Posted on 12/11/2014 6:31:51 AM PST by marshmallow
One of the leading theologians of the Orthodox world has said that he sees prosecpts for “quick progress” toward full Christian unity under Pope Francis.
Metropolitan Ioannis of Pergamon, the co-chairman of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue, told the Vatican Insider that Pope Francis has brought new excitement to ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox world. “The way in which he is carrying out his ministry removes the many apprehensions and fears of the past.”
Metropolitan Ioannis pointed particularly to the Pope’s statement, during his recent visit to Constantinople, that the Catholic Church “does not intend to impose any conditions except that of shared profession of faith.” He said that in the past, “the Orthodox believed that the Pope wanted to subjugate them. And now we see this is not in any way true.”
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...
At the bottom, the great distinction between true forms of government is that of the individual vs the collective. Of the former, think “Constitutionalist Republic,” of the latter, think “socialism.”
Likewise the issue at hand here. Christ died to save individuals, individuals who seek, and love, truth. Common among Protestants. This, as opposed to the kind of one world syncretism that Romanists promote.
You’re welcome.
Jesus was praying for unity among believers. The context is the entire chapter of John 17. You have no argument with me. Your argument is with Jesus; it is His prayer, not mine.
Before I respond to your post, I need to know if you are a Roman Catholic. If so, your interpretation of Jesus’ prayer will naturally be in accordance with their ideal of a one world religion.
Or perhaps, you are a liberal who also holds to the ideal of one world-ism. If so, you would also naturally interpret Jesus’ prayer in line with your one world view. If you are a liberal, it makes me to wonder what are you doing on FR in the first place, a conservative site that is against globalism.
Which is it? may I ask.
Well you put me in quite a spot. The reasons are numerous. First, what I am changes not one jot or tittle of Jesus’ prayer in John 17. If I were the pope—the first woman pope, no less—John 17 would still be the inspired Word of God, useful for teaching, edification, exhortation and consolation.
If I were a flaming liberal, ditto. There is no liberal alive who can change one word in the Bible. I.e.: they can rant against the Bible, but the inspired words remain. Nothing in it changes just because there are liberals in the world.
The next problem is that, being a conservative, I don’t like the ‘jump through my hoops, on my command’ routine. Who are you, to interrogate me? I have a record on FR going back to 2000. Over 10,000 posts. Anyone can read them. That being so, why should I cough up all your neat little answers just so you know whether you need to accept God’s word, as conveyed in the 17th chapter of Gospel or John, or not?
of John.
I haven't seen any Latin catechetical manual that does not have the filioque. But you're right on the Greek, and there's a good reason for it: The Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι and the Latin procedere do not exactly mean the same thing.
Should this analysis pan out, both sides should be able to hold to their traditional positions pretty easily.
I should have read further, I see you addressed the language issue.
But yes, we will need an Ecumenical Council to sort it out.
Well, in reply there is a lot of things I might say, one being, though you may not be a “flaming” liberal, you must be some sort of liberal, I refer to your belief of a one world government...and your seeking to enlist Jesus for that cause. That’s the cause of the liberals, the socialists and democrats, not conservatives.
As to Jesus’ prayer, you may not realize people do this, but they tend to read into scripture their preconceived notions. I don’t believe Jesus was praying for a collectivist one world utopia at all. That has to be read into the text.
To rightly exegete John 17, one must factor in many things. For instance, was Jesus an Amillennialist? praying for a one world religion under the Pope (according to Roman Catholics)? The larger context says no (the body of prophetic scripture).
You mentioned context, the larger context is not just John 17, the millennial kingdom, just one item in that context.
Why discuss secular government? The Church is a different model entirely. The Church, in fact, teaches a doctrine called "subsidiarity", which means that functions proper to individuals or small groups thereof, should not be taken over by larger bodies. Furthermore, temporal governments are necessarily geared to different cultures, countries, languages, geographical areas and ethnicities.
That said, the relevance of this to Ch 17 of John's Gospel, escapes me. The entire chapter is the prayer of Jesus for the unity of His disciples.
Likewise the issue at hand here. Christ died to save individuals, individuals who seek, and love, truth. Common among Protestants. This, as opposed to the kind of one world syncretism that Romanists promote.
We're saved as individuals but there is one God, one Gospel, one Truth and one salvation. All else is error. Hence the difference between temporal governments and the Church.
Read St. Paul's exposition of the Mystical Body of Christ. There is one Body, but within that Body, many different parts, many different vocations. Evangelists, teachers, prophets......but all part of the one body.
‘you must be some sort of liberal’
No need to read further. When you get something this basic wrong, the likelihood is that you’re wrong about everything else too.
At least the next time I post on the RL, I can say I have been suspected of being Roman Catholic. I don’t know what that will gain me, but it’s novel.
“That said, the relevance of this to Ch 17 of John’s Gospel, escapes me. The entire chapter is the prayer of Jesus for the unity of His disciples.”
Amen.
If I were a flaming liberal, ditto. There is no liberal alive who can change one word in the Bible. I.e.: they can rant against the Bible, but the inspired words remain. Nothing in it changes just because there are liberals in the world.
The next problem is that, being a conservative, I don’t like the ‘jump through my hoops, on my command’ routine. Who are you, to interrogate me? I have a record on FR going back to 2000. Over 10,000 posts. Anyone can read them. That being so, why should I cough up all your neat little answers just so you know whether you need to accept God’s word, as conveyed in the 17th chapter of Gospel or John, or not?
Well put.
It is wonderful to hear positive feedback from Orthdox Metropolitan Ioannis. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything like that before from the East.
Thanks, cm. Strange times, when you can’t post a few vss of Scripture without all craziness breaking loose.
Mathew 10
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
Carry on with the religion.
You said it.
Fantasy,your replies are smoke and mirrors.
I asked you if you were a Roman Catholic, and for the reasons I gave. Your reply was I was putting you on the spot, with no answer as to whether you were or not. Why can’t you answer that?
I asked you if you were a political liberal, your reply was I was putting you on the spot, and you were not a “flaming” liberal. But you are for a one world utopia this side of the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. Which, as I noted, puts you in league with the one world liberals.
Since you won’t answer, you are leaving me with the conclusion that you are both, the two work together hand in glove.
If your reply is more smoke and mirrors, see you later alligator.
“I haven’t seen any Latin catechetical manual that does not have the filioque.”
I don’t doubt it. Now that I think about it, the idea of using the ancient version for catechesis came out of a joint commission made up of hierarchs and theologians years ago, maybe in the early 90s, as a recommendation. I remember that when it happened, one of our hierarchs announced excitedly that they had solved the filioque problem and that reunion was imminent!
‘But you are for a one world utopia’
It’s all in your head.
Good communicators read what people actually write. Piddle-poor communicators read their own preconceived notions into whatever they happen to see.
Good communicators use language productively. Piddle-poor communicators use language to waste their time, and everybody else’s.
Of course, if you had one shred of evidence that I am for a one world utopia, it would be different.
But you don’t.
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.