Posted on 07/10/2007 6:55:28 PM PDT by indcons
Pope Benedict XVI declared yesterday that Christian denominations other than his own were not true churches and their holy orders have no value.
Protestant leaders immediately responded by saying the claims were offensive and would hurt efforts to promote ecumenism.
Roman Catholic- Anglican relations are already strained over the Church of England's plans to ordain homosexuals and women as bishops. The claims came in a document, from a Vatican watchdog which was approved by the Pope.
It said the branches of Christianity formed after the split with Rome at the Reformation could not be called churches "in the proper sense" because they broke with a succession of popes who dated back to St Peter.
As a result, it went on, Protestant churches have "no sacramental priesthood", effectively reaffirming the controversial Catholic position that Anglican holy orders are worthless.
The document claimed the Catholic church was the "one true church of Christ".
Pope Benedict's commitment to the hardline teaching comes days after he reinstated the Mass in Latin, which was sidelined in the 1960s in an attempt to modernise.
The timing of the announcement fuelled speculation that the pontiff - regarded as an arch-conservative before his election in 2005 - is finally beginning to impose his views on the Catholic Church.
The Vatican said it was restating the position set out by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2000 in a document called Domine Jesus because theologians continued to misunderstand it.
At that time, Anglican leaders from around the world made their anger felt by snubbing an invitation to join Pope John Paul II as he proclaimed St Thomas More the patron saint of politicians.
Bishop Wolfgang Huber, head of the Evangelical Church in Germany, said the Vatican document effectively downgraded Protestant churches and would make ecumenical relations more difficult.
He said the pronouncement repeated the "offensive statements" of the 2000 document and was a "missed opportunity" to patch up relations with Protestants.
“If James was Mary’s son why would Jesus give His Mother to John?”
Because nowhere does it say that James believed Jesus at this time or that he was present at the cross and John, Jesus’ cousin and closest friend (the disciple Jesus loved)demonstrated his faith and courage by being there in spite of the danger with his mother Salome, Mary’s sister. So it would be natural for Him as the eldest boy in the family who had the responsibility for His mother (or friend or significant woman depending on how you interpret “mother”)to entrust her to John and keep it in the family.
What conspiracy theories?
You mean the Nicea Council? You mean the collaboration between Emperor Constantine and the Church hierarchy some 300 years after Christ? You mean.....not enough time in this life...
This is a myth. The Church banned some "home-brewed" translations of the Bible that were of poor quality. Other translations were widely available.
Why did they do everything they could to keep Martin Luther from translating into German - in Germany?
It has nothing to do with German. It has everything to do with the fact that he removed the 7 deuterocanonical books as well as added the word "alone" to the text of Romans 3:28 to support his new doctrine of Sola Fide.
And they didn't much care for it being put into English either.
Cite?
Even further, I agree with Thomas Jefferson: read only the words of Jesus = red letter versions are great for this.
Oh sure, let's eliminate ALL the context. That'll help our understanding!
What's your source on this? It is the first time I have heard this angle. JST?
” God is not the weak monster god”
Really, then why is it necessary for your salvation to offer a blood sacrifice to Him weekly if not daily?
Slur. There is no "blood sacrifice".
Here is a book she might like;
Book Description: - During the Renaissance, artists traditionally encoded meanings into symbols, some of which drew upon a traditional repertoire available to educated people in the era. These hidden messages—which ranged from the esoteric to the political to the religious—could be communicated in everything from the position of a hand to the placement of the sun and moon Book Description
“Slur. There is no “blood sacrifice”.’
Well then, during the sacrifice of the Mass is not the wafer supposed to become the flesh of Jesus and the wine supposed to become the blood of Jesus? Aren’t you required to participate in this sacrifice on a routine basis for your salvation?
I'm sorry, I'd respond but none of your words make any sense because they all have double meanings in the dictionary.
Too much Jack Chick here...
Indeed. Their strategy is to distort the Truth so that it seems foolish, or even absurd. Then they bash away at this straw-man.
Thanks. I did ask her about it and she said that it was very common in all sorts of paintings, not just sacred ones. But she didn’t know all of the symbols. That book looks neat. It would make a great present. She loves those kinds of books on art history.
From newadvent.org
(1) The identity of James, Jude and Simon
James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the Less (Mark 15:40) and the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18), although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Galatians 1:19: "But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord", St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes it clear that the "apostles" is to be taken strictly to designate the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that the clause "saving James" be understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another Apostle, "James the brother of the Lord" (cf. Acts 9:27). Besides, the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles (Acts 15:13; Galatians 2:9; in the latter text he is even named before Cephas) could have belonged only to one of their number. Now there were only two Apostles named James: James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). The former is out of the question, since he was dead at the time of the events to which Acts 15:6 ssq., and Galatians 2:9-12 refer (cf. Acts 12:2). James "the brother of the Lord" is therefore one with James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with James the Less, the identity of these two being generally conceded. Again, on comparing John 19:25 with Matthew 27:56, and Mark 15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47; 16:1), we find that Mary of Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas (Klopas), the sister of Mary the Mother of Christ, is the same as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, or Joses. As married women are not distinguished by the addition of their father's name, Mary of Clopas must be the wife of Clopas, and not his daughter, as has been maintained. Moreover, the names of her sons and the order in which they are given, no doubt the order of seniority, warrant us in identifying these sons with James and Joseph, or Joses, the "brethren" of the Lord. The existence among the early followers of Christ of two sets of brothers having the same names in the order of age, is not likely, and cannot be assumed without proof. Once this identity is conceded, the conclusion cannot well be avoided that Clopas and Alpheus are one person, even if the two names are quite distinct. It is, however, highly probable, and commonly admitted, that Clopas and Alpheus are merely different transcriptions of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and Joseph the "brethren" of the Lord are thus the sons of Alpheus.
Of Joseph nothing further is known. Jude is the writer of the last of the Catholic Epistles (Jude 1). He is with good reason identified by Catholic commentators with the "Judas Jacobi" ("Jude the brother of James" in the Douay Version) of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, otherwise known as Thaddeus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18). It is quite in accordance with Greek custom for a man to be distinguished by the addition of his brother's name instead of his father's, when the brother was better known. That such was the case with Jude is inferred from the title "the brother of James", by which he designates himself in his Epistle. About Simon nothing certain can be stated. He is identified by most commentators with the Symeon, or Simon, who, according to Hegesippus, was a son of Clopas, and succeeded James as Bishop of Jerusalem. Some identify him with the Apostle Simon the Cananean (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18) or the Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The grouping together of James, Jude or Thaddeus, and Simon, after the other Apostles, Judas Iscariot excepted, in the lists of the Apostles, (Matthew 10:4-5; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) lends some probability to this view, as it seems to indicate some sort of connexion between the three. Be this as it may, it is certain that at least two of the "brethren" of Christ were among the Apostles. This is clearly implied in 1 Cor 9:5: "Have we not the power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" The mention of Cephas at the end indicates that St. Paul, after speaking of the Apostles in general, calls special attention to the more prominent ones, the "brethren" of the Lord and Cephas. The objection that no "brethren" of the Lord could have been members of the Apostolic college, because six months before Christ's death they did not believe in Him (John 7:3-5), rests on a misunderstanding of the text. His "brethren" believed in his miraculous power, and urged him to manifest it to the world. Their unbelief was therefore relative. It was not a want of belief in His Messiahship, but a false conception of it. They had not yet rid themselves of the Jewish idea of a Messiah who would be a temporal ruler. We meet with this idea among the Apostles as late as the day of the Ascension (Acts 1:6). In any case the expression "his brethren" does not necessarily include each and every "brother", whenever it occurs. This last remark also sufficiently answers the difficulty in Acts 1:13-14, where, it is said, a clear distinction is made between the Apostles and the "brethren" of the Lord.
(2) The exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his "brethren"
The texts cited at the beginning of this article show beyond a doubt that there existed a real and near kinship between Jesus and His "brethren". But as "brethren" (or "brother") is applied to step-brothers as well as to brothers by blood, and in Scriptural, and Semitic use generally, is often loosely extended to all near, or even distant, relatives (Genesis 13:8, 14:14-16; Leviticus 10:4; 1 Chronicles 15:5-10, 23:21-22), the word furnishes no certain indication of the exact nature of the relationship. Some ancient heretics, like Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites, maintained that the "brethren" of Jesus were His uterine brothers the sons of Joseph and Mary. This opinion has been revived in modern times, and is now adopted by most of the Protestant exegetes. On the orthodox side two views have long been current. The majority of the Greek Fathers and Greek writers, influenced, it seems, by the legendary tales of apocryphal gospels, considered the "brethren" of the Lord as sons of St. Joseph by a first marriage. The Latins, on the contrary, with few exceptions (St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours among the Fathers), hold that they were the Lord's cousins. That they were not the sons of Joseph and Mary is proved by the following reasons, leaving out of consideration the great antiquity of the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is highly significant that throughout the New Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14). Again, Mary's annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matthew 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her? A further proof is the fact that at His death Jesus recommended His mother to St. John. Is not His solicitude for her in His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons? Since there was no estrangement between Him and His "brethren", or between them and Mary, no plausible argument is confirmed by the words with which he recommends her: ide ho uios sou, with the article before uios (son); had there been others sons, ide uios sou, without the article, would have been the proper expression.
The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these "brethren" are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the "brethren" of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter's cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father's or mother's side, whether cousins by blood or merely bymarriage, cannot be determined with certainty. Mary of Clopas is indeed called the "sister" of the Blessed Virgin (John 19:25), but it is uncertain whether "sister" here means a true sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favour the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in the manuscripts of the Peshitta version, that Joseph and Clopas married sisters. The relationship of the other "brethren" may have been more distant than that of the above named four.
The chief objection against the Catholic position is taken from Matt 1:25: "He [Joseph] knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son"; and from Luke 2:7: "And she brought forth her firstborn son". Hence, it is argued, Mary must have born other children. "Firstborn" (prototokos), however, does not necessarily connote that other children were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke 2:23, and Ex 13:2-12 (cf. Greek text) to which Luke refers. "Opening the womb" is there given as the equivalent of "firstborn" (prototokos). An only child was thus no less "firstborn" than the first of many. Neither do the words "he knew her not till she brought forth" imply, as St. Jerome proves conclusively against Helvidius from parallel examples, that he knew her afterwards. The meaning of both expressions becomes clear, if they are considered in connexion with the virginal birth related by the two Evangelists.
Cut and paste argumentation. Just paste the official answer. All the thinking has been done.
it goes without saying I copied it from there - - my bad for not linking
I frnkly dont get paid enough to get into pissing matches all day long
feel better ?
but of course that easily obfuscates the point of the post doesnt it - that was your intent wasnt it ?
Yes.
Eusebius also wrote: James, whom the people called the Just because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the records tell us, to be elected to the Episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church."
And Clement, still quoting Barnabas, wrote regarding false Apostles,
Chapter 35. False Apostles. "Wherefore observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he bring from Jerusalem the testimonial of James the Lord's brother,or of whosoever may come after him.
After James was stoned in 62AD, Simeon, son of Cleophas, (first cousin of Jesus and James) succeeded and this monarchical succession, rather the an ecclesiastical one, continued for over 200 years.
A good argument is a good argument. We cut and paste Bible verses all of the time.
Lets all break out the Harbrace College Handbook for this discussion. Otherwise, the arguments are invalid. -sarc
Never mind, I figured it out...
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.