Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)
Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years?

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.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: apostolic; catholic; fascinatedwcatholics; givemerome; obsessionwithrome; papistsrule; pope; protestant; solascriptura
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 8,581-8,6008,601-8,6208,621-8,640 ... 13,161-13,166 next last
To: HarleyD

“A discipline that is required by Church law to me is not a discipline.”

Well, what is it? If you disagree with Church law, are you then a part of the Church? If you practice different than Church law, are you then a part of the Church?

The Apostles didn’t let individuals’ interpretations of the Good News stand. They knocked ‘em down as they came up. Paul especially goes after practices and scolds and corrects. If Paul would scrutinize you or me, would he be inclined to admonish and correct? I think he would.

The Church has the obligation to impose discipline on its members. Else, there is no need of the Church and everyone is his own Pope, creating his own theology, editing his own Bible and defining the path to his own salvation. Handbaskets, anyone?


8,601 posted on 10/09/2007 10:28:58 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8599 | View Replies]

To: suzyjaruki

These are at the core, very well done. There are several not mentioned that are also at the core.

God extends His redeeming Grace to all. Jesus came to save the whole world.

Paul’s core was Jesus Christ. We believe that very strongly and count Paul as the second greatest of all the Apostles. Paul was not mistaken or in error. Those who came after him were and are when they replace Jesus with Paul and misinterpret Paul’s works.

If the words of Jesus and the words of Paul appear to disagree, one must examine the words of Paul for misinterpretation. Paul cannot contradict Jesus. When Jesus says ‘all the world’ and words of Paul appear to say different, it is the words of Paul that are misinterpreted, not the words of Jesus.


8,602 posted on 10/09/2007 10:34:29 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8600 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
Only problem is the Church militant is not found in one physical institution.

Excellent point and good scripture, WM! :)

8,603 posted on 10/09/2007 10:36:23 AM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8429 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
Excellent point and good scripture...

Thanks Brother! I've been enjoying your posts. Your patience is way above the norm.

Not a good baseball year for the Cards, or the White Sox.

8,604 posted on 10/09/2007 10:57:17 AM PDT by wmfights (LUKE 9:49-50 , MARK 9:38-41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8603 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings; Dr. Eckleburg; Alamo-Girl; irishtenor; wmfights; HarleyD; P-Marlowe; xzins
Great list, 1000S, thanks for posting.

When the Pope contradicts the bible, it used to be that the bible took precedence but now the tradition has become the other way around. The Pope is authority over the written word of God.

Yes, I have long been arguing that Tradition must trump the scriptures in their faith. We know that the Bible even speaks up for itself through other scripture, but none of this counts. Whatever the Church (or pope) says the Bible means, that's what it means, other scripture notwithstanding.

8,605 posted on 10/09/2007 11:04:57 AM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8430 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
The Church has the obligation to impose discipline on its members.

Couldn't the Galatians have rightfully argue they were imposing Church discipline by requiring everyone to be circumcised? When does imposing the Church's discipline on someone turn into legalism?

This isn't an issue of everyman being his own Pope. This is a issue where some try to impose their will on others contrary to what is written in scripture.

8,606 posted on 10/09/2007 11:13:53 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8601 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
If the words of Jesus and the words of Paul appear to disagree, one must examine the words of Paul for misinterpretation. Paul cannot contradict Jesus. When Jesus says ‘all the world’ and words of Paul appear to say different, it is the words of Paul that are misinterpreted, not the words of Jesus.

Mark, I don't understand what you are saying here, I don't want to misinterpret (smile). Would you please give me an example?

8,607 posted on 10/09/2007 11:34:10 AM PDT by suzyjaruki (Why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8602 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; wmfights
Only problem is the Church militant is not found in one physical institution.

Nope protestants beleive that 20,000 heretical confessions is the TRUE church. Just like Satan says.
8,608 posted on 10/09/2007 11:36:58 AM PDT by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8603 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Where do Church practices contradict Scripture?


8,609 posted on 10/09/2007 11:41:41 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8606 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; wmfights; P-Marlowe; irishtenor; blue-duncan; xzins
And there is one chapter which clarifies the fact that while God's words are spoken about many different kinds of men, they are actually addressed to His children.

Amen, I agree in full. I also read recently (I think it was from you) a long list of salutation verses that make it clear that the ultimate audience was the whole family of believers.

8,610 posted on 10/09/2007 11:44:39 AM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8433 | View Replies]

To: suzyjaruki

Here are some examples:

Rom.9
[15] For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
[16] So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy.
[18] So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he -

Matt.5
[7] Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.


Matt.6
[14] For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you;
[15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.


Rom.3
[24] they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
[28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Rom.5
[9] Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Matt.12
[37] for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.


Rom.5
[21] so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

John.5
[24] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.


I’m kinda in the middle of things, but here are some Gospel verses:

The commandments (Love the Lord with all your heart, mind, strength and spirit; Love your neighbour as yourself): Matthew 19:19, Matthew 22:37-39, Mark 12:30-33 and Luke 10:27.

Follow him: Matthew 16:24, Matthew 19:21, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 18:22 and John 12:26.

Sell your possessions, give the money to the poor and follow him: Luke 14:33, Mark 10:21, Luke 18:22, Matthew 19:21 and Luke 12:33. Give to the poor: Luke 11:41 and Luke 14:13.

Faith: Did the disciples lack anything when Jesus sent them out? – Luke 22:35. Don’t worry about where your food or clothing is coming from: Matthew 6:25-31 and Luke 12:22-23.


Also, I found this little discourse about the apparent conflict between James and Paul:

The common but incorrect interpretation, leading to an apparent contradiction between Paul and James:

Paul supposedly said: Justification not by our good works, but by our faith in Jesus alone (see Gal 2:15—3:14 & Rom 3:21—4:25)
James supposedly said: Justification by our good works, not by our faith in God alone (see James 2:14-26)
Errors with these interpretations:

Paul is not talking about “good works”; he says “works of the Law” = Jewish/Mosaic laws on circumcision, sacrifices, dietary restrictions, etc.
For James, “works” are acts of charity = care for widows, orphans & the poor, love for neighbors, etc. (1:27; 2:8; 2:15-16)
Paul is not opposed to “good works”; he sees them as a necessary consequence (but not the foundation) of Christian life (Rom 12-15).
Similarly, James is not opposed to faith; he presupposes it, but stresses that authentic faith must be put into action, not merely words.
Paul is not talking primarily about our “faith in Jesus”; he means the “faith of Jesus” in God; our faith is a secondary response.
In contrast, James does mean people’s faith, primarily believing in God (2:23) but also believing in Jesus (2:1).
Paul does not presuppose the same definition of “faith” as James; for Paul, “faith” means “trusting” God, “entrusting oneself” to God’s plans.
For James, “faith” is more of an intellectual assent to theological truths, e.g. “believing that God is one” (2:19).
Paul did not write the word “alone” in Rom 3:28; Martin Luther was the one who added the word “allein” in his German Bible translation.
James does not write “by works alone” but stresses “not by faith alone”; he maintains that both have to go together.
Summary:

. Paul / James
Definitions of Key Terms: “faith” = trusting acceptance of God’s will

“works of the law” = regulations of the Jewish Torah
“faith” = intellectual assent to theological truths (2:19)

“works” = good deeds; putting religion into action (1:22-27)

Foundation of Justification,
Reason for Salvation: Jesus’ actions: the “faith of Jesus” in God
(i.e. Jesus’ trust, that led to his death on the cross)

not our actions: not fulfilling the “works of the Law”
adoption: God gave us birth by the word of truth (1:18)

and election: God chose the poor to be heirs of the kingdom (2:5)

Consequences for People,
Results of Being Saved: 1) We need to have faith/trust in Jesus (Rom 1-11)
and
2) We need to live ethically (Rom 12-15) 1) Our faith in Jesus, and 2) our works of charity;
both are necessary together (2:14-26)

Sorry it got a little scrambled. Hope it helps.


8,611 posted on 10/09/2007 12:02:59 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8607 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Where do Church practices contradict Scripture?

Should priests be allowed to marry?


8,612 posted on 10/09/2007 12:10:56 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8609 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

You may have missed a portion of the reply in 8591:

For Paul says a bishop must be “the husband of one wife,” and “must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5). This means, they argue, that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church; an unmarried man, it is implied, is somehow untried or unproven.

This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if “the husband of one wife” really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic “keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way” would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.

In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.

The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!

The suggestion that the unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven is equally absurd. Each vocation has its own proper challenges: the celibate man must exercise “self-control” (1 Cor. 7:9); the husband must love and care for his wife selflessly (Eph. 5:25); and the father must raise his children well (1 Tim. 3:4). Every man must meet Paul’s standard of “managing his household well,” even if his “household” is only himself. If anything, the chaste celibate man meets a higher standard than the respectable family man.

Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife” is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).

The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely “concerned about the affairs of the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to “renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom” (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have “left everything” to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).

Thus Paul warned Timothy, a young bishop, that those called to be “soldiers” of Christ must avoid “civilian pursuits”: “Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him” (2 Tim. 2:3–4). In light of Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 7 about the advantages of celibacy, marriage and family clearly stand out in connection with these “civilian pursuits.”

An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a wife: “The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’” (Jer. 16:1–2).


8,613 posted on 10/09/2007 12:14:13 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8612 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Should priests be allowed to marry?

Yes and ours do.
8,614 posted on 10/09/2007 12:26:22 PM PDT by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8612 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
You may have missed a portion of the reply in 8591:

You mean the part where celebracy is a good thing? Quite frankly, that posted wherever you picked it up is full of contradictions. I already pointed out:

Here's another...

This makes absolutely no sense in my mind. If the holiness of marriage is precious in God sight, why give it up? Is it becauses WE want to do something contrary to what God has instituted? Why should the Catholic Church tell everyone to go out and have large families and yet deny that to priests?

But the kicker is the use of Jeremiah. It should be noted that Jeremiah was told by God not to marry because everyone was going to be killed by the sword or famine. God was sparing Jeremiah from having to watch his wife die. This hardly has anything to do with Jeremiah giving up marriage to follow a higher calling.

But I'd like to hear your take on Hosea who God instructed to marry a harlot.
8,615 posted on 10/09/2007 12:36:04 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8613 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
You mean the part where celebracy is a good thing? Quite frankly, that posted wherever you picked it up is full of contradictions. I already pointed out:

Are you suggesting celibacy is a bad thing?

1Cr 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8,616 posted on 10/09/2007 1:28:32 PM PDT by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8615 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Two out of your three examples are comparing apples to oranges.

Romans 9: Paul is teaching how one is saved.
Matt.5,6: Jesus is teaching how a saved one is to live.

Romans 3: Paul is teaching forensic justification.
Matt.21: Jesus is teaching Pharisees about condemnation

The last example has the same teaching lesson.
Romans 5: Paul teaching lifethrough Christ.
John 5: John teaching life through Christ.

What point are you trying to make with the gospel verses? I'm not getting that.

Sorry, I don't have the time today to go off on a tangent about Paul & James.

8,617 posted on 10/09/2007 2:10:48 PM PDT by suzyjaruki (Why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8611 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
If you read Hebrews 10, it says nothing of the sort.

If you wish, I can post it again.

LOL. Sure post it again with your spin. Pay close attention to Hebrews 10:12-18.

8,618 posted on 10/09/2007 3:24:16 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8581 | View Replies]

To: kawaii
Yes and ours do.

Yes. It is interesting that the East allow their priests to marry and the west does not.

8,619 posted on 10/09/2007 4:17:28 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8614 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; kawaii
The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely “concerned about the affairs of the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to “renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom” (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have “left everything” to follow Christ

Let me ask you, and I've included our friend kawaii in on this since he provided the Orthodox perspective, do you think Catholic priests are more dedicated or "ideally suited" for the priesthood since they renounced marriage more so than the Orthodox priests who have not?

8,620 posted on 10/09/2007 4:23:20 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8613 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 8,581-8,6008,601-8,6208,621-8,640 ... 13,161-13,166 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson