Random West Mall Postings

It went from a centralized society (all roads lead to Rome) to decentralized one. As such, a lot of things happened out of view of the masters.

 

Many of you here might be impressed with Chop’s knowledge on all things cosmopolitan, but ask him what he knows about nutmeggars.

 

Is anyone else having problems posting?

 

I can only post a paragraph at a time

 

Connecticut, it beats New Jersey...

 

Maybe you reached your limit on HF.

 

OK, Dion educated me on the server issue I created.

QUOTE="Monahorns, post: 2092637, member: 2114"]And yet Jesus said "it is finished" on the cross. Tetelestai in the Greek. Perfect tense meaning absolutely completed action.[/QUOTE] Thats it?

A few things; I'm going to go with the interpretation of those who lived, were persecuted, learned directly from the Apostles or Church Fathers, or lived in the first century, over your interpretation, as I hope you do as well over mine. Actually you didn't really offer an interpretation, but I get the implication.

The Greek word tetelestai - I've heard Protestants change the definition of this word to mean "paid in full", which is not techically correct. And you offered "absolutely completed", which it doesn't mean that either. You made that up to help your argument, or just repeating something you heard. The true historic meaning is just like scripture tells us - "It is finished". "Bring to a finish, or complete" is acceptable, but personally I'm not unkind to any of those one chooses to believe. But I would take you to task on the implication that the Church Fathers, who by the way, you said Protestants claimed, interpretation is wrong over your personal interpretation. Jesus didn't mean by "it is finished" therefore we have no need to obey the clear instructions given to us in scripture.

There are things scripture lays out clearly that we must do, even if He said "It is finished (He actually said), "paid in full" or "absolutely completed". We still have to cooperate with God's grace, follow the commandments, feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc, etc, etc. And one of those things scripture tells us, John 6:54-55 Jesus said “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the Last Day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” Now, you've already implied you reject the interpretation of the early Fathers (which I'd love to discuss), but nonetheless, Jesus commanded us to follow John 6:54-55 even though "It is finished". Why, as part of a religious service, would Christ command us to eat his flesh, drink His blood if "It is Finished"? And why be baptized if it is absolutely fcompleted? Are you baptized? Why? It's finished.

He paid for our Salvation in full but that doesn't mean everyone is automatically going to heaven. That's a dangerous implication you're drawing because one could assume there is nothing left to do like growing in holiness and sanctification, following the teachings of scripture. I could say after downing a whataburger - It is finished - and that would be a legitimate proper use of the verb, but it doesn't men I don't have to wash my hands, throw the bag in the trash, poop it out at some point, etc. No, the Church Fathers are absolutely correct. Your modern implication is way off.

 

And your source is on the way, right?

 

So St .Athanasius used the title Katholikos to the followers he was writing and preaching to of the new faith but they weren't actually Kathlolikos? So his teaching on the Eucharist wasn't Katholiko - Catholic? His understanding of baptism wasn't Catholic either, huh? Can we ever expect any sources from you other than opinions?

 

Thats it?

A few things; I'm going to go with the interpretation of those who lived, were persecuted, learned directly from the Apostles or Church Fathers, or lived in the first century, over your interpretation, as I hope you do as well over mine. Actually you didn't really offer an interpretation, but I get the implication.

The Greek word tetelestai - I've heard Protestants change the definition of this word to mean "paid in full", which is not techically correct. And you offered "absolutely completed", which it doesn't mean that either. You made that up to help your argument, or just repeating something you heard. The true historic meaning is just like scripture tells us - "It is finished". "Bring to a finish, or complete" is acceptable, but personally I'm not unkind to any of those one chooses to believe. But I would take you to task on the implication that the Church Fathers, who by the way, you said Protestants claimed, interpretation is wrong over your personal interpretation. Jesus didn't mean by "it is finished" therefore we have no need to obey the clear instructions given to us in scripture.

There are things scripture lays out clearly that we must do, even if He said "It is finished (He actually said), "paid in full" or "absolutely completed". We still have to cooperate with God's grace, follow the commandments, feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc, etc, etc. And one of those things scripture tells us, John 6:54-55 Jesus said “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the Last Day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” Now, you've already implied you reject the interpretation of the early Fathers (which I'd love to discuss), but nonetheless, Jesus commanded us to follow John 6:54-55 even though "It is finished". Why, as part of a religious service, would Christ command us to eat his flesh, drink His blood if "It is Finished"? And why be baptized if it is absolutely fcompleted? Are you baptized? Why? It's finished.

He paid for our Salvation in full but that doesn't mean everyone is automatically going to heaven. That's a dangerous implication you're drawing because one could assume there is nothing left to do like growing in holiness and sanctification, following the teachings of scripture. I could say after downing a whataburger - It is finished - and that would be a legitimate proper use of the verb, but it doesn't men I don't have to wash my hands, throw the bag in the trash, poop it out at some point, etc. No, the Church Fathers are absolutely correct. Your modern implication is way off.[/QUOTE]
Maybe the way to look at this is from the opposite direction. Maybe what Jesus was saying is that yes, it is completely finished for those who truly believe. And that is a change of heart. So, if you aren't following God's commands and doing his work then you don't truly believe and never had a change of heart.

It's always asked, what about the person who accepts Christ on their death bed and dies before they can do any work? Well, did they have a change of heart or not? Only God knows the answer to that.

 

Yes. I was explaining the further meaning of the perfect tense. The word for word translation is "It is finished". The absolute sense comes from the verb tense.

 

You included one church father who doesn't present what various interpretations some of them held to. I agree that "it is finished" doesn't mean we have no need to obey the clear instructions given to us in scripture. It just means that the payment was made and no new sacrifice needs to be made.

Yes. I also take communion and was baptized Jesus commanded that we all should be. "It is finished" doesn't imply that we shouldn't obey God's commandments and live a godly life. It strictly means that the work Jesus did to save us was accomplished on the cross. He paid for all sin while on the cross. There is no sin left unpaid for after that.

I agree. Jesus' payment on the cross doesn't mean everyone gets into heaven. Only those who have faith are found in Christ and have his payment applied to their sin. I too think Christians should grow in holiness and sanctification, but the difference is that Protestants believe that justification and sanctification are different aspects of salvation. Sanctification doesn't justify you. Justification starts your process of sanctification

That is what I believe too. Cool.

 

My source is every history about the Reformation that I have ever read. If you are not aware of the view point of the Reformers I suggest you look into on your own.

 

I'm explaining very basic information about the multiple uses of the word catholic. Look at the second entry in Merriam's.

Definition of CATHOLIC

 

I am glad you guys got that straightened out

 

Perhaps instead of trying to re-fight the 30 years war, Catholics and Protestants could peaceably work together. Any Church that agrees with the statements in the Nicene Creed should be welcomed.

Now interestingly, I'm not sure if many of the mainline Methodist Churches would even sign on to the Nicene Creed today. At least their leadership, that is. I would think most individual Methodist parishioners would still agree with the Nicene Creed, but I could be wrong.

 

Work peaceably together for what though?

I would gladly work with a Roman Catholic for moral and political reform in America. This was strictly a discussion about church history and theology. We shouldn't ignore those differences, but talk through them as gently as possible.

 

So that's a "no" on sources, correct? I'm aware of the Reformers. I'm also aware of the early Church Father who you claim but don't agree with. Interesting.

 

I think you should take my word for it because I am 100% right on this. Trust me.

 

Did St. Athanasius hold unmistakeble Catholic beliefs about the Eucharist and baptism, to just name a couple? Are your modern day beliefs the same as his?

I get that you're anti-Catholic thus can't bring yourself to concede even what the majority of Protestant scholars acknowledge. Honest Protestants understand history, but assert there was corruption in the Church, thus the reformation. Thats an honest discussion that Catholics and Protestants can and do have, but they don't deny history.

Here is what is what Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes... that in the early Church “the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have ‘a pure offering’ made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist.

“It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).

Guess how many early Christians were tortured and murdered because they refused to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

And since you said Protestants claim the Early Church Fathers, feel free to highlight the beliefs you share today with that of the men who walked among the Apostles:
The Didache
“Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]” (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

Pope Clement I
“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release” (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch
“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God” (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
“God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles side note here, The Eucharist is offered worldwide at every hour somewhere on earth in a Catholic Mass, thus fulfilling this holy prophecy). . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus
“He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles” (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).

Cyprian of Carthage
“If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is himself the high priest of God the Father; and if he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father; and if he commanded that this be done in commemoration of himself, then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, truly functions in place of Christ” (Letters 63:14 [A.D. 253]).

Serapion
“Accept therewith our hallowing too, as we say, ‘Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of your glory.’ Heaven is full, and full is the earth, with your magnificent glory, Lord of virtues. Full also is this sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to you we offer this living sacrifice, this unbloody oblation” (Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice 13:12–16 [A.D. 350]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
“Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before him, that he may make the bread the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ, for whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is surely sanctified and changed. Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this sacrifice for all who are in need” (Catechetical Lectures 23:7–8 [A.D. 350]).

Gregory Nazianzen
“Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword” (Letter to Amphilochius 171 [A.D. 383]).

Ambrose of Milan
“We saw the prince of priests coming to us, we saw and heard him offering his blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests, and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. Even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. Even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is he himself that is offered in sacrifice here on Earth when the body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer himself he is made visible in us, he whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered” (Commentaries on Twelve Psalms of David 38:25 [A.D. 389]).

John Chrysostom
“When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?” (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387]).

“Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the sacrificial victim who is placed thereon!” (Homilies on Romans 8:8 [A.D. 391]).

“In ancient times, because men were very imperfect, God did not scorn to receive the blood which they were offering . . . to draw them away from those idols; and this very thing again was because of his indescribable, tender affection. But now he has transferred the priestly action to what is most awesome and magnificent. He has changed the sacrifice itself, and instead of the butchering of dumb beasts, he commands the offering up of himself” (ibid., 24:2).

“What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of his death; and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because this sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This sacrifice is a type of that, and this remembrance a type of that. We offer always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing always. Thus there is one sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means! Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one body. And just as he is one body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there one sacrifice” (Homilies on Hebrews 17:3(6) [A.D.403]).

Augustine
“In the sacrament he is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness” (Letters 98:9 [A.D. 412]).

“For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, ‘There is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink’ [Eccles. 2:24], what can he be more credibly understood to say [prophetically] than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself, the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the partakers of it” (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]).

Sechnall of Ireland
“[St. Patrick] proclaims boldly to the [Irish] tribes the name of the Lord, to whom he gives the eternal grace of the laver of salvation; for their offenses he prays daily unto God; for them also he offers up to God worthy sacrifices” (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 13 [A.D. 444]).

Fulgentius of Ruspe
“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only-begotten God the Word himself became flesh [and] offered himself in an odor of sweetness as a sacrifice and victim to God on our behalf; to whom . . . in the time of the Old Testament animals were sacrificed by the patriarchs and prophets and priests; and to whom now, I mean in the time of the New Testament . . . the holy Catholic Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the world a sacrifice of bread and wine” (The Rule of Faith 62 [A.D. 524]).

But St. Athanasius didn't call them Catholic?

 

It's not no. It's go do your own work.

 

No, not according to anything you have presented. I gave you the textbook definition for catholic and you vomited a list of quotes with the word "sacrifice" with no real understanding of the semantic range of the word.

 

Grand Prairie man accused of beating 3-year-old stepson to death

 

Notre Dame cathedral cross reinstalled in Paris amid restoration efforts

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...-schools-draws-applause-criticism-2023-08-28/

 

Amen brother man! If the Catholic Church wasn’t hated, I’d be very concerned! John 15:18 If the world hates, remember that it hated Me first”.

 

Lol the early church fathers are vomit now . You’re anti-Catholic bigotry is freakin hilarious lol. Unlike you, I gave direct quotes from early Christians and councils and Protestants, including Luther. Let me guess, they’re vomit too, huh? Your “scholarship” is arrogant, pathetic, and weak. The burden of proof is on you! You expect us to blindly accept your modern invented history and theology? Please! The early Christians used the word “sacrifice” like Tech throws out tortillas, but they didn’t mean “sacrifice”, right? But once again you offer nothing but personal implications that they didn’t mean what they said. I’ve directed readers to check out the Church Fathers for themselves. You offer absolutely nothing of intellectual honesty.

 

Chop, did you check out that Grand Prairie guy’s name? Not to be ugly about it but “Solnifasin“? Now that is a bit strange.

 

Not sure of your intelligence now. You vomitted. Not the church fathers.

You sound like a woke leftist with this statement. Be a man, not a victim. Victims are the people the Catholics killed in the early modern era.

I gave you a Merriam Webster's dictionary entry and you rejected it. Not sure what your problem is.

There has been error since the beginning. You know how you divide truth from error? The Bible. When you take communion what sacrifice are you making? Sacrifice is about you giving your property to God. When you eat bread and drink a sip of wine what sacrifice are you making? You aren't. You are remembering the sacrifice that Jesus made of His body and blood on the cross. Maybe the Church Fathers were thinking about that sacrifice when they took communion. That would make sense.

I think you problem is that I think for myself. I read the Bible and determine its meaning based on a historical grammatical hermeneutic. When you do that you don't need to cite a list of sources. You appeal to the Bible and the things it clearly teaches. Read the Bible in context thinking about the definitions of the words, there semantic ranges, and pray to the Holy Spirit for understanding. God is faithful. He will teach you.

 

Peace and Love, gentlemen!