Added: 5 years ago
From: FatherJeffrey
Views: 41,443
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (252)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Jesus Is LORD!

    We are seeking individuals for Ordination into the Orthodox Catholic Church World Wide Orthodox Catholic Ministry. The Sovereign Order of O.C.C. is a worldwide, lay, diplomatic religious order which seeks to glorify the Creator by promoting the sanctification of each member through his or her work with the sick and the poor and witness of the faith and to protect The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    For More Information.

    Email: ChristOrthodox@yahoo.com

  • @1335John I'll pray for you,  I too so long to one day become a priest, and I can totally understand how it feels to be rejected. Maybe God just wanted you to wait a while. I really hope you do get into seminary one day.

  • Beautiful Rite! I'm preparing to go through the interviews and process to leave the university I'm attending to apply to College Seminary!

  • Catholic Church is the same all over the world. This is exactly How Rt. Rev. Dr. A.K.Obiefuna used to Ordain Priests in Awka Diocese of Anambra State of federal republic Of Nigeria in those days before he was transfered to onitsha Ecclesiastical Province.

  • another one that didnt read his Bible - there is no mediator but Jesus

    .

    read the TEN COMMANDMENT that is the truth

  • @lakayna The Catholic Church acts upon that. What are you talking about again?? Priest absolving. Jesus christ THROUGH the priest absolves. ta da! Problem Resolved.

  • @lakayna Listen. The entire new testament was written by Catholics. And for thousands of years, we debated over all of the things your protestant leaders object to today. We just don't re-invent the wheel. Your objections are ancient, and we've proven your objections wrong for thousands of years. The early church practiced confession.

    Funny thing is, you didn't read either. Matthew 16:17-19, James 5:15-16, 2 Cor 5: 17-20

  • 8 people are SSPX.

  • This is worth way more than having sex with a woman ever again.

  • whats sad about this is that there is only one

    should be 20, 30, 40 or 50 or 100

  • Wow that's different than the real rite of Ordination.

  • scribd (dot) com/nb812

  • I've got 8 tough years ahead, but I'm ready to work hard for this day.

  • @Ozone Jesus...said..."Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." Mark 2:5

    T]he Lord..forgiveth all thine iniquities... Psalm 103:2-3

    "[W]ho can forgive sins but God only?" Mark 2:7

  • @Ozone Jesus said, "Fear not; I am the first and the last:" Revelation 1:17

    I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he. Isaiah 41:4

  • Turned down by your bishop!!!!

  • 'The kingdom of God is inside you and all around you........Not in mansions made from wood and stone. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Lift a stone and you will find me...'

  • @oddydoom3 Study your scripture Christ Church is a visible Church .

  • their are so many orders,what do i do?

  • Verily, the likeness of 'Īsā (Jesus) before Allâh is the likeness of Adam. He created him (Adam)from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was. (59) (This is) the truth from your Lord, so be not of those who doubt. (Quran 3:59-60)

    Acts 2:22 Bible

    People of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you

    Numbers 23:19 Bible 19 God is not a man , that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent.

  • @ozone02 "Jesus said I and the father are one". He claimed to be God and proved it by miracles .Dont let me get into The Suras and your prophets questionable morality

  • @Gatta9 Jesus said " I am the way the truth and the life NO man one goes unto the father but by me" Jesus said before Abraham was I am

  • can someone comment or post the script of this? pleaseee. :)

  • @hellocareful I can't post a script, but look at 15:24 - that priest KISSES poor old Conoboy's head!!! Yuk!

    Bishop Mengeling hate that too.

  • Did he not say " do this in memory of me" at the last supper ? Which is why we celebrate the Eucharist.

  • Really? Wow, THANKS for for pointing out that Jesus said that. Because THAT just clarifies everything. No interpretation required - obviously He could only have meant that any notion of representing or "making present again" His sacrifice is clearly misguided, right? It's obvious, isn't it?

    Logic like this is why I became fed up with being a Protestant my whole life. Protestants have a magisterium with which to interpret the scriptures, too. It's just not necessarily from the apostles.

  • Good to have even more clarity now.

  • honestly isnt it a lot of shite

  • @jamesy15 You obviously didn't watch the exciting bits. My fave is 11:45 when all the priests come up to lay hands on Rev Conoboy's head. They look so funny! ROFL!!!

  • @jamesy15 If you cannot believe yourself, then please allow others to without vilifiying them. That is not much to ask surely?

  • @jamesy15 I am sorry you think so. It is possible, of course, that you are missing something wonderful in your life. Whatever your beliefs are, (or are not) God loves you, and will always welcome you to Him.

  • When Jesus was on the Cross He said "IT IS FINISHED' I understand that to mean His substitutionary work was done. He doesnt have to be offered up time and again. nothing we do on our own can please God. Only when we are in Christ and depend on His finished work,Repent of our sins , live with Him being Lord of our life by the power af the Helper. Trust in Christ by the instruction of His Word . Not in ritual, praying to the dead, repettative prayers, or depending on works

  • Sounds like your God is pretty hard to please.

  • That was beautiful ! I always wanted to be a priest but was turned down by my Bishop. I must trust I am were God wants me. Watching this breaks my heart but I am really happy for Fr Shawn. Once God calls you the longing to answer never leaves you. ........

  • @1335John

    I can sympathise with how you must be feeling. I think you are right though, trust the you are where God wants you to be. You could always offer yourself again. Perhaps your Bishop felt you needed more time in the secular world first? If not, then perhaps the permanent Diaconate may be a possibility for you. Whatever you decide to do, your love of God is obvious. May it never leave you.

  • @1335John Hello I wish you the best in your life Please share your faith

    I do think you are on a path to help others. From Earl

  • @1335John I agree. I am sorry about your priesthood, how about being a deacon, is that possible for you? Pax et bonum.

  • @1335John  ur a faggat

  • What a stunning witness to the start of this young man's journey.

  • im thinking of becoming a priest. i dont know yet.

  • don't have fear...

  • I will pray that the Holy Spirit guide you. Certainly I would love to hear that you have chosen the service of man as a priest. My oldest brother (RIP) was a Christian Brother, he knew from very early on, 3rd-4th gr, that he wanted to be a teacher AND he wanted to serve that Vocation as a servant of God.

    God Bless you.

  • thank you  and God bless you to.

  • This is beautiful to see and a cause of celebration and thanks to God.

  • Amen! When the opportunity arises I duck into an Ordination to soak in the Ritual and the sheer joy of one who has chosen serving man in total commitment! I took my daughter to experience this ancient Rite and she was absolutely Awe Struck!

  • How beautiful. Watching this makes me wish I answered my call. God forgive me for ignoring Him.

  • Thank you this helped with my R.e homewrok

  • ordination requires form and matter:

    in this, the only difference between the NEW ordination and the OLD ordination is the latin word 'ut' (so that). The essential meaning of the spoken form is the same. The matter (laying of hands) is the same too.

    much of the rest of the ceremony has been changed but the sacrament IS valid.

  • To those who believe that this rite of ordination is invalid due to the lack of traditional word usage and actions, you should read scripture.

    In Acts 1:15-26, Peter asks God to determine which man, Joseph or Matthias, he was calling to the ministry to replace Judas Iscariot. Then the community cast lots which fell to Matthias who was then received into the community and numbered among the other 11.

    If this was good enough for God and the 11 Apostles, why isn't it good enough for you?

  • thats my second name conoboy lol!

  • I see all the nutters from the Far Far right are out declaiming that the last 4 Popes are all anti-popes etc. They would rather attack John & Mary Catholic and their church and call the rest of us Christians heretics than do anything positive to fulfill the Great Commandment. Beware those who claim to be "holier than the Pope": their politics are usually neo-fascist as well.

  • Here, here. "Don't confuse me with facts" should be there mantra. One of my dear friends is of this persuasion and it is so sad. The paranoia, the judgementalism - so baseless and damaging. They'll only read their own point-of-view which is filled with lies and deceit. It is a sad, sad schism that should not continue for a moment longer but I fear it will be with us for generations.

    "More Catholic than the Pope" - misquided and at first well meaning but now mostly delusional and paranoid

  • The new rite of ordination does not clearly define what a priest is or does, therefore leaving doubt as to the validity based on the bishop's intention.

    Thank GOD for Archbishop Lefevbre and the SSPX!

  • Clap Clap Clap you fools....!!!! These poor souls labor under the idea that this is the Catholic faith. Yes, clap ... its not like you are in front of the Blessed Sacrament. Go ahead and continue in the worship of man, hold hands, sing protestant songs and help that new presbyter conselebrate the Masonic Lords supper service that Bugnini and Paul VI devised to appease the protestant heretics.

  • I hope in a few years I will be in the same situation!!!!

  • You too?

  • All the best I'll pray for you

  • May God guard you on your way !

  • I too hope for this day to come for me.

  • God Bless you in your discernment and path to the priesthood.

    Be a good and holy priest - we need you!

  • What a beautiful video. Full of purity and love. I find it so ... breathtaking.

  • too bad is unbiblical...

  • read Revelations and understand the Catholic Church holds Scripture and Tradition (oral teachings since apostles) as the deposit of faith.

    Tradition predates the NT. Christ's command was to "teach all nations" not to write.

    We believe scripture is inerrant but that God also gave us His teachings and Church to lead us.

    We are fulfilled Jews, afterall. The new christian churh did not discontinue preistly office, church athority, etc. It is fulfilled in Christ and His Church.

  • "Tradition predates the NT"...can you name and prove any of those 'traditions'?

    "We believe scripture is inerrant but that God also gave us His teachings and Church to lead us"...that's 'argument from authority',a fallacy!!!"Church to lead us"..lead u into PAGANISM,nice but NO THANKS!

    "did not discontinue preistly office"..again just because your RCC says so,read the NT...ALL THE BELIEVERS ARE PRIESTS,your RCC 'priests' are a bunch of sinners pretending to have 'authority' over the 'laity'

  • Sure. But understand what Tradition is and is NOT. Tradition is NOT gestures (sign of the cross) or music, use of art, etc.

    Tradition is the oral teaching of the Church. Three Catholic Traditions most accepted by all Christians are the canon of the NT, the word and theology of the Holy Trinity and that one need not become a Jew before becoming Christian (which, granted, is explicitly in NT scripture but is an example of a time-honored teaching revealed AFTER Christ's resurrection).

  • does your RCC have a list of this 'magic' traditions? no...they have a open 'list' that has been filled,and it is today still, for the past 1500s yr with man teachings,paganism and 'hoops' for the laity...

  • Again - Tradition is oral teaching. It is not a list of to do's or hoops through which to jump.

    For instance: How do we KNOW that the NT canon (list) of books is correct? There were other writtings available, considered and debated afterall.

    We know with confidense that the NT is complete because over the first centuries the Church collected these works and after much use, study, debate (Oh! Was there debate!) and prayer the list we both observe today was settled upon.

  • part 2 - These were Catholic men acting within the context of the Catholic Church being the One True Church established by Christ. Heretics accepted and used other books. Not us. We stayed true to what TRADITION has declared inerrent in its content. 

    If you accept the NT as being complete - like it or not, you accept that on the basis of Catholic TRADITION declaring that these are the books, and the only books, that belong in the NT.

    Dude - that is simply history.

  • 100s of yrs before council of Nicea(organized religion) almost all the books of the NT were used by the true believers,so don't mix your RCC(katolicos) term with the 'author' or 'giver' of the canon,as your RCC likes to present itself nowadays!!!

  • I didn't say Council of Nicea. Tradition is just that, Tradition! It developes over time. The beliefs and practices passed by the apostles are distilled and discerned, plunged and understood more deeply. You are right that true believers were using these writings for some time - exactly correct. But don't misunderstand that all true believers were using the same books. There was a need to codify to make a definative list. Some were obvious choices, The Gospel, Acts, Letters of Paul...

  • part 2 .. some were less so. Like what we call Revelations today.

    The true believers belief and love for the books certainly impacted their judged worthiness. But not all were so loved or used. It was the Church which collected and ultimately decided the "table of contents".

    What is interesting, even in these early, early years they recognised the importanct of this canon and did not feel their work done until the Bishop of Rome had signed off on it.

    History.

  • "what we call Revelations today"so are you telling me that GOD has not spoken as of yet?still gives 'revelation' today about 'sacred traditions' and doctrines/dogmas,and RCC is the 'source' of that revelation?

  • "what we call Revelations today" was meant as a nod to the fact that book was not always known by its current title. That's all.

    You see, we've been treasuring, protecting and spreading the Word of God for over 2,000 years. There's some history there.

    No, we do not hold that there is continued revelation that is binding on the whole. If a person experiences a revelation, it is binding on that person(s) only.

    (continued)

  • part 2. - But just as a good Protestant plunges, explores, delves deep into scripture to know God better so does a Catholic.

    The difference is the Catholic can look to 2,000 years of simliar delving, exploring and plunging and see HOW to interpret scripture correctly.

    Opening God's word is an exercise in knowing, not guessing.

    33,280 Protestent denominations are proof enough that private interpretation is a failure (non-scriptural, too).

  • your bishop of rome(pope) has started to enforce his 'authority' over other bishops in mid 2nd century(history...again)that would be right after council of Nicea...so rome's claim about 'giving us the Bible' is just another LIE....

  • OK (not really but for sake of argument) it is all a lie.

    Who called what books belong in the NT? By what authority? Do you think people communicated better and loved more in the first centuries where they all magically agreed on what should be included?

    Is this how you think it happened?

    Have you EVER read anything written by anyone before the 1500s? You're missing out on most of christian history, pal! An awful lot of good stuff was done long before - but you ignore it.

  • "The beliefs and practices passed by the apostles are distilled and discerned, plunged and understood more deeply"..and RCC ends up being 'authority' over GOD's people...and claiming (TODAY)"there is no salvation outside of RCC",nice but it smells like inquisition all over again...

  • You don't understand what the Church means when it states "outside the RCC".

    We are not as closed minded as you think.

    We believe their is only one true Church - the Cathoolic Church.

    All others claiming Christ as their savior are brothers and although not in full communion with the Catholic Church hold truth as well. Not the complete deposit of faith as Christ intended but a often deep, abiding and beautiful faith nonetheless.

    These aspects of true faith are "within" the RCC...

  • part 2...

    Now - certainly you don't like the sound of that, either. That's OK. I'm just trying to clarify Church teaching.

    We do not believe that if you are not RCC you will burn in Hell. Absolutley not our doctrine nor our call.

    So our christian brothers and sisters are truly that. We love all of you and pray for the unity that Christ desires for His church.

    I'm married to a Lutheran woman and I would never claim she or her parents are not saved. Neither does my Church.

  • "outside the RCC". words have definitions,i do not see how are you going to explain this 'business' with no salvation OUTSIDE of RCC,SALVATION comes THROUGH Yeshua/Jesus,not any particular church !!!that's what the Bible teaches...your RCC has changed that,and goes on claiming LIES without any shame...

  • You're right. Words do mean things. Should you be suprised that an organization calling itself the One True Church established by Christ would say there is no salvation outside it? Of course not - or at least you shouldn't be.

    We're the only church that even claims such linneage.

    You don't have to agree but the claim (no salvation o/s RCC) makes perfect sense. If you are not christian, you are not saved. you believe the same, do you not?

    We believe all Christians part of the RCC.

  • again,the Bible says:Act. 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved"...so?who's LYING?the Bible or RCC?

  • again,the Bible says:Act. 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved"

    Halleluiah, Praise God Almight Father, Son and Holy Spirit!

  • I thought my answer to who was lying (or not) was apparent by my response indicating total agreement.

    Act. 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved"

    Halleluiah, Praise God Almight Father, Son and Holy Spirit!

    To the point: The RCC agrees completely with scripture on this basic truth of Christian faith.

    Halleluiah!

  • AGREEMENT ?BY WHAT LOGIC?

  • Oh, do you believe only through logic?

    See, we in the RCC believe faith is a gift of grace granted by God alone.

    A substantial first step of the faith is the proclamation and belief that "Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved".

    We agree. Not by logic, by faith, my friend.

  • in case you did not know,the Bible is LOGICAL,so if you can not answer a question you run to 'faith'...you are funny!!!

  • Oh my gosh! A bible-believing Protestant arguing that a Catholic is running to faith!

    That's never happened on You Tube before.

    My point is that your question is not of logic. Belief is ALWAYS of faith.

    Now logic - which has its place - can be applied to God's perfect sonship and how would he treat his mum? Let her (and therefore His own blood) be tainted with sin? To let her corrupt and decay in the ground. If Elija was assumed and some believe Moses may have been...Mary too?

  • (contd) She intercedes to her Son at Cana on behalf of the wedding couple. Her cousin greets her as "The mother of my Lord" - when was the last time you treated the mother of your Lord with such respect?

    Are we not to imitate Christ?

    Honor your Father and Mother?

    Honor His Father and Mother?

    This is all Catholics do. We don't place her on a pedestal, she was placed there by her Son, Jesus Christ.

    We believe we can ask for her prayers-just like I ask my own mother to pray for me.

  • "She intercedes to her Son at Cana on behalf of the wedding couple" and HE mildly rebuked her,

    "she was placed there by her Son, Jesus Christ"..when did that take place?ohhh...your RCC says it took place,nice!!!

  • don't you find it strange that none of the epistles mention any of the beliefs RCC forces you to believe and profess today? nothing what soever !!!!!

  • "just like I ask my own mother to pray for me"...your mom,i assume,she is still among us (alive),Mary on the other hand,well i let you make the distinction between Mary and your mom...

    "We don't place her on a pedestal she was placed there by her Son, Jesus Christ"..when was that?refresh my memory..please !

  • "If you are not christian, you are not saved"...the Bible is my final authority for faith and practice...Jesus Christ is my SAVIOUR AND KING...i don't belong to RCC,i will never do by GOD's GRACE,and yet you say :"We believe all Christians part of the RCC."by what kind of reasoning and logic?

  • This is my point exactly. What you think Catholics believe is not what they believe - at least not in the things discussed today.

    Understand again, if the RCC is the One True Church the claims for no salvation outside that church is perfectly understandable - even expected. What you don't understand is one does not need to be in full communion with the Catholic Church to beconsidered. This is not merely an organization (as we see it) but the literal Bride of Christ.  Christ's Body(hold on)

  • why don't you write to your pope and tell him to stop lying to the world,SALVATION is through Jesus and end of story!how do you reconcile me with your RCC after i've told you my beliefs? how can you simply claim "What you think Catholics believe is not what they believe"

  • Won't waste the ink - the Pope agrees that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone.

    We all do - it says this clearly in scripture.

  • you have not answer my question WHO IS LYING ?RCC or the Bible?

  • GOD has preserved the NT books,not the church,Psalm 12:7...yes there were lots of writings available,but most of them were gnostic writings(nothing to do with the Bible..)beginig of 2nd century

    Paul,Peter..etc,WROTE epistles not oral traditions...

  • How did they know they were gnostic? (is my point).

    Who judged that? Joe Six-pack? I don't think so.

    You can't say "these are gnostic 'cause they ain't in the Bible" when there wasn't yet a Bible to see if they were in!

    Some letters claiming to be of Paul were not accepted (did you know that?)

    How did Mark and Luke know what Christ said? Where they there with him or did they hear from Paul and Peter? They heard from Paul and Peter.

    (I'd rather do this via e-mail)

  • have you read any of those gnostic gospel?try them if you have not yet,you'll throw them to the trash bin as i did,if you know your Bible...what?how did you come up with that one?"They heard from Paul and Peter"you mean Luke and Mark?did i understand you right?

  • Some appear obviously errant, don't they. Not all, however. So as you said correctly earlier - many or most believers accepted many or most of the correct writtings.

    But not all.

    Who made the call? By what authority? You've not answered this yet - we know not everyone agreed as to what is inspired so who made the call?

    The RCC did. We don't claim to have "written" the NT - the Holy Spirit did that through the chosen instruments of His work.

    But He led the RCC to the canon.

  • "You've not answered this yet" here it is AGAIN :100s of yrs before council of Nicea,the churches were using 23 of the 27 books of the NT,before the 325ad council, we can put together the whole NT(except 11 verses) from the early church fathers letters to each other...we can throw away all the papyrus and manuscripts !!!

  • You keep discussing Nicea. Not sure why.

    My question remains, by what authority are the 27 settled on?

    Even if every single believer agreed on 27 out of 27 - who says they are right?

    What do you think the distilling and discerning of these books by the true believers is called - it is called Tradition.

    Again, not a list, a process accepted as inerrant. The people you refer to were a huge part of the process.

  • these books were in use by the churches...there was no RCC to dictate or to impose the use of a specific book,after Nicea your RCC started to 'demand' and force itself as an authority,that's way.

    "distilling and discerning of these books by the true believers is called - it is called Tradition"if you were to tell Peter for example some of RCC's dogmas of today he would probably laugh or worse, cry to the hearing of the paganism RCC parades itself to the world

  • Well we don't know what Peter would say, do we?

    But we do know Peter was commanded to eat the flesh and drink the blood of his Lord and Savior.

    We do that. I think he'd be pretty pleased we've continued to do that as commanded - regardless of accusations of idol worship and cannibalism.

    Peter would be pleased we hold Christ's mother in such high esteem. The Ark of the Word Incarnate. A creature like us, revered, not worshiped.

  • ohh,no....you are going to quote John 6:51-55-56,right?OUT OF CONTEXT,right?mary,ark of the word incarnate...this 'sacred tradition' come late 4th century...Peter will be very puzzled to say the least

  • Wasn't intending to qoute at all, actually.

    Was just stating who she is.

    She carried the third person of the Holy Trinity who is God. God's Word made flesh. The word incarnate.

    She carried (like an ark carried God's law) the Word Incarnate.

    Do you deny she carried and gave birth to the Word Incarnate? God Himself?

    (maybe you're not Christian afterall?)

  • as i mentioned already,this 'sacred tradition' about mary come in the 4th century...i do not see how you can accept it as valid and coming from the early church!!!RCC can use a very lovingly language about mary,it means nothing !!!the assumption is unbiblical and pagan very likely in origin

  • Stop talking about when the Church declared a doctrine or dogma binding on the faithful. Like NT scripture itself, these beleifs were around long before they were specifically, definatively and infallibly defined.

    My question remains: Do you hold that the Blessed Mary Virgin gave birth to God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word Incarnate, Christ our Lord?

    Yes or No?

    If Yes - you agree she was the Ark of the Word Incarnate

    If No - well, shame on you.

  • "f Yes - you agree she was the Ark of the Word Incarnate"...the Bible present mary as a woman under the LAW....now that right there tells me she was a SINNER,so this 'ark' wishful thinking on RCC part and yours is just that a man invented tradition,UNBIBLICAL ..so i'm not going to bother with 'hoops' put on fire by a bunch of men!!!!

  • She is under the law as any good Jew would be.

    Do you really think, that our God whose love knows no bounds would allow the taint of sin to touch His own mother?

    Would you not do the same for your own mother?

    She was granted a singular grace of enjoying the fruits, the gift of Christs one sacrifice of the cross at the moment of her conceptoin. God pulled us out of the pit that is sin. God kept Mary from stepping in the pit in the first place. Same action, same gift, applied early.

  • (cont'd) And I totally understand why a Bible-only christian would stumble with this.

    Ultimatley one needs to either trust that God has provided what he promised - that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church - or not.

    Remember, God is perfect and can do thing imperfectly. God as Son of Mary could do no thing imperfectly...including creating her.

    Time to God is non-existant. He is all at all times. Her santification/justification is not applied "early" in God's view.

  • Jude 1:3"3 Beloved , when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation , it was needful for meto write unto you and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which WAS ONCE DELIEVERED unto the saints"..again the Bible knows nothing of RCC late 'revelation' be it by 'faith' or logic

  • "She was granted a singular grace of enjoying the fruits, the gift of Christs one sacrifice of the cross at the moment of her conceptoin. God pulled us out of the pit that is sin. God kept Mary from stepping in the pit in the first place. Same action, same gift, applied early"

    this here is your 'tradition' at work...the Bible has no idea of such a language when it comes to mary....

  • Yes, it is Tradition at work. Thank you, Lord for Tradition.

    By the way - who is the woman in Revelations clothed in the Sun, the moon under her feet and on her head a crown of twelve stars?

    And what child does she give birth to - who might that be?

    Any ideas?

    Marian doctrine is scritual. Much more anyway than you think. Adam calls Eve "Woman", Christ, the New Adam, calls Mary "Woman".

  • Rev. 12,that would be Israel...12 stars(12 tribes,dream of Joseph in Genesis),when was mary persecuted by the dragon?

    from the usage of the word 'woman' you get mary sinless?lot of faith for that one....

  • "Woman" relating her to Eve.

    Christ the New Adam

    Mary the New Eve

    What of that woman from Revelations? - who are you taught she is if not Mary?

    I seem to answer most your questions but you aren't as regular in return :(

  • where is the Bible talking about mary being new eve?it talks about Jesus,so by what type of reasoning do you apply it to mary?becouse at one point Jesus says to mary...woman...come on,you are smarter then that!!!

  • WHO IS THE WOMAN IN REVELATIONS?

  • here it is again..."Rev. 12,that would be Israel...12 stars(12 tribes,dream of Joseph in Genesis),when was mary persecuted by the dragon?

    from the usage of the word 'woman' you get mary sinless?lot of faith for that one....

  • which one?

  • Are you under the impression that Luke walked with Christ during his earthly ministry?

    There is no evidense of this. His writings are expected to be based on his close association and work with St. Paul.

    St Mark is much the same story but with St. Peter.

    Oral Tradition in action.

    That's interesting that you perhaps didn't know that.

    (seriously - it'd be much better to do this via e-mail)

  • so?what happened to "scripture says...it is written..."that we find in the Bible(NT)?is it again one of the misunderstanding that you seem to accuse people that point out the unbiblical teaching of your RCC?,they are some how 'oral traditions'?

  • sorry - I'm not following your point/question here.

    Wait - maybe I understand. For instance: you might say "show me in the Bible where it says Trinity".

    I would answer it doesn't. But Tradition teaches us that this is the proper way to interpret all we know from scripture and teaching of the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

    This too was a point of contention in the early church and it took declarations at church councils to state clearly what is meant by a triune God

  • (cont) - what is interesting is you accept our developed understanding of scripture in this definition of Trinity.

    Same as the NT canon you accept as inerrant.

    Remember, we were doing this for 1,500 years before abuses (which were real) were addressed on a human timeline. I wish all sides could have been more patient - a schism might have been avoided.

    You tell me - which Protestant interpretation is correct? There are over 33,000 that claim to be correct. Which one and why?

  • which Protestant interpretation is correct...THEY ARE guilty of the same mistake RCC is guilty of,they will pick and choose and start a pyramidal church,setting up authority over authority except the Bible,very few of those denomination have the Bible as the FINAL authority for faith and practice...

  • ...and those denominations are...?

  • most of them have gone back to "mommy"(RCC) by recognizing RCC as an authority over them...

  • I meant which protestant faiths do you claim "have the Bible as the FINAL authority for faith and practice"

    Because I would like to know why there are several. If they all are "correct", then they should be identical in their beliefs and practices.

    Correct?

  • mostly the 'reformed' churches be it baptist,pentecostal(maybe not anymore...)

  • OK - great! We've located the One True Church and it may be one of perhaps two (or more). But we're not sure about it.

    This is what Christ wanted?

  • "I would answer it doesn't. But Tradition teaches us that this is the proper way to interpret",my friend,the Bible defines 3 different persons as being GOD,not traditions, you might want to read the Bible for yourself !once in a while

  • Actually, I'm pretty sure scripture doesn't contain the word "person" - in fact, I'm pretty sure it was TRADITION and trying to put into human words exactly how we have three equal, distint beings/spirts/aha! PERSONS in one GOD which is where the word person came from.

    This is what I mean. The Trinity is in scripture - it is all there. It is not called the Trinity nor is it clearly defined.

    I mean scripture even says "The Father is even greater than I" - who makes the call on truth?You?

  • so,why do you keep calling it 'tradition'...it is written !!!in the Bible,nothing oral about it !!!

  • The Trinity appear in scripture - but it is not fully and clearly defined in scripture.

    People came up with different interpretations and these were shunned by the Church until it was deemed necessary to be very clear as to just what/who the Trinity is.

    The Eastern Orthodox Church has a disagrees with some words of the Nicene creed around, I beleive, how the relationship of the Father and Son is written. They are today talking and discussing to see if perhaps, in the end, we agree.

  • "but it is not fully and clearly defined in scripture" you are joking ,right?the Bible talks about 3 different beings/persons being GOD...how is that unclear?

  • Again, it is not unclear to me. It is/can be unclear to many. For mono-theist Jews to accept a triune God is not a small thing.

    How does a Son exist for all eternity with His own Father? Doesn't a Father have to come first. There's obvious room for confusion.

    Jesus appears subordinate to His Father (setting the example for us) but also says if you've looked upon Him you've looked upon the Father.

    There are apparent, superficial, conflicts - which Tradition helped answer/define.

  • we are not asked to understand it but believe it!what tradition ???you keep beating a dead horse(tradition),trinity is in the Bible...in WRITTEN FORM !!!

  • Nevermind then the martyrs who died with the Creed still on their lips protecting God's Word from violation.

    God uses the Church and her people to protect His Word.

    And about the apostles: They preached a heckuva lot more than they wrote - you know that much, certainly!

  • yes,but they showed the fulfilling of the OT(at the time of Christ's life and death,the OT books were kept in the temple...WRITTEN 'books') prophecies,and you'll find the apostles quoting the OT 'books' in their public addresses(Acts)

  • they also qoute TRADITION like the non-scriptual reference to the names of the Pharoh's High Priests/Magicians in Exodus.

    Hmmm - Scripture qouting Tradition. Maybe this is based in our older brother Judaism afterall? A natural and substantiated practice of the early church.

  • why do you call it tradition?isn't possible the HS gave Saul those 2 names?

  • i'm not aware of any extra Biblical writings/references/traditions to those 2 names,are you?

  • YouTube is not keeping up with us - I don't know to what comment this reply is meant.

    Holy Spirit absolutely gave Saul his name, Paul. No disagrement. Not sure of your point, however.

    (By the way, it is 7:40 p.m. and I've GOTTA get home to my family soon - so I'll be cutting out - please consider my offer to e-mail)

  • we'll talk later...i like to disscuss it here so other people can give their 'input' or corrections...GOD bless ALL of us !!!

  • i was talking about the names of those 2 Egyptians 'priests',that HS gave to Paul...

  • aha! you're referring to my comment about Paul using the two names from Jewish Tradition.

    I believe the Holy Spirit was inspiring everything Paul said, absolutley.

    But I suspect that if he referred to these two men by these two names under private revealation his audience would not have understood who he was referring to.

    They understood because it was in their Tradition, even if not in Scripture.

  • yes,but you have to remember that the exodus took place a lonnnnng time before Paul used those 2 names,and as i said do you know any extra biblical writing to those 2 names?i don't!

  • exactly! Paul relied on the people's knowledge of Jewish Tradition.

    There is a ingrained and trusted president among God's people that God speaks to us though prophets (none after Christ), written word and oral tradition.

    We are of the Jews - RCC gets that 'cause we were there in the beginning.

  • do you or do you not have any extra Biblical reference to those 2 names? if you do not...stop it with jewish "traditions"!and guessing!!!

  • as i said ,in the first couple of 100s of yrs there was no a 'final authority'(a church) over any other churches,so stop it with RCC being there in the beginning,the early believers in Yeshua?Jesus were not aware they needed a priest(one of the guys in this video..a bunch of actors pretending to have authority over the "laity")