Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
“The church had a very set criteria for determining what should go into scripture and what shouldn’t.”
Well, actually, The Church didn’t, or at least it wasn’t the sort of standard everyone bought into. We here have been using the late 4th century as the time the canon of scripture was finalized, but of course that isn’t even close to true. Hebrews and Revelations were the subject of controversy for centuries after the 4th and the Protestants threw out the OT used by The Church for 1500 years in favor of the Hebrew canon. By the way, the writings of +Clement of Rome were read during the Liturgy for some centuries after his death as were the letters of +Ignatius of Antioch and +Polycarp. So far as I know, The Church NEVER stated that the works of the Fathers were not inspired of God; indeed, I don’t think even the Reformers went that far.
Your comment however, indicates to me that you misunderstand what The Church means by inspired. What The Church determined to be scripture is inerrant and inspired by God. Much of what The Fathers wrote and taught is likewise inerrant and inspired by God, but not all of it. No patristic writing is considered sacred scripture, but all patristic writings within the consensus patrum are beneficial to theosis.
The Church of course looks at scripture as part of the “medicine” with which The Church cures sick souls, a very important tool to be sure, but still only a “means to an end”. Bibliolatry is unknown in The Church unlike, for example, in Mohammedanism with the Koran which the Mohammedans believe was dictated by the moon god through an angel to Mohammed and thus is composed of the actual words of the moon god. That’s why they worship the Koran the way they do with the results we are all familiar with. This sort of attitude is not unknown among some Christian groups, though The Church would declare that heresy.
“Code Of Canon Law Book 3, Part o
Canon 752
While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith and morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.
OR: Go along or get out.”
That’s one way of putting it. It really comes down to:
Did God invent man or did man invent God. Is God internal to or external to man? Who created whom in whose own image?
We believe that God made the rules and the Church is His “hands” on earth. Therefore my decisions on what to do comes from that.
Then I guess that we’ll just have to agree to somewhat disagree, here. I’m not sure that I’d really want to belabour the point anyway, but there is the distinct possibility that you are correct, or at least partially correct.
If you are completely 100% correct, does that change anything from my perspective?
I see where you’re going. Let me address it in this way:
1 Tim. 2:
1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men,
2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.
3 This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
So Paul instructs us to pray for others. It is good to intercede for others. Therefore Christians can intercede for others. I trust that this is accepted. How about the saints? Can they pray for us in Heaven?
Hebrews 12:1 - Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great A CLOUD OF WITNESSES, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset [us], and let us run with patience the race that is set before us.
Do we come only to God or do we also come to the assembly of Saints in heaven as well?
Hebrews 12:22 But YE ARE COME UNTO mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
12:23 To the general assembly and CHURCH OF THE FIRSTBORN, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, AND TO THE SPIRITS OF JUST MEN MADE PERFECT,
12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.
Paul says yes. He says we come directly not only to God, but to an assembly of Saints in heaven (The just men made perfect) exactly in the context of Jesus being the mediator!. Are we supposed to ignore them? The Bible says no!! Jesus is indeed the one and unique mediator. However, it is indeed him as a mediator, that makes all other mediation possible.
Do the saints pray in heaven? The book of Revelation tells us:
5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four [and] twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the PRAYERS OF SAINTS.
8:3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer [it] with THE PRAYERS OF ALL SAINTS upon the golden altar which was before the throne. 8:4 And the smoke of the incense, [which came] with the PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand.
Obviously they do pray, and as we saw in Hebrews we come to these saints, who we see intercede for us.
Is there more evidence that the Saints are aware of what is going on at earth, and do they ask for justice?:
Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What [city is] like unto this great city!
18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
18:20 Rejoice over her, [thou] heaven, and [ye] holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
So we have further evidence that the Saints in heaven are aware of what is going on in earth, and they specifically pray for things that go on in earth. We must remember that Saints in heaven are not bound by time and space as we are. In eternity, 1 John 3:2 tells us:
Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
There is only one body, the Church. The church is not one church in heaven as opposed to one church on earth. The one church is intimately connected with each other (remember the image of the vine and the branches in John 15). And those in heaven are just men made perfect. As the body is called to love each other, are the saints in heaven, even though they are aware of what is going on in earth, according to scripture just given, careless as to what is going on in the lives of those on earth? Of course not!!! Christ calls perfected people to love the rest of the body. I can be confident that they will intercede for those on earth. What does it profit? James explains:
James 5:16 “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” Those in heaven are perfectly righteous, and their prayers are efficacious. How can one ignore them? There is one body of Christ, which includes all Christians.
1 Cor. 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
12:16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
12:17 If the whole body [were] an eye, where [were] the hearing? If the whole [were] hearing, where [were] the smelling?
12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
12:19 And if they were all one member, where [were] the body?
12:20 But now [are they] many members, yet but one body.
12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
Again, does a good Christian HAVE to have intercession from the saints in Heaven? No. But it is there for us.
“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15
I have the faith of the first Christians in the same institution and in the same tradition that was founded by Our Lord. I have faith in the institution that wrote the Bible and compiled it and passed it down through the millennia to me now.
I have faith that the Church that was created by the Lord Jesus Christ is the pillar and foundation of His Truth. I have faith that when the Bible admonishes against private interpretation that it is for the very best of reasons. I have pure and blind faith in the Lord God Almighty.
Thanks for the compliment, by the way. I appreciate it, although I’m not sure that you meant it in quite the way that I’m taking it.
I posted on this just a few minutes ago. Hope that it addresses your points adequately.
I see no Scripture that says that Peter asked intercession from Mary.
According to what you just wrote, the Church determined what scripture was completely inerrant and inspired by God. They must have had some criteria for determining that. There is also other writings that are somewhat inerrant and inspired that doesn't measure up to the same calibur as the fully inspired writings. Isn't that correct? That is precisely what I wrote.
Notwithstanding the few outstanding documents, both Protestants and Catholics agree that specific writings are "God breathed". Catholics/Orthodox like to say they determine them to be inspired. Protestants like to say they were confirmed to be inspired. It all works out in the wash.
Bibliolatry is unknown in The Church
I'm not sure what you mean by "Bibliolatry". If you mean Christians do not kiss the Bible, well you won't get much argument from me for I don't know of any Christian group advocating that. But if you mean that we heed those inspired writings as coming from God, then I would think most of us are biblioladolotrious. (Is there such a word???) After all, it is the Church's position that the scriptures are FULLY inspired.
The Church makes a clear distinction between the inspired writings and the less-than-inspired writing. You seem to be indicating that yourself. So do I. I don't think there is any misunderstandings.
:::“a sort of esoteric pseudo-knowledge or mysticism derived from personal, direct spiritual experiences which they took to be Divine revelation”... That definition is not of the Church.
HD: That was your definition, not mine.:::
That was a description of Gnosticism, not the Church.
:::Calvin, however smart or equipped with whatever other gifts, faults and tendencies that he was, is not and never will be a Church Father.
HD: I’m sure he will be most appreciative.:::
Just a statement of fact. I’ll never be a Church Father either.
:::Because apparitions are private revelations, Catholics are free to believe in them without Church approval, so long as the apparition contains nothing which contravenes with faith and morals.
What a hoot!!! As long as the apparition agrees with what the Church says it’s OK. As long as a theologian agrees with what Church say it’s OK. :::
What appears to an individual in private is a private revelation of God. Or it could be hallucinations. Apparitions happened frequently in Bibilical times. Why would they stop? I don’t know the answer; I’ve never had one. But unless the Church actually investigates and finds that the apparition was sent by God, then it does not affect belief, theology or anything else. The Church is supposed to be the foundation of Jesus on Earth. Who else could make a righteous ruling on anything of Him?
:::The Church’s Approval Does Not Come Easily or Quickly
HD: HA!!! Isn’t Pope John Paul now being beautified?:::
Beautified? Alright, he was fairly infirm towards the end of his life and wasn’t the prettiest human around due to his illnesses, wouldn’t you say that this was kind of a cheap shot?
:::The Catholic Doctrine of Infallibility teaches of the pope’s inability to err on central issues of the Christian faith
Oh, hogwash. The Pope was wrong about signing those “get out of Purgatory” free cards.:::
Is that a central issues of faith? Were they a get of Purgatory free card? I don’t think so. We can discuss the doctrine of Purgatory further if you prefer. Just as you are fascinated by the practices and beliefs surrounding Purgatory, we are fascinated by Reformed practices and beliefs surrounding the “get out of hell” free cards that come in some sort of cosmic lottery administered by the Holy Spirit.
:::People are prone to bring in false doctrine. That was the central reason the Chruch fathers gave us the Bible-to protect the inspired writing from the uninspired.:::
But these are the same Church Fathers, nearly 400 years after Christ died, that are scornfully dismissed and sometimes vilified by the Reformed when they write contrary to the doctrines of Calvin. How can they give you the Bible, when none of their other writings, including that on heresies, are accepted?
I’m glad that you brought this up. I haven’t read Origen for some time.
Now, if you read the passages preceding and following this, it is obvious that Origen is writing on praying to God, as opposed to praying to Jesus alone and not to God the Father. We are to pray to God through Jesus.
No problem there, in fact we agree with it. Praying to Jesus alone apart from God is incorrect.
Since we have opened the door to the preheresy Origen, let us now proceed to Chapter VI:
But these pray along with those who genuinely pray—not only the high priest but also the angels who “rejoice in heaven over one repenting sinner more than over ninety-nine righteous that need not repentance,” and also the souls of the saints already at rest. Two instances make this plain. The first is where Raphael offers their service to God for Tobit and Sarah. After both had prayed, the scripture says, “The prayer of both was heard before the presence of the great Raphael and he was sent to heal them both,” and Raphael himself, when explaining his angelic commission at God’s command to help them, says:
“Even now when you prayed, and Sarah your daughter-in-law, I brought the memorial of your prayer before the Holy One,” and shortly after, “I am Raphael, one of the Seven angels who present the prayers of saints and enter in before the glory of the Holy One. Thus, according to Raphael’s account at least, prayer with fasting and almsgiving and righteousness is a good thing.
The second instance is in the Books of the Maccabees where Jeremiah appears in exceeding “white haired glory” so that a wondrous and most majestic authority was about him, and stretches forth his right hand and delivers to Judas a golden sword, and there witnesses to him another saint already at rest saying, “This is he who prays much for the people and the sacred city, God’s prophet Jeremiah.” For it is absurd when knowledge, though manifested to the worthy through a mirror and in a riddle for the present, is then revealed face to face not to think that the like is true of all other excellences as well, that they who prepare in this life beforehand are made strictly perfect then.
Now one of these excellences in the strictest sense according to the divine word is love for one’s neighbor, and this accordingly we are compelled to think of as possessed in a far higher degree by saints already at rest than by those who are in human weakness and wrestle on along with the weaker. It is not only here that “if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it and if one member is glorified, all the members rejoice with it” in the experience of those who love their brethren, for it beseems the love also of those who are beyond the present life to say “I have anxiety for all the churches:
Origen says that we are to pray to the saints. Thank you for the excellent reference. Are you prepared to rethink your theology based upon this or other writings?
“You ask for things hoping they are in God’s will, not because you are sure you won’t get them:”
Many times when I am troubled or confused, I find comfort in sitting in my back yard and having a scotch and soda along with a quiet conversation with Jesus. This happened to me again after a particularly difficult day.
I said “Jesus, why do I work so hard?” And I heard the reply: “Men find many ways to demonstrate the love they have for their family. You work hard to have a peaceful, beautiful place for your friends and family to gather.” I said: “I thought that money was the root of all evil.” And the reply was: “No, the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. Money is a tool; it can be used for good or bad”.
I was starting to feel better, but I still had that one burning question, so I asked it. “Jesus,” I said, “What is the meaning of life? Why am I here?”
He replied,” That is a question many men ask. The answer is in your heart and is different for everyone. I would love to chat with you some more, Señor, but now, I have to finish your lawn.”
When people privately interpret Scripture; hunting and pecking verse in order to construct a theology that is different from all previous theologies, it seems to me that this is constructing one’s own personal god.
I may misconstrue some posts; I am not perfect. I hope that I am misconstruing more since they depart from what I consider to be core Christian beliefs.
But I know that I am not misconstruing some that are highly objectionable both to the Church and to Christianity in general.
:::”You do not ask for things if you know that they are going to come about for sure. You only ask for things if you know that they are not going to come about.
What? How do you come to that conclusion? First, this would make all the prayers of Jesus a farce, neither of your statements apply to Him. In addition, that would have the Bible contradicting the Lord’s Prayer. “Give us this day our daily bread”:::
The Bible does not contradict the Lord’s Prayer, neither contradicts Jesus. The only entity in opposition to them is the Larger Confession. I submit that when the Confession contradicts the Bible, then the Confession has to go.
:::Therefore, the theology of a Creation set in stone is completely incompatible with petition.
No. God is strong, not weak and unable to make up His mind. His will always governs. When we pray for something in accordance with that will, then we get it. If the prayer isn’t, then we don’t.:::
Under Reformed theology we get that which He has foreordained whether we pray for it or not. Therefore we must come back to the premise that petition is useless if one is Reformed; a mechanical exercise only.
Jesus taught us to petition God. Calvin teaches us that God has set everything in stone and nothing that we do can change that. I see it as a philosophical divide between them.
:::His sacrifice WAS “good enough” for all mankind, but it was only efficacious, only made FOR, the elect.:::
The two deas seem in conflict, don’t they?
That’s what you get for drinking Scotch in the daytime. 8~)
Your error had nothing to do with Protestant beliefs.
The error you admitted to, Mark, was that you not only attributed to Calvinists a belief of your church (infused righteousnes), you then spoke against that belief.
Thus is was the belief of your own church you got wrong.
A simple "I goofed" is sufficient.
There’s a rumor that the Pope is considering putting the Church teaching up for vote.
And I’m curious again... :)
What would one have to “not go along” with to get out of the Unitarian Church?
I goofed. I got them mixed up.
Sorry.
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.