you are a Protestant, the other way round.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Bosco, not that it will do any good to explain, but most societies by the 1400’s considered themselves part of Christendom. They were Christian nations ruled by Christian Kings and Princes. Heresy was a deliberate distortion of the faith and having learned from the past, most rulers saw it as a threat to the stability of their respective countries. For the sake of the peace and general welfare of those they reigned over, the spread of heresy needed to be checked. It was a danger to the nation and so had to be stopped. So stop it they did. There were many ways to brought to bear on those found guilty of being heretics. Most persons simply recanted and that was the end of it. If a person refused, then whatever the state did to them was brought upon them by their refusals to recant. They made themselves enemies of the society they were in, Christian societies. Considering the death tolls of the Wars of Religion, they were right in their estimations of the power for destruction that heresy unchecked brings to a people. Those rulers who put to death persons not willing to live in peaceful co-existence with their neighbors because they disbelieved Articles of the Faith spared their peoples much trouble. It worked to check the intentions of those who would destroy God’s Church if given a chance. People really hate the Catholic Church as does the devil and those he has seduced. On the day I was Baptised into the Only Church that God Himself is the Head of, I made lots of enemies, including the supernatural kind. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bosco the Immaculate said:
thank you for that reasoned answer good sister ginny. I beg to differ in one of your items…that most recanted of their heresy and that was that. All scholarship on the period tells us that once the unfortunate was arrested, not only was he not allowed a defense, but very few lived, and if not tortured and /or killed, was put into a dungeon where they died of starvation and illness.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Bosco, there are quite a few books on my shelf regarding the years of the Inquisitions, both secular and ecclesial, so don’t even go there. I will not waste my valuable time and energy providing proofs to refute your blather. Most persons who did meet with those working for both actually did leave quite healthy. I would say the burden of proofs for what you claim is on you. But you’ll resort to the usual Bosco Blather and Bluff technique so as to never have to provide credible, verifiable sources for your Neanderthal statements. Nuff said. God bless. Ginnfyree.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
In another blog im yacking in , some good cathol girl was talking about how wonderful and godly the CC has been since the first catholic meeting at pentacost. And of course the unbroken chain of godly wonderful popes thru the ages. Of course I asked her if vacancies and popes being killed and run out of town and the chair being bought and sold and three popes at one time counts as an unbroken line of succession. I didn’t bother to mention the reign of the Harlots. She comes back and asks me to give her evidence of this and not to go to some anti catholic or other shady sources. In short, anything I give her she will call it anti catholic propaganda. She said that any thing other than popes being godly men sitting around in perpetual prayer are nothing but protestant lies.
I live for this kind of stuff. I run across this kind of blind devotion to the State Run Religion a lot. And each and ever time I sit in amazement thinking….where in the world do these people come from? They are always cradle cathols, who, have been told their whole life how perfect the CC is and has been. Kids believe what they are taught.
Good sister ginny with her wonderful books reminded me of all this. Yesterday, I contacted The Catholic Press and asked them if they could locate their book from 1950 called The Inquisition. Im waiting for a reply. The catholic powers to be probably have made that book disappear, due to its embarrassment factor.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Ive read about what the CC calls heretical beliefs….and how it burned people for heresy…but ive never heard what a few of these heretical beliefs are. If as good brother Chalcedon says, the prots killed catholics for heresy, I could make a laundry list a mile long of heretical beliefs…but it would never occur to me to harm them because of it.
Just what were these heretical beliefs? I don’t want to make a big thing of this. Just a few heresies will make me happy.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, me neither, but then we live in the C20th West. Remember, in the past, heresy was equated with treason, and that’s why the Romans executed Jesus.
Of course, it you insist that the past should have behaved as we do, you’ll end up in odd places.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
The Romans had laws against anyone calling themselves King. Only the Pontifex Maximus was King.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, he was the emperor – they didn’t have kings.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Oh, he was emperor….I stand corrected. Silly me.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
PS: Chalcedon, if your standard for Martyrdom is simply determined by partisanship, then all those Muslims who blow themselves up for Allah are martyrs to you as well. Hello? “On martyrs, each to their own, but such a partisan statement as yours …….Those who die for their faith show more courage than most of us would.” Yeah. Okie dokie. You should think harder before you say stuff like that. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I think you will find you were the one taking a partisan view, as you were the one restricting the term martyr to those who died for one Church. I was simply stating a fact, which is that most people regard the word as applying more widely, including the Oxford English dictionary.
I think you need to consider your own partisan definition before arguing that a more catholic definition is partisan. You were the one restricting it, not me or the OED 🙂
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Chalcedon, the origins of the word Martyr is to be a witness from the Greek martur. It is a witness to the world of faithfulness to Christ. Acts 1:8 “..and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Jesus speaking before He Ascended into Heaven until the end of time from thence He will come to Judge justly all those who shed the Martyr’s Blood. Just because the word has been used for other things and its meaning has morphed over the two thousand years since Christ spoke it, He meant what He said and said what He meant. To have one’s life taken for the Faith is what He meant by being His witnesses. The Blood of the Martyr’s is the seed of the Church. No one dies for a lie unless he is insane. Come now, you know all but one of the Apostles was Martyred and you know the true meaning of the word. Detraction from their heroic acts is most unbecoming. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, oddly enough I know its origin, as I know its wider usage. What was at issue was you implying I was partisan for using it in the wider context when it was you who were partisan using it in the narrower one.
People have died for other faiths and for other parts of Christianity.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
There are no other “parts of Christianity.” The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. It is also infallible and visible. The Protestants and the Greek schismatics are not one, holy, or apostolic by any means and in many ways, they don’t desire to be. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, so whatever other places you imagine Christ’s Body to be, it isn’t outside the visible Church. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Reread Dominus Iesus, but this time with understanding- why is it some convert to a form of Catholicism which has only existed in their imaginings?
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Forgive me C, I’m kinda dense tonight. Your point is what? I’m not getting you. Can you please explain? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
My point is that the Church does not claim to be the only Christian community.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
I prefer my baloney on a bun with mayo C. Nice try. Sweet pickles and chips on the side too. Nice thinly sliced German baloney, not mystery meat from Oscar Meyer either. I’m going to bed. It’s my bed time. Good night. I’ll argue with you some more tomorrow maybe. Pray for me. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You can make up your own version or sign up to all the Church teaches – I’ll stick with the last
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. It is also infallible and visible.
Uh, you forgot “Pure and White” , good sister.
You renewed my faith in you good sister ginny….Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,.
I take it you have noticed that our good brother Chalcedon is a protestant loving Koran kissing touchy feely everyone goes to heaven catholic in name only.
LikeLike
Steven said:
I don’t know that Ginny would be interested in this, but here’s a relevant selection from Dominus Iesus, which touches upon the Orthodox and Protestants:
“17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.”
Ginny, if you read this, you are wrong that the Eastern Orthodox aren’t apostolic; that they in fact maintained valid apostolic succession is affirmed by Rome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Immaculate said:
But good brother Steve, they are imperfectly baptized.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
I don’t want to be invalidly baptized or I wont go to heaven. So I contacted a catholic priest to baptize me…I called Father John Corapi to baptize me. He said he would gladly baptize me. he said hes busy at the moment with his prostitute girlfriend and that when the alcohol and cocaine wears off we can meet up and baptize me validly.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You really don’t have a clue, do you? In an emergency anyone can administer a valid baptism. But unlike Jesus, you never got round to it, did you?
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Valid, invalid. You cathols kill me. (;-D
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, son is doing that.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Son is doing what. Don’t understand.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
My point is that the Church does not claim to be the only Christian community.
Good sister, now you have his heresy in black and white. Those words will eat his flesh as it were fire. No, nay I say, let us turn him over immediately to the local Inquisitor. yes, then lets see what tune he chooses to sing.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Good night Bosco. I’m too tired for any more. Pray for me. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Sleep tight my fair sister.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
If some orthodox priest baptizes you, its imperfect. But if Father Corapi baptizes you , its perfect. Ill go with that. Gladly.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Since I’m too tired to go into long defenses of some of the points brought up thus far, I will simply toss a few facts onto the “floor” here:
Jesus Christ founded a Church. He stated He would do such when He said, “thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church….” He spoke to a man, St. Peter, in front of the other Apostles, witnesses to God swearing to do something in the future that all would see and appointing St. Peter the head of that Church that He would and did build. All the Apostles gathered knew His intent and acknowledged these facts in the way they lived their lives as the first Christians in the Church whose “birthday” is the first Pentecost. Jesus swore that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church and they haven’t for 2,000 years. These are just some of the facts.
King Henry VIII founded a church. It is called the Church of England, the Anglican Church and a few other names, including Episcopalian. Its “birthday” I reckon is the the date of the Act of Supremacy in 1534. Quibble if you will about the date, it is still a good 15 centuries AFTER the Ascension of Jesus into Heaven and the fall of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles at Pentecost. There was no such raining down from Heaven of the Holy Spirit upon King Henry or his court at that time. God did not found the Church of England – a man did – Henry VIII, King of England. His Parliment wrote laws that solidified Henry’s church into a cohesive ecclesial union and the clerics who followed Henry, re-invented the Catholic rituals in their own image and forced this reformed practice of Christianity on the people. Dissent from Henry’s church and those running it for him could turn deadly and it did. There is absolutely nothing supernatural about the founding of the Anglican Church, nothing. It is at most, 580 years old and exhibits nothing that would lead one to believe it is the holy instrument of God’s Salvation on earth. These are also some of the facts.
Now compare the two. One is Holy, Catholic and Apostolic and teaches, believes and live the same doctrines now as when the Paraclete came, 2,000 years ago. The other is man-made and less than 600 years old. This later church has no mention of its founding in Scripture. Zip. Not a word from God regarding it.
One astounding feature on the Catholic Church that should convince are the miracles that have accompanied her growth worldwide in every generation of her existence on earth, from St. Peter’s shadow falling on cripple and healing his limbs to the present, a healing right here in the USA of a Pheonix mom of 4 from blindness thru the intercession of St.Charbel, (
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/phoenix-mother-st-charbel-cured-my-blindness-68040/ )There have been no miracles attributed to any Anglican men or women. Not one.
If you’d like to bring up the matter of doctrine, be sure to list all the changes in beliefs that the Church of England has undergone in its history. There are many.
That’s it for me folks. I’m tired and need my prayers. I’m late for Vespers! Oooops. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
“One astounding feature on the Catholic Church that should convince are the miracles that have accompanied her growth worldwide in every generation of her existence”
Oh yes, and the greatful indigenous people of south America were blesses to see the miracle of the catholic church come to them. Oh yes. And the Waldesses and the albigensis peoples were blesses when the catholic representatives came to town.
“The other is man-made and less than 600 years old. This later church has no mention of its founding in Scripture. Zip. Not a word from God regarding it.”
Oh how true. No mention of that man made invalid church by god, anywhere. Oh yes. on the other hand, the true universal pure and white gods true church is clearly mentioned every where. Jesus spoke of little else. Its mentioned in Rev chp 2….oh wait, its not there, but it is mentioned in Ephesians chp, uh, wait, its not there. Come to think of it, Jesus names his 7 churches…it must be there. Ooops, no, its not one of the seven. I know, he does mention a religion that sits on 7 hills, which is Rome, but Jesus says its an evil church. There must be some mistake somewhere.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Bosco, it is useless, but I will mention that the 7 churches mentioned in Revelation are not seven different churches, but rather the 7 communities that St. John the Evangelist established before he was exiled to Patmos. He was writing to each community to admonish and encourage them. They are all part of the one church Christ founded. Please provide the Scripture that declares otherwise. If you bother to read what St. John wrote to each you will see his threat to “remove their lampstand,” if they don’t correct the things he is speaking of. That means they will be kicked out of the one Church. That is his threat – shape up or ship out. If they weren’t part of the whole Body of Christ, they couldn’t be threatened with expulsion. Also if they were separated from the Church already as you imply, that is separate churches, then there would be no threat because you cannot kick someone out of something they’ve already left behind. So, there ya go. Simple logic. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Good sister ginny, uh, that wasn’t John writing to the seven churches….it was Jesus talking to them. If you go back and take a look, its red letter, and Jesus says who it is that talks to them. John couldn’t remover their lampstand. Only jesus can.
“If you bother to read what St. John wrote to each you will see his threat to “remove their lampstand”
Its plain that Jesus is talking to the 7 churches.
Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Im sure you must have known all this.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Bosco, you’ve only made it more important to pay attention. St. John, an APOSTLE, speaks with the Authority given Him by Christ and is acting in Persona Christi. he is not channeling Jesus’ spirit, nor is he feigning an actual locution. He is speaking for Christ and the way his words are to be taken, which BTW happens to be the way the Church has always taken Scripture as if Christ Himself is speaking the very words.
Rev. 3:13 Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
Proof of the Apostolic Authority of the Church and that the Holy Spirit, the 3rd person of our Blessed Trinity not only exists, but has come upon the Church as God promised when He said He’d build His Church and had promised the Paraclete, who He said He would send. That same Spirit it is who animates our Church to this day. He it is who prevents us from falling into error and has sustained us for 2,000 years.
Here’s more to chew on: “Pope Pius XII (1947)1: 40. Only to the apostles, and thenceforth to those on whom their successors have imposed hands, is granted the power of the priesthood, in virtue of which they represent the person of Jesus Christ before their people, acting at the same time as representatives of their people before God” Mediator Dei. http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html
So, Bosco, please do hear what the Spirit says to the community of believers in the world and listen! Thanks for bringing it up.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Oh gosh good sister, I wasn’t aware that the Holy Spirit has kept the Catholic Church from error for 2000 yrs. If I had known that, I wouldn’t have been so critical of the Church Christ founded. maybe its time for me to re think things. Thanks.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As usual, Bosco, you type before getting your brain in gear. The Apostles were very concerned about those (such as yourself) who preached another gospel. You proclaim things that are simply your personal and private interpretation if the Bible. The Church, which gave us the Bible, is guarded from error when interpreting it. You, clearly, are not. You lead people astray, Bosco, and at the last you will answer for it. Will you tell God he is wrong?
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Well, I don’t want to be responsible for leading people astray with my private interpretations.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
But that is just what you are doing. You are claiming that your own reading of the Bible is the only one you will accept.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
So, instead of my private interpretation, I should follow the CCs private interpretation.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
But no interpretation by the Church is of private interpretation – which is what the passage means. When St John and St Paul write about the need to accept the traditions passed on to them, they were referring to the fact that the Church is protected from error in doctrine, Bosco. You are not., Still, if you prefer your own private view to that of the Church, when you can’t even explain how you come to have the Bible without the Church, that is your own slippery slope to the lake of fire. I do my best to save you from it, and I pray for you.
LikeLike
Steven said:
Ginny, much of what you’ve written per se I find no disagreement with as a Catholic, though I think your tone is rather dismissive. I would qualify your comment with stating that while the issue of Anglican holy orders is settled within the Catholic Church (null and void), we also must acknowledge as part of our Church’s teaching that the Anglican communion is still very much a Christian community, and the Holy Spirit is not absent from among them. Anglicans, and other Protestants, have done a great deal of work for God’s kingdom and this should not be dismissed. Since Vatican 2, we also have learned to acknowledge that Catholics and Protestants both can learn from one another. The scripture verse promising “where two or three are gathered in my name” that Jesus will be there, is not restricted to Catholicism. When you speak of miracles, you forget that Baptism, which is in itself a miracle, occurs validly outside of the Catholic Church, among the Orthodox and the Protestants. This common Baptism means that regardless of other tragic divisions, we are still united to Christ together through baptism and faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Secondly, we should be wary of putting our faith in miracles, and avoid the temptation to look at miracles as evidence for the validity of the Church. I’m grateful for the Marian apparitions and miracles that occur within our Church, as their continued occurrences do at times encourage my faith, but it should be remembered that miracles/supernatural events also occur among the Eastern Orthodox, among Protestants, and even among the heathen religions. The presence of miracles does not automatically validate any particular church or religion, nor should miracles and apparitions necessarily be assumed right away to be of God. In the absence of the Church officials speaking in favor of any particular miracle, we should simply acknowledge the presence of the supernatural, and suspend judgement one way or another as to its origin. I think to put too much emphasis on miracles, which I fear you’re encouraging, is to put our feet on dangerous, slippery ground. The historical authority of the Catholic Church, and the magisterium, should be enough regardless of whatever else. G.K Chesterton speaks well on this subject:
“No religion that thinks itself true bothers about the miracles of another religion. It denies the doctrines of the religion; it denies its morals; but it never thinks it worth while to deny its signs and wonders. And why not? Because these things some men have always thought possible. Because any wandering gipsy may have psychical powers. Because the general existence of a world of spirits and of strange mental powers is a part of the common sense of all mankind. The Pharisees did not dispute the miracles of Christ; they said they were worked by devilry. The Christians did not dispute the miracles of Mahomed. They said they were worked by devilry. The Roman world did not deny the possibility that Christ was a God. It was far too enlightened for that. In so far as the Church did (chiefly during the corrupt and sceptical eighteenth century) urge miracles as a reason for belief, her fault is evident…. It is not that she asked men to believe anything so incredible; it is that she asked men to be converted by anything so commonplace. What matters about a religion is not whether it can work marvels like any ragged Indian conjurer, but whether it has a true philosophy of the Universe. The Romans were quite willing to admit that Christ was a God. What they denied was the He was the God – the highest truth of the cosmos. And this is the only point worth discussing about Christianity.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Hello Steven. Thanks for the remarks.
However I have a difficulty with this: “Secondly, we should be wary of putting our faith in miracles, and avoid the temptation to look at miracles as evidence for the validity of the Church.”
Have you ever heard of the Great Commission? It is what Jesus did right before He Ascended into Heaven. Part of it was a description of how we would know a true disciple from a false one, that is one sent by God to preach, teach and minister in His name or in other words, one united to Him and having full Authority to act on His behalf. The passage explains that we would know them by their MIRACLES. Here it is: Mark 16:14-18 “But later, as the eleven were at table, he appeared to them and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who saw him after he had been raised. 15 He said to them, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages. 18 They will pick up serpents [with their hands], and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” Pay attention closely to this last mark – miracles of healing. It takes 3 proven miracles post-mortem before the Church declares a person a Saint. It is part of the process of Canonization. Without them, no sainthood. That should make you notice that not only did God Himself say that miracles would accompany those who He approved and sent, but also the Church herself knowing these were His words of proofs of personal sanctity, relies upon them heavily in making its determination. Also, you can pretty much trust that you will not find any miracles attributed to persons such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, King Henry, Ellen White, Charles Russell, William Booth, George Fox, John Wesley, etc. Not one miracle, they some of them tried to convince others of contact with spirits or the ability to read hearts or to have had direct communications/revelations from God.
If you choose to dismiss Jesus’ words that He would allow miracles to be worked by men and women in His name as a sure sign of His favor and authentic Authority among those He Commissioned to bring His Church to all the world until the end of time when He comes again that is your choice. The reason all those frauds I just listed falsified miracles was because the faithful know that miracles are proof of God’s accompaniment with a particular person. We believe Him. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steven said:
Ginny, I appreciate your reply. You make a good point, so my rebuttal will focus just on the miracles issue. I think when Jesus commissioned the apostles and promised that miraculous wonders would accompany those who believe in him, I don’t necessarily think it was intended that miraculous wonders were intended to be a main reason for believing the gospel. The New Testament authors consistently emphasized evidence for the resurrection (eye witness testimony and such) and giving evidence to the gospel by one’s way of life, over and above appeals to miraculous signs performed by believers. I don’t even think signs and wonders were ever really intended even to be on the same level of evidence for the gospel as one’s lifestyle and simple preaching of the gospel. St. Paul even tempered the use of the gifts of tongues among believers during assemblies, because it was becoming a distraction to the gospel. Christianity began in a time and place where people commonly believed in miracles, and to a far greater extent than we do nowadays, and perhaps witnessing miracles was fairly commonplace. It always strikes me as curious as to why the response to Jesus’ miracles was not surprise or astonishment that they happened, but only surprise that they were worked by a seemingly ordinary carpenter. Miraculous signs were important in the establishment of our faith, to demonstrate to non-believers that there was some authentically supernatural element to Christianity that should not be ignored. Signs and wonders remain part and parcel of the Christian faith to this day, and so this should not be ignored. I just caution as to how much importance we give to contemporary miracles when appealing to others to believe our message.
I especially caution against using miracles as a reason to believe in Catholicism over other forms of Christianity. For example, the Orthodox have the miracle of Holy Fire, which occurs every Holy Saturday on their calendar, and it takes place in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It’s reported that during the Crusades, when Catholics took over the clergy functions of the region, the holy fire would not light for them, but the miracle resumed once Orthodox clergy were re-established. There’s not a small number of Orthodox who see that as evidence for the superiority of their church over ours, although we tend to respond by dismissing it entirely. I think it’s best to shrug our shoulders and affirm that God works in mysterious ways, than to try and disprove this miracle or explain why it only occurs for the Orthodox. That brings me to my whole point, that yes miracles continue to occur among Christians, but when it comes to polemics between different Christian communions, the presence of miracles doesn’t prove anything, since it appears that God sees it fit to work miracles among Christians regardless of their ecclesial affiliation. I think the Protestants have a much lesser number of miracles that occur among them, but miracles are still not unheard of among them, especially healing miracles.
As I’ve said, yes miracles do provide evidence that there is a truly supernatural element to the Christian faith, and in societies that are highly religious, this provides a good “attention getter” if you will, but the gospel and the Resurrection of Christ are still the basis of our faith, even if miracles were to cease entirely. Likewise for Catholics, the historical authority of our Church, and its teachings, are the main reason we give as to why we choose to be Catholic instead of some other variation of Christianity. The miracles and apparitions simply point to the undeniable miraculous element, so that other Christians cannot balk and say God doesn’t work miracles among us.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Thanks for the reply Steven. The “miracle” of the Holy Fire isn’t a miracle of the Orthodox Church as you wish. It is considered a preternatural event, rather than something supernatural BTW. I found this when Googling for info.: “The first written account of the Holy Fire (Holy Light) dates from the fourth century, but authors write about events that occurred in the first century. So Sts. John Damascene and Gregory of Nissa narrate how the Apostle Peter saw the Holy Light in the Holy Sepulchre after Christ’s resurrection.” Since the origin of the Orthodox church is more recent than that, it couldn’t be “theirs.” That would be like stating the Sepulchre is theirs as well!
I might say more after Mass. Gotta run. Morning Prayer awaits. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Ginny, the origin of the Orthodox Church is not more recent than that. Your ignorance of history is almost as astounding as the supreme confidence with which you pronounce. I challenge you here to quote a reputable historian who says the Orthodox Church originated later than the Catholic Church. When you can’t, I’d like to think you had the humility to withdraw a ludicrous statement – but I have a small bet with myself that you won’t.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Come on now Chalcedon, the insults are really not necessary. I’m not ignorant. Does the year 1054 AD ring any bells for you? No? That is the year of the Great Schism, the origin of the Orthodox Church. You could wind the clock back further than that by including Photius of Constantinople who lived in the 9th century. However, 33 AD it the year of the coming of the Paraclete, which is the year my Church was born.
Here’s a competent historical record for you so you can refresh your memory: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I am afraid, ginny, that your ignorance extends to the extent that you do not realise how profoundly ill-educated your comments show you to be; knowing you like plain-speaking, I am simply responding as you would wish.
Now, try reading a real book https://www.ignatius.com/Products/REC-P/rome-and-the-eastern-churches.aspx and then come back and tell me that the OC started in 1054. Indeed, if you go back and read the websites you quote, you will not find that they say that the OC started in 1054, or in the 9th century. What on earth do you think it means to call a Church ‘true’ if it is, as you claim, fake. Wprds mean things, ginny, learning is important, and I recommend you read more before giving us the benefit of the depth of your ignorance.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Wow, I guess you are not going to restrain your insults. That’s fine too. But to claim the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong is nuts. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I did no such thing, I said it did not say what you said, which is that the Orthodox Church started in 1054.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Hello Steven. This morning’s Readings are a huge help for you. I won’t type out the whole of it but just enough to make a point: “Many of the Jews who had come to Mary and seen what Jesus had done began to believe in him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. So the chief priests and the Pharisees convened the Sanhedrin and said, “What are we going to do? This man is performing many signs. If we leave him alone, all will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our land and our nation.”‘ Jn. 11:45-48. This passage follows the restoration of life to Lazarus. A man brought back to life after four days dead. Miracles are astounding events. Have you ever witnessed one? Jesus worked miracles for a reason. It turned people towards Him. Think of the crossing of the Red Sea by Moses and all Israel. That was a miracle. It happened after 10 Plagues that were also miracles. People respond to miracles. Surely you don’t mean to dismiss the faith of those who followed Jesus after eating the multiplied loaves and fishes as superficial or meaingless do you? Thousands came to believe in Him through His ministry of miracles. They began their walk with Christ. In the coming years they suffered persecution for it yet they stayed faithful to the end. They spread the Gospel among themselves and their neighbors. There are many accounts of them in the Acts. These are the Christians of the first 100 years. it may have been a miracle that brought them to Christ, but the gift of faith in Him that followed their ascent to Him as Messiah is what sustained them to the ends of their days. Some of their ends were quite gruesome too. Some got impaled on stakes and used as torches to light the garden paths of Nero as entertainment for his guests.
” It always strikes me as curious as to why the response to Jesus’ miracles was not surprise or astonishment that they happened, but only surprise that they were worked by a seemingly ordinary carpenter. ” This is purely your interpretation and it is similar to a very banal version of Christ that is common among some theologians today, the “nice” Jesus who was just a little carpenter from Nazareth who happened along and taught others how to be “nice” as well. You have no way of accurately describing any of the responses of those around Jesus at the time He worked miracles among the people because you weren’t there! And you insinuate your own ideas into their response. You are speaking for people you’ve never encountered.
There are many persons who go on pilgrimage to places like Lourdes seeking miracles of healing. There are thousands of persons seeking miracles of grace such as conversion of themselves or family members who seek out holy places and implore the Saints to aid them every day. Miracles help people believe every day. Is the faith of all these people meaningless to you? Are they missing the Gospel message you seem to think is more important that the works God still is doing among us? I see my Pastor work a miracle every time I go to Mass and witness ordinary bread and wine transformed into the Body and Blood of my Lord. Hello? Ever see that one?
I picked miracles as a topic because it is one of the apologetic proofs of our Church’s claims that other Christian denominations lack. It is a timeless proof of our authenticity. We’ve had them because God willed it to be so, and so it is.
Acts 5: 12-16 – Many signs and wonders were done among the people at the hands of the apostles. They were all together in Solomon’s portico. None of the others dared to join them, but the people esteemed them. Yet more than ever, believers in the Lord, great numbers of men and women, were added to them. Thus they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and mats so that when Peter came by, at least his shadow might fall on one or another of them. A large number of people from the towns in the vicinity of Jerusalem also gathered, bringing the sick and those disturbed by unclean spirits, and they were all cured.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
This is what the Church says:
“17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.”
Who to believe, the Church or ginny?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Good sister ginny believes what the CC claimed from along time ago, that the CC is it, and nothing else. This new softer gentiler claim doesn’t sit rite with pure catholics. Pure cathols don’t mind the politically incorrect claims of yesteryear, while you kinder gentiler cathols embrace this more tolerant claims.
So why bother joining the catholic church if one can get salvation from another religion, one without the 5,000,000 volumes of canon laws to be burdened with?
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Chalcedon, you are putting a capital “C” where there should be a little “c.” It means alot. I am not deceived. Your passage is regarding the Orthodox who have maintained valid Orders but refuse to acknowledge the Primacy of our Pope. They are particular churches, not the little c in the authentic work. They are separated by their will even though their Orders are valid, they are not licitly used. If one is not in Communion with the Pope, then one is not in union with who he is the Vicar of, namely Christ who is God. Denial of His Vicar is a denial of Him. They are outside the Church and therefore at their particular judgment, they have to answer for their denial. The passage regarding the people who are Baptised validly but have not maintained their Orders while separated from the Head, are communions of persons not in Communion wth God and His Church. The passage you picked actually proves my point. I should thank you. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
You tell em good sister ginny. Those who deny the pope deny the very God himself.
LikeLike
Steven said:
Ginny, it appears to me that you’re trying to deny that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the Orthodox Churches; if this is what you’re doing, then you are directly contradicting what the Vicar of Christ has taught. The wording and choice of capitalization I used is taken directly from Church teaching. I would tread carefully here, in trying so hard to differentiate the Catholic Church from the others within Christendom, you’re dangerously close to dissenting from Catholic teaching in the process. Catholic teachings is far more nuanced than you indicate in your posts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Uh oh, good sister ginny, youre getting dangerously close to dissenting from catholic teaching. You better sleep with one eye open.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I have made the same point Steven. Ginny seems to be joining those here who go beyond what the Church says.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Steven said:
I think the ever-present temptation is to adhere to a Catholic Church that exists largely within the confines of one’s own imagination, and to reject the Catholic Church as it exists in actuality. This is the tragic downfall I’ve noticed about many self-proclaimed traditionalists.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
I’m afraid it is. I wonder how many are converts? It seems to me that the danger in converting is that you create in your head a version of the Church which suits you, and then you find that the Pope does not fit with that picture, so clearly he’s a heretic and you are orthodox; it is an essentially Protestant way of thinking brought into the Church by former Protestants who now see themselves as more Catholic than the Pope – literally.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Steven said:
I struggled a bit with that mentality when I converted, too. Everybody’s journey is different, but on my end I started out with more traditionalist leanings and have gradually moved away from that mentality. I came from a conservative Baptist background and learned about the Church from traditionalist-minded Catholics, so it was a natural fit for me initially. It was a struggle to reconcile my tendencies with how the Church actually exists, especially with Pope Francis. That said, having committed my share of sins along the way, I have come to develop a great sense of appreciation, even admiration, for the merciful mindset of Francis and those like him. Now I shudder at the thought of the Church being as rigid as I once thought, and expected, it to be. I suppose that would help explain my reaction to those who continue to put forth a very conservative view of how the Church should operate.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
That seems to me a good journey. I understand those who, having converted, take being ‘rigid’ as a badge of honour, but I fear that in it is more of a desire to assert an image of the Church than the image of Christ.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Steven, the Orthodox church is not Catholic. The Vicar Emeritus you are referring to agrees with me. I take issue with the interpretation of his words that Chalcedon is applying. He wants us to believe that Benedict’s words have wondrously reconciled the Orthodox to us and made them Catholic! Step over the St. Mad Monk’s Orthodox Church and ask some of those attending services there if they are Catholics. Some will be polite and simply look at you like your lost and need assistance and direct you to St. Mary Magdalen’s RC Church down the street. Others will look at you like your insane. One may try to explain to you their truth; they don’t want to be a part of the Catholic Church. Guess what? They aren’t. That’s why they are called the Orthodox church. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Ginny, it really would help if you would read what I say without adding to it. Where did I say what you say here: ‘He wants us to believe that Benedict’s words have wondrously reconciled the Orthodox to us and made them Catholic!’ Answer, nowhere. What I wrote was what the Emeritus Pope wrote, which is that the Orthodox Church is a Church, separated from the Catholic Church, but a true Church all the same. If you go to a site called ‘the Mad Monk’ you can’t complain if you encounter insanity there.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Chalcedon, there is only one true Church. It is one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic. You agree with this on Sundays when you recite the Creed. If you don’t believe this and render only lip service so as to receive the Eucharist, you eat and drink condemnation upon yourself. That is what you and I were both taught as we went thru RCIA. I made sure I believed it ALL before my first Holy Communion. I still do. My faith was nascent then. It has deepened and I’ve learned quite a bit more than the fundamentals we were given in RCIA since then. If you really think the Orthodox is a true church in the same sense as the Catholic Church is a true church, then I think you are trying to believe what some Apologists call the Branch Theory. It doesn’t hold water, kinda like an old wineskin you’re trying to pour new wine into. Both get ruined Chalcedon. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I am not in the slightest bit sure from which bit of your misunderstanding of ecclesiology or what I wrote this comment emerged. I refer you back to the words of Dominus Iesus about the OC being a true Church:
The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church,
Now which bit of that agrees with ginny’s personal and private opinion as expressed here:’ If you really think the Orthodox is a true church in the same sense as the Catholic Church is a true church, then I think you are trying to believe what some Apologists call the Branch Theory.’ Please read what the Pope emeritus writes. This is nothing to do with ‘branch theory’ where does he, or where do I, mention such a things? You import it because, in your ignorance, you think that can be the only explanation; the explanation is there in the words now quoted thrice. The OC is a valid Church, it has a valid Eucharist and the Church of Christ is present in that Church. Benedict’s words, not mine. I agree with him, you disagree. As I have said before, whom should I believe, him or you? Oddly, I’m staying with him, and if you understood what you were writing about, so would you.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Well, if its a true church, then its as good as the catholic church.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you for proving my point about a partisan view. Read again what is said about the Orthodox Church. My point, which you miss, is that the Church regards all these communions as being full of Christians. You seem to me to be taking a view which is not that-of the Church.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Hello Chalcedon. Back from Mass and got my coffee. I haven’t missed your point at all. At least you are now saying it is your point and not Benedict’s. That is progress. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is describing accurately the conditions of some poor Christians who remain outside the one true Church. I’ve not denied anyone’s Baptism. Baptism makes one a Christian, removes Original sin, unites one with Christ and a few other things besides. However, there is the little matter of taking the Lord’s name in vain. Being Christian means bearing the holy name in your life for all your life. Scandalizing Him by remaining apart from the Church He built is to take His name in vain. It is Baptism that makes one a Christian and that is why adults prepare for it by being educated in the faith for a while before receiving it. Babies who are baptized have godparents who swear at that time to ensure an authentic Catholic education will be that of the child being baptized should the parents fail in some way to do so. There really is no conflict between myself and the passage cited. The conflict is with your interpretation of it. This is a circular argument. Your conclusion is wrong. There is no Communion with God outside the Church. I would add that there are those who are in the Church physically and receive the Eucharist every day, who still are not reconciled to God, who is the head of our Church. Their appearance of a visible union with us is false. God is not fooled neither are some of us. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Let us go back to the text which you misrepresent.
’58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church’
You will see I have embolded certain words, which support what I have said from the start, which is that the Orthodox Church is a true Church – Benedict’s words, not mine, and they contradict the ginny doctrine. I’d advise you to accept Benedict’s view and to substitute it for the error you keep propounding. If the Orthodox Church is a true church. then you must be incorrect in your dogmatic assertion that its members are not in communion with God. It isn’t a matter of being ‘foolsed’ ginny, it is a matter of understanding ecclesiology, and I am afraid, as you keep proving, you don’t understand Catholic ecclesiology – unless, that is, you insist you are right and the author of Dominus Iesus is wrong. Me, I’m sticking with Benny.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Chalcedon, here is a link to the actual document you claim you are quoting, Dominus Iesus at the Vatican – http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
IT ONLY HAS 23 PARAGRAPHS. Your quotation claims to be from paragraphs 58 & 59. That means you are either misquoting from another document than the one you claim your quote is from of you are falsifying your sources. I don’t think you’d stoop that low so can you please provide a usable link to the source of your quotation or at least give the correct name of the source?
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Oh Lord help us. 58 refers to the footnote to para 17 – as you would know if you had spent a moment reading. Can you please stop embarrassing yourself and actually read something.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Okie dokie. You cannot help but remain verbally abusive and insulting. I understand.
Here are the parts of said document that you are leaving out:”This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.”
Then you twist what remains to imply that there is a Truer Church of Christ, that is above the merely Catholic Church that contains all those you consider a Communion of Churches, the Anglican Communion, the Orthodox, the Protestants, and the shabby neighbor, the Catholic Church. This is your version of the Branch Theory. We’ve gone down this road before here Chalcedon. It doesn’t wash. Like I said, you are trying to put new wine in old skins and both are ruined.
There is only one Church and you either accept that or not. If not, you will be lost like all the rest no matter how many branches you try to graft into the Branch Theory. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, that is not what I said. Finally you get it. Well done. You see, if you actually read what I refer you to, you will get it. At no point did I state anything like what you claim.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Good brother Chalcedon says that there IS salvation outside of the catholic church.
That makes me feel much better.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Bosco, God alone knows who is saved, despite your claim that you know. We know that Christ founded a Church, so why take the risk of being somewhere else?
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
I don’t want to risk salvation. So being outside the bosom of the catholic church is like shooting dice? One might win, then again one might loose.
maybe I should consider joining the catholic church.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It is Bosco. God, and God alone knows which of us will be saved. I know for sure that without the saving blood of Jesus I have no hope. The question then is where is the blood, where does it cover me? Jesus founded a Church. It is still there. Is it full of sinners like me, yes, are some of its priests scoundrels who have been tempted by Satan and who have fallen, yes. Is its earthly form perfect, no, how could it be, it is full of sinners. But despite that, it has survived 2000 years, and it offers me, you, and anyone else who will come to it, what Christ offers – salvation. I don’t like everything my Church does or says, but who has the word of eternal life, Jesus Christ, and that same Jesus founded a Church which is with us still. Why take the risk of being outside it? In the end, Bosco, I came in because I did not want to take that risk any longer.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
In many peoples lives, one says to himself….is there more to life than death. The atheists answer that by saying…No…death is all there is. Die and that’s it, youre no more. You, my brother, asked the question and decided that there is more to life than death and went about to…well, in gamblers terminology….to get on the winning side.
The sad case of Christopher Hitchens comes to mind. I saw a pic of him yesterday being hugged by someone, I think it was dawkins. Hitch was bald from drug therapy. he looked so pityfull. You know he was going out any day. I couldn’t see his face, but I felt, down in my spirit, that he was scared out of his mind. he had a right to be scared. He was about to face the one person he despised and preached against his whole life.
Its wise to seek god befor one dies. Seek and ye shall find.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
God is love, Bosco, the Good Book tells us so. He desires not the punishment of a sinner, but that he might repent and through Jesus come to life eternal. So then, the question is where do we find Jesus? He founded a Church, it is still here, and we can be part of it. Or we can hold that we are saved because of an experience we have had. That may be right, but it may not be. Christ’s Church is just that – on matters of eternal life it cannot err.
LikeLike
Fra' Eccles (@BruvverEccles) said:
I’d like my brother Bosco to tell us all about the famous Calvary Chapel martyrs, who suffered for the right to wear clown costumes and worship concrete doves. They stood up for what they believed in, in the face of derision from the Catholics, Episcopalians, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Worshippers of the Tiger God, and of course atheists.
And as an ecumenical gesture, I’d like to propose that *all* the Tudors were murdering swine. Except possibly for Edward, who was only 15 when he died.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Well, they stole the throne from the Plantagenets, and more or less carried on in the same vein. I’d say we were lucky only to have had three generations of them – were it not for the fact they gifted us the Stuarts via Henry VII’s daughter. A bad lot.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Ha haaaaaa, I figured out who you really are brother Eccles…..you are good sister Annie. Hahaaaaaa, busted, you mealy mouthed sick little monkey. Ha haaaaaaaaaa
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Not to change the subject, but im hearing that a terror attack has happened in Sweden. Sweden of all places. Multiple deaths.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
“Christ’s Church is just that – on matters of eternal life it cannot err.”
The scriptures are free from error. How does that save someone? Does knowing the scriptures save you? Does joining an organization save you?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Of course they are, but they need interpreting, as St Peter acknowledged with Paul’s letters. So the question is are you better qualified to do this than the Church which tells you which books are Scripture? Are you infallible in your reading, Bosco, and if you are, why?
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
I asked you once awhile ago…where is this compilation of the true meanings of scripture. You gave me the name of the book, but its not free online. It has to be purchased. Do I have to go thru life in the dark and wake up in hell if I cant afford to purchase gods true words?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, you can join Christ’s Church. Do you imagine the followers of the Apostles had the NT?
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Join. Then what? I need a written guarantee that im saved and going to heaven if I join. Is this possible?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No. But you are rolling the dice.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
No guarantee. Joining the true universal church that Christ founded is no guarantee of salvation. Personally, I want to know I have a relation with Christ and am assured salvation.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Well, best of luck with that. St Paul talked about running the race to the end, but you expect more than he had? Good luck.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Whats the difference between no guarantee and rolling dice?
I have to get off computer now, ill research good brother pauls feelings on the subject. Nice talkin to ya good brother.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
“the question is where do we find Jesus?”
Here is where one can either believe scripture at face value, or one can add qualifications. Its the central theme of the bible from cover to cover.
The catholic church says one can find Him there, in the CC. I once asked….where is the Church? Is it a building? Is it a box with a green monster in it? Is it a room full of men? Is it a charter?
The Boy Scouts of America….what is it? They have a main office. If the building burn down, there would still be the Boy Scouts.
If the Catholic Church is its doctrine, and Jesus is in its doctrine, the doctrine being the bible, then Jesus is to be found in scriptures. He already there.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
bILL dNONAHO, THE POSTER BOY OF THE cc SAYS ONLY 6 cases of priest abuse from 1960 to 1980. He says the rest are lies.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Bosco, why are you so obsessed with this? Usually those so obsessed have unhealthy urges themselves, if that is you, get help, but stop reading about it, it won’t help you.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
This is what the CCs official mouthpiece is saying. It doesn’t bother you that you are surrounded by liars? Id contact my local bishop if I were you and have Donahue fired.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As I say Bosco, perhaps find another subject on which to obsess.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
You say the saved cant tell a fellow pilgrim and the saved don’t even know if they are saved. Your vision of salvation is one of people walking in utter darkness. Scripture says…..deny not the gathering of the saints. How do the saints gather if they don’t know who they are…they are suppose to be in the dark.
And salvation isn’t assured until one dies.
“But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.”
The born again are servants and have their fruits. No mention of maybe or sort of or you never know. Good brother loves to bring up that we are to run the race to the end. Yes, keep abiding in the faith till the end, when ever that might be. It might be 1 minute after being born again. The holy ghost doesn’t give us partial salvation. I can imagine that this philosophy must have come from some religion and their godless dogma…a way to trap souls into their servitude. Its certainly not biblical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
You, as ever, cherry pick. St Paul had no assurance he was ‘saved’. He knew that if he ran the race faithfully it was likely, but you need to show me from the Bible an individual saying ‘I am saved’ as you claim to be.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
The word saved isn’t used much, just like the word trinity or rapture. Rapture is in the greek but other terms were used in the English translation. Ill find what you request. Its a good request.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
That’s fine – just stay off the conspiracy stuff.
LikeLike