Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
The Catholic Church does the exact same thing... EVERY Mass - although I think some non C's think that doesn't happen! We hear the entire NT every 3 years due to Scripture readings on Sundays. We can choose to follow along in the monthly booklet provided with the written Scripure.
BTW, thanks for the links on the Orthodox religion that I asked you for. Very informative and very interesting. Seems like the split between the C's and the O's could certainly have been averted - minor problems built up over the years, IMHO. Power struggles, mostly. So sad.
If I wasn't Catholic I would definately choose to be Orthodox.
Or so you keep saying. This same sad story is why your clergy needed the decretals, among other forgeries, so badly. There is no foundation for the claim, let alone proof. But there is motive. What possible reason might someone have for pushing such a pack of absurdity? Power. And they committed fraud to get it.
Rofl. States it as fact, then propounds "belief" as proof. There is nowhere in the Bible any requirement to believe in some organization which wrought it's power through lies, fraud and deciet. Where is the proof. After all your church rests a great deal on this "claim". Divine right succession was a farse created by the seculars and adopted in an attempt to give you legitimacy with the public. It buys you no legitimacy with God. But, your clergy wasn't interested in God when they duped everyone with the story. They were interested in popular opinion to build based on the lies that they told. It did, they won acceptance through fraud. A seed planted of evil cannot bare good fruit. You may show people good deeds; but, hey, even satanists give to charities and donate their time to 'good' causes. Deeds are not fruit, saved souls are. And given that your clergy professes a different salvation than that which Christ and the Apostles professed, that should say it all.
But when you all are in a hole, you start the hand wringing and what not. And how does it not matter if a word is used in scripture or not? Hmm? 'Throw yourself off the cliff and the angels will surely catch you - who cares what's in scripture and what isn't...' Jesus said "it is written", not 'I believe' or 'I think'. You don't care what is "written" (the scriptures) because you aren't defending scriptures, you're defending your philosophies - they aren't scripture nor are they supported in scripture. You have to defend your philosophy with logic, reason and other philosophy. Your chief problem is in selling your version of how things work over Jesus' version of how things work. Jesus is one heck of a lot more believeable, pal. And He speaks from authority. You speak from claims.
Excellent research...it's a keeper.
As with your great response on the question of "firstborn," I'm going to devote some time to prayer and study and speaking with some of my Orthodox mentors, and then respond more. But I'll give a few thoughts now.
Without looking up the specific words, right off hand, I would say that betrothed would be the same as our engaged, and marriage would be when it is legalized by the civil courts or a Church, so with that said, I’ll do a little researching.
This is consistent with my understanding as well.
Question #2, Do you believe that the first comes before the second, and carries the full responsibilities of marriage without the benefits of consummation, as is consistent with Jewish tradition of the time?
Yes, short of living together, and her cooking his meals and tucking him in at night. Lol
Ouch. My apologies, on second reading my question comes across as rather arrogant in tone. I seem to remember being rather worked up at the time. Thank you for not responding in kind.
Now notice Mt 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Joseph took unto him his wife, that was phase #2, marriage, complete except for the physical consummation, with “took” being the marriage word.
Took her, as one took in marriage, Deut 24:3, and Luke 20:30
Taken her, as to take in marriage, Deut 20:7, and Gen 12:19 and 20:7
Take her as in marriage, Deut 27:7, and Deut 25:5
This conclusively proves that Joseph and Mary were legally married.
I readily admit that this appears to be a valid interpretation of the words. I won't admit that its the only valid interpretation. Let's assume for argument's sake that my interpretation is correct. If a man had a betrothed wife (as you say, the term "wife" is accurate even at the betrothal stage), and had been commanded by God to not consummate the marriage, but to in all other ways make the marriage appear "normal" for the sake of public appearances and public acceptance and protection, how would this be worded?
I also fully admit that IF this is the truth of the nature of the relationship between Mary and Joseph, there would be no Scriptural precedent. How could there be? Nowhere else in Scripture - in all of history - has God endorsed a woman bearing a child and pretending that someone else is the father. IF that is what happened here, can you think of how Scripture might have worded it? If Joseph and Mary proceeded with legal marriage for the sake of appearances, but never in practice moved past the stage of being "betrothed," isn't it very plausible that Scripture would have still used the language that is used in Matthew 1:24?
I admit to only having a rudimentary understanding of Hebrew society during the time of Christ. But I've heard it maintained on this thread that it would have been wrong for a man and woman, fully and legally married, to NOT consummate their marriage as soon as possible. Obviously, Joseph and Mary did not do this. In your interpretation of Matthew 1:24, they are legally married right after Joseph wakes from his dream of the angel. Thus, it seems to me that the term "married" cannot have included consummation. If it means marriage-with-delayed-consummation, likely an offense against social mores, why can't it just as easily mean marriage-with-permanently-delayed-consummation?
I apologize if this doesn't seem clear. I understand why, if you approach the passage expecting to reach your conclusion that they consummated the marriage, the evidence seems to be there. I'm trying to see if I'm being reasonable in saying that if you approach the passage expecting to reach my conclusion that they never consummated the marriage, the evidence seems to be there as well. I think I am.
The fact that there is no mention of small children is not the uncommon thing but the common, and would have been rare indeed if they had been mentioned.
Very fair answer. However, even though it is the common practice, it does not change the fact that the lack of any mention of them does not prove that they existed.
Question #6, And why would Christ commend Mary to the care of John from the cross if she had other children whose place it would have been to care for her on the death of her only son?</>
I’m sure you meant on the death of her oldest son rather then only son, but the reason is clear...
Actually, I meant her only son because that is what I believe to be the truth.
Mt 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. V-48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? V-49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! V-50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Jesus put his money where his mouth was. He had told them that a spiritual brother was even more of a true brother then a blood brother, such as James, who wasn’t a believer at that time, but it looks as though that may have changed shortly afterwards since the apostle Paul said that Christ saw James alone 1 Cor 15:7, and this was quite possibly when James gave his life to his Lord.
Sorry, but I don't see this as "direct Scriptural evidence" at all. On what basis do you link these two passages? By your reasoning, Christ should have been just as diligent about commending all the other women among his followers to different people for caretaking - are they not, as He says in the verse you quote, His "mothers" too?
Your scenario is plausible, but no more than that. Is there any proof at all as to when James became a believer? As you say, we know he was by not long after Christ's Resurrection, but what evidence do you have for saying that he wasn't a month earlier?
As I said, your theory is plausible. But certainly no more plausible than the tradition passed down within the Orthodox Church.
Question #7, Why is the burden of proof in this discussion on those who believe that Mary remained ever-virgin, when Scripture does not state that she bore additional children?
But it does state she had additional children, when in Mt 13 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? V-55 And his sisters, are they not all with us? V-56
No, you are wrong. It does not state that she had additional children. It states that the people in the crowd thought of these people as the blood relations of Christ. The true nature of Christ's Father would have been kept from the neighbors. So they would have thought that Joseph was Christ's father. If these other children were Joseph's by a previous marriage, which is what the Orthodox Church teaches, the crowd would have always thought that they were Jesus's half-brothers and half-sisters. And so, they would have called them his brothers and sisters.
So my question still stands. Why does my position bear the burden of proof and yours does not?
If this is not a clear referral to the whole family of Joseph and Mary I don’t know what could be.
Easy. "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? Don’t we know her other children, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" This is a clear referral. As it is written, it does not support your position any more than mine unless we come to it with our mind made up already.
And, if this wasn’t enough, it was repeated in Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
And in this passage as well, it does not say that these are the children of Mary. It says that they are believed to be the brothers and sisters of Jesus.
Some make the claim there was no Greek word for cousin
OK, let me ask a question that I absolutely don't have an answer to - is there a Greek word for half-brother different from the word for brother? Is there a Hebrew word? I've never said that the "brethern" of Jesus were cousins. I've been taught that the Church position is that they were half-brethern. There is a crucial difference. Would it have been normal for the Gospel writers, and for the crowds they quote, to refer to half-brothers as cousins? Or as brothers? Or as something else entirely? I have no idea what the answer is, and whether or not it supports your position or mine.
Here again, is the opportunity to distance himself from his so called cousins, and Matthew or the Holy Spirit could have done so easily at this time, but Christ doesn’t question the one who went to the door, the door man ID’d them as his brethern, and Christ even repeated it, a second time.
Again, they are "so-called cousins" by you, not me. I call them half-brothers, children of Joseph by a previous marriage that were "around and about" during Jesus's early years. This is what the Orthodox tradition maintains. Of course he would have felt a special kinship with them. I have two half-brothers. I do not think of them as anything but my brothers, but that does not change the fact that they were not born of the same woman as I am.
He was demonstrating a closeness of a blood brother, a mother and sisters.
Sorry, same answer. I see nothing in Scripture to conclusively support your proposition, or even to make your proposition any more reasonable than mine. If these "brethern" were indeed Joseph's by an earlier marriage, as the Orthodox Church has taught for so many centuries, they would have been the "older siblings" that the young Jesus looked up to and learned from as a child. Of course there would have been a special bond between them, even if there was no blood connection.
I see no proof of your claims what so ever, not one.
And as I've tried to make clear, I see no proof of yours either. The question remains, if neither of us presents proof, why am I definitively wrong and you’re definitively right?
When I do a long research on a subject...
Your diligence shows in this post, and it is appreciated.
When all the research and debating is done, there is one thing to remember, there is one truth on the matter, and only one, either Mary remained childless after Jesus, or she didn’t, there is no compromising on the truth.
I agree completely. And I have yet to see any proof from the only source you recognize, the Scripture itself, that contradicts the interpretation I've been taught. The Orthodox teaching still seems to be in full compliance with the Scripture. Please let me know if you think I'm being completely unreasonable. Obviously, I don't believe I am.
Unless you can show more scripture to support your belief, then I have to support what I see as the truth, then you have no leg to stand on. Every statement must be disproved before you have a case.
I agree that you believe you have evidence to support "what I see as the truth." I do not think this evidence is compelling. It is your belief, not mine, that the only authoritative source for teachings is the Scripture itself. I readily admit that my belief comes from the Orthodox tradition and not from the Scripture. But, as I've tried to show, the relevant passages in Scripture do not conflict one whit with this teaching. Nor do they conflict with your belief. Coming full circle, this is why I asked to begin with why don't NC's and RC's/Orthodox call a truce on the matter. I’m not trying to convince you to adopt my position. I’m trying to demonstrate that I, and the RC’s and Orthodox in general, are not being at all unreasonable or irrational or Scripture-denying in maintaining our tradition.
To tell you the truth, I had never heard of the decretals until I saw them mentioned somewhere on FR quite a while ago. I read the non C links given and I would like to post a "C" link that I found in my travels for the truth. This is one of the more concise "counterpoint" sites that I have come across. I thought you might like to read the other side in case you haven't done so.
The Papacy and the Early Fathers
A Response by Scott Windsor
This webpage is a response to another one located at: http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html written by William Webster. I was pointed to Webster's website by James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries) who challenged me on a document known as "The Donation of Constantine" (Donatio Constantini) and also known as the Psuedo-Isidorian Decretals (or False Decretals). They were alleged to be given by the Emperor Constantine to Pope Sylvester I (314-35). The document is without a doubt a forgery, being written somewhere between 750 and 850 A.D.The fact that this document is a forgery is not debated by Catholics. The point that White and Webster try to make is that the entire doctrine of the papacy hinges on and/or was created due to this forged document. This could not be further from the truth. Anyone who would hold to this belief is either grossly misinformed or just plain dishonest in their portrayal of the Catholic Church and the papacy. (See Addendum)
In order for the claims of White and Webster to be true, then the papacy and all evidence of a Petrine Primacy and succession of such must come after 750 – 850 A.D. It then becomes the challenge of Catholic apologists to show that such teachings came earlier. On this webpage we will show definite proof that such evidence does indeed exist and totally discredit anyone who would hold that the "Donation of Constantine" is the basis for the papacy.
Scriptural Foundation:
Matthew 16:18 – "And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Here we have Jesus bestowing upon Peter (whose name means "rock") the foundation of the Church. In fact, in the Aramaic, which is what Jesus was likely speaking when speaking to His Apostles, and also the likely original language that the book of Matthew was written in, there is no distinction between the name "Peter" (Kepha) and the term for "rock" (kepha). Hence, if we stuck closer to the original language (instead of transliterating it to Greek and then English), that same verse would read something like: "… thou art Kepha, and upon this kepha will I build My Church." This one verse alone is enough for one who has The Faith, but for the Protestant opposition, they require more so let us go on.
Testimony from the Early Fathers:
"In 517 the Eastern bishops assented to and signed the formula of Pope Hormisdas, which states in part: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ who said, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church" [Matt. 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.’" (qtd in This Rock, October 1998).
A.D. 220 – Tertulian: "…that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally upon Peter? On you, He says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed. " [Modesty, qtd in Jurgens 387]
A.D. 190/210 – St. Clement of Alexandria: "Nor does the kingdom of heaven belong to the sleeping and the lazy; rather, the violent take it by force… On hearing these words, the blessed Peter, the chose, the pre-eminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with Himself the Savior paid the tribute, quickly grasped and understood their meaning." [Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? qtd in Jurgens 436]
A.D. 226 – 232 et postea - Origen: "Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one Epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second which, however, is doubtful." [Commentaries on John, qtd in Jurgens 479a] (This was a comment on the epistles of St. Peter, which later were both confirmed as genuine. As a side note, this discredits those who adhere to sola scriptura as well, since here, two centuries after Christ, they are still debating which books belong to the Canon of Sacred Scripture).
A.D. 244 – Origen: (Speaking about Peter) "Look at the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church! And what does the Lord say to him? ‘O you of little faith,’ He says, ‘why did you doubt!’ (Matt. 14:31)" [Homilies on Exodus, qtd in Jurgens 489]
A.D. 251 – St. Cyprian of Carthage: "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ | first edition | And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His Own Authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.’" [The Unity of the Catholic Church, qtd in Jurgens 555-556]
A.D. 254 – St. Cyprian of Carthage: "You have written also that on my account the Church now has a portion of itself in a state of dispersion. In truth, the whole people of the Church are collected together and made one and joined to each other in an indivisible harmony. They alone have remained outside who, were they within, would have to be ejected. … And the Lord too, in the Gospel, when the disciples abandoned Him while He was speaking, turned to the twelve and said, ‘And do you too wish to go away?’ Peter answered Him saying, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the word of eternal life: and we believe that you are the Son of the Living God.’
There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church.’" [Letter of Cyprian to Florentius Pupianus, qtd in Jurgens 587]
A.D. 306 – 373 – St. Ephraim: "Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because on you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples. Through you will I give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in My Institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of My kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all My treasures!" [Homilies, qtd in Jurgens 706]
A.D. 461 – St. Leo I: "From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church. Thus, although among the people of God there are many priests and many pastors, it is really Peter who rules them all, of whom, too, it is Christ who is their chief ruler. Divine condescension, dearly beloved, has granted to this man in a wonderful and marvellous manner the aggregate of its power; and if there was something that it wanted to be his in common with other leaders, it never gave whatever it did not deny to others except through him. [Sermons, qtd in Jurgens 2191]
Circa A.D. 391 – 430 – St. Augustine of Hippo: "Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, whom He called Apostles. Among the Apostles almost everywhere Peter alone merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear: ‘I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.’" [Sermons, qtd in Jurgens 1526]
Well, there are many more but the above is plenty of proof and far more than is needed to show that the authority of Peter and the Apostolic See clearly pre-existed the Donation of Constantine forgery. Another point of fact to make here is that if the papacy was not already recognized as authoritative, this forgery would have been cast off as ludicrous. The fact that they existed for a time before Pope Nicholas I cited them indicates that there was credibility to the concept.
Why was the Donation of Constantine written in the first place? Was it to shore up the papacy? No, on the contrary, it was to "support the local bishops against their metropolitans and other authorities, so as to secure absolute impunity and the exclusion of all influence of the secular power." (Dollinger, qtd in This Rock, 22 - October 1998).
Acknowledgements:
My thanks go to Steven O’Reilly, freelance writer for This Rock, from Snellville, Georgia. O’Reilly wrote the article which appears in This Rock, in the October 1998 issue. His article helped send me in the proper direction. I also wish to thank Michael Forrest, who sent the article to me.
Source for most of my quotes: The Faith of the Early Fathers , Volumes 1 and 3, by William A. Jurgens. The Liturgical Press, 1970.
For a more in depth treatment of the Donation of Constantine, check The Catholic Encyclopedia online at: http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/05118a.htm
I have over 20 official lists - none of them are identical for content. A list is not proof, it is yet another claim. Writing on a piece of paper that you own a 1970 Camaro is not proof. Proof is driving up in it and producing a verifiable title from the state of issue with your name and address on it. You guys have written a bunch of names on paper, where's the proof...
I'm glad to here that, and not surprised. What does surprise me is that there could be "bad Churches" that were so bad that someone like Invincibly Ignorant could be raised Catholic and never have heard of the Bible. But, assuming this is true, it doesn't mean that this is anything but the exception.
I'm glad you've enjoyed the Orthodox readings. Its funny, but you were one of the first Freepers that I corresponded with when I joined the religious threads a few weeks ago. At the time, you said all you knew about the Orthodox is that we crossed ourselves the wrong way! I've learned a lot over the past few weeks as well, and may need to take a break for awhile to digest at some point.
God bless you! I'll keep you posted on my progress on my book, and will include you and your children (or is it just child?) in my prayers.
I never said the Gospel or Epistles weren't ever read from the catholic pulpit (however mundanely). Seriously, I had no idea the Gospel or Epistles belonged in a book called the Bible. Besides, a once a week reading from the pulpit, in my opinion, is hardly enough for anyone serious about trying to get to know the Lord. It was never encouraged ever for private devotional reading from any catholic pulpit I've ever attended. And I've been to alot of them. Just because they've decided to stamp the cover of all catholic Bibles as a means of covering their behind in this area doesn't mean a thing. You're exagerating our claims in an effort to better respond.
I reserve the right to make fun of what you THINK is the Holy Spirit working within you, but is actually just too much crushed red pepper on your supreme pizza from last night. If you dish it out, don't be surprised if others respond to you in like manner.
thank you.
Havoc - You may want to look at the context of this statement by Dave before you rip into him with such anger. The person he was debating was arguing that the term Theotokos does not mean "Birthgiver of God," as has been maintained at least since 431 and the council of Ephesus, but rather "God of Usury." The debate got rather silly, and many - including very knowledgeble NC's like angelo and bassman - tried to get him to see his mistake. But he continued to claim that the only valid meaning for the term was the one that he could construct out of the appearance of its root components, The- and tokos, in Scripture via Strong's. This is why Dave was telling him that Scripture didn't matter in this case.
What made them change their minds? Did they take their marbles and go home for no reason? Or was the ol' switcheroo in effect?
A.D. 220 – Tertulian
Oh, Tertullian is a valid source for the papacy but not baptism, right?
whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed
Jesus, of course, did confer exactly the same power to the other disciples in John.
the first among the disciples
I don't dispute Peter's special place in Scripture or among the Apostles. The conclusions your church draws from said special place is very disputable.
A.D. 226 – 232 et postea - Origen
Isn't Origen a heretic? Why are you quoting heretics? And of course, Origen says elsewhere that all who have the same faith as Peter are rocks upon which the church is built.
St. Cyprian of Carthage
I need to check this quote from Cyprian. Doesn't sound familiar. Not doubting it, just trying to place it in context as I read "On the Unity of the Church" just the other day at this doesn't ring a bell.
As for St. Ephraim You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples.
This fits well with what seems to be the meaning of the keys. I shall post my thoughts on those shortly. Thanks for your post. Of course, you do recognize that the idea of the primacy of the Roman see is clearly developed over time and does not achieve an explicit statement until relatively late. The schism between the East and West seems to be a good point of study. Why did the Eastern bishops assent to something that they later decided was beyond the pale? Am I reading that right? Am I misunderstanding the conflict?
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.