Posted on 01/18/2012 3:19:15 PM PST by NYer
.- Pope Benedict XVI said today that achieving Christian unity requires more than “cordiality and cooperation” and that it must be accompanied by interior conversion.
“Faith in Christ and interior conversion, both individual and communal, must constantly accompany our prayer for Christian unity,” said the Pope to over 8,000 pilgrims gathered in the Vatican’s Paul VI Audience Hall on Jan. 18.
The Pope’s comments mark the start of the 2012 Week of Prayer for Christian Unity that runs until Jan. 25. It will be observed by over 300 Christian churches and ecclesial communities around the globe.
The Pope asked for “the Lord in a particular way to strengthen the faith of all Christians, to change our hearts and to enable us to bear united witness to the Gospel.”
In this way, he said, they “will contribute to the new evangelization and respond ever more fully to the spiritual hunger of the men and women of our time.”
The Pope explained that the concept of a week of prayer for Christian unity was initiated in 1908 by Paul Wattson, an Episcopalian minister from Maryland. One year later, he became a Catholic and was subsequently ordained to the priesthood.
Pope Benedict recalled how the initiative was supported by his predecessors Pope St. Pius X and Pope Benedict XV. It was then “developed and perfected” in the 1930s by the Frenchman Abbé Paul Couturier, who promoted prayer “for the unity of the Church as Christ wishes and according to the means he wills.”
The mandate for the week of prayer, the Pope underscored, comes from the wish of Christ himself at the Last Supper “that they may all be one.” He observed that this mission was given a particular impetus by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) but added that “the unity we strive for cannot result merely from our own efforts.” Rather, “it is a gift we receive and must constantly invoke from on high.”
The theme for 2012 Week of Prayer – “All shall be changed by the victory of Jesus Christ our Lord” – was crafted by the Polish Ecumenical Council. Pope Benedict said it reflects “their own experience as a nation,” which stayed faithful to Christ “in the midst of trials and upheavals,” including years of occupation by the Nazis and later the Communists.
The Pope tied the victory the Polish people experienced over their oppressors to overcoming the disunity that marks Christians.
He said that the “unity for which we pray requires inner conversion, both shared and individual,” and it cannot be “limited to cordiality and cooperation.” Instead, Christians must accept “all the elements of unity which God has conserved for us.”
Ecumenism, the Pope stated, is not an optional extra for Catholics but is “the responsibility of the entire Church and of all the baptized.” Christians, he said, must make praying for unity an “integral part” of their prayer life, “especially when people from different traditions come together to work for victory in Christ over sin, evil, injustice and the violation of human dignity.”
Pope Benedict then touched on the lack of unity in the Christian community, which he said “hinders the effective announcement of the Gospel and endangers our credibility.” Evangelizing formerly Christian countries and spreading the Gospel to new places will be “more fruitful if all Christians together announce the truth of the Gospel and Jesus Christ, and give a joint response to the spiritual thirst of our times,” he explained.
The Pope concluded his comments with the hope that this year’s Week of Prayer for Christian Unity will lead to “increased shared witness, solidarity and collaboration among Christians, in expectation of that glorious day when together we will all be able to celebrate the Sacraments and profess the faith transmitted by the Apostles.”
The general audience finished with Pope Benedict addressing pilgrims in various languages, including greeting a group of men and women from the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, before leading the crowd in the Our Father and imparting his apostolic blessing.
Scripture is clear. Jesus is the Rock the church is built on, not Peter.
Thanks for your post. You put it very well.
If someone else is too lazy to be bothered looking up something they claim I said, why should I waste my time?
Yet again: I'm not asking you to look up anything. Try reading it again.
And you are correct. However, the Reformation was not based upon rationality, rather, rationalization. Well said.
10 to 1 odds that the outcome will not change. Any size bet you name.
If you can’t provide the proof just say so or discontinue bothering me about it. K?
The only bother for you is to say yes and suffer the penalty if you're wrong and I'm right, K?
If you didn't say you could tell who was saved and who wasn't, nothing is lost to you.
The other two times I had to go to the trouble to prove you said what you denied didn't seem to have cost enough, so here we are again. Make it worth my while, this time.
You lose and you stay off the threads for a week, you win and I do.
Deal or fold?
You’re likely right, no bet with you. :)
But, at least, it will be clear MM doesn’t have enough confidence to wager on it.
Requires much study nonetheless, while i did graduate from high school (in Amerika), and have my BA (born again) and PHD (preaching Hell and damnation) and other degrees (or grace)!
There is only one Church; however there are many Protestant churches and even more churches of one.
There is only one holy Roman Church® according to her infallible definition of herself with her distinctive doctrines such as papal infallibility, while Protestantism, being not one particular formal church but many, ought to at least be defined according to its most basic historical distinctive, that of formally and effectively holding to the Scriptures as the Divinely inspired Word of God and being the supreme authority for its doctrines (i.e. evangelical type churches versus liberal theology) in contrast to an office of men which are formally or effectively held as infallible and supreme over Scripture (as they uniquely authoritatively defines the contents and meaning of Scripture). And who can deem another source of doctrine equal to it. Thus the real comparison is between sola Scriptura versus sola Ecclesia.
As far as official statements, the Roman Catholic Church has its magisterium which, even if claiming universal jurisdiction, effectively can only claim jurisdiction over her own flock, and thus it differs somewhat from the EOs and some Catholic churches. But all hold to the Apostle's Creed and other statements defining who God is.
Here, while the basis for Rome's claim is derived from Scripture, Tradition and history, yet under this basis we still see still many divisions between Catholic churches who like Rome claim an assuredly infallible magisterium based upon Scripture, Tradition and history.
Protestant denominations of the above also typically have their own magisterial office and which affirm the Apostle's Creed and or conflating statements defining who God is and what Christ did, and which is also overall manifest in a common contention against those who deny these common essentials, as well as against certain traditions of Rome, these both being the product of sola ecclesia.
Among laity within this class it is true that here are somewhat different ideas on God/Christ, and especially on other matters, yet this is typically limited, while the same is true within Roman Catholicism regarding Christ and some other core truths, even more so than among evangelicals, while what Roman Catholics can and do disagree on (including what is official doctrine) is far more than is usually known or admitted.
Thus rather than SS overall promoting widely variant views of God, instead what is evident is an overall unity in this, and in certain other core basics, with aberrant views in these most basic core teachings being more among those who effectively hold to sola ecclesia.
In addition, what this model arguably fosters among Catholics is laity in doctrine, and more leaving Rome for evangelical churches than the reverse, which is due is typically said to be due to spiritual lack in Rome and not doctrine in particular.
Furthermore, if SS is to be disallowed due to people being able to interpret the source of their doctrine differently, then so must sola ecclesia, as her people can interpret differently what is infallible (and thus requiring assent of faith) and what is not, as well as to some extent what it means, as well as in teachings of the Ordinary magisterium which make up much of what Roman Catholics believe and practice. To which is added the extensive liberty Roman Catholics have to interpret the Bible within the parameters they interpret Rome to set.
Therefore both Catholics and SS Protestants hold to a supreme doctrinal authority, but both require some interpret and both see differences according to that, which is only about degrees. While the unity of Rome is organizational, and conciliar and ritual professions of assent of faith to some teachings, but neither of which is necessarily greater than in conformity than in cults or can be under any one particular magisterium. Meanwhile, unity based on required assent of faith in inferior in quality, if not quantity, to that which is the result of the Berean heart and method.
Rather than how effective one model is against disunity being the criteria for authenticity, how it compares with the Scriptural model should be the basis.
It is true that the apostles expected faithfulness to what they taught (though comprehensive doctrinal unity was ever a goal not realized), as do SS preachers, however this was not based on the premise of an assuredly infallible perpetual magisterium (despite promises to not forsake Israel), but instead the church began in rejection of that model, as John the Baptist, Christ and the apostles did not have authority based on perpetuation via formal decent of office, and were opposed by those who sat in sat in the seat of Moses, and their authority was challenged by the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders (Mk. 11:28-33). But their authenticity was established through conformity to Scripture and Scriptural supernatural means of attesting to the Truth, especially new revelation. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jun. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 17:2,11; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12) And impenitent disobedience to an apostle was met with real power, not the carnal instruments of the Inquisitions. Rome “infallibly” claims apostolic authority, but it lacks the authenticating qualifications. And rather than the Reformation making man to be God on earth, this is the place Papal power would declare it had.
Scripture is abundantly evidenced to be the standard for obedience and for testing truth claims, which those which added to it had, and it remains the supreme authority today. And as the the apostles persuaded souls by “the manifestation of the Truth,” (2Cor. 4:2) so must teachers today, the manifest regeneration which the preaching of the gospel of grace effects being an aspect of that. To God be the glory. Sorry for the length.
Matthew 7:2 - “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
****And we see individuals who choose to be Catholic who also make their own determination of what is Scripture and what is not by conceding to what others have decided on the matter. Their only decision is to let someone else decide for them.
So a group of men come alone sometime in the 300’s AD, self-proclaim to be in line with apostolic succession and self declare authority from that. They then demand that everyone recognize their self-proclaimed authority and proclaim anathemas for those who do not fall in line.****
A childish and petulant understanding of history and the Church does not the truth make.
St. Paul is the first to claim the “fellowship” of the Apostles. He had to, as he was not one of the original twelve or one who had walked with Jesus.
Though Paul received his revelation from Christ and not the others, he went and conferred with them, especially Peter. Why? According to Paul, in his own words, from Galatians...
2:2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
So, we can see, from the beginning the way the Church has worked ever since. St. Paul was concerned enough to seek out first the fellowship of the others and then to confer about what he was preaching to make sure that He was right.
The Holy Spirit has determined what is Scripture through the men who guarded it from the beginning and passed on that truth to others. It was not me, or you or anyone else who did this, but the work of the Holy Spirit through the Church.
It is also the Holy Spirit who guides the Church to all truth, just as Jesus promised. St. Paul gives us Apostolic Succession in his first letter to the Corinthians....
1 Cor 3:10According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
One must think the power of the Holy Spirit to be weak indeed if He allowed that power to be wrest from Him by a group of men in the 300’s.
There is ONE Church spoken of in the NT, ONE faith that all were taught, not a church of one and the faith of whatever that one can accept or not accept.
****But it wouldn’t have shown the Catholics for the hypocrites they are.****
A hypocrite would be one who says one thing and does another, or one who condemns others for do what he himself does.
It is not hypocritical to hold protestants to the standard they set for themselves.
Man you are really reaching here, aren’t you.
As I grew up in a farming community I am familiar with milking cows. The two legged, or one legged stool of which you speak is not a stable place to sit.
When milking a cow, one would use it as a brace to lean in to reach the udders.
One could not sit upon such a stool without falling over, unless they braced themselves with their own feet.
You have perfectly illustrated my argument, albeit without actually trying to do so.
The stool which you describe depends on MAN and not on that which he uses as brace. And the MAN is not sitting on the stool, but using his own two legs to maintain his stance.
Whereas a three legged stool is designed to safely and stably bear a person sitting upon it.
Without MAN, your stool falls to the ground.
The most perfect example of failing to heed 2 Tim. 2:15 that I have ever read. You have managed to mangle Paul’s ministry, Peter and the eleven’s ministry, the gospel of the kingdom AND the gospel of the grace of God, AND Paul’s laying of the foundation of that grace as given to him by revelation of Christ. Congratulations. I have never been so impressed with complete inability to read plainly what GOd’s Word says. And YET to accuse others of “childish and petulant understanding of history and the Church does not the truth make.” “History” and the “Church” most definitely does NOT the truth make. But God’s Word DOES. Especially if it is studied the way HE says to study it. Rightly divided. Not mangled.
Only if you engage in the logical fallacy of begging the question.
"There is ONE Church spoken of in the NT, ONE faith that all were taught, not a church of one and the faith of whatever that one can accept or not accept."
Constantly begging the question doesn't substitute for argument.
LOL!
I might be chastened if I thought for one minute you had a clue about any of that.
Read it and weep. Paul says what he says. Or don’t you take all of what he says to heart?
Then what was going on in Acts 10:28? "And he (Peter) said unto them, YE KNOW HOW THAT IT IS AN UNLAWFUL THING FOR A MAN THAT IS A JEW TO KEEP COMPANY, OR COME UNTO ONE OF ANOTHER NATION; BUT GOD HATH SHEWED ME THAT I SHOULD NOT CALL ANY MAN COMMON OR UNCLEAN."
What? What's that? As late as Acts 10 Peter STILL believes that it is an unlawful thing for a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation? What about the great commission? Weren't they told, and didn't they know on the day of Pentecost to take the gospel to all nations?
You can argue your pointless points all you care to, but until you face some real questions about what was ACTUALLY going on, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, and not your Church "history", then you're walking in darkness, with just enough information to play informed.
2 Tim. 2:15. And the Book of Acts. Read as they SAY, not as your "leaders" have TOLD you they say.
Nobody is saying that Jesus didn’t change Peter’s name to *petros* - rock.
But it’s not the same at the *petra* rock on which the church is built.
If the Catholic church is so dependent on a translation to bolster its doctrine of Peter being the rock simply because two different Greek words for rock are both translated into one word for rock in English, it just goes to show how desperately grasping at straws they are and how weak their justification for the office of pope is.
http://concordances.org/greek/4074.htm
Petros: “a stone” or “a boulder,”
4074 Petros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Petros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /petra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Petros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (petra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Petros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (petra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
http://concordances.org/greek/4073.htm
petra: a (large mass of) rock
4073 petra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Petros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (petra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
Excellent post, as usual, daniel.
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.