Posted on 09/29/2001 7:49:58 PM PDT by malakhi
| Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 151
My understanding is that the councils of Hippo, 393, and Carthage, 397, were local councils of African Bishops who set down the Canon to settle the question of which books were/were not inspired. At the conclusion of these councils, the Bishops final decision was sent to the Pope for his ratification. The Pope agreed with their decision, and declared it binding upon the entire Church. An analogy would be a small group within a corporation, say the engineers, formulate a policy, take it to the CEO for approval, and the CEO declares it binding on all of the corporation.
The council of Trent was convened in response to the Reformation, to answer the many questions that had been brought up by Luther and the reformers. One of the questions of course, was the Canon of the Bible. Trent was a general council of the Church, meaning that Bishops from the entire Church were present at the council. Again, they deliberated on the Canon, submitted the same Canon to the Pope for approval and he subsequently declared it binding on the entire Church. Returning to the analogy, this time, representatives from the entire corporation, engineers, sales, manufacturing, etc., all meet together to reconsider the previous policy. They agree on the policy, submit it to the CEO who then binds it on the entire corporation.
What we end up with is that Trent was the first general (church-wide) council to declare (actually reconfirm) the Canon of the Bible. The Canon had already been confirmed by two local councils and bound by the Pope to the entire Church at the end of the 4th century. In essense, Trent "rubber-stamped" a previously declared and binding resolution of the Church.
Also, do Protestants have anything to say about the Orthodox Church always using the deuterocanonical books, as the Council of Trent is not binding on them?
I can give you my 1 experience here. I use to play the organ for a small congregation (60 members)of Methodists some years back. Their pew Bibles need to be replaced. One of the debates was whether or not to buy Bible that contained only the Protestant Canon or ones which contained the Aprochrypha, (the "extra" Catholic books) as an added appendix. One Sunday, the Minister's sermon was on history of how the Bible came to be. One of his statements was that the Protestant Canon was the correct Canon as this is what the Orthodox have used since the time of the apostles. So, I suppose it is used as justification of the Protestant Canon. However, I have been told/read that the Orthodox use either version of the Bible. So this is the best that I can answer this question.
But it boils down to Protestant preference for the Hebrew Canon.
The problem, I believe is the definition of the word subsists. I think many define it as subset, or something similar.
Subsist, defined according to Webster indicates 1 a. to have existence: BE. Thus the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
1 b. Persist, continue. The Church of Christ continues in the Catholic Church.
2. to have or aquire the necessities of life (as food and clothing); esp to nourish oneself. The Catholic Church contains all that is necessary for one's spiritual life, including the nourishment of one's soul with the Body and Blood of Christ.
3 a. to hold true. The Catholic Church holds true to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
3 b.to be logically conceivable as the subject of true statements. The Catholic Church is logically conceivable as she is based upon the true statements of Jesus Christ.
Thus the Church of Christ is and continues to be the Catholic Church.
The Body of Christ is both the members of Christ's Body and the institutional Church. Christ is the head of the body, for without a head, a body cannot exsist. Christ returned to the Father, but promised to remain with us always. He remains with us by the establishment of the institutional Church. Christ gave us a visible representive, the Pope, to fulfill His promise. Thus the Pope stands in Christ's place as the head of the body. The rest of the heirachy, if you will, is the neck. Like the neck, they communicate Christ's teachings to the rest of the body. The remainder, and majority of the body is its members. The body is one with the head, but made of individuals, and yet united with Christ. As St. Paul said, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Their is neither Jew nor Greek, their is neither slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal. 3:27-28
Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church. The word build implies the constructing of a structure.
I give unto you the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, whatsoever you bind shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever you loose shall be loosened in Heaven. Christ gave Peter and his successors the authority to establish a structured organization.
It seems to me, that if Christ wanted an unorganized group of believers, 1, would not have singled out Peter, and 2, he would have said something like: Yo, guys, go out in my name and teach whatever you feel like, because it doesn't really matter.
Christ spent roughly 3 years teaching the 12 Apostles. Surely, this is the seed of a structured organization. Why bother organizing 12 men when He could have easily taught them one-on-one and let them go their own way?
In some of St. Paul's Epistles, he reprimands local Churches for not towing the party-line. This again implies an organized structure.
Why does St. Paul confer with the Apostles to see if his teaching is in accord with the Apostles' teaching? Again, it implies a structured organization.
So it comes down to that both Christ's promise that He would be with us always and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church applies to the teachings of the organization and not to the individual members of His Body.
Please read my reply to Angelo, # 63 about the Body of Christ.
1 Timothy 4
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
The RCC was founded by Jesus Christ. Sounds like those who broke away to me. After all, they came later.
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Really radical Christian in name only types?
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
The gnostics, an early breakaway from true Christian teaching.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
Yes, this does speak rather highly of the Catholic Church.
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
Again, the Catholic Church.
6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
Yes, this is the Catholic Church, continually teaching the doctrine of Christ Jesus.
7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
I never can remember, is it feed a cold and starve a fever, or is it the other way around?
As a Catholic I have always accepted the teaching of the Church on Peter because it made sense and because the scriptural passages used to support it seemed pretty clear. I have thought about it more over the past few years because of the world situation and the concomitant attack on the Church. It seemed quite clear that there was an attack on the Church from within and without that seemed intent on destroying it. Consequently heavy fire has been aimed at the Primacy of Peter. What better way to obliterate something than to destroy its head or leader or spokesman. It seemed to me if man wanted to enslave his fellow man,it would be imperative to ensure that nothing greater had the allegience of the soon to be enslaved,thus the authenticity of the Catholic Church and the truth of its teaching and the legitimacy of its leader has been targeted with increasing ferocity. Destroy the repository of the faith and you can confuse the messages Christ wanted to have taught to all nations.
So using a unique system of scholarly research that I put together myself based on a combination I figured out from responses that non_Catholics seem to rely on in the Neverending thread, I offer you my findings re the Papacy based only on parts of the New Testament I choose to use as well as the Havocian proofs of proof by non existence of documentation.
For starters,none of the apostles were married and Jesus was not inclined to ask married men to go out and teach all what He taught them. (No mention of any wives in the Gospels)
Peter was to be head of the Church Christ established to be visible on earth until the end. Only Mark does not seem to vest in Peter this authority and the reason is that Mark is recording Peter's teachings,Peter knew that the first must be last or in other words humble,so he couldn't very well go around blatting about how he was the big cheese among the apostles of Jesus. This explains why that is the shortest Gospel because the other ones gave him the honors and responsibilities that Christ gave him but his humility prevented him talking about it. So it doesn't matter whether it was first,second or third the big tahoo about its placement does not make a whit of difference, its the content and the reason for it that counts.
Jesus told him to feed his sheep,fish for men,gave him the keys and changed his name to a name that meant rock. You don't think Jesus knew what He was doing?
Jesus also rebuked him and that was to let him know that he was not to try to divert God's Will which must be done.This was quite possibly the most important direction that Christ gave to Peter with regards to leading His Church.
Peter also fell asleep,followed at a distance,warmed himself by the fire and denied knowing Jesus. These human failings which we all stumble into were for us,reading and hearing the Gospel all these many years later would know that Popes were also prey to human failings. It was only after all of that that Christ again confirmed that Peter was to feed Christ's flock. Yes, I think the Gospels clearly point to the Primacy of Peter and the Papacy as instituted by Christ for a reason. Well, this may sound incoherent by now since its pretty late but I am going to send it to you. Hope to hear from you.
From the Catechism. 789. "The comparison of the Church with the body casts light on the intimate bond between Christ and his Church. Not only is she gathered around him; she is united in him, in his body. Three aspects of the Church as the Body of Christ are to be more specifically noted: the unity of all her members with each other as a result of their union with Christ; Christ as head of the Body; and the Church as BRIDE of Christ.
He would either have omitted the midrash altogether, or made it clear that it was not to be taken literally.
Again, I emphasize that this is the minimum for Judaism. If you take a "just the facts" approach, this is what you find. When I say "the People", I mean the Jews from scriptural times up until the present day. One may doubt the veracity of the scripture stories, but Israel and the Jews are an historical reality.
IF that's the case, then there really is no reason to believe any of the OT accounts about Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, etc. Unless one is using faith or has a personal revelation from God, which I am assuming no one here has had.
I would agree that there is no way to prove that any of those accounts are true. As you point out, believing them requires a measure of faith in the truthfulness of the texts and in the testimony of the generations who have passed them down to us.
Would you agree that all baptized believers, non-Catholics included, are part of this Body of Christ?
What is your take on the "subsists"?
This is speculation on your part, applied in hindsight.
I DON'T REALLY KNOW THE MOST FITTING PLACE FOR THIS. . . . It flowed out in response to a reply in the prayer thread. . . and it felt as I finished it that there was a more fitting place for it. This is the only one I could think of--so I'm throwing it in here. I hope it's useful for some hereon as they prayerfully ponder our current global situation.
I think the unforgiveness is so poisonous because it is birthed of a subset of the pride that caused God's closest assistant to get kicked out of Heaven.
Our pride rises up and declares that WEEEEEE ARE MORE RIGHTEOUS THAN THEY!!!!
And we may be in this or that area or even a list of areas--ALL BY GOD'S GRACE. But that we may be more righteous here or there is not the point.
Somewhere in all of us is the rot that got Adam and cohort kicked out of the garden. And that rot left to it's own--will do most any evil imagined in the "right" "nurturing" circumstances for it's flowering.
We delude ourselves to think otherwise. . . . we self-rightously and arrogantly delude ourselves.
That's another reason humility is so essential. We ARE all but grass. . . . made in His image, to be sure. . . but that image is terminally marred apart from His Mercy and Blood--ongoingly applied.
We have NO PLACE to stand on which will afford us any loftier platform from which to look down on fellow travelers. Our place on The Cross is a place of "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." And a place of realizing that it is our sins which helped put Him there.
Yes, Ben Laden is working hard to demonstrate his being deluded and consumed by pernicious evil from the pit--from the heart and mind of satan. Prayerfully, no matter the circumstances, none of us will go 1/1,000,000,000th down that road.
But we have all gone plenty far in that direction to mandate humility; contrition, forgiveness, compassion. God knows it and satan knows it whether we do or not. About the time we think not, the enemy knows a whole set of traps easy to apply.
That's one reason why, when praying The Lord's Prayer, and I come to the part "Forgive us our sins as we forgive . . . " I pause and confess that I forgive everyone, all--and I repent for having anything against anyone. And I earnestly try and do what I humanly, prayerfully can to have all my relationships clear before I go to sleep each night. I think this is BASIC GOSPEL.
Alas, I think Ben Laden's parents taught him nothing like this. Christians aren't even very good at "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples--that you have love one for another."
Given no parental teaching and modeling; given no cultural teaching and modeling; given such lack of Christian contrast available too commonly; given the statements in the Koran . . . . given satan's wiles. . . . It's not real surprising there are plenty of Ben Ladens. The wonder is that there are not more.
As Francis Shaefer (sp?) said so well and often--the world--the Ben Laden's of the world have a right to say we are not Christians because we show such little love one for another.
Yes, there are exceptions. Exceptions are often not very convincing as proof of the rule.
What would have become of Ghandi and India had the Christians around him behaved differently? How can the Believers in the various driver's seats of this situation behave differently in ways that will cause the world to sit up and take notice--not of fire power--but of the fierce and fiery Love of Jesus The Christ who died for all?
Perhaps prayers along those lines would be in order.
I'm not talking about mindless--give-the-axe-murderer-another-axe sorts of misguided terminally foolish "kindness."
I am talking about a Love as radical as Calvary. . . . and praying in new culturally creative and potent ways to demonstrate it.
It's easy for me to consider executing Bin Laden a kindness to prevent him from racking up more punishment in hell. But I don't think the demonized Islamic radicals are the most likely candidates for messages of Love--though I don't think we should write every one of them off as 100% hopeless either.
But there are millions looking on who are vulnerable to the fierce fiery Love of our Lord and God. Are we up to the challenge of manifesting it to that level, quality, tenacity. . . . only by His Grace.
I don't know the therefore what's. But God is able to show us, support us, provide for us, help us carry such out WHEN OUR HEARTS ARE WILLING and humble before Him. Perhaps praying along those lines would be fitting.
And if we refuse to allow our hearts to become so broken, humble, contrite, forgiving, then we have leaned in the direction of joining the Bin Laden's of the world regardless of the whitewash of our rationalizations.
I don't have any convincing reason to avoid wiping out all the possessed terrorists who plan so much death and destruction. . . . and who have done so much such already.
I have no real trouble praying that God would overwhelm such with a St Paul type miraculous conversion experience complete with blinding light, speechlessness etc. And God may humble the west and pull such a drama. What an evangelistic drama that could spark. Imagine a right hand man of Bin Laden's having his own "Road to Damascus" experience. . . . or a Mt of Transfiguration sort of experience where standing alongside Christ he viewed the prophet M and Komaine (sp?) in hell telling him to accept The Messiah and be kind to Israel. He might need an angelic host as bodyguards. But it would sure be interesting.
I don't know what God has up His sleeve. But I suspect it's at least as dramatic as our wildest fantasies. He's not about to let satan forever have all the press. He's not about to let satan be lastingly more dramatic. He's not about to let satan lastingly appear more powerful. He's a wise General. And in the proper time, and the proper ways, God Almighty will be more shocking for Good than the WTC began to be shocking for evil.
Well put, Steven. Let me also add that I got a little hot under the collar myself last week with JHavard and Havoc. My apologies for any name calling, I will try to avoid this in the future. As tempting as it sometimes is.
SD
Are you suggesting that Joseph was still alive when Jesus was crucified?
Good catch. I don't think the death of Joseph is covered in Scripture (though I will be corrected instantly if i'm wrong), though the assignment of Mary to the disciple John seems to indicate her lack of a male "head of household."
Or I could weasel out of it and say I meant from Jesus' birth to Joseph's death.
SD
Yes I would. However I would add that baptized non Catholics are united imperfectly with his church.
What is your take on the "subsists"?
The full deposit of faith that was transmitted from Christ to the Apostles is alive and well in the Catholic Church.
Really? What steps might those have been? Please tell me how an author can assure that someone does not misunderstand or misinterpret what he writes. I might be able to use it with allend.
Well, the author can remain alive and tell everybody what he meant when they misinterpret it. But that only works for so long.
I guess that the author (in this case ultimately, God) could do the analogous thing. And set up an organization to explain the written word. To judge its meaning. And, being God, He would protect this organization from teaching wrongly.
Voila!
SD
What is meant by this is not, as Protestants like to view things, that there are many people in the Body of Christ some of whom are Catholic. That the Catholic Church is a subset of all who are "saved."
This is exactly wrong. The members of the Body of Christ are a subset of all attached to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the larger of the two and all Christians are united to Her by their Baptisms.
SD
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.