Pay to Pray eRosary from the Vatican

[amadeus]

I love you amadeus,

your wisdom is a blessing to all of us...

so you'll forgive me if I contradict you by saying, that better all of us accept each others claim to follow Christ and thus accept each other as 'Christian'.

do any of us who call Jesus Lord and Saviour not follow as we are able?

Not that that's actually contradicting you... it's just saying the same in reverse... (not sure if I'm making sense here or not lol )

Peace be with you!

I have no problem calling anyone a Christian who by that means that he is, or is striving to be, a follower of Jesus. The details differ from group to group and from person to person, but we need to take people as they are, from what we are able to discern as God opens our eyes to them. How good is my or our vision? It exists or we would perish according to what Solomon wrote in Proverbs 29:18.

That it is as through a glass darkly is also so until and if we attain to a "face to face" vision. Apostle Paul seemingly included himself in the group not at the face to face yet when he penned the words of I Cor 13:12. Yet people take it upon themselves absolutes according to what they believe as if they already knew it. I do wonder. Help us dear Lord!

 

[BreadOfLife]

I gave evidence. You reject it. That doesn't make you right. Again, if it was sparking something as big as the Reformation the church would have stopped it if it wasn't decreed. Not to mention the Bishop would have been rebuked. Not to mention there wouldn't have been witnesses. Etc etc. You lose this one.

The RCC wants to re-write history to protect the church. The heretical church.

You gave NOTHING.
You presented a document written by a German Bishop (Albert of Brandenburg) - NOT a decree from Pope Leo.

What's more - YOU presented it as "proof" that Pope Leo ordered the selling of Indulgences.
This was a BALD FACE LIE.

Do you have ANY idea who this German Bishop employed to spread the document around the German countryside??
None other than Johann Tetzel - the very priest whom Martin Luther preached against. Tetzel was an ABUSER of the selling of Indulgences - an act that was NEVER sanctioned by the Pope.

Finally - you act as if this had been going on for decades. ALL of this happened within a very short time. THIS is the reason that the Church hadn't taken any action. There was no instant line of communication as we have today.
No postal service
No phone
No Internet

Your problem is that you don't do your homework - and you don't know your history.
You treat ALL of history with your 21st century sensibilities and expect that they had ALL of the same conveniences that YOU have today.

What utter ignorance . . .
You

 

[reformed1689]

Do you have ANY idea who this German Bishop employed to spread the document around the German countryside??
None other than Johann Tetzel - the very priest whom Martin Luther preached against. Tetzel was an ABUSER of the selling of Indulgences - an act that was NEVER sanctioned by the Pope.

I am quite aware of the history thanks.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am quite aware of the history thanks.

Apparently not because you couldn't understand why the Pope didn't correct Johann Tetzel immediately.
That is a complete failure to understand history . . .

 

[reformed1689]

Apparently not because you couldn't understand why the Pope didn't correct Johann Tetzel immediately.
That is a complete failure to understand history . . .

Failure to understand rewritten history apparently.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Failure to understand rewritten history apparently.

Sooooo, the Pope knew everything that was going on in the Church around the world because of Social Media?
He could have just emailed him and told him to stop?
He failed to pick up the phone or Fed Ex him a "Cease and Desist"??

Face it - your expectations of 16th century communications are asinine at best and your historical perspective is perverse . . .

 

[CharismaticLady]

Here are the basic instructions:

1. On the crucifix, make the sign of the cross and then pray the Apostles' Creed. ...
2. On the next large bead, say the Our Father. ...
3. On the following three small beads, pray three Hail Marys. ...
4. On the chain, pray the Glory Be. ...
5. On the large bead, meditate on the first mystery and pray the Our Father.

I don't find the cost offense, nor deemed an "indulgence"; I've paid that much for a good genuine leather study Bible.

I find the rosary, itself, offensive. It keeps too much focus on the mother and not the child.

According to a Dominican tradition, the rosary was given to Saint Dominic in an apparition by the Blessed Virgin Mary in the 13th century in the church of Prouille. This Marian apparition received the title of Our Lady of the Rosary.

This has now progressed to Mary being Coredemptrix. There is only ONE Redeemer, and His name is Jesus.

 

[reformed1689]

at best and your historical perspective is perverse . . .

Or accurate.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Or accurate.

REALLY??

They had a postal service??
Phones??
Internet??
Social Media??

Your historical perspective is nonsense . . .

 

[reformed1689]

REALLY??

They had a postal service??
Phones??
Internet??
Social Media??

Your historical perspective is nonsense . . .

Oh such hyperbole form you to make an ad hominem and a strawman attack. Typical.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Oh such hyperbole form you to make an ad hominem and a strawman attack. Typical.

But wasn't your response an ad hominem? LOL

 

[epostle]

4th Century, not 14th.

A 66 book canon in the 4th century is contrary to everything known about Bible origins. I challenge you to find a Protestant Ph.D. historian writing in the last 50 years that agrees with your Baptist mythology. That eliminates the post enlightenment era (18th century) Modernist crap that anti-Catholic apologists rely on to this day. The fundamentalist movement in the early 19th century was formed in reaction against Protestant modernism.

BAPTIST SUCCESSIONISM IS AN EMBARRASSEMENT TO BAPTISTS

"Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies".
Pope Pius X, 1907

 

[marks]

Dear marks,

whatever gave you that idea? I rejoice that you call Jesus Christ your Lord and Saviour! I am quite sure that you are sincere in your faith, and I gladly call you brother.




I'm talking about the wedding feast! You have read the Lord's love letters, you've said yes to Him and are thus betrothed to Him, I'm just inviting you to consummate that union by joining us at the feast!



daily when I can..



That would be between you and Him, He will bring Whomsoever He chooses to the eternal feast. Why ask me to judge you?

Here again you bring up this 'less than' comment of yours.

Do you think I post the things I do to denigrate people? No, rather, I extend invitations to the feast that their joy may be full!



How many times does a wife receive her husband? Once would be enough to consummate the marriage.. but it would be a cold marriage indeed that never again had physical intimacy.
My wife is always with me. She and I are one, whether we're in the same room together or 100's of miles apart. Does this mean there is not still joy in the complete union of ourselves with each other?

The banquet hall doors are open and the party is ongoing! What keeps you from the wedding feast?



There can be many reasons to receive only the body , but I'll demonstrate an obvious one:

I attended a Mass celebrated by JohnPaul the Great in 1985. There were about 60000 people present. Consecrating enough wine for all would be practically impossible. The Body however can be easily reserved stored and transported (with proper reverence) from earlier consecrations so that there is enough to give to all.

Peace be with you!

I invite you into the true grace of Christ.

Listen to yourself . . .

The Body however can be easily reserved stored and transported (with proper reverence) from earlier consecrations so that there is enough to give to all.

I remember one time when I was young, hitchhiking, and got a ride with some fellows from India. They invited my and my friend to join them for "feast day". They had statues of their Indian gods, and offered incense and food to them, then we ate a delicious meal! I wasn't a Christian in those days.

But a couple of hours later, the State Ranger came in to evacuate their commune due to a brush fire, and we all went down to the Berkley temple, so I got a ride that much further.

I learned everything I needed to know about their gods that day. After the order to evacuate, while they were lining up the vans and people's stuff, I overheard a circle of men discussing who would bury their gods in the field to save them from the fire in case it came through there.

What?

Much love!

 

[Enoch111]

I find the rosary, itself, offensive. It keeps too much focus on the mother and not the child.

What should make it even more offensive is that it was adopted from pagan religions. All false religions have rosaries.

 

[aspen]

I want one!

 

[Philip James]

They had statues of their Indian gods, and offered incense and food to them

You want to compare the Eucharist with pagan idols? Paul already has done so here:


I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?

So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything?

No, I mean that what they sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons.

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons

Note Paul clearly identifies the Eucharist as the Christian sacrifice that we participate in , comparing it with the temple sacrifices and contrasting it with the pagan sacrifices..

Peace be with you!

 

[marks]

You want to compare the Eucharist with pagan idols? Paul already has done so here:


I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?

So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything?

No, I mean that what they sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons.

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons

Note Paul clearly identifies the Eucharist as the Christian sacrifice that we participate in , comparing it with the temple sacrifices and contrasting it with the pagan sacrifices..

Peace be with you!

You make "participate" into "eating the flesh of".

Was Paul teaching that the meat sacrificed to idols Became their demon god? I don't think so.

Participation with demons didn't mean eating the demon. Or, are you thinking that it did? That the food became the 'flesh' of the demon?

But my real point was this. You need to care for your Host the same way they had to care for their idols. That's what I wanted to bring out.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You make "participate" into "eating the flesh of".

Was Paul teaching that the meat sacrificed to idols Became their demon god? I don't think so.

Participation with demons didn't mean eating the demon. Or, are you thinking that it did? That the food became the 'flesh' of the demon?

But my real point was this. You need to care for your Host the same way they had to care for their idols. That's what I wanted to bring out.

Your blunder is that you’re trying to compare pagan idol worship with worship of Christ.
NO comparison.

- A pagan idol is a false god (Exod. 32:4).
- Christ is the Lamb of God (John 1:29, Rev. 13:8). – God Himself (John 1:1).

- The Israelites were spared by the Angel of Death by placing blood lamb’s blood on their doorpost and lintel (Exod. 12:13).
- Those in Christ are spared spiritual death by the blood of the Lamb of God (Heb. 9:14).

- The Israelites were commanded to eat their Passover Lamb (Exod. 12:3-6).
- Those in Christ are commanded to eat their Paschal Lamb (John 6:53).

Your problem – besides hatred – is that you are ignorant of Type (OT) and Fulfillment (NT) in Scripture.
NT Fulfillments are ALWAYS more glorious and perfect than their OT Types.

STUDY your Bible . . .

 

[marks]

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.”

That's not correct.

That's not the translation, not what Jesus said. Perhaps what you believe He meant, but Not what He said.

“touto..poieite..eis...ten...'eman..anamnasin.”
...this......do.....into..the...of me..remembrance

Much Love!

 

[marks]

Your blunder

My blunder?

you need to know . . . I pretty much stop reading when I see stuff like this.