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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 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