Having met at a Virginia AA meeting in 1997, two women fell in what they thought was "love," entered in to a "civil union" and then decided to "start a family." One has to wonder if the AA philosophy of "your higher power can be a rock, a tree, or 'the group [AA] itself" had anything to do with the attraction of woman to woman, One certainly is reminded of the Paul's societal analysis of the Romans of his day who evidently had a somewhat similar culture to what we are now witnessing here. I quote from the King James Version. Other translations are equally affirmative of the problem:
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Well, the miracle occurred and God evidently rescued one of the participants, Lisa Miller" from this unholy union. She became a born again Christian, renounced her former lesbian addiction (her words).
Lisa Miller is the woman who gave birth to the child of the union conceived by in vitro fertizilization (i.e. from what had to be a male sperm donor fertilizing her egg -- to the best of my present knowledge 'cloning' has not reached a point of perfection to explain it nor do newspaper accounts indicate that it was her partner's egg fertilized and implanted in her.
Lisa Miller had a right and a sacred duty to be concerned about her daughter's soul and eternal destiny. All of us who are parents have such a burden. She gave her daughter visitation with her former partner in the 'civil union' she renounced. However, her partner attempted continued corruption of the child by reading her pro-lesbian literature such as "Heather has two mommies." She also reportedly took baths with the child. A bath with a child may not be so startling normally with a woman bathing a child; however, when we have an admittedly sexual attraction to females, it takes on a new connotation entirely.
From Virginia originally, Lisa Miller and her "partner" lived in Vermont. Vermont has long since legalized same sex marriage.
The Commonwealth of Virginia does not recognize same sex marriages. Lisa fled there and went to work for Liberty Baptist Academy, a school affiliated with Liberty University (founded by Jerry Falwell).
Lisa fled Vermont to return to Virginia. Her former "civil partner" fought for increased visitation and custody in the Vermont courts. The Virginia courts ruled that the Vermont court had jurisdiction, something probably legally correct.
The Vermont court certain had very different ideas than I hold about the "best interest of a child." Because her birth mother was now teaching her traditional views of marriage and family and eternal consequences of violating very plain biblical teachings on same, the court ruled that this was grounds to strip her of custody and give sole custody to the "other mommy" who would affirm the "gay lifestyle" in which the child was originally conceived.
No room for conversion here, so the Vermont court evidently opined.
Mother did what we may all have to do before this battle is over -- she fled. Those who helped her in what is appearing to becoming an "underground railroad" for Christians are hunted by the FBI, USA agents and Interpol.
Personally, I never thought I would live long enough to see those who believed marriage should be between a man and a woman characterized as "radical." Theosophist, League of Nations' leader Salvador de Madariage (Javier Solana's grandfather / cousin / great uncle, whatever) referred to homosexual practices as "buggery" and condemned it. Even L. Ronald Hubbard (founder of Dianetics / Scientology) claimed his methods could "cure homosexuality".
Suddenly, so many prominent views from the President on down "are evolving" and thousands of years of traditional belief are scrapped. Suddenly we have a society where morality is turned upside down on its very head -- or is it "bottom."
Pray for Lisa Miller. Pray for her daughter. Pray for the conversion of all caught in this dreadful, unhealthy trap of "same sex marriage" and "civil unions." Pray for the conversion of Lisa Miller's former partner who has now "remarried" still another apparent female victim.
Pray that those attending AA meetings to receive help for substance abuse issues not take so literally their belief that their "higher power" can be "a rock, a tree, the group, -- 'God however we conceive him to be."
So many times as I researched the New Age issues over the years, this is how lesbian addictions developed. The gals attended meetings on legitimate issues (equal pay for equal work), then explored 'root causes,' then decided the root cause was "patriarchy" (short hand for "God the Father). They then obviously scrapped "The Lord's Prayer" of "Our Father which art in Heaven" and went for 'matriarchal religions,' such as Wicca and/or (as did Lisa Miller and her former partner) Unitarianism, Unity. Reading those accounts, the woman would recount that they were at those meetings and for the first time in their lives, the woman across the room started "looking good to them."
Extremely perilous and dangerous times are here. Jesus warned us that when we saw these things come upon the earth to know that our redemption was near --- even at the door. I frankly don't know how much worse it can get, but I thought before it couldn't get much worse but it has. How much longer until the Scriptures are condemned as "hate literature" for warnings such as those given by the Apostle Paul?
May the Lord help us all!
Stay tuned.
CONSTANCE
517 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 517 Newer› Newest»Anon@7:03 p.m.
In that case it would also apply to your failure to distinguish between traditions of men and apostolic traditions.
Me: "some of the writers of scripture quote earlier authors who were not in scripture. To say that this wrecks sola scriptura is a non sequitur. It simply promotes those passages of the authors quoted to the status of scripture."
You: "In that case it would also apply to your failure to distinguish between traditions of men and apostolic traditions."
The only apostolic traditions I mentioned above concerned the structure of the apostolic church (congregation in each town, each governed by a plurality of episkopoi, and no hierarchy above that). Although I did not give chapter and verse, I made it clear that this structure was described in the NT and was therefore scriptural. Oh, and all believers were priests by default. Chapter and verse for all of this on request.
Me: "Rome’s political pretensions made it needlessly difficult for Catholics in Elizabethan England to be patriots."
You: "If Parliament suppresses your central act of worship it's time for a revolt or civil disobedience."
You are wantonly ignoring the point I was making, that no Catholic was put to death under Queen Elizabeth until the Pope ridiculously declared Elizabeth deposed and commanded Catholics not to obey her. Thanks to the Pope's meddling at a time when things had been settling down after decades of turbulence, Catholics were again seen as potentially seditious and some 200 were burned. I regret the denial of freedom of worship but that is not the main issue here.
Anon@7:22 p.m.
Not the main issue?
By the 1570s, the Church was dying. It was death by a thousand cuts, caused by Elizabeth’s policy of isolating the Catholic community, denying it priests to celebrate the sacraments, and a host of fines and humiliations that left a leaderless and apathetic Catholic community. For all intents and purposes, Catholicism in England had become criminal.
Traitors or Martyrs?
The difficulty in these show trials and murders by the English government was that it did not want the perception that priests were being killed for their religious beliefs. It would not sit well with Catholic European powers, nor did the government wish to see a cult of martyrdom grow up around the dead priests.
Instead, the English government argued that these priests were being killed because their actions threatened to undermine English liberties. They were deemed traitors, and the propaganda of the day pounded that drum over and over. They could have what religious beliefs they wanted, the government argued. But as priests, and particularly as Jesuits, they were, by their nature, dedicated to the overthrow of Elizabeth and subverters of the rights of Englishmen.
And thus it was born: Catholics and their priests were a potential fifth column within society that could rise up at any minute and overthrow the present order. Manipulated by foreign priests—particularly the wily Jesuits—Catholics were always just a moment’s notice away from armed insurrection at the behest of the pope.
Anon@7:15 p.m.
What I meant by Apostolic traditions is oral or written tradition being handed down by the Apostles, supported in scripture.
This is a long document, but it explains the different ranks of the priesthood in the New Testament.
http://jimmyakin.com/library/the-office-of-new-testament-priest
Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
REPLY this is in I or II Macabbees.
Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.
REPLY this is in either The Book of Jashar or The Book of Jubilees or one of those apocryphal books that didn't make it into the deuterocanonicals, the approved apocrypha bundled with the OT in the LXX.
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.
REPLY this is either a line from the LXX or it is a summary of two or three prophecies in OT which speak of the Messiah as the righteous Branch. Nazareth means branch, a play on words, "hint, hint" sort of thing, was involved in Jesus growing up in Nazareth.
Christine,
Judaism does not consider this to be canon. jesus was quoting the Misnah or oral tradition that exists in Judaism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah
Judaism did not subscribe to sola scriptura.
"PS Romans 13 does indeed support the death penalty in principle (eg for murder, Genesis 9:6), but it is eisegesis to extend that to heresy."
Heresy was seen as form of spiritual murder, one that killed the soul. The hope was that the person convicted would repent out of fear of the punishment, if everything else failed.
"Romans 13 does indeed support the death penalty in principle (eg for murder, Genesis 9:6), but it is eisegesis to extend that to heresy."
"Heresy was seen as form of spiritual murder, one that killed the soul. The hope was that the person convicted would repent out of fear of the punishment, if everything else failed."
Death for heresy was indeed the penalty in Mosaic Law, but medieval Rome put plenty of energy into trumpeting that it was not under the Law. Too bad it did not heed the message of Christ that His movement was a voluntary one. The Inquisition was no better than the KGB.
"This is a long document, but it explains the different ranks of the priesthood in the New Testament."
It is just an excuse manufactured to respond to protestants in debate. I say this because the Roman rite of Ordination explicitly consecrates the ordinand "as a priest". Not as a certain category of priest, but just as a priest, implying that he was not regarded by Rome as a priest before that time.
You might respond that the fine differences are understood by Catholics but ar not stated. But they are not understood, for if I ask a Catholic on the street, "Are you a priest?" then he says No, I'm in such-a-congregation where Father So-and-so is THE PRIEST. And Rome knows very well that this is how its laity sees itself and makes no effort to teach its flock otherwise.
Someone once overheard me discussing theology in public and asked me if I was a priest. I replied Yes, but not ordained, and it drew the guy into a constructive conversation which I was able to turn to Christ. How he responded was up to him, but he heard the gospel and did so because I understood my position.
"By the 1570s, the Church was dying. It was death by a thousand cuts, caused by Elizabeth’s policy of isolating the Catholic community, denying it priests to celebrate the sacraments, and a host of fines and humiliations that left a leaderless and apathetic Catholic community."
The true church actually does rather well under persecution; remember Tertullian's comment in the early days that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church? And look at China today, where Maoist persecution led to enormous growth. If a church fails to flourish under persecution it is because of lack of faith.
"Traitors or Martyrs? The difficulty in these show trials and murders by the English government was that it did not want the perception that priests were being killed for their religious beliefs... Instead, the English government argued that these priests were being killed because their actions threatened to undermine English liberties. They were deemed traitors... They could have what religious beliefs they wanted, the government argued. But as priests, and particularly as Jesuits, they were, by their nature, dedicated to the overthrow of Elizabeth and subverters of the rights of Englishmen."
How can you deny that when the Pope himself said so? Pius V’s bull Regnans in Excelsis of 1570 stated that “We deprive… Elizabeth of her pretended claim to the kingdom…. And we command and forbid her lords, subjects and peoples to obey her.” As for your claim that they were executed solely for their faith, how do you explain the fact that no Catholics were executed in the decade preceding Pius' vain Bull but some 170 were executed from that date on?
If you regard freedom of conscience as a good thing, you are a beneficiary of the Reformation, although it took more than a century to shake off Catholic habits.
Savvy,
You wrote:
I still have to disagree. A passing reference does not qualify as defining dogma or doctrine.
The doctrine defined at the council of Chalcedon was confirming the two natures of Christ.
The immaculate conception still needed time to be studied and worked out.
If you disagree with this view, maybe you could point me to an authoritative source of the Magisterium that holds this was about the Immaculate Conception.
My main point is that the RCC has a doctrine specifically codified (immaculate conception) by virtue of a Pope speaking ex cathedra which is specifically contradicted in an earlier document recognized by the RCC (Chalcedon) – even if it’s a passing reference. If we are to accept that in each of these instances that both Popes were speaking authoritatively, certainly we’d expect their words to be in total harmony. Yet they’re not.
Given that the doctrine of the immaculate conception was still being “studied and worked out” as you say, it wouldn’t have been specifically stated in any earlier authoritative document prior to the ‘working out’ of this doctrine in any way which would run counter to the later document, would it? That defies logic.
[continued]
[continued]
Moreover, Luke 1:28, the proof-text for promoting the doctrine of the immaculate conception, deserves closer scrutiny. The reason given for Mary’s lack of original sin is that the verb translated favored/graced is in the Greek perfect passive participle [ppp]. Coincidentally, in the previous verse, Luke 1:27, this same verb tense is used for espoused/betrothed:
27 To a virgin espoused [ppp] to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured [ppp], the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. [KJV]
See here:
http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=luke+1%3A27-28§ion=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na
Without getting too technical regarding the Greek verb tense, let’s just apply the same logic applied to favored/graced to the verb espoused/betrothed. The doctrine of immaculate conception makes the claim that the verb tense here indicates Mary was born without original sin; i.e. she is perpetually favored and hence sinless. (Please correct me if I’m not exactly correct on this.) Using this same logic in Luke 1:27, we’d have to say that Mary is perpetually espoused/betrothed as in forever in the state of betrothal. Yet, of course, this is not true as Mary and Joseph were eventually married (cf. Matthew 1:18-25). There’s something amiss here.
Given that sin is not a necessary and sufficient condition of humanity – as Adam and Eve were not created with original sin/guilt – it would seem that the easiest manner in which to consider Jesus not inheriting man’s original sin/guilt post-Fall is that He would take all our human nature from Mary with the exception of original sin/guilt.
Anon@3:42 a.m.
You are just arguing in round circles on this one. Nobody was being killed, but the faith was under attack. This is why the Pope spoke out.
The idea the not being able to flourish under persecution is an indication of lack of faith, is not always true. Since God works in centuries.
Catholics today are more active in church than Anglican are.
The English Martyrs said, that England would return to the faith.
Freedom of conscience, is not a result of the reformation, which was anti-intellectual.
Luther called, reason the whore of faith.
It was a result of the natural law tradition that comes from the Catholic church.
There were and are far more schools of thought in Catholicism than there are in all Protestant churches combined.
Sola Scriptura does not stand on its own, because everybody reads scripture through the tradition of their respective churches.
Criag,
If you read the church fathers, saints and Popes, you will find that they disagreed with each other.
This why there exists a Magisterium, which shares the charism of infallibility, not just the Pope.
In a council, all sides for and against and heard, before a decision is made.
A personal statement made by the Pope does not qualify, because it one it's a different topic being discussed by the magisterium.
Does this made sense?
This link might help too.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ImmaculateConceptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm
Immaculate conception is the concept that God preserved Mary, from original sin, ahead of time.
But this was manifested at her conception.
The espoused argument only makes sense from the point of view that God knows all things.
If Mary is the new Eve then this does make sense.
Jesus would have been at war with his mother otherwise.
To say she was only the mother of his human nature, goes back to Nestorianism, because she is the mother of the man-God Jesus Christ, not just one part of him, since these two natures are not separable.
Savvy
Anon@3:31 a.m.
Deflect and change is not an argument. You might want to refute the document instead of nitpicking.
Anon@3:31 pm.
Most well-informed people know that when priest is used for someone who celebrates Mass. It stands for sacrificial priest.
Anon@3:19 p.m.
There are lots of times when Protestants have not heeded the message of Christ. I do not use this as an argument against Sola Scriptura, because it's dishonest.
The Inquisition was a lot tamer, than the treatment of slaves in the American South.
Savvy,
You wrote:
A personal statement made by the Pope does not qualify, because it one it's a different topic being discussed by the magisterium.
But, this was not merely a personal statement of Pope Leo I. It was a letter (Tome) regarding proper Christology which was deemed as if Peter had spoken and ratified/affirmed at Chalcedon. That makes it (the fact that the document was deemed as from the chair of Peter) ex cathedra, does it not? To reiterate the point I made earlier, if Popes are infallible when speaking ex cathedra, then we have two Popes both speaking ex cathedra which do not agree with one another. They both cannot be right. And, the Magisterium must, by RCC definition, agree with Popes in ex cathedra since all are deemed infallible.
You also wrote:
To say she was only the mother of his human nature, goes back to Nestorianism, because she is the mother of the man-God Jesus Christ, not just one part of him, since these two natures are not separable.
Accepting that the Word was enfleshed at some point in time (at the Incarnation) does not amount to Nestorianism. From the point of the Incarnation and forward the Word was in hypostatic union with human nature - not before this, in terms of temporality.
You also wrote, The espoused argument only makes sense from the point of view that God knows all things.
How can you make two separate arguments from the same Greek syntax, i.e. when both "espoused" and "favored" are in the exact same verb tense/voice/mood?
Craig,
Ex-cathedra only applies when declaring something dogma, by defining it .
It also has to be in the affirmative and not negative.
It only applies to a particular in this case, the two natures of Christ.
It's never made for two statements at the same time.
It's also very rarely used.
" From the point of the Incarnation and forward the Word was in hypostatic union with human nature - not before this, in terms of temporality."
Yes, but the Word incarnated was in hypostatic union.
I cannot call my mother, just the mother of my body, I have to call her the mother of the person me.
"How can you make two separate arguments from the same Greek syntax, i.e. when both "espoused" and "favored" are in the exact same verb tense/voice/mood?"
Because they mean two different things. A lot of things can be used in the same tense, that does not mean they mean the same thing.
Savvy
Savvy,
I hope we're not talking past one another inadvertantly. I'm trying my best to communicate clearly.
I don't believe you answered my question: was Pope Leo I speaking ex cathedra in his Tome? This is given the fact that Leo himself claimed it was divine inspiration and the members of Chalcedon proclaimed after its reading:
"This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo..."
Isn't 'Peter speaking through Leo' considered ex cathedra?
You wrote, "Yes, but the Word incarnated was in hypostatic union." I'm sorry but I am not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that at the virginal conception the Word was already in hypostatic union with human nature rather than at the moment of conception the union was made?
Verb tense/voice/mood indicates the way in which to interpret the verb within the sentence.
Anon@1.33pm: I'm happy to let people who read this blog decide whether my comments at 3.31am regarding the priesthood are nitpicking. But three questions for you:
The RC rite of ordination just says that the ordinand is consecrated AS A PRIEST. Not as a 'sacrificial priest'. This wording implies that Rome in practice does not regard him "as a priest" beforehand, does it not?
Rome is surely aware that pew Catholics do not regard themselves as priests of any sort (the categories you assert are the real nitpicking), as if they are asked then they invariably say "My priest is Father John at St Bartholomew's", etc. Why does Rome not take steps to educate its 'laity' that they are in fact priests.
Are you a priest?
"You are just arguing in round circles on this one. Nobody was being killed [in the early part of Queen Elizabeth's reign], but the faith was under attack. This is why the Pope spoke out."
Yes, but look at what he said. He claimed to depose her, and he told Catholics to disobey her. If that is intended as his response to an attack on Catholicism in England then it was a particularly foolish one. Wiser would have been to bury the papal ego and negotiate. The response to his declaration was entirely predictable and the declaration also lost the Catholic church the sympathy of many of England's influential people.
"The idea the not being able to flourish under persecution is an indication of lack of faith, is not always true. Since God works in centuries."
So tell me what was different in Elizabethan England than Maoist China or the early church, that caused Catholicism to wither in the former when it was persecuted?
"Catholics today are more active in church than Anglican are."
That's a bit of a generalization, but in some places you might be right. I'm neither Anglican nor Catholic BTW.
"Freedom of conscience, is not a result of the reformation, which was anti-intellectual... It was a result of the natural law tradition that comes from the Catholic church."
Funny then that it reached lands which stayed Catholic after the Reformation only from outside.
"The Inquisition was a lot tamer, than the treatment of slaves in the American South."
Probably true, but those slaves were not maltreated by an organisation that dared to claim it was Christ's body on earth while leaving a trail of torture behind it.
While searching for something else entirely, I came across this:
http://www.riverstyxfoundation.org/about-us-2/about-us-2/
END-OF-LIFE
"Similarly, the lack of acceptance and fear around death and dying has resulted in massive expenditures of often frivolous and artificial attempts to minimally prolong life at the end, while missing opportunities for reduction of suffering by shifting towards systems of palliative and hospice care. For instance, more than half of Medicare dollars are spent on patients who die within two months, costing tax payers over $300 billion annually, often adding stress to families and reducing the quality of life for many patients. This cultural 'death denial' has also prevented society from empowering mentally sound individuals to be able to take greater control over their pain and the timing of their own death."
Your Obamacare at work!
Please note that in Greek mythology the river Styx was a passage to the underworld, separating the living from the dead.
Note also the rewilding of the Pacific NW:
http://www.riverstyxfoundation.org/education/conservation-northwest/
It gets worse!
http://www.riverstyxfoundation.org/compassion/maps/
Multi-Disciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies
(National, Based in Sant Cruz, CA)
MAPS’ mission is
1.to treat conditions for which conventional medicines provide limited relief—such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), pain, drug dependence, anxiety and depression associated with end-of-life issues—by developing psychedelics and marijuana into prescription medicines;
2.to cure many thousands of people by building a network of clinics where treatments can be provided; and
3.to educate the public honestly about the risks and benefits of psychedelics and marijuana.
Psychedelics?
Can you spell (Greek) pharmakeia; i.e. sorcery, witchcraft, magical arts, medicine?
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/pharmakeia.html
Revelation 9:21:
21 and they did not repent of their murders nor of their sorceries [pharmakeia] nor of their immorality nor of their thefts. [NASB]
21 Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts [pharmakeia], their sexual immorality or their thefts. [NIV 1984]
Revelation 18:23:
23 and the light of a lamp will not shine in you any longer; and the voice of the bridegroom and bride will not be heard in you any longer; for your merchants were the great men of the earth, because all the nations were deceived by your sorcery [pharmakeia]. [NASB]
23 The light of a lamp
will never shine in you again.
The voice of bridegroom and bride
will never be heard in you again.
Your merchants were the world’s great men.
By your magic spell [pharmakeia] all the nations were led astray. [NIV 1984]
Mary is mother of God, not because she predates God, but because God the Son, when He took human flesh was born from her, and what came out of her womb was BOTH God AND man, so though she is the mother in the sense of provider, origin, whatever, of His humanity not of His divinity, BOTH came out of her, in terms of birth.
ergo she is defacto Mother of God.
To say otherwise, is to imply that Jesus was in some way not God until later or something like that, or that God the Son attached Himself to Jesus the man though of course many who merely don't think things through do not mean that.
Christine,
Then she should be called the "mother of the Messiah".
Wouldn't that be more accurate AND less prone to
misinterpretation by the general public ?
She hardly gave birth to the Godhead.
While I disagree with Hank Hanegraaff on quite a few things, I'd say he's spot on in this:
http://www.equip.org/perspectives/the-theotokos-the-mary-of-roman-catholicism/
Thinking out loud, I wonder if theanthropotokos (bearer of the God-man) rather than theotokos (bearer of God) would have been more appropriate and less likely to lead to the veneration of Mary?
Would it be too simple to call her the mother of Jesus like the New Testament does?
Anon. 5:23
What a concept !
Well, well, a simple concept brought forth on this blog! Just wonderful old Scripture! There are a few here that love to darken counsel without knowledge (see Job 38:2). You know who you are, and if you don't, ask God. He'll answer you like He answered Job (provided that you would listen to the Almighty!).
Javier Solana is the author of a new story about the Syrian situation called "Toward a Syria Consensus." You can read it, if interested, at http://tinyurl.com/ctzzg5f
Constance
Where is Suzanne? I would like her viewpoint on the online debate raging here between Protestants and Catholics?
Javier Solana is a candidate to succeed Kofi Annan as UN envoy to Syria. Tinyurl link is up on my TWITTER site.
http://tinyurl.com/9asmkpv
Mary gave birth to God the Son not the Godhead God the Father because it is God The Son Who entered her womb as God and came out as God-man.
After His birth, He remained God, so she gave birth to God, not as the originator of the unoriginate, but as the birth giver of Him in His Incarnation.
The whole issue of "theotokos" was centered on the issue of nestorianism attempting to limit Jesus' divinity or divide Him into two persons, having effectively confused nature with person. This is the key problem with almost all if not all Christological heresies.
Mother of the Messiah would not do, because that would be Christotokos, and would not resolve the issue of how to state things so as to make Jesus' divinity clear.
When the Apostles wrote, anyone reading it or hearing it already had Jesus' divinity clear in their mind. This man is YHWH in the flesh. But with the passage of time, things got wierd.
in a family centered society you are going to venerate the king's mother along with the king. In Jewish tradition, the queen was not the king's wife but his mother.
http://www.thetruthbehindthescenes.org/2011/02/19/nibiru-tyche-planet-x-admitted-by-scientists-nasa-shuts-down-space-telescope-wise/
getting strange again, we don't need nibiru on a flyby to have all the trouble it is said to cause. All we need is this thing to periodically disrupt things in the Oort Cloud and send them higglety pigglety into the asteroid belt, not to mention the NEO Earth crossing or Earth parallel orbiting stuff, knock them out of orbit and oops, in our direction.
a huge impactor or several could trigger the crustal displacement, which would be, from the perspective of those on the surface, as bad as and similar to an axis shift though not a flip to upside down. Volcanic winter or similar from debris flung into the atmosphere. Tsunamis several hundred or a thousand feet high.
Back to square one.
study up on preparedness, and if you have been having nightmares about destruction in your vicinity, move. It might be a warning from God (but maybe ask Him to cause the dream to repeat if it was from Him, and to block the flesh and the devil from counterfeiting such a repeat.)
I don't get the desire to make the point that Jesus is divine in the same phrase that says his mother was Mary. People can take in two points in two sentences. But if you insist, how about calling her the "Mother of God-incarnate"? (The dash is to show that 'incarnate' goes with God, not with Mother.) I'm protestant and entirely happy with that.
There is some merit in getting scientific information from reliable sources rather than wild ones. Here is what is really going on re Tyche:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyche_(hypothetical_planet)
In summary, there is a weak statistical bias in the data suggesting that comets do not come in equally from all parts of the sky. Possible explanations are: chance (it's a weak effect); the Oort cloud is not in fact isotropic; something is disturbing the Oort cloud in an anisotropic way. IF you go for option 3 then ONE possible explanation is a large planet-sized body - which is now being looked for.
Maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. we shall know in a few months. I object to identifying it as Nibiru because if you don't define Nibiru in advance then almost any new object in the solar system could be trumpeted as such. The name becomes a catch-all for small asteroids, large outermost planets and even comets, not to mention fantasies.
However I would not be surprised if the bodies that clearly smash into the Earth in the Book of Revelation have their origin in the Oort cloud and are tipped into collision orbit by an earlier encounter within the cloud.
Physicist
Anon@3:47
The bull was a bull of excommunication against her, for banning Catholic practises in a reunited church and fining Catholics if they did not attend Protestant services, and for deposing priests who did not agree with her.
It obviously drove her mad.
"So tell me what was different in Elizabethan England than Maoist China or the early church, that caused Catholicism to wither in the former when it was persecuted?"
It did not wither, it went underground.
The attempts to stamp it out did succeed.
"Funny then that it reached lands which stayed Catholic after the Reformation only from outside."
This is inaccurate. The reformers were not tolerant, once they had power on their side. They persecuted others.
The Protestant Inquisition and Torture
A. Johann von Dollinger
"Historically nothing is more incorrect than the assertion that the Reformation was a movement in favour of intellectual freedom. The exact contary is the truth. For themselves, it is true, Lutherans and Calvinists claimed liberty of conscience . . . but to grant it to others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side. The complete extirpation of the Catholic Church, and in fact of everything that stood in their way, was regarded by the reformers as something entirely natural." (51;v.6:268-9/1)
Janssen, author of a 16-volume history of Germany during "Reformation" times, claimed that:
"The Protestant sects derided each other in just as immoderate and undignified a way as they one and all derided the papacy . . . Cursing and blaspheming were as frequent as praying was rare." (111;v.16:4-5)
Rousseau says truly:
"`The Reformation was intolerant from its cradle, and its authors were universal persecutors' . . .
Auguste Comte also writes:
"`The intolerance of Protestantism was certainly not less tyrannical than that with which Catholicism is so much reproached.' (Philosophie Positive, vol.4, p.51).
Will Durant
"The cities found Protestantism profitable . . . for a slight alteration in their theological garb they escaped from episcopal taxes and courts, and could appropriate pleasant parcels of ecclesiastical property . . . The princes . . . could be spiritual as well as temporal lords, and all the wealth of the Church could be theirs . . . The Lutheran princes suppressed all monasteries in their territory except a few whose inmates had embraced the Protestant faith." (122:438-9)
After Hus's execution in 1415, zealous ragtag armies:
"Passed up and down Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia . . . pillaging monasterles, massacring monks, and compelling the population to accept the Four Articles of Prague . . ." (122:169)
Erasmus' Disdain of Protestant Plunder
The greatest scholar and man of letters in Europe at this time, Erasmus, who looked with some favor upon the "Reformation" initially, but came to despise it as he saw its fruits, wrote on May l0, 1521, just a few weeks after the Diet of Worms, about those who "covet the wealth of the churchmen." He goes on to say:
"This certainly is a fine turn of affairs, if property is wickedly taken away from priests so that soldiers may make use of it in worse fashion; and the latter squander their own wealth, and sometimes that of others, so that no one benefits." (117:l57)
Zwingli's Zurich was definitely not a haven of Christian freedom:
"The presence at sermons . . . was enjoined under pain of punishment; all teaching and church worship that deviated from the prescribed regulations was punishable. Even outside the district of Zurich the clergy were not allowed to read Mass or the laity to attend. And it was actually forbidden, `under pain of severe punishment, to keep pictures and images even in private houses' . . . The example of Zurich was followed by other Swiss Cantons." (111;v.5:134-5)
The Mass was abolished in Zurich in 1525 (121:117). How did Zwingli's ideas spread?:
"Their progress was marked by the destruction of churches and the burning of monasteries. The bishops of Constance, Basle, Lausanne and Geneva were forced to abandon their sees." (46:81-2)
3. Farel (Geneva)
William Farel, who preceded Calvin in Geneva, helped to abolish the Mass in August,1535, seize all the churches, and close its four monasteries and nunnery. (123:8)
"His sermons in St. Peter's were the occasion of riots; statues were smashed, pictures destroyed, and the treasures of the church, to the amount of 10,000 crowns, disappeared." (45:226-7)
4. Bucer (Augsburg / Ulm / Strassburg)
"Martin Bucer . . . though anxious to be regarded as considerate and peaceable . . . advocated quite openly `the power of the authorities over consciences'
Scotland: John Knox
In Scotland, John Knox and his ilk passed legislation in which:
"It was . . . forbidden to say Mass or to be present at Mass, with the punishment for a first offence of loss of all goods and a flogging; for the second offence, banishment; for the third, death." (45:300)
This is just a small part of the persecution against. Catholics. They even persecuted other Protestant heretics.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones at others.
Craig,
To respond to your question. ONLY doctrinal statements are ex-cathedra, not everything else in a given document.
Those who praised this praised the conclusion about the doctrine on the natures of Christ.
Savvy
Protestant Torture
Janssen quotes a Protestant eyewitness
"The Protestant theologian Meyfart . . . described the tortures which he had personally witnessed . . . 'The subtle Spaniard and the wily Italian have a horror of these bestialities and brutalities, and at Rome it is not customary to subject a murderer . . . an incestuous person, or an adulterer to torture for the space of more than an hour'; but in Germany . . . torture is kept up for a whole day, for a day and a night, for two days . . . even also for four days . . . after which it begins again . . . 'There are stories extant so horrible and revolting that no true man can hear of them without a shudder.'" (111;v.16:516-18,521)
He gives also another typical instance of the treatment of Anabaptists:
"At Augsburg, in the first half of the year 1528, about 170 Anabaptists of both sexes were either imprisoned or expelled by order of the new-religionist Town Council. Some were . . . burnt through the cheeks with hot irons; many were beheaded; some had their tongues cut out." (111;v.5:160)
Catholic Maryland: The First Tolerant American Colony
B. Martin Marty (P)
"Baltimore . . . welcomed, among other English people, even the Catholic-hating Puritans (8) . . . In January of 1691 . . . the new regime brought hard times for Catholics as the Protestants closed their church, forbade them to teach in public . . . but . . . the little outpost of practical Catholic tolerance had left its mark of promise on the land." (9)
C. John Tracy Ellis
"For the first time in history . . . all churches would be tolerated, and . . . none would be the agent of the government . . . Catholics and Protestants side by side on terms of equality and toleration unknown in the mother country . . . The effort proved vain; for . . . the Puritan element . . . October, 1654, repealed the Act of Toleration and outlawed the Catholics . . . condemning ten of them to death, four of whom were executed . . . From . . . 1718 down to the outbreak of the Revolution, the Catholics of Maryland were cut off from all participation in public life, to say nothing of the enactments against their religious services and . . . schools for Catholic instruction . . .
During the half-century the Catholics had governed Maryland they had not been guilty of a single act of religious oppression." (10)
D. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (P)
"In the 17th century the most notable instances of practical toleration were the colonies of Maryland, founded by Lord Baltimore in 1632 for persecuted Catholics, which offered asylum also to Protestants, and of Rhode Island, founded by Roger Williams." (78:1383)
Stories of Protestant intolerance in America prior to 1789 could be multiplied indefinitely. Jefferson and Madison, in pushing for complete religious freedom, were reacting primarily to these inter-Protestant wars for dominance, not the squabbles of post-Reformation Europe. Here we are concerned with the immediate era of the Protestant Revolution - roughly 1517 to 1600, so the above anecdotes will have to suffice as altogether typical examples.
Constance,
Thank you for that link about Javier Solana being candidate for UN envoy to Syria. That is something very important to keep an eye on.
Savvy,
You wrote, ONLY doctrinal statements are ex-cathedra, not everything else in a given document.
Clearly, you must concede that Leo’s Tome was a doctrinal statement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I
“At the Second Council of Ephesus (commonly called the Robber Council of Ephesus) in 449, Leo's representatives delivered his famous Tome (Latin text, a letter), or statement of the faith of the Roman Church in the form of a letter addressed to Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople, which repeats, in close adherence to Augustine, the formulas of western Christology. The council did not read the letter, and paid no attention to the protests of Leo's legates, but deposed Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who appealed to Rome. Partially due to this, the council was never recognized as ecumenical, and was later repudiated by the Council of Chalcedon.
“It was presented again at the subsequent Council of Chalcedon as offering a solution to the Christological controversies still raging between East and West. This time it was read out. The acts of the council report: ‘After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles…This is the true faith.”
Apparently, Leo I did not argue with the Council’s affirmation that “Peter has spoken thus through Leo” regarding his Tome
For the applicable passage, see page 17 here:
http://tinyurl.com/8sa9dkh
“…What was assumed from the Lord’s mother was nature, not fault…”
[continued]
[cont]
The following site quotes from the Catholic Dictionary:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm
"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."
By the RCC definition above, which matches the definition you provided, Leo, the Archbishop of Rome, Pope Leo I, spoke ex cathedra.
The bottom line is that this “statement of the faith of the Roman Church in the form of a letter”, in effect, contradicts the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness and hence the immaculate conception. Either one must concede that Pope Leo I was not speaking infallibly (ex cathedra) in his Tome in total or that Pope Pius IX did not speak ex cathedra regarding the doctrine of the immaculate conception. One cannot have it both ways.
Craig,
I am consulting an expert on this issue, so I will have to get back to you.
Savvy
"So tell me what was different in Elizabethan England than Maoist China or the early church, that caused Catholicism to wither in the former when it was persecuted?"
"It did not wither, it went underground. The attempts to stamp it out did succeed."
Contradicting yourself...
To Constance's readers: The various comments elicited above about protestant intolerance at the Reformation should be taken in context.
First, the Reformers should be divided into the magisterial Reformers and the radical Reformers. The former believed in taking the movement political, the latter didn't. As Jesus and the apostolic church were apolitical, the latter were correct; but where did the magisterials get the idea of using politics to enforce their views from? From Rome's centuries-long and horrendous tradition. The Reformation eventually did lead to freedom of worship, but it was not achieved by the first generation of Reformers. Contrast that with the Inquisition, the original Thought Police who terrorized an entire continent over centuries using torture in the name of Christ. Torture was explicitly licensed by the Pope (Innocent IV) in the bull Ad Extirpanda in 1252.
The banning of Catholicism in some places was because Rome was a political entity. It's like banning Islam or communism, not like banning a volunteer organization like the Boy Scouts.
Anon@7:36 pm.
I suggest you get a better education in early church teachings, instead of reading Jack Chick comics.
"Contrast that with the Inquisition, the original Thought Police who terrorized an entire continent over centuries using torture in the name of Christ. Torture was explicitly licensed by the Pope (Innocent IV) in the bull Ad Extirpanda in 1252."
Decretal ad extirpanda was issued in 1252 by Pope Innocent IV in response to Catholic lay lynch mobs that went around hunting, torturing, and punishing supposed heretics.
Further, that decretal ad extirpanda declared the Inquisition the only competent authority in such matters, restored the Roman Law of Proofs (innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt).
Although no such action can be justified today, it is important to note that the courts of the medieval inquisition were actually modifying and limiting a practice common to secular judicial proceedings of the time.
The black legend has been debunked by historians.
During the high point of the Spanish Inquisition from 1478-1530 AD, scholars found that approximately 1,500-2,000 people were found guilty. From that point forward, there are exact records available of all "guilty" sentences which amounted to 775 executions.
In the full 200 years of the Spanish Inquisition, less than 1% of the population had any contact with it, people outside of the major cities didn't even know about it.
If we add the figures, we find that the entire Inquisition of 500 years, caused about 6,000 deaths. These atrocities are completely inexcusable. These numbers are however, a far cry from the those used in the popular press by people who are always looking to destroy the Church.
"The banning of Catholicism in some places was because Rome was a political entity. It's like banning Islam or communism, not like banning a volunteer organization like the Boy Scouts."
This is libel, since documents show the banning was based on theological reasons such as the Mass is an abomination, the sacraments are works of law etc.
Have the decency to admit the truth. God will hold you accountable for lies.
Anon@7:08 p.m.
I meant to say the visible church was dying, and worship was mostly underground.
I take it that the posters here are of the fundamentalist breed, because main-line Protestants already admit to their errors. The world will not end if you do too.
I mentioned Ad Extirpanda and you said that it was merely regulating what was already going on in the world. What you are ignoring is that Ad Extirpanda is a document produced by the church, not the world. That means it should be held against the standards of the gospel, not those of power-hungry princes - and Ad Extirpanda explicitly licensed torture. When you defend this document, where is your sense of shame? Please think what impression of the faith you are giving here to uncommitted readers.
Sure, less than 1% of Western Europe's population interacted with the Inquisition. Probably less than 1% of the Soviet Union interacted with the KGB too, but everybody lived in dread of it. And it is false that the Inquisition never extended to rural areas. Ever heard of Montaillou? We know a great deal of medieval social history because a bishop who went on to become an Avignon pope arrested an entire village in the foothills of the Pyrenees - as out of the way as you could get - and interrogated its inhabitants minutely, leaving transcripts that survive. I am glad that God is my judge, not Bishop Fournier.
I don't read Jack Chick. The Catholic church's own documents and the gospel are all that are necessary.
As I said, Catholicism was banned mainly because of its political pretensions, not theological ones. This is why the provisional compromise of Cuius Regio, Eius Religio (meaning that the local prince's religion, Catholic or protestant, shall prevail in his lands) emerged for a period after the Reformation.
Anon 6:50 directly above:
I must have missed the earliest part of this
particular debate.
Help me, when did the quote of Jesus as recorded in both Matthew and Mark, change from him saying
..."the traditions of men and not the commandments of God., to saying ..."the traditions of men and not the traditions of the Apostles" ?
Where does it say the "traditions of the Apostles" ?
I'm looking at a King James version, a New Living translation, and an orthodox Church of the East ( Lamsa) translation and none of them changes the quotes in question, namely Matt. 15:3 and Mark 7:6-13, that Jesus repeatedly says "God's commands", and the "commandments of God", etc.
So when did this conversation/ debate hinge on
the "traditions of the Apostles" because I can't find that in my Bible.
What I mean is, it's a loaded question and/or debate.
So why are you belaboring it ?
That sounds a bit like the Delphi technique, the way you're couching the question, and it makes me wonder why you'd do that.
Paul,
It is pointless to try to explain Catholic theology to you. You are your own Magisterium.
Very disturbing, but not at all surprising...no wonder the LWCR were investigated, they have done so much damage!!!!!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/08/who-is-barbara-marx-hubbard.html
"You are your own magisterium."
It's called conscience. I'm not the guy you wrote these words to, but this is the point, together with what happens next. Do you let him alone or do you persecute him?
In response to yet more Facebook statements by Bill Johnson, I posted a new article in response.
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/round-the-mulberry-bush-with-bill-johnson/
Johnson continually proof-texts John 5:19b, "The Son can do nothing of Himself", such that Jesus was powerless without help from the Father through the Spirit. This article refutes that notion by putting the verse in its proper context.
Anon@5:32 a.m
You are distorting history. The Document was simply quoting existing state law to prevent a mob from taking the law into their own hands.
Not all the cases involved heresy.
The bible is not a law book. It does not have answers to every question. This is exactly why sola scriptura does not work.
I am glad that you have a conscience. In fact it was the natural law theory developed by the church that made governments realize these things were wrong.
In fact evangelicals today support torture and the death penalty a lot more than The catholic church does . Just as they supported slavery based on their readings of the bible.
The avignon papacy was a fake one set up by king Philip of France. It was catholic saints who defended the legitimate pope and fought against this at that time.
Informed conscience is one based on the natural law. Private conscience which has become distorted by sin is not always consistent with this or with objectivity.
You can buy into the lie that the reformers and their followers did not act those who did not share their theological views, but their own quotes prove otherwise.
Take out the plank out of your own eye.
Paul,
Where does the bible explicitly mandate sola scriptura as the only rule of faith?
Anon@ 6:21. p.m.
Is this why you have no shame defending Protestants who called for persecuting those who did not agree with their theological views? Their statements speak for themselves.
Anon@5:32 a.m.
Ad extirpanda quotes 38 existing state laws. Please tell me which one of them advocate torture. They do state that the state cannot kill or injure someone physically.
What In The World Are They Spraying?
(The Chemtrail - Geo-Engineering Coverup Revealed)
Must see video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
What In The World Are They Spraying?
(The Chemtrail - Geo-Engineering Coverup Revealed)
Must see video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
What In The World Are They Spraying?
(The Chemtrail - Geo-Engineering Coverup Revealed)
Must see video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
Anon@5:32 a.m
Heresy in this context refers to those who are gravely harming society,such as those who advocate suicide, fornication, abandoning wives etc. it does not just apply to those who share different views.
An encyclical applies to a certain situation. They are not binding,unless they teach doctrine.
Wow. Just wow. Why am I surprised? I haven't been on the comment thread in MONTHS and I came to see today, and there are the EXACT SAME arguments I saw forever ago.. This is just ridiculous you guys. Quit arguing and quarreling! It is fruitless!
" "traditions of the Apostles" because I can't find that in my Bible."
St. Paul makes reference to information given by him in writing or by word. HOWEVER, a legitimate tradition will not conflict with the Apostolic written material.
Luther and Calvin set up their own Magisteriums and persecuted those who did not agree with them. The insanity that is Sola Scriptura was evident even way back them.
To Jenna @ 1:55 AM:
AMEN!!!!!!!
Anon. 9:31
Who made up the term "sola scriptura" and then
went on to say it's not true ? I don't find the term "sola scriptura" anywhere either.
_Nor the terms "pope", "cardinal", "holy Roman", or
"mother of god" ( although "queen of heaven" is in there when describing an ancient pagan practice ) ,
Every page of the Bible is my evidence.
I see and hear the absolute authority of God on every page. The Holy Spirit, which is the spirit of Truth bears witness.
Why do you need apocryphal writings of men to verify your faulty doctrines ? Why isn't the Bible enough for you ?
Apparently God didn't explain himself well enough for you in his Holy Scriptures and only a highly exalted man in an opulent cathedral, wearing gold and scarlet robes can clarify things for you, if he uses the proper amount of ancient Latin to make his points.
But you can make your stand on the latest Papal Bull if you want to.
Paul,
Catholics hear the absolute authority of God on every page of the Bible also. It has been explained to you MANY times on this blog that the teachings of the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals cannot contradict sacred scripture.
The Bible is not self-interpreting. If it were, all Christians would agree on all matters of doctrine, both large and small. Many Protestants come to Catholicism when they realize that authority of interpretation has to reside somewhere since it is not present in the book itself.
If you took some time to listen and study a little bit instead of cutting down the Catholic Church angrily based on your misunderstanding of its doctrine you could stop wasting everyone's time with your repetitive and sarcastic posts.
I don't agree with Protestant doctrine but I do not come here to this blog obsessing angrily and sarcastically about it, or those who adhere to it. I respect most Protestants on their own terms. Why cannot they respect Catholics on theirs?
A Catholic
Catholics here are diverting attention from Ad Extirpanda, the 1252 papal bull of Innocent IV licensing torture, by talking about its worldly context and about wrongs committed by protestants. I accept that protestants (as well as Catholics) have committed atrocities in the world. I follow Jesus Christ not Martin Luther, so I am free to say that I differ from Luther on, for example, antisemitism. Apparently Catholics do not have the same freedom in their attitude to the Pope even when he licenses torture.
From an online translation of Ad Extirpanda: "I have sent a letter to my beloved sons, the Dominican priors, provincials and inquisitors into heretical wickedness in Lombardy, Marchia Tervisina and Riviera di Romagnola, commanding each of you that you compel recalcitrant individuals by your excommunication and countries by your interdict to submit [to the following regulations]... no.26: The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody, provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs... to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives..."
Ad Extirpanda is a church document, and as such should be held against the standards of the gospel, not against the standards of the world. Context is irrelevant here. Can you imagine Jesus Christ saying that it was OK to torture certain people to get a confession?
Consistent with Ad Extirpanda, the main three methods of torture used by the Inquisition were were the rack (stretching of the body, dislocating the major joints), waterboarding and strappado (hoisting in unnatural positions; the victim might be repeatedly lifted and dropped short of the ground so as to tear muscles and dislocate joints).
I give thanks to God that I am able to have this debate with my Catholic brethren without facing the same horrors myself. The claim that this freedom is due to Catholic Natural Law theory is absurd. The Inquisition was still executing people in Spain in the 18th century, and was abolished by Napoleon.
"In fact evangelicals today support torture and the death penalty a lot more than The catholic church does . Just as they supported slavery based on their readings of the bible."
Torture - show me where an evangelical church supports torture today. (Let's compare like with like, ie church with church.) Death penalty - common enough in Mosaic Law; will you say God was wrong? Slavery - a longstanding evil, but the first empire in history to abolish it did so because of a campaign by protestant evangelicals.
"Informed conscience is one based on the natural law. Private conscience which has become distorted by sin is not always consistent with this or with objectivity."
I largely agree, but too bad that the Pope can declare his own private conscience infallible. A look at some previous Popes, such as Benedict IX, Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) and Julius II does not inspire confidence in the papal conscience.
Why sola scriptura? The tradition in which to read the New Testament is the Old Testament. Jesus was a Jew who lived in a monotheistic culture forged by and recorded in the Old Testament. And no church tradition is needed to make sense of the Old Testament, because it is not about the church. The Old Testament builds upon itself from the Creation onward, an event for which there is no context. So neither Old nor New Testament needs an extra-biblical tradition to interpret it. Jesus regarded the scriptures of his day as uniquely authoritative over Jewish traditions, and His precedent is good enough for me.
Hi there, just wanted to mention, I liked this post. It was practical.
Keep on posting!
Here is my web page - here
Ray B. if you're still out there, what do you think of the message from 8-8-12 @ 11:20 pm at www.thewarningsecondcoming.com ?
Anon@3:24 p.m.
None of the documents you bring up are binding at all. Papal bulls are not binding. You seem to be inventing your own version of Catholicism, that even the pope does not subscribe too.
You are Also confusing impeccability with infallibility. http://www.djdivsa.com//uploads/podcasts/MidnightCity.mp3The pope is not sinless. Infallibility only applies To official teachings on faith and morals.
None of the bad popes taught any doctrine.
The church has never taught that torture is an infallible doctrine or even theology.
Burning at the stake was a form of capital punishment, practiced by Protestants too. Christians inherited laws that already existed. They did not invent them.
This is a non- argument ,since none of your views would qualify as church teaching.
You need to know what you are arguing against.
"None of the documents you bring up are binding at all. Papal bulls are not binding. You seem to be inventing your own version of Catholicism, that even the pope does not subscribe too."
Papal bulls not binding on Catholics? I'd say that YOU are inventing your own version of Catholicism. Sure, you can no doubt find some sophistry in small print somewhere, but in practice a papal bull was most certainly binding, particularly in the high middle ages. What happened to someone who went against one?
I am well aware of Rome's criteria for what count as an 'infallible' papal declaration. Never did I say that the formal statements of most popes were regarded as infallible. I was emphasising the obvious fallibility of the papacy by pointing out some of the particularly corrupt occupants of Peter's See.
So let me ask you: Do you think Innocent IV was right to license torture in Ad Extirpanda? And what do you think Jesus Christ thinks of torture in his name?
Anon Catholic, you wrote that "Burning at the stake was a form of capital punishment, practiced by Protestants too. Christians inherited laws that already existed. They did not invent them."
The church is meant to set an example to the world, not take up its most barbaric practices. Burning people simply for holding other views is appalling and means that Satan has got into the church. That's any church, Catholic or protestant or Orthodox. But only the Catholic church set up an Inquisition that, like the KGB, terrorized an entire continent for centuries - behavior that still seems to be excused by some of the Catholics here. They are doing a far more effective job of discrediting their own organisation than any of the protestants writing here.
Anon:56
No I do not think that he was right. Yes papal bulls that do not deal with doctrine are not binding. A lot saints never went along with them. A crisis in the church also produces saints,who fight it, like st. Catherine of sienna who dragged the fake pope out of his place.
You are once again confusing infallibility with impeccability.
Torture was also condemned by pope Nicholas in 866 a.d. It made a comeback with The revival of ancient roman law by Germanic tribes during the sack of Rome.
The church does not claim popes cannot be corrupt. It just claims that god will not permit them to teach error on matters concerning faith and morals.
"No I do not think that he was right."
I'm genuinely glad to hear it.
"Yes papal bulls that do not deal with doctrine are not binding. A lot saints never went along with them. A crisis in the church also produces saints,who fight it"
There was one such crisis in the early 16th century, regarding the wanton sale of indulgences as ways you could supposedly bribe God to ignore your sin. A man who originally never intended to quit the Roman Catholic church did fight this abuse, but Rome did not heed and he was ultimately left with the choice of shutting up or of protesting against the entire system that condoned it. We all know what happened next.
Anon@5:02 p.m.
Wanton sale of indulgences was not officially sanctioned. Luther was not the only one who protested it. Erasmus and others did too,without leaving the church.
Luther later on wrote letters to his wife, about how things were a lot worse in his own churches, than under the papacy. Lutherans also paid it back in full by stealing from churches and burning down monasteries.
God still restored the church with the council of Trent and many amazing saints at that time.
This is a story of ups and downs up one that endures.
Denominations spilt under pressure. The church has always emerged stronger after a crisis.
"Wanton sale of indulgences was not officially sanctioned. Luther was not the only one who protested it. Erasmus and others did too,without leaving the church."
Yes, but they ultimately stopped at mild protesting, whereas Luther rightly saw it as an intolerable abuse. Had Rome agreed with him, how different might history have been? Luther had no original wish to leave the Catholic church. It excommunicated him for not shutting up about an intolerable abuse. Even then, had it gone along with the scriptural principle that the church is a voluntary movement based on conscience - Jesus never coerced anybody into following him - there need have been no wars.
The counter-Reformation could hardly fail to bring improvements on the era of Rodrigo Borgia and Julius II. How did it do? Here are excerpts from the Rules on Prohibited Books approved by Pius IV in 1564 following the Council of Trent: "Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary." Clement XI, in his 1713 bull Unigenitus, strenuously condemned Bible-reading by the laity. Gregory XVI, in Mirari Vos (1832), condemned freedom of the press and freedom of conscience, which he described as an "absurd and erroneous proposition." Certainly it was treated as such in the Papal States; in 1858 a 6-year-old Jewish boy, Edgardo Mortara, was forcibly and permanently removed from his parents' home there after their maid claimed that she had secretly baptised him when he had fallen ill. Pius IX issued in 1864 a 'Syllabus of Errors' that sought to turn the clock back to mediaevalism, and he did his utmost to deny Rome - the obvious capital - to the nascent unified kingdom of Italy. So I am not particularly impressed with the fruits of the counter-Reformation.
Anon@5:40 p.m.
Your knowledge on these issues is missing facts.
This explains the response to indulgences
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/indulgences.htm
The council forbade certain interpretations of scripture because they has errors in them. By the time Luther died there were 250 denominations. Luther also introduced things that such as sola Fidel, sola scriptura and others that were novel and never held by Christianity.
There were books in the vernacular before the reformation. Only those with errors were forbidden.
See this
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/did_the_catholic_church_forbid_bible_reading.htm
This explains the syllabus in the context it was written
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-syllabus-the-controversy-and-the-context
Freedom of the press was not condemned, but certain forms of propaganda were,.
See.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/read-all-about-it
The Jewish boy has been discussed here
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.ca/2010/02/edgardo-mortara-revisited.html
You have read selective aspects of history. Make sure you read the other side too or you are enagaing in a selective bias.
"The council forbade certain interpretations of scripture because they has errors in them."
That is a common Catholic excuse given for Rome's denial of the scriptures to the people of Western Europe for centuries; but why did Rome not encourage reading of the Vulgate, or license its own translations into the vernacular? It had centuries to do so but it never produced its own translations until after the Reformation.
Laymen were not permitted to own even the Latin Bible, for resolution 14 of the Council of Toulouse (1229) stated that "Lay people are not permitted to possess the books of the Old and New Testament, only the Psalter, Breviary, or the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, and these books not in the vernacular language."
In the late 1530s King Henry VIII of England had a Bible in English placed for reading in every church in the land. The people flocked to it. When his Catholic daughter Mary took the throne, she had them removed.
I've quoted just above how the Council of Trent legislated against common @bible-reading.
Clement XI, in his bull Unigenitus of 1713 condemned, among some ‘Jansenist’ views, the following propositions (nos. 79, 80, 84, 85):
• It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture. Condemned.
• The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all. Condemned.
• To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ. Condemned.
• To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication. Condemned.
Specifically, these propositions were: “declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favouring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned…”
If you are Catholic and you regularly read your Bible, you have protestants to thank.
"By the time Luther died there were 250 denominations."
And before Luther was born there were not one but two, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, each claiming to be the One True Church. How could a medieval guy know which was right?
Please give me a reference for that figure of 250 denominations. Whatever the number it was too big, but this is because Luther never got the Reformation back to the church structure described in the NT - a congregation in each town with no hierarchy above that. A denomination is defined by its hierarchy, and the freedom manifested in the new movement led to multiple denominations when it should have led to none. Catholics think the ideal situation is one hierarchy, but the NT solution is NO hierarchy. We should all stop thinking in hierarchies.
Like quite a few of the URLs you quote, your reference on Edgardo Mortara simply gives more facts without refuting mine, while assiduously refraining from value judgment. I suggest you would not have been so reticent had it been your son who was permanently and forcibly removed from his parents at the age of 6.
THE TWO MAIN REASONS I AM ORTHODOX
questions of legitimacy of Apostolic Succession as raised by some RC Traditionalists and Sedevacantists and the fact that Ribera, through which all RC lineages bottleneck, is without proof of consecration, and
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/intention.htm
The Epiklesis in EO Holy Liturgy explicitly and AFTER the words of consecration by the priest, is invoked to perform the Eucharistic transformation Himself, and is also explicitly invoked in all sacraments great and lesser (what RC calls sacramentals like Holy Water).
The Holy Spirit makes up for whatever is lacking in the priest.
As for who can tell which church RC or EO is original, you have only to look at history, even history from RC sources. Church began in Jerusalem not in Rome. Peter Bishop of Antioch as well as of Rome, so Antioch as petrine as Rome, and it is Rome that fell away from and altered ancient practices and innovated doctrine.
I do not think grace is absent from RC but the fullness instead of partial or a lot of truth and grace is in EO and I am safer in EO.
Anon@6:43:p.m.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
The Church forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful . . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. (CCC 133)
Clement's Bull was based on a list of propositions.
Propositions did not have to be wrong in all senses & contexts - they were also condemned if in their context they were false, or could be taken in an unorthodox sense.
That's why people see Proposition 85, say, in a book of Catholic doctrine, & conclude that the Church has condemned the reading of the Bible as such & in all circumstances - whereas what is condemned was Pasquier Quesnel's Jansenist idea of its necessity.
If it were absolutely necessary, in every sense, to read the Bible would be indispensable for salvation. It may seem odd to take that proposition in so strict a sense - but that is how propositions were judged.
If nobody had a personal Bible before the invention of the printing press, and for centuries before that how could Bible reading be necessary for salvation?
http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=5923
“Let’s ask Our Lady of Guadalupe – the bright star of the first evangelization and the Mother of the New Evangelization – to help us all to be better instruments of the love of God, so that everyone in our world may come to love him,” the archbishop [Jose H. Gomez of Los Angeles] told the coliseum crowd.
...On display at the celebration, for veneration by the faithful, was the only U.S.-based relic of the Tilma of Guadalupe – the saint's garment that was imprinted with a miraculous image of the Virgin.
Though that image has become an unmistakable part of Hispanic culture, its meaning transcends ethnic and geographical boundaries, as Archbishop Gomez stressed in his keynote address.
“Our Lady of Guadalupe is not only the Mother of the people of Mexico,” the Los Angeles Church leader observed. “She is the Mother of all the peoples of the Americas! She is the New Eve. She is the Mother of all the living!”
He pointed out that Mary’s message to St. Juan Diego, given at the now-famous Tepeyac Hill, is the same Gospel message that the Church proclaims to all nations and peoples.
“My brothers and sisters, we are all children of Our Lady’s mission at Tepeyac! All of us! We are all Guadalupanos!”
As she appeared to St. Juan Diego, Mary announced herself as both “the mother of the true God” and “your compassionate Mother, yours and that of all the people that live together in this land, and also of all the other various lineages of men.”
Knights of Columbus called to be in front ranks of New Evangelization
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/knights-of-columbus-called-to-be-in-front-ranks-of-new-evangelization/
...Our Lady has a special significance to the Knights, who renewed their dedication to her during their meeting. The Knights also co-sponsored an Aug. 5 Guadalupe Celebration with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, which drew about 100,000 participants.
The bishop [Tod D. Brown of Orange, Calif] explained that Mary’s appearance to St. Juan Diego as a woman of mixed race led millions to turn towards Christianity...
Pointing to St. Juan Diego’s willingness to convey the message of Our Lady of Guadalupe, he stressed that “the success of the New Evangelization will depend on our laity and their involvement.”
“As laity, your lives will act as witness to our faith,” he told the conference participants.
In working to do this, the faithful can confidently seek the support of Our Lady of Guadalupe, “the first evangelizer of our hemisphere,” who five hundred years ago “opened the door of faith … and does so now,” Bishop Brown said.
“Mary said yes to God,” he explained. “Our job is to say yes to the New Evangelization.”
Sola Scriptura or “Solo Scriptura”?
This comment is to no one in particular, but I have a feeling there may participants on both sides of this recent Catholic – Protestant debate who do not fully understand the doctrine of sola Scriptura. True adherents to this doctrine do not disregard the Patristic writers or the early Councils recognizing a ‘tradition’ arising out of the last 2000 years of Christianity. They fully recognize, as the 2nd link below states “All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation?”
Adherents to “Solo Scriptura” reject all authority and base their theology on their own interpretation solely – a true anarchical approach. Every man is his own island. This is so obviously wrong as the 2nd article makes clear.
This first link is more to the point, while the second is more informative:
http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/faculty-blog/96-regular-content/462-solo-scriptura
http://tinyurl.com/5bj22y
[apologies if this gets posted twice as the first appears lost.]
Anon@7:00 p.m.
"Whatever the number it was too big, but this is because Luther never got the Reformation back to the church structure described in the NT - a congregation in each town with no hierarchy above that. "
This is your particular interpretation of scripture. Nt one held by the early church. Luther got rid of the theology, so it made no sense in keeping the structure in my opinion.
You might want to read Edgardo's story in his own words, where he himself told his parents he had no desire to return to them, because this was what he felt God was calling him to do.
He eventually became a priest.
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope025501.htm
I personally do not know what to make of this story.
I will also add that I do not know the members of your church or you do not know mine.
I am not convinced by your once saved always saved philosophy. Catholic concepts on sin are more realistic.
I do appreciate your interest, in these discussion. I have to leave, so I would refer you to Catholic forums if you want to discuss more.
Christine,
Antioch was the seat of Peter, before Peter and Paul went to Rome, and were martyred.
Craig,
In your comment, you said:
Apparently, Leo I did not argue with the Council’s affirmation that “Peter has spoken thus through Leo” regarding his Tome
For the applicable passage, see page 17 here:
http://tinyurl.com/8sa9dkh
“…What was assumed from the Lord’s mother was nature, not fault…”
What you are assuming is that Pope Leo is making an authoritative statement to the effect that Mary was not sinless( i.e. Immaculately Conceived ) when he is making no such statement one way or another. You are trying to make the Tome of Leo say something that it simply does not say.
It is true that "What was assumed from the Lord's mother was nature, not fault..." But this is not the same thing as saying that Mary was not sinless.
At the end of the day, the Roman Catholic Christian doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is:
a classic example of the development of doctrine. Theologians distinguish three stages in the progressive awareness of a revealed truth not explicitly contained in the sources of revelation. The first stage is implicit acceptance, the period of tranquil possession. The second stage in the development of a dogma is the period of discussion and controversy, during which the precise meaning of the doctrine is clarified, as well as its relationship to Revelation and to other doctrines. In the third stage, the doctrine is received by the entire Church, is the common teaching of the ordinary magisterium or finally even solemnly defined.
In the present case, the first stage was the tranquil acceptance of the unique graces and privileges of Mary, which, as we now know, imply the Immaculate Conception. The early Christians accepted Mary's singular position as Mother of God, as ever a virgin, as all-holy, as the New Eve. Thereby they implicitly accepted the Immaculate Conception, which is implied by the divine motherhood. During the first period of undisputed acceptance, the first liturgical evidences appear: Feasts of the Conception of St. Anne, hymns, homilies......read more...
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/ImmaculateConceptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm
To Leo , Mariology is determined by Christology. If Christ would be divine only, everything on him would be divine. His eating would be symbolism. Only his divinity would have been crucified, buried and resurrected. Mary would only be the mother of God, and Christians would have no hope for their own resurrection. The nucleus of Christianity would be destroyed.[13] He asks for the veneration of the Virgin Mary both at the manger and at the throne of the heavenly father. The most unusual beginning of a truly human life through her was to give birth to Jesus, the Lord and Son of King David.[14] .........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariology_of_the_popes#Leo_the_
Bottom line....what we know about Mary is primarily important not because of what it tellas us about Mary, but because of what it tells us about Jesus. As stated earlier, to Leo the Great, Mariology was determined by Christology.
Savvy
Savvy,
So, in your own words, what do you think Leo meant by his words:
What was assumed from the Lord's mother was nature, not fault...
Specifically, what does he mean by "fault"?
I am curious what the RCC's position is on the fact that Peter was absent from the very first Council - the Council of Jerusalem of Acts 15 (circa 49/50 AD). Reading through the text, the controversy started in Antioch with Paul and Barnabas present who subsequently went to Jerusalem. It was at Jerusalem the decision was made after James had spoken. After this, Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch. Peter is never mentioned at all in this narrative.
In addition, I'm curious what the RCC's understanding is of Paul's rebuke to Peter at Antioch (Galatians 2:11ff) on a matter which would seem to fall under "faith and morals".
Savvy,
The last article you cite, Leo/Mariology, with the quote on Christology by Leo I and the paragraph following merely affirms Jesus was human in addition to His divine status. It's to refute a docetic (that Jesus only 'seemed' human) understanding of Jesus Christ. It does not speak to the issue at hand, namely, what does the term "fault" or "without the guilt" mean? To turn that around and state it was Mary who was "without the guilt" is to wrest it from its given context; so, that cannot be the proper understanding.
Dear Anon/8.14pm,
Yes, I agree that it was not possible for every home to have a Bible before Gutenberg invented printing using moveable metal type. This privilege was in practice confined to monasteries and bishops. (Moreover, most people could not read, although there was not much pressure for literacy in the absence of a publishing industry.) I regard this as a major reason why Luther, soon after Gutenberg, did what Wyclif had failed to do earlier.
But the Roman Catholic church did nothing to ease the situation. The Pope could have instituted a program of Bible study in every parish, led by its priest. It would have taken a generation or two to put in place, but the medieval church thought on long timescales. And the quotes I have supplied from its own documents show that nothing was farther from its mind than a laity that could think about the scriptures for itself - and contrast church practice against the Bible.
Me: "Whatever the number it was too big, but this is because Luther never got the Reformation back to the church structure described in the NT - a congregation in each town with no hierarchy above that. "
You: "This is your particular interpretation of scripture. Nt one held by the early church. Luther got rid of the theology, so it made no sense in keeping the structure in my opinion."
Talk of 'interpretations' of scripture ignores a crucial fact - most scriptures are real easy to understand, although harder to live by. 'Interpretation' enters only when there is ambiguity or dissembling. Each congregation in the NT was run by a plurality of male Elders/Overseers (presbyteroi/episkopoi, same guys - verses on request) instituted originally by its founding apostolos, who would retain authority there but whose gift was church planting and would soon have moved on to found congregations elsewhere (and soon have passed away to glory). No hierarchy is described above that. Central direction of the church comes from heaven (Ephesians 1:22). In Jesus’ forthright letters to seven congregations in Asia Minor, dictated to John for delivery by each congregation’s angelic messenger (Rev 2&3), Jesus takes personal responsibility for congregational oversight. He does not criticise their mutual independence or order a diocesan merger.
"You might want to read Edgardo's story in his own words, where he himself told his parents he had no desire to return to them, because this was what he felt God was calling him to do."
That would be how he felt after a few years of brainwashing after being torn from his parents at the impressionable age of 6, but are you really saying that he felt like that at the time of his kidnapping?
"I am not convinced by your once saved always saved philosophy. Catholic concepts on sin are more realistic."
You must have come across Once Saved Always Saved from some other protestant Anon. I know committed Christians who believe this and I dispute it with them without falling out with them.
"Propositions did not have to be wrong in all senses & contexts - they were also condemned if in their context they were false, or could be taken in an unorthodox sense. That's why people see Proposition 85, say, in a book of Catholic doctrine, & conclude that the Church has condemned the reading of the Bible as such & in all circumstances - whereas what is condemned was Pasquier Quesnel's Jansenist idea of its necessity."
I agree that Clement XI's bull Unigenitus of 1713 had its origins in tussles with the Jansenists, but look at what he actually condemned in that bull: Quesnel's propositions that
• It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.
• The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.
• To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.
• To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication.
These propositions were: “declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favouring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned…” Clement is not saying here that there is something to discuss, and picking the good from the bad: he is rubbishing these propositions utterly and totally. If he merely disagreed with the Jansenist views, why was he not more specific in condemning only the Jansenist position whist welcoming Bible reading by the laity? Why condemn proposition 80, that "the reading of Sacred Scripture is for all"?
Could it be that Rome consistently kept the Bible out of the hands of the laity because it was frightened that they would see the discrepancies between Rome's practices and scripture?
Me: "By the time Luther died there were 250 denominations."
You: "Please give me a reference for that figure of 250 denominations."
Ducked once, so far.
"The pamphlets published by Luther and Calvin were filled with all manner of crude and dirty language (lots of references to "shitting," "pissing," and "farting"), and this was done to capture the imagination of the common man"
References please.
"None of the documents you bring up are binding at all. Papal bulls are not binding. You seem to be inventing your own version of Catholicism, that even the pope does not subscribe too."
This is fantasy. In medieval times the papacy had the practical power to tell Europe's crowned heads what to do - or else. Innocent III and other medieval popes sat at the apex of a vast hierarchy of power that was as temporal in character as any. If kings had to give way, what of their subjects?
"Luther also introduced things that such as sola Fidel, sola scriptura and others that were novel and never held by Christianity."
Sola scriptura has already been defended here. As for Sola Fidei, that is exactly what Paul says. St Paul bust a gut trying to keep the Law of Moses, and when he came to the realisation that it was faith that mattered it was a huge relief to him. Luther trod the same path, doing Catholicism, and reached the same realisation thanks to a wise superior and access to the scriptures. Luther did however misunderstand the letter of James. The truth is that good works - or, more accurately, better works than before your conversion - are a sign of your faith. But it is your faith that God gracefully accepts.
Anon@5:11 p.m.
"But the Roman Catholic church did nothing to ease the situation. The Pope could have instituted a program of Bible study in every parish, led by its priest."
The council fathers decreed on April 8, 1546, ". . . the synod, following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testament, --seeing that one God is the author of both, . . . ."
however, I did find decrees regarding UNAPPROVED and or FAULTY translations of the Scrtiptures.
Just as with theological works, the Church asserted her role over their legitimate use. To suggest that the council of Trent opposed the authentic Word of God is untrue.
Second, the prohibition for Catholics in joining Bible Societies was due to the fact that these said groups did not use Scriptures approved by Church sources and were quite anti-Catholic in their approach.
Again, this was no disdain for the holy Scriptures, only for the malicious intent by which some men use them.
Obviously, the Church preferred that Catholics read bibles which reflected the orthodox Catholic interpretation of the Word of God.
"And the quotes I have supplied from its own documents show that nothing was farther from its mind than a laity that could think about the scriptures for itself - and contrast church practice against the Bible."
You seem to have trouble understanding things in context. This is the most Biblical church.
Protestants have moved beyond even the reformers in their theological views.
If you read the Apostolic fathers of the 1st and 2nd century, you will find them very Catholic.
"Talk of 'interpretations' of scripture ignores a crucial fact - most scriptures are real easy to understand, although harder to live by. 'Interpretation' enters only when there is ambiguity or dissembling."
I would have to disagree, since if the Bible could interpret itself there would be no teachers in any church, no Bible studies.
"That would be how he felt after a few years of brainwashing after being torn from his parents at the impressionable age of 6, but are you really saying that he felt like that at the time of his kidnapping?"
You never read his testimony did you? Like I said, he could have really been called by God.
Anon@5:45 p.m.
"Could it be that Rome consistently kept the Bible out of the hands of the laity because it was frightened that they would see the discrepancies between Rome's practices and scripture?"
I have responded to this in the previous post.
Anon@6:03 p.m.
"In medieval times the papacy had the practical power to tell Europe's crowned heads what to do - or else. Innocent III and other medieval popes sat at the apex of a vast hierarchy of power that was as temporal in character as any. If kings had to give way, what of their subjects?"
I do not disagree about trying to find the balance between temporal and spiritual.
Please give me the source for the claims that they had the power to tell Kings what to do.
If this was the case, there would have been no Kings at odd with the Pope like they were.
Me: "That would be how he felt after a few years of brainwashing after being torn from his parents at the impressionable age of 6, but are you really saying that he felt like that at the time of his kidnapping?"
You: "You never read his testimony did you? Like I said, he could have really been called by God."
No, please tell me whether we have his testimony at the time of his kidnapping, and please summarise what he wrote later about his feelings at the time.
God is capable of turning a bad situation into a good one. But here is the question that Catholics never discus spontaneously in regard to the Mortara kidnapping, and I request your answer: Do you think it was right of the Catholic church to kidnap him?
"Each congregation in the NT was run by a plurality of male Elders/Overseers (presbyteroi/episkopoi, same guys - verses on request) instituted originally by its founding apostolos, who would retain authority there but whose gift was church planting and would soon have moved on to found congregations elsewhere (and soon have passed away to glory). No hierarchy is described above that."
Jesus did not write a book. He established a church that put the scriptures together.
As soon as problems arose a permanent structure was needed. The Apostles were there on
the scene, either in person or by letter to remedy the problems.
However, after the first century and the Apostles passing from the scene more problems arose in the second century that was even more severe.
As the church was growing, changes from within and out threatened to extinguish the work and foundation earlier pioneers laid. Hence second
century Church Fathers saw fit to begin to lay an early church structure.
(Ignatius the letter to the Ephesians 6). 1 Clements 1 and 54 outlines —
similar to 1 Timothy 3:1-12 and Titus 1:5-10—what ecclesiastical officer characteristics
should look like.
Ignatius, while on the way to martyrdom in Rome, wrote his letters to oppose heresies, to deal with issues of how to view correctly
the ecclesiastical office and officers and how to function within the church.
"Please give me the source for the claims that they [medieval popes had the power to tell Kings what to do."
The witness of history. King John of England tried to defy the Pope at the height of the Investiture Controversy over who would appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury (King or Pope), and the whole of England was placed under interdict until John capitulated. A century earlier, Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand), forced the Holy Roman Emperor, the practical head of the Germanics, to penitence barefoot in the snow for days before him in an alpine winter at Canossa.
"Jesus did not write a book. He established a church that put the scriptures together."
Agreed. But once it was recognised what was scripture, it became totally authoritative, just as does the word of a man whom you recognise as a prophet through whom the Holy spirit is speaking. And those scriptures do specify a particular church structure - congregations each run by a council of men, with no hierarchy above them.
Anon@12:31 p.m.
"No, please tell me whether we have his testimony at the time of his kidnapping, and please summarise what he wrote later about his feelings at the time."
He narrates events in his testimony that took place eight days later, when he met his parents.
I do agree that once his baptism was made public, there should have a been a better way to handle this.
"To suggest that the council of Trent opposed the authentic Word of God is untrue."
Here are excerpts from the Rules on Prohibited Books approved by Pius IV in 1564 following the Council of Trent: "Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary."
So, at the very least I would need permission from my bishop in order to be permitted to read even a Catholic-approved Bible. Do you really wish to defend that position?
Anon@12:39 p.m.
These conflicts arose exactly because Kings were trying to appoint church leaders, a task reserved for the church alone.
When Kings elected some fake Popes they turned out to be a disaster.
I wrote: "Do you think it was right of the Catholic church to kidnap him [Edgardo Mortara]?"
You replied: "I do agree that once his baptism was made public, there should have a been a better way to handle this."
Is that a Yes or a No?
"These conflicts arose exactly because Kings were trying to appoint church leaders, a task reserved for the church alone."
These conflicts arose because kings were tired of being told what to do by bishops, including in the area of diplomacy which is not the church's legitimate business.
Anon@12:44 p.m.
"And those scriptures do specify a particular church structure - congregations each run by a council of men, with no hierarchy above them."
This was fluid and not rigid even in scripture, since the roles were interchangeable.
"Sola scriptura has already been defended here."
Not successfully I am afraid, because it is not found in scripture, and is intellectually indefensible.
The arrogance and ahistorical tunnel vision of modern American protestanism never ceases to amaze.
"So, at the very least I would need permission from my bishop in order to be permitted to read even a Catholic-approved Bible. Do you really wish to defend that position?"
The early church already defended that position when arguing against heresies.
"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).
Scripture cannot be taken apart from the church.
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority [import] of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
Anon@6:08 p.m.
Luther pit faith against works, when scripture holds that they are complimentary.
"No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins?"
Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521, From the Wartburg (Segment)
Lutherans have adopted a more Catholic view of justification in recent times.
http://lutheranworld.org/LWF_Documents/EN/JDDJ_99-jd97e.pdf
Anon@12:54 p.m.
I personally do not think it was the right thing to do, but I was not around at that time, and do not know what happened once his baptism went public.
"These conflicts arose because kings were tired of being told what to do by bishops, including in the area of diplomacy which is not the church's legitimate business."
This is your opinion. It was not an either/or. History is a lot more complex.
Me: "Sola scriptura has already been defended here."
You: "Not successfully I am afraid, because it is not found in scripture..."
Indeed it is not found in scripture, but neither are arguments why God exists. To repeat the argument for sola scriptura: the tradition in which to read the New Testament is the Old Testament. Jesus was a Jew who lived in a monotheistic culture forged by and recorded in the Old Testament. And no church tradition is needed to make sense of the Old Testament, because it is not about the church. The Old Testament builds upon itself from the Creation onward, an event for which there is no context. So neither Old nor New Testament needs an extra-biblical tradition to interpret it. Jesus regarded the scriptures of his day as uniquely authoritative over Jewish traditions, and His precedent is good enough for me.The tradition in which to read the New Testament is the Old Testament. Jesus was a Jew who lived in a monotheistic culture forged by and recorded in the Old Testament. And no church tradition is needed to make sense of the Old Testament, because it is not about the church. The Old Testament builds upon itself from the Creation onward, an event for which there is no context. So neither Old nor New Testament needs an extra-biblical tradition to interpret it. Jesus regarded the scriptures of his day as uniquely authoritative over Jewish traditions, and His precedent is good enough for me.
Me: "So, at the very least I would need permission from my bishop in order to be permitted to read even a Catholic-approved Bible. Do you really wish to defend that position?"
You: "The early church already defended that position when arguing against heresies."
So you think I should not be allowed to buy a Bible in a bookshop without demonstrating that I am a believer, presumably by showing that I have a basic knowledge of, um, the Bible? You think that the Bible should be available only through church bookshops?
I have had my doubts about some aspects of Luther, but you are doing a great job of convincing me that he was absolutely right.
Craig,
Peter was at the Council. And, here's how the Council operated:
"The apostles and presbyters met together TO SEE about the matter. AFTER MUCH DEBATE HAD TAKEN PLACE, PETER got up and said to them...."
And Peter's teaching on the matter is conveyed through the next several verses. Thereafter, when Peter finishes, it says:
"The whole assembly FELL SILENT..." (That is, the other Apostles and presbyters) ... "
Then, Paul and Barnabas were permitted to tell about their first missionary journey so as to back up Peter's teaching with signs from the Holy Spirit .
And, thereafter, James gives a ruling.
And, indeed, after Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled.
"So you think I should not be allowed to buy a Bible in a bookshop without demonstrating that I am a believer, presumably by showing that I have a basic knowledge of, um, the Bible? You think that the Bible should be available only through church bookshops?"
I never said so. Even book stores have sections for Catholic and Protestant versions of the Bible.
Catholics know what versions are approved by the church's stamp of approval, if they are in doubt.
Luther actually censored Catholic Bibles.
Janssen writes of a hypocritical instance of Luther's censorship (1529):
"Luther . . . set his pen in motion concerning this Catholic translation of the Bible. 'The freedom of the Word,' which he claimed for himself, was not to be accorded to his opponent Emser . . . When . . . he learnt that Emser's translation . . . was to be printed . . . at Rostock, he not only appealed himself to his follower, Duke Henry of Mecklenburg, with the request that 'for the glory of the evangel of Christ and the salvation of all souls' he would put a stop to this printing, but he also worked on the councillors of the Elector of Saxony to support his action. He denied the right and the power of the Catholic authorities to inhibit his books; on the other hand he invoked the arm of the secular authorities against all writings that were displeasing to him." (111;v.14:503-4)
Anon@2:03 p.m.
Catholics know what Bibles are approved by the church by it's stamp of approval, just as the early church knew what versions of scripture were authentic based on what the Apostolic fathers deemed authentic.
So you might want to argue with the early Christians on why they did not listen to other sects views on the Bible, but only the church's, when other sects quoted scripture to justify their claims too.
"So neither Old nor New Testament needs an extra-biblical tradition to interpret it."
LOL.
If this was the case, at least with the regard to the NT, there would not be so many varying interpretations, which are reflected in the numerous Protestant denominations and non-denominational Protestants who cannot agree on major points of doctrine.
Jesus left us a church, not a quagmire of contradictory interpretations of a book, all made in the name of the Holy Spirit.
With regard to "Why God exists" - God is existence itself. This is in the Bible also, but Thomas Aquinas explains it better than anyone.
"And, indeed, after Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled."
Yes, they recognised that ON THIS OCCASION Peter was speaking rightly. The same Peter who had thrice denied Jesus. The same Peter who was forgiven but who needs a saviour - just like you, me and every other human being. The same Peter who was martyred and is no longer around to give his opinion.
3:03
The Chair of Peter is a chair, not a person.
Some of you Protestants just don't get it, do you?
And no, Catholics don't bow to the authority of a piece of furniture.
By chair I meant "office" not chair like in Plato - just in case that wasn't clear.
"Luther . . . set his pen in motion concerning this Catholic translation of the Bible. 'The freedom of the Word,' which he claimed for himself, was not to be accorded to his opponent Emser . . . When . . . he learnt that Emser's translation . . . was to be printed . . . at Rostock, he not only appealed himself to his follower, Duke Henry of Mecklenburg, with the request that 'for the glory of the evangel of Christ and the salvation of all souls' he would put a stop to this printing, but he also worked on the councillors of the Elector of Saxony to support his action."
So Rome dishes it out regarding censorship of the scriptures, as various quotes from church documents have amply shown above, but grumbles when someone tries it on them. THAT's hypocrisy.
From Wikipedia about Emser: "he was hardly a great scholar; the errors he detected in Luther's New Testament were for the most part legitimate variations from the Vulgate, and his own version is merely Luther's adapted to Vulgate requirements."
Sounds to me like Luther was outraged at plagiarism as much as anything.
"Some of you Protestants just don't get it, do you?"
No, some of us don't get the Apostolic Succession of episkopoi. We think it is enough that each of us has learned the faith, from someone who learned the faith, from... from one of the apostles, from Jesus Christ himself. That is a perfectly good succession, and it is clear that plenty of Christians in churches indifferent to the AS have been granted the Holy Spirit. When you have God's anointing you don't need anybody else's, do you?
"When you have God's anointing you don't need anybody else's, do you?"
Every Protestant from Luther and Calvin to Todd Bentley and Mark Driscoll have claimed to have God's anointing, ALL pointing to scripture as their authority.
Me: "So neither Old nor New Testament needs an extra-biblical tradition to interpret it."
You: "If this was the case, at least with the regard to the NT, there would not be so many varying interpretations, which are reflected in the numerous Protestant denominations..."
Aren't you forgetting that the Roman Catholic church was itself born in a split in 1054 of the undivided Catholic church, into Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, both of which claim to have the apostolic succession and to be the one true church?
It has been argued above that denominationalism is an unhappy consequence of the wrong church structure, viz hierarchical, when the church described in the NT had no hierarchy above its congregations. When church leaders fall out in a hierarchical system you get one denomination splintering into two. When they argue under the NT system they argue and go home to their respective congregations and get on with Christian life.
Me: "When you have God's anointing you don't need anybody else's, do you?"
You: "Every Protestant from Luther and Calvin to Todd Bentley and Mark Driscoll have claimed to have God's anointing, ALL pointing to scripture as their authority."
Add to that list the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople.
In communist China under Mao, church denominations were cut off from their hierarchies. But there were a few Bibles. The outcome has been a flourishing underground house church movement. These believers see themselves simply as Christians, living in a church whose rule of faith is the New Testament interpreted through the Old (which needs no church tradition). The human culture and the churchly culture of these believers owe nothing to ancient Greece or Rome, and these believers view the terms ‘Catholic’, ‘protestant’ and ‘Orthodox’ as part of European church history. They have grown to about 3% of the population (1.5 billion) of China, on course to be the largest church movement in history. All have come to Christ under persecution; all have given up or are willing to give up everything for Christ. They manifestly have the Holy Spirit; Brother Yun’s books (for instance) show the gifts of the Spirit at work in the same strength as in Acts. As I said, when you have the Holy Spirit who else's anointing do you need?
RC: "Please give me the source for the claims that they [medieval popes had the power to tell Kings what to do."
Prot: "The witness of history. King John of England tried to defy the Pope at the height of the Investiture Controversy over who would appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury (King or Pope), and the whole of England was placed under interdict until John capitulated. A century earlier, Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand), forced the Holy Roman Emperor, the practical head of the Germanics, to penitence barefoot in the snow for days before him in an alpine winter at Canossa."
RC: "These conflicts arose exactly because Kings were trying to appoint church leaders, a task reserved for the church alone."
The above response diverted the debate into the roles of church and state. If the church meddles in international politics then it must expect to be treated like a political entity instead of moaning that it is a purely spiritual organization. But notice the adroit change of subject when the case was proven.
"So Rome dishes it out regarding censorship of the scriptures, as various quotes from church documents have amply shown above, but grumbles when someone tries it on them. THAT's hypocrisy."
It's not when the you decided the canon of scripture, and even Luther would not have it without the church.
Jesus didn't hand out Bibles at Pentecost. The Bible came through the Catholic Church, folks.
"Jesus didn't hand out Bibles at Pentecost. The Bible came through the Catholic Church, folks."
As there was no division among believers at that time, it came simply through the church. The question is who comprises its successor today, and by what criteria. Perhaps that question has been adequately aired here by now.
"The Bible came through the Catholic Church, folks."
The scriptures were given by God the Holy Spirit through a particular set of believers.
Anon 2:07,
Mea Culpa; that’s what I get for writing too late at night and relying too much on memory. Yes, Peter was there.
You wrote:
And, thereafter, James gives a ruling.
And, indeed, after Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled.
I’d say that reads quite a bit into the text; for in verse 12, after Peter had spoken, we have the testimonies of Paul and Barnabas, which are followed by James quoting Amos 9 and, following that, in verse 19, we have James asserting, “It is my judgment, therefore…” which is followed by his (James) specific recommendations. Then, this was followed by the writing of the letter which contained James recommendations (vv 23-29)
Bottom line: It was James’ words – expounding on what Peter had said (and after Paul and Barnabas spoke) – which went into the letter to the Gentile believers in Antioch.
I note that no one has addressed my previous comment regarding Galatians 2 which I’ll repost:
In addition, I'm curious what the RCC's understanding is of Paul's rebuke to Peter at Antioch (Galatians 2:11ff) on a matter which would seem to fall under "faith and morals".
Actually the Peshitta of the Orthodox Church of the East would predate the Roman Bible, according to their Aramaic speaking leadership.
And the oldest dated manuscript of the Old Testament in the world, is the Peshitta copy in the British Museum.
In 1957, Mar Eshai Shimun The Catholicos Patriarch of the East, said; "...we wish to state , that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from Biblical times without any change or revision."
So, the Orthodox Church of the East believes, the Septuagint notwithstanding, that the earliest copies were in Aramaic, not Greek, even though that's what's taught to every Bible student in just about every school today. And when you think about it, why would John, Matthew, James, Peter and Paul write their very first Gospels and Epistles in Greek ?
Paul,
There are some interesting arguments for Jesus' first language being Hebrew, not Aramaic. The champion of this view is David Bivin, leader of the "Jerusalem School" - the first set of Jewish believers in Jesus based in the Holy Land to study the scriptures for nearly 2000 years. Although I do not agree with every aspect of their theology, some of their NT word and passage studies set in a Jewish context, backed with with great knowledge of Jewish tradition of Jesus' time, are remarkable.
Here is a summary of their evidence that Jesus spoke Hebrew rather than Aramaic, as did most Jews in a conscious back-to-roots movement led by the Pharisees following the Maccabean wars. First, though, the question of Aramaic in the gospels, eg 'Eloi, eloi lama sabachtani' and 'Talitha cumi'. In Mark's gospel the crowd thought that Jesus was calling on Elijah, for 'Eli' could be short for 'Eliyahu' (ie, Elijah) or a Hebrew abbreviation for God. In Aramaic, however, Eloi can only be short for God. So Jesus more likely said 'Eli'. LAMA is the same word in both languages, and SABAK is found not only in Aramaic but also in Mishnaic Hebrew. By Jesus' time Hebrew contained plenty of loan-words from Aramaic; you can even find them in Jeremiah (10:11) which is written in Hebrew, so I am not too worried about the occasional Aramaism such as "Talitha Cumi".
The Dead Sea scrolls from Jesus' day, by no means all formal religious writings, are overwhelmingly in Hebrew rather than Aramaic.
A tale in the Talmud (Nedarim 66) tells of an Aramaic-speaking Jew from Babylon who had trouble communication with his Jerusalemite wife.
Many references to 'Hebrew' in the Church Fathers, Josephus etc are held to mean Aramaic, since the two languages have the same alphabet. I am not going to insist that these references mean Hebrew, but I do insist that they cannot confidently be asserted to mean Aramaic as modern scholars hold. Furthermore:
* Papias said that there was a Hebrew version of Matthew's gospel in existence. Hebrew or Aramaic? The ambiguity is resolved by Epiphanius., who said that the Ebionites "accept the gospel of Matthew... since Matthew alone presents the gospel in Hebrew and in the Hebrew script" (Refutation of all heresies 30, 3, 7). So, not Aramaic. And Matthew wrote to publicise - he wanted as many Jews as possible to read his work; there is no question of this being a formal language used only for religious purposes in the Temple.
* According to Josephus (War 5:272), during the siege of Jerusalem, watchmen were posted on the towers of the city walls to warn residents of incoming stones fired from Roman ballistae. Whenever a stone was on its way, the spotters would shout (“in their native tongue”), “The son is coming!” The wordplay and pun that Josephus preserves is Hebrew, for it does not work in Aramaic.
* From Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (134): "This man was called Adam, which in Hebrew [glotta Ebraion] means 'red'" In Hebrew, 'red' is ADOM. In Aramaic, it is SUMKA.
* Jesus teaches using parables. Rabbinic literature (itself overwhelmingly in Hebrew) contains some 500 parables. Only two are known in Aramaic.
* In the Israel Museum there are 215 Jewish coins, of which 99 have Hebrew inscriptions, and one Aramaic.
* All inscriptions found at Temple Mount excavations have been in Hebrew, Greek or Latin; none in Aramaic.
* At Masada the preponderance of Hebrew to Aramaic in inscriptions, papyri etc is again 9:1.
Moreover I believe that the Aramaic theory is less than 1000 years old, ie it has no continuity back to the era it purports to relate to.
Anon. 5:59,
My understanding was that Aramaic was the spoken counterpart to the written Hebrew, and that the two shared more than just an alphabet, but nouns and verbs too, much like Olde English is to Modern English.
At any rate the originals of the Gospels and probably most of the Epistles were not Greek, do you agree ?
People just assume that since the Septuagint is the oldest known copy of the Bible, right ?
Also they claim that the old copy of the Peshitta in the British Museum is dated to the 500's AD, way before a thousand years ago.
paul,
The Greek of the NT manuscripts is in Koine (or "common") Greek and was the common language of the day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek
The OT was translated into Koine Greek resulting in the Septuagint presumably to appeal to a growing populace conversant in Koine Greek.
Interestingly, John the Apostle/Gospel writer derives "Messiah" (Greek translitered "Messias") from the Aramaic ("Meshicha") rather than Hebrew ("mashiach")in reiterating "Christ" (Greek transliterated Xristos) in both John 1:41 & 4:25.
I should have stated all extant NT manuscripts... To date, no "originals" have been found.
Anon@3:41 p.m.
This is a joke right. This was the practice of powerful laymen furnishing newly elected bishops and abbots with the symbols of their spiritual offices. (In the case of bishops this included the bishop's crozier, i.e. shepherd's staff,
This was not a secular issue, but a spiritual one.
There are no permanent friends or enemies in politics.
Anon@5:19 p.m.
Who were those set of believers, what did they subscribe to?
You can keep using the Holy Spirit as an excuse because your views cannot be proved from either history or scripture and with scripture it's always based on what your latest interpretation is.
It makes it hard to tell if it's God or you.
"At any rate the originals of the Gospels and probably most of the Epistles were not Greek, do you agree?"
This is the Anon who wrote about Hebrew not Aramaic being Jesus' main tongue. Even a question as short as that raises complex issues! Matthew probably wrote in Hebrew according to Papias - who said that "Matthew recorded the sayings [of Jesus] in Hebrew, and everyone translated them as he was able.” But I do not believe that Matthew was the earliest of he gospels - I go for Luke, based on a complicated argument by Robert Lindsay about comparing the three sets of minor agreements (passages where just two of the three synoptics agree) and major agreements (where all three synoptics agree).
We have Septuagint scripts substantially more ancient than the oldest complete Hebrew OT scripts, yes. On the other hand the original OT scrolls were written in Hebrew and unless there is reason to suppose that there have been changes then the Hebrew text is preferable; it contains untranslatable wordplays, for instance. Whether there is reason to suppose changes has been a hot topic on this very thread. Some say the Masoretes, hostile to Jesus and the church, watered down the messianic passages. Others say that if that was their aim then they did an exceptionally poor job of it because most of the messianic passages are still there; and in view of the scrupulousness with which Jews made copies of their scriptures, and the close agreement of the Qumran Isaiah scroll with modern versions, the Hebrew is reliable.
I'm sure that St Paul wrote in Greek.
Craig,
First, I don't have a "personal opinion" since the Bible itself tells us that the Scriptures are not open to private interpretation.
When it comes to my beliefs as a Catholic Christian, I follow the Catholic Rule of Faith which is Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
In the quote from the Tome of Leo, Pope Leo wasn't referring to Mary per se. His focus was on Christ and the use of the words "guilt" and "fault" directly referred to Our Lord being free from Original Sin..... the sinlessness of Christ's human nature.
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, on the other hand, developed through the centuries until it was formally defined by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854.
One misunderstanding which occurs frequently with regard to the Immaculate Conception that I would like to address here is the one that thinks Mary didn't need a savior/ \redeemer.
When defining the dogma in Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX explicitly affirmed that Mary was redeemed in a manner more sublime. He stated that Mary, rather than being cleansed after sin, was completely prevented from contracting Original Sin in view of the foreseen merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race. In Luke 1:47, Mary proclaims: "My spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour." This is referred to as Mary's pre-redemption by Christ.
Since the Council of Orange II against semi-pelagianism, the Catholic Church has taught that even had man never sinned in the Garden of Eden and was sinless, he would still require God's grace to remain sinless..........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
Ergo, I have not wrested anything from the given context of the quote from the Tome of Leo.
When all is said and done, if you do not acknowledge the papacy, fine, but using the Tome of Leo in an argument against the papacy as you have isn't going to get you where you want to go. .
Savvy
RC: "The Bible came through the Catholic Church, folks."
Prot: "The scriptures were given by God the Holy Spirit through a particular set of believers."
RC: "Who were those set of believers, what did they subscribe to?"
I think we are at cross purposes here. I was referring to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude and the author of Hebrews.
Anon 7:16
I don't think it's an impasse. The first believers were not Roman Catholics. Stop implying that they were. The Church of the East predates Roman Catholicism. The Book of the Acts of the Apostles shows a vibrant, well organized first ecclesia of believers of The Way.
You don't even know if Peter ever even went to Rome.
Paul,
There were five centres of Christianity, so nobody denies that the East predates Rome.
Tradition tells us as recorded in the writings of the early church that Peter went to Rome.
Ignatius of Antioch calls himself the successor of Peter.
Criag.
Saint Paul rebukes Saint Peter in Galatians chapter 2.
Galatians 2:11-14
"And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.
And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, 'If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews ?' " NAB
Peter is accused of acting hypocritically. This passage necessarily implies that while Peter’s actions were wrong, his teachings were all the while correct.
THE INTERPRETATION OF SAINT JEROME
Saint Jerome advances a different interpretation (in his Letter 112, sections 4-18, 404 AD) that he says he received from the Fathers of the Church. And he implies that he does not know any Father who supports the literal interpretation. .
Jerome points out how that is was to Saint Peter that the Lord revealed that the Gospel was open to the uncircumcised Gentiles in Acts chapters 10, and 11.
Jerome also points out how it was much later in chapter 15 that a dispute arose among others in the Church over whether the Gentiles needed to be circumcised.
Cont...
We read in Acts 15:2 "…it was decided that Paul, Barnabas… should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question." At the Council in Jerusalem it is reported that Acts 15:7
"After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, 'My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe...' "
Immediately after Peter gives his decision we are told "The whole assembly fell silent..."
Who had more authority in the Council of Jerusalem, Peter or James ? Some say that the reference to James’s "judgment" in Acts 15:13-21 indicated that he had more authority.
Acts 15:13-14, 19-21 "After they had fallen silent, James responded, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name… 19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.
For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath."
However, it should be noted that James begins his discourse with a specific reference to Peter and his declaration.
James assents to what Peter proclaimed, and then he just offers his best pastoral judgment on how to implement Peter’s decision.
Also, Peter’s voice was not just one of many because we are told that he gave his decision "after much debate" which implies that the debate was over when Peter took the floor. Furthermore,
Peter doesn’t just voice his decision, we are told that he rose up to do so. By standing Peter adds a certain affirmation and enforcement to what he is about to declare.
The fact that the "whole assembly fell silent" after Peter had spoken showed the attitude of the Church after the Rock had issued his judgment.
Anon 8:43/8:44,
Thanks for responding. You wrote, ”Peter is accused of acting hypocritically. This passage necessarily implies that while Peter’s actions were wrong, his teachings were all the while correct.”
I’d say that if actions speak louder than words, then Peter screamed fallibility as opposed to infallibility in a matter of faith and morals.
Interesting what Jerome exegetes. I’m glad he brought up Acts 10 and 11 as I was going to bring that up as well. I suppose much hinges on whether one dates Galatians before the goings-on of Acts 15 or after. Apparently, NT scholars are divided on either an early date of 48-49 (thus predating the Jerusalem Council), 51 to 53, or as late as 53 and 57 for authorship.
But, you do bring up a point implicitly which I wish to make explicit: there are some doctrines that do not have universal interpretation in the RCC. There is room for discussion among some of the ‘non-essentials’ of the faith. We know that the Christological debates weren’t ever fully worked out until Chalcedon (and some things not until later, i.e. dyotheletism vs. monothelitism). And, there was not one universally accepted position on the doctrine of the Atonement among the early church. (I’ve no idea what the official RCC position is on the Atonement, BTW.)
Savvy ,
You wrote, In the quote from the Tome of Leo, Pope Leo wasn't referring to Mary per se. His focus was on Christ and the use of the words "guilt" and "fault" directly referred to Our Lord being free from Original Sin..... the sinlessness of Christ's human nature.
While I agree with you that Leo’s main point was in making it clear that Christ’s human nature did not inherit original sin and was hence sinless, I disagree with the conclusion about this referring to Mary’s lack of Original Sin. I’ll quote from the Wiki link you provided (rather than the Philip Schaff translation I provided earlier, in fairness to your tradition):
What was taken from the mother of the Lord was the nature without the guilt.
I’m not sure how this could be any clearer. By the plain English here, “without the guilt” refers to “the nature” which was “taken from the mother of the Lord”. This pretty clearly states that the “mother of the Lord” had “guilt” of some sort. That’s proper exegesis (extracting from the text) as opposed to eisegesis (reading into the text).
Applying a different angle, I’d like to start from a point in which I’m confident we agree. Without question, Chalcedon is still, over 1500 years later, the definitive statement on Christology. And Leo’s Tome is a central part of the Council. Leo’s epistle is certainly one of the first documents, if not THE first document to properly state Biblical Christology.
Yet, this begs the question: why didn’t a former “Pope” write a document ex cathedra containing proper Christology given the Christological controversies of the previous century (not to mention 2nd century Gnosticism)? This would have alleviated a lot of political maneuvering, would it not have? We must concede that this doctrine developed over time by “a great cloud of witnesses”. But why? Why didn’t a former “Pope” sort out this Christological issue sooner?
I understand your position as a member of the RCC of affirming papal succession, the infallibility of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra, etc. I’m merely an outsider, so to speak, who is asking questions as I see contradictions within these doctrines such that I can’t accept them as is. I see this not as a “Protestant” who is ‘against Catholicism’. I did not grow up with any sort of Christian tradition at all. I initially thought of Catholicism as ‘just another denomination’ since I knew nothing about it when I first came to faith as a near middle aged man 12 years ago. And, as you know, I’m well critical of some who fit into the “Protestant” sphere since I write on that subject on my blog as I see these teachers and the doctrines they teach as furthering New Age agendas.
"While I agree with you that Leo’s main point was in making it clear that Christ’s human nature did not inherit original sin and was hence sinless, I disagree with the conclusion about this referring to Mary’s lack of Original Sin. I’ll quote from the Wiki link you provided (rather than the Philip Schaff translation I provided earlier, in fairness to your tradition):
What was taken from the mother of the Lord was the nature without the guilt.
I’m not sure how this could be any clearer. By the plain English here, “without the guilt” refers to “the nature” which was “taken from the mother of the Lord”. "
ACTUALLY IT IS TOTALLY AMBIGUOUS, FROM A MODERN PERSPECTIVE, AND NOT ABOUT HER SINLESSNESS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE TIMES PRE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.
The Lord took His human nature from His mother, but without taking the human guilt with it.
This doesn't mean He acquired human nature that was guiltless from her, but that He acquired human nature from her, but without acquiring the guilt with it.
While this does not refute immaculate conception of Mary, IT TOTALLY DOES NOT TEACH IT.
At what stage the guiltlessness began, either blocked out from the human nature as taken up by Christ at the moment of Incarnation, or blocked from being in Mary in the first place at her conception, is NOT SPECIFIED.
"There were five centres of Christianity, so nobody denies that the East predates Rome."
you would never know it from the way RC official material and laity talk in print and on air and in videos. If a caveat weren't thrown in now and then, you would think Christ was crucified in Rome the way everything else is left unsaid except as an occasional aside.
"Tradition tells us as recorded in the writings of the early church that Peter went to Rome.
Ignatius of Antioch calls himself the successor of Peter."
yes, there is no reason to assume Peter wasn't the first bishop, for a brief, very brief time. A person trying to prove Peter had not been in Rome left up to two years unaccountable for, during which he could have been at Rome.
St. Paul in Romans said he wants to visit them to give them a spiritual gift so they might be established, these were people who were believers who brought the faith to Rome, from where they were converted probably many by Paul, and their converts.
This shows two things. That even in that time, the idea of a special extra jolt of The Holy Spirit could and should be added to a situation, that definitely had Him already, being converts who had been baptized and had hands laid on by Apostles, who then passed this along themselves.
Also, that they lacked a bishop.
In the early centuries as shown by canons, after The Apostles were no longer there to appoint bishops, the laity would elect a bishop subject to approval by the elders or synod and he had to be consecrated by three other bishops unless it was an emergency.
Christine (1:45AM),
Re: Leo's Tome and immaculate conception and your assertion of "total ambiguity". Perhaps I should have reposted the link which contains the larger context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariology_of_the_popes
The same eternal, only-begotten of the eternal begetter was born of the holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. His birth in time in no way subtracts from or adds to that divine and eternal birth of his: but its whole purpose is to restore humanity, who had been deceived, so that it might defeat death and, by its power, destroy the devil who held the power of death. Overcoming the originator of sin and death would be beyond us, had not he whom sin could not defile, nor could death hold down, taken up our nature and made it his own. He was conceived from the holy Spirit inside the womb of the virgin mother. Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him.
By an unprecedented kind of birth, because it was inviolable virginity which supplied the material flesh without experiencing sexual desire. What was taken from the mother of the Lord was the nature without the guilt. And the fact that the birth was miraculous does not imply that in the lord Jesus Christ, born from the virgin's womb, the nature is different from ours. The same one is true God and true man.
The first paragraph describes the virginal conception (“He was conceived…in conceiving him.”) and the soteriological purpose of the Logos acquiring human nature (“to restore humanity”). This preceding paragraph also states that He had “taken up our nature and made it his own.” So far, we cannot assume the nature would be any different than any other post-Fall nature, i.e., it would necessarily have Original Sin/Guilt since the point was in “overcoming the originator of sin and death…”
The second paragraph stresses the miraculous nature of the resulting virgin birth adding that this fact “does not imply that…the nature is different from ours”. He is “true man”. Yet, the important sentence in the middle stresses the nature itself and not Mary. Taken together, the focus of these two paragraphs are Christological rather than Marian. The Logos took “our nature” - [1st para], i.e. “the nature” [from sentence in question] of collective humanity, with Mary providing “the material flesh” - less its “guilt” (“without the guilt”), i.e. sin. The Word did not take the “guilt” inherent in the nature leaving it behind, so to speak.
Christine (1:45am),
Perhaps I should have supplied more context. Here’s the original link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariology_of_the_popes
The same eternal, only-begotten of the eternal begetter was born of the holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. His birth in time in no way subtracts from or adds to that divine and eternal birth of his: but its whole purpose is to restore humanity, who had been deceived, so that it might defeat death and, by its power, destroy the devil who held the power of death. Overcoming the originator of sin and death would be beyond us, had not he whom sin could not defile, nor could death hold down, taken up our nature and made it his own. He was conceived from the holy Spirit inside the womb of the virgin mother. Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him.
By an unprecedented kind of birth, because it was inviolable virginity which supplied the material flesh without experiencing sexual desire. What was taken from the mother of the Lord was the nature without the guilt. And the fact that the birth was miraculous does not imply that in the lord Jesus Christ, born from the virgin's womb, the nature is different from ours. The same one is true God and true man
The first paragraph describes the virginal conception (“He was conceived…in conceiving him.”) and the soteriological purpose of the Logos acquiring human nature (“to restore humanity”). This preceding paragraph also states that He had “taken up our nature and made it his own.” So far, we cannot assume the nature would be any different than any other post-Fall nature, i.e., it would necessarily have Original Sin/Guilt since the point was in “overcoming the originator of sin and death…”
The second paragraph stresses the miraculous nature of the resulting virgin birth adding that this fact “does not imply that…the nature is different from ours”. He is “true man”. Yet, the important sentence in the middle stresses the nature itself and not Mary. Taken together, the focus of these two paragraphs are Christological rather than Marian. The Logos took “our nature” - [1st para], i.e. “the nature” [from sentence in question] of collective humanity, with Mary providing “the material flesh” - less its “guilt” (“without the guilt”), i.e. sin. The Word did not take the “guilt” inherent in the nature leaving it behind, so to speak.
I should add that Original Sin/Guilt is not a necessary condition of mankind in general as Adam and Eve were not born in OS/G; however, of course, it was a biproduct of the Fall and is now inherent in all of humanity - save Christ 'in His humanity', as Leo makes clear.
Christine,
Also, given that you've come in late in this discussion, I'm wondering if you missed an earlier point. If we are to accept that the doctrine of Immaculate Conception (IC) is a viable doctrine, this would have been the perfect time for Leo I to make that point en route to explicating proper Christology rather than stating his Tome the way he did. In fact, if we understand Leo I was speaking ex cathedra - which by the very nature of this epistle this would have to be - then there'd by no room for any sort of ambiguity (as you see it) or contradiction (as I see it) of the doctrine of IC. It certainly does not support IC.
"I’d say that if actions speak louder than words, then Peter screamed fallibility as opposed to infallibility in a matter of faith and morals."
Craig. The difference is that Peter was not speaking the way you think he was.
Craig,
Thank you for your honestly. I brought up the stages in the development of doctrine.
The doctrine defined here in the final stage was not the Immaculate conception, but the natures of Christ.
You bring up previous issues. The thing is a council would not be ecumenical without the Bishop of Rome.
A large number of Bishops did accept fake theology, it was the faithful who appealed to the Bishop of Rome to intervene.
Pope St. Julius I (342):
Writing to the Byzantine court after Athanasius had been deposed from the Alexandrian see by the Arians.
"It behoved you to write to us that thus what is just might be decreed for all. For they who suffered were Bishops, and the Churches that suffered no common ones, over which the Apostles ruled in person. And why were we (the Pope) not written to concerning the Church, **especially Alexandria**? Or are they (the Arians) ignorant that this has been the Tradition first to write to us, and thus what is just be decreed from this place (Rome)? If therefore, any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there (Alexandria), it was benefitting to write to this Church (Rome)." (Julius, Ep. n. 6,21.)
There are other such letters here.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_orthodox_church_fathers.htm
That was me Savvy responding to Craig.
Christine,
"In the early centuries as shown by canons, after The Apostles were no longer there to appoint bishops, the laity would elect a bishop subject to approval by the elders or synod and he had to be consecrated by three other bishops unless it was an emergency."
This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The successors to the apostles reject the idea of a church being independent, local, and congregational. Thus, by the late second century, Irenaeus writes,
Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world . . . therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies . . . by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned apostles Peter and Paul . . . for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world. (Against Heresies, 3:3)
" there are some doctrines that do not have universal interpretation in the RCC. There is room for discussion among some of the ‘non-essentials’ of the faith."
Yes, this is true Craig, for example there are certain theological propositions that are open-ended.
The Catechism has this to say about the atonement.
1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.
Craig,
Catholic social teaching is also complex and nuanced. It cannot be explained in a sentence like some of the anti-Catholics try to do on this blog. Since Catholics including Pope's are not monolithic thinkers.
And the New Age movement goes forward, hoping to destroy allegiance to monotheism. Instead of putting so much effort into fighting each other, should not each work on their side of the fence to expose what is going on in that much bigger movement.
Maybe I'm wrong. Someone may cross the line and convert to another kind of Christianity based on these arguments. Dropping the fight against New Age for now may be worth the intellectual challenge battles taking place here. The winner may or may not take on New Age after the smoke clears. I guess we have to wait and see.
Anon 12:48
Some Protestants appear to despise the Catholic Church as much as they despise the New Age movement. I don't know any Catholics however who feel that way about Protestantism.
Anon 12:48,
I see extreme Mariology as part of New Age as it takes the focus off Jesus Christ. You may not have seen the two links I sent on Monday at 9:51PM and 9:57PM with quotes. I'll now post only the links:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/knights-of-columbus-called-to-be-in-front-ranks-of-new-evangelization/
http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=5923
These refer to a "New Evangelization" with Mary at its center.
This is not too far from the "Protestant" hyper-charismaticism of which I write with its focus on "signs and wonders" rather than Christ Himself.
Constance:
Please...
It's time for a new thread - if
for no other reason than the last one was posted on July 31st.
However, it's also time to interrupt this non-stop bickering between Protestants and Catholics, which has been going on (with no solution or end in sight) for how many years now???
(I have such a headache!!!)
Craig,
Perhaps I should explain the church's views on Mariology. They are too be understood in their relationship to Jesus, not apart from it.
The whole purpose is to lead one to Christ and to his church.
The New Age understands these things apart from the church, kind of like how some people say that they just need the Holy spirit and nothing else.
I know everybody is tired by now, but I have to post this.
Aquinas was the first person to advocate primacy of conscience.
"Every judgment of conscience, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, is obligatory, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always sins.
Or again, this passage from the Summa Theologica:
"Since conscience is the dictate of reason, the application of theory to practice, the inquiry, whether a will that disobeys an erroneous conscience is right, is the same as, whether a man is obliged to follow a mistaken conscience. Now because the object of a volition is that which is proposed by the reason, if the will chooses to do what the reason considers to be wrong, then the will goes out to it in the guise of evil. Therefore it must be said flatly that the will which disobeys the reason, whether true or mistaken, is always in the wrong."
Given such teachings as these, why could not Thomas respect the conscience of heretics?
By heretic, again, Aquinas meant a person of Catholic faith who deliberately and resolutely, even after having been called to reflect on the matter, has chosen to renounce that faith in some important particular. Aquinas points out that the word heresy comes from the Greek word for choice. Heresy for him is not a mistake of the intellect but a choice of the will.
Aquinas calls for toleration for non-Catholics.
"Among unbelievers there are some who have never received the faith, such as heathens and Jews. These are by no means to be compelled, for belief is voluntary."
Similarly, Aquinas shows a great deal more respect for unbelievers, such as his beloved Aristotle, who knew nothing whatever about Christ and His revelation than he does for heretics.
Aquinas is nicer to non-Catholics than to heretical Catholics.
"This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The successors to the apostles reject the idea of a church being independent, local, and congregational. Thus, by the late second century, Irenaeus writes"
First, the churches were always united by a shared faith and the bishops as a college met in synod.
Second, for Irenaeus to say that Rome is the oldest has to be a mistranslation or something, because JERUSALEM WAS THE OLDEST, and ANTIOCH WAS WHERE THEY WERE FIRST CALLED CHRISTIANS, and Irenaeus also points to the existence of originals of the Aposolic Epistles in his time in some churches they were sent to, and also points to the ease of focus on Rome since he was most acwuainted with that, it was nearest he being in what is now France.
The Canons that point to Roman primacy EXPLICITLY do so on the basis of its POLITICAL AND SOCIAL standing in the world, and Paul's missionary pattern had been to go to the big cities, make converts, and let them take the faith to the hinterlands. This later mirroring of the world by the church organization, was consistent with this.
Also, the same canon stated that each patriarchate should stay within their own zones and not mess with each other.
Rome had status and first among equals, but Leo III's BEHAVIOR SHOWS HE CONSIDERED HIMSELF SUBORDINATE TO THE REST OF THE BISHOPS MET IN AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, since he refused to allow the filioque though he personally believed it, to be used in the Mass/Holy Liturgy, until an ecumenical council could address the matter.
"Aquinas was the first person to advocate primacy of conscience."
Apart, of course, from the founder of the church Jesus Christ, who never coerced anybody into believing anything or joining His movement. All he did was peacably remind people of their responsibilities.
And if God does not believe in freedom of conscience then why does he allow us to go on sinning? Someday he will bring it all to an end but for now the church's job is simply to preach the gospel like Christ did.
Unhappily, Aquinas' teaching made little difference to his denomination, for in the 19th century Pope Gregory XVI denounced freedom of conscience (in Mirari Vos) as an "absurd and erronous proposition".
Anon@4:45 a.m.
Pope Gregory condemns the misuse of conscience that engages in propaganda.
Informed conscience is based on examining the data and evidence. The refusal to look at it and engage in distortion would be to act against one's conscience.
It would be therefore an act of blind faith rather than reason.
A book I found useful was the 9 Principles of Journalism.
Christine,
Irenaeus does not mean oldest in terms of origin.
Rome had primacy because of the succession from Peter.
Orthodox saints themselves would disagree with your statements.
Sts. Cyril and Methodius, the famous Byzantine "Apostles to the Slav" (and founders of the Eastern Orthodox Church in the Balkans), writes ....
"Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existant, for it is he who presides over the Council."
"It is not true, as this Canon states, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire; it is from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles, was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ himself 'Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep'. That is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first See. That is why the leges of old Rome are eternally immovable, and that is the view of all the Churches" (Ibid)
The question, I still have is that why were the saints writing only to the Bishop of Rome when heresy struck the church.
Christine,
Leo respected the views of his brother Bishops, the same way that the current Pope respects his.
Filioque is only a heresy when added to the Greek, not the Latin, if you properly understand the terminology.
Besides I am fed of this debate, because it's the same old arguing in circles back and forth.
Social Security Administration To Purchase 174 Thousand Rounds Of Hollow Point Bullets
Preparing for civil unrest? Ammunition to be delivered to 41 locations across U.S.
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
http://www.infowars.com/social
-security-administration-to
-purchase-174-thousand-rounds-of-
hollow-point-bullets/
To the person who asked me for the reference for the 250 denominations during the time of Luther.
St. Francis De Sales, wrote the reformers a letter, when they were fighting each other, over doctrine.
"The Scripture cannot be your arbiter, for it is concerning the Scripture that you are in litigation, some of you being determined to have it understood in one way, some in another.
Your discords and your disputes are interminable, unless you give in to the authority of the Church.
Take the great division there is amongst you about the number of the Sacraments. Now, and ordinarily amongst you, only two are taught; Calvin made three, adding to Baptism and the Supper, Order; Luther here puts Penance for the third, then says there is but one: in the end, the Protestants, at the Colloquy of Ratisbonne, at which Calvin assisted, as Beza testifies in his life, confessed that there were seven Sacraments.
How is it you are divided about the article of the almightiness of God? – one party denying that a body can by the divine power be in two places, others denying absolute almightiness; others make no such denials. But if I would show you the great contradictions amongst those whom Beza acknowledges to be glorious reformers of the Church, namely, Jerome of Prague, John Hus, Wicliff, Luther, Bucer, Oecolampadius, Zuingle, Pomeranius and the rest, I should never come to an end: Luther can sufficiently inform you as to the good harmony there is amongst them, in the lamentation which he makes against the Zuinglians and Sacramentarians, whom he calls Absaloms and Judases, and fanatic spirits (in the year 1527).
http://www.hoyletutoring.com/Docs/Catholic_Cont_Church_Authority.pdf
Shooting at the Family Research Council. Gay Activist Charged.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/mother-of-security-guard-shot-in-dc-happy-to-hear-him-called-hero/2012/08/16/531ed060-e7a1-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story_1.html
NYPD unveils new high-tech video system to 'prevent terrorism'
Video cameras with direct feeds to the NYPD installed 6 months ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI_uWidAvSE
The joint Microsoft/NYPD developed "Domain Awareness System" is planned for sale in other US cities.
Does that lengthy document you quote make good your claim that there were 250 denominations by the time Luther died, or are you setting up a smokescreen? If it does prove 250, kindly specify the exact chapter and paragraph rather than give another quote from it that doesn't. You made the claim of 250, remember?
Actually, beyond tired. (And I don't care who kidnapped who frankly). Religion has so much tiring about it. But....not a relationship with Jesus Himself...Who needs none of us humans to speak for Him-His Word does that perfectly all by Itself. Religiousity that is so consuming on this blog, collapses on it's own weight so that's why it is so tedious around here. Just give me Jesus and His Eternal Word. You catholics and any other works oriented religions get directly in the way of relating rightly to God because you want people to rightly relate to your religion. The faith of a child is lost on all the hoops you folks put people through just to know about God. Jesus is God and needs no "help" from man-made traditions/religion. Jesus said the Pharisees were famous for the same thing! (Let's see.....what did He call them??) Why go there then people? This has become brain-numbing over here!
assuming the quotes from Sts. Cyril and Methodius are accurate, you are forgetting, that the canon at issue is EXPLICIT in contradiction to what they say, and that they were of late date from the time when Rome began to get too big for its britches and make such claims.
The falsity of the idea that it is not subordinate to an Ecumenical Council and that an EC requires Rome's support to be real, is shown by the excommunication of pope Honorius by his fellow bishops at such a council for monotheletism. And that is a council that Rome itself recognizes as legit.
as for liturgical focussed systems getting in the way between the believer and Christ - yes, that can happen, but so can the protestant style.
St. Theophan the Recluse warns that saying prayers without meaning them can be damaging to the soul.
Fasts, icons, preset prayers, are all MEANS to the end of getting in relationship with Jesus, and if they do not have this effect then you may have to go to the basics like a protestant and then when you understand the meaning of the liturgical stuff return to it.
There are Orthodox converts, and Orthodox reverts, those who went protestant for a while and returned to Orthodoxy with a better understanding and lively faith in Christ.
Hear ye, hear ye....
The Book of Truth (Vol. 1), Prepare for the Second Coming
is now published and available for purchase.
- Contains messages as foretold in the Book of Daniel
- Contains The Seal of the Living God, the prayer for protection against the Antichrist as foretold in the Book of Revelation
- The Roman Catholic Church will collapse and be taken over by The False Prophet who will also take over all Christian Churches
- Jesus' Second Coming (coming the same way He left) will herald in the New Jerusalem, the New Paradise on Earth
- Satan will be banished for 1000 years
- Jesus, the Lamb of God, is now opening the Seals and the Secrets contained in the Book of Revelation through His 7th messenger
The English version of this book costs $18.50 and is available through:
www.thewarningsecondcoming.com
To Anonymous @ 2:58 PM:
I don't know what you're 'smokin' but the Catholic Church (which Jesus Christ Himself created before he was crucified and died for our sins) will NEVER end!!!
Jesus promised us that the 'gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."
"I don't know what you're 'smokin' but the Catholic Church (which Jesus Christ Himself created before he was crucified and died for our sins) will NEVER end!!! Jesus promised us that the 'gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."
He promised that the gates of Hades (meaning death, not hell=Gehenna) would not prevail against his church. I'm not Anon@2.58pm but you have't proved that the church of Christ is synonymous with the church of Rome.
To Anonymous 6:52PM
I'm not smoking anything and you're correct the "Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it"....because we'll be underground just like in the beginning. After the False Prophet emerges and starts changing the present day Sacraments, many will accept this nonsense, but those of us who believe in the Church Jesus Christ started, those of us who honor and understand the Blessed Virgin's role, we won't go along to get along, we'll just hold Mass elsewhere whenever we can get a priest.
Don't forget, in the 95 years following the 1917 Fatima message(s), the world hasn't complied with what we were asked to do. Consequently, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, priests will be martyred, followed by religious, then us lay people.
Anon. 2:58 PM
P.S. I'm not a Fr. Gobbi fan and Russia was consecrated under JPII.
The idea that a country can be "consecrated" by papal say-so is absurd. The true church is a grassroots bottom-up movement, not a top-down movement by fiat (or by politics).
There are abundant prophecies in the Bible about the world in general and Israel in particular as globalization proceeds. I prefer to put my faith in those than in Marian prophecies.
Anonymous 3:07 AM,
To those unfamiliar with the historical event(s) that happened back in 1917 in Fatima, Portugal, and witnessed by Catholics AND non-Catholics alike, understand this,
you're witnessing the consequences. You don't have to believe in Fatima or not to see the fallout. Russia was to be consecrated early on or her errors would spread throughout the world. That didn't happen until JPII came along, however, by then it was too late.
Have you been watching the actions of Obama or listening to his words? Why even Constance mentioned some time ago how his parents met in Russian language classes. His links to Communism can also be traced at www.agendadocumentary.com and this isn't a Catholic production as far as I know.
Anon. 2:58 PM
Youtube video - Dishonorable Disclosures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Xfti7qtT0&feature=channel&list=UL Over 2 million views. Good report on Dishonorable Disclosures from many retired military people. Do be careful who you support however. There would be some who would like to foment a planned civil war against the government, leading to a dictatorship here in the US. I think Beck was warning about that kind of thing.
Anon@5:17 p.m.
It's been said that Catholicism is simple enough for a child to understand and complex enough for a scientist to understand.
The Mass and sacraments are an encounter with Christ, that strengthens and renews us. They are not man-made but were established by Christ.
We also have the prayers of the whole church known as the divine office, where scripture is read or sung about seven times a day.
This was in place long before any Protestant came along.
Theologically we accept everything you do. We just do not reject what you do, Catholicism is just MORE Christianity.
I do agree that Evangelical churches are good for beginners, mature Christians just want more.
Post a Comment