Bishop Sofie Peterson
Posted on 09/12/2007 1:56:57 PM PDT by NYer
From CWNews:
The Lutheran bishop of Greenland has criticized a Vatican statement on the role of the Catholic Church.
Speaking at an ecumenical leaders' convention on the environment, hosted by the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople, Lutheran Bishop Sofie Peterson took aim at a document released in July by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the unique role of the Catholic Church in the economy of salvation.
In that document, the Vatican had said that Protestant communities, because they have not preserved the Eucharist or the apostolic succession, "cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'churches' in the proper sense." Bishop Peterson objected to that statement of doctrine.
"I do not understand, I truly do not understand why the Vatican has done this," said the Lutheran leader, the divorced mother of a teenage daughter. "We have a church, we have a church and the Vatican must respect us. It was sad to read this document, I was profoundly hurt.”
Hmmm..."the Vatican must respect us"? Something tells me this isn't exactly something Martin Luther would be proud of. And, frankly, I would respect his direct and sometimes harsh approach far more than this sort of theologically-clueless "I deserve respect!" whining. With all due respect, grow up and be a, um, uh, Lutheran?
Ping!
You can’t make this stuff up - it is impossible to parody the modern Church.
I’ll bet Benedict is having a good laugh!
Yeah, I'm sure the Pope will be respecting this creature's church real soon.
I, too, was surprised when this document came out. I was shocked that the Vatican felt it needed to state again what anyone who has been paying attention already knew: The Eastern Churches share the historic theology and apostolicity and are therefore proper churches. The Protestants rejected apostolicity and the historic teachings of the Church. Except for the scriptures and some vestigal sacraments, they have separated themselves from the Church founded by Christ in word and deed.
This woman ought to read a book or something. She knows nothing of Church teaching. It is clear that she knows little theology when she could not engage the text and arguments but rather professed her feelings.
If folks had some more thoughts and a few less feeeeeeelings, perhaps ecumenical dialogue could get somewhere.
Of course it’s perfectly fine for Protestants to call the Catholic Church the “Whore of Babylon,” to claim that Catholics are not “Christians”, and to brag about all the “recovering Catholics” in their congregations, but for the Catholic Church, with her own understanding of ecclesiology, to claim as she has always done that the Catholic Church is the true visible Church established by Christ and to claim that Protestant bodies are not true “churches” in the sense that the Catholic Church understands the term, why, that’s just outrageous!
ROTFL!
I know what you were thinking -;)
I wonder if She knew that Luther had a low opinion of women.
(from Luther's Works 12.94) "The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes."
(From Luther's Works 20.84) "Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child- bearing, it does not matter; let them go on bearing children till they die, that is what they are there for."
What? Whaaat?
I just ran across a picture of a nice elephant seal and thought that I’d share my affection for them with the readership.
Really!!!
Deriding her physical appearance not a good thing.
BWAAHHHAAA!!! I bet a native of Greenland wouldn’t hesitate a second if the “bishopess” came up to a breathing hole in the ice...
Freegards
I don’t supposed it would garner much sympathy to complain about the Lutheran bashing on this thread.
I think he is probably sadly sighing, and shaking his head.
I think it is more that this individual Bishop has very little understanding of the discussion, and also chose to use ...inappropriate language... to express herself. I certainly think most Lutherans have things a lot more together.
In addition, there are the subtle insults to looks that plague these forums.
Any Lutheran who would acknowledge the so-called bishop deserves a bit of bashing. The LCMS needs to send some missionaries to Germany.
Frankly, it’s the behavior of this woman that I consider to be Lutheran bashing. (Although, comments making fun of her Inuit features are inappropriate)
There's a difference between deriding the physical appearance of somebody who can't help the way they look, and deriding the physical appearance of somebody who apparently doesn't care how they look.
This bishopess falls into the latter category. Her lack of care for her personal appearance indicates a lack of self respect and decency.
I would also add that people who buy into the sad and un- Christian "doctrine of total depravity" might have a tendency to not take care of themselves.
I have to wonder if this was news to this woman. The Vatican sees itself as the one church, with the Orthodox churches simply a bit wayward, but still under its umbrella, more or less. It is as though this Lutheran Bishop was an Ohio State fan, and was shocked to hear that Michigan thinks of itself as the preeminent football program in the Big Ten. Shocking!!! Please forgive the football metaphor. ‘Tis the season.
But if you're in a position of authority, you are representing the Church and have an additional obligation to care for your appearance (always in a modest way of course).
And being Inuit is no excuse. There are plenty of well groomed and handsome Inuit ladies out there.
You certainly have my sympathy and, I suspect, that of all the other posters. Though they may seem antagonistic, what one perceives as Lutheran bashing is actually great sympathy, generated by extreme frustration. Allow me to translate: 'How could the Lutheran Church have dropped this low in its selection of a bishop'. My guess is that those who elected her did so out of political correctness, just like the ECUSA members who elected Katharine Schori as their Presiding Bishop.
If anything, we Catholics sympathize with the Lutherans, Episcopalanians, Anglicans, etc. in the forum and wish we could do something positive to assist you in turning your churches around. Alas, what we do witness simply affirms the fact that Christ instituted only one Church against which the gates of hell would not prevail. In its 2000 year history, despite good and bad popes, not one has ever erred in doctrine. Sure, we have our assemblage of kooks - women who ordain themselves priests - but the Catholic Church cannot recognize them and never will. All we can do is pray for our fellow christians that they will find peace in their own churches.
God's blessings be on you, dear friend!
“The Vatican sees itself as the one church, with the Orthodox churches simply a bit wayward, but still under its umbrella, more or less.”
I’m sorry, what? The Orthodox haven’t changed anything in doctrine like the Catholics have. She is NOT under its umbrella as you put it nor is she wayward. Please read your church history.
The meaning of church for Protestants is perhaps best defined by the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:20. “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” New King James Version (NKJV). That’s obviously not good enough for the Pope but it’s good enough for me.
I’ll read my church history, if you will take a couple of deep breaths, calm your EMOTIONS, and engage in some reading comprehension. I was attempting to briefly state the Vatican’s position, not that of the Orthodox, nor my own, nor did I make ANY comment on how much doctrine either of them have changed. Is it unfair to say that the Vatican sees the Orthodox as somewhat wayward brothers? Is that really so out of line? Please, tell me your impression as to how the Roman Catholic Church views the Orthodox.
Yes, “wayward” is exactly what the Church thinks of the Orthodox. They have broken communion with Peter and withdrawn into a cave of history. Yes, the Church of Peter has remained engaged in the ongoing theological project of Christianity. But only the Church of Peter is competent to do so. Only the Church of Peter can hold ecumenical councils etc.
So, yeah. You were dead on.
I didn’t think I was too far off. I didn’t exactly say all that, but the Vatican’s position on the Orthodox isn’t easily put into a pithy comment. We all tend to get a little too emotional in these discussions. The divisions get weird. I probably have more in common with NY’er, theologically speaking, than with the Lutheran Bishop from Greenland, though she and I are both “protestants.”
“Of course it’s perfectly fine for Protestants to call the Catholic Church the “Whore of Babylon,” to claim that Catholics are not “Christians”, and to brag about all the “recovering Catholics” in their congregations, but for the Catholic Church, with her own understanding of ecclesiology, to claim as she has always done that the Catholic Church is the true visible Church established by Christ and to claim that Protestant bodies are not true “churches” in the sense that the Catholic Church understands the term, why, that’s just outrageous!”
You’ve got that right!!!
“They have broken communion with Peter and withdrawn into a cave of history.”
Peter was first Bishop of Antioch, long before he when to Rome. So therefore Antioch would be the See of Peter and all of Orthodoxy is part of it.
Probably he will say a prayer for her instead.
First I want to say how proud Jesus is of all of you for not showing any love for anyone who doesn’t walk lock step with your perception of who is and isn’t a Christian. You have based these beliefs from institutions that Satan has had 2000 years in which to distort God’s Word.
In the last few posts we have RC and Orthodox arguing among themselves as to when fallible men determined doctrine and how those decisions pertained to them. I feel better using scripture.
I have only been reading the religion forum for a couple of months. I was a RC many years ago. Was married in the Church because my ex-wife was Catholic from birth. She attended Catholic schools thru HS. We went to Church weekly until we split. That was 40 years ago. Married my current wife 5 years later and have been a Bible believing Protestant since along with her.
I have known a few people who would call the Church the “Whore of Babylon.” I am not of that belief.
I either didn’t know or I don’t remember the amount of devotion to Mary that RC’s have until I started reading these threads. I had also forgotten or had not heard of apostolic succession. Remember, that 40 years ago.
I’ll admit that I have read posts from a few Protestants I wish I had not, I think that there has been more vitriol coming from the RC and Orthodox by far. One only has to look at the uncalled for personal attacks in posts on this thread. Most of the Protestant post ask for scripture and things go down hill from there. Remember, it is not what we put into our mouths that kill us but what comes out.
I know the scripture you use to say that Christ made Peter the first Pope. I, like others, have a hard time with that. I believe that the Church is based on the fact the Jesus is the Son of God, The Messiah. I also believe what e.Shubee posted. Hard to beat scripture. I am surprised that no one made a comment.
The meaning of church for Protestants is perhaps best defined by the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:20. “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” New King James Version (NKJV). That’s obviously not good enough for the Pope but it’s good enough for me.
I recently read about the 6 Churches in Asia in Revelation 2 & 3. For those familiar with those scriptures, Christ is talking to 6 of His Churches. Non of which is in Rome. He gives each praise and condemnation. I find it odd that He never once mentions Peter, a Pope or Apostolic succession. One would think that if He truly wanted Apostolic procession or a Pope he would have praised the churches that had it and condemned the ones that didn’t. What do you all think?
In the next chapter John is taken to the Throne Room. I have read a lot of threads where you say Mary is with Jesus interceding for us. I read in one of the threads that they thought Mary spent her last days living with or near John. Whether that is right or wrong, I think we all would agree that John knew Mary by sight.
John makes a wonderful picture describing everything he saw. The one thing that is glaringly missing in that picture is Mary. I am not saying that to be mean. I am saying that we all have things wrong. One thing I will say is that no demon has been cast out in the name of Mary. We spend to much time doing things that don’t advance His Church whether it be Catholic or Protestant.
He told us we would do greater things than he did. I haven’t seen anyone since the believers in the early Church told in Acts and the epistles that come close to what the Church is supposed to be. Look how fast the Church grew with persecution and the Apostles walking most places. We have instant communication and we are losing believers daily while Islam is growing. Who’s fault is that?
There are many times I think of this scripture;
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
I have done none of those things, where does that leave me?
BVB
The topic of this thread is a liberal post-Christian Lutheran bishopess. You quote the Bible in an attempt to defend her views. Do you really think that she, or any liberal post-Christian, cares what the Bible says? Of course not, they rewrite the Bible to suit themselves.
You say Catholics aren’t showing her love. I can guarantee you that Catholics, Orthodox, and Bible believing Protestants would all rejoice if any of these liberals would convert to orthodox Christianity.
iowamark, I am sorry that you think I am supporting her views. It may look that way but that was not my intent.
You posted....
You say Catholics aren’t showing her love. I can guarantee you that Catholics, Orthodox, and Bible believing Protestants would all rejoice if any of these liberals would convert to orthodox Christianity.
If that is truly the case, they would be praying for her to see the light instead of ridiculing her. We are the only army that shoots our wounded. BVB
“We have a church, we have a church and the Vatican must respect us.”
MUST? How many divisions does the bishop of Greenland have?
“Speaking at an ecumenical leaders’ convention on the environment, hosted by the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople,”
Right; Green is the new Red.
>> You can’t make this stuff up - it is impossible to parody the modern Church. <<
Ahem, the modern “ecclesiastical community.”
>> Deriding her physical appearance not a good thing. <<
Sister Wendy (my favorite art appreciation teacher) has the most crooked smile, enormous buck teeth, badly aged face, etc., yet there is something beautiful about her. Bishop Peterson is using her face to protest to the world how “saddened” she is by Benedict’s clarification of our Catholic beliefs. She looks ridiculous because she is a phony, a “useful idiot.” She is a fool, and a damned fool, and there is certainly a part of me which does delight in the justice of a damned fool looking like a damned fool.
NYer, so much better said than my post #39, that it makes you seem like such a much better Christian than I, which is also probably reflective of a deeper truth.
>> The meaning of church for Protestants is perhaps best defined by the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:20. “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” That’s obviously not good enough for the Pope but it’s good enough for me. <<
It’s not an issue about being “not good enough”; it’s an issue of what is left out. If I said, “the meaning of marriage is perhaps best defined as ‘love one another, bear each others burdens, and share each other’s joys,’ that may sound all warm and fuzzy and lovely, but it’s the argument of every 1970’s anti-God zealot who slovenly corroded the institution of marriage.
Jesus’ words which you quote are beautiful, true, perfect, and essential, but they are not his definition of ‘Church.’ In fact, these are the only passages in which Jesus uses the word ‘Church’:
“Thou art Rock (Cephas), and apon this Rock (Cephas), I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”
and
“And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. “
Your definition makes not the slightest bit of sense in either usage. What we get from these usages is that the church is singular, built on Peter (or, the faith which Peter would embody), ultimately obliterating evil, authoritative, and judicial. “Church,” as you define it, is none of these things.
>> Peter was first Bishop of Antioch, long before he when to Rome. So therefore Antioch would be the See of Peter and all of Orthodoxy is part of it. <<
By that logic, John Paul II should be known as “Bishop of Gdansk.” Peter HAPPENED to be Bishop of Antioch, but even the ancient sees recognized Rome, not Antioch, as “first among equals.” (One thing many people forget is that bishops have their own authority, so Pope Benedict cannot simply “fire” Cardinal Mahoney, no matter how repugnant he is, short of trying him for apostasy.)
This Lutheran bishop would seem to personify all that is wrong with "state" churches". She was not called by any group of congregations nor even appointed by a church magisterium, rather by the Queen of Denmark. She answers neither to her flock nor to her pope, but to the Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs. To the bishop and her church, Scripture seems to have significance only as an ancient fable, much as the Iliad or the Odyssey.
My Driver’s License photo is so bad that I’ve joked that I couldn’t get busted for DUI: the cop would look at my license and figure, “Oh, he always looks like that.” But I don’t show it to the world. Google her. The person who posted it did NOT have to shop for an unflattering or ridiculous picture; that image is her chosen way of presenting herself to the world. In fact, of the three images of her on the web that have any detail, that one is certainly the most flattering.
It’s not that she’s born ugly. It’s not that she doesn’t care about appearance (she obviously does). It’s that she has made a fool of herself.
>> I’m not sure anyone was ever damned for her looks. <<
I’m not damning her for her looks!
You make a good point. Language, oftentimes, is the worst form of communication. In our frustration to communicate what we know in our minds and feel in our heart can result in misunderstandings. We should be more christian in our approach towards each other. Thank you for the reminder!
You have based these beliefs from institutions that Satan has had 2000 years in which to distort God’s Word.
Well here I will take issue. Matthew 16:18. If anything, it is the Reformation that has led to the creation of 33,000+ non-Catholic Churches. Scripture reveals that Christ established one Church - not many - and that Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.
In the last few posts we have RC and Orthodox arguing among themselves as to when fallible men determined doctrine and how those decisions pertained to them.
Catholics (note that there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church of which the Latin Church is just one) and Orthodox are very close and both trace their roots to the Apostles. There are a few doctrines that separate us and, like 'siblings', we often get into heated discussions here in the forum.
I feel better using scripture.
Because the Old and New Testament Scriptures are the divinely-revealed, written Word of God, Catholics and Orthodox venerate the Scriptures as they venerate the Lord's body. But Catholics and Orthodox do not believe that God has given us His divine Revelation in Christ exclusively through Scripture. Catholics and Orthodox also believe that God's Revelation comes to us through the Apostolic Tradition and teaching authority of the Church.
That Bible you love - it was the Catholic Church that determined the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible) at the end of the fourth century.
I was a RC many years ago. Was married in the Church because my ex-wife was Catholic from birth. She attended Catholic schools thru HS. We went to Church weekly until we split. That was 40 years ago.
At what age did you convert to the Catholic faith?
I know the scripture you use to say that Christ made Peter the first Pope. I, like others, have a hard time with that.
13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16
What is so hard to understand?
I believe that the Church is based on the fact the Jesus is the Son of God, The Messiah.
So do Catholics.
The meaning of church for Protestants is perhaps best defined by the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:20. “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” New King James Version (NKJV). That’s obviously not good enough for the Pope but it’s good enough for me.
By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6). The Bible says that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). It is through the teaching authority and Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2) of this Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,26; 16:13), that we know of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the manifold wisdom of God. (cf. Ephesians 3:10).
There are many times I think of this scripture; Matthew 7:21. I have done none of those things, where does that leave me?
Luke
Chapter 18
- 10
- "Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.
- 11
- The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector.
- 12
- I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.'
- 13
- But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'O God, be merciful to me a sinner.'
- 14
- I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
>> First I want to say how proud Jesus is of all of you for not showing any love for anyone who doesn’t walk lock step with your perception of who is and isn’t a Christian. <<
I did specifically praise NYer for expressing herself in a manner seemingly much more Christian than my feeble attempt.
>> You have based these beliefs from institutions that Satan has had 2000 years in which to distort God’s Word. <<
Who’s easier to mislead, an entire Tradition, or an individual?
>> In the next chapter John is taken to the Throne Room. I have read a lot of threads where you say Mary is with Jesus interceding for us. I read in one of the threads that they thought Mary spent her last days living with or near John. <<
Doesn’t MENTION Mary? Au contraire, he devotes an entire CHAPTER to Mary. She is not only in the throne room, she is crowned by a crown of twelve stars, the tribes of Israel!
>> We went to Church weekly until we split. That was 40 years ago. <<
That’s very sad that you split after 40 years of marriage.
>> One would think that if He truly wanted Apostolic procession or a Pope he would have praised the churches that had it and condemned the ones that didn’t. What do you all think? <<
Because the ones he mentions all WERE.
Revelation was not written as a denouement to a Bible that did not exist at the time. John sent his letter from exile on Patmos, and much of the imagery and symbology is not only prophetic, but coded testament of Nero's horrific persecution of Christians in Rome. The Asian Churches he addressed - if you refer to a map - are all on a very small geographical stretch in Asia Minor. These letters were addressed to these particular Churches because John, previous to his exile, lived among them - he knew their Bishops, and their respective foibles or merits. He was, in effect, correcting their misbehavior and praising their merits, because he knew these Churches intimately. This is why there is no address to Rome - or Corinth - or Alexandria - or anywhere else.
Additionally, because of the fierce persecution in Rome, John would have taken care not to "out" Peter as head of the Church at Rome. That's common sense. Nero was turning Christians into human torches to light the roadways. He wrote of the persecution in code because there was great danger of his letter being intercepted and further action taken by the Empire against the threat of "Chrestus". In battle, soldiers take care not to salute the commanding officer, for obvious reasons. John does the same.
Nice try. But, there is nothing in the church fathers praising Antioch for its unique ministry among sees. There is an abundance of such literature regarding Rome—for not only Peter, but also Paul.
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.