|
Transliteration baptizo |
Pronunciation bäp-te'-zo (Key) |
|
|
Part of Speech verb |
Root Word (Etymology) from a derivative of G911 |
|
|
TDNT Reference |
Vines |
|
Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
Matt. 18:2-3 Then Jesus called a child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted ands become as little children, you will by no means enter the Kingdom of heaven."
IOW, what the heck do children know? They just believe. They don't know all the little nuances, or rituals that they are supposed to do. They just believe. Children don't know from institutional exclusivity. They just believe. Children don't know what "tradition" is let alone how to define it. They just believe.
They "believe" in who they ARE, members of a FAMILY.. not some dogma..
This metaphorical object lesson BY Jesus.. speaks a pregnant reality..
"You MUST be born Again"<- Jesus.. Born again as a child in Gods family..
I confess there are versions that are less accurate than others - this new gender-neutral stuff, for instance - and even some new 'gospels' out there that purport to be of the same nature as that preserved through the ages by the Church, the Body of Christ moved by His Power, which we call The Bible. That imposters exist does not negate the original. That the original is called impostor does not negate its nature. I delight that as a daughter of the Kingdom of God and blessed to be a citizen of these United States I have multiple versions of Scripture to read and compare, that I may truly digest all the words God intended from me to have. He has a message to convey.
This post between you and I serves as an example: I could now transcribe this post to you using varying words or phrases and still make the same message plain to you - communicating to your mind what is on my mind. At the same time a devilish impostor could come along and take what I’ve said and twist it, altering what my intended communication to you really is. Because you and I don't know each other very well you might not know the difference. That would be a shame, but not a deadly one.
Because Christ and I now share the same mind via His Holy Spirit, I recognize His Words and those that have been twisted for just exactly what they are. It could be no other way. If I didn’t know Christ as intimately as a beloved bride knows her husband, had never heard His ‘voice’ so sweetly, tenderly calling my name and declaring His love for me with a multitude of promises and rewards, this could not be - I would have no reference for discernment. It is a deadly shame that men will twist the Word of God and so cause men who have not heard His voice to stumble. Jesus made a big deal out of that with the Pharisees (Matthew 24 comes to mind). Men do this either by supplanting the truth with imitations, or else by lying about the truth itself. Deadly error.
Praise God, I do know Him, I have heard His voice, and I know that I know that I know that the Word of God is His, through and through. It is His love letter to me. I eat it with my hands and heart and eyes and mouth! It is alive in me and gives me life. When I speak it as He directs me (we share a common purpose) I pass on that life to others. I am a very blessed girl that way, all because Jesus came for me, He called my name, He gave me His words of our covenant and the keys to open them up to my understanding like jewel boxes - this Love in Spirit and in Truth. It doesn't get any better than that.
Thank you for including me in the ping to your post. Printing it out now!
I knew you would get it. (:
Ditto that whole post!
Amen. Thanks for clarifying before there is any confusion.
I really like that post. Thank you very much.
.30Carbine, you are appealing to self as proof. I am not sure if you realize the error in this or not, but the error is there. It's called "Gnosis." The method of providing absolute proof through personal experience is solipsism, where the only reality is one-self.
If I tell you that I have seen God and describe to you what he look like, you are placed in an ambarrassing situation where you have to choose betweem mocking me or agreeing with me, based entirely on how you feel.
Whether I claim to have seen God or whether you claim the opposite, it all comes down to a witness, and as the Latin saying goes, testis unus testis nullus (one witness is no witness)
You've been spreading the word "Gnosis" pretty thick on the bread of life(Bible)..
What do you "Gnosis" for sure Kosta?..
Amen, brother.
Protestants never cease to amaze me. They will, just as Luther did from faulty Textus Receptus, derive "absolute" truth from faulty translations. Not only that: they will also deny Greeks the expertise of their own language!
FK, you give me Strong's translation. And I am using Greek sources, and even Protestant sources. perhaps you overlooked the first and most accurate definition of the word baptizo: to dip repeatedly .
Here is a page from the Blue Letter Bible
ßapt???
|
Transliteration baptizo |
Pronunciation bäp-te'-zo (Key) |
|
|
Part of Speech verb |
Root Word (Etymology) from a derivative of G911 |
|
|
TDNT Reference |
Vines |
|
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm
Note on Baptism in Ac. Baptism in water (such as John's) is distinguished from baptism with the Holy Spirit (i. 5, etc.). Those who receive the latter, however, may also be baptized in water (cf. xi. 16 with x. 47); and there is one example of people who had previously received John's baptism receiving Christian baptism as a preliminary to receiving the Spirit (xix. 3 ff.).
John's was a baptism of repentance (xiii. 24; xix. 4), as was also Christian baptism (ii. 38), but as John's pointed forward to Jesus (xix. 4), it became obsolete when He came. Christian baptism followed faith in the Lord Jesus (xvi. 31 ff.); it was associated with His name (ii. 38; viii. 16, etc.), which was invoked by the person baptized (xxii. 16); it signified the remission (ii. 38) or washing away of sins (xxii. 16); sometimes it preceded (ii. 38; viii. 15 ff.; xix. 5), sometimes followed (x. 47 f.) the receiving of the Spirit." (F. F. Bruce. The Acts of the Apostles [Greek Text Commentary], London: Tyndale, 1952, p. 98, n. 1.)
This word should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution.
Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
The emphases are mine. Note that the term baptizô is used exlcusively as the sacrament of Baptism, never for anything else.
The Fathers of the Church used it it not only because they didn't want it to be confused with baptô but also because it meant multiple dips and, even more importantly, because the word accurately suggests to a Greek speaker that the change is permanent. There is no second Bpatism for that reason.
That is the reason Anabaptists are heretics. That's why the Creed says "I believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
Now, you are absolutely right that the number of dips is not mentioned in the Bible, but the Fathers derived it from the New Testament just as they derived the concept of Holy Trinity.
Second, Christ was dead for three days, and when we are baptized we die unto ourselves and are "buried" and each dip can represent one day of death before resurrection. Other numbers simply make no sense from the spiritual point of view.
Hopefully this will show you that what the Church does has a deeper meaning that is often hidden or lost in translations, and that summary dismissals of these is borne out of ignorance and an idolatrous relationship with the English Bible in particular as an inerrant, perfect translation and a literal word of God.
I really don't think you understand that people inadvertantly elevate solipsism to be the only reality, even divinity. It is an epistemolopgical and metaphysical self-entrapment.
On a more down-to-earth level it is but spiritual pride.
Thank you. Now if you will truly open your heart and let Scripture be your guide you will be the first EO to amaze me.
Christ was dead for three days, and when we are baptized we die unto ourselves and are "buried" and each dip can represent one day of death before resurrection.
I've also seen it expressed that immersing the individual three times is done to signify the The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit. Both sentiments are nice, but the point I was attempting to show you was SCRIPTURE places no absolute directives whether you have to be immersed three times, or once. I also noted the didache because there is flexibility in how the act is done, as there is with the LORD'S SUPPER. The only consistent aspect I've found about Baptism in SCRIPTURE is the individual to be Baptized is suppose to REPENT FIRST.
Although I eschew all of the doctrines and traditions of men across the board, I would be interested in hearing the Catholic teaching concerning the passages below – all of which deal with the indwelling Holy Spirit..
No, actually I wasn't referring to sacraments specifically or confirmation, baptism, etc...
It seemed to me that your use of "indwelling Holy Spirit" was more internal, experiential. So I was thinking of some parallel more in the Christian Contemplative or experiential tradition. +Teresa of Avila, +John OTC and the great wealth of the Eastern Church, the spiritual laboratory.
Your writings, in their tone as opposed to content, sound more in tune with this aspect than with theology -er, the traditions of men. :)
I do think you are more in the experiential than the theological. Though, of course, we would say it's not wise to dive too deeply without proper spiritual direction.
This is where I thought the disagreement would eventually properly be be found - in spiritual direction outside and in addition to the individual's practice. That, without this, a great many errors can arise. You, I'm certain, would disagree.
Anyway, I think I might have read something that wasn't there or saw an approach that I couldn't continue. My apologies.
We were talking about this at the church today, so many people put feelings above Truth and think feelings equal truth. If it feels good or right then do it.
Growing up as a Protestant in a very staid Methodist church it still came down to each person divining his own theology by reading the Bible. There was teaching in the form of sermons but every new minister had a slightly different theology. But that didn’t really matter because we were under no strain to take on his understanding of Scripture.
Why? Because of his bad hair, or something else? :>)
***I have run across those who at least nominally read the whole Bible; we have those who place weight on the OT; those who eschew the OT and use only the New; many elevate St. Paul above the Gospels; some rely only on Luke and Acts; and at least one bunch that concentrates on Revelation.***
And then you have me, who uses the whole Bible to defuse all your arguments :>)
It’s a part of the authority question. Some see any spiritual authority as just plain wrong.
Unless they agree with it of course.
There’s good authority and bad authority, there good direction and bad direction. But this doesn’t mean that authority and direction are bad in and of themselves.
We can fool ourselves. Very easily. We can become an authority unto ourselves and our own church.
Protestantism left behind a great deal when they left the Church. They see the bad that they left behind, not many see the good that was cut away as well.
thanks for your post...
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.