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.
We have no disagreement about fallen angels. My point was angels can't procreate. They may appear in human form. They may seem to eat. They don't produce children. They are not human. They are angels.
I know you look at those two verses in Genesis and interpret them to mean they can procreate. I gave you what I believe is the better understanding and we are going to agree to disagree on this point.
All souls have to be born again (born from above) of woman and go through this 2nd. age to see if we follow Satan or God. At the end of this age, or when we die, our same spirit body steps out of this flesh body. We are the same soul throughout.
I understand you say this is not reincarnation, but it sounds like it to me. I have a bunch of questions so please bear with me.
1. Are there a finite number of souls? I would think the number would be limited by how many souls lived in the 1st age. Why test souls that didn't go through the 1st age.
2. I believe Jesus is our guide in all things. Did his resurrection and ascension include his body?
3. Are there any other references to the first age that tell us we only existed as spirits.
4. Are the souls that come through the line of Cain (satan's child) already condemned, or do they have free will even though their father is evil incarnate?
Fair enough.
1. Are there a finite number of souls? I would think the number would be limited by how many souls lived in the 1st age. Why test souls that didn't go through the 1st age.
The Bible doesn't say, as far as I know, but "I believe" there is a certain number and when all of those souls from before have been born of water, (born of woman) and to do that you must be (born from above - not come to earth as the fallen angels but be born), the end will come. I agree with you, "why test souls that didn't go through the 1st age".
2. I believe Jesus is our guide in all things. Did his resurrection and ascension include his body?
Yes. He was transfigured. His body was no longer in the tomb.
3. Are there any other references to the first age that tell us we only existed as spirits.
It is (I believe) one of the mysteries Paul taught so it is not going to be laid out openly for us. Nor is it given for all to understand.
Rom.11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom.11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
So...we are to "search the scriptures". The story is told throughout from Genesis to Revelation and I have listed many of the scriptures in previous posts.
4. Are the souls that come through the line of Cain (satan's child) already condemned, or do they have free will even though their father is evil incarnate?
No, they are not. But, they as all of us, must accept Jesus as our Saviour.
......Ping
I agree, he is Abel's brother.
The scripture clearly says that Adam was Cain’s father.
I disagree. To me it clearly shows that Adam was not Cain's father.
You must decide that the ABSOLUTE CLARITY of the story narrative of Cain’s conception overrides any other obscure theory. One principle of bible interpretation is that “the clear interprets the obscure.”
There are levels of understanding to scripture. I agree that what some of us have been discussing is not what is commonly taught but when you study at a deeper level it becomes obvious, it becomes clear. Eyes and ears are opened. The scriptures given on these subjects are in His Word, they have always been in His Word. They are there for us to understand.
The question you raise from (Gen.4:1), I will agree, does sound odd if Adam is not Cain's father but, nevertheless, ALL other scripture tells us that he is not. I cannot explain (4:1) any better than has already been given in 2415 and 2234 by Diego1618.
A sidenote in my Bible explains "I have gotten a man from the Lord" should have been translated as "I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord". To me, that makes it much clearer.
.......Ping
Just what is it you believe we have been doing on this thread? I don't believe in a corporate Body of Christ and am naturally suspicious of doctrines of men.....and their organizations.
Thank you for your thoughts about my dog. The prognosis is good....the recovery time, about a month. She needs basic help with her hygiene at this point.
Catholic.com says that:
Although Latin-rite Catholics are usually baptized by infusion (pouring), they know that immersion (dunking) and sprinkling are also valid ways to baptize. Fundamentalists, however, regard only baptism by immersion as true baptism, concluding that most Catholics are not validly baptized at all.
Although the New Testament contains no explicit instructions on how physically to administer the water of baptism, Fundamentalists argue that the Greek word baptizo found in the New Testament means “to immerse.” They also maintain that only immersion reflects the symbolic significance of being “buried” and “raised” with Christ (see Romans 6:3-4).
It is true that baptizo often means immersion. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, “went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo] seven times in the Jordan” (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added).
But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner.” They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees “do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]” (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.
A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative “baptism” is a sort of “immersion”; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, “I have a baptism [baptisma] to be baptized [baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!” (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be “immersed” in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples “not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’” Did this mean they would be “immersed” in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include “pouring.”
It further goes on to say that much of the earliest Christian art shows either pouring or sprinkling, or if standing upright in a river, having water poured from a cup or jug over the head. An early baptismal font found in Nazareth is obviously far too small for immersion.
I’m not aware of anything we Romish do that is not in the Name of Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I thought that we are fully in agreement on that.
It would appear from reading [Genesis 4:3-4] that Cain and Abel were of the same age. They are offering their sacrifices at the same time....a good indicator that here.....they became accountable to God together.
Adam even goes so far to say in [Genesis 4:25] And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. and he follows up in [Genesis 5:3] And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth.
And of course this genealogy of Adam in chapter five, as mentioned.....does not include Cain. As far as I know, there is no place in scripture where someone is not included in the genealogy of their fore bearers.
I can certainly agree with that.
All I can say is what I believe based on the scriptures and the promises therein
First, did Noah and Abraham and Isaac and Job base their faith on the scriptures and promises therein? Second, you are saying that your faith is based on the scriptures, when it is really based on your interpretation of the scriptures.
Based on this, your faith is not based on the same foundation as that of Noah, Abraham and Isaac because theirs was not based on scriptures (didn't exist yet).
Except for "I love God," if those are the reasons that they give for being entitled to Heaven, then they are toast
Everybody "loves" God when things are going good. The motive behind this "love" matters. Just because I think I am good or love God doesn't mean I am good or love God, or that because (I think) I love God (for whatever reasons) I "deserve" to go to heaven .
This "knowledge" is not based on anything any other Christian cannot have. So, there is no magic about it. It's just based on scripture
Again, this brings up the question of Abraham, Noah, Job and Isaac and their faith. They "knew" but it wasn't based on scripture. This also raises the possibility that others who don't know the scripture also "know." You said Ghandi is in hell because he rejected Christ. Did he? Or did he reject Christianity (of which there are many, as you know, every one of them claiming to be the "true" version).
FK: "I think it is also admirable to love God with assurance."
Kosta: But is it easier?
FK: I don't know why it would be
Who is faced with a greater dilemma? The ones who know or the ones who can only hope? Those who come to God without guarantees of course. Enduring in hope is harder than enduring with certainty.
I did not call Eve a prostitute.
It is hard to know if Shem is the second or third son. I would say third. We surely know that he is not the firstborn.
Japheth is the eldest [Genesis 10:21] Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.
In the genealogies of chapter 10, Japheth comes first [10:2]...Ham comes next [10:6] followed by Shem....the youngest. [10:21]
[Genesis 10:32] These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.
So in other words, you must be saved before baptism because baptizing one is meaningless unless one is already saved? This is strange to me. We claim our infants for Christ and when the child reaches the age of reason, he is confirmed in that baptism. We believe that one must be baptized with water and the Holy Spirit.
(1) Confirmation in the Bible
We read in the Acts of the Apostles (8:14-17) that after the Samaritan converts had been baptized by Philip the deacon, the Apostles “sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost ; for he was not yet come upon any of them, but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus ; then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost “.
Again ( 19:1-6 ): St. Paul “came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples ; and he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized ? Who said: In John’s baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance . . . Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied “.
From these two passages we learn that in the earliest ages of the Church there was a rite, distinct from baptism, in which the Holy Ghost was conferred by the imposition of hands ( dia tes epitheseos ton cheiron ton Apostolon ), and that the power to perform this ceremony was not implied in the power to baptize.
No distinct mention is made as to the origin of this rite; but Christ promised the gift of the Holy Ghost and conferred it. Again, no express mention is made of anointing with chrism ; but we note that the idea of unction is commonly associated with the giving of the Holy Ghost. Christ ( Luke 4:18 ) applies to Himself the words of Isaias ( 61:1 ): “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, wherefore he hath anointed me to preach the gospel “. St. Peter ( Acts 10:38 ) speaks of “ Jesus of Nazareth : how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost “. St. John tells the faithful: “You have the unction ( chrisma ) from the Holy One, and know all things”; and again: “Let the unction [ chrisma ], which you have received from him, abide in you” ( 1 John 2:20, 27 ).
A striking passage, which was made much use of by the Fathers and the Schoolmen, is that of St. Paul : “He that confirmeth [ ho de bebaion ] us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God, who also hath sealed [ sphragisamenos ] us, and given us the pledge [ arrabona ] of the Spirit in our hearts” ( 2 Corinthians 1:20, 21 ). No mention is made of any particular words accompanying the imposition of hands on either of the occasions on which the ceremony is described; but as the act of imposing hands was performed for various purposes, some prayer indicating the special purpose may have been used: “Peter and John . . . prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost “. Further, such expressions as “signing” and “sealing” may be taken as referring to the character impressed by the sacrament : “You were signed [ esphragisthete ] with the holy Spirit of promise”; “Grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby you are sealed [ esphragisthete ] unto the day of redemption “ ( Ephesians 1:13 ; 4:30 ). See also the passage from Second Corinthians quoted above.
Again, in the Epistle to the Hebrews ( 6:1-4 ) the writer reproaches those whom he addresses for falling back into their primitive imperfect knowledge of Christian truth ; “whereas for the time you ought to be masters, you have need to be taught again what are the first elements of the words of God” ( Hebrews 5:12 ). He exhorts them: “leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect, not laying again the foundation . . . of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands “, and speaks of them as those who have been “once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost “. It is clear that reference is made here to the ceremony of Christian initiation: baptism and the imposition of hands whereby the Holy Ghost was conferred, just as in Acts 2:38 . The ceremony is considered to be so well known to the faithful that no further description is necessary. This account of the practice and teaching of the Apostles proves that the ceremony was no mere examination of those already baptized, no mere profession of faith or renewal of baptismal vows. Nor was it something specially conferred upon the Samaritans and Ephesians. What was done to them was an instance of what was generally bestowed. Nor was it a mere bestowal of charismata ; the Holy Ghost sometimes produced extraordinary effects (speaking with divers tongues, etc.), but these were not necessarily the result of His being given. The practice and teaching of the Church at the present day preserve the primitive type: the imposition of hands, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the privileges of the episcopate.
Current practices may differ slightly amongst the Catholics - perhaps our Orthodox brethren could help us out here.
Gen 11:10-11 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.Shem's other sons are not mentioned here.
Diego did not say that Eve, or the church, was a type of prostitute. He said that the event of having twins by different fathers happened with prostitutes.
It grates my soul because so few people can discern the lie that you proffer.
You believe I lie?
It causes people to turn away from the study of Types, just as numerology has caused people to avoid the study of numbers in scripture.
You continue to study types and I study numbers in scriptures, which is not numerology. We haven't been turned away. Are we the only ones?
Use your same reasoning with believing my "lie" is turning people away from truth with that of some people, that cannot answer the scriptures that have been put forth to prove the position some of us are taking, with calling it heretical, gnostic, racist, posting articles that are filled with lies, etc. That is used to turn them away from the truth too. The only way we know what is and what is not truth and a lie is to read it in the scriptures. Some of us have done that, over and over but few try to actually understand or answer with their rebuttal.
Seven, I do think numbers are important in the Bible but I do not see what you see about the three sons, etc. I can't understand the point you are trying to make, except that because of that theory you believe Cain has to be the son of Adam. When I weigh that theory against the many scriptures telling us that Cain is not of Adam - I'm afraid I must go with the scriptures.
Surely you recognize that this is Christ’s genealogy and that is why Cain is not in it.
I recognize the genealogy of Christ and that of Satan.
...Ping
Do you think the bride of Christ is a virgin?
I can speak only for the position of the Orthodox Church, whether we "qualify' as "fundamentalists" or not.
The Greek meaning of baptiso is to immerse repeatedly. This is not to be confused with bapto which is related but different. This is why the Orthodox Church considers one-time immersion invalid baptism.
Immersion logically implies that something is completely covered or surrounded by that into which one is being immersed. This invalidates sprinkling.
Thus, pouring is acceptable where living water or baptismal pools are unavailable, because pouring envelops the person being baptized completely; sprinkling doesn't.
The concept of being "buried" is also met by pouring but not by sprinkling. If a Latin-Rite Catholic desires to cross over to Eastern Orthodoxy the bishop will do everything to determine if the person was baptized by triple immersion or triple pouring. If it is determined that the Catholic Baptism was done by sprinkling or if there is insufficient evidence to show that the person was baptized by pouring or immersion, the bishop will order baptism.
This is done for the benefit of the soul of the person and not as an affront on the sister Church. If a mistake is made by re-baptizing, the intention was honest and pure and we trust God will discount the second sacrament without penality. But, this way we can be sure that the person is received into the Body of Christ properly and within the Holy Tradition.
There are some far-off fundamentalists in every rite, including those Orthodox who insist that nothing short of triple immersion is true Baptism. Those are few and far inbetween and they do not represent the Orthodox Church in any way.
As regards your biblical verses (Luke 11:38, and related verses Mat 15:2, Mar 7:3), the word nipto means to wash. Luke uses the word baptiso because washing of the hands before meals was accomplished by dunking them into a bowl of water repeatedly. So, Luke did not refer to ceremonial bath, because that would be a practical impossibility in most cases, whereas washing your hands (by dipping) is hygienically prudent given that people handled live stock or had bowel movements and did other things that made their hands less then suitable to touch food (which was served in a common dish from which everyone dipped, and not on individual plates).
I think that if she is to be a bride of Christ she had better be a virgin or she will not take part in the first resurrection.
I understand what you are saying in that you are comparing Eve to the church and how could she be a virgin if she had sex with Satan. Eve is not the church. She is the mother of all living because Christ would come through her and if you believe in Him you will have everlasting life. Through her also came Cain and if you follow his father you will be judged to hell.
Churches may teach that Eve is the church but I have not yet found it in scripture. It may be, but I have never seen it. Until I do I will continue to believe that is one of the traditions of man.
When you say, "the bride of Christ is a virgin" it isn't speaking about a church but rather those that remain faithful (do not commit adultery with the anti-christ). They do not fall for his deceit at the end of days. That is how this "type" of virginity is maintained. Staying true to our Saviour.
......Ping
Please explain to me what you are trying to show in the scriptures you gave. I see the tribes and I see a type of Christ. Both are to be a light to the world. Is the Gen.1:18 a reference to that light, a spiritual light? Which verse do you believe is about the actual sun and moon?
I don't mean to be dense (but apparently I am).
I'm looking forward to your reply and remember, we don't all think as deeply as Thinkin' Gal.
.......Ping
Excellent post! It shows the depth and comprehensive scriptural nature of out Holy Tradition rather than being simply select verses and private interpretations.
As regards the Orthodox practice, the infants are baptized and chrismated at the same time. The godparent(s), who must be Orthodox, are witnesses who thereby promise to raise the infant in faith. In Orthodoxy, the involvement of godparents is a paramount responsibility and honor. The charism is applied immediately after the baptism of water. Therefore, all those baptized in the Orthodox Church (adults or infants) receive baptism of water and the Holy Spirit at the same time. This practice is as old as the Church.
I must confess that the Orthodox Church also treats Catholic converts in a way that is difficult to justify. Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians (Copts), whose Christological heresies are a major stumbling block to Orthodoxy, are received into the Orthodox Church simply by profession of faith (the Creed).
I suppose this is done because the Copts, although technically still separated, perform their Baptism the way the Church has done from the beginning, which is no different than the Eastern Orthodox manner: water baptism followed by chrismation.
The Catholics, at least of the Latin-Rite, are received either by re-baptising them (if the bishop cannot determine how the person was baptized, i.e. by triple sprinkling or by triple pouring/immersion) and chrismation or by chrismation alone (if it is determined that water baptism was done correctly). The problem with it is that this is how the heretics, such as Arians, are received into the Orthodox Church!
Like the Copts, the Arians are Christological heretics and while some may argue that the Roman Catholic profession of Filioque amounts to Trinitarian heresy, the fact remains that Copts are received by profession of Orthodox Faith and others require chrismation.
I am not sure how are converts to Orthodoxy received among the 2% Catholics of the Byzantine-Rite whose baptism is identical to the Orthodox practice. I would imagine they are received by confession of faith as well, but I have no documentation to provide this.
So, clearly there is some divergence of standards for reasons not fully understood by me. I know that the Eastern Church at one time summarily re-baptized any Catholic convert. However, this was isolated to certain Orthodox Churches (such as Slavonic ones, Russian, Serbian, etc.) and not across the board. Also, I am unaware of why their bishops chose to apply the strictest oiknomia in these cases (although strictness is always the rule).
I am trying to determine whether the historical claims made in the Bible are considered revelations. Specifically, claims such as those that lead people to assert the earth is 6000 or so years old and that it was once covered to the mountaintops by water.
If they are not revelations, then they can be studied by forensic methods, and forensic methodologies are the appropriate approach.
There are, of course, uncountable instances where people have asserted that something has been revealed to them. There are millions of members of respectable denominations in the United States that have their origin in rather specific revelations.
I am just trying to understand when a statement qualifies as a revelation and when it does not.
We could say fairly closely which brand of heresy is being touted with that and other assertions commonly seen nearly everywhere, but it wouldn't move anybody closer to or farther from where they need to be.
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.