When even the pope has to whisper

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA10Ak01.html ^ | Spengler

[AnAmericanMother]

"as a concept" - but not as a Bible. St. Jerome and the other Early Church Fathers selected those Scriptures (both Old and New Testament) which were included and those which were omitted. We cannot know whether the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy or the Gospel of Mary (or Thomas) might have been included as "Holy Writ" without the Church's careful consideration and rejection, nor whether for example the Letter of James might have been omitted (as Martin Luther wished).

And given the lunacy that passes for theology in some of those ancient texts, it's a GOOD thing.

[houeto]

Where the Koran and Bible differ is in regards to the quality of the message each contains.

I would say the difference lies in the Truth of the message.

[houeto]

There are moderate muslims but there is no such thing as moderate Islam

You mean 'lukewarm' muslims?

[PetroniusMaximus]

"I would say the difference lies in the Truth of the message."

Perhaps I should have said "spirtual quality" - or lack thereof.

[trisham]

Specifically...

"by establishing a church in which he gives authority to his followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it,"

The Bible speaks authoritatively - whether we "interpret" or "adapt" it correctly or not. The Church does not enhance the Bible's authority by "adapting" it to modern situations. If there had never been a Catholic Church, the Bible would still be as inspired and authoritative as it ever was.

************

Perhaps I should have quoted more of your post. It seems clear from the passage below that Jesus meant for the Church to continue his work:

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVP.HTM

[PetroniusMaximus]

""as a concept" - but not as a Bible."

The Bible of Jesus day was as much "the Bible" as the one in your bookcase. It was as fully inspired and authoritative. Jesus attitude towards the Scripture was that they were the final authority (excluding himself) and this is well before the RCC pronounced them authoritative.


"St. Jerome and the other Early Church Fathers selected those Scriptures (both Old and New Testament) which were included and those which were omitted."

My view is that the Church played a role similar to John the Baptist - they were given the privelege of recognizing the presence of the Holy Spirit in certain books - just as John was given the privelege of recognizing the Messiah. But John did not "pick" the Messiah. Neither did the Church "pick" the Scripture.

[AnAmericanMother]

I'll agree with you there, that's a matter of semantics (they chose, but they were divinely inspired in their choice.)

The fact remains, it was the Fathers of the Catholic Church that did the choosing (or were inspired to choose.) Which is the only point I'm trying to make.

[Antoninus]

Not surprising. Benedict XVI knows that one of the main tenents of Islam is "jihad." Islam is spread by the sword. Take away jihad and the remaining religion may be something similar to Islam, but it's not Islam.

[RinaseaofDs]

"Islam SCREAMS...and the Pope whispers?"


You don't see any symmetry in this at all? For all the bombs, blood, and bluster, it takes for Islam to 'assert itself or make its case', it takes but a whisper from the Pope to indict it?

I find in this a sort of consistency.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"The fact remains, it was the Fathers of the Catholic Church that did the choosing (or were inspired to choose.) Which is the only point I'm trying to make."

Well, to come right down to it, the point that I'm taking issue with (which also underlies the Pope's comment) it that the Church "made" the Scripture and is therefore somehow "over" the Scripture. I understand this to be Catholic thinking.

I think the Scripture is "over" the Church.

So it's
"Scripture = Final Authority"
vrs
"Church's interpretation of Scripture = Final Authority"

(Amazingly, this discussion remains right on topic for the post!)

[jjmcgo]

"If there had never been a Catholic Church, the Bible would still be as inspired and authoritative as it ever was."

This is as bonkers a sentence as has ever appeared in the English language. If there had never been a Catholic Church, there would be no Bible, no Christianity, no Protestantism.
Jesus founded the Catholic Church and left it to Peter to lead it.
Jesus Christ=Catholic Church. It's His.

[Old Professer]

Reform? They're winning, for cripe's sake!

[PetroniusMaximus]

"This is as bonkers a sentence as has ever appeared in the English language."

Well besides the poor grammer...



"If there had never been a Catholic Church, there would be no Bible,"

Please see post #37 and it's replies

[livius]

The Church has been "reforming" itself since its orgin. Look at all the many doctrinal councils that were held over the centuries. Luther's eroor was that he ended by making a break with historical development, which is why you now have hundreds of thousands of Protestant "churches," each one claiming a particular fragment of the full revelation, and many of them even simply burning out because they have exhausted the little they had.

In other words, the Church - which of course gave us the Bible as it is today, since there were many psuedo-gospels and legends floating around at the time - has always been a living creature, developing as all living creatures do. Islam, on the other hand, was born dead, and it hasn't changed - and can't do so, because it is evil, death-bringng, and its scriptures are what keeps it permanently blinded to reality.

[livius]

I agree with you.

I wonder however if even Bush knows that the attempt to "fix" Islam is futile. Realistically speaking, though, I can't imagine how he could have declared war on Islam. He would have needed the support of many people in Congress, to say nothing of the American people, to do this. And both our legislative leaders and the great majority of our population are clueless about the irreversible course of the vicious totalitarian ideology known as Islam.

I suppose the time may come when we have to be honest about it and admit that it is a fight to the death with Islam. However, I think it's going to take a lot of death and destruction before the blinders come off.

Still, I'm glad that at least the Pope recognizes this. I was never too sure about his predecessor (photographed kissing a Koran on one occasion, although he was elderly at the time and I always thought he wasn't really aware of what he was doing).

[PetroniusMaximus]

"Realistically speaking, though, I can't imagine how he could have declared war on Islam. "

Hence all the political pablum regarding the "religion of peace".

[Flavius Josephus]

Look at it this way. We have lots of allied people working with us in Iraq. What do you suppose would happen if the President started coming out breathing fire and calling it a faux-religion of death and decay and degradation? We would never get anything done in the ME.

[livius]

Yes, exactly. And I think his plan to build an Islamic-rooted democracy in the ME is truly idealistic and gives these people at least a chance to distance themselves from the more extreme aspects of their religion. However, I don't think it will work in the long run, not because of the U.S., but because of the fundamental dynamic of Islam itself. It breaks out time and again, even in existing Muslim states that have tried to be more secularist and moderate (Turkey and Egypt, for example).

At this point, though, I don't see any other way Bush could have handled it.

[Salvation]

**Jesus said "I didn't come to change the Law, but fulfill it." The Law has never changed, and Jesus just suffered for us.**

BTTT!

[BackInBlack]

"Jesus said 'I didn't come to change the Law, but fulfill it.'"

Definitely. He came to fulfill the prophecy that the law would one day be written on our hearts, not on paper.

"The Word of God is exact and never changes...Jesus lived by the "old Hebrew Law" you say was thrown out."

During his ministry, Jesus explicitly eliminated certain Hebrew laws, like keeping Kosher (Mark 7:19). And there are many other Hebrew laws that no Christian today believes it's necessary to follow. For example, it bans the wearing of clothing made out of two kinds of cloth and growing two kinds of crop in a field (Leviticus 19:19). I don't see any preachers or theologians fretting about the sinful temptation to wear cotton/polyester blends or growing tomato and basil together in a vegetable garden.

There are dozens of other examples. Exodus 21:7 says a father can sell his daughter into slavery; Leviticus 25:44 says we can own slaves from neighboring countries; and on and on. That's why Jesus used parables suggesting, essentially, out with the old and in with the new (Luke 5:36-38, with wine imagery as predicted in Isaiah 65:8).

In the New Testament there are similar strictures, like 1 Corinthians 11:5, which says women must pray with their heads veiled. Must that be done today?

If we are to take Scripture seriously, then, we have to wrestle with it in its entirety, not with select citations out of context. The only way to make all of this consistent is to believe the prophecy in Jeremiah 31:33, repeated in Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16, that a new day is at hand, in which the law is now in our hearts. That doesn't mean there's no such thing as absolute truth; it does mean that the truth is harder to discern. That's where looking at the principles of the Bible, rather than just the time-specific strictures that resulted from them at one point, comes in handy.