Posted on 07/11/2007 10:25:12 AM PDT by markomalley
Geneva/Moscow, Jul. 11, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Leading Protestant figures have criticized the new Vatican document affirming the central role of the Catholic Church, but the Russian Orthodox Church has welcomed the document as an "honest" statement that "shows how close or, on the contrary, how divided we are."
Rev. Setri Nyomi, the general secretary of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, protested the Vatican statement in a letter to Cardinal Walter Kasper (bio - news), the president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. Rev. Nyomi said that the new Vatican statement, which says that Protestant groups are not "churches" in the proper sense, "makes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues with Reformed family and other families of the Church."
The World Council of Churches (WCC) also expressed disagreement with the Vatican. In its own statement addressing the role of the Catholic Church, the WCC argued that the term "catholic" should be understood to mean "universal." In that sense, the WCC argued, "Each church is the Church catholic and not simply a part of it. Each church is the Church catholic, but not the whole of it."
The Russian Orthodox Church, however, welcomed the Vatican satement. "For an honest theological dialogue to happen, one should have a clear view of the position of the other side," said Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk, the leading ecumenical official of the Moscow patriarchate.
Metropolitan Kirill observed that he saw "nothing new" doctrinally in the statement released on july 10 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He argued that "everything contained in the Catholic document rightfully applies to the Orthodox Church," since the Orthodox Church has preserved apostolic succession.
The Vatican document acknowledged that the Orthodox churches are sister churches with valid sacraments, but added that in the Orthodox world, "of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him, is not fully realized in history."
Yes. If you froze the world for a century, the countries that would be on top are the ones I mentioned earlier. I gave the reason for that as the work-ethic of the mentioned community. As for the future, nobody can say much. But if you let near past be a guide to the future, what I stated wins most bets.
No doubt, but my point stands, the “protestant work ethic” is not a Christin ethic.
Anybody baptized according to the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19.
Who is able to validly baptize? Anybody.
Was my baptism “illegitimate” because it wasn’t Catholic?
Were you baptized according to the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19? If so, then your baptism is valid.
Was my personal spiritual re-birth and acceptance of Christ into my heart a farce?
You and I have different beliefs on regeneration, but if you have confessed the Lord Jesus and endeavor, by His mercy, to walk in His footsteps, then that is a wonderful thing!
Are you saying I worship a false god?
Where, pray tell, did I state or even infer that?
And Matthew 28:19 dictates where in its passge (or even context) that any one or band of men are the sole heirs of th ability to bless other men?
Never said it dictated that one way or the other. It simply says, Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,...
I’m looking throuh our discussions and it occurs to me you missed something-
I was adressing the long-held Catholic tradition of being baptized by only people who have been baptized by the hands (and “future generations” there of) in a direct line of descent from Jesus’s baptism to the Pope (and all thos under the flock of the Pope).
Well, I fully support the concept of Apostolic Succession, that's true, but it is a stretch to say that it is a long-held Catholic tradition that only baptisms performed as you stated are valid. In fact, the contrary is true:
From the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 861 §1. The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 530, n. 1.§2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly. Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.
Translations from Vatican-speak:
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. the Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.58
From the Catholic Encyclopedia (1907):
In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infidel or Jew.The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Moreover, he must thereby intend really to baptize the person, or technically, he must intend to perform what the Church performs when administering this sacrament.
The Roman Ritual adds that, even in conferring baptism in cases of necessity, there is an order of preference to be followed as to the minister. This order is: if a priest be present, he is to be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, and a man to a woman, unless modesty should require (as in cases of childbirth) that no other than the female be the minister, or again, unless the female should understand better the method of baptizing. The Ritual also says that the father or mother should not baptize their own child, except in danger of death when no one else is at hand who could administer the sacrament. Pastors are also directed by the Ritual to teach the faithful, and especially midwives, the proper method of baptizing. When such private baptism is administered, the other ceremonies of the rite are supplied later by a priest, if the recipient of the sacrament survives.
This right of any person whatsoever to baptize in case of necessity is in accord with the constant tradition and practice of the Church. Tertullian (De Bapt., vii) says, speaking of laymen who have an opportunity to administer baptism: "He will be guilty of the loss of a soul, if he neglects to confer what he freely can," St. Jerome (Adv. Lucif., ix): "In case of necessity, we know that it is also allowable for a layman [to baptize]; for as a person receives, so may he give," The Fourth Council of the Lateran (cap. Firmiter) decrees: "The Sacrament of Baptism . . . no matter by whom conferred is available to salvation," St. Isidore of Seville (can. Romanus de cons., iv) declares: "The Spirit of God administers the grace of baptism, although it be a pagan who does the baptizing," Pope Nicholas I teaches the Bulgarians (Resp, 104) that baptism by a Jew or a pagan is valid.
Owing to the fact that women are barred from enjoying any species of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the question necessarily arose concerning their ability to bestow valid baptism. Tertullian (De Bapt., xvii) strongly opposes the administration of this sacrament by women, but he does not declare it void. In like manner, St. Epiphanius (Hær., lxxix) says of females: "Not even the power of baptizing has been granted to them", but he is speaking of solemn baptism, which is a function of the priesthood. Similar expressions may be found in the writings of other Fathers, but only when they are opposing the grotesque doctrine of some heretics, like the Marcionites, Pepuzians, and Cataphrygians, who wished to make Christian priestesses of women. The authoritative decision of the Church, however, is plain. Pope Urban II (c. Super quibus, xxx, 4) writes, "It is true baptism if a woman in case of necessity baptizes a child in the name of the Trinity." The Florentine decree for the Armenians says explicitly: "In case of necessity, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay even a pagan or heretic may confer baptism."
The main reason for this extension of power as to the administration of baptism is of course that the Church has understood from the beginning that this was the will of Christ. St. Thomas (III:62:3) says that owing to the absolute necessity of baptism for the salvation of souls, it is in accordance with the mercy of God, who wishes all to be saved, that the means of obtaining this sacrament should be put, as far as possible, within the reach of all; and as for that reason the matter of the sacrament was made of common water, which can most easily be had, so in like manner it was only proper that every man should be made its minister. Finally, it is to be noted that, by the law of the Church, the person administering baptism, even in cases of necessity, contracts a spiritual relationship with the child and its parents. This relationship constitutes an impediment that would make a subsequent marriage with any of them null and void unless a dispensation were obtained beforehand.
I hope the above clears up any misconceptions you may have held about "the long-held Catholic tradition" regarding baptism.
It does-
but it’s still quoting Catholic Law.
I think we’ve gone as close together on this issue as we will get for now.
Good talking!
I was not really bothered whether the Protestant work ethic was religious/Christian or not. What I implied was that those societies were less burdened with the evils of poverty than most others.
Got a cite fer that?
I see, and what particular trait of the peoples of these lands lead to this superior state of being?
Their work ethic, for one thing.
Less number of festivals/rituals, for another. The list could go on.
If you can refute the evidence, please do so.
I believe I did, remember the far superior pagan cultures of Greece and Rome? Were they a result of a “pagan work ethic†despite the near daily festivals? Might as well call it a western work ethic, I remember a time when Italy and Spain represented the height of Civilization while England, France and Germany were busy hacking at each other. Was that a southern “European work ethicâ€? Protestantism has little if any bearing on the “work ethic†that you seem to believe gifted us with such comfort and opulence. Unless of course you’re making the claim that the pursuit of material over spiritual riches is a hallmark of Protestantism....
If you are going to look back to the pre-Industrial, pre-Reformation times, China and India were by far the wealthiest regions on the planet. Kingdoms in both these places had 80+ % of the world’s GDP. But I was not comparing it to that. Take a globe. Look at the countries with a Protestant majority. Most of them are right on top. In fact, I’d say you’d be hard-pressed to find one in poverty. It’s just an observation. Do you not notice that too?
The "protestant work ethic is a myth that arose out of bigotry and racism, it assumes that material progress is evidence of providential blessing, a blessing for the "faithful" who all happened to be white Europeans.China, India and other countries and cultures made tremendous advances in medicine, engineering and other sciences throughout history but you never seem to hear about the "X" work ethic do you.
“Where two or three are gathered in my name...”
If Jesus is there, that’s good enough for me.
woah, not sure what happened in the posting time line here but I didn’t think that post made it through... any way, Poor nations tend to be in the southern hemisphere, is there a “norther work ethic”?
Well, it could very well well be. The lands with the most abundant resources probably fell into Protestant hands, which might have given them a head-start, to oppress the Catholics with. Countries like Spain and Portugal did indeed win large tracts of territory, but most of the lands they occupied were dense rainforests with resources not easily accessible. America was somewhat more in proximity to Europe, to grow alongside with. These could be some of the explanations. But the fact remains: they were ahead of the others.
No, the hotter the weather, the harder it is to perform physical work. Of course air-conditioning is changing that. Presently, the nations in these torrid belts that are wealthy either have critical maritime interests like crucial trade routes, etc, or have oil/minerals.
I'm not denying that. Even today, wasn't there a recent survey that showed that the Brazilians were some of the most easy-going people? This despite their poverty... not sure if it was Brazil though, but it was a tropical country with all the characteristics of Brazil.
So it’s a “climactic work ethic”? ;) The simple fact of the mater is throughout the history of man, every civilization has focused on and lived and died on what it valued, some on material wealth, some on land and some with a focus on the next world. No civilization posses a particular “work ethic”, rather it’s a more of system of goals based on values, all cultures work towards their particular goals for some it’s leasure, for others it’s material comfort, others value conquest all will work to achieve their goal: protestant, catholic, jew and pagan alike.
There is a lot of truth in what you said. Societies are fluid, so things don’t always hold true all the time...
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.