Posted on 09/26/2016 4:47:49 PM PDT by marshmallow
The Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue announced a substantial agreement but healing the historic schism still requires plenty of work
As of last Thursday, the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church announced that it had reached substantial agreement on the questions of primacy and synodality in the Church. It was described as a “landmark agreement”, and one source asked excitedly whether Orthodox Churches might soon “recognise the Pope”. Has there really been a historic breakthrough in the process towards healing the thousand-year-old schism between East and West?
That the issue is a thorny one is shown by the recent history of the dialogue. In 2007 a meeting of the Commission at Ravenna produced a statement which recognised a historical right of the Bishop of Rome to be considered as protos, first in the order of bishops in the pre-schism Church, while leaving it to future discussions to see how this primacy might be exercised in a future, reunited Church.
The impact of the Ravenna document was somewhat reduced by the absence of the Moscow patriarchate, the largest Orthodox Church, because of an internal Orthodox dispute. In 2014 the Commission met at Amman in Jordan, but failed to reach agreement on the theme of “Primacy and Synodality”. This year, with only of the small Church of Georgia expressing reservations, the group meeting in the Italian town of Chieti has managed to achieve a consensus on the issue.
The document, bearing the full title “Synodality and Primacy during the first Millennium: Towards a common understanding in service to the Unity of the Church”, was released as early as Friday. A perusal of it shows that, while it is of undoubted significance as a stage in the dialogue, it is too early to be ringing the church........
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
ealgeone”
No, I said no such thing. Peter being the first Among the Apostles, leader of the Apostles and First Bishop of Rome, thus Pope, is supported by the NT texts, Mat 16 and John 1:42; John 21: 15-17; and Luke 22:32 being 4 primary Petrine texts.
Other supporting texts would include MT 10:2-4, which lists the Apostles, it reads ‘First, Simon (who is called Peter); Mark 3:16 renders it similarly but does not say first, although it lists Peter first, etc.
Again you are trying to read this from your Protestant evangelical lends. Nothing in this document refutes Peter being Pope. The issue here is how does the Papal ministry “function” in terms of governance and its relationship with other Apostolic Churches, of which the Orthodox Churches are, from the Catholic Perspective, given they have legitimate Bishops and valid 7 Sacraments/Mysteries.
What we are dealing with is again how the Bishop of Rome exercises the “Primacy” in ways that reflects the way the Eastern Orthodox Church understand the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. In the West-Latin Church, when the Pope ratified a Council, it was binding on all Latin Christendom, in the East, no Bishop had such authority.
No what we did not see are things like “sinners prayer”, altar Call, Wednesday night church worship services prevalent at most Protestant churches, once saved always saved, Bible alone, worship services that look like what you find in American Protestantism, I could go on.
The arrogance of American Protestants to think the early Church, which was Mediterranean at is core in terms of language, culture, and theology, (Roman-Greek) is really sad.
"But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' Luke 18:13
altar Call,
37Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39“For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” 40And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!” 41So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. Acts 2:37-41
Wednesday night church worship services prevalent at most Protestant churches,
There's a problem with Christians meeting on Wednesday or Thurday??
They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Acts 2:42
once saved always saved,
24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24
13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. Eph 1:13-14
Bible alone,
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 tim 3:16-17
We won't reproduce all of the places that appeal to the written word.
worship services that look like what you find in American Protestantism, I could go on.
And what do these look like??
The catholic cannot point to anywhere in the NT that gives the ok to have idols, no matter who they are images of, nor pray to them, nor light candles, etc.
The catholic reliance upon mary for salvation is well documented and is contrary to the NT...and the catholic cannot deny it.
Mariolatry is wrong and is clearly denounced by the OT and NT.
Ealgeone:
None of those support the doctrine you are articulating, and no there is not a problem with meeting on Wednesday or Thursday, using your Bible alone mentality, is that in the Bible?
Acts 2:42 describes Sunday Liturgy, the Eucharist being the central part of the Liturgy.
All scripture is inspired, etc, does not mean Bible Alone, been there done that on this site numerous times
Finally, your entire thread is typical of many FR Prots here. The purpose of the article was about the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and its understanding in the Orthodox Church etc. From there, you brought up the “Development of Doctrine”, which I tried to respond without polemics. SInce then you have moved to prayers for the dead, Mary, cardinals, etc,
You are baiting and switching, you have no interest in discussing the topic that this thread was about, it appears to me, since you change to other topics not related to the topic this thread is about.
Prayers for the dead have been discussed at FR, as has Mary, I have discussed them, for the record. Catholics don’t rely on Mary for salvation, they do ask Mary to pray for us and plead for us to her Son, Jesus, on our behalf.
You said those things weren't in the NT and I gave you examples of those very things in the NT.
Is there anything in the Bible saying the catholic has to go to Mass once a week?
No.
Acts 2:42 describes Sunday Liturgy, the Eucharist being the central part of the Liturgy.
42They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Acts 2:42 NASB
The catholic mass is not depicted in this verse, nor in any of Acts 2. Or Acts for that matter.
All scripture is inspired, etc, does not mean Bible Alone, been there done that on this site numerous times
As has been the dismissal of catholic appeals to tradition.
Finally, your entire thread is typical of many FR Prots here. The purpose of the article was about the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and its understanding in the Orthodox Church etc. From there, you brought up the “Development of Doctrine”, which I tried to respond without polemics. SInce then you have moved to prayers for the dead, Mary, cardinals, etc,
Development of doctrine was brought up in the article. Perhaps you didn't read the article.
The whole concept of the development of the papacy goes hand-in-hand with a discussion of the development of the rcc.
The article clearly notes the rise of the papacy was "gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was a successor of Peter, the first of the apostles".
I read this as saying the papacy was not the clear cut teaching as espoused by roman catholicism. To which a great number of people would agree. Historians included.
There is no bait and switch as you claim.
The issue is do we see the roman catholic church in the NT and we do not. As noted: no papacy, worship of mary, etc.
These were things that "developed" over time. You're own reading of the ECFs will tell you that. There is no universal agreement on the issues claimed by roman catholicism. Hence, these could not have been handed down by the apostles as claimed by the catholic.
Catholics don’t rely on Mary for salvation,
Many have proved invincibly, from the sentiments of the Fathers-----among others: St. Augustine, St. Ephrem, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Germanus of Constantinople, St. John Damascene, St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Bernardine, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure-----that devotion to Our Most Blessed Virgin is necessary for salvation, and that it is an infallible mark of reprobation to have no esteem or love for the Holy Virgin while, on the other hand, it is an infallible mark of predestination to be entirely and truly devoted to her. The figures and words of the Old and New Testaments prove this. The sentiments and examples of the Saints confirm it. Reason and experience teach and demonstrate it. Even the Devil and his crew, constrained by the force of truth, have often been obliged to avow it in spite of themselves.
St. Louis Marie de Montfort
Mary is our necessary and universal Mediatrix . . . If no one knows the Father but the Son and those to whom the Son has revealed Him, likewise no one knows the Son but His Mother and the Church to whom she has revealed Him ... How is it possible to find Jesus without Mary, since Jesus Himself did not come to us except with the consent of Mary? No one can go to the Son but by Mary, just as no one can go to the Father but by the Son. Only through Mary do we reach Jesus since Jesus came to us only through Mary; and because of this great truth, we should desire nothing but to make known to all nations this path, which is so sure to reach Heaven.
Ven. William Joseph Chaminade
Alas, O Lord! I am so wretched that without this dear Alas, O Lord! I am so wretched that without this dear Mother I would certainly be lost. Yes, Mary is necessary for me . . . that she may save me from the eternal punishment of Thy justice . . . Would that everyone might know that I should be already damned were it not for Mary!
St. Louis Marie de Montfort
they do ask Mary to pray for us and plead for us to her Son, Jesus, on our behalf.
Catholics pray TO mary. My Queen, My Mother, I offer myself entirely to thee. And to show my devotion to thee, I offer thee this day, my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my whole being without reserve. Wherefore, good Mother, as I am thine own, keep me, guard me as thy property and possession. Amen.http://www.marypages.com/PrayerstoMary.htm
So no. Roman catholicism is not recognzied in the NT. It is a "development of false doctrines" over time.
No Catholics don’t pray to Mary in the sense you are stating. Mary is venerated and honored, not worship and adoration, which is for God Alone. Their are clear distinctions in the Latin definitions and words used in Catholic theology.
Actaully, there is something saying Catholics should go to Mass once a week. The OT prefigured this as it states, keep Holy the Lord’s Day (Sabbath) in OT. THis prefigured the Holy Day (Lord’s Day) of the Resurrection, i.e. the first day of the week, which is when the Apostles gathered to break bread.
You say the Catholic Mass is not in Acts 2:42, I say it is.
All Scripture is inspired ,etc, You say it proves sola scriptura, I say it does not.
And I have never said Development of Doctrine did not occur, I clearly stated as much and documented the development of Doctrine with respect to Christology. The issue with the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome is that much of the Development of Doctrine occurred in the 2nd millennium, at a time in which Rome and the Orthodox were in Schism.
The Point of the article was for Rome and the Orthodox to look back to the 1st millennium and find an understanding of Primacy that can be formulated in a fully restored Catholic and Orthodox Church.
I don’t see and issue with this, despite you trying to make it such.
And back to Mary, those who write about Mary are writing from a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox theological tradition. You are reading them with Protestant ex ante biases and reading them from outside the Catholic or Orthodox Tradition. perhaps you should first understand Catholic distinctions between veneration and honoring saints vs. worship and adoration owed to God alone.
Perhaps catholicism has defined it that way but it is not supported in the NT. And that's the issue.
Catholics don't pray to Mary in the sense you are stating. Wow. Now the catholic has to redefine praying.
A brief examination of the Morning Consecration to Mary will indicate just how the catholic prays to Mary and how un-Biblical these prayers are.
It is clear this prayer to Mary, and the worship of mary by the catholic are in opposition to what has been revealed in the New Testament.
| Morning Consecration to Mary | Biblical Position |
| My Queen, My Mother | There is no Scriptural support for calling Mary “My Queen or My Mother” |
| I offer myself entirely to thee. | " Jesus declared, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' Matt 22:37 |
| And to show my devotion to thee, I offer thee this day, my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my whole being without reserve. | Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. Romans 12:1 |
| Wherefore, good Mother, | No Scriptural support for calling Mary “good Mother” |
| as I am thine own, keep me, guard me as thy property and possession. | In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, Eph 1:13 |
Morning Consecration Prayer source: http://www.marypages.com/PrayerstoMary.htm
This is but one prayer to Mary. There are many, many others as you know.
This may not convince the catholic of the error of their position in praying to Mary, devoting themselves totally to Mary, etc.
But for the casual reader who does not post on these threads it is posted to show the idolatry of roman catholicism.
ealgeone:
You are correct, we don’t agree what these prayers mean
Jim Noble:
OHHH, I have dealt with that group all my life. I am one of those folks who is the grandson of Sicilian Italian immigrants who has only lived in the South (3 different Southern States), although my home state (where I was raised) is sort of the bastard child of the South in that it has an historic Catholic heritage and larger than the national average Catholic population.
Who says a prayer has to be "Biblical"?
The attributes prescribed to Mary in this prayer and how the Catholic is to view them contradict the Bible. This is what makes it un-biblical.
I KNOW what makes it “unBiblical”.
My question was, “who says a prayer has to be ‘Biblical’?”
A prayer should not contradict the Bible as shown in the post I provided.
ealgeone:
Where does the Bible outline every Prayer that has been uttered? Again, you make the Bible into something it was not meant to be. The only prayer specifically spelled out is the Our Father (Lord’s prayer) rendered in 2 similar, but not exactly the same, versions in the Gospels of MT and LK.
You cannot refute what I posted in my post 27 so you resort to "where does the Bible outline every prayer" defense is telling. You cannot refute the contradiction between the two. We're either wholly devoted to Christ or Mary. It cannot be both.
You cannot refute the other quotes I posted from catholic writers that tell us the catholic relies on Mary for their salvation which is again in contradiction of the Word itself.
The catholic is left trying to defend the idol worship of Mariloatry.
ealgeone:
No I did refute your post, I refuted using your own “theological principle” of sola scriptura (which I reject by the way), which you are imposing on me.
Are you married, I hope you are devoted to your wife and being totally devoted to her does not detract your total devotion from Christ. There is something inherently illogical and irrational and downright wacko in fundamentalist theology that imposes such a principle that being devoted to Mary or my wife or my Mother and Father means I am less devoted to God.
Those Catholics do not rely on Mary for Salvation, they rely and hope that Mary will plead on their behalf with Her Son, Christ. in that sense, Mary aides and them and helps them by showing them and pointing them to Christ, but Christ saves.
Brian Pizzalato in an article posted on the Catholic News Agency talks about Suffering and salvation and quotes the late Pope John Paul II. Some excerpts from that article,
When Saint Paul says “I endure everything for the sake of th elect, that they may also obtain the salvation which in Christ Jesus goes with eternal Glory” (2 Timothy 2:10-12, etc) he says this just after in verse 9 that his imprisonment is for preaching “The gospel for which I am suffering and wearing fetters like a criminal”
In his Letter to the Ephesians he states “So I ask you not to loose Heart over what I am suffering for you ,which is your Glory” (Eph 3:13)
In his Letter to the Colossians (1:24) Saint Paul ties all this together, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of the body, that is the Church”
Now how do these verses of Saint Paul fit in your theology, not to well, based on your previous post. It is either devotion to Christ or not, it is either or, not both and in your world view.
Now, Catholic Theology does not take these verses to mean redemption is not completed by Christ, rather Christ allows us to unite our suffering to His for the salvation of others, thus we participate, albeit it is a mystery, in the salvation of others, even though it is always Christ who saves.
Is this a Tim Staples argument?
Next you'll be asking if we have pictures of family and trying to equate that with the idols of Mary in catholic homes and churches.
There is something inherently illogical and irrational and downright wacko in fundamentalist theology that imposes such a principle that being devoted to Mary or my wife or my Mother and Father means I am less devoted to God.
Are we to love our wives? Yes.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, Eph 5:25
The primary difference being we do not look to our spouses for salvation nor do we pray to our spouses as the catholic does.
Those Catholics do not rely on Mary for Salvation, they rely and hope that Mary will plead on their behalf with Her Son, Christ. in that sense, Mary aides and them and helps them by showing them and pointing them to Christ, but Christ saves.
No...they are saying they rely upon Mary for salvation. The apparitions claiming to be mary tell the catholic to wear a piece of cloth to avoid the hell-fire.
One of the false promises of the rosary.
Whosoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary shall receive signal graces. http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/prayer/15promise.htm
In none of the verses you cite does Paul ever tell us to rely upon him for salvation.
Paul never tells us to pray to him.
Paul does not command us to be devoted to him as we see the command in the false promises of the rosary.
If you think you see that in the verses you selected you've missed the whole point of any of Paul's writings.
Instead of seeking anyone to serve him Paul is humbling himself to serve Christ.
Some context for the passages you cite.
8To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; 10so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. 11This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12in whom we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him. 13Therefore I ask you not to lose heart at my tribulations on your behalf, for they are your glory.
14For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, 16that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, Eph 3:8-16 NASB
24Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. 25Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, 26that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, 27to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ. 29For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me. Col 1:24-29 NASB
8Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel, 9for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned. 10For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory. 11It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; 12If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; 13If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. 2 Tim 2:8-13
The catholic can continue to deny they worship Mary. The verbal gymnastics to which the catholic must resort to in a vain attempt to disprove their worship of Mary is not un-noticed.
However, their actions say otherwise. The catholic worships Mary.
ealgeone:
No, my own argument. And No Catholics do not worship Mary. Typically fundie rural southern protestant arguments that appeals to like minded folks.
You keep telling yourself that.
The catholic actions toward Mary are idolatrous.
The Good News is that sin can be forgiven if one repents and drops the worship of Mary.
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.