A conversation about unity.

Strong in Him said:

No, I was quoting Scripture. Offering our bodies to God is our spiritual worship.

Click to expand...

You quoted Scripture and then added on your 2 cents to the verse. That is adding to Scripture.

"Paul tells us to offer our bodies as a true and living sacrifice - which is our spiritual worship, Romans 12:1"

Paul doesn't say anything about Spiritual worship in that verse.

concretecamper said:

You quoted Scripture and then added on your 2 cents to the verse. That is adding to Scripture.

"Paul tells us to offer our bodies as a true and living sacrifice - which is our spiritual worship, Romans 12:1"

Paul doesn't say anything about Spiritual worship in that verse.

Click to expand...

He does in the ESV

Therefore I urge you, brothers, on account of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.

Click to expand...

NIV

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship

Click to expand...

NLT

And so, dear brothers and sisters,a I plead with you to give your bodies to God because of all he has done for you. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice—the kind he will find acceptable. This is truly the way to worship him.

Click to expand...

Amplified

Therefore I urge you, Romans 12 Amplified Biblebrothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies [dedicating all of yourselves, set apart] as a living sacrifice, holy and well-pleasing to God, which is your rational (logical, intelligent) act of worship.

Click to expand...

Why didn't you consider other translations of Scripture before accusing me of adding to God's word?

Strong in Him said:

Paul tells us to offer our bodies as a true and living sacrifice - which is our spiritual worship, Romans 12:

Click to expand...

Strong in Him said:

He does in the ESV

NIV

NLT

Amplified


Why didn't you consider other translations of Scripture before accusing me of adding to God's word?

Click to expand...

Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.


First, the link you provided didn't say spiritual worship, you added it

Second, because I use a Traditional Bible, not ones you listed and are considered heretical by most since they add to/change the text (like you just did).

Translations you mention diminish the worship due to God.

concretecamper said:

First, the link you provided didn't say spiritual worship, you added it

Click to expand...

No I didn't ADD it - stop making untrue accusations.
Actually I learnt that verse in a particular translation and was quoting it from memory.

concretecamper said:

Second, because I use a Traditional Bible, not ones considered heretical by most since they add to/change the text (like you just did).

Click to expand...

I did not change the text.
Changing it would mean that no translation anywhere used the phrase "Spiritual worship", I decided it fitted my agenda so I was going to use it.
A number of translations say that offering our bodies to God is spiritual, or true, worship. It's your problem if you want to call God's word "heretical."

concretecamper said:

Translations you mention diminish the worship due to God.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Strong in Him said:

No I didn't ADD it - stop making untrue accusations.
Actually I learnt that verse in a particular translation and was quoting it from memory.

I did not change the text.
Changing it would mean that no translation anywhere used the phrase "Spiritual worship", I decided it fitted my agenda so I was going to use it.
A number of translations say that offering our bodies to God is spiritual, or true, worship. It's your problem if you want to call God's word "heretical."

Nonsense.

Click to expand...

Let's just say I prefer translations published before the 2nd half of the 20th Century.

concretecamper said:

Let's just say I prefer translations published before the 2nd half of the 20th Century.

Click to expand...

KJV?

concretecamper said:

Let's just say I prefer translations published before the 2nd half of the 20th Century.

Click to expand...

You are entitled to use whichever translation of the Bible helps/suits you - you are not entitled to call other translations "heretical".

And by the way, when someone writes a Bible reference on this forum, assuming they write it correctly, it gets turned into a link.
I had no idea which translation of the Bible would be quoted in the link provided.

Xeno.of.athens said:

What, exactly do you think those verses teach or prove?

Click to expand...

That the early church met in houses. This is well known. Are you just arguing against this just for the sake of arguing?

Xeno.of.athens said:

Then why do you want to receive communion in a Catholic Church? I know that in many Protestant denominations the bread & juice are regarded as symbols without substantial reality as the body and blood of Christ and knowing that I do not want to receive bread and wine/juice in such denominations because to do so would imply that I shared their view of what communion is, and I do not.

Click to expand...

This is not itself a reason for not partaking. I could accept the Catholic eucharist as true. But if I cannot accept Mary as co redemptrix personally in action and deed, I cannot pertake right?

Carl Emerson said:

The Apostles were fallible and even disagreed strongly at times - it was a learning curve for them. Post resurrection does not imply perfection among them. Jesus clearly corrected them post resurrection. This is clear from Acts 24:35ff

Click to expand...

Indeed, but collectively they were infallible and the Scripture they wrote is inspired and infallible. In the same manner we can assert the New Testament canon of St. Athanasius and the Nicene Creed (with which St. Athanasius was also involved) are infallible because the entire church has accepted them. Likewise with the first three ecumenical councils, and with regards to their theological principles, the fourth through seventh, which were mirrored by equivalent actions from the Oriental Orthodox, so that despite the problems at Chalcedon the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox faith is effectively identical.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

More importantly, is there a "wrong" branch? Playing devil's advocate here, but there is a Biblical president of God advocating disunity; Babel. In that case too much unity resulted in people deifying themselves.

Click to expand...

Yes, in this respect: the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) never experienced a Reformation, because the problems that plagued the Roman church during the 14th-16th century such as the corruption of the Avignon Papacy and the Borgias and the damage to the Vatican by the failed military campaigns of Julius II and Leo X, resulting in Rome being sacked again, and the sale of indulgences, which was correctly banned by the Council of Trent, did not happen in the Christian East. Rather, any time a schism has occurred in an Eastern church it has been because a bishop has made an ill-advised change to the liturgy, and the schism has been a traditionalist reaction.

Now, in a sense, this is what Martin Luther tried to do as well - the problem was never Luther, it was Calvin and Zwingli and Boucher, who embraced an iconoclastic theology. There were errors in Luther’s theology, but Luther thought he was reverting the church to an older state, which was the correct disposition. It was also initially the view of Cranmer, as far as we can tell, before he came under the influence of the Calvinists or Zwinglians and took more extreme measures. However, the Anglicans managed to revert these.

The real tragedy is that Lutheranism’s golden age of Lutheran Orthodoxy was prematurely brought to an end by the Prussians and other Calvinist princes seeking to dilute Lutheranism with Rationalism and crypto-Calvinistm, which combined with Pietism, did severe damage. For this reason the Continuing Anglo-Catholic Churches and other High Church Anglican churches that are conservative typically have higher Marian devotion and other desirable liturgical features than the average in many Confessional Lutheran churches - but the good news is Confessional Lutherans like yourself are working on this.

At some point High Church Anglicans, Confessional Lutherans and Traditional Latin Mass Catholics may need to set aside differences in the interest of the common Patristic heritage of each to form a united Western Orthodox church in communion with the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and while small, the two Western Rite Orthodox Vicarates provide two templates for this - the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate offers a de minimus approach for implementing Patristic theology with modified Anglican and Catholic liturgies (and services based on Lutheran preferences would fit right in, particularly since Lutherans have since before the 1950s been aggressively adding features of Orthodox liturgy like the Great Litany).

ROCOR’s Western Rite Vicarate takes a more aggressive approach, attempting to recover ancient Roman worship from before the Great Schism and also in attempting to avoid any departure from the Byzantine liturgical calendar as used by ROCOR, the result being as close as you can get to pre-schism worship in Western Europe in those areas where the Roman Rite was used (there has also been some work done with the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites, but not as much as I would prefer; I personally prefer these, and the other Gallican liturgies, to the Roman, as I prefer the flowery style of prayers that these rites share with the Eastern liturgies, most of the time - there are times however when the concise and impactful simplicity of the Roman Rite is refreshing - if I ever join the Roman Catholic Church as a priest, which I would have done had Pope Benedict XVI not resigned, it would be because of the multi-rite faculties some priests can obtain, because I am not content with one liturgical rite; there is so much beauty and I myself use all of the ancient liturgical rites together with bits of the Anglican, Lutheran and Wesleyan* liturgical heritage to varying extent within an Orthodox theological framework.

*Specifically, the hymns of Charles Wesley, which are the finest and most doctrinally expressive chorales originally written in the English language, for example, Christ Our Lord Has Risen Today. They are evocative of those of Martin Luther, who was also theologically expressive in his hymns. This in turn aligns with the Patristic principle of hymnody - wherein the ancient hymns of the Western and Eastern church are doctrinally expansive, as compared to the vacuous praise and worship music which now predominates.

Consider the pure doctrine found in hymns like Te Deum Laudamus, Ho Monogenes, Phos HIlarion, the Trisagion, Haw Nurone and the various Canons, Kontakia, Troparia and Metrical Homilies of the East, and Antiphons, Graduals, Introits and Session Hymns of the West, and compare that to the banal rock music which is unable to convey anything substantial about the nature of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Economy of Salvation, the relationship between God and the Theotokos, the relationship between the Apostles and the faithful, the nature of the Church, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, the actions of the Angels, et cetera.

ralliann said:

This is not itself a reason for not partaking. I could accept the Catholic eucharist as true. But if I cannot accept Mary as co redemptrix personally in action and deed, I cannot pertake right?

Click to expand...

The Roman Catholic Church has not declared the Blessed Virgin Mary to be Co-Redemptrix. Indeed the group pushing for that, the so-called “Fifth Dogma”, does so on the basis of an apparition apparently experienced by Ida Peerdeman, a Dutch woman who had personal difficulties, and the vision she experienced was, in my opinion, disturbing and inauthentic, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith under Pope Benedict XVI and if I recall, even more recently than that, declared her visions “Unworthy of belief.”

Roman Catholics do tend to regard her as Mediatrix of all Graces, but that’s not the same as Co-Redemptrix. If the RCC declared the Theotokos to be Co-Redemptrix, it would likely terminate ecumenical reconciliation with the Orthodox, the Assyrians and other dialogue partners of the Roman church.

Now, the Roman Catholics do believe the Blessed Virgin Mary to be the Mother of God (Theotokos) and to have been assumed into Heaven, but so do the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox; the strange thing is that this was only officially made dogma in the Roman church in the 1950s, whereas it had been dogma in the Orthodox Church since the first century AD, but the Roman liturgy was always … parsimonious. This was probably in part due to the language barrier, since the Eastern churches used Greek and Syriac, and much of the liturgical development actually occurred among Syrian fathers like St. Ephraim, St. Jacob of Sarugh, St. Romanos the Melodist and St. John of Damascus, whereas in the Roman church only the Patricians and educated Equestrian Plebeians spoke Greek - and also the Roman liturgy in the first millennium inclined towards extreme brevity.

Also regarding the title of Mother of God, and the Perpetual Virginity of St. Mary, this was believed in not just by Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer and John Wesley, but also, begrudgingly, by John Calvin (he hated to admit that the Blessed Virgin Mary was Theotokos, but understood both that the title was semantically and in all other respects correct, for Jesus Christ is God and St. Mary did absolutely bear him, and also the severe problems embracing Nestorianism would cause to the model of the Incarnation, so he swallowed his pride and earned respect from myself and many other Christians). The rejection of the status of the Theotokos as Theotokos and of her perpetual virginity originated with the Radical Reformation, the Anabaptists, and were continued by various groups, most recently the 19th century Restorationist denominations, and obviously if you can accept the Real Presence you don’t fall into that camp.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Your stated view errs in conflating personal assent to a non-dogmatic Marian title with the requisite disposition for valid and fruitful reception of the Holy Eucharist. The Church teaches that participation in the Eucharist requires belief in the Real Presence of Christ—Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity—as defined dogmatically at the Council of Trent: “If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ… let him be anathema” (Session XIII, Canon 1). While the Blessed Virgin Mary’s unique cooperation in redemption is affirmed in magisterial teaching (cf. Redemptoris Mater §38), the title “Co-Redemptrix” remains a theological opinion, not a defined dogma, and thus cannot be imposed as a condition for Eucharistic participation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that “the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC §1324), accessible to those in a state of grace and in communion with the Church’s essential dogmas—not contingent upon assent to speculative Marian formulations.

Click to expand...

Well put, my friend

The Liturgist said:

The Roman Catholic Church has not declared the Blessed Virgin Mary to be Co-Redemptrix. Indeed the group pushing for that, the so-called “Fifth Dogma”, does so on the basis of an apparition apparently experienced by Ida Peerdeman, a Dutch woman who had personal difficulties, and the vision she experienced was, in my opinion, disturbing and inauthentic, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith under Pope Benedict XVI and if I recall, even more recently than that, declared her visions “Unworthy of belief.”

Roman Catholics do tend to regard her as Mediatrix of all Graces, but that’s not the same as Co-Redemptrix. If the RCC declared the Theotokos to be Co-Redemptrix, it would likely terminate ecumenical reconciliation with the Orthodox, the Assyrians and other dialogue partners of the Roman church.

Now, the Roman Catholics do believe the Blessed Virgin Mary to be the Mother of God (Theotokos) and to have been assumed into Heaven, but so do the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox; the strange thing is that this was only officially made dogma in the Roman church in the 1950s, whereas it had been dogma in the Orthodox Church since the first century AD, but the Roman liturgy was always … parsimonious. This was probably in part due to the language barrier, since the Eastern churches used Greek and Syriac, and much of the liturgical development actually occurred among Syrian fathers like St. Ephraim, St. Jacob of Sarugh, St. Romanos the Melodist and St. John of Damascus, whereas in the Roman church only the Patricians and educated Equestrian Plebeians spoke Greek - and also the Roman liturgy in the first millennium inclined towards extreme brevity.

Also regarding the title of Mother of God, and the Perpetual Virginity of St. Mary, this was believed in not just by Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer and John Wesley, but also, begrudgingly, by John Calvin (he hated to admit that the Blessed Virgin Mary was Theotokos, but understood both that the title was semantically and in all other respects correct, for Jesus Christ is God and St. Mary did absolutely bear him, and also the severe problems embracing Nestorianism would cause to the model of the Incarnation, so he swallowed his pride and earned respect from myself and many other Christians). The rejection of the status of the Theotokos as Theotokos and of her perpetual virginity originated with the Radical Reformation, the Anabaptists, and were continued by various groups, most recently the 19th century Restorationist denominations, and obviously if you can accept the Real Presence you don’t fall into that camp.

Click to expand...

While what your wright is true, there is a cult of Mary and a cult of other saints, there are also superstitious practices that have worked their way into local or even general custom. Unfortunately, not always have these issues been dealt with by the leadership.