Posted on 07/02/2010 7:42:20 AM PDT by ZGuy
“... nor did He indicate that there was any such thing as an invalid marriage.”
More clearly illiterate rambling. What odd sect teaches the fertilizer you peddle? Certainly not anything close to mainline Christianity!
I've always construed that as an extended metaphor. A father cares for his sons (huoioi) but not so much for his children (paides [guessing, it's pais, paidos - sing. nom. and gen. So paides seems like a good guess for the plural]), so he may not take the trouble to chastise his bastard.
I'll bet there were right many bastard slaves in the early church, who took great solace in words like these.
Of course the absence of a Bible text enabling Apostolic succession is not, to me, a conclusive argument. But am I to understand you to say that once there were written Scriptures Apostolic forgiveness, etc. was not necessary?
Are you saying that the Catholic church would marry them and impart sacramental grace to them?
Of course the absence of a Bible text enabling Apostolic succession is not, to me, a conclusive argument.
If there is no apostolic succession taught by Jesus or the writers under inspiration then it is a man made tradition without any infallible support.
But am I to understand you to say that once there were written Scriptures Apostolic forgiveness, etc. was not necessary?
You assume that is what the scripture is talking about in context
Mat 18:17 — 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.
Mat 18:18 — Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
cross reference with 1 Cr 5 we see ecclesiastical application ... we see that excommunication was taught and supported in scripture..we never see an example that would lead us to think anything otherwise. There was no individual confession until 1215 or so . If this was to be a practice of the new church Christ would have given the command as He did at the last passover.. to" do this " And we would have sen it modeled/practiced in the new church
I Believe Jesus was giving the church authority and a structure..
The forgiveness of sin is held only in the hands of the judge
Well, if the price was right ...
Of course not, not on purpose. And an annulment is a finding that no "sacramental grace" was imparted because, in this example, there wasn't "fit matter" for the sacrament. In our view sacramental grace could not be imparted. In the more troubling examples, it's usually a matter of defective intention.
If there is no apostolic succession taught by Jesus or the writers under inspiration then it is a man made tradition without any infallible support.
That's one opinion. Another is that the very term "apostle" means that the authority of the one sending is given to the one(s) sent so that just as a principle is bound by the acts of his agent, so God in Christ gives those he 'sends' binding authority.
And, of course, we would say (I know you know this; I'm just being thorough) that in addition to the canonical written tradition there is tradition handed down other ways, which is not necessarily thereby "of men." It didn't take very long after the Ascension for the idea of apostolic authority to jell. Certainly Ignatius of Antioch, who is said to have died before 118, and who knew Polycarp who knew John seems to assume it.
You assume that is what the scripture is talking about in context
Mat 18:17
Actually I was not thinking so much of that section as I was of the commissioning (note the root word "mission" - sending) in the upper room, John 20:21-23.
The church has no way of knowing the intention of the people marrying.. They may be sincere in their desire to marry at the time of the "sacrament"..the church can not judge their intention . Church tradition says that receiving a sacrament creates an indelible mark upon the soul of the recipient, the Church teaches that a marriage can not be broken, then the church skirts the prohibition against divorce by saying the proper conditions did not exist for the marriage..
The scriptures are clear..Christ told us that the only reason to dissolve a marriage was adultery and that was only allowed because of mans hardness of heart..
He tells us clearly that what God has joined together let no man put asunder .The church exempts itself from scripture and make out of whole cloth new reasons to dissolve marriages .
That's one opinion. Another is that the very term "apostle" means that the authority of the one sending is given to the one(s) sent so that just as a principle is bound by the acts of his agent, so God in Christ gives those he 'sends' binding authority.
Christ never presented that principle.. it is not outlined in the epistles that lay out church authority...
The words and work of the apostles are recorded for our spiritual benefit..so the 12 of God selection continue to teach and lead the church.
Mat 18:17
Actually I was not thinking so much of that section as I was of the commissioning (note the root word "mission" - sending) in the upper room, John 20:21-23.
I would not call it a "section" I would call it context..
The major rule of good hermeneutics is context context context
The apostles never understood or believed they possessed an authority that belongs to the Judge alone..
John 20 does not speak of men confessing their sins to the apostles.. seeking the forgiveness of God . Men no longer need a mediator between them and God.. we now have Christ as our mediator .. and scripture certainly never hints that it could be passed on
John 1:9 tells us clearly we are to confess to God.
Hebrews tells us that we can boldly come before the throne for mercy
How did the apostles understand this? We do not know, because there is no record of them ever exercising the power "to forgive sin" except in an ecclesiastical sense
Because we reject the one source of knowledge that would give us the information we seek: the living tradition of the Church.
So, I would rephrase, Some do not know because they do not trust the Church -- which is understandable, but still, IMHO, an error.
We HAVE to judge intentions, and we do it all the time in civil law. The mind of the criminal affects whether or not the crime is murder or manslaughter, stealing or unlawful withholding, etc.
then the church skirts the prohibition against divorce by saying the proper conditions did not exist for the marriage.
Good medicines can be used as poisons, "lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds," and so forth. Yes, the annulment process can be abused. That is not sufficient to conclude it is intrinsically bad.
The scriptures pertaining to dissolving a marriage are not relevant to declaring a marriage never was there to be dissolved. If I steal your property and you recover it, you did not steal from me because I never had title. I physically possessed the property, but I did not own it; I did not hold title.
[with respect to the word apostle] Christ never presented that principle..
He never defined bread or water either. The word Shaliach (Hebrew) or apostolos had established meanings. And again it smacks of assuming the thing to be proved to rule out the tradition of the Apostolic Church and then say there is no information. It may be internally consistent, but it is an alternative not a refutation of our view.
Busy updating software and have to reboot. Maybe more later. Sorry for terseness.
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.