Liberty University

User Profile: begreen

begreen

Member Since: January 19, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • October 19, 2014 at 10:34pm

    , the analogy of production, is the only manner admissible in God. It follows that the inspired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son. Finally, St. John (XVI, 13-15) gives the words of Christ: “What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; … he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine.” Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from Which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive “of mine” according to the words of the Son; but procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

  • October 19, 2014 at 10:33pm

    As to Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Gal., iv, 6), the Spirit of Christ (Rom., viii, 9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil., i, 19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matt., x, 20) and the Spirit of God (I Cor., ii, 11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father. Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke, xxiv, 49; John, xv, 26; xvi, 7; xx, 22; Acts, ii, 33; Tit., iii, 6), just as the Father sends the Son (Rom., viii, 3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John, xiv, 26). Now, the “mission” or “sending” of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost. The very idea of the term “mission” implies that the person sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on the person sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or of prayer, or finally of production; now, Procession, the analogy of production, is the only manner

  • October 19, 2014 at 10:31pm

    The rejection of the Filioque, or of the dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek Church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second Council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

  • October 19, 2014 at 10:26pm

    it does not seem to have assumed any serious proportions, as the question was not connected with the characteristic teaching of the Monothelites. In the Western church the first controversy concerning the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was conducted with the envoys of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, in the Synod of Gentilly near Paris, held in the time of Pepin (767). The synodal Acts and other sources of information do not seem to exist. At the beginning of the ninth century, John, a Greek monk ie monastery of St. Sab Charged the monks of Mt. Olivet with heresy, because they had inserted the Filioque into the Creed. In the second half of the same century, Photius the successor of the unjustly deposed Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople (858), denied the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, and opposed the insertion of the Filioque into the Constantinopolitan Creed. The same position was maintained towards the end of the tenth century by the Patriarchs Sisinnius and Sergius, and about the middle of the eleventh century by thit does not seem to have assumed any serious proportions, as the question was not connected with the characteristic teaching of the Monothelites. In the Western church the first controversy concerning the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was conducted with the envoys of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, in the Synod of Gentilly near Paris, held in the time of Pepin (767). The synodal Acts and other sources of information do not seem t

  • October 19, 2014 at 10:25pm

    DOGMATIC MEANING OF FILIOQUI.—-The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. If the creed used by the Nestorians, which was composed probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions of Theodoret directed against the ninth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His procession from both Father and Son. At any rate, if the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those early times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration. The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression “Filioque”. Nothing is known about the further development of this controversy; it does not seem to have assumed any serious proporti

  • [2] October 19, 2014 at 7:05pm

    Whendoestherevoltbegin Your comments were already addressed perfectly by LestWeForget
    take time to read the former post.

  • [2] October 19, 2014 at 6:36pm

    This may help.. http://www.amazon.com/Where-Bible-Debt-Catholic-Church/dp/0895557967

  • [4] October 19, 2014 at 6:31pm

    LestWeForget
    Excellent explanation! If only folks would read the book on” Where we got the bible” they wouldn’t be so confused.

  • [4] October 19, 2014 at 6:22pm

    Nabuqqd No one is forced to be celibate—because no one is forced to be a Catholic priest. Priests freely choose to embrace the commitment of celibacy for the sake of serving God’s kingdom in a heroic way. In regards to celibacy of church leaders, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, the apostle Paul teaches, “An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs — how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world — how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided” (1 Corinthians 7:32-34). In some instances, celibacy has a positive impact on ministry. If a church leader is free from spousal and familial responsibilities, he can better focus on ministering to others. Jesus mentions some becoming “eunuchs” for the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:12). Celibacy is definitely allowed for church leaders, and to a certain degree, it is encouraged.

  • [2] October 19, 2014 at 6:19pm

    NabuquduriuzhurIt’s ” The Bible requires church officers to be married,” Not even close.To the contary,it’s in the Bible why priest gave up marriage for the sake of God” kingdom. For example,.Matthew 19:12 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
    1 Corinthians 7:32-35
    King James Version (KJV)
    32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
    33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife
    • Why priest don’t marry.
    Mark 10: 28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.
    29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s,
    30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
    No one is forced to be celibate—because no one is forced to be a Catholic priest. Priests freely choose to embrace the commitment of celibacy for the sake of serving God’s kingdom in a heroic way.

  • October 19, 2014 at 5:53pm

    Patrick74 “by making Grace something created (thanks to Aquinas, largely), denying the chalice, etc”
    Scripture teaches contrary to your point. For example, Ephesians 2:8 “8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:”

    What do you mean ” did lose the Faith with innovation upon innovation” at least give some exaplees.

  • October 19, 2014 at 11:50am

    mytearoom
    KJV John20: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained
    Furthermore, if at conversion we were forgiven all sins, past, present, and future, it would make no sense for Christ to require us to pray, “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors,” which he explained is required because “if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt. 6:12–15).
    Matt. 9:8 2And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
    Matthew 28:18″ And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All authority is given to me in heaven and in earth ”
    John 20:21 ” as the father sends me so as I send you” That includes the power to forgive.

  • [2] October 19, 2014 at 11:48am

    mytearoom
    Again, for someone who claims to know what Catholic believes, I have to say that you certainly don’t say anything that reinforces your statement. . Nowhere, in fact, does the Bible say to confess your sins to God and God alone. And, we have John 20:222-23 that tells us the disciples were given the authority to forgive (or retain!) sins. How could they do that if folks weren’t confessing their sins to them? And, Matthew 9:6-8 tells us that the “authority on earth to forgive sins” was given to “men.” Not just to one man…Jesus Christ…but to men…plural!
    However, as Catholics, we clearly recognize that this authority is from God. It is not something the priest does all by Himself. It is God Who forgives the sins, but exercises this authority to forgive sins through the ministry of the priest. Just as God has used men to heal bodies, so He uses men to heal souls. So the priest is acting in persona Christi…in the person of Christ. Jesus Christ acting in and through human beings, to bring about the ministry of reconciliation. So, this does nothing but reinforce the teaching that Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and man. The priest, as a member of the body of Christ, heals and reconciles
    KJV James 5:16 16Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much
    KJV John20: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins

  • October 19, 2014 at 11:36am

    rochrealtor

    The bible cannot exist without the church.
    The church can exist without the bible, which had occurred in early Christianity. The bible came from the church.
    The church being the author of the bible is the only one who has the right to be the interpreter of her her book.

  • [3] October 19, 2014 at 1:16am

    pwatkins
    “no matter what a church says”
    Correction needed.

    The real church belongs to God not men..” The church is the body of Christ”.Corinthians 12:27

  • [3] October 19, 2014 at 1:07am

    Louis William Rose
    Where in the bible does it say rely on what the Bible alone?
    1 Corinthians 12:28 “God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers” So God says, the Bible says, the word of God says these are the people who will lead us to the truth.

    Responses (3) +
  • [2] October 19, 2014 at 1:03am

    JamesCrow
    It’s obvious that you were also one of the folks that walk away when the gospel Declared,
    In John 6:52-53, the Jews were “disputing among themselves and saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’”

  • [2] October 19, 2014 at 12:55am

    JamesCrow
    This bud is for you.
    2 Peter 3:16, for example, tells us that there are some things in Scripture that are “hard to understand,” and that because of this, the “ignorant” twist these Scriptures to “their own destruction.”

  • October 19, 2014 at 12:49am

    Stay-calm-and-Pray-on

    Check out Catholic answers
    http://www.catholic.com/

  • October 19, 2014 at 12:44am

    Stay-calm-and-Pray-on
    I suggest you check out these sights for catholic answers.
    http://www.ewtn.com/
    http://www.catholic.com/

123 To page: Go