Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
Today’s New York Times, with another front-page attack on Pope Benedict XVI, erases any possible doubt that America’s most influential newspaper has declared an editorial jihad against this pontificate. Abandoning any sense of editorial balance, journalistic integrity, or even elementary logic, the Times looses a 4,000-word barrage against the Pope: an indictment that is not supported even by the content of this appalling story. Apparently the editors are relying on sheer volume of words, and repetition of ugly details, to substitute for logical argumentation.
The thrust of the argument presented by the Times is that prior to his election as Pontiff, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not take decisive action to punish priests who abused children. Despite its exhaustive length, the story does not present a single new case to support that argument. The authors claim, at several points in their presentation, that as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Ratzinger had the authority to take action. But then, again and again, they quote knowledgeable Church officials saying precisely the opposite.
The confusion over lines of authority at the Vatican was so acute, the Times reports, that in the year 2000 a group of bishops met in Rome to present their concerns. That meeting led eventually to the change in policy announced by Pope John Paul II the following year, giving the CDF sole authority over disciplinary action against priests involved in sexual abuse. By general consensus the 2001 policy represented an important step forward in the Vatican’s handling of the problem, and it was Cardinal Ratzinger who pressed for that policy change. How does that sequence of events justify criticism of the future Pope? It doesn’t. But the facts do not deter the Times.
The Times writers show their bias with their flippant observation that when he might have been fighting sexual abuse, during the 1980s and 1990s Cardinal Ratzinger was more prominent in his pursuit of doctrinal orthodoxy. But then, while until 2001 it was not clear which Vatican office was primarily responsible for sexual abuse, it was clear that the CDF was responsible for doctrinal orthodoxy. Cardinal Ratzinger’s primary focus was on his primary job.
After laying out the general argument against the Vatican’s inaction—and implying that Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for that inaction, disregarding the ample evidence that other prelates stalled his efforts—the Times makes the simply astonishing argument that local diocesan bishops were more effective in their handling of sex-abuse problems. That argument is merely wrong; it is comically absurd.
During the 1980s and 1990s, as some bishops were complaining about the confusion at the Vatican, bishops in the US and Ireland, Germany and Austria, Canada and Italy were systematically covering up evidence of sexual abuse, and transferring predator-priests to new parish assignments to hide them from scrutiny. The revelations of the past decade have shown a gross dereliction of duty on the part of diocesan bishops. Indeed the ugly track record has shown that a number of diocesan bishops were themselves abusing children during those years.
So how does the Times have the temerity to suggest that the diocesan bishops needed to educate the Vatican on the proper handling of this issue? The lead witness for the Times story is Bishop Geoffrey Robinson: a former auxiliary of the Sydney, Australia archdiocese, who was hustled into premature retirement in 2004 at the age of 66 because his professed desire to change the teachings of the Catholic Church put him so clearly at odds with his fellow Australian bishops and with Catholic orthodoxy. This obscure Australian bishop, the main source of support for the absurd argument advanced by the Times, is the author of a book on Christianity that has been described as advancing “the most radical changes since Martin Luther started the 16th-century Reformation.” His work has drawn an extraordinary caution from the Australian episcopal conference, which warned that Robinson was at odds with Catholic teaching on “among other things, the nature of Tradition, the inspiration of the Holy Scripture, the infallibility of the Councils and the Pope, the authority of the Creeds, the nature of the ministerial priesthood and central elements of the Church’s moral teaching." Bishop Robinson is so extreme in his theological views that Cardinal Roger Mahony (who is not ordinarily known as a stickler for orthodoxy) barred him from speaking in the Los Angeles archdiocese in 2008. This, again, is the authority on which the Times hangs its argument against the Vatican.
And even the Times story itself, a mess of contradictions, acknowledges:
Bishops had a variety of disciplinary tools at their disposal — including the power to remove accused priests from contact with children and to suspend them from ministry altogether — that they could use without the Vatican’s direct approval.
It is not clear, then, why the Vatican bears the bulk of the responsibility for the sex-abuse scandal. Still less clear is why the main focus of that responsibility should be Pope Benedict. On that score, too, the Times blatantly contradicts its own argument. Buried in the Times story—on the 3rd page in the print edition, in the 46th paragraph of the article—is a report on one Vatican official who stood out at that 2000 meeting in Rome, calling for more effective action on sexual abuse.
An exception to the prevailing attitude, several participants recalled, was Cardinal Ratzinger. He attended the sessions only intermittently and seldom spoke up. But in his only extended remarks, he made clear that he saw things differently from others in the Curia.
That testimony is seconded by a more reliable prelate, Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide:
“The speech he gave was an analysis of the situation, the horrible nature of the crime, and that it had to be responded to promptly,” recalled Archbishop Wilson of Australia, who was at the meeting in 2000. “I felt, this guy gets it, he’s understanding the situation we’re facing. At long last, we’ll be able to move forward.”
The Times story, despite its flagrant bias and distortion, actually contains the evidence to dismiss the complaint. Unfortunately, the damage has already done before the truth comes out: that even a decade ago the future Pope Benedict was the solution, not part of the problem.
Thanks for the scripture. This is a good example. Abraham wrongly assumed that there could have been any who were truly righteous (by God's standards) such that they would not merit being destroyed. Man's justice would have separated some citizens as deserving death, but others not. By God's justice ALL of us deserve death, including Abraham. :)
We don’t know whether God was unable to find enough righteous or just killed them anyway as He was first planning to while and whether he should hide his injustice from Abraham.
God seems to disagree with you and agree with Abraham.
:)
Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. [Mark 10:14, Mat 19:14] There is no mention of faith; remember; they are not adults. Christ proclaims their innocence which he wouldn't if they had the "stain" of the "original sin".
Jesus does not use the term "original sin" but we can reasonably infer it from His teachings. For example:
If "the world" itself has been sinful since Adam then I see the clear pattern here that Jesus is distinguishing between those OF the world and those who are not. All of us are ultimately FROM somewhere, we have some beginning. Jesus says that beginning for us is in and of "the world", that is, in and of sin. The saved are those who are NO LONGER of the world. Those who have faith have been removed and are no longer of the world but of God.
The John 17 passage says that the world hated them BECAUSE they had been given the word of God and they were not of the world. This would not apply to the children. Their innocence alone does not exempt them from being of the world. They must be removed from it to be saved.
Judaism does not believe in the original sin.
Well, it may well be true that Judaism as it is commonly taught, then or now, did not believe in original sin, but as the NT and OT are clear to demonstrate there were VERY many people practicing Judaism wrongfully. I mean, Judaism doesn't accept Christ as Savior, but that doesn't mean He isn't. :)
FK: I don't see any problem. Paul said that the very faith he preached came to him directly from Christ
I don't mean to be rude, but this is no different than saying "there are pink unicorns on Jupiter."
No problem. What I was trying to say is that Paul saying that he got "his" Gospel from Christ is simply consistent with our claim that Paul and Christ do not conflict with each other. I understand that if one does not accept Paul's writings as a credible source then no statement he made would necessarily be worthy of merit.
There is no agreement among Protestants what comes after grace, faith or regeneration.
They both come after grace. I'm actually not sure how free will Protestants see the timing of regeneration, so you raise an interesting issue.
At conception. St. Augustine and St. Anselm were wholesome theologians with distinct Western flavor. St. Francis and St. Dominic were true reformers of the Western Church and they were successful. When the Protestants started asking their questions about grace and law, sinful nature of man, predestination, and austerity they already had answers from these great men. Protestantism has always been a caricature of Christianity since Luther foolishly accepted tonsure.
To impute that Jesus was speaking of the "original sin" here is baseless in my opinion. Jews do not believe in the original sin and therefore there is no need for spiritual rebirth.
Jesus spent a considerable amount of NT ink correcting the false views that many Jews held about their own faiths. Jesus never followed those Jews, He instructed them. Therefore I don't think it is correct to interpret Jesus' teachings through the prism of those Jews (Pharisees and others who wanted to kill Him) who were wrong.
I don't think of infants as being regenerated in the conventional sense.
So you are invoking an exception? On what biblical grounds?
They don't have conventional faith so it cannot lead to conventional good acts.
So, then, what does grace do for them? In what way are they "changed?" How do they "receive" grace? What evidence is there that they have received grace?
This does not change anything concerning our discussion about infants being graced and going to Heaven if they die because the doing of good acts is not what saves.
I can see that but I don't see what this is based on?
the Reformer would say that if this person died in such a state (he did not persevere) then it means that he was never a true believer. I think the Catholic/Orthodox position is that the person may have had true faith at one time but forfeited/lost it.
I think that is an accurate assessment of how these groups would look at it.
One thing we do know, though, is that the degree of wickedness is irrelevant. One sin, any sin is disqualifying from the presence of God in Heaven. There is nothing any of us can do to "balance it out" or "make it right". Only an omnipotent God can do that.
By "killing" himself? Would it be too much to say "why allow sin at all and spare yourself the trouble?" I am sorry, the 'exegetical' explanations required in Christianity are somewhat forced because Christianity has to "harmonize" two distinct phronema: Jewish and Platonic and they are oil and water. On standing they separate all by themselves.
I'm not sure any of us is really in a position to say that this is a strange kind of love since we cannot really understand what any alternatives would be like.
But we can "understand" this version of it?
The difference is in the need. Because we are under sin we NEED God's free gift.
Judaism doesn't have that problem. There is nothing to "harmonize." As far as Judaism is concerned, God made man prone to disobedience (sin) because he gave him free will. But he also provided for means of rectifying man's sinfulness by making it not impossible to control. That's why every Christian Bible alters Deuteronomy 30:14 (see also Romans 10:8), where the OT clearly tells the Jews that they can save themselves though works.
If he was 100% man than his death counted as 100% human sacrifice. And the Old Testament says God abhorred human sacrifice because no man can atone for the sins of another man.
God says He gave His ONLY begotten Son. That makes it different from the prohibited human sacrifices you are speaking of
More Platonic confusion. The Sacrifice was 100% human. What suffered and died was human. Nothing divine suffered or died.
Scriptures do no such thing. :) You're right that in general a free gift doesn't require a penalty, but it doesn't preclude it either
Sorry counselor, the doctrine says unconditional.
Yes, I remember those good references. But I also seem to remember not being able to put my arms around the idea of ransom because I couldn't imagine (in the comparison) that any one could have the upper hand on God. One who pays a ransom does so on the criminal's terms. I can't picture God being in that situation.
Remember: you don't have to understand it. Your being able to imagine or not is irrelevant. For your predisposition what matters is that the Bible says it's ransom. Look it up. The early Church doctrine (EOC still teaches it) says God gave did this to trick death and thus destroyed death (cf 1 Cor 15:56-57)
There was propitiation, but to death, so that death may be destroyed. There was no substituionary atonement to appease an offended God.
Just John's Platonic Jesus reminding them that he (as a Person) is really not from this world. Nothing whatsoever points here to "original sin".
1 John 4:4-6 : 4...
I don't think so.
John 17:13-16 : 13...the world hated them BECAUSE they had been given the word of God
The "world" hated them because they were preaching things the Jews found offensive, because Jesus is calling them the children of the devil, telling them they don't know their scriptures, that they are blind, etc.
the NT and OT are clear to demonstrate there were VERY many people practicing Judaism wrongfully.
By misquoting and misinterpreting and adding and deleting and picking and choosing which version is "true." When it is a matter of doctrine (such as Isa 7:14) then the Septuagint is the "true" version; but then in 9:6 (9:5 Septuagint), the Hebrew version is "true." And sometimes neither the Hebrew nor the Greek version is but an innovated one is.
Take, for example Hebrews 8:9, the Christian bibles follow the Septuagint because it suggests a new Covenant and the Old one becoming "obsolete." So, it starts off with "not according..." (Greek reading) instead of "no as..." (Hebrew reading). What's the difference you might ask? It's big but it's subtle. The NIV spices it up (to make sure) by saying "It will not be like [the old]
In fact verses leading up to this (v. 6-7) indicate that the covenant is going to be a new and "more perfect" covenant and the old one will become "obsolete" (v. 8). Of course, none of this is to be found in Jeremiah 31 from where these verses were selectively "borrowed".
The Jewish text simply states that the new covenant, intended only for the House of Judah and the House of Israel (two historic Jewish kingdoms—not Gentiles are large!) "not like the" the old one, will be inscribed "upon their hearts" so that "no longer shall one teach his neighbor" or his brother but everyone will know the Law so to say by heart, naturally.
The Only "novelty" is the manner how it will be written. There is no new covenant between God and his people, let alone between God and idol-worshiping Gentiles! Nothing here is supposed to become obsolete or go away. The Torah cannot be fulfilled, let alone "replaced," because even the Torah says that it is eternal.
So it is clear the NT was written for the Greek audiences, and not for anyone familiar with Judaism. And I will say that and average Christian be he Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant knows next to nothing about Judaism to this day.
Heck, most of the Christians, Catholics and Orthodox, "know" the Bible only through what they hear in selective readings that repeat in cycles and which in the case of Orthodoxy probably cover no more than 1% of the entire Bible on a regular basis (the OT is not read in the liturgies).
But even a rock bottom basic familiarity with Judaism shows that there is a whole different side to this coin and that just reading the Old Testament the way Christian scribes arranged it does not make Christians familiar with Judaism.
v. 8 = v. 13
Well, you finally snared me Kosta mou! This subject is just too important for me not to speak out.
“The early Church doctrine (EOC still teaches it) says God gave did this to trick death and thus destroyed death (cf 1 Cor 15:56-57)
There was propitiation, but to death, so that death may be destroyed. There was no substituionary atonement to appease an offended God.”
This is the Faith of The Church, proclaimed every Pascha:
” He that was taken by death has annihilated it!
He descended into Hades and took Hades captive!
He embittered it when it tasted his flesh! And anticipating this Isaiah exclaimed: “Hades was embittered when it encountered thee in the lower regions”.
It was embittered, for it was abolished!
It was embittered, for it was mocked!
It was embittered, for it was purged!
It was embittered, for it was despoiled!
It was embittered, for it was bound in chains!
It took a body and came upon God!
It took earth and encountered heaven!
It took what it saw but crumbled before what it had not seen!
O death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?
Christ is risen, and you are overthrown!
Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen!
Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen, and life reigns!
Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb!
For Christ, being raised from the dead, has become the first-fruits of them that slept.
To him be glory and might unto ages of ages. Amen.”
Did the Greek Fathers teach substitutionary obedience?If so,you have any writings?
“Did the Greek Fathers teach substitutionary obedience?”
No, not to my knowledge.
Nonetheless, my brother, justice must be satisfied
“Nonetheless, my brother, justice must be satisfied”
The Fathers would disagree with Rev. Spurgeon, Padre. Take a look at this treatise. It’s a masterful modern statement of ancient Orthodox Christian soteriology which is rather different from that which developed in the West.
http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm
My! All caps. Had you typed according to the rules of accepted English grammar, you logic would not be so apparent, but in light of your forceful and inappropriate use of capital letters, I am now convinced of the soundness of your shrill, and hateful argument.
For someone who doesn't care what Catholics think, you sure do obsess over Catholicism.
“you” “your” I give myself an F for grammar.
Alleluiah, alleluiah. Clever, no?
It is, through mercy, not punishment. Otherwise there is no hope. That's how the East understood it from the beginning.
Kolo mou, all I can say is guilty as charged! :)
I had to look twice and rub my eyes before I was sure it was really your post— ευχαριστώ φίλε μου!
So you are invoking an exception? On what biblical grounds?
(In this context I would use "regenerated" and "graced with saving grace" interchangeably.) The Biblical concept of regeneration is strongly associated with the normally ensuing faith, such as in:
God regenerates the heart and then moves us to follow Him in faith. Infants who die obviously do not follow this conventional pattern.
FK: They don't have conventional faith so it cannot lead to conventional good acts.
So, then, what does grace do for them? In what way are they "changed?" How do they "receive" grace? What evidence is there that they have received grace?
I doubt there is anything we can point to as direct evidence that any particular infant has received grace. That's one reason I would not use the word "certain". But as to what grace is and does, it is no different for any potential infant as a recipient than it would be for any of God's other elect. I think BD put it very well in one of his posts:
BD: "Grace is favor shown to people who do not deserve any favor at all, who deserve the exact opposite. It was ‘while we were without strength’; ‘while we were ungodly’; it was ‘while we were sinners’; it was ’while we were yet enemies’ that God sent His only-begotten Son into the world to die for us. Grace leads to ‘a gift’. That is the essence of salvation. God ‘justifies the ungodly’. It is a free gift of God’s grace. The free gift of God’s grace is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. That is grace! Something which we have done nothing whatsoever to deserve, or to earn or to merit in any shape or form. It is all to the glory of grace. It is favor shown to people who deserve anything but favor, who deserve wrath and hatred and punishment and Hell." (emphasis added)
So, any infant who dies under grace has eternal life. As to the manner of the transmission of grace, BD also cautioned in his post that we should not think of grace as a "thing" such that it is "handed off" from one to another. From BD's same post:
BD: "Grace is that quality in God, that attribute of God which leads Him to be gracious towards and to bless the utterly undeserving. We should never think of grace in static, mechanical, mercenary terms. There is no measure to grace, no limit. John 1:16 says, ‘And of his fullness have all we received, and grace upon grace’; grace for grace; grace after grace. There is no end to it, to His ‘fullness’; it is eternal, it is illimitable, it is immeasurable. Ephesians 2 speaks of ‘the exceeding riches of his grace’. Ephesians 3 says, ‘the unsearchable riches of Christ’. ‘Unsearchable’, inestimable, can never be computed, can never be added up, there is no end to it. This is the realm of grace into which we have been brought “in Christ”.’"
So rather than think of grace as an object it is better to consider it in terms of being in a state of favor with God. Objects are limited but grace is not. Now, I realize that many of us write about it as if it were a thing, very much including myself, but especially for the discussion of transmission I think it worthy to raise this point.
FK: This does not change anything concerning our discussion about infants being graced and going to Heaven if they die because the doing of good acts is not what saves.
I can see that but I don't see what this is based on?
I base it on such things as making reasonable inferences from the character of God as described in the Bible along with the specific examples of Jesus' interaction with children. It's no slam dunk, but if the very young are indeed spared it would be perfectly consistent with the God we are told about in scriptures.
FK: One sin, any sin is disqualifying from the presence of God in Heaven. There is nothing any of us can do to "balance it out" or "make it right". Only an omnipotent God can do that.
By "killing" himself? Would it be too much to say "why allow sin at all and spare yourself the trouble?"
There's nothing at all wrong with asking the question. Apparently the explicit answer is not something we need to know in this world.
I am sorry, the 'exegetical' explanations required in Christianity are somewhat forced because Christianity has to "harmonize" two distinct phronema: Jewish and Platonic and they are oil and water. On standing they separate all by themselves.
Why would Christianity need to so harmonize? Christianity is what it is, and does not depend at all on what man makes or does with it. If God is the head then the independent mindsets of men are irrelevant. The only phronema that matters is God's.
FK: I'm not sure any of us is really in a position to say that this is a strange kind of love since we cannot really understand what any alternatives would be like.
But we can "understand" this version of it?
To a meaningful degree I think we can. We relate to and have some understanding of things like "ultimate sacrifice" and true altruism. Would we die to save the lives of our children? Sure.
FK: You're right that in general a free gift doesn't require a penalty, but it doesn't preclude it either
Sorry counselor, the doctrine says unconditional.
Yes, the gift is unconditional, but that means in terms of an exchange. A gift can still be needed or not and be unconditional. In my example of giving you the hundred bucks there were no conditions in either senario although only one involved a penalty or need.
There was propitiation, but to death, so that death may be destroyed. There was no substitutionary atonement to appease an offended God.
This does indeed appear to be the Orthodox view. I'd be curious as to how Catholics see this. Substitutionary atonement has always been axiomatic to me:
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.