Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope Encourages Catholic-Orthodox Collaboration in the New Evangelization
National Catholic Register ^ | 09/02/2011 | DAVID KERR

Posted on 09/04/2011 7:11:37 AM PDT by Publius804

VATICAN CITY (EWTN News/CNA) — Pope Benedict XVI is encouraging Catholic and Orthodox Christians to work together in re-evangelizing traditionally Christian countries.

“For a renewed proclamation of the Gospel in the modern world we need evangelizers animated by the same apostolic zeal of (St.) Paul,” the Pope said in a letter to mark the close of the 12th Inter-Christian Symposium.

Over the past four days, the symposium has brought together both Catholic and Orthodox scholars in the Greek city of Thessaloniki to discuss the topic of “The Witness of the Church in the Modern World.”

The Pope described the theme as “very timely and central” to his “concerns and prayers” for a “New Evangelization” of traditionally Christian countries where the practice of the Christian faith has declined in recent times.

Pope Benedict noted that although the Church has never ceased to “proclaim the salvific mystery of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ,” the regions in need of re-evangelization are “currently experiencing the effects of a secularization capable of impoverishing the most profound aspects of man.”

People living in these regions seem to give a “contradictory” response to the Christian Gospel, the Pope said.

On the one hand, “there is widespread disinterest, even a lack of sensibility” towards transcendent things, and on the other hand, there seems to be “a profound nostalgia for God” that “persists in the hearts of many, expressing itself in various ways.”

Christianity was brought to the city of Thessaloniki by St. Paul in the first century. The Pope asked for his intercession that the talks between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches encourage “a climate of fraternal charity” and observed that the “mutual understanding of our traditions and true friendship are already in themselves a contribution to the cause of Christian unity.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Ministry/Outreach; Orthodox Christian; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: europe; evangelization; west
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

1 posted on 09/04/2011 7:11:43 AM PDT by Publius804
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Publius804

The calls for evangelism are a stunning admission of failure to “preach the good news of God’s Kingdom” and now the people themselves are being blamed for Orthodox and Catholic Church failures. Outstanding.


2 posted on 09/04/2011 9:34:08 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
hardly -- it is a call for "renewed evangelism".

It's not a failure that orthodoxy has, since the time of Christ, preached to and converted the Roman Empire, Celts, Germanics, Slavs, Magyars, Middle Easterners, Asians,etc

the people themselves are being blamed for Orthodox and Catholic Church failures -- the Apostolic Churches ARE the people, not just the organization. The Church is the community of believers that continue with the orthodox faith through the centuries

If you say that just the Apostolic Church has failed then how come the big numbers of disbelievers are also found among various non-Catholic groups?

how come even as 'Westernisation' spreads, the number of disbelievers increase among Hindus in india and Moslems too?

3 posted on 09/04/2011 12:28:54 PM PDT by Cronos (John 6:61-64: Jesus rebukes those who think the Eucharist is just a symbol/metaphor, repeats: Jn8:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
“- the Apostolic Churches ARE the people, not just the organization.”

These Church organizations are not the people at all as the hierarchy claims special power and privilege for it's self.

Special garb and lavish titles, claims of ontological change and exclusive ability to perform rites mark the hierarchy as their church and the laity is just along for the ride. Hardly “Apostolic”.

The laity, by being shunted off into an observer class, has been cheated of the privilege and obligation of being a preacher and disciple maker, a teacher of the Gospel of the Kingdom.

So who is going to be doing this “evangelization”?

BTW, Is it still illegal to proselyte in Greece?

“If you say that just the Apostolic Church has failed then how come the big numbers of disbelievers are also found among various non-Catholic groups?”

Have you never read and understood Jesus’ parable of the wheat and weeds?

4 posted on 09/04/2011 1:15:24 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
The organization is the community of the people. The people include the laity and the ministers -- all are part of the one community that is the Church.

There is nothing claimed that is not scriptural. The 'special garb' are no more than what was worn in the first centuries, from Apostolic Times, we do not change whichever way the wind blows, unlike those outside the Church.

And you have evidently never been to a Catholic/Orthodox community then you would see that many preachers and disciple makers are not ministers.

The "evangelization" is by the community -- whether laity or clergy

I've understood Jesus' parable and I see that in communities that have left the Church. While the Apostolic Church continues through 2000 years of adversity, strife, changes in "society", the weeds that have sprung up in the past few hundred years have died out or developed cancers or mutated way beyond Christianity. Think Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians etc.

5 posted on 09/04/2011 9:44:44 PM PDT by Cronos (John 6:61-64: Jesus rebukes those who think the Eucharist is just a symbol/metaphor, repeats: Jn8:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
“And you have evidently never been to a Catholic/Orthodox community then you would see that many preachers and disciple makers are not ministers.

The “evangelization” is by the community — whether laity or clergy”

All Christians are to be ministers according to what Paul wrote at Eph. 4:11,12. And Timothy was to be a preacher of the good new, an evangelizer, a minister. (2 Tim. 4:2,3)

So the notion of laity and a separate clergy set off by special dress and titles and all the rest is not at all Scriptural. If fact Jesus condemned such things.

Paul's comments to the Thessalonians about an apostasy occurring while he was alive and his even naming such persons when he wrote to Timothy shows that oversowing of weeds was then and that both weeds and wheat have been growing together until ripening now.

“”, the weeds that have sprung up in the past few hundred years have died out or developed cancers or mutated way beyond Christianity. Think Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians etc.”

How could anyone who is familiar with the murderous and immoral history of the Catholic Church call others “mutated, cancerous”? Astounding, utterly astounding.

6 posted on 09/04/2011 11:57:11 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
cyc: All Christians are to be ministers according to what Paul wrote at Eph. 4:11,12.

Eph. 4:11,12 says that 1And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Most definitely Paul himself is stating that not ALL are called to be ministers

7 posted on 09/05/2011 12:26:30 AM PDT by Cronos (John 6:61-64: Jesus rebukes those who think the Eucharist is just a symbol/metaphor, repeats: Jn8:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
cyc: And Timothy was to be a preacher of the good new, an evangelizer, a minister. (2 Tim. 4:2,3)

And all of us have our ministries, whether laity or clergy.

8 posted on 09/05/2011 12:27:13 AM PDT by Cronos (John 6:61-64: Jesus rebukes those who think the Eucharist is just a symbol/metaphor, repeats: Jn8:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
cyc: So the notion of laity and a separate clergy set off by special dress and titles and all the rest is not at all Scriptural. If fact Jesus condemned such things.

Actually, firstly the clergy are not "set off by special dress" -- they wear modern clothes most of the time, but when celebrating the holiest of all prayers, the Divine Liturgy, at that time they wear what was worn then at the time of the Apostles. Customs and fashions may change -- whether in doctrine or in dress, but the Apostolic Church does not

9 posted on 09/05/2011 12:28:45 AM PDT by Cronos (John 6:61-64: Jesus rebukes those who think the Eucharist is just a symbol/metaphor, repeats: Jn8:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
cyc: Paul's comments to the Thessalonians about an apostasy occurring while he was alive and his even naming such persons when he wrote to Timothy shows that oversowing of weeds was then and that both weeds and wheat have been growing together until ripening now.

2 Thessalonians never says, nor is there one shred of biblical evidence elsewhere to say, that a total apostasy would ever happen. Apostasy, yes, but total apostasy, no.

Old Testament prophecies on Christ's ministry the Church talk of it as perpetual and incorruptible as a whole

Daniel 7:13-14: ". . . behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man , and he and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed"

There was no total apostasy -- that is a Mormon/Adventist/Jehovah's Witness fantasy -- and contradictory to scripture

In Ephesians 1:23 Paul says 22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all

He says in Eph 2 19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord

And Eph 3:20-21 "Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, to him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen."

The history of actions of some men in orthodoxy does not affect the basic faith which is of Christ Jesus as He spoke, in contrast, the weeds that The Unitarians, Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons are groups that have sprung up in the past few hundred years have died out or developed cancers or mutated way beyond Christianity --> the cancer, the murderous and immoral history is in the very doctrine of these weeds in the first place and they continue to mutate away from Christianity.

10 posted on 09/05/2011 12:37:33 AM PDT by Cronos (John 6:61-64: Jesus rebukes those who think the Eucharist is just a symbol/metaphor, repeats: Jn8:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Of course I didn't use the term “TOTAL APOSTASY”. In that illustration Jesus said he sowed the fine seed and that both the weeds and wheat were sown close to the same time so both grew with a similar appearance as darnel and wheat does.

Jesus’ preaching ministry was not his kingdom as you say, confusing the two:

“Old Testament prophecies on Christ's ministry the Church talk of it as perpetual and incorruptible as a whole

Daniel 7:13-14: “. . . behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man , and he and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed”

You say:
“The history of actions of some men in orthodoxy does not affect the basic faith which is of Christ Jesus as He spoke...”

The corrupt and murderous Pharisees said they had the “orthodox” faith and they had their “place” and yet despite having ritual and the Bible and long history that nation was rejected by Christ. At Matthew 21:43 Jesus said the kingdom would be taken away from them and given to a nation bearing it's fruits.

And it was because of those leaders who were guilty of murder and hypocrisy their “house” was abandoned and those who would follow Christ had to abandon it too or perish in 70 a.d.

Now that the crop is ripe who are weeds is quite evident as one scandal after another come to fruition.

11 posted on 09/05/2011 2:23:12 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Good that we agree that there was not Total Apostasy (as the Mormons call it), however, the Apostasy that Paul talks about was localised and his letters stamped it out. That is related to his message of ensuring that the Good News is handed down to reputable men

The various heresies that we see and have seen, are the weeds that died quickly even though they seemed so strong at one point in time -- Arianism, Manichaenism, Gnosticism, etc. etc.

Just in the same way we see both the heresies that have sprung up in the past 100-150 years (Mormonism, Adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists) as dying out, and even the other, incomplete messages of faith are dying out as they are not strong enough to stand up to the light

Now that the crop is ripe who are weeds is quite evident as one scandal after another come to fruition. -- yes, this is visible in the various groups outside the Apostolic Church -- they are roiled with one scandal of their dogma after another

The Apostolic Church itself may have faulty men in laity and clergy, but the dogma is scandal-free as it is the dogma of the Christ Himself.

THAT is the big difference between the One Holy Apostolic Church (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental) and both the incomplete groups and the heresies -- the incompletes and the heresies die out rapidly due to scandals of men, while for the Church that Christ founded, it has remained through 2000 years INSPITE of faulty men.

12 posted on 09/05/2011 4:26:11 AM PDT by Cronos (John 6:61-64: Jesus rebukes those who think the Eucharist is just a symbol/metaphor, repeats: Jn8:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
And good point about how the various groups (both the incompletes and the heresies like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons etc.) are dying out, roiled by one scandal after another.

These groups that lie outside the Apostolic Church are groups of men, formed by men and dependent on just men. hence they fall when the many scandals and faults of men appear

In contrast in the Apostolic Church, if we have a sin filled priest (and hey, they are human after all), that matters not. If they are criminals boot them in prison, that doesn't affect our Church. If they can't preach, that matters not.

Because we look beyond this human vessel and focus on Christ in the Eucharist

During our Holy Prayer to God, what do we have?

  1. We enter in holding aloft the Word of God, singing praises to God
  2. We hear the Word of God, we meditate on this
  3. we sing praises to God, recite glorious psalms, dwell our thoughts on God
  4. and then, my friend, we experience a marvelous, miraculous experience, the Eucharist! Why is it all of this? Because we witness God's sacrifice, His giving of Himself to us, we look on in awe at Jesus Christ, our Lord, God and Savior in the Eucharist, fulfilling His promise to us and giving us the graces in communion
  5. We recite the Nicene Creed acknowledging our Triune God
  6. We pray to the Father as Jesus taught us to pray
  7. We experience the blessings of the Holy Spirit, the grace, the freely given grace granted through the Spirit.
  8. We pray in silence, contemplating this supernatural experience
  9. We greet one another, brothers and sisters, all sharing in this ONE experience along with millions of our brothers and sisters across the world, stretching back to the Apostles and forward to His return
  10. We leave the Church with joy, Christ in our hearts and the Holy Spirit indwelling in us with the grace of the Father.

oh, my friend in Christ, we are blessed to have experienced this -- and where does the minister figure in all of this? He is just a tool, a means. God uses splendid tools or weak ones, but they are just tools

What is at the centre of our Churches? Not like in others, the pulpit, glorifying the preacher, but in Our Church the center-piece is the altar with the Eucharist, the Bible and the Cross, remembering us of Our Risen Lord, His sacrifice and His Word

13 posted on 09/05/2011 4:30:12 AM PDT by Cronos (John 6:61-64: Jesus rebukes those who think the Eucharist is just a symbol/metaphor, repeats: Jn8:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Take a deep breath, relax, you’ll be O.K.


14 posted on 09/05/2011 5:01:21 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
oh, I'm pretty much ok -- thanks to Christ Jesus who gave us His Church, handed down through the Apostles

That is why I point out that groups that lie outside the Apostolic Church are groups of men, formed by men and dependent on just men. hence they fall when the many scandals and faults of men appear. In contrast in the Apostolic Church, if we have a sin filled priest (and hey, they are human after all), that doesn't matter -- Christ is in charge in the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrian).

You can easily see that the Church has survived 2000 years of bad men -- inside as well as outside, ONLY because of the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit .

In contrast the various heresies like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons etc. will crumble -- they are seeded on stone, not fertile soil as they are not from God.

All of these groups formed in the last 200 years are just like cancerous outgrowths on the weeds that left God's word centuries ago. Those weeds may have had some amount of the genes planted by God, but not much, while the cancers have none of it and are doomed to destruction.

15 posted on 09/05/2011 6:15:33 AM PDT by Cronos (John 6:61-64: Jesus rebukes those who think the Eucharist is just a symbol/metaphor, repeats: Jn8:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Thank you, Cronos

This bears repeating over and over and over again:

“What is at the centre of our Churches? Not like in others, the pulpit, glorifying the preacher, but in Our Church the center-piece is the altar with the Eucharist, the Bible and the Cross, remembering us of Our Risen Lord, His sacrifice and His Word.”


16 posted on 09/05/2011 6:55:26 AM PDT by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Glad to hear it, I've come to enjoy our conversations.

Since in the parable it was angels that were going to perform the harvest work it would be according to what they saw as weeds or wheat.

That several groups would make an appearance hardly surprises me as the separation of weeds and wheat should be visible to all. No hybrid plants as far as I can tell.

17 posted on 09/05/2011 7:16:25 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; Cronos
So the notion of laity and a separate clergy set off by special dress and titles and all the rest is not at all Scriptural. If fact Jesus condemned such things.

Then why did the Apostles lay their hands upon Stephen and the other deacons if there was "nothing special" going on?

18 posted on 09/05/2011 8:02:32 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Publius804

Topics such as this are much better declared as Catholic-Orthodox Caucus so that we can avoid the pedestrian YOPIS folks proudly condemning the Church from their soap boxes.


19 posted on 09/05/2011 8:04:25 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
Deacon comes from the Greek DIAKONOS, a word that meant simply a servant. It was never used as a title and is most often translated as servant or minister.
Hence the term could applied to anyone who performed some service within the church and was fittingly applied to Jesus, Paul, and Phoebe, a sister was termed a diakonos in the congregation of Cenchreae, as were others.

Like Timothy or Stephen one might be appointed for a particular task by laying on of hands but Timothy did not become Deacon Timothy thereby.

20 posted on 09/05/2011 8:41:34 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

So laying on of hands is required to perform certain duties then?


21 posted on 09/05/2011 2:09:35 PM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

The book of Acts records several instances of appointments being indicated by a laying on of hands, in other instances the appointment may or may not have been accompanied by the laying on of hands so whether a requirement isn’t clear but certainly was a common practice for a variety of appointments.


22 posted on 09/05/2011 2:41:30 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Example?


23 posted on 09/05/2011 3:36:54 PM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
An example of appointment or assignment without the laying on of hands?

Starting in Acts 15:22 it's related that the apostles, older men , entire congregation sent men to Antioch with a letter that spoke of their appointment but it isn't noted anywhere where they had hands laid upon them. Perhaps they did or the letter was sufficient attestation to their appointment.

Acts 14:23 tells of Paul and Barnabas appointing older men in the congregation “with prayer and fasting” but no mention of a laying on of hands. Perhaps they did but if so I would think it would be mentioned.

And then there is Matthias who became an apostle. Did I miss a laying on of hands in his case or did it not happen?

Is that enough examples?

24 posted on 09/05/2011 4:04:24 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; count-your-change

So are you saying that apostacy is not occurring in abundance today? Is there revival going on instead?


25 posted on 09/05/2011 4:19:32 PM PDT by smvoice (The Cross was NOT God's Plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
Not especially. I know things seem dark what with the gays attacking mainline denominations etc, but things have been darker before and look at the bigger picture -- the Gospel is spreading in Asia and Africa and is actually getting a groundspring even in Europe.

Even if you compare this time to the 1950s, you will see more spreading of the Word.

26 posted on 09/05/2011 8:12:07 PM PDT by Cronos (John 6:61-64: Jesus rebukes those who think the Eucharist is just a symbol/metaphor, repeats: Jn8:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
To a degree both as technology has allowed the Word to spread over more of the earth than ever before and in more languages. We have more translations of the Bible to choose from and greater understanding of the original languages.

Conversely, As Paul said ‘men will arise from Christian congregation and speak twisted things to draw off followers for themselves ’ and that to such a degree to be notable as a sign.

27 posted on 09/05/2011 10:16:50 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
You said: "The book of Acts records several instances of appointments being indicated by a laying on of hands..."

And I asked for examples

You then said: "An example of appointment or assignment without the laying on of hands?"

No, of course not! The process of an appointment including the laying on of hands is what we are discussing.

So you posted two examples where you note that laying on of hands wasn't mentioned and then you posted:

"And then there is Matthias who became an apostle. Did I miss a laying on of hands in his case or did it not happen?"

"Is that enough examples?"

That's exactly ZERO examples of laying on of hands, which leaves us back where we started: the appointment of Stephen and the other Deacons was somehow more significant that just assigning them some tasks.

28 posted on 09/06/2011 12:40:25 PM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
This my post# 22:
“The book of Acts records several instances of appointments being indicated by a laying on of hands, in other instances the appointment may or may not have been accompanied by the laying on of hands so whether a requirement isn’t clear but certainly was a common practice for a variety of appointments.”

Your post #23 in response was “Examples?”

Perhaps you should have been clearer on examples of what you wanted since I mentioned two practices and some uncertainty. Just asking “Examples?” would apply to all. Obviously you already knew of positive examples so no need to repeat.

“..... the appointment of Stephen and the other Deacons was somehow more significant that just assigning them some tasks.”

Deacons was not a title so the caps aren't necessary and if there was something extraordinary about the means or duties they were assigned it isn't spoken of in the Scriptures.

29 posted on 09/06/2011 2:10:57 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Deacons was not a title so the caps aren't necessary and if there was something extraordinary about the means or duties they were assigned it isn't spoken of in the Scriptures.

It is clearly part of the tradition passed by the word of the Apostles. That they were doing so is clearly mentioned in Scripture.

30 posted on 09/07/2011 8:39:32 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
I am unaware of any word by any apostle passing down “Deacons” (or Bishop, Reverend, Eminence, Holiness, Right Reverend, Elder, Etc.) as a title to be embraced by the “diakonos” or minister.

If I have overlooked it in the Scriptures please so inform me with my thanks.

31 posted on 09/07/2011 8:48:42 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

You’ve overlooked it in the traditions handed down by the Apostles, as I’ve already pointed out to you.


32 posted on 09/07/2011 9:13:22 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

You said earlier:

“It is clearly part of the tradition passed by the word of the Apostles. That they were doing so is clearly mentioned in Scripture.”

So where in the Scriptures, in the word of the apostles is it mentioned that deacon, etc., was used as a title?


33 posted on 09/07/2011 4:32:57 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
if there was something extraordinary about the means or duties they were assigned it isn't spoken of in the Scriptures

Really? Read much?

Deacons serve tables:

[2] Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. [3] Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. (Acts 6)

A deacon witnessing to the faith, explaining scripture and baptizing a convert:

[29] And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. [30] And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?

[31] Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. [32] And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth. [33] In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth? [34] And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man? [35] Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.

[36] And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized? [37] And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. [38] And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him.

(Acts 8)

Priests serve the Eucharist and sit on thrones:

This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. [...] he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth. [27] For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is it not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth: [28] And you are they who have continued with me in my temptations: [29] And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom; [30] That you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Lk 22)

Priests annoint the sick

Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. (James 5:14)

Bishops ordain priests:

thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee (Tituus 1:5)

Bishops rule the Church

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

Read the Holy Scripture every now and then and you, too, will flee the foolishness of Protestantism and become a Catholic Christian ready to witness to others.

34 posted on 09/07/2011 5:53:07 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

I’ll try this again, Stephen and the others were designated “to serve” the other Christians in need, correct?


35 posted on 09/07/2011 8:47:53 PM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The context (ignored by your sarcasm) in which I wrote is this:

““..... the appointment of Stephen and the other Deacons was somehow more significant that just assigning them some tasks.”

Deacons was not a title so the caps aren't necessary and if there was something extraordinary about the means or duties they were assigned it isn't spoken of in the Scriptures.”

Being termed a deacon, diakonos, minister does not imply “somehow more significant” duties. Anyone that served others could be termed a deacon or diakonos, a minister.

THAT was the context. If you still can't understand it, there's not much more I can do.

In the same way bishops, overseers, episkopos, (small ‘b’ since no one in the scriptures carried or was referred to with Bishop being used as a title. The bishop was an overseer not a ruler and most translations and lexicons recognize this fact. It's a description of duties, not a title in the Scriptures.

“Bishops rule the Church

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)”

This is an example of a bias in translating as the word here translated as “rule” is the Greek word “poimainein” and means here ‘to shepherd or pastor’ the flock not to rule. The overseers were to be shepherds per Jesus not rulers. Jesus is the only ruler.

Read much?

“Priests serve the Eucharist and sit on thrones:”

The word “presbuteros” means simply an elder, an older man and does not connote the idea of a priest. The overseers’ duties and the elders were essentially the same, to be shepherds of the flock.

The only instance of any Christian being termed a priest was those that had been resurrected to heaven to serve as kings and priests. There were no priests in the Christian church, that is a novelty of Catholicism, there were older men, elders, presbuteros, but no priests.

Read much?

36 posted on 09/07/2011 9:11:47 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
I asked:

“So where in the Scriptures, in the word of the apostles is it mentioned that deacon, etc., was used as a title?”

Perhaps you could try with an answer to my query first, o.k., then I'll be happy to move on, it might save a bit of repetition since there was never any question about what Stephen and others were assigned.

37 posted on 09/07/2011 9:31:32 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Deacons was not a title so the caps aren't necessary

The capitalization was invented at the same time Protestantism was invented, neither is a scriptural proposition. It is clear from the scripture that all three: deacon, priest and bishop were chosen very carefully (Timothy 5:22). The duties are somewhat mixed: indeed a bishop is primarily a priest and only secondarily an overseer of priests and all, including laity, have an obligation to evangelize. However, the scripture shows us St. Stephen, a deacon, evangelizing but not offering Eucharist or overseeing priests; the scripture shows us priests -- not deacons and not bishops -- to be called for a sacrament, and it shows Sts Timothy and Titus being bishops, i.e. appointing and overseeing priests. so they had common dutues and they had distinct duties. The phrase "It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables" (Acts 6:2) shows that the system was hierarchical, designed to relieve higher offices from lower duties. Now, when someone receives an office, a title comes with the office, whether we have that particular mode of address itself recorded in the scripture or not.

That the Holy Orders make an ontological change in an ordained man is plainly seen from this scripture:

Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood. (1 Timothy 4:14)

Anyone that served others could be termed a deacon or diakonos, a minister.

Possibly so, -- and likewise today deaconate is much more accessible to people who wish to do ministry, than priesthood. But the Holy Scripture, if you ever read it, does not give us an example of someone "being termed deacon" just spontaneously to cover the needs of a moment, and it does show us an example where deacons are very carefully selected and appointed to their office ("look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business", Acts 6:3).

This is an example of a bias in translating as the word here translated as “rule” is the Greek word “poimainein” and means here ‘to shepherd or pastor’ the flock not to rule.

To translate ποιμαινειν "shepherd" does not change the fact that the bishops are placed by this verse in a certain relation of authority with respect to the rest of the Church; and from other places we see what that authority was: select and ordain priests (1 Timothy 5:22, Titus 1:5), and be responsible for the soundness of the doctrine (1 Timothy 4:16, 2 Timothy 3:10, and many similar).

The word “presbuteros” means simply an elder, an older man and does not connote the idea of a priest.

Someone was a priest since both Sts Timothy and Titus were told to ordain them, and in doing so confer special grace on them. "Elder" is just a lousy Protestant "translation" intended to lie to people about the Gospel.

The only instance of any Christian being termed a priest was those that had been resurrected to heaven to serve as kings and priests

I gave you several in my previous post and in this one, of priests being living people, and, contrary to your "elder" insinuation, often quite young (1 Timothy 4:12).

Read much?

Yes I do. I can read the Greek original and so I know the meaning of words of the Holy Scripture unobfuscated by Protestant shysters. I also read the Fathers of the Church diligently, so I also know the historical context in which the New Testament was written, and how it was understood by the First Church. I also hear the Holy Scripture as I pray in church in the presence of the eucharistic Christ. Worry about yourself.

38 posted on 09/08/2011 5:55:27 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Capitalization in the English language can change a word no matter when or who started the practice. It makes a huge difference when, in translating, a descriptive and general designation is turned into an exclusive and specific title.

“Now, when someone receives an office, a title comes with the office, whether we have that particular mode of address itself recorded in the scripture or not”

That's a bit of reverse and novel exegesis on the part of the Catholic church,i.e., invent an office title and then claim to find it in Scripture even if it requires the most obvious mistranslation. But you say:

“..... I can read the Greek original and so I know the meaning of words of the Holy Scripture unobfuscated by Protestant shysters.”

Then why insist that elder, older man, whether literal or figurative, is a priest when the NT plainly recognizes what a priest is seeing Jewish priests and recognizes the only priests that come from the Christian congregation are those faithful believers that die and only after resurrection to heaven serve as KINGS and PRIESTS.

These were priests, the Greek ‘hiereus’ of Rev. 1:6. But anyone able to read Greek in the original would know that wouldn't they?

And they would know too that the gifts given Timothy (1 Tim. 4:14) by prophecy with his appointment (ordination) are those Paul spoke of at Eph. 4:7,8:

“But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
Wherefore he saith When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.”

“Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood. (1 Timothy 4:14)

The presbytery was not a priesthood as anyone who is familiar with how the Greek is used. Hence no so called “ontological” transformation that is claimed for Catholic priests.

“But the Holy Scripture, if you ever read it, does not give us an example of someone “being termed deacon” just spontaneously to cover the needs of a moment.”

You said of yourself:

“Yes I do. I can read the Greek original and so I know the meaning of words of the Holy Scripture unobfuscated by Protestant shysters. I also read the Fathers of the Church diligently, so I also know the historical context in which the New Testament was written, and how it was understood by the First Church. I also hear the Holy Scripture as I pray in church in the presence of the eucharistic Christ. Worry about yourself.”

Then with all that training and qualifications have you forgotten that Martha became a diakonos “just spontaneously to cover the needs of a moment.” (Luke 10:40) "I also hear the Holy Scripture as I pray in church in the presence of the eucharistic Christ. Worry about yourself." I'm not the one hearing voices in my head but thanks for the concern.

39 posted on 09/08/2011 10:06:04 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

I’ve answered that question repeatedly: “It is clearly part of the tradition passed by the word of the Apostles. That they were doing so is clearly mentioned in Scripture.”

Or more simply put, it is not in Scripture but in the oral traditions mentioned in Scripture.

Now, Stephen and the others were appointed “to serve”, were they not?


40 posted on 09/08/2011 12:39:57 PM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

Sure they were, no question. And?


41 posted on 09/08/2011 12:45:56 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

And the Greek term for this is “diakonia”, correct?


42 posted on 09/08/2011 2:43:28 PM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

Yes, but let’s cut to it, you have a destination, no? yes?


43 posted on 09/08/2011 3:58:20 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Capitalization in the English language can change a word

Yes, it can. What did I capitalize wrong? What I say is that the office is important, not whether the word is ever used also as a title. From the scripture cited in my previous two posts, the deaconate, priesthood and episcopacy are offices with distinct duties as well as some overlapping duties.

why insist that elder, older man, whether literal or figurative, is a priest

Priests of the New Testament are presbyteroi in the original. They are priests because they celebrate sacraments (see for example, James 5:14) and are a distinct people for that reason (1 Timothy 4:14). Since they are obviously not Hebrew or pagan priests, the word hiereus is not used and instead the word presbyteros is coined and used in a novel sense. That the English word "priest" is used to cover both non-Christian hiereus and Christian presbyteros is a defect of the English language; most languages don't confuse the two.

The presbytery was not a priesthood

Repeat it some more and it will become true, would it not? The point of bringing 1 Timothy 4:14 is indeed to point out that the imposition of hands ordained St. Timothy to something he was not before. Yes, there are many gifts given the priests.

Martha became a diakonos

She served Jesus, yes (forms of the same word as deacon are used in Luke 10 to describe here work, but not herself as a person), but there is no ordination of St. Martha into deaconate described in the Bible, and there is one in the case of the seven deacons.

Generally, understand this: each word has some etymology out of which a new meaning emerges. You would not argue that because "president" means "one sitting ahead of others" presidency of the US is not a political office but rather something people find themselves doing on occasion; but you exhibit the same foolishness when it comes to the terminology of the Holy Scripture.

44 posted on 09/08/2011 5:51:07 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: annalex
“Since they are obviously not Hebrew or pagan priests, the word hiereus is not used and instead the word presbyteros is coined and used in a novel sense. That the English word “priest” is used to cover both non-Christian hiereus and Christian presbyteros is a defect of the English language; most languages don't confuse the two>”

The word hiereus IS in fact used of Christian priests, specifically those who would rule with Christ as kings and priests. The word hiereus is used of Christ as he is archiereus not archpresbyteros.

Both Paul and John use the Greek hiereus to speak of these king/priests and the Jewish priests but presbyteros and hiereus are NOT used interchangeably....because presbyteros does not mean priest and the defect is not in the English language but the efforts to do retro-exegesis according to the bias of the Catholic church and its efforts to install priests in the Chistian congregations where none exists.

I see how well you “read Greek in the original” and so forth.

Paul knew the word for priesthood and he didn't use it at 1 Tim. 4:14. Paul used the word prebytery, elders, older men not priests or hiereus.

But you should know this since you “read Greek in the original” and should require no further enlightenment from me.

45 posted on 09/08/2011 7:22:36 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
The word hiereus IS in fact used of Christian priests, specifically those who would rule with Christ as kings and priests. The word hiereus is used of Christ as he is archiereus not archpresbyteros.

Yes, -- in Revelation ιερευς is used for the Christian priests, and also in Hebrew the word is used for Christ. I did not say that ιερευς was never used in Christian context, -- Catholic priests have in fact removed the need for the Hebrew priests as they, the Catholic Priests, are priests after Christ (John 20:21) in the order of Melchisedech, -- I said that when the affairs of the Church are described in Pauline letters, a new and specific word is used, πρεσβυτερος to more accurately describe the new function.

install priests in the Chistian congregations where none exists.

No Hebrew ιερει exist in the Christian Church that Christ founded; πρεσβυτεροι very much exist because St. Paul writes of them to Titus and Timothy. They are Catholic Christian priests.

46 posted on 09/09/2011 5:36:57 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

No need to rush.

The Greek term for someone who serves in this manner is Diakonos.

Are we still in agreement?


47 posted on 09/09/2011 6:42:03 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: annalex

THIS is what you said earlier:

“Priests of the New Testament are presbyteroi in the original. They are priests because they celebrate sacraments (see for example, James 5:14) and are a distinct people for that reason (1 Timothy 4:14). Since they are obviously not Hebrew or pagan priests, the word hiereus is not used and instead the word presbyteros is coined and used in a novel sense. That the English word “priest” is used to cover both non-Christian hiereus and Christian presbyteros is a defect of the English language; most languages don’t confuse the two”

“...presbyteroi in the original” for Christian priests, remember? Now it’s:

“Yes, — in Revelation (hiereus) is used for the Christian priests, and also in Hebrew the word is used for Christ”.

You go on to say:

“Catholic priests have in fact removed the need for the Hebrew priests as they, the Catholic Priests, are priests after Christ (John 20:21) in the order of Melchisedech....”

Nay not so according Paul’s words to the Hebrews, chapters 9 & 10. He says it was Christ entering into the Most Holy to offer himself as the sacrifice that abolished the need for any repetitious sacrifices by Hebrew priests. He being the High Priest no lower priests were needed or mentioned as having a part.

“....in the order of Melchisedech..”?

At Hebrews 7:17 Paul quotes Psalm 110:4 and applies that oath and promise about Melchizedek to Christ and Christ alone. There is but one member of this High Priesthood and since would be it no priesthood of others was set up or in existence.
John 20:21 uses the word ‘apostello’ to refer to Christ being sent out by his father, not priest, and those he sent were disciples not priests, certainly not like Melchizedek.

You continue:

“I said that when the affairs of the Church are described in Pauline letters, a new and specific word is used, (presbyteros) to more accurately describe the new function”

But presbyteros (I have trouble getting the Greek font up) was used to mean elder and older man long before the time of Christ, as far back as during the time of Homer I believe, so the word is not new and it’s meaning well known to Greek speaking persons.
If you mean a novel useage then you should be able to show it was applied to Jewish priests too as hiereus was to describe their priestly functions. You cannot.

Lastly you come up with this absolute gem!

“No Hebrew (hierei) exist in the Christian Church that Christ founded; (presbyteroi) very much exist because St. Paul writes of them to Titus and Timothy. They are Catholic Christian priests.”

Of course not! Hebrew priests never officiated in the Christian church.

“......(presbyteroi) very much exist because St. Paul writes of them to Titus and Timothy. They are Catholic Christian priests.”

Not unless Paul wrote in English as translating presbyteroi, prebyteros, etc. as priest or priestly is evidence of a religious bias in the translating being justified by what I called reverse-exegesis.

One...you haven’t examined the Greek you claimed to be able to read.
Two...You seem just as unfamiliar with the Scriptures and both could be corrected.


48 posted on 09/09/2011 7:55:53 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

Yes.


49 posted on 09/09/2011 7:57:37 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

That would be “yes”, if we can arrive at our destination before my first SS check arrives.


50 posted on 09/09/2011 8:19:49 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson