Posted on 08/07/2009 9:00:03 AM PDT by Teófilo
Folks, Elizabeth Mahlou, my fellow blogger from Blest Atheist, asked me one of those “big questions” which necessitate its own blog post. Here is the question:
I am a Catholic who upon occasion attends Orthodox services because of my frequent travels in Eastern European countries. The differences in the masses are obvious, but I wonder what the differences in the theology are. I don't see much. Is that something that you can elucidate?
I welcome this question because, as many of you know, I belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church for about four years and in many ways, I still am “Orthodox” (please, don’t ask me elucidate the seeming contradiction at this time, thank you). This question allows me to wear my “Orthodox hat” which still fits me, I think. If you are an Orthodox Christian and find error or lack of clarity in what I am about to say, feel free to add your own correction in the Comments Section.
Orthodox Christians consider the differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches as both substantial and substantive, and resent when Catholics trivialize them. Though they recognize that both communions share a common “Tradition” or Deposit of Faith, they will point out that the Roman Catholic Church has been more inconsistently faithful – or more consistently unfaithful – to Tradition than the Orthodox Church has been in 2000 years of Christian history. Generally, all Orthodox Christians would agree, with various nuances, with the following 12 differences between their Church and the Catholic Church. I want to limit them to 12 because of its symbolic character and also because it is convenient and brief:
1. The Orthodox Church of the East is the Church that Christ founded in 33 AD. She is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. All other churches are separated from by schism, heresy, or both, including the Roman Catholic Church.I think this will do it for now. I invite my Orthodox Christian brethren to agree, disagree, or add your own. Without a doubt, - I am speaking as a Catholic again - what we have in common with the Orthodox Church is immense, but what keeps us apart is important, challenging, and not to be underestimated.
2. Jesus Christ, as Son of God is divine by nature, as born of the Virgin Mary, True Man by nature, alone is the head of the Church. No hierarch, no bishop, no matter how exalted, is the earthly head of the Church, since Jesus Christ’s headship is enough.
3. All bishops are equal in their power and jurisdiction. Precedence between bishops is a matter of canonical and therefore of human, not divine law. “Primacies” of honor or even jurisdiction of one bishop over many is a matter of ecclesiastical law, and dependent bishops need to give their consent to such subordination in synod assembled.
4. The Church is a communion of churches conciliar in nature; it is not a “perfect society” arranged as a pyramid with a single monarchical hierarch on top. As such, the Orthodox Church gives priority to the first Seven Ecumenical Councils as having precedent in defining the nature of Christian belief, the nature and structure of the Church, and the relationship between the Church and secular government, as well as the continuation of synodal government throughout their churches to this day.
5. Outside of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church receives with veneration various other regional synods and councils as authoritative, but these are all of various national churches, and always secondary in authority to the first seven. They do not hold the other 14 Western Councils as having ecumenical authority.
6. Orthodox Christians do not define “authority” in quite the same way the Catholic Church would define it in terms of powers, jurisdictions, prerogatives and their interrelationships. Orthodox Christian would say that “authority” is inimical to Love and in this sense, only agape is the one firm criterion to delimit rights and responsibilities within the Church. Under this scheme, not even God himself is to be considered an “authority” even though, if there was a need of one, it would be that of God in Christ.
7. The Orthodox Church holds an anthropology different from that of the Catholic Church. This is because the Orthodox Church does not hold a forensic view of Original Sin, that is, they hold that the sin of Adam did not transmit an intrinsic, “guilt” to his descendants. “Ancestral Sin,” as they would call it, transmitted what may be termed as a “genetic predisposition” to sin, but not a juridical declaration from God that such-a-one is “born in sin.” Hyper-Augustinianism, Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed, is impossible in Orthodox anthropology because according to the Orthodox, man is still essentially good, despite his propensity to sin. By the way, even what Catholics would consider a “healthy Augustinianism” would be looked at with suspicion by most Orthodox authorities. Many trace “the fall” of the Latin Church to the adoption of St. Augustine as the West’s foremost theological authority for 1,000 years prior to St. Thomas Aquinas. The best evaluations of St. Augustine in the Orthodox Church see him as holy, well-meaning, but “heterodox” in many important details, starting with his anthropology.
8. Since no “forensic guilt” is transmitted genetically through “Original Sin,” the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Mother is considered superfluous. She had no need for such an exception because there was nothing to exempt her from in the first place. Of course, Mary is Theotokos (“God-bearer”), Panagia (“All-Holy”) and proclaimed in every Liturgy as “more honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim,” but her sanctification is spoken about more in terms of a special, unique, total, and gratuitous bestowing and subsequent indwelling of the Spirit in her, without the need of “applying the merits of the atonement” of Christ to her at the moment of conception, in order to remove a non-existent forensic guilt from her soul, as the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception would have it. If pressed, Orthodox authorities would point at the Annunciation as the “moment” in which this utter experience of redemption and sanctification took place in the life of the Blessed Theotokos. Although the Orthodox believe in her Assumption, they deny that any individual hierarch has any power to singly and unilaterally define it as a dogma binding on the whole Church, and that only Councils would have such power if and when they were to proclaim it and its proclamations received as such by the entire Church.
9. Although Orthodox Christians have at their disposal various institutions of learning such as schools, universities, and seminaries, and do hold “Sunday Schools,” at least in the USA, it is fair to say that the main catechetical vehicle for all Orthodox peoples is the Divine Liturgy. All the liturgical prayers are self-contained: they enshrine the history, the story, the meaning, and the practical application of what is celebrated every Sunday, major feast, and commemoration of angels, saints, and prophets. If one pays attention – and “Be attentive” is a common invitation made throughout the Divine Liturgy – the worshipper catches all that he or she needs to know and live the Orthodox faith without need for further specialized education. For this very reason, the Divine Liturgy, more than any other focus of “power and authority,” is the true locus of Orthodox unity and the principal explanation for Orthodox unity and resiliency throughout history.
10. Since the celebration of the Divine Liturgy is overwhelmingly important and indispensable as the vehicle for True Christian Worship – one of the possible translations of “orthodoxy” is “True Worship – and as a teaching vehicle – since another possible translation of “orthodoxy” is “True Teaching” – all the ecclesiastical arts are aimed at sustaining the worthy celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Iconography in the Eastern Church is a mode of worship and a window into heaven; the canons governing this art are strict and quite unchanging and the use of two-dimensional iconography in temples and chapels is mandatory and often profuse. For them, church architecture exists to serve the Liturgy: you will not find in the East “modernistic” temples resembling auditoriums. Same thing applies to music which is either plain chant, or is organically derived from the tones found in plain chant. This allows for “national expressions” of church music that nevertheless do not stray too far away from the set conventions. Organ music exists but is rare; forget guitars or any other instrument for that matter. Choral arrangements are common in Russia – except in the Old Calendarist churches – the Orthodox counterparts to Catholic “traditionalists.”
11. There are Seven Sacraments in the Orthodox Church, but that’s more a matter of informal consensus based on the perfection of the number “seven” than on a formal dogmatic declaration. Various Orthodox authorities would also argue that the tonsure of a monk or the consecration of an Emperor or other Orthodox secular monarch is also a sacramental act. Opinion in this instance is divided and the issue for them still open and susceptible to a final dogmatic definition in the future, if one is ever needed.
12. The end of man in this life and the next is similar between the Orthodox and the Catholics but I believe the Orthodox “sing it in a higher key.” While Catholics would say that the “end of man is to serve God in this life to be reasonably happy in this life and completely happy in the next,” a rather succinct explanation of what being “holy” entails, the Orthodox Church would say that the end of man is “deification.” They will say that God became man so that man may become “god” in the order of grace, not of nature of course. Men – in the Greek the word for “man” still includes “womankind” – are called to partake fully of the divine nature. There is no “taxonomy” of grace in the Orthodox Church, no “quantification” between “Sanctifying Grace” and actual grace, enabling grace, etc. Every grace is “Sanctifying Grace,” who – in this Catholic and Orthodox agree – is a Person, rather than a created power or effect geared to our sanctification. Grace is a continuum, rather than a set of discreet episodes interspersed through a Christian’s life; for an Orthodox Christian, every Grace is Uncreated. The consequences of such a view are rich, unfathomable, and rarely studied by Catholic Christians.
Thank you Elizabeth for motivating me to write these, and may the Lord continue to bless you richly.
And you consider yourself a Wikipedia scholar? :)
The first Google "hit" gives, lo and behold, References to Apocrypha in the New Testament! :)
| Mt 6:7 | Sir 7:14 |
| Mt 23:37 | 4 Ez 1:30 |
| Mt 27:43 | Wis 2:15f |
| Lk 6:31 | Tob 4:15 |
| Lk 14:13 | Tob 4:7 |
| Jn 10:22 | 1Macc 4:59 |
| Rom 9:21 | Wis 15:7 |
| Rom 11:34 | Wis 9:13 |
| 2Cor 9:7 | Sir 35:9 |
| Heb 1:3 | Wis 7:26 |
| Heb 11:35 | 2 Macc 7:7 |
Source: http://www.biblewiki.be/wiki/References_to_the_Apocrypha_in_the_New_Testament
I would also add Jude's two quotes from the Book of Enoch, which doesn't even qualify as "apocrypha."
Here is an interesting question:
If the Book of Timothy should be restricted TO Timothy because that is who the author was talking to, then should the words of Jesus "do this in remembrance of Me" be limited to only the 12 apostles, since they were the persons he was addressing?
Why do you "personalize" and isolate some Scripture, but not others, when in both cases the words were directed to an individual or a small group of people?
And then you Catholics join us Protestants and ignore the original canon as constructed by the Orthodox church (with the additions of Scripture).
How does that make you feel, knowing your church picked and chose which books to include in its own version of the Scripture?
Let’s look at a few of those quotes...
Mt 6.7: “7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.”
and Sirach 7.14: “Thrust not yourself into the deliberations of princes, and repeat not the words of your prayer.”
That isn’t a quote. That is a momentarily parallel thought. Compare it to a quote like:
“17This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:
“He took up our infirmities
and carried our diseases.”
See the difference?
Next, Matt 23.37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.”
4 Ezra 1: “30: I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.”
How about Ruth 2 “The LORD recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.”
There are a ton of references to God sheltering us with his wings...now compare that to a quote: “”Have you not read this Scripture: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;”
Matt 27.43: “43 He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”
Do you REALLY consider that to be a scripture quote? REALLY?
And you consider yourself a Google-hit scholar?
:>)
I already went thru about a dozen “Apocrypha quotes” from a list of 80-some...they were all like this.
What I wrote was specific: “the absence of any quotes of authority”
No “Scripture says”, or “Have you not read” - just things like, ‘many died as martyrs’ - as if that concept was only found in the Apocrypha!
I would add that Paul used pagan prophets for illustration: “12 Even one of their own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”
But notice he did NOT say, We know Cretians are bad, for have you not read, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”.
The Apocrypha proper are not scripture. You probalby want, since you seem to attempt a serious discussion, are talking about the Deuterocanon. That is a part of the Septuagint, the Greek scripture. St. Paul also wrote the Epistle in Greek. If St. Paul wanted to make distinctions between parts of one fixed set of Greek books, he would have.
About the Jews, we don't care. They did not consider the Book of Matthews scripture either.
The Apostles did not quote from a lot of books, and at least two quotes in the NT are not from canonical books. So that is not a criterion of canonicity. Isn't it on this very thread we discussed that?
Define “Church”.
The Church is the body of believers united to the single orthodox doctrine, catholic in its universality, organized around the sacramental life of the Church which makes them all parts of the Mystical Body of Christ through partaking of the divine nature, built by Christ through the guidance of the Holy Spirit on the faith and person of St. Peter.
Ask Mr Rogers, to whose insistence that Christ promised the Holy Spirit to the individuals forming the Church, but not to the Church, I was responding.
ignore the original canon as constructed by the Orthodox church
We do not have substantial differences about the canon with the Orthodox. We include the Deuterocanon, and so do they. The minor disctintions that we have with them do not represent a doctrinal division between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.
“The Apocrypha proper are not scripture. You probalby want, since you seem to attempt a serious discussion, are talking about the Deuterocanon.”
From Wikipedia: “Deuterocanonical is a term first coined in 1566 by the theologian Sixtus of Siena, who had converted to Catholicism from Judaism, to describe scriptural texts of the Old Testament whose canonicity was explicitly defined for Catholics by the Council of Trent, but which had been omitted by some early canon lists, especially in the East.”
As best I can figure it - and I admit I may be all screwed up on this - the Apocrypha covers what was found in the old Vulgate as ‘scripture’. However, the Council of Trent didn’t list 3 books (3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses), although it said “it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.”
So scripture or not? The old Vulgate, held to be authentic, had the entire Apocrypha. The Clementine Vulgate, in the 1590s (from Wikipedia):
“The Clementine differed from the manuscripts on which it was ultimately based in that it grouped the various prefaces of St. Jerome together at the beginning, and it removed 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses from the Old Testament and placed them into an appendix...The Clementine Vulgate of 1592 became the standard Bible text of the Roman Rite of the Roman Catholic Church until 1979, when the Nova Vulgata was promulgated.”
So as best I can figure it, prior to the Council of Trent, the APOCRYPHA was held to be scripture by the Catholic Church. The Council of Trent introduced uncertainty, and in 1556 a Catholic theologian coined the term “Deuterocanon” to describe the reduced Apocrypha.
This raises the question, why were they ‘scripture’ from 397(?) AD until the Council of Trent, but not afterward?
“That is a part of the Septuagint, the Greek scripture. St. Paul also wrote the Epistle in Greek. If St. Paul wanted to make distinctions between parts of one fixed set of Greek books, he would have.”
The Septuagint was a collection of religious writings translated into Greek. All the indications from Jewish sources that I’ve seen are that the Apocrypha was considered good books for reading but not authoritative - and this was PRIOR to the birth of Jesus. That was Jerome’s understanding as well, which is why he objected to putting the Apocrypha into the Vulgate. He was overruled, but many followed his lead in considering the Apocrypha to be good for illustration, but not for doctrine (which would make it not scripture, since ALL scripture is good for...).
After Martin Luther, the Council of Trent made a ruling that sort of included the entire Apocrypha, but only listed by name what is now referred to as the Deuterocanon - the term invented to describe the reduced Apocrypha. Meanwhile, the Orthodox continue to use all of the Apocrypha.
So it is a bit of a mess, particularly for Catholics. The Protestants are consistent in rejecting all of the Apocrypha, as did the Jews. The Orthodox are consistent in accepting all of the Apocrypha, as did the Catholics prior to Trent. The Catholics accepted the Apocrypha until Trent, and then accepted part and rejected part...which is not consistent.
Of course, I could be all screwed up- on this, so I’m willing to be set straight. This is well outside my normal reading.
“If the Book of Timothy should be restricted TO Timothy because that is who the author was talking to...”
Naturally, Timothy applies to all of us. When Paul wrote, “4Recalling your tears, I long to see you, so that I may be filled with joy.”, we know he was talking to Timothy, not all believers or a Church organization - he wasn’t longing to see Mr Rogers, or the Baptist Church, but Timothy.
But when he says “All scripture is good for...”, it applies to everyone, not just Timothy. It is a general statement.
The promise of the Holy Spirit was made to individuals, not a church body. When Jesus said. “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”, he is obviously talking to individuals who believe, not all individuals or a church organization.
There are a handful of scripture passages that are unclear, and need study and humility. The vast majority of it is easy to understand, if it is just read like any other book.
But I also noticed you said nothing of Jude's verses from the Book of Enoch, quoted as if they were scripture, because they are quoted verbatim. I am sure there are other instances to be found of similar nature.
I am just too lazy to look for them in my notes because I am "over the hump," so to say, with my infatuation with what I once believed wholeheartedly was the pristine word of God, since that's what I was told by very nice people (who also told me about Sanata Claus and then admitted they lied about him).
When you have discovered a thousand reasons to shatter this belief, what will one more do? So, you leave digging to others who are not there—yet. But if you dig, you will get there, sooner or later (and it's quite liberating once you get over the anger). You can be certain of that. Remember: Bible is for believers of truth, not seekers of truth. If you believe, you have no reason to seek. Those who seek doubt.
Now, remember Luke? Luke 4:4 exists in two versions, one of which is a misquote of Deuteronomy 8:3 (and God would not misquote himself, would he?). Or, take Hebrews 8, the author outright changes the OT quote and excludes the tribe of Judah towards the end (for a good Christian reason), and sandwiches New Testament text (!) into the OT prophesy, making it look as if it were part of the OT prophesy.
In fact the entire supposedly "quote" from God (Heb 8:8-13) is an alphabet soup of cherry-picked verses from Jeremiah, Exodus, Luke, 2 Cor, Isaiah and Hebrews (using itself as reference!). Neat, huh?
Many of the OT quotes in the NT are either incorrect or actually made up of several cherry-picked and often unrelated OT verses, yet you don't terat them with the same razor you apply to parallels frawn or quoted from "apocryphal" verses.
But the "apocrypha" are no exception. It's your choice to believe one and reject the other. That's the only citerium that makes some books 'holy" an dother profane; you. And how perfect oruniversally true or divine is that?
Once this is realized, one also realizes the degree of manipulation that took place not only in creating scriptures but also in deriving doctrine from them, and using the same to justify itself.
But the fact is that Christians used the "apocrypha" from the earliest days onward, period. The rabbis at Jamnia (AD 90) rejected Christians scriptures (Septuagint, Epistles and Gospels) not only because they were written in Greek vs Hebrew (and that's another bogus argument, because parts of the OT are written in Aramaic and not in Hebrew and are acceptable to the rabbis—conveniently), but because they also used books the Pharisees did not use, i.e. the "apocrypha."
So, then, whose side are you on? The Apostolic Church of the 1st century or the Pharisees? It was not until Jerome (early fifth century), who was brainwashed by Christ-hating Pharisee rabbis, that anyone in the Church raised objections to the so-called OT apocrypha as being part of the Christian canon, and after him no one until the Lutheran Deformation.
So, the entire Church, starting with the Gospel writers and Paul were in apostasy until Luther stablished "true" Christianity based on, what a surprise, that pristine document called the Bible!?
It depends which Orthodox Church. The Ethiopian (non-Chalcedonian) Orthodox Church actually counts the Book of Enoch as canon. Also, I believe the Russian Orthodox Church (which represents over 80% of the world Orthodox believers) has one extra book.
I never considered Wiki a scholarly source, but it is a good source if you need info fast. It also usually has links to original documents.
I didn’t quote Jude because of how Jude USED the quote.
“12These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. 13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.
14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” - Jude
Notice, he uses Enoch as an illustration, not as authority for saying it. This is true when Paul quotes the Cretan prophet.
You mention misquotes and cherry-picked quotes. I noticed that when I was in my teens. However, I believe Greek at the time didn’t even have quotation marks - perhaps you can enlighten me on that. However, people back then didn’t take a precise approach to quotes. Often, the general sense was good enough.
As for cherry-picked quotes, we see that in Jewish teachings and in many early church fathers. I’ve read that it was standard practice for Jewish rabbis - again, I’m way out of my area of expertise here, so anyone who wants to correct me is welcome to jump in.
I don’t feel like looking it up, but I believe Augustine covered this in his books on interpreting scripture - dare I say on how to make one’s own personal interpretation of scripture? Of course, that was long before Trent.
I also read about it in an article a month or so ago on interpreting scripture. Like Augustine (IIRC - just got back from a run & don’t feel like digging it out), the guy said to do it rarely, since it is very easy to go astray approaching scripture like that.
“But the “apocrypha” are no exception. It’s your choice to believe one and reject the other. That’s the only citerium that makes some books ‘holy” an dother profane; you.”
This is actually close to the Protestant position. I grant it isn’t logical, but it relies on God’s revelation to an individual. Like the loose interpreting, I don’t recommend folks make a habit of it - some humility in accepting what millions of others have before is called for. But there isn’t any getting around the fact that each individual, in the end, decides what he believes is the Word of God - and if the Bible is correct, each individual will be called to account for the choice he makes.
“If you believe, you have no reason to seek. Those who seek doubt.”
You and I have batted this back and forth between us a fair bit. Those who seek based on REASON doubt. When I was in my 20s, I thought reason could get me to the truth.
I eventually concluded that REASON isn’t adequate, it takes revelation. Reason is like using a 10’ stepladder to paint a 30’ wall - it just doesn’t get you where you need to go. I concluded that reason, by itself, leaves almost nothing but doubt.
We are, after all, told to believe in Jesus - not to think him.
The simple fact remains that the Deuterocanon — the seven books that were excluded by the leaders of the Reformation — were always included in what was referred to as simply The Bible by both the Catholics and the Orthodox. The Apocrypha, — such as the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas — were well read but not included.
Trent simply responded to the Reformation by an infallible statement, but the canon was unchanged.
The other books that you mention, — 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses — never were a source of any theological controversy, so we should not be distracted by it.
Yes, but it surely does not exclude their membership in an organization, does it? We have, however, other passages that urge doctrinal unity in the same group Jesus is speaking to. That would make them collectively, the Church.
“The Apocrypha, — such as the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas — were well read but not included.”
You might want to read up on what the Apocrypha is. Athough it can be used in a general sense to refer to ANY book that has ever been used as scripture, it normally refers to those books found in the Vulgate.
The Council of Trent said the old Vulgate was the standard, but then didn’t list 3 of the books found in the old Vulgate. Oversight or not - I don’t believe there is any record of debate deciding to remove those 3 - it forced the Catholic Church to come up with a new name for the listed books, and to issue a new copy of the Vulgate without those 3.
That is why those 3 are found in English Bibles with the “Apocrypha” - because for at least 1100 years, they were printed as part of the Bible.
It seems Trent changed the canon, although it also seems they didn’t intend to...
But the context is not the same. Jude quotes Enoch as if it were scripture, in a prophetic context. Of course, everything can be rationalized, i.e. find "plausible" explanations for just about anything.
You mention misquotes and cherry-picked quotes. I noticed that when I was in my teens.
All one has to do is look where in the OT is the NT author quoting from and you will discover that most of the time there is no such verse! The NT alleged OT prophesy basically turns out to be put together from cherry-picked verses and made to look like something God uttered in one swoop.
That's not only false and misleading, but outright deceiving. It's no different than saying the New York Times said something based on sentences and words cut out from different sections and making up a new sentence. In my teens I trusted that grownups had enough integrity not to do something like that, because they were teaching me not to deceive, lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do.
However, I believe Greek at the time didn’t even have quotation marks - perhaps you can enlighten me on that
No, of course they didn't use quotation marks. In fact, they used no punctuation or any other markings of the text. The words were not even separated by space, let alone commas, colons or semicolons. Sometimes, this is a source of controversy because depending where you place a comma can change the entire meaning of the verse. Here, too, we have a bottomless pit where human hand and mind can create it's own scripture, and has, with nothing more than individually chosen punctuation.
When ancient writers "quote," they make up a speech as they imagine the character they are quoting would have uttered it. That's paraphrasing at best. Thus, when we run into inconsistencies and contradictions, numerical errors, etc. Bible apologists invoke cultural and other factors. Case in point is Matthew's Gospel where Jesus enters Jerusalem riding two animals.
Apologists say he didn't know the Hebrew term for "and" which is used as "even" in the KJV! Matthew was a Jew, and an inspired Jew who somehow managed to master Greek but not Hebrew. I find that rather strange.
But since Hebrew was not spoken, but rather Aramaic, it is possible that he didn't know the difference (I suppose he was reading Targums instead of the Hebrew Bible). But then we go back to the other argument the apologists like to use, when it's convenient, namely that Matthew wrote according to what the Holy Spirit led him to write, i.e. that it was all really God's own words! Then shall we ask did God not know the difference but rather made a blunder?
This is actually close to the Protestant position. I grant it isn’t logical, but it relies on God’s revelation to an individual. Like the loose interpreting, I don’t recommend folks make a habit of it - some humility in accepting what millions of others have before is called for
Well, if it works for one person, then why not on the whole Catholic Church, or the pope himself? And if some humility is to be exercised for the wisdom and revelation of others, why not the revelation claimed by the Church? You see, both Protestants and Catholics are claiming the same thing; they are just focusing on a different level (corporate vs. individual). When you mock Catholics for their "deposit of faith" I ask you where is yours coming from, and why is yours to be taken as genuine and theirs as mere unsupported claim?
When I was in my 20s, I thought reason could get me to the truth.
That's clearly false, but what makes you believe that lack of reason can? Maybe we don't have the capacity to reach the (absolute) truth. Where is proof that man can, spiritually or rationally, reach the ultimate knowledge (and comprehension!)? It is an assumption that rejects the possibility that perhaps man is not capable of such a feat any more than your dog is capable of understanding why you do what you do, what paying bills means, or what and where the United States is on something known as planet earth.
I eventually concluded that REASON isn’t adequate, it takes revelation. Reason is like using a 10’ stepladder to paint a 30’ wall - it just doesn’t get you where you need to go. I concluded that reason, by itself, leaves almost nothing but doubt.
And that conclusion was based on what? A hunch or some imperfect reasoning? So, your whole meaning of life is based on a "hunch" or a faculty you dismiss as capable of giving you the answer? Why must there be an either or answer when it is obvious that man does not have an unlimited capacity, mentally or spiritually?
No, not at all! In fact, Christ urges us to support one another, and to be together. "Where two or more are gathered in My name"...
We have, however, other passages that urge doctrinal unity in the same group Jesus is speaking to.
Doctrine as Jesus taught, yes.
That would make them collectively, the Church.
Sure. But you're missing the bigger picture, the point:
The Holy Spirit is given from God to individuals who may be part of the universal (catholic) church. It is NOT given from God to the church then to individuals.
We worship collectively - even in twos or threes - with the Holy Spirit present in each of us, and do not need the church to provide the Holy Spirit.
God gives us His grace and His Holy Spirit directly, not through the church. The Holy Spirit is present in the church because believers are there, and they receive the Holy Spirit directly from God; if there were no believers present, then the church would be absent of the Holy Spirit.
Granting all that you say, — I don’t argue over words, —there is still a good reson to distinguish the Deuterocanon from the rest of what the Protestant usage is: the Septuagint and the 1200 years of canon history prior to the Reformation.
The scripture shows that the Holy Spirit was givien initally to the apostles and then they were told to teach and baptize others. The distinction was there from the very beginning:
And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning. (John 15:27)21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (John 20)
24 As for you, let that which you have heard from the beginning, abide in you. If that abide in you, which you have heard from the beginning, you also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise which he hath promised us, life everlasting. 26 These things have I written to you, concerning them that seduce you. 27 And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his unction teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in him (1 John 2)
Here, the charism of teaching, the grace of confession, and the grace of the holy Orders are expressly given the nascent Church and through her to the rest of the believers.
Please read a bit closer...
“19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” 24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.” - John 20
Notice, this involved disciples, not Apostles. In fact, one of the Twelve wasn’t even there at the time. So no, the Holy Spirit was not given to Apostles, who pass Him on like a loaf of bread through Apostolic Succession.
Jesus, after all, told Nicodemus, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
Good luck making God the Holy Spirit wait for a priest’s approval before entering a man!
“2Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.”
“23On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. 24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God... 31After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.”
” 29Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
” 14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” - came after baptism, following the laying of of hands
“42He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” 44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47”Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” - BEFORE baptism and without laying on of hands
You can read more if you wish...it is in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit is God, and He goes to those who believe - sometimes before, sometimes after baptism. After all, it seems He didn’t enter the DISCIPLES when Jesus breathed on them, but a short time later.
But consistently, the presence of the Holy Spirit is considered the mark of a Christian. And God is sovereign - He moves in His timing.
Also, note that the early church had no Priests. The closest I can see is: “...because of the grace given me by God 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”
Priests offer sacrifices, and Paul was giving a “sacrifice” of the Gentiles...and in that sense, performing a “priestly service”.
But as Hebrews 10 makes clear:
“11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”
17 then he adds,
“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.”
The only Priest in Christianity is Jesus.
It is also true that not all apostles were present in the Upper Room, or at the Pentecost, and on the other hand, quite a few were present who were not apostles. This does not mean that the apostolic succession cannot work from that point on, or that all the disciples became apostles. That Christ Himself made distinctions between the disciples is seen, for example, from the quote in John 15 in my prevuious post, and from how St Paul describes his adoption as an Apostle from the "pillars" of Sts Peter, John, and James.
Note, too, that the episode in Acts 8:14f is commonly understood as confuirmation following baptism. As Bishop Challoner explains:
"They laid their hands upon them"... The apostles administered the sacrament of confirmation, by imposition of hands, and prayer; and the faithful thereby received the Holy Ghost. Not but they had received the grace of the Holy Ghost at their baptism: yet not that plenitude of grace and those spiritual gifts which they afterwards received from bishops in the sacrament of confirmation, which strengthened them to profess their faith publicly. Acts 8, Douay
the early church had no Priests
Again, mystically every priest is Christ himself, applying the same sacrifice at the Golgotha to us; that includes St. Paul in his day. Also, it is true that the office of a priest gradually developed from the office of bishop, as the Church grew beyond the ability of a bishop to offer Mass to everyone. Nevertheless, both "episcopos" (bishop) and "presbyteros" (priest) figure prominently in the New Testament, albeit not in Protestant mistranslations of it.
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.