Nobody's picking a church fight

The Washington Times ^ | 7-13-07 | Wes Pruden

[JZelle]

Nothing stirs the blood like talking about religion. That's why it's taboo to talk about it in casual social conversations. Better to ask the boss's wife whether she ever considered a face-lift.

But Pope Benedict XVI is a man of firm conviction and blunt talk. Not for this pontiff the Vatican II tradition of warm and fuzzy, as the message of Vatican II, which put a friendly expression on the stern countenance of the church of Rome, has been widely interpreted in the circles of those addicted to warm and fuzzy. This week he authorized a statement of "clarification" of Vatican II, and to the consternation of some Roman Catholics here, the secular press interpreted the message to Protestants as no more Mr. Nice Guy.

[padre35]

“Which is really just another way of saying that you’re your own denomination, on the same level as Baptists or Catholics.”

I’ll thank you not to put words into my mouth if you please.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Given that churches are intended to prevent the accumulation of false teaching -- which we know takes place -- it seems to me a fundamental responsibility of any church to point out false teaching when it finds it. That's never easy to do, of course, because human frailties keep getting in the way of things.

That's it exactly. Churches (and by this, I mean local New Testament churches, not denominations or organisations) are the pillar and ground of the truth. And each individual Christian and church member has the responsibility to stand up for the truth of Scripture.

This is why, far from shying away from religious debates and controversies, I think these are a GOOD thing, and in fact are necessary for a vital spiritual walk. The problem of religion arises not when controversies appear, but when people decide that they'd rather resort to violence when they cannot argue the matter scripturally and reasonably. People forget what Hamilton said (in a bit different but equally relevant venue,

"In politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution."

[Oliver Optic]

We are so sensitive and PC these days.

I don't see the big deal with the statement. I thought it was understood that the Church of Rome considered themselves the only true church.

If Rome claims to be the true church, fine ... let's examine the claim ... and if it is false, strongly and publicly refute it. But enough of the whining ... "Mommy, the Pope said something mean to me!"

If Catholics believe that their church is the only reliable path to salvation, it is not "hatred" or "bigotry" to say so.

Conversely, if I believe that the Roman church is "the great harlot, mystery Babylon, drunk with the blood of the saints" ... I shouldn't be called a hater or anti-Catholic bigot for saying so.

My, haven't we become soft! At any rate, maybe the poor liberal Protestants whining about how this "doesn't help the cause of reconciliation" will get a clue about the type of reconciliation Rome has in mind.

[PetroniusMaximus]

Thanks for that!

[r9etb]

I’ll thank you not to put words into my mouth if you please.

Ah, padre, I touched a sore spot, didn't I?

But I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm just looking at the logic of what you said: that's what one does in civil debate. If you can't abide people assessing the meaning of your words, perhaps it would be better for you to remain silent. Rather than getting all pissy on us: be a man and defend your position.

I surmise from your posts that you "avoid religion" because of its controversies. It also appears from your posts that you're nevertheless a Christian. If so, and if you actually believe anything at all, then it follows that you hold to your own set of "teachings." Which is pretty much what distinguishes one religious denomination from another.

And thus I stand by my earlier statement.

[red irish]

Some things get really really old. Saying Catholics worship Mary is offensive. But some people choose to say this same thing over and over I guess until some jackass believes it.I remember when I met one of my dearest friends who is a Baptist and I asked her if she wanted to ask me any weird questions because I was Catholic.lol And we love each other dearly. When she went to get married for the third time and her intending husband three times,she asked me to be her maid of honor and I said I could not because of all the divorce's. Believe me I NEVER wanted to make hr feel bad or disrespect her because of what I believed in faith. She was so graceful and loving and told me that she understood. She understood it was love of my faith and what we believed and was never meant to hurt her. We are still very close friends and believe me I loved her new husband dearly. He since has died and I cried for days. People will always have differences in faith and many other ways but we must show respect and love them the best a human can do with Gods help.Todays world ANYTHING today can be called a religion and many religions have serious issues but we really do need one another. Especially we have a great many people who have said they want to kill us because were Christians or Jews or whatever.

[Claud]

You mean this Augustine?

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

be a man and defend your position.

Ouch!

[Bat_Chemist]

And that's a good thing. Too many protestants don't bother to think deeply about doctrine.

To which I must reply: I was a Catholic, but it was just what you specify, "much thinking about doctrine," which led me to away from the Catholic church and into a Sola Scriptura belief.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Yes, the one and same Augustine. When one looks at his extended and explanatory statements, such as the ones I posted, one can then see the general ideological context in which his other statements are to be taken. In light of what he said elsewhere, we can surmise that when he said "But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ", this doesn't necessarily mean that he had Roman Catholic transubstantiation in view.

[William Terrell]

Yeah, repeating Catholic doctrine. Imagine that!

Yes, isn't it ironic that repeating Catholic doctrine would be a poor way to reconcile Protestants with Rome, or, in other words, Chrisitans with one another.

[padre35]

“Ah, padre, I touched a sore spot, didn’t I?

But I’m not putting words into your mouth, I’m just looking at the logic of what you said: that’s what one does in civil debate. If you can’t abide people assessing the meaning of your words, perhaps it would be better for you to remain silent. Rather than getting all pissy on us: be a man and defend your position.

I surmise from your posts that you “avoid religion” because of its controversies. It also appears from your posts that you’re nevertheless a Christian. If so, and if you actually believe anything at all, then it follows that you hold to your own set of “teachings.” Which is pretty much what distinguishes one religious denomination from another.

And thus I stand by my earlier statement.”

Stand by what you will, if one wishes to try and piece together what my thoughts are on our Faith, then one could always ask, but to try and construct an entire picture of anyone based on a few internet postings is some mighty thin soup sir.

If I have something to say on the matter at hand, I will, if there is nothing to add, then of course I won’t. I will not however, have anyone no matter how well intentioned, (or not) try and speak for me.

[Tokra]

My whole point is that Protestants will take certain verses of the Bible and tell us they are "literal" and not open to interpretation, and then turn around and take other verses and interpret them and say "What it REALLY means is...."

You can't have it both ways - either the Bible is literal or its not. You can't pick and choose which parts you want to take literally and which parts you want to interpret.

I am NOT a literalist - but most Fundamentalists are (except when it comes to a verse they don't like).

[baldisbeautiful]

Strictly speaking, the Orthodox churches (i.e., Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc.) are not protesting any doctrine (they differ on which, if any patriarch is the supreme pontiff) and are therefore, not protestant. The Orthodox churches enjoy Apostolic succession and, consequently, partake of the true body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ when they take Eucharist.

[Claud]

That link you posted is—forgive me—ridiculous. It presents selective quotations from the Fathers to get a “negative” verdict on the Real Presence. Normally what we do in scholarship is that we don’t leave out quotes that undermine our position and pretend they are not there.

Yes, there are plenty of Fathers that speak of the Eucharist as a symbol. But NONE of them say that it is ONLY a symbol. It is to them a symbol AND a reality.

Here are the quotes your source conveniently left out. Now how your esteemed scholar purports to defend his position in the face of these I have no blessed idea:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

[Mr. Lucky]

That's special.

I spelled orthodox with a small "o" on purpose.

Christ is truly present in the communion hosts because he said he would be, not because of magical powers given to any group of men.

[r9etb]

The problem of religion arises not when controversies appear, but when people decide that they'd rather resort to violence when they cannot argue the matter scripturally and reasonably.

I agree with you on this, but I think there's something else here, too -- people tend to be rule-makers, and they tend to think up really complicated reasons and explanations for stuff, and those rules about Christianity tend to get in the way of Christianity itself.

For example, I visited a thread yesterday wherein some fellow named Grant Swank was bashing "pre-tribulation rapturists" over the head about something or other. I still can't figure out what he was talking about, but he seemed to think it was Really Important, in precisely the same way folks are bashing around on this thread.

And in so doing, we miss the real point of Christianity, which is nothing more than to take up our crosses and follow Him. We can't do that, if already we're using our hands to bash various "-ists" and "-isms".

We try to make things so difficult, but Jesus told us something we're prone to forgetting: the fundamental elements of the faith are things that are accessible even to children. Jesus came for the likes of those -- and the church should focus on those elements.

By contrast, God hid His meaning from "the wise," who try to complicate the faith so that only specialists can understand it -- they're the ones who focus on the arcane problems associated with "pre-tribulation rapturists," and the like.

We're all, unfortunately, "the wise" more often than not. Good thing we have a loving and forgiving God.

[trisham]

I love this pope. I hope he’s having a wonderful, restorative vacation.

[r9etb]

You're still at it.

I was simply pointing out the logic of your comment. If you don't want responses to what you post, then don't post things in the first place.

[Claud]

In light of what he said elsewhere, we can surmise that when he said "But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ", this doesn't necessarily mean that he had Roman Catholic transubstantiation in view.

Look at the very beginning of that quote again:

For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord's may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping.

Now how could he say that if he believed what you said he believed??