THE APOLOGY OF THE POPE TO THE ORTHODOX; THE 4th. CRUSADE OF 1204

hellenicnews.com ^ | Apr 23, 2004 | Rev. Dr. Miltiades B. Efthimiou

[dangus]

Umm... hey everybody... I just caught noticed this:

The author of this peice represents, and I quote, "the Ecumaniacal Patriarchate."

Maybe my Greek is a little rusty. OK, I don't know any Greek. But doesn't "ecumaniacal" mean something like "universally insane?" :)

I think "ecumenical" is the desired term. What little gremlin got his hands on this?

[dangus]

and yes, I am joking... I know "ecu" alone doesn't mean "universal" and "insane" is a terrible translation of "mania." The other errors are unintentional; I'm not inerrant, only infallible. No wait, I'm not infallible either.

[FactQuest]

But the sacraments of the New Law are not anything "we have done," but are works Christ has done in is. The same St. Paul you cite says "as many as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ" (Gal 3:27). Does that sound like the Sacraments are irrelevant?

The sacraments are most definitely something you "do." Can you be baptized without doing anything? No. For that matter, while we are on the subject of baptism, where do we see infant baptism in the Bible? In the Bible, baptism is consistently seen as an act, by an adult, as an outward show of repentance. Back to the point, it is an act of righteousness. It can't save. According to scripture, it is simply an act of obedience, which follows salvation.

Christ himself says with crystal clarity, "Whose sins you remit, are remitted; whose sins you hold bound, are held bound." (Jn 20:23) He addresses those words to the apostles, who gave that power to their successors, the bishops, who delegate that power to their priests. Why do you think St. Paul contradicts Christ? He doesn't!

Where does it say that they had the authority to transfer the authority to forgive sin? More important theologically was the splitting of the curtain in the holy of holies at Christ's crucifixion. Christ's death made the way for people to come directly into the presence of God Almighty, without priests. And, in the various passages where it discusses the roles in the church, you'll notice there are teachers, and preachers, and givers, and helpers, but no forgivers. Christ is the forgiver. Jesus himself taught us how to pray... "forgive us our sin" - if we can pray directly to God, and He is the One who can forgive, then He is the One to Whom we should confess. Ok, not exclusively, we are also encouraged to confess to each other. Which means it is certainly "okay," scripturally, for us to confess to a priest. But there are plenty of other instances where we are taught confession is directed to God.

I realize, of course, we are unlikely to see eye-to-eye on this. May God bless you.

[Campion]

The sacraments are most definitely something you "do."

Then so is repentance, belief, "taking Jesus as your personal Savior", prayer, Bible study ... etc. You'd better not do those, either.

For that matter, while we are on the subject of baptism, where do we see infant baptism in the Bible?

Tell me, when were Jewish boys circumcised? On the eighth day? When Peter speaks in Acts, he says "the promise is to you and to your children". What Peter giveth, FactQuest taketh away?

In the Bible, baptism is consistently seen as an act, by an adult, as an outward show of repentance.

Nonsense. Nothing in Scripture calls baptism "an outward show of repentance". Christ condemns anything done as an "outward show of repentance". Nothing in Scripture limits baptism to adults, either.

You have exalted the errors of Zwingli on the sacraments to be the equal of Scripture. Is Zwingli infallible? He'd better be, because you're taking his word about things, even down to saying things that are demonstrably false.

Where does it say that they had the authority to transfer the authority to forgive sin?

Same place it says they had the authority to write a single word of the New Testament.

Christ's death made the way for people to come directly into the presence of God Almighty, without priests

The English word "priest" corresponds to and is derived from the Greek presbyter, or elder, an office which is clearly instituted in the NT.

[FactQuest]

We can't automatically extend every promise given to the apostles.

Why not? Or more precisely, which promises are extended and which are not? By what authority do you make such a pronouncement?

Good questions. Two simple thoughts:
We aren't the apostles, and the apostles may have received special priveleges.
We are Christians, i.e., disciples of Christ, and as such, any promises and instructions directed to disciples is directed to us as well. So, indeed, which is when?

So, Matt 28:19 instructs them to baptize. Is that just the apostles, or all disciples?
Mark 16:17 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
Luke 22:29 "And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me,
30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Hey, no one said this was going to be easy.

The simple answer, on what authority, is other scripture. When the whole of scripture is studied, and the difficult passages worked out against each other, basing interpretation of the foundation that the Bible is inerrant, these issues work out rather nicely.

I leave the proof of that statement to the serious student of God's Word.

[monkfan]

If you have any other citations of a council condemn a Pope as proclaiming heresies, please do share.

Nope, I sure don't. But the Church has had no shortage of naughty Patriarchs, the See of Rome being no exception. Given that, we're disinclined to recognize any one bishop, Pope or otherwise, as being infallible, even when speaking ex cathedra. Call us paranoid if you like. ;)

[Campion]

The simple answer, on what authority, is other scripture. When the whole of scripture is studied, and the difficult passages worked out against each other, basing interpretation of the foundation that the Bible is inerrant, these issues work out rather nicely.

Then why do some Protestants, basing their belief on the Bible alone, accept infant baptism, and other Protestants, basing their belief on the Bible alone, reject it?

[conservonator]

We aren't the apostles, and the apostles may have received special priveleges.

And those same apostles believed that their special privileges could be passed on.

[monkfan]

"the Ecumaniacal Patriarchate."

Freudian slip? LOL!!

[FactQuest]

Me:The sacraments are most definitely something you "do."
You:Then so is repentance, belief, "taking Jesus as your personal Savior", prayer, Bible study ... etc. You'd better not do those, either.

Getting down to the nitty gritty, salvation comes from the acceptance of grace. God extends a gift to you. You receive it, or you reject it. Everything else in an act of righteousness. Repentance, belief... Not that any of these are to be avoided, on the contrary. They are the natural steps that are worked in the heart of the person who accepts God grace. But, these acts are not what saves.

Me:For that matter, while we are on the subject of baptism, where do we see infant baptism in the Bible?
You:Tell me, when were Jewish boys circumcised? On the eighth day? When Peter speaks in Acts, he says "the promise is to you and to your children". What Peter giveth, FactQuest taketh away?

Peter didn't say: "to you and your children... as long as you circumcise them on the 8th day... no, wait, better make that infant baptism." No, the promise is given without that condition... seems like you've added something. And I honestly haven't a clue as to what you think I've taken away, other than a condition that isn't there.

Me:In the Bible, baptism is consistently seen as an act, by an adult, as an outward show of repentance.
You: Nonsense. Nothing in Scripture calls baptism "an outward show of repentance". Christ condemns anything done as an "outward show of repentance". Nothing in Scripture limits baptism to adults, either.

Perhaps "show" was the wrong word choice... call it an outward manifestation of a real inner repentance. (putting aside the mental picture of someone walking the Via Dolorosa on their bloody knees...) No, nothing explicitly prohibits it. But, every example if that of an adult. Every example is coupled with repentance, save that of Jesus. (Hence John the Baptist's reluctance.) In the Jewish frame of reference, it was closely associated with ritual purification - cleansing from impurity. But forgiveness of sin was not its effect, that took a sacrifice at the temple.

Me:Where does it say that they had the authority to transfer the authority to forgive sin?
You:Same place it says they had the authority to write a single word of the New Testament.

The two aren't even close. One is a power - until then - vested solely in God. The other is something many people do every day. And it was only later that people came to realize that the accounts and letters were more than just a preservation of history and encouragements and teachings, but inspired as well.

Me:Christ's death made the way for people to come directly into the presence of God Almighty, without priests
You:The English word "priest" corresponds to and is derived from the Greek presbyter, or elder, an office which is clearly instituted in the NT.

Words, labels, semantics. What is the function of the elder as seen in the NT? Teaching, training, shepherding. Forgiving sins? Not seen. Baptizing infants? Not seen. Interceding? Not seen. Having their faith substitute for the lack of faith of their followers? Not seen.

[FactQuest]

And those same apostles believed that their special privileges could be passed on.

Intriguing, I hadn't really heard that before. Do you have a reference, one of the early church fathers, perhaps?

[FactQuest]

Then why do some Protestants, basing their belief on the Bible alone, accept infant baptism, and other Protestants, basing their belief on the Bible alone, reject it?

Obviously, at least one of them is wrong. I lean toward not baptizing infants. But, I'm willing to concede that I may be wrong about that. Underlying this whole difference is an underlying faith that baptism is not what effects salvation, and on that almost all Protestants agree. I would aruge that the Protestants that baptize infants do so more out of a tradition that is rooted in their Roman past, combined with, as you noted, no verses that prohibit it.

[conservonator]

Acts 1:26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

Was Matthias denied the privileges possessed by the other apostles?

[dangus]

So you made an assertion that the councils had found Popes to be heretics, even though you accede that the assertion is false, and then say you *assume* Popes are fallible, just because they are "peccable"? (Yes, I probably made that word up!)

>>Given that, we're disinclined to recognize any one bishop, Pope or otherwise, as being infallible, even when speaking ex cathedra. Call us paranoid if you like. ;)<<

I'd rather say, "distrusting" than paranoid. Distrusting of who? The Pope? I'll readily concede that Popes are neither impeccable or inerrant. It's the *Holy* *Spirit* and not the Pope who confers infallibility apon the Pope. We careful who it is you distrust!

[dangus]

"the Ecumaniacal Patriarchate."

It's so nice that they've conceded the need for a global patriarch, isn't it?

[dangus]

>>call it an outward manifestation of a real inner repentance. <<

That's exactly what it is. And if it isn't outwardly manifested, odds are, it didn't happen. Think of a burning log: Combustion causes heat and light, so if the log is cold and dark, I'm gonna guess the log isn't burning. You need to experience the (outward) sacrament of baptism, otherwise you cannot say you have been baptised.

[dangus]

>>I lean toward not baptizing infants<<

A couple of times, there is reference to an entire wealthy household being baptised. In the biblical days, a household referred to a man, his wife, their kids, their servants, their servants' kids. A wealthy household with no kids at all was unheard of. Absolutely unheard of.

Also, please note that the NT is filled of phrases like, "we have been baptised in Christ." In such places, the authors probably would have said, "we have repented in Christ," if repentance brough salvation but baptism did not. The physical manifestation of a sacrament cannot be seperated from the spiritual occurrence, just as you cannot make conjugal love to your wife over the telephone.

[Campion]

But, these acts are not what saves.

Sure, God saves. The question is how he does it: instrumentality, not agent.

And I honestly haven't a clue as to what you think I've taken away

Baptism is the sign of entry into the covenant, just as circumcision was. You aren't permitting that to infants.

The early church very clearly disagrees with you on this, BTW. Justin Martyr even speaks of old women alive in his day who were baptized by the Apostles. Since he was writing in AD 150, a little bit of math tells you that they were baptized as infants or young children.

One is a power - until then - vested solely in God.

Excuse me, but Scripture is inspired by God. Sins are forgiven by God. Both are powers which come from God. And you've already admitted that Jesus gave that power to the Apostles; you just reject the 2000-year-old belief of the church that that power did not die with the Apostles.

What is the function of the elder as seen in the NT? Teaching, training, shepherding. Forgiving sins? Not seen.

Already mentioned: John 20.

Interceding? Not seen.

Surely you understand that all Christians are to intercede for one another.

Having their faith substitute for the lack of faith of their followers? Not seen.

We no more believe that about our priests than you believe it about your pastors. I know you don't mean to offend, but that's an offensive and nasty accusation to level at fellow believers.

[Campion]

baptism is not what effects salvation, and on that almost all Protestants agree

But Church of Christ members and some Anglicans emphatically do not. If it "works out nicely" to figure this stuff out from your Bible alone, why do some people keep getting it wrong?

1 Peter 3:21 and Gal 3:27 and Acts 2:38 seem pretty straightforward to me.

[Romulus]

Where does it say that they had the authority to transfer the authority to forgive sin?

John 20:21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.