Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
“It is so often claimed “The Church” gave us the Scriptures implying it was solely at the direction of the Church in Rome. It is really not the case. Technically, “The Church” did compile the canon, but “The Church” was not a centralized hierarchy at that point.”
Perhaps one of the advantages of a forum like this one is the opportunity for non Roman Western Christians to learn a bit of Church history and understand that the Great Schism in 1053 saw Rome break with the other four Patriarchates which continued on in their very decentralized way to this very day. The ecclesial experience of non Roman Western Christians has been with a very, very centralized, monarchial papal system. Without passing judgment one way or the other on that system, that system, the one which the Reformers rebelled against, is very different from what we have and had in the East.
Centuries of apologetics and polemics in the West have tended to create in the minds of many Church histories which are far more myth than reality.
You will not get that claim form the Orthodox, wmfights. The Church was One, because it professed the same faith. The Church was not centralized or ruled by Rome. The Church was (and in the East still is) a communion of local churchers, led by local bishops united in Eucharist.
Having read Revelation several times now and being as confused now as I was the first time I understand the hesitancy to include it.
I appreciate your honesty and I don't think any less of you as a Chrstian because of this. Greater minds than ours struggled with that Book, and I think it is a great sign of Christian humility to admit that it is above some of us, especially myself.
Origen was very quick to point out it's recent appearance and questionable details.
The Church took it as true although not scriptural. It is a historical account that also reflects the belief of the Church at that time, namely that the Blessed Theotokos remained a virgin after the Birth of her Son, just as she remained a virgin at His conception.
Which Church?
Origen noted that "while the notion might seem pious, it was not unlikely that the obvious interpretation of Scripture (that Mary bore them for Joseph) was true and acceptable" when talking about the brothers of Jesus.
It is eye opening how that forgery followed so shortly after the forgery "the Acts of Paul and Thekla". In this case it was Tertullian who quickly noted it being a forgery. What makes it all so interesting is Thekla is written about at length. Her praise of virginity. She was a devoted disciple. Her aggressive evangelism and refusal to be "pushed around" by men. Tertulian complains some Christians were using Thekla as an example to legitimate women's roles of teaching and baptizing in the church.
It's a good thing that those of the other school of thought had an example of a submissive, quiet woman content to sit in the background, Mary. The shame of it is in both cases the books were forgeries.
I keep praying for you brother. One day, only God knows when, you will come around.
“The shame of it is in both cases the books were forgeries.”
Well, yeah, I suppose so, but knowing that, and understanding, if not accepting as “gospel truth”, that these works reflect the beliefs of The Church at the time, what difference does it make who wrote them?
By the way, I assume you know that both Origen and Tertullian ended up terrible heretics. Bad enough that we quote them on occasion. For a Reformed Christian to do so is quite something given what they ended up preaching.
“One day, only God knows when, you will come around.”
And God knows I need all the prayers I can get, being, as I am, a miserable sinner, among the worst. And you may be right. I might change. With God all things are possible. Look how he kept my people Orthodox through 1800 years, centuries of which were spent under the heal of the Mohammedan Eastern Barbarians...and our faith never waivered. Even here in this land of temptation and ease and license, we still worship as we have for those 1800 years. :)
I know, one day heretics, next day saints and then heretics again. What we are seeing in their histories is towards the end of the second century original thought would not be acceptable. It also coincides with a growing authority structure.
I really don't have a problem with people exploring all kinds of ideas as long as in the end there is clear support within Scripture.
Anyway as almost always it's interesting to get a different perspective.
How quick?
Which Church?
The One and Only, catholic and Apostolic that brought you the Bible.
Origen noted that "while the notion might seem pious, it was not unlikely that the obvious interpretation of Scripture (that Mary bore them for Joseph) was true and acceptable" when talking about the brothers of Jesus
Origen also taught a universal salvation and pre-existence of the souls. So, it doesn't surprise me that he taught Mary had children with Joseph.
Tertulian complains some Christians were using Thekla as an example to legitimate women's roles of teaching and baptizing in the church
Tertullian embraced a sect that taught that their prophesies were higher than those of the apostles.
Both Origen and Tertullian are fine examples that brilliant theologians are not immune to falling in grave error. If you rely on such souces, you might as well use Marcion and Valntius while you are at it!
Well said. :)
Then show me "Bibe only" in the scriptures. Also show me where the authors claim their hands are guided by the Holy Spirit.
sorry that should be “Bible only.”
“”No, the Holy Spirit has led me and millions of others differently than the teachings of SOME of the members of YOUR early Church””
Oh,Dear Brother,don’t you realize that the gospels teach that a prophet is without honor is his own home and those early Church fathers were persecuted by those majority(your millions)
To truly stand for Christ is to be willing to suffer and be persecuted by the masses,especially in the horrible age we currently live in.
Your millions do not want to hear this message,Dear Brother
This message is NOT what the millions want to follow,including those false liberal so called Catholic’s who do not follow the teachings of the Church!
Actually, I checked on this, and Origen confirms that the "brothers" of Jesus were children of Josph's by the previous wife. Please provide a source that shows Origen saying "Mary bore them for Joseph."
It is eye opening how that forgery followed so shortly after the forgery "the Acts of Paul and Thekla". In this case it was Tertullian who quickly noted it being a forgery
It was a popular myth. It reflected the early Christian reality of sacrifice and perseverance and persecution. Tertullian objected to it because Montanists and Gnostics had problems with women in authority.
The myth was widespread and popular but it was never elevated to scripture by any local church as far as I know.
The Protoevangelium of James or the Gospel of James the Just was a reflection of what the Church believed or wanted to believe. Just as it is in the Old Testament, some of the events described are mythological and allegorical, but they reflect the wide-held belief that they were true.
Besides the two heretics, Orgien and Tertullian, can you come up with anyone else objecting to Mary's perpetual virginity in the early Church or, for that matter, in the first 1,500 years of the Church? By the way, Origen's comments are traced back to the early 3rd century, a time of his complete fall into heresy.
I’ll show you Bible only when you show me where God says the EO is the ONLY church.
Okay, I think I get that. But as for clergy being superior? Not personally. Not at all. (It is to laugh!) Just as there are many quite virtuous atheists, certainly more virtuous than I, so also there are pastors outside the Catholic clergy who are paragons in many respects. Not far from here is a very holy Baptist pastor.
Well, I will say that I can't imagine a single Catholic (good) priest lording his superiority and powers over the laity. I don't think we see that. However, what I am talking about is the group, and the claims of the group. The actual words are never there, which is fine, I wouldn't admit to it either, probably. :) But I DO see a sentiment there.
BTW, don't sell yourself short. If there were more virtuous atheists than me IN GOD'S EYES, then I would be forced to re-examine my entire Christianity. I am happy to slide you the benefit of the doubt. :)
I THINK you'll find that most Catholics view most Catholic clergy with genial contempt, or sometimes sullen contempt.
Even in the good spirited manner in which I know (believe? :) you say this, I confess I had no idea. :)
FK: My only point was that under some guise of "to whom much is given much will be expected" one would expect to see something different in the Apostolic clergy and hierarchy, as opposed to other Christian clergy.
In all our dreams. But the world as we greet it gives us clergy, especially bishops and popes with whom Dante cheerily litters the floors of the Inferno.
Yes, and I can intellectually accept that with no slam on your clergy because mine are perhaps no better pound for pound. My beef is with the claims.
BUT I really don't trouble myself in my day to day life about whether this or that is "mortal". I know that seems to run counter to the whole shtick. I hit the confessional every 2 or 3 weeks and, as I say, for me it's an exercise in putting my claim to trust in God to the test. If I trust God, then surely I can bear the embarrassment of telling father so-and-so not only that but how I messed up.
You evidence to me that you are a devout and practicing Catholic. I do believe that you practice the words that you preach. My PURELY anecdotal experience with other Catholics in the business world has been that most are not such as you. I know that my personal observation is no where good enough to disqualify Catholicism, but I make it nonetheless to raise the issue of what the typical Catholic thinks. The "Johnny lunchpail" Catholic. Or, closer to me, the "Joe six-pack" Catholic. :) My brotherly concern is over what the uneducated and untrained Catholic thinks about confession and salvation. Again, PURELY anecdotally, I have known many Catholics who show no sort of understanding of true Catholic doctrine (and to some extent dogma) as you and others here clearly do have, for real. That gives me great concern over the EFFECT that the power structure has on the every day Catholic. I see SOME (not all) of them living in fear over what men pronounce that is extra-scriptural.
And I GUESS the point of that is to say that I think, experientially, if my experience is anything to go by, the "theology" of confession is over here and the practice is over there. I do not go to "get into heaven" or even to "restore my relationship with God SO THAT I can get into heaven." I go because I'm minimally less of a difficult scoundrel when I go than when I don't.
OK, I won't throw rocks at that testimony. I take you at your word. I would just ask you to consider how things look to us others who see the powers that are claimed on behalf of the hierarchy. I would also add that we confess too, though not to a priest, and it may be perhaps for similar reasons that you do in the biggest picture.
Wow, God! I offended you and for my alleged punishment you want me to submit myself to your grace by opening myself to you in prayer! Is that a deal or what?
YES, that is a wonderful deal. When one has the faith to KNOW that God forgives, as you have said, then one can begin to have an understanding of God's forgiveness, without uninspired material.
Now, I DO know one lady who might possibly meet the expectation of being all in a dither because she said, "Drat!" and is afraid she might die before she gets absolution. But that strikes me as a problem more for the psychiatrist or some kind of counselor than for the theologian.
I worry that many are like this lady. (I don't lose sleep or anything, but I DO care for you guys. :) I'm just mostly going on anecdotal experience, and on the academic theology that I'm being given.
As far as SOME of the pro-forma slams on Calvinists and Babdissts go, you will note I don't play.
YES, I DO note that, and I thank you. :)
When I had been in Seminary a short while, I was in my official seminary duds and ended up after the official stuff dropping in on a couple who were friends at college. About ten minutes into the visit I noted that she (former Catholic of the Eyetalian persuasion) was "waiting on me", and brought it to her attention. Whereupon she laughed and was shocked at herself. The black shirt has some mojo, I guess, huh?
So there WAS one strand of RC culture that involved at least social deference to the clergy.
At my current, we all know that the three Friars work their fannies off, and they're the best of what it is to be Dominican: smart, studious, prayerful, good preachers and teachers, GREAT sense of humor, and working ALL the time. But what that means in practice is that they get a lot of joke presents and stuff and elaborate pranks -- or they tell jokes on each other.
And the two places where I see what might be taken as arrogance of "class" (and what IS in fact truly that arrogance, sometimes) is in the area (1) of being a sort of "custodian of the mysteries", and (2) of having an advisory role in how diocesan monies get allocated to poor churches.
But back in the "genial contempt" area I offer these two anecdotes: Fr. Ralph priest in my previous parish, whom I really like and who is the one guy I know who ever spent serious sermon time on the Epistle to Diognetus (so how bad can he be?), preaches sermons both terrible and wonderful. Terrible because he'll get lost in mid sentence and commune with his thoughts for 10 seconds (which is a LONG silence in a sermon!). Wonderful because, as far as I'm conerned, it's worth the wait. He's a pinko, socially/politically, but he doesn't let that leak into his sermons, and his sermons completely delight me.
So much so that I said to a fellow parishioner, "Ralph is an awesome preacher!" to which she gave a snort and said, "No he isn't, he's TERRIBLE!"
Anecdote #2: (Remember were out in the boonies here.) So Ralph wants a new utility shed on the grounds that the door blew off he old one and the door was pretty much the only think holding it up and if we don't do something soon, we're just going to have a pile of lumber where the utility shed was.
For some reason the Parish Council doesn't want to spend the money or effort on a new utility shed. One day a member tells me that they're just going to agree to everything Ralph says but not do anything about it.
As you can imagine, that's not really the way I do business, but I was in learning and beholding mode, so I just hung back and tried to learn from this.
Now both of these people love Ralph, and he's very lovable so it would be a blot on their characters if they didn't." But there is next to zero "Yes, sir; Oh, sir, Please, sir," going on.
And the priest they had before Ralph (and before I was Catholic ...) Wow. Zero respect there. None deserved either, as far as I can tell.
I don't know how, whether I can or should make your "beef" about the claims go away. It is the sort of "objective" nature of the indelible "character" of ordination that it is divorced from the personal qualities of the priest. He is more a custodian in that respect. And, well, I guess you have to stipulate and appreciate the "vibe" of a sacramental system ... When, as is usual, I confess to Fr. A, I do so for the continuity and because he usually has a helpful slant on the weakness and sin I am confessing, so his counsel is easy for me to make use of. When Fr A is out of town, I may go to Fr. B. His counsel is way more "pro forma", and I consider it as such. In neither case am I sort of awe struck by their persons.
Of course, I suppose some people never really emotionally get past the childish thing of confusing the pastor with God. I dunno.
My brotherly concern is over what the uneducated and untrained Catholic thinks about confession and salvation. Again, PURELY anecdotally, I have known many Catholics who show no sort of understanding of true Catholic doctrine
I would file this under "lilies that fester ..." I mean this: If the local parish (which is going to mean the laity, the priest can't do it all) is not going to provide good instruction, or if the parents neither bring their little ones to "Sunday School" nor instruct them themselves, how much can the inevitable misconceptions that result be laid at the Church's feet?
The notion of "subsidiarity", that responsibility should devolve "downward" to the person closest to the scene, is not only just and practical, but also frustrating. And the common risk in an ex opere operato world is that it has plenty of accommodation for people whose idea about God is that he's a malevolent and grouchy gate-keeper, a Cerberus who can be quited only with a frequently punched ticket.
A lot of horses come to the RC trough. Not all of them drink, despite our pleas, admonitions and blandishments. Can their being thirsty justly be laid to our charge then?
Okay, I see that I'm achieving Moby Dick length here. I'd better wrap this up.
YEAH I get what it looks like form the outside. Don't forget I WAS on the outside, I didn't grow up in here. I FEAR for people whose attitude about being Catholic is so mechanistic: 'I put a "hail Mary" in here, and a chunk o' grace comes out there! Cool!' It seems all one can do for them is pray that God yanks their chain at some point.
About the LOL (Little old lady, in this usage) who is all anxious about being hit by a truck before she confesses her minced oath: I think a kind of sinful need for distance is see by thinking of God as an exacting, anal-compulsive school master. I think in a funny way the proclamation of the unconditional love of God is frightening because it takes away all possible justification for trying to "defend" oneself from Him. I have no excuse for holding Him at arm's length. I am familiar with the dead and mechanistic world, where I pay for the gs, and then the car goes; and if I don't change the oil I have only myself to blame, etc. IN a certain sense I have the illusion of control in such a world.
A world in which God loves me completely and unreservedly and in which all HE wants from me in return is, uh, my entire self .... well, I'm back to my image of backing over the cliff and putting my money whee my mouf is about trusting the ropes and knots to keep me alive and safe.,P>My suspicion is the most ardent Sola Scriptura type is tempted to use his mastery of Scripture as a way to confine God to his own notions, and the most ardent sacramentalist is tempted to make God a divine vending machine -- and we should pray for both that book and sacrament come alive (or, rather, manifest the life they have and are) in their hands and preach the majesty of God to them and bring them to their senses, so that, like Job, they can rejoice to abase themselves in dust and ashes.
Blah blah blah. My cat doesn't want me to type any more. You can thank Him. Name of Clint Junior Lightning.
That's because there is no such thing as "Bible only" in the Bible. As for the EOC, it is the same Church that gave you the bible. You don't have to show me anything.
AMEN! AMEN!
Oh, my. Maybe one day God will explain the truth to you. Apparently nobody here can reach you through your own heresies.
Never mind what Theodore had to say. He can be as wrong as you apparently are at times. I’m more interested in what scripture has to say, not some church father. You can’t say one decent thing about God’s people, can you? If they don’t kowtow to your own personal ideas, they must be apostate. Phew.
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.