Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

email from Randall Easter | 25 January 2008 | Randall Easter

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Kosta, for all your protestations, it appears to me and most observers that the Orthodox are capitulating with the Roman church (and thus the correct interpretation of the Filioque), and not the other way around.

That's good news.

Gotta run.

[kosta50]

Mark to HD: The Church of Christ most definitely includes the Orthodox. For those of the Reformed persuasion who do not believe that anything beyond yesterday matters, let me remind you that in the first millennium, most of the heretics were of the East and that the Latins held Orthodoxy. In the latter years, we Latins have strayed a tad and the Orthodox have held fast. It is a Catholic Church and not a Roman one. And I think that almost all of us understand that.

I agree, but I think HD was referring to our doctrinal differences. Again, our doctrinal differences are not differences of belief but of definition. It is not that we believe in that Mary in not immaculate, but how she got to be that way; we do not deny the original sin, but what it means.

There are ecclesial differences that are not doctrinal, such as the extent of papal jurisdiction (something actively discussed by both particular Churches as we write).

The Catholics state that the Orthodox lack the 'fullness" of the Catholic Church because they are not (yet) in communion with the Pope. That is true!. Just as it is true that the Catholic Church is not full because it is not communion with the Eastern part of the Church! Or for that matter because it is not in communion with the apostate Protestant communions.

The Church will not be full until we all share the Eucharist; only then will the Church experience the fullness in Christ literally speaking.

[kosta50]

Like a bunch of destructive little kids. Destroying what they do not understand. Nice post. It's a pity that they don't understand that this is Christianity from the very beginning

Yup, the earliest (1st and 2nd century) Christian caves, where Paul taught (Acts 2:9) in Cappadocia are full of icons painted on the walls.

One can clearly see "idolatrous" icons painted on the walls, and areas where "pagan" altars stood.

This is what happens when some people decide to re-write the whole history of Christianity, starting with a 16th century excommunicated priest and an agenda.

[kosta50]

That rift was mended at the Council of Jerusalem in 49 AD after which Peter decided to concentrate on the circumcision [Jews] and Paul on the uncircumcision [Gentiles]. There was no rift after that

And we get that from Acts whose purpose was to smooth things over. But the reift continued. Neither Peter nor any other Apostle testitifed to that. The only source of that is either Paul or Luke (or whoever wrote Acts) who was following Paul.

1 Peter specifically tries to mend that rift, and 1 Peter was written long after Peter was dead, towards the end of the 1st century.

[kosta50]

Kosta, for all your protestations, it appears to me and most observers that the Orthodox are capitulating with the Roman church (and thus the correct interpretation of the Filioque), and not the other way around

You can read into it whatever you want. We have not changed our position from the beginning because there is nothing to change, and will never change it. It is clear that the Catholic recommendation in the joint commission I linked in a recent post to you, decided few years ago just the opposite of what you claim.

It is also clear that all Eatern-Catholic Churches (i.e. Ukrainian, Melkite, etc.) recite the Creed without the Filioque and that no one accuse them or 'error.'

You have a straw man. But then, isn't all of Reformation one giant straw men?

[Alex Murphy]

Then why is abuse among Protestant denominations approximately twice that amongst the Catholics?

Twice that? Are we talking raw numbers, or percentages?

The John Jay Study (see threads here, here, and outside coverage here) - commissioned by the U.S. Catholic Bishops' National Review Board itself - found that the number of Catholic priest abusers equalled four percent of the entire Catholic priest population. The John Jay study's findings are more than conclusive - they're exhaustive of the entire US population of Catholic priests. Now by comparison, every study I've been shown of "Protestant" abuse included volunteers and laypersons, something the John Jay Study did not cover among Catholic parishes; if we exclude them from the "Protestant" studies (to create a "pastor vs priest" apple-to-apple comparison), we arrive at a roughly 1% abuse rate for all "Protestant" pastors, or (in other words) at least a four times greater likelihood that any given Catholic priest will be a sexual predator as compared to any given "Protestant" pastor. And that's according to the numbers and studies that Catholics keep telling me about.

In short, any raw numbers (i.e. "x number of claims filed per year") are meaningless. What's more telling is the percentage of the abusers out of the whole, and in that regard, the Catholic Church is far sicker than the "Protestant" Church. In that regard, the John Jay Study is positively damning.

Let me throw in one caveat to those comparisons. I found something interesting when I broke down the "Protestant" abuse cases by denomination / affiliation / theological leanings. The more free will / Arminian / synergistic the theology is, and the more independent the association is (as opposed to denominational affiliation), the higher the abuse statistic goes - and conversely, if you just look at the Reformed Protestant denominations, the number of "Protestant" abuse cases statistically drops off the chart by comparison. It's only the average of all "Protestant" pastors that is around 1%. Some independent churches have statistics that are far, far higher than the Catholic average of 4%. But we're not the ones who consider them "Protestant" - it's Catholics that insist on applying that label to them.

[Uncle Chip]

1 Peter specifically tries to mend that rift, and 1 Peter was written long after Peter was dead, towards the end of the 1st century.

Oh please -- give it up. If that were so it would have been called "I Dead Peter".

[wmfights]

When problems like that come up in the Presbyterian church, they're usually dealt with quickly and thoroughly. If fault is found, there's no reassigning the offending minister. The Presbytery revokes his call.

As a rule if you find abuse in the nonRC churches it's usually heterosexual in nature, whereas in the RCC it's usually homosexual. Whether this is because of the required celibacy, or a subculture that has developed within the clergy I'm not sure. The former probably is a casual factor in the latter.

[OpusatFR]

“Watch the film. It’s a great scene.”

Nope, thanks. I read enough history to know a genocidal dictator when one presents himself.

You do remember the history of Ireland.

I don’t watch movies lionizing Pol Pot either.

[wmfights]

Jesus comes to us with love.

Unfortunately, you only see part of the picture.

Luke 12:49 I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!

v.51 Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division.

[wmfights]

3. "That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ"

How can Mary do this for us?

[the_conscience]

The sad reality is that Romanists have no alternative but to deny that their communion is infected with a disease. Trained minister and writer Steve Hayes succintly defined the problem in a Third Mil magazine article in 2003:

As with sola Scriptura, how you come down on the efficacy of the sacraments affects your polity and ecclesiology. If you believe the sacraments to be a means of grace, especially in the ex opere operato sense, then that generally commits you to a firm lay/clerical division and apostolic succession to help ensure the valid administration of the sacraments.

And that, in turn, weighs in the relative gravity of schism. If you believe that the sacraments are a means of grace, and the Church the appointed custodian and gatekeeper, then a break with the true church is a worst-case scenario. Unity is put at a premium.

If, on the other hand, you deny these assumptions, then there are worse things than schism. In that event you travel light and keep your bags packed (Acts 7; Heb 11).

Although the scandal of schism is often treated as the scarlet letter of the Protestant movement, less is said about the opposing scandal of catholicity. For if you identify the true Church with one visible communion, then no matter how corrupt the institutional Church becomes, you are committed to that system. It is like the old Roman punishment in which a murderer was chained to the rotting corpse of his victim.

The Catholic sex scandal is a case in point. The problem was not only with sodomites in the priesthood and vile prelates who facilitated their crimes. The problem is that the good Catholic is just as complicit as the worst, for the good Catholic is more loyal to the lofty pretensions of his church than a cynical Magisterium, and his institutional allegiance to a rotten institution is just what enables a corrupt clergy and vicious hierarchy to stay in business. For the good Catholic, his church is the only church in town, and so his duty to defend Mother Church takes precedence over institutional reform inasmuch as the institution, if deemed to be divine, is beyond reform.

The problem with pretensions to a divine teaching office is that it leaves you exposed to the same mistakes as any other uninspired organization, but you're even worse off; on the one hand, you disdain conventional standards of investigation and verification; on the other hand, you don't dare admit error for fear of losing face. This has a cumulative effect as special pleading advances a new lie to cover up an old blunder. Otherwise innocent errors or petty mistakes, which are harmless enough if caught and corrected early in the process, instead supply the premise for further falsehoods in a downward spiral of systematic deceit. The Roman Church has a long history of this, viz., the False Decretals, the Galileo affair, the Sixtine Vulgate

Quix, would you mind weighing in on this? If I'm not mistaken I believe you have some training in sociology.

[dangus]

Thanks, Kosta, that’s a perfect explanation.

[wmfights]

For the good Catholic, his church is the only church in town, and so his duty to defend Mother Church takes precedence over institutional reform inasmuch as the institution, if deemed to be divine, is beyond reform.

As a result the radicals can creep in and as teachings change the congregation will follow. A case in point being the expansion of Mary from the Mother of Jesus to this creation we see today. The Mary of today was born without sin,was a virgin forever, was assumed into heaven, she magnifies prayers, she appears in visions to bring messages from God, she cures those that are obedient to her.

None of these changes about Mary occur in churches where there is a requirement that all teaching and belief must be consistent with Scripture. These changes only occur where other sources are considered coequal of Scripture for measuring the validity of teaching and belief.

[Gamecock]

institutional reform inasmuch as the institution, if deemed to be divine, is beyond reform.

One would think if that if the Mother Church was indeed devine it wouldn't bounce around between Latin Mass and the common language, or any of the other issues that just seem to keep bouncing around in St Pete's.

[kosta50]

You’re welcome.

[Mad Dawg]

It was wrong for the Church to have officially stated, with the seal of the Pope, that people can pay to get their friends and relatives out of hell.

That is simply not true. It is just barely possible that some people at the time did not know the difference between the teaching about purgatory and the teaching about hell. But Tetzel on a bad day never said that anyone could purchase release from hell. It beggars belief to read that anyone who's looked into this would say that the Pope had put his seal to such a thing.

Do you have some kind of evidence? I've seen what purports to be an indulgence from the time, but I don't recall seeing anything about release from hell.

[Mad Dawg]

How can Mary do this for us?

By praying for us.

This really illustrates very well what happens when a text is approached with the conclusion one wants to draw from it firmly fixed in one's mind. Let's look at it again:

V. Prayer for us, O holy Mother of God; R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

We're not asking MARY to make us "worthy". We're asking her to pray for us with the hoped for intention and outcome of her prayer and God's response being worthiness, somehow.

I was asked a while back to pray for somebody's healing. I can imagine someone saying, "Pray for my husband, Dawg, that he might be healed." Who would understand that request to mean that I was going to be doing any healing?

So here we have a little "Versicle and response" which asks Mary to pray for us, for our, oh I don't know, closer relationship to God and deeper life of holiness (or a life of deeper holiness?) and all that.

We say this at the end of the Rosary, or something very like it. Of the 20 or so folks I pray the rosary with there's not a one who thinks that Mary going to be doing the "making worthy". If we found some that did, we'd set 'em straight in a heartbeat. We're as horrified at idolatry and polytheism as any Christian, whatever people think of us.