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.
I fully agree with your entire post. It is the divine grace that saves us, alone. It is grace that powers our faith, our works and our hope. It is not complicated.
The Reformation raised the artificial division between faith and works in order to destroy both. They nearly succeeded.
An understanding of the context, the words used and why translators used the words they did argues otherwise but you are, of course free to proclaim whatever you choose.
Jesus is saying He existed before Abraham and you see no message in that?
From what do you conclude I “see no message in that”?
Nothing I have said touched upon the question of Jesus existence before Abraham, has it?
yes, it has. to me, you’ve indicated that jesus is a created being
I am in agreement with you on the hermeneutics, namely that the intent and the spirit of the Gospel of John is to show that Jesus is the Greek pagan Logos and therefore the literal Son of God (in this case, the God of Israel), rather than an anointed human warrior-king of the Jewish tradition (anointed = meshiyah in Hebrew or christos in Greek, a human title). But the author (of John) goes about it in a way that doesn't fit very well with how it is written.
I mean, it is undeniable that John 8:58 attempts to create a scenario in which Jesus is equating himself the Yahweh, but he is not saying what the Old Testament God says about himself.
The way it looks in Greek, Jesus is simply saying that he lived before Moses (and the reaction of the Pharisees reflect their understanding of his claim that way), not that he pre-existed the world!
Ego eimi (Jn 8:58) simply means I am. On the other hand, ego eimi ho on (Ex 3:14, LXX) means I am the Existence. In Hebrew version (Ex 3:14, MT), the expression ehyer (I am becoming) doesn't fit what Jesus says in Jn 8:58 tense-wise.
"I am" and "I am becoming" is not the same thing; otherwise Jesus would have said "I am becoming" instead of the simple "I am."
Thus, instaed of saying "before Moses was, I am," Jesus would have said "before Moses was, I am becoming," the way Ex 3;14 (MT) reads "tell the sons of Israel, I Am Becoming [ehyer] sent you," or in Ex 3:14 (LXX) "tell the sons of Israel The Existence [ο ων, ho on] sent you."
The fact that English Bibles conflate "I am" with "I am becoming" in the Hebrew text (as well as the "I am" with "I am the Existence" in the Greek version) simply means that the Bibles were "harmonized" to mean one and the same thing, to fit the intent if not the grammar; hence the 'concordance," a man-made, and forced end result. The text is altered to fit the doctrine and not the other way around.
The dialogue, with emphasis:
Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
They understood Christ to mean physical life and death.
Jesus’ reply used time to show that He was speaking of spiritual not physical life and death.
First, Jesus said that Abraham was alive when He was physically born.
Then He said that He was alive before Abraham was physically born.
Christians can quibble until they turn blue about the underlying language or whether the truth of the passage reduces to “Before Abraham was born, I am.” - but the root should not be missed: mortals are time-bound, God is not time-bound.
And for me that truth is underscored by His Names: I AM and Alpha and Omega. So whenever that truth presents itself in a passage, whether directly or indirectly, it rings loudly again to me as it does in these passages:
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:14
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58
As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. – John 18:6
Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: - Isaiah 46:9-10
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. – Ephesians 1:4-6
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? - I Corinthians 6:19
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. – John 5:24
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. – Matthew 10:28
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. - Revelation 21:1-8
So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – I Corinthians 15:42-45
And I receive His Name spiritually as a whole Name, a word. I don’t analyze it by questioning the underlying language, e.g. my name is Alamo-Girl not cottonwood female child which would not be accurate anyway because the "Alamo" refers to more than the strict language suggests.
God’s Name is I AM.
The discussion I was involved in was about whether John 8:58 was a quote or reference to Ex. 3:14. So why does that indicate ANYTHING other than what was discussed?
Do you have something more to add to that subject or do wish to turn to another?
To be precise, the hope that we are talking about is a theological virtue than man receives along with all good things from God Christian hope is virtuous because it has union with God as its object.
Like the entire Christian life, hope begins at the Christian birth, that is at baptism. That moment sets a soul toward its eventual salvation. Hope, like all virtues will increase as man is gradually sanctified.
The point is, however, to answer your aquestion, how does one know that he is saved? -- and the answer is one does not know, one hopes. This is a different thing than magical salvation-in-a-box practiced by once-saved-always-saved communions of faith. They instill false certainty, a belief that one will be saved regardless of one's acts. Such belief is a vice that moves the person deceived away from God, it is called presumption.
There is no “purgatorial cleansing” before entering heaven
You just dismissed its clear description in 1 Cor. 3:13-15 with a brief ramark that it's "works will be judged but not his salvation". This, and the following quotes from St. Paul that teach that there are only two outcomes in life, salvation or damnation, show that you don't know what purgatory is. Purgatory is the cleansing of the soul from the imperfections of his inferior works, so that only works of perfection enter Heaven to be with God -- to be saved. A stay in purgatory is always temporary and it never results in condemnation.
Neither the Mt 25:31:46 passage nor the Rom. 2 passage apply to believers. The church is never referred to as “nations” and the judgment of the works of believers takes place at their individual deaths, not corporately.
That is strange (I am not being personal and refer to your exegesis as you posted it). Both Romans 2:6-10 and Matthews 25:31-46 are very similar, and St. Paul's seems to be a condensed version of St. Matthew's. Both refer to two groups of people, those who are saved (in the true sense of gaining everlasting life in the contemplation of God) and those who are condemned to everlasting punishment. Both groups are differentiated by their works (St. Matthews lists examples of them and they are all good works of charity that are praised throughout the Bible).
Jesus in Matthew 24-25 speaks of two categories of people, those who are "faithful and wise servant[s]" (Mt 24:45) those whose oil does not run out (Mt 25:4), those who do the work on the deposit given them (Mt 25:21), those who do the works of charity Christ gave us in Mt 5-7. That group ends up welcomed to heaven (Mt 25:34). The other groups lack all these faith, wisdom, and good works and end up in everlasting punishment. The passage, and the preceding passages in Mt 24-25 are constructed in apparent symemtry.
St. Paul speaks in the context of man's sin, and so naturally he needs to explain what the wages of both sin and righteousness are, -- hence the passage in focus. It refers in apparent symmetry to two groups of people, "every one that worketh good" and "every soul of man that worketh evil". His passage is a condensed version of the larger passage in Matthew's.
Neither St Paul's or St. Matthew's passage contains any indication that only the unbelievers are being described (in Matthew 25:45 faith is directly mentioned, and it is clear from the parable of the virgins that it is faith in the coming of the Groom that motivates them). If that groups, the sheep, who get saved, are non-beleivers, what does it do to your doctrine, false that it is, of salvation by faith alone?
Notice in the Matthew 25 and Romans 2 passages there is no mention of faith or Jesus’ sacrifice for sin or salvation.
Yes. I noticed. This is why the doctrine of salvation by faith alone is contrary to scripture. We are saved by faith and good works (but not works with temporal reward) and not by faith alone. That is what the Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches plainly.
What does Jesus mean by “this cup”when He prays?
The cup that he drinks is mystically connected to the sacrifice of the Lamb prefigured in the Passover ritual; it is the Cup of the redemtive work that He did by His blood on the Cross and the Eucharistic cup that we receive throught he HOly Mass.
What does Jesus mean when He prays “It is finished”?
He means that His work is finished; the covenant of the Jews is replaced and fulfilled in the New Covenant of Christ; the veil falls (Mt 27:51) and we now see God Who is with us.
Kosta, but you ignore both John's preamble (and the Logo was God) and his summation:
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" 29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." 30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Any "ego emi" outside of the immediate context, the gospel of john context, and the johannin context is simply not going to arrive at a legitimate conclusion. It would be like my taking your words and ignoring all our past discussions.
yes, if we were in the Dispensation of Law or the Dispensation of the Millennial Kingdom.
But we are not. We are in the Dispensation of the Grace of God. "For by GRACE are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8,9).
It could not possibly be easier to understand. Unless you are purposely trying to NOT understand. For 'religion' and 'doctrinal' and 'tradition' purposes, you know.
And Jesus used the “I am” to indicate, as Alamo-girl would say, that He was present, i.e., that time is inconsequential to Him.
So, yes, it is either an allusion or a direct reference.
Incidentally, it is also established by the “verily, verily” formulation which is used in John only to indicate “pay deep deep attention here.”
Jesus makes His intent crystal clear in saying variously “telling you what I’ve seen in the Father’s presence” and “I KNOW Him” and “before Abraham”, and capping it with “I AM.”
It’s obvious and inescapable, especially in the Johannine context I just mentioned to kosta.
He is implying (in an odd grammatical way) that he was around before Moses using a simple present indicative (ἐγώ εἰμι, ego eimi) "I am."
But he is deifnitely not suggesting with that expression that he pre-existed the creation the way Septuagint does in Ex 3:14 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (ego eimi ho on) = "I am the existence."
Maybe that's not what the author of John wanted to convey, but that's what he wrote. The intent of John's Gospel is clearly an attempt to equate Jesus with the God of Israel. Unfortunately, the way he conveys that intent is not always what the author writes.
First “I am” is the translators choice of words to use to translate the Greek “ego eimi”. Whatever their motives it is not the best translation into English, the language we speak. Time is involved and in English it has to be noted.
Therefore other translators translate the Greek “ego eimi” to reflect Jesus’ CONTINUEOUS existence, i.e., “I (have) existed”, “I have been” or something similar.
How you or AG might arrive at the conclusion from John 8:58 that “And Jesus used the “I am” to indicate, as Alamo-girl would say, that He was present, i.e., that time is inconsequential to Him.”, I don't know.
I cannot recall a Reformer testifying that a person is saved by speaking magic words. The example from my earlier post:
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. – Ephesians 1:4-6
It doesn't say he pre-existed existence; just Moses.
xzins' view is the best of all!
To use my name again as an example, if you pull the "Alamo" out and examine it as a word, it means "cottonwood." But if you examine the word over time, it also refers to a Mission both in history and as an attitude (no surrender, no retreat.) Even so, to know my name, you'd have to take it altogether, i.e. "Alamo-Girl."
What do you think your congregation's reaction would be to someone in his 30's stood in front of you all and said saying "I was around before your parents, and you don't know your God"?
I am not ignoring it, xzins; I am simply stating that the author is not expressing himself in such a way as to connect ego eimi in John 8:58 with Ex 3:14. If that was his intention, then he did a poor job of it because he left out ho on.
The way it reads in Jn 8:58 is that he existed before Moses, not before all creation.
No one is denying that the author aimed at synthesizing Paul's "firstborn of all creatures" into "the Word is eternally in existence as* God" it's just that the way he goes about it is not always what he writes.
*I am using this form to indicate the imperfect indicative tense, i.e. the continual action, since the English "was" doens't really mean what it does in Greek.
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.