Posted on 03/18/2003 4:56:14 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
CANTON, Mar 18, 03 (CWNews.com) -- An American Catholic bishop has forbidden his flock from participating or cooperating in military action against Iraq, under pain of mortal sin. Bishop John Michael Botean, the head of the Romanian Catholic eparchy (diocese) of St. George in Canton, Ohio-- which has jurisdiction over all Byzantine-rite Romanian Catholics living in the US-- invoked the full measure of his authority in a Lenten Letter to his people. The bishop declared with "moral certainty" that the proposed attack on Iraq "does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just-war theory."
The bishop announced that he "must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin."
Bishop Botean acknowledged that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2309) identifies public authorities as the final judges of whether military action is justified. But he argued that "the nation-state is never the final arbiter or authority for the Catholic of what is moral." An unjust law or order should not be obeyed, he observed.
Writing with obvious emotion, the Romanian Catholic prelate admitted that "I would much prefer to keep silent." And he pointed out to his people: "Never before have I spoken to you in this manner, explicitly exercising the fullness of authority Jesus Christ has given his apostles." However, he said, he felt a moral burden to guide his people.
Arguing that a military assault on Iraq does not fit the criteria of the just-war tradition, Bishop Botean concluded in stark terms: "Thus, any killing associated with it is unjustified and, in consequence, unequivocally murder."
Yeah...infallability...here we go. The Vulgate was the source for proper canon. Let's get it right here.
The Vulgate confirmed by the Synods of Carthage in 397 and 418 weren't good enough of the church leaders....so over the years they just decided here and there to add one or two or three extra courses of material....But oh, that a reform movement upset with obvious church abuses and corruption had no right to strip those added non-inspired books from what was once only sacred, inspired scripture.
Sheesh...if your gonna try to present history at least paint a complete picture man!
Another church used by a closet communist to wage political battles in what is supposed to be God's sanctuary, not some Ceasar's or UN's or whatever...
Please use common sense, do not punish the majority for one minor, who, no doubt has lost the real validity of what is now taking place.
In doing some follow-up research I note that Origen in 225 seems to expressly discount First and Second Maccabees as Holy Scripture and implicitly reject the remaining Apocryphal books.
Later, Augustine argues for and Jerome against counting the texts as scripture. I find Augustine's argument that the Septuagent (Greek translation of the old Hebrew Pentateuch) was more accurate than the Pentateuch very interesting. Augustine seems to also be the first church father that accepts what appears to be the lesser regarded Apocryphal books from the Pentateuch stand point....against the strong arguments of Jerome who was ordered by Pope Damasus I in 382 to include them in sacred scripture. Jerome was then tasked with producing the Vulgate including the Apocryphal books that everyone before Augustine (including Origen) had rejected as less than Holy books.
So we have books in the Canon that everyone agrees are God breathed, then we also include books that there was significant doubt about whether it was Holy or not.
I will need to find out what Jerome and Augustine's arguments were.
It's the Bible alone, right? Where does the Bible provide the "correct lens"?
...taking the intent of the book, context of the chapter, taking Greek (in new testament) grammar into account...
All perfectly sensible criteria, but extra-Biblical nonetheless.
...and using the Bible itself as it's own definition.
Where's that doctrine in the Bible? What do you mean by that? The canon of Scripture? The Bible didn't canonize itself. The Church determined the canon of the Bible. We can trust the Church to provide the canon of Scripture. This is consonant with the fact that the Bible calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15).
Am I to understand that you maintain a person is justified only AFTER he is baptized? I see no evidence of this in scripture. In fact, it is quite contrary to scripture.
Baptism is the sure, normative means for receiving initial sanctifying grace or "justification."
The necessity in this case is shown by the command of Christ to His Apostles (Matt., xxviii): "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them", etc. Since the Apostles are commanded to baptize, the nations are commanded to receive baptism.
Sola Gratia, Grace alone my friend.
That is the teaching of the Church. As a matter of logic, salvation by grace alone does not preclude Baptism as the normative means of justification. What could be more unmerited and gratuitous than the Baptism (sanctification) of an infant by and into Christ's Church?
II. INDIVIDUAL SALVATIONWhere was the thief who Christ promised paradise to baptized? Where were any of the apostles that were not baptized by John the Baptist baptized? Have you not heard the term baptized by the Holy Spirit or the 'pouring' out of the Holy Spirit?The Council of Trent describes the process of salvation from sin in the case of an adult with great minuteness (Sess. VI, v-vi).
It begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner's heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace cannot be merited; it proceeds solely from the love and mercy of God. Man may receive or reject this inspiration of God, he may turn to God or remain in sin. Grace does not constrain man's free will.
Thus assisted the sinner is disposed for salvation from sin; he believes in the revelation and promises of God, he fears God's justice, hopes in his mercy, trusts that God will be merciful to him for Christ's sake, begins to love God as the source of all justice, hates and detests his sins.
This disposition is followed by justification itself, which consists not in the mere remission of sins, but in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of God's grace and gifts, whence a man becomes just instead of unjust, a friend instead of a foe and so an heir according to hope of eternal life. This change happens either by reason of a perfect act of charity elicited by a well disposed sinner or by virtue of the Sacrament either of Baptism or of Penance according to the condition of the respective subject laden with sin. The Council further indicates the causes of this change. By the merit of the Most Holy Passion through the Holy Spirit, the charity of God is shed abroad in the hearts of those who are justified.
Against the heretical tenets of various times and sects we must hold
* that the initial grace is truly gratuitous and supernatural;
* that the human will remains free under the influence of this grace;
* that man really cooperates in his personal salvation from sin;
* that by justification man is really made just, and not merely declared or reputed so;
* that justification and sanctification are only two aspects of the same thing, and not ontologically and chronologically distinct realities;
* that justification excludes all mortal sin from the soul, so that the just man is no way liable to the sentence of death at God's judgment-seat.Other points involved in the foregoing process of personal salvation from sin are matters of discussion among Catholic theologians; such are, for instance,
* the precise nature of initial grace,
* the manner in which grace and free will work together,
* the precise nature of the fear and the love disposing the sinner for justification,
* the manner in which sacraments cause sanctifying grace.But these questions are treated in other articles dealing ex professo with the respective subjects. The same is true of final perseverance without which personal salvation from sin is not permanently secured.
Again, Baptism is the normative means of justification. Jesus commanded his Apostles to make disciples of all the nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Why would Jesus have required water baptism before that Christian sacrament had even been established?
How do you know that it hadn't been established?
Jesus refers to it in John: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God," and his disciples were baptizing people:
John 4:1-3This idea would have been an alien statement to Nicodemus to whom the scripture in John 3:5, of your reference, was addressed.
The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.
How do you know that?
Where does Jesus ever say that being baptized by John was a prerequisite for salvation?
Again, Baptism represents the normative means of salvation, as this passage indicates:
Mark 16John the Baptist was the only dude baptizing with water back then....if you recall, Christ was baptizing with the Holy Spirit!
15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Don't forget the water:
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God."Man is a sinful soul from the day he is conceived (un-regenerate). If he is a member of the elect, chosen by God before the foundations of the world,...All things considered, we can safely state, therefore, that Christ most probably instituted baptism before His Passion. For in the first place, as is evident from John 3 and 4, Christ certainly conferred baptism, at least by the hands of His Disciples, before His passion. That this was an essentially different rite from John the Precursor's baptism seems plain, because the baptism of Christ is always preferred to that of John, and the latter himself states the reason: "I baptize with water . . . [Christ] baptizeth with the Holy Ghost" (John, i). In the baptism given by the Disciples as narrated in these chapters we seem to have all the requisites of a sacrament of the New Law:
* the external rite,
* the institution of Christ, for they baptized by His command and mission, and
* the conferring of grace, for they bestowed the Holy Ghost (John 1).In the second place, the Apostles received other sacraments from Christ, before His Passion, as the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, and Holy orders (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXVI, c. i). Now as baptism has always been held as the door of the Church and the necessary condition for the reception of any other sacrament, it follows that the Apostles must have received Christian baptism before the Last Supper. This argument is used by St. Augustine (Ep. clxiii, al. xliv) and certainly seems valid. To suppose that the first pastors of the Church received the other sacraments by dispensation, before they had received baptism, is an opinion with no foundation in Scripture or Tradition and devoid of verisimilitude. The Scriptures nowhere state that Christ Himself conferred baptism, but an ancient tradition (Niceph., Hist. eccl, II, iii; Clem. Alex. Strom., III) declares that He baptized the Apostle Peter only, and that the latter baptized Andrew, James, and John, and they the other Apostles.
I assume that you also believe that God wills the salvation of all.
...at some point in his life the Holy Spirit will act to turn his will from the fleshy and earthly things of this world to things of God....he has become regenerate (at this point he is born-again!
I accept everything except for the term, "born again." The more correct term would be sanctified or justified. "Born again" in Scripture refers to Baptism specifically: "Born again of water and the Holy Spirit."
Born of the Spirit! He has been drawn to Christ by the Father). He now has the ability to receive faith, which is a gift from God. Through this faith, he is justified, and through faith alone...not works such as baptism.
False and unscriptural. Faith and works are two sides of the same coin. They cannot be separated. In fact, the phrase "faith alone" appears once in Scripture and is condemned:
James 2:24Regarding baptism, Jesus said: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" and "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God."
You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
(Christ did all the work for you on the cross! If all our good works are as dirty rags to the Lord, why would He even think of trading the gift of eternal life (of priceless worth) for your miserable dirty rags of 'works'? Is His sacrifice so cheap as to be purchased with your dirty rags? Don't you value His sacrifice more than that? No, faith is a GIFT....you do not PAY for a gift....a GIFT from God. God has put a seal on you the moment you were justified. He has SEALED us once we BELIEVED and put down a guarantee of our inheritance because we believed! That's it! How difficult do you want to make His beautiful message and plan!?)
Even the demons "believe," but they are not saved:
James 2And having been justified, we are sanctified...set apart for a purpose, His purpose.... And we continue to work that purpose until the day He completes the deal, the deal that He guaranteed the moment we believed, when we arrive in our eternal home.
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
We're guaranteed final perseverence? "Not everyone who says, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
Ezekiel 18:26Then, our sanctification is complete and we are glorified! The sanctified, 'born-again' Christian will perform the works (fruit of the Spirit) he does.... not to acquire anything, but only because he wants to do it... because of the love of Christ; for what Christ did for him on the cross.
When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has committed he shall die.1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.1 Corinthians 10:12
Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.Galatians 5:21
I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things [serious sins] shall not inherit the kingdom of God.Ephesians 5:5
Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.Hebrews 6:4-8
For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.Romans 6:12-13
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness.Romans 8:17
If children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.Romans 11:22
Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.2 Timothy 2:12
If we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us....John 15:6
If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.Matthew 7:21
"Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven...."Matthew 19:23-24
And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”Romans 2:5-6
But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works.
"Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall."
It is such a simple message. Catholics have is bass ackwards. God doesn't want your works for atonement or to get into heaven....Christ has performed the only atoning act that the Lord required...it is just left to you to believe with your heart! Do not try to make God your debtor by doing things on earth and then expecting Him to pay you with justification.
"For he will render to every man according to his works." God crowns his own works when he rewards us for "our" works, that is, the works that He accomplishes through us. He doesn't owe us anything. He honors His own promise.
In fact, your name proves my overall point. Aquinas was a man. Christ was God. Why is your name not Christfan?
Because I am not a "fan" of Christ; I worship Christ. I am a fan of St. Thomas, the premier theological doctor of Christ's Church.
Could it be because you apparently want to convey to people that Aquinas, a man, and his views maintain a higher place in your life than Christ's teachings?
No, but I honor Christ indirectly by honoring the premier theological doctor of His Church. I hope to interest philosophically-minded non-believers in the teachings of St. Thomas and thus lead them into Christ's Church. It's an indirect approach. There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.
Maybe that was not your express intent, but very possibly without you even acknowledging it, it is true. And that would be absolutely consistent with what I have observed with the roman catholic church; man over God.
So how does "griffin" lead people to Christ?
They were, which makes this command of Jesus' so intriguing:
Matthew 23Why would Jesus command obedience to Pharasaical teachings? And what is "Moses' seat"?1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
It is ALL OVER the new testament, dude! It's what the WHOLE NEW TESTAMENT IS ABOUT!
Then it shouldn't be hard to find one mention of "personal relationship with Christ." (Please note the quotation marks.)
Jesus commands us to love God with our whole heart and mind and to love our neighbor as ourselves. We are also to "pray constantly." If that's what you mean by "personal relationship with Christ," then I'm with you.
Please see me when you want to use your own brain.
Your Reply: "Where's that doctrine in the Bible?"
Oh for Pete's sake. You can't even admit scripture does not contradict scripture? I would call that a principle, not a doctrine. I fact, it is THE most important principal involved with proper Biblical interpretation.
I give up...you win. Sheesh.
I observe just the same outside of it: personal revelation, personal interpretation of Scripture, personal knowledge of salvation, personal relationship with Jesus; me, me, me, me.
Correct. The Pope can only speak infallibly on the subject of faith and morals. Therefore, when the Pope says abortion is a mortal sin, it is a mortal sin whether or not someone in their conscience can justify it.
That wasn't my point. Your definition begs the question of what is and isn't Scripture. Scripture doesn't provide its own canon. It's not self-defining.
Logically and necessarily, an extra-Biblical authority must determine the canon of Scripture. That authority is Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."
"Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...
Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.
Albert Einstein
Time Magazine, 12/23/40**************************************
The charity and work of Pope Pius XII during World War II so impressed the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, that in 1944 he was open to the grace of God which led him into the Catholic faith. As his baptismal name, he took the same one Pius had, Eugenio, as his own. Later Israel Eugenio Zolli wrote a book entitled, Why I Became a Catholic.
**************************************
"The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas... he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all... the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism... he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace."
The New York Times editorial
12/25/41 (Late Day edition, p. 24)**************************************
"This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent... Pope Pius expresses as passionately as any leader on our side the war aims of the struggle for freedom when he says that those who aim at building a new world must fight for free choice of government and religious order. They must refuse that the state should make of individuals a herd of whom the state disposes as if they were lifeless things."
The New York Times editorial
12/25/42 (Late Day edition, p. 16)
That's not a very clever way to disguise your inability to contradict anything I posted.
Sources of infallible doctrine within the Church are the teachings of the Church, meeting in Council, and the teachings of the Pope from the Chair of Peter.
Otherwise, bishops must obey the pope's disciplinary teachings within reason.
The definition of infallibility according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Here's the scope of infallibility, in particular:
V. WHAT TEACHING IS INFALLIBLE?A word or two under this head, summarizing what has been already explained in this and in other articles will suffice.
As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under tbe scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.
As a non-Catholic, I am very glad you said that.
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.