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.
I have been on FR for about two years now, and Apostolics have quoted thousands of scriptures to me. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen a quote from the Deuts. I infer that I’m not missing much.
But many of the Reformed brethren have breathlessly informed me that ALL of the Bible is equally valid and important. I’m not sure that dismissing portions of it out of hand would fit with the sainted Calvin’s sonorous pronouncements.
FWIW, Jesus never included them.
Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.
I have been on FR for about two years now,...
Pretty exciting two years! I really enjoy your thoughtful analysis.
So why aren't you Jewish?
“I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen a quote from the Deuts. I infer that I’m not missing much.
FWIW, Jesus never included them.”
Aren’t ALL Bible verses of equal importance? If they are mentioned in the New Testament, does that not suffice?
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm contains:
References in New Testament Order
Matthew
Matthew 4:4 Wisdom 16:26
Matthew 4:15 1 Maccabees 5:15
Matthew 5:18 Baruch 4:1
Matthew 5:28 Sirach 9:8
Matthew 5:2ss Sirach 25:7-12
Matthew 5:4 Sirach 48:24
Matthew 6:7 Sirach 7:14
Matthew 6:9 Sirach 23:1, 4
Matthew 6:10 1 Maccabees 3:60
Matthew 6:12 Sirach 28:2
Matthew 6:13 Sirach 33:1
Matthew 6:20 Sirach 29:10s
Matthew 6:23 Sirach 14:10
Matthew 6:33 Wisdom 7:11
Matthew 7:12 Tobit 4:15
Matthew 7:12 Sirach 31:15
Matthew 7:16 Sirach 27:6
Matthew 8:11 Baruch 4:37
Matthew 8:21 Tobit 4:3
Matthew 9:36 Judith 11:19
Matthew 9:38 1 Maccabees 12:17
Matthew 10:16 Sirach 13:17
Matthew 11:14 Sirach 48:10
Matthew 11:22 Judith 16:17
Matthew 11:25 Tobit 7:17
Matthew 11:25 Sirach 51:1
Matthew 11:28 Sirach 24:19
Matthew 11:28 Sirach 51:23
Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:24s
Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:28s
Matthew 11:29 Sirach 51:26s
Matthew 12:4 2 Maccabees 10:3
Matthew 12:5 Sirach 40:15
Matthew 13:44 Sirach 20:30s
Matthew 16:18 Wisdom 16:13
Matthew 16:22 1 Maccabees 2:21
Matthew 16:27 Sirach 35:22
Matthew 17:11 Sirach 48:10
Matthew 18:10 Tobit 12:15
Matthew 20:2 Tobit 5:15
Matthew 22:13 Wisdom 17:2
Matthew 23:38 Tobit 14:4
Matthew 24:15 1 Maccabees 1:54
Matthew 24:15 2 Maccabees 8:17
Matthew 24:16 1 Maccabees 2:28
Matthew 25:35 Tobit 4:17
Matthew 25:36 Sirach 7:32-35
Matthew 26:38 Sirach 37:2
Matthew 27:24 Daniel 13:46
Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:13
Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:18-20
Top
Mark
Mark 1:15 Tobit 14:5
Mark 4:5 Sirach 40:15
Mark 4:11 Wisdom 2:22
Mark 5:34 Judith 8:35
Mark 6:49 Wisdom 17:15
Mark 8:37 Sirach 26:14
Mark 9:31 Sirach 2:18
Mark 9:48 Judith 16:17
Mark 10:18 Sirach 4:1
Mark 14:34 Sirach 37:2
Mark 15:29 Wisdom 2:17s
Top
Luke
Luke 1:17 Sirach 48:10
Luke 1:19 Tobit 12:15
Luke 1:42 Judith 13:18
Luke 1:52 Sirach 10:14
Luke 2:29 Tobit 11:9
Luke 2:37 Judith 8:6
Luke 6:35 Wisdom 15:1
Luke 7:22 Sirach 48:5
Luke 9:8 Sirach 48:10
Luke 10:17 Tobit 7:17
Luke 10:19 Sirach 11:19
Luke 10:21 Sirach 51:1
Luke 12:19 Tobit 7:10
Luke 12:20 Wisdom 15:8
Luke 13:25 Tobit 14:4
Luke 13:27 1 Maccabees 3:6
Luke 13:29 Baruch 4:37
Luke 14:13 Tobit 2:2
Luke 15:12 1 Maccabees 10:29 [30]
Luke 15:12 Tobit 3:17
Luke 18:7 Sirach 35:22
Luke 19:44 Wisdom 3:7
Luke 21:24 Tobit 14:5
Luke 21:24 Sirach 28:18
Luke 21:25 Wisdom 5:22
Luke 24:4 2 Maccabees 3:26
Luke 24:31 2 Maccabees 3:34
Luke 24:50 Sirach 50:20s
Luke 24:53 Sirach 50:22
Top
John
John 1:3 Wisdom 9:1
John 3:8 Sirach 16:21
John 3:12 Wisdom 9:16
John 3:12 Wisdom 18:15s
John 3:13 Baruch 3:29
John 3:28 1 Maccabees 9:39
John 3:32 Tobit 4:6
John 4:9 Sirach 50:25s
John 4:48 Wisdom 8:8
John 5:18 Wisdom 2:16
John 6:35 Sirach 24:21
John 7:38 Sirach 24:40, 43[30s]
John 8:44 Wisdom 2:24
John 8:53 Sirach 44:19
John 10:20 Wisdom 5:4
John 10:22 1 Maccabees 4:59
John 14:15 Wisdom 6:18
John 15:9s Wisdom 3:9
John 17:3 Wisdom 15:3
John 20:22 Wisdom 15:11
Top
Acts
Acts 1:10 2 Maccabees 3:26
Acts 1:18 Wisdom 4:19
Acts 2:4 Sirach 48:12
Acts 2:11 Sirach 36:7
Acts 2:39 Sirach 24:32
Acts 4:24 Judith 9:12
Acts 5:2 2 Maccabees 4:32
Acts 5:12 1 Maccabees 12:6
Acts 5:21 2 Maccabees 1:10
Acts 5:39 2 Maccabees 7:19
Acts 9:1-29 2 Maccabees 3:24-40
Acts 9:2 1 Maccabees 15:21
Acts 9:7 Wisdom 18:1
Acts 10:2 Tobit 12:8
Acts 10:22 1 Maccabees 10:25
Acts 10:22 1 Maccabees 11:30, 33 etc.
Acts 10:26 Wisdom 7:1
Acts 10:30 2 Maccabees 11:8
Acts 10:34 Sirach 35:12s
Acts 10:36 Wisdom 6:7
Acts 10:36 Wisdom 8:3 etc.
Acts 11:18 Wisdom 12:19
Acts 12:5 Judith 4:9
Acts 12:10 Sirach 19:26
Acts 12:23 Judith 16:17
Acts 12:23 Sirach 48:21
Acts 12:23 1 Maccabees 7:41
Acts 12:23 2 Maccabees 9:9
Acts 13:10 Sirach 1:30
Acts 13:17 Wisdom 19:10
Acts 14:14 Judith 14:16s
Acts 14:15 Wisdom 7:3
Acts 15:4 Judith 8:26
Acts 16:14 2 Maccabees 1:4
Acts 17:23 Wisdom 14:20
Acts 17:23 Wisdom 15:17
Acts 17:24, 25 Wisdom 9:1
Acts 17:24 Tobit 7:17
Acts 17:24 Wisdom 9:9
Acts 17:26 Wisdom 7:18
Acts 17:27 Wisdom 13:6
Acts 17:29 Wisdom 13:10
Acts 17:30 Sirach 28:7
Acts 19:27 Wisdom 3:17
Acts 19:28 Daniel 14:18, 41
Acts 20:26 Daniel 13:46
Acts 20:32 Wisdom 5:5
Acts 20:35 Sirach 4:31
Acts 21:26 1 Maccabees 3:49
Acts 22.9 Wisdom 18.1
Acts 24:2 2 Maccabees 4:6
Acts 26:18 Wisdom 5:5
Acts 26:25 Judith 10:13
Top
Romans
Romans 1:19-32 Wisdom 13-15
Romans 1:21 Wisdom 13:1
Romans 1:23 Wisdom 11:15
Romans 1:23 Wisdom 12:24
Romans 1:28 2 Maccabees 6:4
Romans 2:4 Wisdom 11:23
Romans 2:11 Sirach 35:12s
Romans 2:15 Wisdom 17:11
Romans 4:13 Sirach 44:21
Romans 4:17 Sirach 44:19
Romans 5:5 Sirach 18:11
Romans 5:12 Wisdom 2:24
Romans 9:4 Sirach 44:12
Romans 9:4 2 Maccabees 6:23
Romans 9:19 Wisdom 12:12
Romans 9:21 Wisdom 15:7
Romans 9:31 Sirach 27:8
Romans 9:31 Wisdom 2:11
Romans 10.7 Wisdom 16.13
Romans 10:6 Baruch 3:29
Romans 11:4 2 Maccabees 2:4
Romans 11:15 Sirach 10:20s
Romans 11:33 Wisdom 17:1
Romans 12:15 Sirach 7:34
Romans 13:1 Sirach 4:27
Romans 13:1 Wisdom 6:3s
Romans 13.10 Wisdom 6.18
Romans 15:4 1 Maccabees 12:9
Romans 15:8 Sirach 36:20
Top
1 Corinthians
1 Corinthians 1:24 Wisdom 7:24s
1 Corinthians 2:16 Wisdom 9:13
1 Corinthians 2:9 Sirach 1:10
1 Corinthians 4:13 Tobit 5:19
1 Corinthians 4:14 Wisdom 11:10
1 Corinthians 6:2 Wisdom 3:8
1 Corinthians 6:12 Sirach 37:28
1 Corinthians 6:13 Sirach 36:18
1 Corinthians 6:18 Sirach 23:17
1 Corinthians 7:19 Sirach 32:23
1 Corinthians 9:19 Sirach 6:19
1 Corinthians 9:25 Wisdom 4:2
1 Corinthians 10:1 Wisdom 19:7s
1 Corinthians 10:20 Baruch 4:7
1 Corinthians 10:23 Sirach 37:28
1 Corinthians 11:7 Sirach 17:3
1 Corinthians 11:7 Wisdom 2:23
1 Corinthians 11:24 Wisdom 16:6
1 Corinthians 15:29 2 Maccabees 12:43s
1 Corinthians 15:32 Wisdom 2:5s
1 Corinthians 15:34 Wisdom 13:1
Top
2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 5:1, 4 Wisdom 9:15
2 Corinthians 12:12 Wisdom 10:16
Top
Galatians
Galatians 2:6 Sirach 35:13
Galatians 4:4 Tobit 14:5
Galatians 6:1 Wisdom 17:17
Top
Ephesians
Ephesians 1:6 Sirach 45:1
Ephesians 1:6 Sirach 46:13
Ephesians 1:17 Wisdom 7:7
Ephesians 4:14 Sirach 5:9
Ephesians 4:24 Wisdom 9:3
Ephesians 6:12 Wisdom 5:17
Ephesians 6:14 Wisdom 5:18
Ephesians 6:16 Wisdom 5:19, 21
Top
Philippians
Philippians 4:5 Wisdom 2:19
Philippians 4:13 Wisdom 7:23
Philippians 4:18 Sirach 35:6
Top
Colossians
Colossians 2:3 Sirach 1:24s
Top
1 Thessalonians
1 Thessalonians 3:11 Judith 12:8
1 Thessalonians 4:6 Sirach 5:3
1 Thessalonians 4:13 Wisdom 3:18
1 Thessalonians 5:1 Wisdom 8:8
1 Thessalonians 5:2 Wisdom 18:14s
1 Thessalonians 5:3 Wisdom 17:14
1 Thessalonians 5:8 Wisdom 5:18
Top
2 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians 2:1 2 Maccabees 2:7
Top
1 Timothy
1 Timothy 1:17 Tobit 13:7, 11
1 Timothy 2:2 2 Maccabees 3:11
1 Timothy 2:2 Baruch 1:11s
1 Timothy 6:15 Sirach 46:5
1 Timothy 6:15 2 Maccabees 12:15
1 Timothy 6:15 2 Maccabees 13:4
Top
2 Timothy
2 Timothy 2:19 Sirach 17:26
2 Timothy 2:19 Sirach 23:10v1
2 Timothy 2:19 Sirach 35:3
2 Timothy 4:8 Wisdom 5:16
2 Timothy 4:17 1 Maccabees 2:60
Top
Titus
Titus 2:11 2 Maccabees 3:30
Titus 3:4 Wisdom 1:6
Top
Hebrews
Hebrews 1:3 Wisdom 7:25s
Hebrews 2:5 Sirach 17:17
Hebrews 4.12 Wisdom 18.15s
Hebrews 4:12 Wisdom 7:22-30
Hebrews 5:6 1 Maccabees 14:41
Hebrews 7:22 Sirach 29:14ss
Hebrews 11:5 Sirach 44:16
Hebrews 11:5 Wisdom 4:10
Hebrews 11:6 Wisdom 10:17
Hebrews 11.10 Wisdom 13.1
Hebrews 11:10 2 Maccabees 4:1
Hebrews 11:17 1 Maccabees 2:52
Hebrews 11:17 Sirach 44:20
Hebrews 11:27 Sirach 2:2
Hebrews 11:28 Wisdom 18:25
Hebrews 11:35 2 Maccabees 6:18-7:42
Hebrews 12:4 2 Maccabees 13:14
Hebrews 12:9 2 Maccabees 3:24
Hebrews 12:12 Sirach 25:23
Hebrews 12:17 Wisdom 12:10
Hebrews 12:21 1 Maccabees 13:2
Hebrews 13:7 Sirach 33:19
Hebrews 13:7 Wisdom 2:17
Top
James
James 1:1 2 Maccabees 1:27
James 1:13 Sirach 15:11-20
James 1:19 Sirach 5:11
James 1:2 Sirach 2:1
James 1:2 Wisdom 3:4s
James 1:21 Sirach 3:17
James 2:13 Tobit 4:10
James 2:23 Wisdom 7:27
James 3:2 Sirach 14:1
James 3:6 Sirach 5:13
James 3:9 Sirach 23:1, 4
James 3:10 Sirach 5:13
James 3:10 Sirach 28:12
James 3:13 Sirach 3:17
James 4:2 1 Maccabees 8:16
James 4:11 Wisdom 1:11
James 5:3 Judith 16:17
James 5:3 Sirach 29:10
James 5:4 Tobit 4:14
James 5:6 Wisdom 2:10
James 5:6 Wisdom 2:12
James 5:6 Wisdom 2:19
Top
1 Peter
1 Peter 1:3 Sirach 16:12
1 Peter 1:7 Sirach 2:5
1 Peter 2:25 Wisdom 1:6
1 Peter 4:19 2 Maccabees 1:24 etc.
1 Peter 5:7 Wisdom 12:13
Top
2 Peter
2 Peter 2:2 Wisdom 5:6
2 Peter 2:7 Wisdom 10:6
2 Peter 3:9 Sirach 35:19
2 Peter 3:18 Sirach 18:10
Top
1 John
1 John 5:21 Baruch 5:72
Top
Jude
Jude 13 Wisdom 14:1
Top
Revelation
Revelation 1:18 Sirach 18:1
Revelation 2:10 2 Maccabees 13:14
Revelation 2:12 Wisdom 18:16 [15]
Revelation 2:17 2 Maccabees 2:4-8
Revelation 4:11 Sirach 18:1
Revelation 4:11 Wisdom 1:14
Revelation 5:7 Sirach 1:8
Revelation 7:9 2 Maccabees 10:7
Revelation 8:1 Wisdom 18:14
Revelation 8:2 Tobit 12:15
Revelation 8:3 Tobit 12:12
Revelation 8:7 Sirach 39:29
Revelation 8:7 Wisdom 16:22
Revelation 9:3 Wisdom 16:9
Revelation 9:4 Sirach 44:18 etc.
Revelation 11:19 2 Maccabees 2:4-8
Revelation 17:14 2 Maccabees 13:4
Revelation 18:2 Baruch 4:35
Revelation 19:1 Tobit 13:18
Revelation 19:11 2 Maccabees 3:25
Revelation 19:11 2 Maccabees 11:8
Revelation 19:16 2 Maccabees 13:4
Revelation 20:12s Sirach 16:12
Revelation 21:19s Tobit 13:17
Hebrews 11:35 is an indisputable reference to 2 Maccabees 7, but many are not so clear as there may be only a single phrase that echoes one in a deuterocanonical book (and this may not be obvious in the translation, but only the original languages). Thus, some of these may be oblique to the English reader. You may dispute some, but certainly not all. You may wish to redact your statement, my friend.
I will tell you when you show me in the Bible that He wanted to create new scriputre and a new religion.
Who knows what you mean by "new Scripture" and "new religion?"
Are we to understand you are now doubting the New Testament as well as the Old?
And do you doubt Christ came to establish the "new covenant?"
Respectfully, Kosta, I think you might be a very unorthodox Orthodox.
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." -- Hebrews 10:7-10
"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." -- Hebrews 8:6-7 "Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Christ came to fulfill the Scriptures, according to the will and purpose of God. And we know this because God continued His revelation to us through His word.
I never imagined an Eastern Orthodox would question this.
A more correct sentence would be accomplished by removing four words which obscure the truth...
He calls us and we have to come to Him
on our own. His sacrifice made that choice. possible.
You're half right. Mankind loves wickedness more than God. And the only thing that will change that fact is God's regeneration of the sinner's will to desire Him instead of sin, and God's renewal of the sinnner's mind to comprehend the truth of Christ risen.
Do you believe God ordained His family from before the foundation of the world, or is He just adding to it as time goes by and men decide for themselves to be reconciled to Christ?
I didn't realize you don't believe in regeneration. What do you do with verses like these? :
Ezek 36:26 : I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
2 Cor 5:17 : Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation ; the old has gone, the new has come!
It is no small matter that Jesus' Name is called the Word of God.
The indwelling Holy Spirit confirms to us personally that the Scriptures are the words of God. Although some do not trust the Spirit's leading - it appears they trust the councils of religious authority which have claimed Spiritual insight.
The words of God are not ordinary language - they are spirit and they are life.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. II Cor 2:6-16
I would agree that God is not the author of sin, but God does implement death. Who killed all those people in the OT?
“As many... as stand apart in their will from God, He brings upon them separation from Himself; and separation from God is death.” +Irenaeus Against Heresies 5. 27.2.
I'm good with this one. Here, God is implementing the separation.
“For as much as he departed from life, just so much did he draw nearer to death. For life is God; deprivation of life is death. So Adam was the author of death to himself through his departure from God.” +Basil the Great.
Yes, God did not "zap" Adam to make him sin.
The danger of the theology you are espousing is that it quite literally makes God the author/cause of evil. The fact that Death had a salutary effect after the Fall in that it prevented the multiplication of sun completely unchecked does not change this.
I don't see how it makes God the author of evil. God has no duty to shield anyone from his own sin. And when God "executes" :) His justice, that is not evil, that is just.
Wow! I'll take it and I couldn't agree more. :) We call this God's outward call, as opposed to His inward call, which is always efficacious. God did not decree that all men be saved, but we should always treat everyone as if He had (i.e. work in concert with God making disciples of all men).
His saving grace is for anyone who is willing to follow Him. It is not pre-programmed "love" or some brain-washing tractor beam attached to the foreheads of the "elect."
His saving grace is what causes people to follow Him. No brain-washing is necessary. The new heart follows God willingly.
“And when God “executes” :) His justice, that is not evil, that is just.”
Justice? Why, FK? Why not love or mercy? Do you suppose that the “Justice” of God is like that of some Middle Ages absolute Ruler? Is God’s “Justice” something we can describe or understand? It sounds as if God to the Western mind kills to satisfy some sort of divine “pride”, more something to be saved from than saved by. One could conclude that even though we can be “saved” from the wrath of this baleful “god” by the horrible death of His Son, wouldn’t it be better just to conclude that this god doesn’t even exist? Isn’t that what much of the West has done? I’ve heard that atheism was born in the West. I have no idea if that is true, but it makes some sense that it would arise there and not in the East.
Amen, FK!
"Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)" -- Ephesians 2:5
"His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. - Revelation 19:12-13
I need to spend more time reading Revelation. It confirms the Scriptures true.
It saddens me to see the revelation in John 6 be reduced to a physical matter thereby missing the Spiritual Truth that we must feed on Him, the Word of God.
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. - Matthew 4:4
Yes, and we have His assurance that the attempt to reduce Christ's perfect, one-time, thoroughly-accomplished sacrifice down to repetitive, incomplete, impersonal offerings will end up as nothing more than vanity.
"And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein" -- Acts 14:15"They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy." -- Jonah 2:8
WCF: CHAP. III. - Of God’s Eternal Decree. 1. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.
Calvin diagrees with you, my friend.
You must be looking at an abridged version since you didn't copy the whole sentence. :) Here it is:
I. God from all eternity did by the most and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (emphasis added)
So, the same sentence you quote backs me up in that God is not responsible for sin.
If the belief comes first, then the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then how does that occur under Reformed theology? I thought that Reformed folks believed that the Holy Spirit hijacked the individual, then the belief occurred.
The Holy Spirit regenerates the individual before He indwells. In between these actions there is belief.
” Nor did He ever command His disciples to preach and carry their ministry to the Gentiles!”
You need to reread the gospels.
Mat 28:18-20, “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.”
“He didn’t. Because He was a Jew and He came neither to create a new religion, nor to ordain new Scripture”
Let me know if you want any more evidence.
Matt. 5:21-22, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”
Matt.5:27-28, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
Luke 5:36-38, “And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.”
Mat 26:28, “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
" For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7 "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee" -- Psalm 65:4
I happen to prefer the NIV, but the KJV is excellent. When I quote I usually compare both versions, and notable differences I have found to be rare. The same theology is found in most mainline versions.
I find the NAB to be rather pedestrian, however, I think that it is the best effort to date to translate the original text and intent of the written words that we have into the English of this era.
Is there an "official" text that is used at all Masses?
You may not use the gender-neutral Bibles that seem to be all the rage today, but under what authority do you reject them? How do you know? Is it the Gnostic in you (say ahhhhh and I’ll look for him)? How in the world can you say that this Bible is good and that Bible is bad without the authority of God’s own Catholic Church telling you?
I haven't studied the gender-neutral Bibles carefully, but there does not appear to be any scholarship behind them. It appears they are being changed solely for the purpose of political correctness. That is all I need to know to reject them. At least there appears to be some serious scholarship behind most of the time tested versions out there. Now, there may be some "tweener" Bibles floating around out there that I might like or not, but I haven't run into any yet. I'm not really in the market right now to make a change. :)
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.