Posted on 07/20/2007 8:52:53 AM PDT by Between the Lines
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Instead of taking offense at a recent Vatican statement reasserting the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, evangelicals should seize the chance to respond with equal candor that “any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church,” according to a prominent Southern Baptist leader.
The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote on his blog that he appreciated the document’s clarity in voicing a key distinction between Catholics and Protestants over papal authority.
He said those differences are often forgotten “in this era of confusion and theological laxity.”
“We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division,” Mohler wrote.
“The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church.
“This is not a theological game for children, it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question.”
This month, the Vatican released a document restating the contention that the Roman Catholicism is the one, true path to salvation. Other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches, the document said, restating the views of a 2000 document.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict XVI headed before becoming pope, said it issued the new document because some contemporary theological interpretations of the Second Vatican Council’s ecumenical intent had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion and doubt.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
well read mark 16:16 for the rest of what you need to get into heaven...
actually the pope called them ‘wounded’ but with apostolic succession and it’s alleged he was alluding to the orthodox.
the Orthodox haven’t really come out one way or the other as far as whether the Catholics hav apostolic succession or valid sacraments... (though the removal of the anathema would suggest it’s feasible...)
Are you referring to the same Jesus Christ who gave the following indisputable commission recorded in John 17:
"I have given them thy word ...Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth....Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word that they all may be one."
It appears that the words of these apostles, surviving after them in the documentary form of Gospels and Epistles, was to be the center of Christian unity --- not some self-proclaimed undocumented magisterium without papers, keys, or bones.
Gen 1:27,28 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Mat 19:4-9 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
I have Jesus’ own words about “cultural” allowances in the Law of Moses. “But it was not so from the beginning” Men and women are created in the Image of God, correct?
We can all agree that when there is a conflict in reading the Bible, as in “the four corners of the earth,” “the sun stood still,” or “for the sake of the angels,” the conflict is because we don’t understand.
There is no condemnation in wearing a headcovering or in being circumcised (by hands). but I would be very careful before I made either a matter of doctrine for those who are part of the new creation. We who believe that Jesus is the Son of God know our commandments: Love the Lord with all our hearts and love our neighbor.
May God bless you in all things, dear xzins.
Truly it would great if everyone in a debate would make the effort the understand where the other guy is "coming from."
Sadly - both in religion and politics - many would rather be like spectators in the cheering section at a Friday night high school football game. It takes a lot of effort, strength and mental agility to be on the field - designing and executing a play, blocking a play, anticipating, etc. The team that makes no effort to understand the opposition hurts itself.
And from that you have the justification to claim all others are "defective", unless of course they submit to their claimed authority. Once this claimed "special status" is accepted they are free to add requirements for their members to remain in good standing. The requirements of course serve to empower those in the organizations leadership, as well as justify persecuting those who disagree.
They would be able to pray with a shawl like any other women, as St Paul makes clear.
Is it a shame that they have no hair, though? "if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering."
I'm not much worried about my glory, only His.
Are we not all created in the image of God, and are we not all to reflect His glory, whether male or female?
Of course, only the wives in Corinth wore head coverings. Jewish unmarried girls never did.
Also, do you believe that Jesus and Paul wore a tallit, a prayer shawl, in the temple, as was customary at the time? And doesn't Exodus tell us about the garments of the high priest, including a head covering? Elijah pulled his covering over his head when he heard that whispering voice. Was this a shame?
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Son sent by the Father, who believes John 1:1, John 3:16 is my brother and sister. I won't separate from them because they don't know the letters from Paul or understand them the same way that I do.
Which, I believe, makes you my brother.
It appears that the words of these apostles, surviving after them in the documentary form of Gospels and Epistles, was to be the center of Christian unity --- not some self-proclaimed undocumented magisterium without papers, keys, or bones.
Okay, if you want it that way, "... the words ...was ...". Using your grammar, I note that you cite no words which shows that the only words which was to be the center would be those words which was written down and determined (by the Magisterium) to be the canonical NT. But it is an extra scriptural assumption that all "the words" was going to be written down in the NT. It's the kind of thing we'd need some authoritative interpreting body to state. We cannot find it in the text.
So if your statement is a statement of YOUR faith and system of belief, fine. However, it is not a refutation of what adiaireton8 wrote, but, if anything a confirmation, at least of the concept, because you have to reach outside of Scripture for the core of your point.
You say
It appears that the words of these apostles, surviving after them in the documentary form of Gospels and Epistles, ...
but your main point, which you slip in as a participial phrase, not only does not have determinative support in Scripture (or why didn't you state it?) Instead we find instructions to follow what was handed on not only in writing but by word of mouth.
It's sad. You all haul out the "All scripture is inspired ...," and it's not all that bad an argument. On its face it MIGHT be true. But to take it as PROOF of sola scriptura" requires a magisterial function to provide an authoritative interpretation of an ambiguous text. But you are interpreting the text to deny the propriety or need for a magisterial function. You fall into the hole you dig, logically speaking, or so it appears. The words spoken to Apostles was (as you put it) handed on in many ways, and you can show no dispositive proof that they was all condensed into Scripture. You simultaneously demonstrate the need for a magisterial function and the chaos and illogic which arises from the lack of one, while you also argue against both the need and the meeting of the need.
Heigh ho, going for a walk.
Right now, I’m nearly bald & I wear some kind of head covering most of the time. At this point, wearing a head covering is a vanity thing, not a humbling thing. Based on the meaning behind the teaching, I should probably attend church without anything on my head. However, I think it would probably be a distraction, for myself & for other people.
Bottom line, I don’t think we’re supposed to do anything that calls attention to ourselves during worship. Fancy hats & becoming veils can be more vain than a bare head.
One must always consider the different levels of understanding when reading Scripture. If you follow Scripture literally, while ignoring the underlining meaning behind all of the teachings, you're missing the point. If I threw a jeweled crown on my head, I'd be "covered", but I'd be missing the point. If a church teaches humility, but doesn't insist on head covering, the meaning behind Paul's 300 word teaching (teaching, not command) is being fulfilled.
All the tradition in the world, without love for our brothers and sisters, is like the tinkling of a bell.
This division over hair, coverings and male and female is useless. There was something in those earlier letters that we don’t know about.
Was I bought with a price paid by my husband or by Christ?
When I married, years after receiving the Lord, did my husband’s covering “subordinate” the covering that I already had? (Colossians)
If my husband will only attend a church that would find a head covering as disruptive as the Corinthians found a shaved head, am I to leave him and go to another Church - or am I doomed to sin?
Please excuse for a moment while I try to dial up a quorum of the "Magisterium" for an official interpretation of your post.
IOW, let those at the top of a hierarchy tell you what to think. Doing this is naive because it assumes that they will always seek the truth, even if the truth may diminish their authority and status.
Our LORD sent us a counselor who indwells us due to our faith why not trust him?
My point is that in the post to which I responded you reach beyond Scripture to argue that one ought not to reach beyond Scripture. Thus you demonstrate the need for an authoritative Magisterium.
I hope that's clearer.
BTW I trust the Lord and His promises to the Church. What you call an assumption is first of all in no ways required by trusting the Lord's promises to the Church and, second, is no more naive than trusting one's own interpretation, the doing of which has brought about the constant fissiparation of Protestantism. The confidence I have in the authority if the Magisterium is confidence in God's providential care of the Church. Dante puts plenty of Popes and bishops in hell. Is that naive? We don't necessarily trust the men themselves. We trust what God can do with and through them.
Further, and this is not an argument but an observation and speculation, it seems to me that the tendency of many Protestants to mischaracterize what we hold and then argue NOT against our beliefs but their own caricature of our beliefs suggests the kind of thing that Dante talks about when he says le gente dolorose c'hanno perduto il ben dell'intelletto .
How you think you will persuade me by arguing against something I do not hold escapes me utterly.
I'm back. Take a closer look at the origins of the Levitcal priesthood. The line was established in failure. Rather than sharing in the same birthright as the rest of the Israelites, those born into the line of the priesthood were required to do God's work, as a reminder of their forefather's blunder.
See Hebrews 7:11-25
If then perfection was by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law. For he, of whom these things are spoken, is of another tribe, of which no one attended on the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprung out of Juda: in which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. And it is yet far more evident: if according to the similitude of Melchisedech there ariseth another priest, Who is made not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an indissoluble life: For he testifieth: Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech.
There is indeed a setting aside of the former commandment, because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof: (For the law brought nothing to perfection,) but a bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh to God. And inasmuch as it is not without an oath, (for the others indeed were made priests without an oath;
But this with an oath, by him that said unto him: The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever.) By so much is Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And the others indeed were made many priests, because by reason of death they were not suffered to continue: But this, for that he continueth for ever, hath an everlasting priesthood, Whereby he is able also to save for ever them that come to God by him; always living to make intercession for us.
We have need of only one Priest, as He is our Priest forever. He is also our King forever. Melchisedech foreshadowed His role. Jesus is of the order of Melchisedech, not Levi. The Levitical priesthood is only needed if one is under the old Law.
Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law. Do you understand what that means?
Nice try.
The problem isn't that we don't know what you believe, but that we do know.
How you think you will persuade me by arguing against something I do not hold escapes me utterly.
I don't believe for a second you can be persuaded. I do believe I have brothers and sisters in Christ who read these threads and it is beneficial for them to understand what the various Christian sects believe.
This will be my “place-maker”.
I’m sending a :-) for your #252.
A lot said in so little space.
Oriental?
Referring only to religion (and not to politics, which is war by another name), I would prefer not to think of earnest discussion of differences in religious beliefs and practice as being like a football game with cheering sides. I also would prefer not to use the word “opposition”. All this presupposes a victory and a defeat—a victor and a loser. To me, that hardly seems like a Christian witness—Christian against Christian in a do-or-die conflict. We may never be able to resolve these differences in this world, but I would prefer not to think of “opposing” forces on a battle field....not at this place in time, when Christianity at large is facing an often hostile world.
As for those who don’t participate in a public way-—I suspect that there are countless numbers of good Catholics and Orthodox and Protestants who are not on-line frequently to post about their faith. Most are probably not theologians, or experts in hermaneutics or trained in exegesis or schooled to act as a pastor. Most probably don’t have enough time except for the basics—worship and pray, work, be with family, sleep to regenerate and then back to work. These unnamed people who don’t pass through the halls of cyberspace are probably contributing more to the Christian way of life than even they may be aware of.
After all, we have been told that “all that is hidden will be revealed.”
What should be victorious is Truth. And it’s the determining of what is Truth that is the lynchpin of all these debates—debates that have managed to bring out the worst in some of us. For that reason alone, the only truth that is served is that we are often unmasked for what we are.
Having lived in both worlds—Protestant and Catholic—in my lifetime, I find myself praying for a day when each “side” would practice forbearance, fraternal respect and courtesy and avoid the temptation to assume the role of provocateur.
Rather, I wish that each differing position would learn to listen what the other has to say and not postulate what they perceive the other is saying about the practice of their faith and belief. It doesn’t work when a non-Catholic tries to project their own reality of what Catholicism is, when that may very well be, and often is, wrong.
Catholics should be allowed every opportunity to defend the truth of what Catholicism actually is and not what someone else’s construct of it is—especially if that someone else has it wrong.
There is all this angst about what the Pope said and what the Pope means by what he said. To add to it, there are all the posts that dish out sharper criticsm about the Catholic Church, the Pope and the lay faithful who believe and follow. This adds up to a double standard. On the one hand, the Pope can’t define the Church without being maligned on all sides. But it’s “acceptable” to proclaim, write and say clearly prejudiced words against Catholicism and believe that to be an honorable way of defense.
No—I don’t see a football game and cheering sides and a proclaimed victory, often with the help of referees.
I see a need for Christians of all professions to accept the fact of divisions, but to come to the table with reasonably good manners, and the some ability to listen.
Then let the exchanges begin.
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.