WHY MOTHER TERESA SHOULD NOT BE A SAINT

mirror.co.uk ^ | Jan. 13, 2003 | Christopher Hitchens

[RobbyS]

It could be that Matthew WAS the first Gospel.

[RobbyS]

Could be because Matthew and Paul saw things differently?

[Jael]

Matthew was written to the Jews. Not the Gentiles. It does not contain Grace, because Christ was preaching to show them how much their works had failed them.

Also consider that Christ had not died yet, so the church, which is the Body of Christ, had not begun.

Different messages to different people.

Hebrews 9:16  For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

[mdmathis6]

At the end of Acts, Paul is on his way for trial to Rome. When you read the Pauline letters, you find he wrote some of them while in prison. Also, Paul had three missionary Journeys that take place over 20 to thirty years, including a three year stint in Arabia following his conversion, his letters spoke of several ship-wrecks, many beatings, periods of starvation and privation. The Holy Spirit would tell him to go hither and would restrain him from going yonder. All these activities are kind of compressed and don't say half the stuff that Paul went thru. We learn a few more things from his letters.

To tell you the truth, we only have tradition to tell us how every-one died. We know John (the disciple that Jesus loved), was exiled to Patmos Island around AD 90(Pliny I think was emperor and a general persecution was going on), and had the visions we know as Revelations.(John was considered around 16 years old when Christ called him and he may have been the last of the originals to go...kind of ironic since he also wrote the last book of the Bible) He may have died on Patmos. Christ had prophesied that Peter in his old age, would be carried about to where he did not want to go,"signifying what manner of death he would die"...to me it signifies an old age, with perhaps a stroke injury or Alzheimers(then again Peter always had to be prodded into going where he did not want to go), it could also mean crucifixion. Thomas was said to have reached India, being Martyred there. We really don't now how they all died. Paul mentions some being imprisoned, tortured,"sawn asunder", given to wild beasts, ect. Several momentous events happened in the 50 to 70 AD, including the burning of Rome and the Neronic persecutions, Caligula, previous to Nero as well. Vesuvius erupted destroying the "sin city" of the day, Pompeii and its neighboring towns. The city of Jerusalem was besieged for three years and finally destroyed, with Palestine suffering its third and much more rigorous Jewish Diaspora. The influence of the Jewish Christians became much less diminished and Christianity became much more of a faith of the Gentiles.
Roman power would continue to expand until 117 AD when their Eastern advance would be checked by the parthaginians. Then began the great contractions, and much trouble in the Political realm of the Empire.

[Aquinasfan]

I agree with a lot of what you say. But Christ's Church isn't completely nebulous. Christ's Church must be a visible, ecclesiastical structure. Why? Because Christ tells us to take our disputes "to the Church." For Christ's statement to be logical, His Church must be united doctrinally. Additionally, His Church must be visible. It's logically impossible to take disputes to a Church that is invisible. Only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can trace their origins to Apostolic times, and only the Catholic Church can trace its lineage of Popes from Peter through John Paul II. It's a simple historical fact.

Some points I disagree with:

So you explained how 2 centuries after Christianity where the Catholic church derived its official doctrine of Apostolic succession thru Peter

See above. But also see the Scripture. Read Isaiah 22. The Chapter describes the succession in office of the vice-regent of the Kingdom of David. The vice-regent of the Kingdom was identifiable by a pouch which he wore over his shoulder which contained a key indicating his plenary authority in the King's abscence. It is mentioned explicitly in Isaiah 22:22:

Isaiah 22

22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

These are the keys to which Jesus is referring in Matthew 16:19:

Matthew 16

19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[1] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[2] loosed in heaven."

Obviously Jesus, as the eternal King of the House of David, was giving Peter the Keys of the Kingdom or His Church on earth. In Revelation we see that Jesus ultimately holds the keys:

Revelation 3:7

These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

Correlating Rev 3:7, Matthew 16:19, and Isaiah 22:22, we can see that Jesus has given the Keys of His Church to Peter (and his successors) in His earthly "abscence."

If you want to deny this exegesis, then you will have to offer a better explanation of these verses.

The Reformation was a work of God, not men,

I would maintain the opposite for several reasons. But one that you might find compelling would be the fruit of the Protestant revolution.

God poured out his spirit and institutional old wine sacks burst with the fermentation of the spirit, new churches were born,people were saved, the Grace of God was rediscovered... and yes, wars were fought...

Yes they were. Christ desired that we (His followers) be one just as He and His Father are one:

John 17:23

May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Did the Protestant revolution unite Christendom? Protestantism has been marked by division since its inception. No sooner had Luther broken from the Church than division sprang up between Luther's followers:

[Luther's] doctrine of the Bible as the sole rule of faith, with rejection of all ecclesiastical authority, established subjectivism in matters of faith. By this revolutionary assault Luther forfeited the support of many serious persons indisposed to break with the Church but on the other hand won over all the anti-ecclesiastical elements, including numerous monks and nuns who left the monasteries to break their vows, and many priests who espoused his cause with the intention of marrying...

The city and the canton of Zurich were reformed by the civil authorities according to the ideas of Zwingli. Other parts of German Switzerland experienced a similar fate. French Switzerland developed later its own peculiar Reformation; this was organized at Geneva by Calvin. Calvinism is distinguished from Lutheranism and Zwinglianism by a more rigid and consistent form of doctrine and by the strictness of its moral precepts, which regulate the whole domestic and public life of the citizen. The ecclesiastical organization of Calvin was declared a fundamental law of the Republic of Geneva, and the authorities gave their entire support to the reformer in the establishment of his new court of morals. Calvin's word was the highest authority, and he tolerated no contradiction of his views or regulations. Calvinism was introduced into Geneva and the surrounding country by violence. Catholic priests were banished, and the people oppressed and compelled to attend Calvinistic sermons...

In England the origin of the Reformation was entirely different. Here the sensual and tyrannical Henry VIII, with the support of Thomas Cranmer, whom the king made the Archbishop of Canterbury, severed his country from ecclesiastical unity because the pope, as the true guardian of the Divine law, refused to recognize the invalid marriage of the king with Anne Boleyn during the lifetime of his lawful wife. Renouncing obedience to the pope, the despotic monarch [Henry VIII] constituted himself supreme judge even in ecclesiastical affairs; the opposition of such good men as Thomas More and John Fisher was overcome in blood.

This prideful behavior was made possible by Luther's novel, fallacious doctrine of "The Bible alone." Protestantism is marked not just by schism but by atomization. Today the number of Protestant sects is approaching 30,000.

Christ said"I come not to bring peace of the Earth, but the sword..."

But not against His own Church and not to atomize Christendom (against His own expressed Will).

It was interesting that the reformation happened to take place(or God's providence) as the Printing press was invented, and the Protestant ideas could be spread, and scriptures could be translated into the vernacular tongues.

Not at all a coincidence. It would have been foolish to promote a doctrine of "Scripture alone" when an entire Bible cost the equivalent of three or four years' wages. Prior to the invention of the printing press, Bibles were often chained to pulpits in order to prevent theft. Regardless, judge Luther's doctrine according to its fruit –the atomization of Christendom– and its accordance with Christ's will for His followers, "that they be one."

[RobbyS]

The Gospels were written to a Church that consisted of both Jews and Gentiles in greater or lesser proportions.

[mdmathis6]

I don't think the Catholic church can really historically argue as fact that they can trace a spiritual path directly thru Peter, it was a couple of centuries before they began a systematic attempt to codify canon and worship....Besides look at the book of Acts, the whole focus changes from Peter to Paul's missionary attempts to the gentile nations...there was almost a literal break with the Jewish christian founders, especially in their views towards gentiles...Paul was said to have "upbraded" Peter and the others for attempting to foist Jewish law on the Gentiles, that the Jews them-selves could not live by, needing Jesus, that fullfillment of the Law, to save them also.

But you describe my view of the church as a "nebulous" thing. Scripture admonishes us to "Believe in things that are not, as though they were..." in refering to the coming hope of God's kingdom. The Church is Baptists and Catholics, any-one who has said in repentence to God, "Jesus, please come into my heart as my saviour."(or in such other words as men have want to speak to him) The multiplicity of churches and styles of worship has to do with the fact that people are different from one another, histories and convictions are different. Paul spoke of proceeding from faith, not works, recognizing that some issues are more a matter of conscience. Are certain standards of morality universal? You bet, the law was not destroyed by Christ, just fullfilled by him, in Christ we have the fulfillment of "the God-head bodily". I believe that my "nebulous" church is far more real and concrete, than the Vatican or any other system of religion. It is the "restrainer" that blocks the Anti-christ from taking rule over the world, until such time God takes it from the Earth.

It is the whole body of believers, that exist on the Earth, from what-ever house of worship(I'm not an Ecumenist, Jesus is the way, the truth and the life...no one comes to the Father but by him) they hail from that, is the true church, that is the true Bride of Christ(My personal belief any-way) Remember the "wise thing" from Proverbs, "The locusts have no king, yet they march out in BANDS, laying waste to the land". (They band together from built in instinct, just as the whole body of Christians acts to provide restraint of evil in the world from the Holy Spirit operating in their lives, from their various stations and houses of worship).

As for the various church fathers who came after the first 100 years or so after the Apostles, who would put together the first Bible, and help cement the basic Christian doctrines that we all recognize today,(like the Nicene creed, developed to help Christians tell the difference between true doctrine and the various heresies, like Arianism)I don't have much quarrel with when it comes to scriptural doctrine supported by scripture and backed up by the evidence of spiritual fruit in their lives and the lives of their readers. Their arguements for the succession of Peter, despite giving Matthew 16 a tremendous work-out, just doesn't hold true to the rest of the Bible, despite "correlating" various scriptures...Revelations doen't mention Peter, not does Isaiah. Revelations mentions Christ as "holding the key of David" not Peter.]
It is the Church bodily,("the true...definition of 'catholic' by the way, as pertaining to the "whole body" of believers past, present, and future...) that holds the keys of Heaven and Earth(that "nebulous" thing again), which means that any Christian can pray for the sick, ask God to restrain the evil of evil men, witness to the lost, some who are equipped to do so can cast out Demons and heal the sick,or preach tremendous sermons(like ahem...Billy Graham...are you prepared to say that he is not going to heaven according to Catholic dogma?) I don't believe that God intended that the Catholic church should have become the rigid moribund, top down organisation that it became by the 1400's, buttoning up its adherents in a kind of ancient Jewish temple style of worship that leaves the laity in a state fear and trembling instead of a state of grace, locking the "truth" of salvation away from them, making them "thrice damned" more than the Pope and the priests them-selves. They were caught up in wars and conspiracies, and when science (a la Galileo) exposed a few holes in their minor doctrines, they would over oppress and suppress. The Roman Catholics became very good at "swallowing camels and choaking on gnats", allowing much Gross violation of scriptural doctrine as long as it didn't challenge the Papal authority, but swatting down efforts at reform when they seemed to tweek the Pope and various Cardinals in the wrong way.

You've heard of the term "Man proposes and God disposes", that's what the Reformation was...God was behind it, despite the puny efforts and mistakes of men. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was not going forth and the truth that men did get was being distorted, the sale of Indulgences(forgive-ness that Jesus Christ paid for with his blood), for example was a major irritant to Luther and others, the cult of Mary (which really came into prominence more in the 1400's. She was not venerated in the first 1000 years like she was in the 1400's right up to present day)was also another. There was the corruption, and quarrels over "who had the real spiritual path from Peter". The eye(papacy) of the Catholic Church had become blinded, and the whole of the body had filled with dark-ness. Men rebelled against this darkness, seeking the true light of Jesus Christ. Terrible mistakes were made, but out of it grew the great Lutheran, Methodist,Baptist, Congregationalist traditions and others as well whose Preachers, em-powered by the Holy Spirit caused many to repent of their sins.
200 hundred years after the dawn of the Reformation, heirs of that reformation would begin to settle a new continent, the Protestant character of their religion, allowed them to act in ways that facilitated self-government due to the inner restraint the Holy Spirit held("the locusts march out...")on their sin natures.(I'm speaking generally, as this effect was aggregate, based on the numbers of worshippers with similar views, there are always rogues!) Some 150 years after that, out of these peoples a new independent nation was born, literally God birthed. Toqueville, visiting our nation in the 1840's remarked on the "goodness" of America, the 90 percent literacy rate,"even in the rural areas", despite no systematic Public schools, as learning was centered around the Bible.(I know there was Catholicism in America at the time, but the early American character was Protestant in form and function, many isolated frontier families had their own church services for example) Don't tell me God wasn't in the Reformation, you argue from"history", well history suggests that God was indeed behind the Reformation.
God is THE REALITY, the author and finisher of our faith...we puny men think we control so much....our righteousness is but rags with-out the covering blood of his son, Jesus Christ. Yet what we have control of, we have no faith to use. Those keys given to Peter...they were given, TO ALL OF US belivers in Christ, the whole"catholic" body aggregate....Peter, the apostles, the prophets, were the foundation of the Church, with Christ as the connecting Corner Stone, with the Holy Spirit adding to the Church daily, such as confess that Jesus is Lord...where-ever, and what ever church or small group they are worshipping from..Catholic or Protestant, or Mega or midget church...The keys were given to ALL of Us thru the founders...they are your Keys, they are my Keys as the Holy Spirit equips us with the faith to use them...some have a greater measure of faith, some have lesser... These Keys were not for some presumed Roman Catholic authority to lock up and not be used, these Keys were for all Christians to be used to unlock and to lock! ("The locusts march out....")Why do you think the thick temple veil was ripped in two when Jesus was crucified....it was because God was declaring that ALL MEN, GREAT AND SMALL were to have DIRECT ACCESS TO THE THRONE OF GRACE. There were to be no more intermediaries, between God and man, other than Christ who mediates for us all, pleading our case before the father. That's not to say that there shouldn't be spiritual authority in our local churches, in my own church, our deacons and trustees are responsible to us as the laity are resposible to them, with the Bible being the Authority of all.

Remember from Acts, the Jews had consulted their wisest leader, Gamaliel, what to do with these"Christians", persecutions didn't seem to be working...they were multiplying daily. He stated "Leave them alone" if this is not a work of God, it will come to nought. If is of God, it will stand, and those that resist it will be found to be resisting God.

It is a wise move that Catholics need consider when contemplating the history of the Protestants...and the same goes for Protestants when they consider the Catholics... We might better think about renewal in all our houses of worship, in order to stand up to the moral dark-ness threatening Catholic and Protestant institutions from the inside out("If the eye be darkened, then the whole body is in darkness"). It will take a morally renewed people to stand up to resurgent Islam as well as those who are politically polarized against any Christianity(Catholic or Protestant).

Are we agreed as to the person of Jesus Christ, the purpose of his sacrifice, and his relationship to God the Father? Are we agreed that all men are called to repentence and Salvation thru this same Christ?

Are we agreed as to the two greatest command-ments, "Loving God with all our heart, soul, and might, and loving our neighbors as our-selves, for on these hang all the LAWS of the prophets!" ? We can argue about Papacies, and successions, and tiny mole-hills and large mountains...but are we agreed on the main-points on what Christianity is all about? Is Jesus Lord of Lords or King of Kings? Are we agreed on that?