Religious, Comments

Learner | August 16,2010 | Learner

[caww]

Thank you very much....I have no idea how to cook with wine since I am not a good cook by any means....but it adds a certain flavor to meats I’ve enjoyed when others have used it. They have a knack for cooking with it. So I’ll give it another try. I used Mogan David red on a roast once....yulk...was given to me from a wedding shower. Apparently I used too much and it really tasted pretty strong...not at all as I thought might be.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"My take on it is that there could be no effective hierarchy, or enforcement of orthodoxy, until Christianity received the blessing of the State."

Effective hierarchy? I need some clarification here, lest I misunderstand your point. Is enforcement by the arm of force (the state) what you mean by "effective"? That doesn't seem right. The Catholic Church has always had a hierarchy, but has, in its 20 centuries, only intermittently--- and never universally ---had the power of the state for enforcement. Under present canon law, it is unlawful for a cleric to occupy any sort of political office, whether elective or appointed, which involves the exercise of temporal power.

The Church hierarchy has functioned through grace despite the failures of human weakness and sin, when its bishops were in palaces and when they were in prisons, when they were Renaissance soundrels and barefoot Peruvian saints, in times and places where the state has been favorable, where it has been neutral, where it has been implacably hostile, and even where there was effectively no state at all.

State enforcement of ecclesial discipline is not the sine qua non of hierarchy. It turned turned out, on balance, to be not a very good idea. I think we'd both agree on that?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"For Christians, he said that each reports directly to the Father, through the authority of the Son."

Yes, well said; and He also founded a Church.

"There are differences between God’s hierarchies, and man’s."

Yes again. I have always said there is a big difference between an Apostolic hierarchy and a clerical bureaucracy.

But in His Church, there are many members forming one Body. And the members do not all have exactly the same function within the Body.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

State enforcement of ecclesial discipline is not the sine qua non of hierarchy. It turned turned out, on balance, to be not a very good idea. I think we'd both agree on that?

Oh, naturally. But the original point had to do with what kind of Christians were being thrown to the lions, and the utility or desirability of throwing them thereto. I believe there was some degree of difference between those early martyrs and the Catholics who came afterward, once the dogma of the Church was more or less set in stone, the fringe groups had been purged, and orthodoxy enforced with the assistance of the state. Not that I would have thrown them to the lions, but I get the impression that the poster to whom I originally responded would have done it with relish.

[Tax-chick]

Yes, you want to use modest amounts of wine, especially an unusually sweet kind like Mogen David.

If you’re making a tomato-based sauce, you can add about 1/2 cup of red wine for a richer flavor. If you want a sauce for chicken or fish, a simple expedient is a cup of white wine, a few tablespoons of mustard, and some herbs.

[caww]

Well now..maybe I’ll be able to present a tasty dish other than the bland ones I prepare. Thank you for the tip on how much to use...I’ll save this and try something during this next week...am excited about this...Thanks again...

[Mrs. Don-o]

I now understand your point (I think). But it is almost a tautology to say that when Christianity was favored by the State, Christians were not then thrown to the lions, so therefore it was some other kind of Christian. Hm. The more direct conclusion would be that it was some other kind of State. It was always Catholics (or Orthodox, if you like) -- in any case the Church united before major, formal, enduring schism, and the martyrs' ranks always included laypeople, deacons, priests, and bishops.

The Novatianist controversy of the mid-3rd century came several generations before the formal legalization of Christianity, and involved (among other things) the urgent question of whether a cleric's Holy Orders were still valid if the cleric had committed the sin of apostasy during an outbreak of persecution.

That establishes pretty firmly, historically, that Holy Orders (constituting a clerical hierarchy) existed in the centuries A.D. before Constantine; that this hierarchy perdured before, during, and after persecutions; and that the sacramental validity of a man's priesthood was a matter of pressing concern, no matter which side of the controversy you favored. This certainly is not the picture of a supposedly non-hierarchical pre-Constantinian Christian community.

"Wherever the bishop is, there let the people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." --St. Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop and martyr, ca. 98 AD.

[Tax-chick]

I’m very pleased to be able to help! I’m a pretty basic cook - “Oh, this casserole again!” - but a little wine helps a lot.

[Mrs. Don-o]

When you say "a few tablespoons of mustard," do you mean reg'lar yellow hot dog mustard (i.e. the kind we have)?

P.S. Thanks for Anoreth's (your) address!

[Tax-chick]

If you’re using plain yellow mustard, use about 2 T. for a firm mustard flavor. If you have Dijon or honey mustard, maybe 3 T. in a cup of white wine. You want it to coat the chicken or fish, not run off too much. A cup would be for a couple of good-sized pieces of meat.

You’re welcome!

[Quix]

LOL.

[Quix]

Actually, I say again . . .

to the degree such things are true for whatever percentage of the organization and whatever percentage of individuals and whatever percentage of a given individual . . .

then

IT REALLY IS LOVE

to say—hey group—these things are true . . . even if it means rubbing noses in uncomfortable articulations of such.

I was pondering all such on the way home.

When CHRIST said to the bureaucratic power-mongering RELIGIOUS leadership elites 2000 years ago

that they were

—sons of satan;
—white washed tombs;
—vipers

I personally believe it was THE HIGHEST FORM OF LOVE HE COULD EXTEND TO THEM.

However, were they the real targets of such language?

Or was his articulation of the real spiritual truths about them MOSTLY a warning to others with some brains and discernnment left

to

NOT GO THERE?

I certainly don’t expect those who squeal the loudest—likely being those for whom such articulations are MOST true—I certainly don’t expect many of them, if any, to benefit from such—certainly not in the short term. Such folks are extremely resistent to learning much of anything.

However, in my experience, IF there is a chance, saying something memorable—even outrageously memorable—is more likely to produce fruit than something quickly forgettable.

And, I think, perhaps as 2000 years ago—the silent bystanders will ponder such more productively than the rabid responders hereon.

Love your wit, good character, candor and sense of humor.

[Quix]

HOWEVER, when we observe

The BIBLICAL PATTERN OF

CHURCH and congregational meetings

in I COR 14

we
can
see
that
HIERARCHY
IS
BRAZENLY
AND
EMPHATICALLY
MISSING

God
certainly
is
making a point
therein.
His Word
has no accidents.

[Quix]

INDEED.

[HKMk23]

Might I suggest a beer can vertical roaster?

[Tax-chick]

Clever little device. I’ll suggest it to the Boy Scouts. They’d save money if they bought a whole chicken, instead of prepared partes.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Obedient to you (as I am when I can manage it!) I have looked up and pondered 1 Cor. 14 carefully, verse by verse. Pemit me to offer these insights. First, a summary of the points Paul was making:

(v. 1-22)

Speaking in tongues is all very well, but does not edify the church, unless there is interpretation or prophecy.

(v. 23-26)

When everybody in a church meeting is speaking in tongues, you'd sound crazy to an outsider; but if everybody shares in a period of orderly prophesying, hymns, and instruction, it helps newcomers and strengthens the church.

(v. 27-40)

Two or three, at most, may speak in tongues: only one at a time, and only with someone to interpret. Otherwise keep quiet in church. And no woman should speak.

OK? Now here's my comment.

First, this chapter 14 is clearly a discussion of a type of church meeting which lacks the two core elements of liturgy found elsewhere in Acts and in Paul: that is, it lacks (1) the reading of Scripture (which Catholics call the "Liturgy of the Word") and (2) the partaking of communion in the body and blood of Our Lord (which Catholics call "Liturgy of the Eucharist") For Scripture references, here are the links for you: Acts 2:42 and 1 Cor 10.

So 1 Cor 14 is not a definition covering every kind of church prayer meeting; Paul is only talking about one particular kind of meeting: one that had apparently gotten a bit disorderly. And why did he write this? In order to caution them that their tongues-speaking/prophesying meetings could sound kind of crazy, and they should be sure to do this sort of meeting in better order.

Chapter 14 doesn't even deal with the structure of the Church or even the core doctrines of the Church per se. For instance, this particular chapter does not even mention the words (1)faith, (2) grace, (3) Scripture, (4) salvation, (5) Communion, (6) deacon, elder, overseer, apostle, or even (7) Jesus Christ.

So, true, this chapter has no mention of a church hierarcy, but that doesn't mean there was no church hierarchy, any more than it means there was no deacon, no bishop, no Jesus Christ!

You have to read elsewhere in the NT to see that the elements of an Apostolic hierarchy were already in place and beginning their growth: the authority of the Apostles; the appointment of successors (beginning with Matthias, and continuing to Titus, Timothy, and other appointed by the original Apostles by the laying on of hands); and the convening of Councils to settle doctrinal disputes, Councils which could speak in the name of the Holy Spirit and convey their conclusions with authority ot the whole Church. These parts of the New Testament show that the Church would not just conk out after the first generation, but would endure and extend as Christ promised.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Now here's a few questions concerning you and your church. (These are not "disputable" or "gotcha questions, they spring from my desire to know you better):

Do you-all speak in tongues? Do you have any members who don't?

Do you sing in tongues? (I've heard this, years ago, in Pentecostal or Catholic Charismatic churches, and thought it sometimes quite lovely--- I'll tell you a story about that sometime.)

Do you keep the rule that only two or three, at most, may speak in tongues: only one at a time, and only with someone to interpret?

Do you keep the rule that no woman should speak?

(\__/)
(='.'=)

Ears perked!

[Ransomed]

Neato!

Freegards

[Quix]

Thanks for your kind reply.

I understand your perspective.

I’m blessed that you pondered those Scriptures.