Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
note that the passage given in this post is from the old testament, before Jesus’s time. People used to sacrifice animals to gain forgiveness from God during this time as well, so times have changed and i think that God does not give these priests that kind of power
but then again, Jesus’s disciples were given the abilities to perform miracles...
Of course not. She was chosen instead of any other. God wanted Mary for His plan, and so it was Mary and Mary only.
List 10 things you love about Mary.
LOL! I might have trouble telling you 10 things I KNOW about Mary. After all, my only authority for this is the Bible. But, here are some things that are admirable:
First of all, she was a very pious young woman, as we saw at the Annunciation. We also know that she was very brave given what she faced as being pregnant and unwed. We also see her bravery at the scene of the cross. We can presume that she was a good and very loving mother to Jesus. Finally, she showed faith at the wedding in Cana. These are all perfectly good reasons to think highly of Mary, and I'm sure there are other positive inferences we can draw from scriptures. I realize that all this is but a fraction compared to what has been added to Mary lore since the NT was written, but I still think it is enough to honor and recognize her for her extremely important role in Christianity.
God is not rational. His mind is not our mind and his ways are not our ways. You have no clue why He made things, how He made things, etc. All we can say is "just because." This is no different than your dog watching you leave the house and conclude that you can leave because you can open the door and he can't. Very "rational" indeed.
While it is true that His ways are not our ways, to conclude from this that God is NOT rational is IRRATIONAL! :) You are mistaken in defining what is rational by what you can understand. Is what is rational DEPENDENT on the perceiver? Of course not, as it would defy logic. If God is not rational, then He Himself is irrational, arbitrary and capricious. I hope your Church doesn't say that (and I don't think it does).
This is different from the dog because he doesn't say: "I know my master is going out for a reason, but I just don't know what it is". That's what we can say and the dog can't.
Whenever we try to "figure out" God is it rationalism. It is rationalism because we use reason to come up with a suitable answer, something that fits our conceptual little cube, so that we can "make sense" of God.
I may be able to work with you here, and explain my distinction. :) Rationalism is man starting with man to figure out God. I agree that's bad. However, God being rational is independent of man even existing at all. God being rational does not depend on whether I can understand everything He does. And, I can accept this because the presuppositions and definitions I start with are based on God (Reformed man) and NOT man (Renaissance man).
Rationalism insists that we cannot know God without reason.
The way I use the term, rationalism insists that all things true must be able to be explained using human reason. That is because man and not God is the starting point from which to think about things. In contrast, I would say that since God is a rational being, that we can know Him, to our intended extent by Him, on a rational level.
Are you saying that an infant who dies never knows God because that infant never developed reasoning ability, or conceptual constructs, etc?
Such an infant knew God to the extent designed by God when He created her to exist on earth. It is the same with all of us. To the elect, this is of no import in the eternity of Heaven.
FK: "Secular humanists believe in rationalism."
So do rational theists.
Since hopefully neither of us are either, we shouldn't have to worry about this part. :)
FK: "There were many who followed the "blind faith" paradigm that you espouse now. How many of them ever truly reconciled man to God? The answer is NONE. They all gave up because they refused to admit that there was something greater than themselves which they could not fully explain."
We don't have that problem in the Orthodox or Catholic Churches. Our knowledge of God is sacramental, not rational. It is a mystery to us how God became Incarnate. We accept it because it is in the Bible, on "blind faith," and certainly not on anything "rational."
I don't see how your Churches solved the basic problem other than by blind declaration. In all theaters, whether it be literature, art, music, philosophy, or theology, all of these men started with the basic premise of man at center. They ALL chose to take a leap of faith, just as you say your Church does. Do you see any danger signs?
Those you speak of God frustrated because they didn't look up into the sky and said "Wow, Something caused this all!" No, their pride forced them to deny God in order to deify human reason as the alpha and the omega.
AMEN!!! This is exactly right. Now, the Church certainly doesn't go this far, however, it appears that these men and your own all start from the same place. Such a thought would cause me great concern. :)
Love is not reasonable.
Sure, if we only apply human standards. By our own understanding we cannot explain all there is of love. However, if we start with God then we are given many clues about what really IS true love. We say that it is what Jesus did for us, and that is MUCH more than we knew about it before, if we accept God as the starting point.
We can all agree (in our Christian heart) that saving a man's life on a Sabbath is better than letting him die, but how come we cannot understand when Christ tells us to love our enemies or to turn the other cheek? Little biblical selectivity here, huh?
Sure there is. There are Biblical lessons that are much harder for me to learn than for you and vice-versa. There are also those which are harder for man in general. Common sense is not one of the harder ones, but denying self certainly is. We have a lifelong sanctification process to help us graduate from the easier ones to the harder ones.
But Tim 2 didn't define what Scriptures is.
But more importantly for you, your Church does! :) In order to not match them, you would be forced to put the Church above the Apostles. I believe that your Church holds that the NT is bona fide scripture and is subject to 2 Tim. Is that incorrect?
Show me one Bible that doesn't contain some error.
If you're talking about human technical error I can't, since I can't name the one that doesn't have any of that. However, I have confidence that God has protected His word from corruption beyond the understanding that He meant His children to have. I give God the ownership of His word. I think He cares what it is and how it is presented. So, I trust that the versions I am reading are what He has in mind for me right now.
FK: "I have not seen an Orthodox explanation of how "God-breathed" can mean "error-filled"."
Through copying errors, falsifying, additions, deletions, translational errors, printing errors, omissions, human interpretations, you name it.
So, does your "God-breathed" contain disqualifying errors, or do you agree with the gist of my above?
Now some of these [Apocrypha] are a matter of artificial divisions and not real differences. I'm not sure what "near" means. Does "at hand" mean anything? So close you can grab it!
They are also known as Deuterocanonicals, which were rejected as protocanonicals and picked up 1,000 years later when someone finally noticed that the original Council failed to recognize them as they had the other books. The traditional line is that it wasn't needed. However, no one has explained why it was needed for the correct 66, but not for these additions.
Of course, today, we do not consider ourselves "Jewish." But that's mostly because Judaism, and that includes the Christian Judaism, rejected us and not the other way around. The idea that there is an "extended" Israel was not part of Christ's teaching.
Then why does God accept the idea today that you and I are eligible to be Christians (or believers, or promisees, etc.)?
Hardly. The Apostles waited more than 30 years (and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple) to begin writing what they remembered and preached by word of mouth.
Neither you nor I know what they wrote during those 30 years, if anything. All we know is what God chose to survive it all. Besides, God inspires on His own time table. Your conclusion presupposes that they all wrote on their own. It proves nothing negative that God chose to sanctify these men for 30 years and more before writing through them.
Taking the Church to alien pagan lands was a forced issue, but also a sure way for it to be corrupted in one generation, so a more permanent record witness was needed.
So the Bible is the result of a failed policy?
[FK quoting:] John 5:39-40 : 39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
This simply shows that people can misinterpret the Scriptures if they rely on just reading them for one's salvation.
This simply shows that the scriptures back up everything Jesus has been saying about Himself, AND that reading them without God-given eyes and ears is useless. For example:
Matt 16:16-17 : 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
The Father had not revealed the meaning of the scriptures to the teachers of the law. All revelation comes from God, so of course not just anyone can pick up a Bible and know what's going on. However, to my original point, this is still Jesus saying that believers should check the scriptures because they testify about Him.
The OT is wishy-washy when it it comes to animal sacrifice; in some parts it says God wants it in others it says He doesn’t.
Do you still want to know who ordained the apostle paul?
I am interested in your answer. Who do you think ordained the Apostle Paul?
You are mistaken by implying that God is subject to any set of rules just because they apply to men. You are presuming pre-existence of logic to which, by "necessity," God "must" conform.
Maybe we can ask why would God "have" to be rational. Is it so that He (all-knowing) can "figure" things out (LOL!)? We use reason in order to minimize trial and error, or to be able to predict a phenomenon, etc. Does God use trial-and-error, or tries to predict anything? Your instance that God must be rational is subjecting God to human standards. To state with certainty that God must be rational is irrational.
If God is not rational, then He Himself is irrational, arbitrary and capricious
No, God knows everything and exists in a timeless eternity in which everything has already happened. There is nothing to discover, there is nothing God left out undone, there is no trial-and-error, there is no need to figure things out. God does not ponder or wonder.
I would say that since God is a rational being, that we can know Him, to our intended extent by Him, on a rational level.
His ways and thoughts are not ours and therefore we cannot use human reason to "rationally" understand God. Incarnation is not rational. Creation is not rational. Do you understand the reason God created the Universe, or sulfur volcanoes on Io (one of Jupiter's moons), or black holes? Or are all things we see a consequence of universal physical laws God created for reason only known to Him?
Such an infant knew God to the extent designed by God when He created her to exist on earth
Are you saying that children who pass on before reaching the age of reason will never know God because they are rationally underdeveloped? If reason is required, then every infant that dies is lost.
I don't see how your Churches solved the basic problem other than by blind declaration. In all theaters, whether it be literature, art, music, philosophy, or theology, all of these men started with the basic premise of man at center.
Imputing that God must be rational is the essence of man-centered theology. Please explain—rationally—Incarnation. So that we may all "understand" why it must be true and why "blind faith" is not required.
FK: However, if we start with God then we are given many clues about what really IS true love.
We were talking about love being (ir)rational, not if it is true. Just because something is rational (to man) doesn't mean it's true!
The Church defines as Scripture the OT and the various books believed to have been written by Christ's Apostles and read in the churches form the beginning. That's hardly placing the Church above the Apostles, FK.
The Church also considered Septuagint to be inspired because the Apostles used it extensively. The Church considers the so-called "Apocrypha" as Scripture, because the Apostles draw form them as well.
The Church fathers decided which is inspired and which is not, after centuries of careful and painful examination of some 200 or more existing manuscripts.
The earliest known complete Bibles (mid and late 4th century, both made before the official canonization) contained Apocrypha:
The East always considered the "Apocrypha" as part of the canon.
However, I have confidence that God has protected His word from corruption beyond the understanding that He meant His children to have
Then all the differences in interpretation must come from erroneous private reaidngs.
I give God the ownership of His word
Certainly. God make sverything perfect, but man also corrupts everything and God allows it.
So, I trust that the versions I am reading are what He has in mind for me right now
Perhaps we could call this solipsitically "true," but yui have no way of knowing for certain, because Judas could have been saying the same thing about betraying Jesus: "I am only doing what God has in His mind for me."
Next thing you will tlel me is that Judas was an obedient servant of God.
So, does your "God-breathed" contain disqualifying errors
God did not put errors in the Bible; men did! God does not create defective souls. Adam and Eve corurpted their souls and pass that corruption from generation to generation. Same thing with the Bible. We have copies of copies of original manuscripts. They all differ from each other in significant ways, our confidence in the Bible notwithstanding.
There was no need to specifically define them before Reformation rejected them. The ealriest Bibles (Codices Vaticanus and Aleandrnus, mid 4th century) contain the Apocrypha.
The Third Council of Carthage (397 AD) lists the following Old Testament Books (according to the Septuagint):
Clearly, this canon includes the so-called Apocrypha, just as the Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do some 50 years prior, bolded, and additions to Daniel and Esther, which the Protestants reject.
This canon, however, was not complete and continued to vary in the East and the West for another 400 years, but it ALWAYS contained "Apocryphal" books.
Well OK, this is a step in the right direction. But what about all that has been written to me about not being qualified to say anything because the laity might get it wrong? It is difficult to know where you draw the line. ......... My line is easy, if I don't know I say so and then tell the person that I will get the answer. Then I will follow up appropriately. And if it is not a matter of settled theology, I will say so.
If for you the first major step is baptism, and the receiving of the Holy Spirit, then presumably there must be some minimum amount that a person (or parents) must know or accept before he would be accepted for baptism. Is this minimum information only transmittable by clergy?
Another example of a potential difference: in our church we probably have 20 independent Bible studies going on being taught by lay people. I'm sure the curriculum has been approved by the pastor to have them advertised in the bulletins etc., but this sort of thing is greatly encouraged. I have taught adult Sunday School as a layman, and with all due modesty, I think everyone thought it was a good experience. :) I am sure that SOME error, even by intended standards is going to sneak in, but in the totality of the theater of sanctification, these studies and programs are a huge net benefit, or so says almost everyone in our church who goes through them. Not perfect, but good, and certainly better than having nothing at all because there are only so many clergy.
You and others on this Forum know that I have since then expressed doubts and disagreements and have made statements that clearly disagree with the Church. But in my heart I still believe what my tagline says. [(Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)]
Yes, and I'm sure that I have written a few times expressing that I can't understand how both of these can be true at the same time. :) But since then, we have talked a little about blind faith and Christianity, and now I think I understand better how you can say both of these things, and sincerely and actually mean both of them. I still don't agree, but I would ask you to consider if you think you are better off being so far away from your Church on a number of topics. Consider those who hold your general view who are not nearly as well schooled as you. They could wind up anywhere in practice, but then simply "say" that they defer to the Church. That's where blind faith leads.
They are simply more trained and obligated by virtue of their holy orders (appointment) to answer those questions in line with the collective teaching of the Church and not their own personal opinion, just as any professional is bound by ethics to stick to the "business" and not personal issues.
Yes, better trained, more capable, but not exclusive. I think the Great Commission was to all believers because it does not require any "superior" knowledge or training. The basic message is easy. If the listener has complicated questions, then great, that is what a clergy is for. The question is: Was Christ's message of salvation intended for only the elites to be filtered down at their discretion to those coming to them and their Churches, or was Christ's message for EVERY man whether he ever met a priest or not? (Of course I am framing this through the professed Apostolic lens, and not the Reformed lens. :)
With Protestants the problem is that each individual is his own "pope," and will witness whatever he or she believes. There is no standard of any kind, except one's own interpretation and knowledge of the (Protestant) Bible. How can one be "wrong?"
Nope, Protestants don't need a Pope, so we don't want to be one. Many denominations have confessions of some sort and adherents follow them. My standards in witnessing are that I would not profess something contradicting Southern Baptism or Reformed theology. And, for anything tricky, I would simply explain. Through sanctification, I can do that now, whereas I couldn't have a couple of years ago. Praise be to God. :)
For one we can be sure that the Orthodox teach what the Church taught in the first 1,000 years, when the Church was undivided, and that what the Catholics teach is 99% the same.
99% ??? :) Come on. All your statement means is that not being in communion is unimportant.
In the Protestant case, one can be sure only that each individual will give someone else his or her personal interpretation of the Bible and pretty much a self-made religion based on that interpretation.
THERE IS NO "PROTESTANT" CASE. :) You just can't lump every non-Apostolic Christian into one group. Of significance, there are Bible-believing Protestants, and non-Bible-believing Protestants. Among the Bible-believing ones, you aren't going to see much if any disagreement on the basic salvational message. It's directly from the Bible in very simple terms. That is the milk. On the meat there will be differences, of course.
That's why the Protestants are not welcome in Orthodox countries. They have no business "evangelizing" those who have been baptized! There is a swath of earth along equatorial Africa and Asia that is full of unbaptized hostile Muslims and pagans. That's where the evangelists should be doing their witnessing, not in Catholic South America, or in Orthodox Russia. Go where Christ is unknown, or where He is persecuted, and teach the catholic and orthodox faith, not your own version of it!
I obviously cannot speak for "Protestant" missions, but I can say a few things about Southern Baptist missions. The overarching goal of these missionaries is to find unreached people groups, those who have never heard of Christ in any way before. You mentioned Africa, and we have a concentration of missionaries there. From my own church we just sent missionaries to Niger and Sudan. From their reports NO PICNIC, as you might imagine. In addition, there is no shortage of people who have no idea what any form of Christianity is about. A group associated with us is working to translate the Bible into obscure tribal languages for the first time, so that churches might be planted.
In addition our church also sent (within the last year) missionaries to Poland and Venezuela. Your "turf". :) While they have reported some hostility from Catholics, they have learned to co-exist in peace and non-confrontation. Again, the goal is to reach anyone who has never really heard the Gospel before. Some of those are the equivalent of "ethnically" Catholic, but who have no faith to speak of. By any Catholic standard of salvation that has been posted to me, these would be lost people. Would it be better for them to remain lost and out of reach by indigenous Catholic clergy (just by the math), or would it be better to come to some kind of saving faith in Christ?
Of course no targeting is being done to practicing Catholics or Orthodox, at least not by any missions board that my church supports. We have much bigger fish to fry, as you intimated would be proper. We're not interested in turning Christians into Baptists. That would be a waste of the TREMENDOUS amount of money it costs to send our missionaries around the world. Whatever "threat" you were talking about I seriously doubt has anything to do with our efforts.
I can understand apprehension, and maybe there are some Protestant groups out there who are offending. I can only speak for Southern Baptists on this. Believe me, we want to know where our MONEY is going, and converting Catholics in some far away land is NOT on our "to-do" list. :)
:::I was trying to distinguish between two opposite views that have been given to me: 1. that God is the one Who is acting through humans, and 2. that man makes the decision to act using his free will. These views are mutually exclusive, but both have been put forth to me by your side.:::
The problem is that the Protestant approach appears to take only a portion of the totality and create a theology. The views only seem mutually exclusive; the Bible is full of verse that seems to contradict, but that is only because we humans look at it through human eyes and with human emotions and biases colouring our conclusions. We must use “and”, not “or” in order to understand better.
:::How can you possibly know whether or how many errors any version has, unless you claim to have the correct and perfect version yourself?:::
Easy. Look at the works that the version was written or translated from. http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/kjv.htm lists some.
“In the Old Testament the KJV uses the term “dragon” for the Hebrew words tannim meaning “jackals” and tannin meaning “serpent, or sea monster” (BDB, 1072; Gesenius, 868-9). It seems the KJV mistranslated these two separate words. Tannim is from the root tan meaning “to howl” and tannin is from the root tanan “to smoke” (Ibid.). Jackals are known for their howling, and are associated with desolate areas. Tannin or “smokers” probably came from seeing the spouts of whales or the snorting of animals which looked like smoke coming from a fire inside. Our warm breathe in winter looks like smoke. This is probably how the idea of fire-breathing dragons started. The Hebrew is not referring to any dinosaurs.
The KJV uses the term “dragon” which comes from the Greek word drakon which means “serpent.” It refers to a monster with a scaly snake like body. The Greek New Testament uses drakon 12 times only in the book of Revelation which the KJV translates as “dragon” (Rev. 12-13, 16:13, 20:2). The dragon in Revelation has seven heads similar to the leviathan in Ugaritic and Psalm 74:14 (Gibson, 50, 68; Walace, 290). Satan is called a “dragon” in Revelation 20:2.”
...
The 1611 editions have “Then cometh Judas” instead of “Then cometh Jesus” in Matthew 26:36. There is the “Wicked Bible” edition of the KJV where “not” is omitted from the seventh commandment saying, “thou shalt commit adultery.” William Kilburne in 1659 found 20,000 errors in six different KJV’s. In 1701 Bishop Lloyd added the chronology of Bishop Ussher. Even today there are differences between the KJV published by Oxford, Cambridge, and Nelson publishers (See The English Bible from KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation by Jack P. Lewis, published by Baker, 1981). “
:::Jesus approved of the fact that the OT was written down, so it doesn’t make sense that He would object to His Gospel also being written down.:::
I’m not saying that Jesus didn’t approve of writing the NT; just that we don’t have any record of Him saying one way or another.
:::I’m not sure how you define the distinction. Would you say that a layman who is close to the Lord and imitates Him, as the holy people you mentioned, should nevertheless stay mute and ONLY witness through example? I don’t think I have ever met of heard of an individual such as you describe, who was incapable of relating the basic Gospel message in words. I’m not saying it is their duty to canvass neighborhoods, but I am certain that God presents opportunities to share to ALL of His children.:::
I make the distinction that evangelizing is far more active in pursuing others and persuading them to hear the Good News.
:::When I witness what I perceive as God’s working in a person, I just take it for what it is in the moment. The “proof” comes later with perseverance. I have seen perseverance both happen and not happen with very similar starts.:::
The trouble is that appearances can be deceiving and perseverance is defined as how long? We all sin; therefore how can one ‘see’ perseverance through the sin?
Jesus had relatives; John the Baptist for instance. There is no proof that Joseph and Mary had children together.
If this were true there would have been no need for her to say “Be it done to me according to thy word”
This is a clear decision by Our Blessed Mother!
“”While I have no problem with the concept of typology, I think we all have to be willing to draw the line somewhere.””
You were given typology and the writings of the Early Church Fathers to validate that typology as well.
You have nothing to support the Mary not being the New Eve.
We have the writings of the Early Church Father's and Scriptural typology to support this. The evidence is overwhelming
Can’t you ever admit your wrong?
Mary is the New Eve
Look at what these Church Fathers say....
“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty… Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).
“He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155).
“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).
There is plenty of proof from the Early Church Fathers writings that Mary remained ever virgin.
Here is a writing from Blessed Saint Athanasius.
We believe he was guided by the Holy Spirit to give us Bible canon. Why don’t people believe him when he says this....
“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.” Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).
Here is what other Early Christians said
“And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He hath here used the word till,’ not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till’? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,’ not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,’ it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).
“Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, For neither did His brethren believe in Him.’ John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).
“But those who by virginity have desisted from this process have drawn within themselves the boundary line of death, and by their own deed have checked his advance; they have made themselves, in fact, a frontier between life and death, and a barrier too, which thwarts him. If, then, death cannot pass beyond virginity, but finds his power checked and shattered there, it is demonstrated that virginity is a stronger thing than death; and that body is rightly named undying which does not lend its service to a dying world, nor brook to become the instrument of a succession of dying creatures. In such a body the long unbroken career of decay and death, which has intervened between the first man and the lives of virginity which have been led, is interrupted. It could not be indeed that death should cease working as long as the human race by marriage was working too; he walked the path of life with all preceding generations; he started with every new-born child and accompanied it to the end: but he found in virginity a barrier, to pass which was an impossible feat.” Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 13 (A.D. 371).
Those who insist that Mary had other Children should heed the words of Blessed Saint Basil
“The friends of Christ DO NOT TOLERATE hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin” Basil, Homily In Sanctum Christi generationem, 5 (ante A.D. 379).
FK, you have the patience of Job. Carry on, my good man.
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.