Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[xzins]

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years?

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.

[OLD REGGIE]

Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines Pope: Main Entry: pope Pronunciation: \ˈpōp\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English pāpa, from Late Latin papa, from Greek pappas, papas, title of bishops, literally, papa Date: before 12th century 1often capitalized : a prelate who as bishop of Rome is the head of the Roman Catholic Church 2: one that resembles a pope (as in authority) I submit that the cast presented to you in their own fashion, to their own ends, supplanted the Pope in Rome with their own authority. My statement stands.

Why would it surprise me that you would cherrypick a definition, or create your own, which supports your prejudice? :) or :(

Of course in this instance the Catholic Dictionary doesn't suit your purpose.

pope
(Greek: papas, form of pappas, father)

Title of the Supreme Head of the Church founded by Christ. The institution of a Supreme Head is clear from Matthew 16, and from John 21; from the relation of the Apostles to Peter, treating him as their chief and not merely as ranking first among equals; from the fact that he fixed his see at Rome all the head of the Church. Claim of the see to headship has always been acknowledged as defined in the Vatican Council I: to Peter was given a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, and the Roman pontiff is the successor of Peter in this primacy. The jurisdiction of the pope is universal and immediate, extending to the entire Church, and without intermediary, to the faithful individually and collectively. Similarly, every member of the Church may have recourse to him, as in appeals in ecclesiastical cases, without prohibitive charges or other hindrance. This implies control of every department of the life of the Church: of the faith and the formulas thereof, or Creeds; of the means and methods of imparting religious instruction by books or in schools; of Catholic missions; the foundation of universities and of special institutes and colleges; the condemnation of heresies; the interpretation of the moral law; the prohibition of books injurious to faith or morals. Worship too comes under papal control, the regulation of liturgical services, designation of feasts, canonizations, indulgences, all that concerns the sacredness of the marriage bond, special powers to priests, on occasion, to confirm, or bless holy oils. He can legislate for the entire Church, summon general councils, grant dispensation from any ecclesiastical law, interpret, alter, abrogate any law made by himself or his predecessors. He constitutes new sees, alters the boundaries of those in existence, appoints bishops, approves religious orders and exempts them when need be from diocesan control. All this is done by aid of devout and experienced assistants and advisers, the various tasks being distributed among various congregations or committees, eleven in number, each superintended by one or several cardinals assisted by secretaries, auditors, advocates, and notaries. Besides those who dwell in Rome, many of them chosen from various countries, he has also the cardinals and bishops of the entire Catholic world, of whose suggestions and experience he constantly avails himself.

In no way, therefore, is the pope's exercise of power absolutist or arbitrary. Besides the check of his own conscience, he is guided by the spirit, practise, and tradition of the Church, its ancient statutes, customs, and precedents, its council; in a word, by strict consistency with its past and by a pious regard for its pastors and the faithful. The pope has also primacy of honor. He is entitled Vicar of Christ, Head of the Church, Father of all the Faithful, Supreme or Sovereign Pontiff, His Holiness, Servant of the Servants of God, the Fisherman, after the calling of the Apostles and their designation by Christ as fishers of men. He wears the tiara, or triple crown. He ranks as first of Christian princes, and his ambassadors have precedence over other members of the diplomatic body. The office of the pope brings him into contact with civil rulers and legislatures insomuch as they may regulate temporal affairs affecting religion. He must superintend the administration of the Vatican State, as formerly his predecessors had to administer the States of the Church. He is constantly sought also by men of affairs, scholars, sociologists. His bishops visit him at regular intervals, visits ad limina, as they are called; priests engaged in special missions must have access to him; no head of a state is more accessible by audiences which are granted to men and women of all faiths, and of every rank. The pope is elected by votes of the College of Cardinals in a session known as the Conclave, two-thirds of those voting being the necessary majority. There was a time when any male Catholic might be elected, but the choice now falls to one of the cardinals.

Catholic Dictionary - POPE

What next? A MarkBsnr Dictionary?

[OLD REGGIE]

Dear Brother,you’re cherry picking as well.

I have not claimed otherwise. I simply asked you to consider the entire writings of Augustine, something which you show no evidence of doing.

Perhaps it would be well for me to repeat my question.

(Reggie)"Please reference Scripture which supports the Bodily Assumption Of Mary."

And your response:

Certainly!

Our Blessed Mother is the women in Rev 12:1. Mary is the women who clothed with sun. Our Blessed Mother is seen in her physical presence in Revelation 12:1.Our Blessed Mother is the women in Rev 12:1. Mary is the women who clothed with sun. Our Blessed Mother is seen in her physical presence in Revelation 12:1.Our Blessed Mother is the women in Rev 12:1. Mary is the women who clothed with sun. Our Blessed Mother is seen in her physical presence in Revelation 12:1.

There is a mountain of Scriptural typology to support the Catholic teaching on Mary as the New Eve,the Ark of the New Covenant and the Daughter of Zion.

Here is some of it... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1908117/posts?page=172#172

Good try but you have provided no Scriptural evidence supporting the Bodily Assumption Of Mary.

Further, cherrypicking Church Fathers from the 4th century hardly supports my request for supporting Scripture does it?

There is a mountain of Scriptural typology to support the Catholic teaching on Mary as the New Eve,the Ark of the New Covenant and the Daughter of Zion. Here is some of it... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1908117/posts?page=172#172

[OLD REGGIE]

Dear Brother,you’re cherry picking as well.

I have not denied cherrypicking have you? I have suggested it is necessary to read the totality of Augustines works. In doing so you might find some writings which might have resulted in his death some years later. You have shown no evidence of looking at Augustine except through the eyes of prejudiced Apologists.

Yes, Augustine was a faithful, practicing Catholic. He was a member of a Church which hadn't yet attained worldly wealth and power and which was more open to ideas which might be seen to conflict with the party line.

It might be well for me to repeat my question:

Please reference Scripture which supports the Bodily Assumption Of Mary.

And your answer which I consider problematic.

Certainly!

Our Blessed Mother is the women in Rev 12:1. Mary is the women who clothed with sun. Our Blessed Mother is seen in her physical presence in Revelation 12:1.

There is a mountain of Scriptural typology to support the Catholic teaching on Mary as the New Eve,the Ark of the New Covenant and the Daughter of Zion.

Here is some of it... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1908117/posts?page=172#172

First, quoting 4th century Fathers is hardly Scriptural support.

Second, It is problematic choosung Revelation 12 to support the Bodily Assumption Of Mary.

Revelation Chapter 12: (NAB)

1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

3 Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems.

4 Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.

5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.

6 The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days. (6)

---------------------------------------------------------

Footnote [6] God protects the persecuted church in the desert, the traditional Old Testament place of refuge for the afflicted, according to the typology of the Exodus; see the note on Rev 11:2 <../revelation/revelation11.htm>.

Verse 6 shows it is the Church, not Mary, referenced in Revelation 12. Some, maybe even you, will continue to claim it is Mary but you are in the minority even in the Catholic Church.

[OLD REGGIE]

Did you ever here of the Kenotic Hymn ? It was written before the Gospels, and sang by the early Christians. It is said that this hymn is an early liturgical creed that Saint Paul used in writing of 2 Phillipians 5-11

Really? What is your source?

At The Name Of Jesus

Do we have the same Hymn in mind?

[OLD REGGIE]

Please make sure to inlcude us Eastern Orthodox in this incorrect assessment. Neither particular Church "worships" Mary.

Do you have difficulty recognizing irony?

I think you are missing my point.

Here is what I objected to:

"The Protestants believe that satan does God’s will."

Let me make it clear I think both statements are stupid in the absolute sense. A qualifier such as "some" is acceptable.

[OLD REGGIE]

Actually, the Holy Trinity is made manifest in the Resurrection (Galatians 1:1, Romans 8:11, +John 2:19).

Trinity?

Galations 1:
1. Paul an apostle--not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead-

Romans 8:
11. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you.

1 John 2:
19. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.

How is it made manifest?

[OLD REGGIE]

I really like the New Advent explanation of of the Trinity
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#V

I'm not surprised.

[stfassisi]

Verse 6 shows it is the Church, not Mary, referenced in Revelation 12. Some, maybe even you, will continue to claim it is Mary but you are in the minority even in the Catholic Church.

Dear Reggie, You don’t understand Catholicism ,Mary is also a type of the Church

from LUMEN GENTIUM

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

63. By reason of the gift and role of divine maternity, by which she is united with her Son, the Redeemer, and with His singular graces and functions, the Blessed Virgin is also intimately united with the Church. As St. Ambrose taught, the Mother of God is a type of the Church in the order of faith, charity and perfect union with Christ.(18*) For in the mystery of the Church, which is itself rightly called mother and virgin, the Blessed Virgin stands out in eminent and singular fashion as exemplar both of virgin and mother. (19*) By her belief and obedience, not knowing man but overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, as the new Eve she brought forth on earth the very Son of the Father, showing an undefiled faith, not in the word of the ancient serpent, but in that of God’s messenger. The Son whom she brought forth is He whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren,(299) namely the faithful, in whose birth and education she cooperates with a maternal love.””

As Saint Augustine puts it

The Woman signifies Mary, who, being spotless, brought forth our spotless Head. Who herself also showed forth in herself a figure of holy Church, so that as she in bringing forth a Son remained a Virgin, so the Church also should during the whole of time be bringing forth His members, and yet not lose her virgin estate.(Ibid, p. 269)

Archbishop Fulton Sheen explains Nuptials at the cross with the New Eve and how it is the beginning of the church

Here is a few excerpts

“We have the new Adam and the new Eve. Our Lord on the cross is the new Adam, the Blessed Mother at the foot of the cross is the new Eve. And we’re going to have the consummation of a marriage, and out of the consummated marriage of the new Adam and the new Eve is going to begin the new church of which John will be the symbol. And so the new Adam looking down now to the woman, says: “Woman, your son.” And to the son, he did not say “John” (he would have then been only the son of Zebedee), but “Son, your mother.” Here is the begetting of a new life. The Blessed Mother becomes the symbol of the church. And as Eve was the mother of the living, so Mary becomes the mother of the new living in the order of grace.”

Nuptials on the cross

From the cross our Lord looks down to his Blessed Mother and St. John, and he develops this new relationship in the kingdom of heaven. Now we’ve always thought, and rightly so, of Christ the Son on the cross and the mother beneath him. But that’s not the complete picture. That’s not the deep understanding. Who is our Lord on the cross? He’s the new Adam. Where’s the new Eve? At the foot of the cross. ...How did the old humanity begin? With the nuptials. How will the new humanity begin? With the nuptials. If Eve became the mother of the living in the natural order, is not this woman at the foot of the cross to become another mother? And so the bridegroom looks down at the bride. He looks at his beloved. Christ looks at his church. There is here the birth of the church.
As St. Augustine puts it, and here I am quoting him verbatim, “The heavenly bridegroom left the heavenly chambers, with the presage of the nuptials before him. He came to the marriage bed of the cross, a bed not of pleasure, but of pain, united himself with the woman, and consummated the union forever. As it were, the blood and water that came from the side of Christ was the spiritual seminal fluid. And so from this nuptials “Woman, there’s your son” this is the beginning of the church.

[Kolokotronis]

"Doulos is really a servant."

Sorry; nope, a slave, not a σκλαβος, more of a what we think of as a servant but a slave nevertheless, Kosta mou. Brainwashing, compulsion, rape etc is not at all implicated by the word, however, which might well be implicated by σκλαβος.

[OLD REGGIE]

Dear Reggie, You don’t understand Catholicism ,Mary is also a type of the Church

I understand that you have a closed mind. I ask for Scripture, you respond with the words of men.

I believe this is a good time to end this line of discussion. We have nothing in common.

[stfassisi]

I understand that you have a closed mind. I ask for Scripture, you respond with the words of men

You rely on the words of men(The Early Church Fathers)To give witness that the Bible is the word of God,yet you disagree with their interpretations of the Bible and elevate your own?

Who's mind is really closed,Dear Brother!

I wish you a Blessed Evening!

[kosta50]

I really like the New Advent explanation of of the Trinity

You may wish to read St. John of Damascus' 8th century Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I.

Trinitarian dogma is a revealed truth. Using the NT as "proof" is difficult not only because there is only indirect evidence to support it, but because we have such latter-day fraudulent insertions as the Comma Johanneum.

The fact is that we really have no way of knowing what was in the original Gospel accounts. St. Mark's Gospel, for example, is much shorter in the oldest extant copies.

We really have only shreds of older copies, but even they are only copies of copies and not originals. So, when we see the Great Commission we have no way of knowing if it was inserted at a latter-date (like the Comma Johanneun), to make the Bible fit the dogma or whether it was there from the beginning.

Certainly, even St. Paul doesn't speak in trinitarian terms, nor does he think much of Baptism which is the apex of the Gospel's trinitarian formula, yet his Epistles are the oldest NT writings and therefore the closest to the original church mindset.

[kosta50]

Let me make it clear I think both statements are stupid in the absolute sense. A qualifier such as "some" is acceptable

I agree from a catholic and Apostolic Church's point of view. However, I can't distinguish between so many (thousands) of Protestant denomination and confessions. Chances are that some, perhaps even most Protestant communities, believe in the free will and believe that Satan is a rebellious angel who fell from grace, rather than tow the Judaic line of thinking that angels can't rebel against God and the OT presentation of Satan as a loyal servant of God.

The Problem with any Protestant group is that among them there are always individuals who choose to be Calvinistic in their line of reasoning and still claim their particular denomination.

Case in point: one can be a Southern Baptist and a Calvinist; or Presbyterian and Preterist. Or Methodist and Millenialist, etc. This is because Protestantism is relativistic and its denominations means nothing absolute.

One can be associated with a particular denomination in aprt what other denominations believe and preach. Since every protestant is his or her own 'pope' it is impossible to say "some" Protestant brelieve such and such because it is entirely possible that all of them do.

[kosta50]

Trinity? Galations 1, Romans 8, 1 John 2:19...How is it made manifest?

It's John 2:19, not 1 John 2:19.

"Destroy this temple [understood to be euphamism for His Body], and I will raise it again in three days."

In these three examples we have the the Father, the Spirit and Christ Himself raising Himself.

However, one will not find much trinitarian in St. Paul's wiritngs. In fact even in Romans 8 where he mentions the Spirit of God, he is using the term distinctly in the OT manner as power of God and not a distinct Hypostasis.

One will nto arirve at any trinitarian forumla by focusing on St. Paul.

[kosta50]

Sorry; nope, a slave, not a σκλαβος, more of a what we think of as a servant but a slave nevertheless, Kosta mou

Thank you, Kolo mou, on the clarification. I realize that, and perhaps I should have said obligated servant, but I was trying to avoid any confusion with the term indentured servant, which is someone forced.

The Slavonic equivalent is ряб (ryab) which means slave in the vernacular. Thus a priest using vernacular no longer uses the term ryab but слуга (sluga) which means an obligated servant, literally "one who obeys [or listens]," because it is derived from the verb to obey служити , and from which the word for service (includig the muilitary service, as well as divine service, the litugy) is derived, служба (sluzhba), and the word слушати (slushati), to listen (as in obey).

I believe the modern meaning of doulos is different from the ancient one but I may be mistaken. The NT dictionary mentions bondsman as one definition which seems to fit the term obligate servant. Other definitions mention a slave as well as a servant.

[irishtenor]

If all of my sins are already paid for... (including the ones last week, boy do I not want to talk about those) when I get to heaven, Jesus will be standing next to me, proclaiming me clean by his blood.

[irishtenor]

Oh, come on in and get your feet wet... or head, as the case may be :>)

[OLD REGGIE]

The Problem with any Protestant group is that among them there are always individuals who choose to be Calvinistic in their line of reasoning and still claim their particular denomination.

You might think this is terrible. I don't. Common belief in God and living a (relatively) good life is enough for me.

If you could claim with any degree of certainty that Catholics and Orthodox live their lives 100% according to the "official" teaching and do not choose what to believe and practice you'd have a case.

Since every protestant is his or her own 'pope' it is impossible to say "some" Protestant brelieve such and such because it is entirely possible that all of them do.

Baloney!

[irishtenor]

***Once again, however, we differ on the rolls of those who will go to Heaven and who will not, though; and the mechanism.***

I agree that we disagree, however, God does know who will be with him. No one’s going to knock on those pearly gates and God expressing a surprised, “How did you get here?” I am leaving it all up to him. Peace to you :>)

[OLD REGGIE]

It's John 2:19, not 1 John 2:19.

"Destroy this temple [understood to be euphamism for His Body], and I will raise it again in three days."

Thanks for the correction. My bad.

In these three examples we have the the Father, the Spirit and Christ Himself raising Himself.

Requires a vivid imagination, or better yet, an "authority" to tell you what to see.

However, one will not find much trinitarian in St. Paul's wiritngs. In fact even in Romans 8 where he mentions the Spirit of God, he is using the term distinctly in the OT manner as power of God and not a distinct Hypostasis.

One will nto arirve at any trinitarian forumla by focusing on St. Paul.

Aren't you the person who gave the two citations from Paul to "prove" the Trinity in Scripture?