Southern Baptist leader counters Vatican edict

MSNBC ^ | July 19, 2007

[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.

[armydoc]

And now I trot out the old line...where's THAT in the Bible? The text says IS. It doesn't say represents. It doesn't say symbolizes. It says IS.

Remember that TV public relations commercial, back in the 80's IIRC? It went like this: "This is your brain"....(pic of egg)..."This is your brain on drugs"....(pic of egg frying)....

Powerful stuff. The message would have been "diluted" if the metaphore was overtly, clumsily stated as such by using words like "represent". Jesus used the same technique. Imagine the Last Supper, a passover meal that had been celebrated the same way for centuries. All of a sudden he strays from the script. He picks up the passover bread, and states "this is my body, broken for you" (breaks the bread)-- crack -- What an incredibly elegant, simple, and powerful display of what was to occur in a few hours. Then he commands them to eat the bread. Cannabalism? Of course not. Another brilliant metaphore for true belief in Him.

In John 6, Jesus speaks of this act, which you claim is the actual eating of his flesh, and I claim really represents belief in Him, as being both necessary and sufficient for salvation. My interpretation jives with the rest of scripture; yours does not. The RCC does not teach that taking the Eucharist is either necessary or sufficient for salvation.

[adiaireton8]

According to Catholic doctrine, in baptism we receive forgiveness only for those sins that have been committed up to the time of our baptism. (This is why some people in the early centuries of the Church would wait until their death-bed to be baptized.) Venial sins committed after our baptism can be forgiven through prayer. Venial and mortal sins committed after our baptism can be forgiven by the sacrament of reconciliation. But baptism is the gate for the other sacraments. Baptism makes possible the forgiveness of both our venial and mortal post-baptismal sins.

It may be helpful to read St. Augustine's one paragraph commentary on the line from the Creed ("one baptism for the forgiveness of sins") in his Sermons to Catechumens On the Creed. It deals with this very thing that you ask. Click here, and scroll down to #15, and read that paragraph. (Paragraph #16 might also be helpful.) If that doesn't answer your question, then please write me back.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

Then why did all those disciples walk away? Either they thought Jesus was saying that they must *really* eat His flesh and drink His blood, OR they were such wimps that they thought even eating and drinking mere representations of His body and blood was too hard for them.

And either way, why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, guys, wait. It is just a metaphor. You don't really have to eat my flesh and drink my blood. Light up."?

-A8

[CA Conservative]

Yes, praying, reading the Bible, and witnessing are also encounters in some sense with Christ. But they are not as immediate and as intimate as the direct encounter with Christ at the Mass.

Interesting, because I find that Christ is most present and most intimate when I am in His presence in prayer. The act of Communion (the Lord's Supper), while it is precious and holy, pales in significance to the communion I share with Him daily in prayer. I need no priest, no liturgy, and no ritual to have an intimate experience with my Lord. Worshipping together as a body of believers is important, but is only a part of my relationship with Him.

[CA Conservative]

BTW do women cover their heads while praying and refrain from leadership in prayer in your church? (let the arguments against the value of plainly stated scripture commence) btw ours do.

A woman needs no other covering for her head while praying than her hair. Don't believe me? Believe Paul, especially since you place such a high value on 1 Corinthians:

1 Cor. 11:5
"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. "

1 Cor. 11:13-15
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

So, every woman prays with her head covered, unless she has shaven her head.

[kawaii]

ah yes the ol st paul spent 300 words contradicting himself or preaching against bald women canard.

seriously read the whole chapter and tell me he just bloviated needlessly for 300 words that women shouldn’t be BALD.

seriously do you folks believe there was an epidemic of women shaving there heads among the corinthian people?

protestants have mistranslated the verse time and time again to the point where in defense of feminism they will suggest that st paul proclaimed women shouldn’t be bald.

mind you this is completely historically contextually and scripturally untrue.

[CA Conservative]

So you are saying Paul was lying when he said that women’s hair was given to them for a covering? I never implied Paul was contradicting himself - but it appears that you are reading something into it that the text does not support.

[kawaii]

Even protestants agree women should cover their heads in prayer: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2820

It wasn't until the 1900s (NOT THE REFORMATION WHEN THIS PRACTICE WAS STILL UNIVERSAL) that feminists did away with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Headcovering

Folks who deny scripture to adopt feminism are no better than homosexuals urging to ignore scripture to accept THEIR lifestyle. it is a fowl thing when professed Christians make up excuses to ignore the word of God.

[kawaii]

I’m saying the way it’s translated is idiotic and the ‘churches’ that assume the only thing Paul intended of 300 words was that women not shave their heads are idiotic.

TONS of writings are attributed to Paul that ARE NOT in the Bible, this one MADE IT IN, if you believe Holy Scripture is divinely inspired then you cannot believe that Paul would spend 300 words telling women the importance of submission and covering their heads in prayer and then follow a 1900s feminist fairy tale.

[wmfights]

Standing next to someone where...in a visible church? :)

Could be anywhere.

[CA Conservative]

I never discussed the issue of submission, nor did I disagree about a woman having her head covered when she prays - though Paul says that her hair IS her covering. So you are not disputing with me if you say differently - you are disputing with Paul. Good luck with that...

[kawaii]

i’m saying that the interpretation that hair alone s sufficient cover contradicts the whole verse.

that protestants who refuse to have their women cover their heads are bowing to feminism before God.

and i’m saying english translations in general are poor and confusing.

[CA Conservative]

You don't like English? Let's try Greek: the original Greek of 1 Cor. 11:15 says that a woman's hair is given to her as "peribolaion", which is "something thrown around one, i.e. a mantle, veil -- covering, vesture."

[Iscool]

The fathers testify that baptism is what Jesus means in saying we must be "born again" (John 3:3) and being of water and the Spirit in John 3:5

But you mean baptism in water... If you watch the scripture, you can see it is not talking about water baptism...

Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Nicodemus understood how babies were born...The 'water' breaks and the baby comes into the world...And Jesus responded to this understanding...Nicodemus equates 'born of water' to the birth process...

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water

AND

of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Then Jesus confirms this by saying indicating that born of the 'water' is the flesh (not water baptism).and born of the Spirit is Spirit...

Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh (water) is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Just as the Holy Spirit came down on Jesus as His baptism, so likewise, as we imitate Christ in baptism, the Holy Spirit comes down on each of us when we are baptized.

Completely inaccurate...There is no indication in the bible anywhere whereby a person can be filled with the Holy Spirit without repentance...Without first turning to Jesus...

And yes, John the Baptist did baptize with water for the remission of sins...Be he told us that it was temporary...

Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

That's why you waste your time baptizing babies...That's why there is no such thing as a 'cradle' Christian...

If one does not repent and turn to Jesus, one is not a partaker of the Kingdom of God...

[NYer]

Only accepting the Lord and attempting to live by his will will get me in the gate.

And what is the will of our Lord?

"Except you eateth the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you."    (John 6:54)

A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 5: Public Worship of God

[Mad Dawg]

You should kn ow that I "converted" in my, ah, mid to late 40's. So it's not like the Vatican has a deeply imprinted hold on me.

Once that's clear, I guess I'd wonder what endless liturgies you are talking about. Let me help. Today I woke up (that in itself is unusual ;-) ) and read the "office of Readings. We're cranking through The Elijah/Elisha stories right now. And I read something Ambrose had written about Baptism. That was after reading a psalm. Then I read two more psalms and two more passages of Scripture, plus prayers praising God and interceding for the world.

Then this PM I joined a bunch of lay-people for a rosary - maybe 20 minutes. Then Mass, almost exactly 45 minutes - including yet another psalm and two readings from Scripture, AND a sermon/homily on how we need to slay our false gods and seek to follow God Himself -- and He will draw us to Himself.

Before I turn in I will read two more psalms and two more passages of Scripture and will pray some more for myself, my church, my loved ones and the world.

It didn't FEEL endless. Maybe I will have spent 90 minutes in "endless liturgies".

But as we prayed tonight at Mass, and this is really important, our giving thanks is God's gift to us. HE doesn't need us to thank Him. WE need to thank Him, and it is our joy to do so, and it's good for us. It's like that great Psalm where He says, "Hey, IF I were hungry (which I'm not) you think I'd tell YOU?

As far as witness is concerned: after evening Mass I went to our "downtown mall" to be part of a counter-demonstration against the fabulous Ms. Sheehag, and a substantial bunch of loonies who think we should impeach the President and the Veep.

I effectively ran one freakazoid off, engaged two young skulls full of mush in some decent conversation, and had a good conversation with a very nice young lady who wondered what winning in Iraq would be like and how to think about winning the war on terror.

Since I was carrying a pistol and 20+ rounds of .40 ammo, I personally am very glad that I had been praying hard and was able to remember that, for reasons best known to himself, God loves these yahoos and he wants me to love them too.

Before I went to Mass I was in another conversation with a very nice Baha'i guy talking about how we are our children's first evangelists and it is up to us to tell them and show them that God is Love. If that's not evangelism, I don't know what is.

Mass is not only about obedience (He said, "Do this," We say,"Yes sir!") it's all for me. I get to contemplate daily the amazing Love God has for us and the amazing call He issues to us, AND the incredible lengths to which He is prepared to go to share His love and help us answer His call.

Prayers are like a cross between being Rolfed and slipping into a warm tub. Not only do I owe God my prayers, but I benefit by doing my duty and praising Him.

I don'[t feel like less than a tithe of my time is "endless liturgies" but I do them because I love God more and more and He loves me with a love that turned the universe upside down.

And I'm well-known as a complete reprobate jerk and bad guy. if I can find such good things in prayer, think what GOOD people can find!

Is that an answer? I tried, really, I did. I pray because it's good for me and helps me be the guy I think God wants me to be, and God told me to pray.

[adiaireton8]

Whose interpretation is authoritative?

-A8

[armydoc]

Then you believe taking the Eucharist is both necessary and sufficient for salvation??

[hocndoc]

A8 asks, “where does it say “accepting the Lord”?”

Since the original languages were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, your question is “strifes of words”

[Petronski]

Is that an answer? I tried, really, I did.

With respects, my friend, I call your attention to Matthew 7:6.

Dominus Vobiscum.