The Official Catholic Thread
- Thread starter Galadriel
- Start date
Belle Du Jour
Well-Known Member
Everything Catholics do has basis in scripture and/or tradition. You have been misinformed.
-The rosary is a meditation on the gospel. It is not vain repetition and the beads are simply for counting. It's a heavenly prayer with the power to convert hearts, destroy heresies and stop wars. Don't believe me? Look up the Battle of Lepanto. This is just one example.
-The Hail Mary is scriptural. Who called Our Lady "full of grace" and said "the Lord is with you?" Gods messenger the Angel. So Gabriel was bringing those words from the throne of God. No other human being has ever been called "full of grace." Elizabeth who was "filled with the Holy Spirit" said Mary was blessed among woman and the fruit of her womb was blessed. I thought Protestants were big on being filled with the Holy Spirit. Was He in error when He inspired Elizabeth to declare this? Also recognizing that Mary can intercede for us (like the queen mothers during the Davidic kingdom did in scripture) we ask the mother of our King (Jesus) to intercede for us to her son. I assure you, the Hail Mary is scriptural. Do you believe in the trinity or the rapture? If so, these words are nowhere to be found in the Bible. So why do you believe in it if it's nowhere in scripture and by your definition a "later additions?" By the way, it's ironic that Protestants talk about "later additions" because the whole Protestant faith is historically late LOL. 1500 years late...so that's like pot, meet kettle.
-The word novena means 9. That's it. There's nothing magical here. It's nine days of prayer. Guess where that started? In the acts of the apostles! Where the apostles prayed nine days for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. That's where our novenas come from...straight from the New Testament.
-Remember the story of Elijah and Elisha? Or Moses' staff? Welp if you do, then you have your answer regarding the power of relics. Again, biblical.
-Finally, if God was totally against heavenly images, why did He tell Moses to carve a snake and mount it so the people could look at it and live after being bitten by seraph snakes? Why did he command Moses to adorn the ark with carved cherubim? Why did early Christians create beautiful icons, statues and images or Our Lord if it was wrong? St Luke, the gospel writer, painted several images of Jesus and Mary. Catholics and orthodox Christians don't worship images. We are venerating what the image represents. If I see a statue of Jesus or a crucifix and am so overcome with emotion and I reach out to touch his wounds, do you really think God is angry at me? In that moment, the best I can do to physically touch Jesus is to touch the statue that represents Jesus. I wonder if Protestants are moved with emotion by any famous non-religious paintings or portraits. If that can evoke a response, how much more should an image of Jesus evoke a response in my heart?
Last edited:
Belle Du Jour
Well-Known Member
A few of St Luke's icons:
Lucia
Well-Known Member
Source: http://natural-fertility-info.com/birth-control-pill-negatively-impacts-fertility.html
Top 5 Ways the Birth Control Pill Negatively Impacts Long-Term Fertility
How many women do you know that have taken the birth control pill? More than likely, it is almost all of them. The birth control pill is one of the most prescribed medications in the U.S. and not just for pregnancy prevention. What if I told you that the Pill, while freely taken by most women at some point in their life, may actually not be good for long-term fertility?
Birth control is prescribed for preventing pregnancy and to control acne, but also for a variety of fertility issues such as endometriosis, PCOS, ovarian cysts, pain associated with fertility issues, PMS, and irregular menstrual cycles. Sounds pretty great, right? But, is it?
A simple internet search of the statement how using birth control impacts fertility will lead you to a list of resources that say, to sum up the medical viewpoint, taking an oral contraceptive pill, aka the Pill, will not impact your future fertility.
Older studies (there are very few current studies), as well as articles on the web report that women who use birth control don’t have trouble conceiving naturally after stopping its use and get pregnant just as fast as other women, even if they’ve used birth control for years. In fact, one rather large study in which 2,000+ women reported, titled the European Active Surveillance Study on Oral Contraceptives, concluded that “Previous oral-contraceptive use does not negatively affect initial and 1-year rates of pregnancy after oral-contraceptive cessation…”
Why then, are we seeing very different results with our clients? Each and every day we work with women who have stopped long-term birth control use (anywhere from 1 – 20 years of use) and now have any number of concerning fertility-related symptoms and health issues. Our abundance of case histories have lead us to believe that the answer is most certainly not black and white. We have learned that taking the Pill can negatively impact long-term fertility.
Prolonged use of birth control confuses the body and may negatively impact long-term fertility in the following ways…
1. Menstrual cycle disruption.FertilityFriend.com shares that studies show the following…
3. Disrupted ovulation – The synthetic hormones contained in birth control regulate release and timing of specific hormones in the body to prevent ovulation. This is not how the normal release of hormones plays out in a naturally occurring menstrual cycle. It is necessary, as you know, to ovulate a mature, healthy follicle (egg) in order to achieve natural pregnancy. The Pill prevents the maturation of a follicle for ovulation, one of the ovaries most important jobs. Over time, the ovaries may “forget” how to do their job on their own because they haven’t been signaled with the right hormones at the correct time in the menstrual cycle.
4. Cervical mucus changes – The Pill has been shown to thicken cervical mucus so that sperm cannot reach the egg. Healthy cervical mucus is important for conception because it helps sperm travel through the vagina and the cervix to meet and fertilize an egg.
5. Changes the uterine lining –The Pill changes the uterine lining to make it unreceptive to the implantation of a fertilized egg. By controlling the body’s estrogen and progesterone levels with synthetic hormones, the Pill does not allow for the proper levels of progesterone to build a healthy uterine lining for implantation.
Many women begin taking the pill at a very young age and don’t stop until they want to begin trying to conceive. The Pill doesn’t cause infertility, but impacts long-term fertility by “silencing a woman’s biological clock for so long that, in some cases, they forget it’s ticking away”. In other cases, women ignore or forget they are dealing with a fertility issue because the symptoms have gone away.
The bottom line is this, women trying to control the symptoms of a fertility issue by taking the Pill are not addressing the underlying imbalance that is fueling, or contributing to the fertility issue.Instead, they are using a synthetic medication to control the symptoms of the problem while simultaneously allowing the body to defy nature.
Too learn more about related subjects covered in this article, please visit the following links:
How to Balance Your Hormones After Birth Control
Increase Cervical Mucous to Get Pregnant
References:
1. Barton, D. How to Balance Your Hormones After Birth Control: http://natural-fertility-info.com/birth-control-fertility.html
2. Birth Control Pills: http://www.healthywomen.org/condition/birth-control-pills
3. Birth Control Side Effects: What you don’t know could hurt you: http://www.floliving.com/birth-control-side-effects/
4. Can birth control now impact pregnancy later?: http://www.today.com/id/19803528/ns...trol-now-impact-pregnancy-later/#.VAoow6M8rB8
5. Crocker, Lizzie: Should You Quit the Pill?: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rth-control-pill-s-negative-side-effects.html
6. Cronin, M. Schellschmidt, I. and Dinger, J. Rate of Pregnancy After Using Drospirenone and Other Progestin-Containing Oral Contraceptives: http://journals.lww.com/greenjourna...regnancy_After_Using_Drospirenone_and.20.aspx
7. Fertility After Oral Contraceptives: http://www.fertilityfriend.com/Faqs/Fertility-After-Oral-Contraceptives.html
Top 5 Ways the Birth Control Pill Negatively Impacts Long-Term Fertility
Birth control is prescribed for preventing pregnancy and to control acne, but also for a variety of fertility issues such as endometriosis, PCOS, ovarian cysts, pain associated with fertility issues, PMS, and irregular menstrual cycles. Sounds pretty great, right? But, is it?
A simple internet search of the statement how using birth control impacts fertility will lead you to a list of resources that say, to sum up the medical viewpoint, taking an oral contraceptive pill, aka the Pill, will not impact your future fertility.
Older studies (there are very few current studies), as well as articles on the web report that women who use birth control don’t have trouble conceiving naturally after stopping its use and get pregnant just as fast as other women, even if they’ve used birth control for years. In fact, one rather large study in which 2,000+ women reported, titled the European Active Surveillance Study on Oral Contraceptives, concluded that “Previous oral-contraceptive use does not negatively affect initial and 1-year rates of pregnancy after oral-contraceptive cessation…”
Why then, are we seeing very different results with our clients? Each and every day we work with women who have stopped long-term birth control use (anywhere from 1 – 20 years of use) and now have any number of concerning fertility-related symptoms and health issues. Our abundance of case histories have lead us to believe that the answer is most certainly not black and white. We have learned that taking the Pill can negatively impact long-term fertility.
Prolonged use of birth control confuses the body and may negatively impact long-term fertility in the following ways…
1. Menstrual cycle disruption.FertilityFriend.com shares that studies show the following…
- 10.24% of all first cycles after discontinuing oral contraceptives were not ovulatory (compared with 3.44% of control group).
- Significant differences also appeared in the second and third cycles after discontinuing oral contraceptives.
- Cycles were longer in the post-pill group up to cycle number 12.
- Cycle disturbances (defined as a luteal phase length of less than 10 days or a cycle length greater than 35 days) were more frequent in the post-pill group until the seventh cycle.
- Cycle disturbances after discontinuing oral contraceptives were reversible but regulation took up to nine months or longer.
3. Disrupted ovulation – The synthetic hormones contained in birth control regulate release and timing of specific hormones in the body to prevent ovulation. This is not how the normal release of hormones plays out in a naturally occurring menstrual cycle. It is necessary, as you know, to ovulate a mature, healthy follicle (egg) in order to achieve natural pregnancy. The Pill prevents the maturation of a follicle for ovulation, one of the ovaries most important jobs. Over time, the ovaries may “forget” how to do their job on their own because they haven’t been signaled with the right hormones at the correct time in the menstrual cycle.
4. Cervical mucus changes – The Pill has been shown to thicken cervical mucus so that sperm cannot reach the egg. Healthy cervical mucus is important for conception because it helps sperm travel through the vagina and the cervix to meet and fertilize an egg.
5. Changes the uterine lining –The Pill changes the uterine lining to make it unreceptive to the implantation of a fertilized egg. By controlling the body’s estrogen and progesterone levels with synthetic hormones, the Pill does not allow for the proper levels of progesterone to build a healthy uterine lining for implantation.
Many women begin taking the pill at a very young age and don’t stop until they want to begin trying to conceive. The Pill doesn’t cause infertility, but impacts long-term fertility by “silencing a woman’s biological clock for so long that, in some cases, they forget it’s ticking away”. In other cases, women ignore or forget they are dealing with a fertility issue because the symptoms have gone away.
The bottom line is this, women trying to control the symptoms of a fertility issue by taking the Pill are not addressing the underlying imbalance that is fueling, or contributing to the fertility issue.Instead, they are using a synthetic medication to control the symptoms of the problem while simultaneously allowing the body to defy nature.
Too learn more about related subjects covered in this article, please visit the following links:
How to Balance Your Hormones After Birth Control
Increase Cervical Mucous to Get Pregnant
References:
1. Barton, D. How to Balance Your Hormones After Birth Control: http://natural-fertility-info.com/birth-control-fertility.html
2. Birth Control Pills: http://www.healthywomen.org/condition/birth-control-pills
3. Birth Control Side Effects: What you don’t know could hurt you: http://www.floliving.com/birth-control-side-effects/
4. Can birth control now impact pregnancy later?: http://www.today.com/id/19803528/ns...trol-now-impact-pregnancy-later/#.VAoow6M8rB8
5. Crocker, Lizzie: Should You Quit the Pill?: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rth-control-pill-s-negative-side-effects.html
6. Cronin, M. Schellschmidt, I. and Dinger, J. Rate of Pregnancy After Using Drospirenone and Other Progestin-Containing Oral Contraceptives: http://journals.lww.com/greenjourna...regnancy_After_Using_Drospirenone_and.20.aspx
7. Fertility After Oral Contraceptives: http://www.fertilityfriend.com/Faqs/Fertility-After-Oral-Contraceptives.html
Galadriel
Well-Known Member
Thanks so much for sharing this! I'm on my 13th year of marriage and we have been using fertility awareness or NFP.
Source: http://natural-fertility-info.com/birth-control-pill-negatively-impacts-fertility.html
Top 5 Ways the Birth Control Pill Negatively Impacts Long-Term Fertility
How many women do you know that have taken the birth control pill? More than likely, it is almost all of them. The birth control pill is one of the most prescribed medications in the U.S. and not just for pregnancy prevention. What if I told you that the Pill, while freely taken by most women at some point in their life, may actually not be good for long-term fertility?
Birth control is prescribed for preventing pregnancy and to control acne, but also for a variety of fertility issues such as endometriosis, PCOS, ovarian cysts, pain associated with fertility issues, PMS, and irregular menstrual cycles. Sounds pretty great, right? But, is it?
A simple internet search of the statement how using birth control impacts fertility will lead you to a list of resources that say, to sum up the medical viewpoint, taking an oral contraceptive pill, aka the Pill, will not impact your future fertility.
Older studies (there are very few current studies), as well as articles on the web report that women who use birth control don’t have trouble conceiving naturally after stopping its use and get pregnant just as fast as other women, even if they’ve used birth control for years. In fact, one rather large study in which 2,000+ women reported, titled the European Active Surveillance Study on Oral Contraceptives, concluded that “Previous oral-contraceptive use does not negatively affect initial and 1-year rates of pregnancy after oral-contraceptive cessation…”
Why then, are we seeing very different results with our clients? Each and every day we work with women who have stopped long-term birth control use (anywhere from 1 – 20 years of use) and now have any number of concerning fertility-related symptoms and health issues. Our abundance of case histories have lead us to believe that the answer is most certainly not black and white. We have learned that taking the Pill can negatively impact long-term fertility.
Prolonged use of birth control confuses the body and may negatively impact long-term fertility in the following ways…
1. Menstrual cycle disruption.FertilityFriend.com shares that studies show the following…
2. Hormone imbalance –Synthetic hormone-containing birth control may provide symptom relief, but it does not address the underlying imbalance that is fueling or contributing to the fertility issue being dealt with. What the Pill is doing is introducing synthetic forms of estrogen and progesterone to the body, which then prevent the body’s natural, beneficial hormones from bonding to hormone receptor sites. Introducing synthetic hormones into the body may further exacerbate hormone imbalance by overloading it.
- 10.24% of all first cycles after discontinuing oral contraceptives were not ovulatory (compared with 3.44% of control group).
- Significant differences also appeared in the second and third cycles after discontinuing oral contraceptives.
- Cycles were longer in the post-pill group up to cycle number 12.
- Cycle disturbances (defined as a luteal phase length of less than 10 days or a cycle length greater than 35 days) were more frequent in the post-pill group until the seventh cycle.
- Cycle disturbances after discontinuing oral contraceptives were reversible but regulation took up to nine months or longer.
3. Disrupted ovulation – The synthetic hormones contained in birth control regulate release and timing of specific hormones in the body to prevent ovulation. This is not how the normal release of hormones plays out in a naturally occurring menstrual cycle. It is necessary, as you know, to ovulate a mature, healthy follicle (egg) in order to achieve natural pregnancy. The Pill prevents the maturation of a follicle for ovulation, one of the ovaries most important jobs. Over time, the ovaries may “forget” how to do their job on their own because they haven’t been signaled with the right hormones at the correct time in the menstrual cycle.
4. Cervical mucus changes – The Pill has been shown to thicken cervical mucus so that sperm cannot reach the egg. Healthy cervical mucus is important for conception because it helps sperm travel through the vagina and the cervix to meet and fertilize an egg.
5. Changes the uterine lining –The Pill changes the uterine lining to make it unreceptive to the implantation of a fertilized egg. By controlling the body’s estrogen and progesterone levels with synthetic hormones, the Pill does not allow for the proper levels of progesterone to build a healthy uterine lining for implantation.
Many women begin taking the pill at a very young age and don’t stop until they want to begin trying to conceive. The Pill doesn’t cause infertility, but impacts long-term fertility by “silencing a woman’s biological clock for so long that, in some cases, they forget it’s ticking away”. In other cases, women ignore or forget they are dealing with a fertility issue because the symptoms have gone away.
The bottom line is this, women trying to control the symptoms of a fertility issue by taking the Pill are not addressing the underlying imbalance that is fueling, or contributing to the fertility issue.Instead, they are using a synthetic medication to control the symptoms of the problem while simultaneously allowing the body to defy nature.
Too learn more about related subjects covered in this article, please visit the following links:
How to Balance Your Hormones After Birth Control
Increase Cervical Mucous to Get Pregnant
References:
1. Barton, D. How to Balance Your Hormones After Birth Control: http://natural-fertility-info.com/birth-control-fertility.html
2. Birth Control Pills: http://www.healthywomen.org/condition/birth-control-pills
3. Birth Control Side Effects: What you don’t know could hurt you: http://www.floliving.com/birth-control-side-effects/
4. Can birth control now impact pregnancy later?: http://www.today.com/id/19803528/ns...trol-now-impact-pregnancy-later/#.VAoow6M8rB8
5. Crocker, Lizzie: Should You Quit the Pill?: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rth-control-pill-s-negative-side-effects.html
6. Cronin, M. Schellschmidt, I. and Dinger, J. Rate of Pregnancy After Using Drospirenone and Other Progestin-Containing Oral Contraceptives: http://journals.lww.com/greenjourna...regnancy_After_Using_Drospirenone_and.20.aspx
7. Fertility After Oral Contraceptives: http://www.fertilityfriend.com/Faqs/Fertility-After-Oral-Contraceptives.html
Belle Du Jour
Well-Known Member
Lucia
Well-Known Member
Lucia
Well-Known Member
Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1968) | Paul VI
I.
PROBLEM AND COMPETENCY
OF THE MAGISTERIUM
2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.
Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.
But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man's stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.
Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.
I.
PROBLEM AND COMPETENCY
OF THE MAGISTERIUM
2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.
Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.
But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man's stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.
Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.
Lucia
Well-Known Member
Lucia
Well-Known Member
Really great explaining here just wanted to repost
Lucia
Well-Known Member
Why do we receive ashes on Ash Wednesday?
The Catholic Spirit
A man receives ashes on his forehead during an Ash Wednesday service
A man receives ashes on his forehead during an Ash Wednesday service in this file photo. CNS / Mike Crupi, Catholic Courier
The following is a condensed version of an article by Father Michael Van Sloun, pastor of St. Bartholomew in Wayzata, that first appeared in 2008 in The Catholic Spirit. In 2017, Ash Wednesday is March 1.
The imposition of ashes is a solemn ritual that signals the beginning of the holy season of Lent. The ceremony is distinctive; there is no liturgical action like it throughout the entire church year.
The ashes come from a previous Palm Sunday. The palms are burned, the ashes collected and then crushed into a fine, sooty powder and placed into bowls.
The ashes are blessed by the priest during the Ash Wednesday Mass after the homily. Then, in a Communion-like procession, people are invited to come forward, and the ashes are applied to each person’s forehead in the shape of a cross as the minister says either, “Turn away from sin and believe in the Gospel” (Mark 1:15), the usual prayer, or “Remember that you are dust, and unto dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19), the older, more traditional invocation.
Ashes symbolize two main things in the Old Testament.
Death, repentance
Ashes are equivalent to dust, and human flesh is composed of dust or clay (Genesis 2:7), and when a human corpse decomposes, it returns to dust or ash.
For example, Abraham told God, “I am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27), a reference to his human mortality. Jeremiah described death as a “valley of corpses and ashes” (Jeremiah 31:40). Ashes are an ominous sign, and we use them on Ash Wednesday to remind ourselves of our own impending deaths. Death may come sooner, or it may come later, but it will surely come.
And if death is coming, we need to be prepared, and the time to prepare for death is now, and the way to prepare is to live according to God’s ways.
When the prophet Daniel shamefacedly clothed himself in sackcloth and ashes, they were a sign of his people’s contrition for their rebellion, wickedness and treachery (Daniel 9:3).
When Jonah warned the Ninevites that God planned to destroy their city because of their corruption and depravity, the people covered themselves with sackcloth and ashes as a sign of their intention to turn from their evil ways (Jonah 3:6,10).
Ashes are a plea to God for mercy and compassion, pardon and forgiveness.
Moreover, they are a public admission of guilt, an expression of sorrow for sins that have been committed, a promise to reform and a pledge to resist temptation in the future.
We, too, are sinners. When we come forward to receive ashes on Ash Wednesday, we are saying that we are sorry for our sins, and that we want to use the season of Lent to correct our faults, purify our hearts, control our desires and grow in holiness so we will be prepared to celebrate Easter with great joy.
Site
http://thecatholicspirit.com/holy-days/lent/why-do-we-receive-ashes-on-ash-wednesday-2/
The Catholic Spirit
A man receives ashes on his forehead during an Ash Wednesday service
A man receives ashes on his forehead during an Ash Wednesday service in this file photo. CNS / Mike Crupi, Catholic Courier
The following is a condensed version of an article by Father Michael Van Sloun, pastor of St. Bartholomew in Wayzata, that first appeared in 2008 in The Catholic Spirit. In 2017, Ash Wednesday is March 1.
The imposition of ashes is a solemn ritual that signals the beginning of the holy season of Lent. The ceremony is distinctive; there is no liturgical action like it throughout the entire church year.
The ashes come from a previous Palm Sunday. The palms are burned, the ashes collected and then crushed into a fine, sooty powder and placed into bowls.
The ashes are blessed by the priest during the Ash Wednesday Mass after the homily. Then, in a Communion-like procession, people are invited to come forward, and the ashes are applied to each person’s forehead in the shape of a cross as the minister says either, “Turn away from sin and believe in the Gospel” (Mark 1:15), the usual prayer, or “Remember that you are dust, and unto dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19), the older, more traditional invocation.
Ashes symbolize two main things in the Old Testament.
Death, repentance
Ashes are equivalent to dust, and human flesh is composed of dust or clay (Genesis 2:7), and when a human corpse decomposes, it returns to dust or ash.
For example, Abraham told God, “I am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27), a reference to his human mortality. Jeremiah described death as a “valley of corpses and ashes” (Jeremiah 31:40). Ashes are an ominous sign, and we use them on Ash Wednesday to remind ourselves of our own impending deaths. Death may come sooner, or it may come later, but it will surely come.
And if death is coming, we need to be prepared, and the time to prepare for death is now, and the way to prepare is to live according to God’s ways.
When the prophet Daniel shamefacedly clothed himself in sackcloth and ashes, they were a sign of his people’s contrition for their rebellion, wickedness and treachery (Daniel 9:3).
When Jonah warned the Ninevites that God planned to destroy their city because of their corruption and depravity, the people covered themselves with sackcloth and ashes as a sign of their intention to turn from their evil ways (Jonah 3:6,10).
Ashes are a plea to God for mercy and compassion, pardon and forgiveness.
Moreover, they are a public admission of guilt, an expression of sorrow for sins that have been committed, a promise to reform and a pledge to resist temptation in the future.
We, too, are sinners. When we come forward to receive ashes on Ash Wednesday, we are saying that we are sorry for our sins, and that we want to use the season of Lent to correct our faults, purify our hearts, control our desires and grow in holiness so we will be prepared to celebrate Easter with great joy.
Site
http://thecatholicspirit.com/holy-days/lent/why-do-we-receive-ashes-on-ash-wednesday-2/
Lucia
Well-Known Member
Site
https://forums.catholic.com/t/martin-luther-added-the-word-alone/119933
Martin Luther added the word “alone”?
Non-Catholic Religions
TriuneUnity
Jul '08
ralphinal:
What about Hebrews? Noah had faith and built the ark…It is clear that if your faith does not make you do, you do not have faith. Faith and works are joined in a way that cannot be split.
Not really a question of splitting them apart. Faith will display itself in the real world in good works. The issue is what justifies us before God. The grounds of our justification is the work of Christ on behalf of sinners. How do we receive the work that Christ performed on our behalf? Faith alone. Paul expects his listeners to object and say “What about good deeds and obedience to the commandments!?” Paul discusses this objection at length in Romans 6.
Was Jesus talking about the law in Matthew when the sheep and goats are separated?
Yes, he was. Strictly speaking, according to the Law, every last human being would be in the left hand column. The reason the sheep are on the right hand is because Christ’s righteousness is theirs and hence, all of His good works are credited to them, and their sins are removed by Christ. We must interpret all of Scripture in light of the rest of Scripture.
Now, works of the law is another story.
While Paul often refers to works of the Mosaic law, he clearly states that all of humanity is under condemnation according to the Law of God. Jews and Gentiles both. In such cases, he is not referring to the Mosaic code, but to the moral Law of God which is true in all times, places, and nations.
ralphinal
Jul '08
Yes, he was. Strictly speaking, according to the Law, every last human being would be in the left hand column. The reason the sheep are on the right hand is because Christ’s righteousness is theirs and hence, all of His good works are credited to them, and their sins are removed by Christ. We must interpret all of Scripture in light of the rest of Scripture
The only problem with that interpretation is that the goats were told that they were sent to hell because they did nothing for those in need, and the sheep were told that they went to heaven because they did for those in need. In fact, a few verses earlier, Jesus tells them that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will inherit the kingdom, but only those that do the will of the Father.
Now, I am not saying that works can replace faith, or that you can work your way into heaven. I am saying, and scripture does the same, that faith alone, without any sort of works, is not faith at all. Faith MUST include works or else it is dead.
TriuneUnity
Jul '08
ralphinal:
The only problem with that interpretation is that the goats were told that they were sent to hell because they did nothing for those in need
Absolutely. God sends people to damnation for a reason. That reason being their violating of God’s holy Law (sinning). In this case, Jesus uses the example of failing to love our neighbors as ourselves.
and the sheep were told that they went to heaven because they did for those in need.
Interpret this in light of the fact that Jesus did for those in need perfectly, which is what the Law of God requires. Through faith in Christ, His righteous acts are ours. Even if the sheep had done for the least among them, they would have had to do so perfectly in order to merit salvation by it.
In fact, a few verses earlier, Jesus tells them that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will inherit the kingdom, but only those that do the will of the Father.
Jesus is here addressing false prophets. What is interesting about the passage is that the false prophets did not attempt to enter heaven by their faith, but by their works! “Did we not cast out demons in your name? etc.” But Jesus says they did not do the will of the Father. In John’s Gospel, we learn that the will of the Father is that we believe in the One He has sent.
Now, I am not saying that works can replace faith, or that you can work your way into heaven. I am saying, and scripture does the same, that faith alone, without any sort of works, is not faith at all. Faith MUST include works or else it is dead.
With this I agree. The faith that we receive as a gift from God, which receives the justification Christ has won for us, must work itself out in love. The temporal purpose of our justification is that we may serve and love our neighbor and thus add to the kingdom. The working out in love does not add to, nor increase our justification. Christ’s righteousness needs no additions.
Contarini
Jul '08
lizaanne:
I think it’s quite clear that Luther knew EXACTLY what he was doing (his words below):
It’s quite clear, if you can’t be bothered to read the whole text. Read it, and then give us an informed opinion.
Luther in fact makes an argument as to why his translation is required according to the idioms of sixteenth-century German. He may be right, or he may be wrong. If he’s wrong, it is certainly because of his theological bias. So I’m not claiming that he’s off the hook. But the issue is one of translation, and has to be argued in terms of the nuances of koine Greek and sixteenth-century German.
Edwin
Peter_J
Jul '08
Contarini:
It’s quite clear, if you can’t be bothered to read the whole text.
Is this the context you mean?
But I will return to the subject at hand. If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas.(2) For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.
I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can use their rhetoric and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands his Aristotle. If any one of them can correctly understand one preface or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it, for I have been schooled in and have practiced their science from my youth. I recognize how deep and broad it is. They, too, are well aware that I can do everything they can do. Yet they treat me as a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they teach and know. How they do brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I outgrew twenty years ago! To all their noise and shouting I sing, with the harlot, “I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron.”(3)
Let this be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope.” Let it rest there. I will from now on hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people (or rather donkeys) that they are. And there are brazen idiots among them who have never even learned their own art of sophistry, like Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Snot-Nose, (4) and such like them, who set themselves against me in this matter, which not only transcends sophistry, but as Paul writes, all the wisdom and understanding in the world as well. Truly a donkey does not have to sing much, because he is already known by his ears.
For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word alone …
bible-researcher.com/luther01.html3
JonNC
Jul '08
Peter_J:
Is this the context you mean?
bible-researcher.com/luther01.html
Hi Peter,
I think he means this context:
pnewton
Jul '08
TriuneUnity:
When Paul says we justified by faith apart from works, in essence he is saying we are justified by faith apart from everything else, hence alone. In order for Luther to be adding words to the Bible, he would need to be adding words to the original Greek text.
Or add them in the English or German that are not in the Greek or implied in the Greek. Such dynamic translations allow the translators personal interpretation to override the author of the Bible. If nothing in the text states “alone” it should not be included.
Because Paul stated in one phrase “justified by faith apart from works”, one can not simply move that thought to another phrase and change it to “justified by faith apart from any and everything.” That is an act of interpretation, not translation. The Bible is no place for such sleight of hand tactics. Even the translators of the KJV tried no such shennanigans but attempted to stick to a more literal translation.
Peter_J
Jul '08
JonNC:
Hi Peter,
I think he means this context:
TriuneUnity
Jul '08
pnewton:
Or add them in the English or German that are not in the Greek or implied in the Greek. Such dynamic translations allow the translators personal interpretation to override the author of the Bible. If nothing in the text states “alone” it should not be included.
Because Paul stated in one phrase “justified by faith apart from works”, one can not simply move that thought to another phrase and change it to “justified by faith apart from any and everything.” That is an act of interpretation, not translation. The Bible is no place for such sleight of hand tactics. Even the translators of the KJV tried no such shennanigans but attempted to stick to a more literal translation.
If Paul states justified by faith apart from works, what else justifies that Paul didn’t include? Since you either receive your righteousness by grace through faith, or you merit it by works. If there’s a third category missing there, please include it. Otherwise, justified by faith apart from anything else would apply. Hence, alone.
ralphinal
Jul '08
Why is it that the context to Catholics says that the words “apart from the law” should be added while Protestants do not?
If he had changed it to say “Faith Alone apart from works of the law” how different would you folks be today?
TriuneUnity
Jul '08
ralphinal:
Why is it that the context to Catholics says that the words “apart from the law” should be added while Protestants do not?
If he had changed it to say “Faith Alone apart from works of the law” how different would you folks be today?
Faith alone apart from works of the law would neither add or subtract from it. The apart from works of the Law translation is the same Greek text that Luther used allein/alone for. Catholics usually try to say that Paul is saying apart from Mosaic Law, but his context in the preceding 3 1/2 chapters is not the Mosaic Law, it’s all of morality given by God since Paul has indicted both Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles didnt have the Mosaic Law, so for Paul to say they were condemned by kosher and circumcision would’ve been nonsensical.
pnewton
Jul '08
TriuneUnity:
If Paul states justified by faith apart from works, what else justifies that Paul didn’t include?
One could be justified by bribery. One could be justified by marking a ballot apprpopriatly. One could be winning a randomly lottery. These things are out there, but not eliminated grammatically. Language is the universe of the translator, not logic. Anything else is not translating, but interepreting.
One could make the argument that every thing is a “work” as defined by Paul, but then that arument is circular in the extreme and does nothing but beg the question.
Another possibility, and would be in accord to Catholic thinking, is that “works” used by Paul has a narrow usage. Specifically referring in the first part of Romans to works of The Law. The whole passage is aimed at Judaizers who attempted to combine a form of following Mosaic law with Christianity. There is nothing in a pure translation that prevents (or mandates) this interpretation.
If one is going to hold a nice sola scriptura position, it is best to start with the purest “scriptura” and not adulterate it with opinion from the outset. This was always my fundamentalist first rule of interpretation. It has carried over with me as a Catholic.
pnewton
Jul '08
TriuneUnity:
but his context in the preceding 3 1/2 chapters is **not the Mosaic Law, it’s all of morality given by God **since Paul has indicted both Jews and Gentiles…
2:17 “Indeed you are called a Jew and rest on the Law…” You do not think this is the Mosaic Law? He goes on to discuss circumcision, part of the Mosaic Law, but not the Natural Law.
3:21But now the righteousness of God apart from the Law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets"
The Natural Moral Law and the Prophets?
1stChristian
Jul '08
What surprises me is the audacity of this man that could cooly change by a stroke of a pen a doctrine of the Apostle of God, St. Paul, who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
But this was the outcome of the Protestant standpoint, individual judgment: no authority outside oneself. However ignorant, however stupid, however unlettered, you may cut out and carve out a Bible and a religion for yourself. No pope, no council, no church shall enlighten you or dictate or hand down the doctrines of Christ.
And the result we have seen in the corruption of God’s Holy Word.
What gets me is their deliberate excision from that Sacred volume of some of the inspired books that were suffered to remain. It is on consideration of such points as these that pious persons outside the Catholic fold would do well to ask themselves this question:
Which Christian body really loves and reveres Scripture most? Which has proved by it’s actions, it’s love and veneration?
And which seems most likely to incur the anathema, recorded by St. John, that God will send upon those who shall take away from the words of the Book of life?
MDK
Jul '08
TriuneUnity:
It is true that what Luther was doing was a biblical translation. As I stated in the original thread, however, a translation, by its nature as a translation is never word for word but is giving the meaning of the original text in the language to which it is being translated to. A commentator is doing much the same thing except he is not translating the text. Otherwise, different biblical versions would all have the same verbage, but it doesn’t, because each translator is going for the best meaning to the words.
When Paul says we justified by faith apart from works, in essence he is saying we are justified by faith apart from everything else, hence alone. In order for Luther to be adding words to the Bible, he would need to be adding words to the original Greek text.
Do you think it’s possible you’re missing something critical here? I’ll give you a clue…, Paul didn’t simply say “we justified by faith apart from works.” As recorded in Romans 3:28, “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.” Please note it says “works of the law” and not simply “works.” If you study what that means, Paul is talking about circumcision, etc. Works of the law is a typical Hebraic expression for the law of the Jews, like circumcision, dietary laws, etc. We were freed from those, were we not?
https://forums.catholic.com/t/martin-luther-added-the-word-alone/119933
Martin Luther added the word “alone”?
Non-Catholic Religions
TriuneUnity
Jul '08
What about Hebrews? Noah had faith and built the ark…It is clear that if your faith does not make you do, you do not have faith. Faith and works are joined in a way that cannot be split.
Not really a question of splitting them apart. Faith will display itself in the real world in good works. The issue is what justifies us before God. The grounds of our justification is the work of Christ on behalf of sinners. How do we receive the work that Christ performed on our behalf? Faith alone. Paul expects his listeners to object and say “What about good deeds and obedience to the commandments!?” Paul discusses this objection at length in Romans 6.
Was Jesus talking about the law in Matthew when the sheep and goats are separated?
Yes, he was. Strictly speaking, according to the Law, every last human being would be in the left hand column. The reason the sheep are on the right hand is because Christ’s righteousness is theirs and hence, all of His good works are credited to them, and their sins are removed by Christ. We must interpret all of Scripture in light of the rest of Scripture.
Now, works of the law is another story.
While Paul often refers to works of the Mosaic law, he clearly states that all of humanity is under condemnation according to the Law of God. Jews and Gentiles both. In such cases, he is not referring to the Mosaic code, but to the moral Law of God which is true in all times, places, and nations.
ralphinal
Jul '08
Yes, he was. Strictly speaking, according to the Law, every last human being would be in the left hand column. The reason the sheep are on the right hand is because Christ’s righteousness is theirs and hence, all of His good works are credited to them, and their sins are removed by Christ. We must interpret all of Scripture in light of the rest of Scripture
The only problem with that interpretation is that the goats were told that they were sent to hell because they did nothing for those in need, and the sheep were told that they went to heaven because they did for those in need. In fact, a few verses earlier, Jesus tells them that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will inherit the kingdom, but only those that do the will of the Father.
Now, I am not saying that works can replace faith, or that you can work your way into heaven. I am saying, and scripture does the same, that faith alone, without any sort of works, is not faith at all. Faith MUST include works or else it is dead.
TriuneUnity
Jul '08
The only problem with that interpretation is that the goats were told that they were sent to hell because they did nothing for those in need
Absolutely. God sends people to damnation for a reason. That reason being their violating of God’s holy Law (sinning). In this case, Jesus uses the example of failing to love our neighbors as ourselves.
and the sheep were told that they went to heaven because they did for those in need.
Interpret this in light of the fact that Jesus did for those in need perfectly, which is what the Law of God requires. Through faith in Christ, His righteous acts are ours. Even if the sheep had done for the least among them, they would have had to do so perfectly in order to merit salvation by it.
In fact, a few verses earlier, Jesus tells them that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will inherit the kingdom, but only those that do the will of the Father.
Jesus is here addressing false prophets. What is interesting about the passage is that the false prophets did not attempt to enter heaven by their faith, but by their works! “Did we not cast out demons in your name? etc.” But Jesus says they did not do the will of the Father. In John’s Gospel, we learn that the will of the Father is that we believe in the One He has sent.
Now, I am not saying that works can replace faith, or that you can work your way into heaven. I am saying, and scripture does the same, that faith alone, without any sort of works, is not faith at all. Faith MUST include works or else it is dead.
With this I agree. The faith that we receive as a gift from God, which receives the justification Christ has won for us, must work itself out in love. The temporal purpose of our justification is that we may serve and love our neighbor and thus add to the kingdom. The working out in love does not add to, nor increase our justification. Christ’s righteousness needs no additions.
Contarini
Jul '08
I think it’s quite clear that Luther knew EXACTLY what he was doing (his words below):
It’s quite clear, if you can’t be bothered to read the whole text. Read it, and then give us an informed opinion.
Luther in fact makes an argument as to why his translation is required according to the idioms of sixteenth-century German. He may be right, or he may be wrong. If he’s wrong, it is certainly because of his theological bias. So I’m not claiming that he’s off the hook. But the issue is one of translation, and has to be argued in terms of the nuances of koine Greek and sixteenth-century German.
Edwin
Peter_J
Jul '08
It’s quite clear, if you can’t be bothered to read the whole text.
Is this the context you mean?
But I will return to the subject at hand. If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas.(2) For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.
I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can use their rhetoric and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands his Aristotle. If any one of them can correctly understand one preface or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it, for I have been schooled in and have practiced their science from my youth. I recognize how deep and broad it is. They, too, are well aware that I can do everything they can do. Yet they treat me as a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they teach and know. How they do brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I outgrew twenty years ago! To all their noise and shouting I sing, with the harlot, “I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron.”(3)
Let this be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope.” Let it rest there. I will from now on hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people (or rather donkeys) that they are. And there are brazen idiots among them who have never even learned their own art of sophistry, like Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Snot-Nose, (4) and such like them, who set themselves against me in this matter, which not only transcends sophistry, but as Paul writes, all the wisdom and understanding in the world as well. Truly a donkey does not have to sing much, because he is already known by his ears.
For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word alone …
bible-researcher.com/luther01.html3
JonNC
Jul '08
Is this the context you mean?
bible-researcher.com/luther01.html
Hi Peter,
I think he means this context:
pnewton
Jul '08
When Paul says we justified by faith apart from works, in essence he is saying we are justified by faith apart from everything else, hence alone. In order for Luther to be adding words to the Bible, he would need to be adding words to the original Greek text.
Or add them in the English or German that are not in the Greek or implied in the Greek. Such dynamic translations allow the translators personal interpretation to override the author of the Bible. If nothing in the text states “alone” it should not be included.
Because Paul stated in one phrase “justified by faith apart from works”, one can not simply move that thought to another phrase and change it to “justified by faith apart from any and everything.” That is an act of interpretation, not translation. The Bible is no place for such sleight of hand tactics. Even the translators of the KJV tried no such shennanigans but attempted to stick to a more literal translation.
Peter_J
Jul '08
Hi Peter,
I think he means this context:
TriuneUnity
Jul '08
Or add them in the English or German that are not in the Greek or implied in the Greek. Such dynamic translations allow the translators personal interpretation to override the author of the Bible. If nothing in the text states “alone” it should not be included.
Because Paul stated in one phrase “justified by faith apart from works”, one can not simply move that thought to another phrase and change it to “justified by faith apart from any and everything.” That is an act of interpretation, not translation. The Bible is no place for such sleight of hand tactics. Even the translators of the KJV tried no such shennanigans but attempted to stick to a more literal translation.
If Paul states justified by faith apart from works, what else justifies that Paul didn’t include? Since you either receive your righteousness by grace through faith, or you merit it by works. If there’s a third category missing there, please include it. Otherwise, justified by faith apart from anything else would apply. Hence, alone.
ralphinal
Jul '08
Why is it that the context to Catholics says that the words “apart from the law” should be added while Protestants do not?
If he had changed it to say “Faith Alone apart from works of the law” how different would you folks be today?
TriuneUnity
Jul '08
Why is it that the context to Catholics says that the words “apart from the law” should be added while Protestants do not?
If he had changed it to say “Faith Alone apart from works of the law” how different would you folks be today?
Faith alone apart from works of the law would neither add or subtract from it. The apart from works of the Law translation is the same Greek text that Luther used allein/alone for. Catholics usually try to say that Paul is saying apart from Mosaic Law, but his context in the preceding 3 1/2 chapters is not the Mosaic Law, it’s all of morality given by God since Paul has indicted both Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles didnt have the Mosaic Law, so for Paul to say they were condemned by kosher and circumcision would’ve been nonsensical.
pnewton
Jul '08
If Paul states justified by faith apart from works, what else justifies that Paul didn’t include?
One could be justified by bribery. One could be justified by marking a ballot apprpopriatly. One could be winning a randomly lottery. These things are out there, but not eliminated grammatically. Language is the universe of the translator, not logic. Anything else is not translating, but interepreting.
One could make the argument that every thing is a “work” as defined by Paul, but then that arument is circular in the extreme and does nothing but beg the question.
Another possibility, and would be in accord to Catholic thinking, is that “works” used by Paul has a narrow usage. Specifically referring in the first part of Romans to works of The Law. The whole passage is aimed at Judaizers who attempted to combine a form of following Mosaic law with Christianity. There is nothing in a pure translation that prevents (or mandates) this interpretation.
If one is going to hold a nice sola scriptura position, it is best to start with the purest “scriptura” and not adulterate it with opinion from the outset. This was always my fundamentalist first rule of interpretation. It has carried over with me as a Catholic.
pnewton
Jul '08
but his context in the preceding 3 1/2 chapters is **not the Mosaic Law, it’s all of morality given by God **since Paul has indicted both Jews and Gentiles…
2:17 “Indeed you are called a Jew and rest on the Law…” You do not think this is the Mosaic Law? He goes on to discuss circumcision, part of the Mosaic Law, but not the Natural Law.
3:21But now the righteousness of God apart from the Law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets"
The Natural Moral Law and the Prophets?
1stChristian
Jul '08
What surprises me is the audacity of this man that could cooly change by a stroke of a pen a doctrine of the Apostle of God, St. Paul, who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
But this was the outcome of the Protestant standpoint, individual judgment: no authority outside oneself. However ignorant, however stupid, however unlettered, you may cut out and carve out a Bible and a religion for yourself. No pope, no council, no church shall enlighten you or dictate or hand down the doctrines of Christ.
And the result we have seen in the corruption of God’s Holy Word.
What gets me is their deliberate excision from that Sacred volume of some of the inspired books that were suffered to remain. It is on consideration of such points as these that pious persons outside the Catholic fold would do well to ask themselves this question:
Which Christian body really loves and reveres Scripture most? Which has proved by it’s actions, it’s love and veneration?
And which seems most likely to incur the anathema, recorded by St. John, that God will send upon those who shall take away from the words of the Book of life?
MDK
Jul '08
It is true that what Luther was doing was a biblical translation. As I stated in the original thread, however, a translation, by its nature as a translation is never word for word but is giving the meaning of the original text in the language to which it is being translated to. A commentator is doing much the same thing except he is not translating the text. Otherwise, different biblical versions would all have the same verbage, but it doesn’t, because each translator is going for the best meaning to the words.
When Paul says we justified by faith apart from works, in essence he is saying we are justified by faith apart from everything else, hence alone. In order for Luther to be adding words to the Bible, he would need to be adding words to the original Greek text.
Do you think it’s possible you’re missing something critical here? I’ll give you a clue…, Paul didn’t simply say “we justified by faith apart from works.” As recorded in Romans 3:28, “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.” Please note it says “works of the law” and not simply “works.” If you study what that means, Paul is talking about circumcision, etc. Works of the law is a typical Hebraic expression for the law of the Jews, like circumcision, dietary laws, etc. We were freed from those, were we not?
Belle Du Jour
Well-Known Member
I finally got around to reading Rome Sweet Home, the story of Scott Hahn's conversion. It was powerful! I wish evangelical protestants would read his and Alex Jones' (+) conversion stories since these were pastors who gave up their livelihood, friends and some family to convert.
Lucia
Well-Known Member
This book is on my list of books to read this year. I’m familiar with Scott Hahn and his wife’s conversion testimony it’s on YouTube and he was on journey home ewtn.
Right now I’m reading Why Catholics cannot be Masons by John Salza it a short book I’ll have it done
in a week, I’m also reading Thou shalt prosper by Rabbi Daniel Lapin it’s a book about getting a positive mindset about money.
Last edited:
Lucia
Well-Known Member
What’s the name of Alex Jones’ book?
Rsgal
Well-Known Member
https://stpaulcenter.com/studies-tools/journey-through-scripture/the-bible-and-the-sacraments/
Study for free during the Lenten Season
Study for free during the Lenten Season
Belle Du Jour
Well-Known Member
No Price Too High
Lucia
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
