Posted on 06/13/2010 12:16:24 PM PDT by markomalley
.- Thousands of pilgrims and faithful gathered at noon Sunday in St. Peter’s Square to pray the Angelus with the Holy Father. Before the prayer, he said that the fruits of the recently ended Year for Priests could never be measured, but are already visible and will continue to be ever more so.
“The priest is a gift from the heart of Christ, a gift for the Church and for the world. From the heart of the Son of God, overflowing with love, all the goods of the Church spring forth,” proclaimed Pope Benedict XVI. “One of those goods is the vocations of those men who, conquered by the Lord Jesus, leave everything behind to dedicate themselves completely to the Christian community, following the example of the Good Shepherd.”
The Holy Father described the priest as having been formed by “the same charity of Christ, that love which compelled him to give his life for his friends and to forgive his enemies.”
“Therefore,” he continued, “priests are the primary builders of the civilization of love.”
Benedict XVI exhorted priests to always seek the intercession of St. John Marie Vianney, whose prayer, the “Act of Love,” was prayed frequently during the Year for Priests, and “continues to fuel our dialogue with God.”
The pontiff also spoke about the close of the Year for Priests, which took place this past week and culminated with the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. He emphasized “the unforgettable days in the presence of more than 15,000 priests from around the world.”
The feast of the Sacred Heart is traditionally a “day of priestly holiness,” but this time it was especially so, Benedict XVI remarked.
Pope Benedict concluded his comments by noting that, in contemplating history, “one observes so many pages of authentic social and spiritual renewal which have been written by the decisive contribution of Catholic priests.” These were inspired “only by their passion for the Gospel and for mankind, for his true civil and religious freedom.”
“So many initiatives that promote the entire human being have begun with the intuition of a priestly heart,” he exclaimed.
The Pope then prayed the Angelus, greeted those present in various languages, and imparted his apostolic blessing.
Two quibbles/suggestions/cavils, blah blah:
(1) I am reading for the second time "the Last Superstition" by a fellow named Feser, who, in my opinion, was the love child of Ann Coulter and Thomas Aquinas.
I mention this to say that while there is some real slogging in it, most of it is very amusingly written. The reason I recommend it is that it is a brief and I think quite well done introduction to scholastic theology-- well really to the philosophy which informs the theology.
And the reason that's a good thing (in my view) is that it would help, maybe, to put to rest some of the questions about eternity, and, by implication, about how we think of the once-for-all nature of Christ's atoning work.
I even read a popular theologian talking about Christ suffering "continually," and blenched. But it IS hard to talk and think about timelessness.
(2)I want to hit the distinction between develop and evolve that Mrs. Don-o mentioned. And, in that connection, to say that the MAJOR work (IMHO) on setting out the role of "priest" (In the Catholic sense) was done very promptly. Christian worship was being called a sacrifice fairly soon, usually a sacrifice of thanksgiving - which some say has a reference to an offering called the "todah", a thank offering of bread and wine, which became important in the time of David and Solomon.
And people were saying that "REAL" Christian worship was that done with the bishop or with somebody appointed by him, certainly by 150AD.
So, I would say, IF it's a 'change', the biggest part of the 'change happened very quickly, and most of what has happened since has been tidying up, both administratively and theologically.
I meant to ping you to this but I got shy.
“your tone is confrontational. I didn’t invite you to comment on my posts to another FReeper. Yet you invited yourself”
Try not to presume to know my intentions. This is a RF thread, if anybody wants to pontificate their views, they have the option of starting their own website.
“either discuss your claims or leave.”
The RF is not for thin skinned. This is not an Objectivist forum, it is the Religion Forum. Faith and belief are part of the discussion.
“How Christian!”
How atheist.
“You mean they accept the unproven suppositions which might as well be pink unicorns on Jupiter?”
Its called the Divinely Inspired Word of God.
“Multiple opinions means no one really knows for sure. How can they all be guided by the “Holy Spirit?”
That is why believers in Christ, both Protestant and Catholic debate here. They are important and revealing debates for Christians. Those who dont understand the Holy Spirit or believe in God can never fully understand that debate.
Not me. I just know what you did. I don't know why you did it. You, on the other hand, presume to know what I know and rather than stick with the topic you make it personal (the "uneducated" comment for example).
The RF is not for thin skinned. This is not an Objectivist forum, it is the Religion Forum. Faith and belief are part of the discussion.
Yes part of the discussion, not the whole of it. What's your point? If you don't want to answer objectivist questions you are free to leave.
How atheist.
What is "atheist" about it?
Its called the Divinely Inspired Word of God
Man-given game. Pretentious. That doesn't prove it is. Besides, God didn't write it in all these silly versions. Humans did.
That is why believers in Christ, both Protestant and Catholic debate here.
What is there to debate if they believe the same thing, are supposedly guided by the same Holy Spirit, whatever that means, and have the capacity to understand? Yet they differ like night and day and, out of Christian charity, managed to burn each other at stake. All that over the love of Christ! Just look at Northern Ireland in the past 40 years.
Those who dont understand [sic] the Holy Spirit or believe in God can never fully understand that debate
You understand the Holy Spirit? Why don't you explain it to me? In that case you should have no problems with objectivist questions.
The Jews distinguished between offering blessings (which they do in synagogues) and sacrificial offerings which could be made only by an Aaronite priest in the one and only Temple. Giving thanks can be made by any elder member of the congregation, but not the sacrifice.
My OT Hebrew dicitonary doesn't have "todah"' but Catholic sites do in abundance. Isn't that amazing? Also Judaism 101 doesn't seem to know that word either.
Finally, if you are referring to St. Justin Martyr with your reference to "150 AD" he makes reference to a "president" of the congregation, not a priest, who gives thanks "to the best of his ability."
Anyone present at a Jewish Passover Seder would immediately recognize that the "president" was not a priest but the elder. Justin Mary also makes no mention of any sacrifice but only of thanksgiving (eucharistia).
God has to bestow His Grace.
There is no verse in Scripture,
There is no definition in a theology text or Church Council or Church Father explanation that will make sense to a non-believer.
The futility of attempting to read and interpet Scripture without the Holy Spirit is as if the words were written in code.
They have heard, they have seen, but “they do not understand”
Good luck on your venture. I actually appreciate some of your posts. They have useful knowledge in them. However, trying to synthesize God’s Word, requires faith.
To critique a Book of Faith on one’s lack of faith, is a strawman argument. It would be like proving the Laws of Thermodynamics with Belief in God...a deceptive and futile exercise.
“Do this in remembrance of me...”
We don’t remember an ongoing act. THAT would be ‘participate’.
We could argue till the cows come home...or until WE do!
But I think (hope, pray) that God judges our heart, not just our mind. I think what Catholics teach/practice is in contradiction to what I read in Hebrews, so I don’t do it. But if you are sincere in wishing to follow God and become like Him, then I believe God will call us faithful servants even when our practices conflict.
I like intellectual discussions, but the power of God is revealed in changed lives, not debate. 30 years ago, I spent a summer as a ‘summer missionary’ under the Southern Baptist Convention. We moved to a different town each week. At one town in Montana, the local Baptist church had some of the meanest folks I’ve met in a congregation anywhere. Meanwhile, every Catholic we met there was smiling and praising God...so by the end of the week, my partner and I were telling the folks we talked to that they could visit the local Catholic Church if they needed spiritual help.
To that extent I agree with James:
“18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.” - James 2
I fully believe we are saved by faith, not works - but saving faith is revealed in our works, not our flawless doctrine.
“We cannot, even by our best works, merit pardon of sin or eternal life from the hand of God, for those works are out of all proportion to the glory to come. Moreover, because of the infinite distance that is between us and God, our works can neither benefit God nor satisfy the debt of our former sins. When we have done all we can, we have only done our duty, and are still unprofitable servants. Besides, if our works are good they originate from the Spirit, and whatever we do is defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection that it cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment.
Yet, although believers are accepted as individual people through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Christ. It is not as though in this life they were entirely blameless and beyond censure in God’s sight, but that he looks upon them in his Son, and is pleased to accept and reward what is sincere, even though it is accompanied by many weaknesses and imperfections.” - 1689 Baptist Confession
http://www.grbc.net/about_us/1689.php?chapter=16
Why don’t Baptists have bishops? Episcopal office is biblical, isn’t it?
The biblical offices are elders and deacons. Generally speaking, Baptist consider the pastor/pastors to be the elder/elders. Deacons are normally lay folk. Depending on the congregation, sometimes deacons have authority to replace the pastor/elder.
“1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.” - 1 Tim 3
There is no controlling authority above the congregation among Baptists. The Apostles all had authority over the church, but that authority died with them.
The current (2000) Southern Baptist ‘Faith and Message” says,
“A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.
The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp
I actually prefer the wording of the 1925 version:
“A church of Christ is a congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the ordinances of Christ, governed by his laws, and exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by his word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Its Scriptural officers are bishops, or elders, and deacons.”
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp
Not all SBC churches use the 2000 version. Some write their own statement, quite a few prefer the wording of the 1963 version, and a few still use the 1925 version.
As a practical matter, I see no sign that having a central authority other than scripture does anything to maintain doctrinal purity or personal devotion.
To me the obvious answer to “why baptists don’t have bishops” is that they are generally good and pious people so God had mercy on them and withheld this scourge from them.
This opinion has nothing to do with the fact that my bishop would not ordain me. No. Nothing (nods) (shakes head) (nods)
Memory is not just about things past. “Remember, you’re going to have to pay capital gains on that.”
Let’s all retire to our closets and read Augustine on memory. I can’t remember what he said, but I remember it’s good.
I think good works are not only signs/effects of grace but vehicles of grace. Weren’t we just talking about Ephesians (or was that Forest Keeper) and the good works God has prepared for us to walk in? He prepares them, He gives us the grace to walk in them. And where are we walking? Closer to him!
Is that a deal or WHAT?
Thanks again for your exhaustive reply.
So it's mainly a matter of personal or political preference for one word or the other, since the word bishop is derived from Greek episkopos, which literally means an overseer (epi+scopos = above+watcher). Deacon is, likewise, a word derived from Greek (diakonos) meaning a server, helper.
My question was basically why mix-and-match, using an English word for the former and a foreign word for the latter. Bishop/deacon or overseer/helper would be more consistent.
I think the baptists are avoiding the word bishop lest it be confused with some hierarchical churches. In other words, politics.
Pink unicorns have to approve. Sounds convincing doesn't it? As much as yours.
There is no verse in Scripture, There is no definition in a theology text or Church Council or Church Father explanation that will make sense to a non-believer
Sounds grand, but lacks any proof. It's a dogmatic, man-made fiat to give oneself absolute monopoly on truth.
The futility of attempting to read and interpet Scripture without the Holy Spirit is as if the words were written in code.
More unsubstantiated blather. Pink unicorns, pink unicorns, and more pink unicorns...
However, trying to synthesize God’s Word, requires faith
Just answer me what is God (divine), and how do you know it, and then we can proceed.
To critique a Book of Faith on one’s lack of faith, is a strawman argument
To critique the Book of Pink Unicorns on one's lack of faith is a strawman argument...to critique the Koran on one's lack of faith...to critique the book of Isis on one's lack of faith...is a strawman...
First, doubt is not critique. Second, faith, is something someone believes is true (i.e. pink unicorns on Jupiter). That doesn't make it true, and neither does doubt prove it's not true. However, the burden of proof is on the one making the statement of faith into a statement of fact, the one asserting, stating, claiming, that something exists or is true.
What is so hard to understand about a book that requires you to believe in God to undersstand it.
It is a book of Faith. It is not a book of proven theories and proofs lol.
Intellectual masturbation can be enjoyable I suppose.
“I think the baptists are avoiding the word bishop lest it be confused with some hierarchical churches. In other words, politics.”
Perhaps. The Baptists largely formed in England, but England or the Continent, they were persecuted for not submitting to the state-approved church.
However, it also avoids some of the baggage that goes with the meaning of the English word ‘Bishop’. The primary dictionary meaning of Bishop is “a person who supervises a number of local churches or a diocese, being in the Greek, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and other churches a member of the highest order of the ministry”. (dictionary.com)
For Baptists, such a person doesn’t exist. The CONGREGATION has an overseer, or elders, or bishop - but that role is strictly limited to the individual congregation. No one supervises multiple congregations for Baptists. Each congregation is completely independent. The SBC is a group of like-minded congregations, but the President of the SBC has no authority over any congregation save his own.
Many Baptist refuse to be part of any organization. Others, like the SBC, join together to provide financial support to seminaries and missionaries - but we have no bishops, in the typical English meaning of the word. So we don’t use it.
I think the scripture supports either approach. The church I was part of in the Philippines may have come closest to how the NT church was organized. Clark Field Baptist Church had started over 50 other churches. We had ZERO authority over any of them, but if they had questions, they would often ask us about it. The pastor of Clark Field didn’t rule over anyone, but the other congregations respected him. That is about as close as I’ve seen of a Baptist church with a ‘bishop’.
IIRC, the Greek word conveyed not just memory, but actively learning from the memory - kind of like using July 4th to remember the founding of the US, reflect on what it meant and what the founders suffered and risked, and thus having a better understanding of what it means to be free.
To that extent, it is much more than just remembering what Jesus did, but how much further it goes than that is what theologians argue about. I would obviously draw the line somewhere short of transubstantiation, or requiring that an ordained priest perform the act. That goes well beyond the requirements found in scripture, so we come back to Sola Scriptura and Tradition, and how much weight one gives to each.
But I’d rather focus on how much the individual wants to be like Jesus, and what evidence there is of God working in his life to change him. There is a reason God didn’t give us a book of systematic theology...
What is so hard to understand that one can't understand that which one a priori accepts as true? What is there to "understand" in blind faith?
I totally understand that, given the autonomous makeup of Baptist assemblies.
No one supervises multiple congregations for Baptists
Here is the rub, I think. What authority, if any, does the SBC have and what purpose does it serve if not to exercise some sort of control over "like-minded" congregations?
The church I was part of in the Philippines may have come closest to how the NT church was organized
Except that the NT churches were subject to apostolic authority. Most of Paul's epistles are basically "meddling" in other churches' business, telling them what to do, what not to do, and even giving them commandments of his own.
I think reducing Christian assemblies to unsupervised sovereign bodies is not indicative of how the NT Church was organized. The autonomy existed between the apostles, as there was no lording over them, but there was no inherent autonomy in the individual congregations collectively speaking. I think the Bible is very clear that not everyone can interpret, or prophesy, or teach, etc.
Again, thanks for the input.
It is not me who is blind.
From my conversation with a nearby Baptist pastor (an excellent, intelligent, and pious guy) I have garnered the impression that a Convention has certain standards, but that leaving a convention because those standards are no longer those of your congregation is not like leaving the Episcopal Church for one of the new Anglican outfits would be. It wouldn’t be a “schism.”
But Brother Rogers will be able to speak with more authority.
My understanding is that "schism" is a rather meaningless term in the Protestant world. It does not mean you can no longer "commune" or worship in the schismatic "churches."
I imagine "schism" for Baptists simply means you make your own Baptist "church," usually one corner down the street from the old one, probably called "First baptist Church of Orange Grove," and call it the "First Baptist Church of Sleepy Hollow."
I also think, among Baptists, schism can be for any number of reasons, not necessarily theological. Doesn't the Bible hint that all you need is "two or three" to have a "church?" :)
But Brother Rogers will be able to speak with more authority
I am sure.
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.