Posted on 01/31/2005 5:25:06 PM PST by Diago
So, did Jesus found the church? No, but...
No, Jesus did not found the church if by church we mean the structured institution we have come to know over the centuries. He did not give his disciples a blueprint concerning governance, sacraments, and laws. To think that way is not only simplistic, but misguided.
Even more radically, Jesus could not have founded the church because the church had already existed for a long time; it was God's people, Israel, the "assembly of God." Jesus' ministry was not about the establishment of a separatist sect or a new religious community that would leave Judaism behind and spread to the Gentile world. What the thoroughly Jewish Jesus, rooted in the prophetic tradition of his people, did was to call on his fellow Israelites in order to gather them into the community of the end time- a community renewed and restored through response to his message of God's mercy and acceptance of the last and excluded. That's what he called the kingdom of God.
There is no indication that Jesus forsaw a community seperated from Israel, engaged in a mission to the Gentiles, becoming predominately Gentile and developing the conciousness of being a different religion. this began to happen after Jesus' death and resurrection with the accompanying claims by his disciples that Jesus had been made Lord, had given them the Holy Spirit and sent them into mission first to Isreal and then increasingly to the Gentiles.
Is this "priest" part of the Jesus Seminar?
Good post. What this priest is saying is spot on.
Sheesh, what an idiot Tosco is. [spit]
What other ekklhsian (assembly; church) does Fr. Tosco suggest has petros (Peter) as its universal pastor?
Oh no! You have arrived!!!!
:-). Careful. I could be an angel unawares.
Sinkspur,
What do you make of this? Would you allow this to be preached in your parish? Do you preach similarly or do you reject this.
All,
Does this teaching come from Vatican II?
-Tom
With all respect, He did . . . about 1500 years before the Incarnation. It's called the Torah, and Jesus put His wholehearted stamp of approval on it (Mt. 5:17-19), even to the point of saying that heaven and earth would pass away before the least letter in the Torah did. Granting that the Cross modified some parts of the Torah (like the need for sin sacrifices), the Church has done itself a grave disservice by throwing out the baby with the bathwater and replacing God's Torah with one written by men.
The church, and by this I mean the church started in the New Testament, not the Catholic church, does not use a blueprint written by men. The church has the New Testament to serve as it's guide. In it, we learn everything we need to know about salvation, worship, and church structure.
You just contradicted yourself.
Since the Catholic church does not resemble the New Testament church in organization or teaching, I did not contradict myself.
I don't disagree. However, you'll notice that a lot of the NT presumes that those reading it accept the Tanakh (the OT). If you try to read the NT apart from the Tanakh and the Jewish culture of its writers and/or impose on it a Greco-Roman filter, you're going to misunderstand quite a bit of it.
Not enough that one will somehow lose your salvation by their errors (we are saved by having a relationship with Jesus Christ, not by following the Law or having an impecable theology), but nevertheless, the Church as a whole has had a dismal history in this area--proclaiming us to be free from the Torah, all that the Gentile churches have done is institute their own laws and customs in the Torah's place, laws and customs that are all to often far more burdensome than the Torah we were supposedly freed from.
For a Church less than a decade old, they were thoroughly well organised, and organised in the same manner as the Catholic Church is today. We've just grown a bit. If you were to familiarize yourself with the Patristic writings from the years immediately following the apostolic age, you would see the thoroughly Catholic character of the young Church even more clearly outlined: Bishops, priests, decons, liturgy, sacraments ... the works.
This is all just written off the cuff. I'll let others fill in the details, or do so myself if time permits. I've pinged a couple of folks who might have better resources available.
Granting that the Cross modified some parts of the Torah (like the need for sin sacrifices) ...The sole reason the Jewish priesthood existed was to offer sacrifice in the Temple. When the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., no place remained that sacrifice could be lawfully offered. What is the justification for Judaism as described in the Pentateuch (i.e., Torah, in its restricted sense) -- to continue?
In Isaiah 22, we see the existence of the historical office of the vice-regent (vice-king) of the kingdom of David. In the king's absence, the vice-regent held full plenary authority. As a sign of his authority, the vice-regent wore a pouch around his neck which contained a key --the key to the kingdom.
In the passage from Isaiah, we see this office being transferred from Shebna to Eliakim:
Isaiah 22:20-23Jesus is the eternal king of the House of David who is the power behind the keys."In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father.
Revelation 3:7When Jesus gives Peter the "keys to the kingdom," he is placing Peter in the office of vice-regent of the eternal House of David, Christ's Church:These are the words of him who is holy and true [Jesus], who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
Matthew 16:18-19Elsewhere in Scripture we see that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and that anyone who doesn't listen to the church should be treated as "a pagan or tax collector." (Matthew 18:17)I tell you that you are Rock (Peter), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
The pope is the head of this Church, Christ's Church, as Jesus' vice-regent, representative or vicar.
The belief that the sacrificial system was the sole teaching of the Torah is a pretty narrow and, well, unbiblical one.
Tell me this: What is the justification for casting aside God's ordained feasts (Tabernacles, Passover, etc.) and replacing them with pagan customs (Yule, Easter/Ishtar, etc.)? God's feasts give a prophetic picture of both of our Lord's comings; Christmas and Easter are bound up in pagan symbolism.
Or, what is the benifit of casting away kosher, but then imposing meatless Fridays or rules against drinking anything at all?
I'm not saying that I want to impose following Torah on you; that's not for me to do. But I do propose that we need to stop simply ignoring the Tanakh as the "Old" Testament, and instead seek to study and understand it as well and take it as seriously as we do the New Covenant--neither one is complete without the other. I also propose that we need to stop making up our own laws of fellowship out of man's traditions, and start doing some serious rethinking of the Church's structure and governance in the light of the Tanakh.
This heretic needs to stop teaching. Immediately. Not that this will happen. Rome only fires orthodox theologians--like the FSSP theologians who were fired during a minor dustup regarding concelebration of the New Mass a few years ago. Apparently the Pope only punishes traditionalists--and for very insignificant offenses. It's good at tolerating heretics, however.
It is in this sense that the sacrifice of Christ Jesus is the fulfillment of Torah. He is the Passover sacrifice. He is the purification. The various Christian feasts and rites are important only as they related to the centrality of our sacrifice, who is Christ Jesus.
Torah was at heart of religion. God didn't want any part of the sacrifices if the hearts weren't right.
Where do you get this nonsense? The Church never rejected the Torah. And Jesus was referring to the oral Mishnah--which later became the Talmud--when he condemned a man-made tradition, claiming it was being substituted for God's revelation. In fact, the Church uses the Torah in its liturgies. But it interprets it in the light of the New Testament understanding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.