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, too, reverence Mary, the mother of the incarnate 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity.
All believers are of one sheepfold, Sister Judith. Let’s rejoice at that truth despite the naysayers who reject Christian Unity as outlined in John 17:23. “23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”
Let’s “overcome evil with good.”
And I thank God for you, dear brother in Christ, and for His calling you for that purpose!
It's exactly determinism. God's determinism. And I trust God completely, so where's the problem?
Of course we all feel as if every breath we take is our own doing. But that pretense is just part of the mystery that is our life on earth.
Because that is not the truth. The truth is that "in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
As xzins said, it is an amazing "comfort" to know that this life is all contained within the mind of God, for His glory, and the welfare of His family among which I am numbered, although I have done NOTHING to deserve such a gift.
It's all Him.
It grows on you. 8~)
As Jesus said:
Without the help of Jesus Christ, I am completely unable to “overcome evil with good.”
It does actually grow on you. My flight over to see my daughter in Germany was much less stressful because of that fact. I learned a lot from dear brother, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.
It’s not fatalism...it’s trust and rest.
Pray for my s-i-l who is off playing taliban tag.
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:47-50 NIV)
Amen.
It was only when I understood that I had NOTHING to do with hearing Christ that I actually began to hear Him clearly for the first time in Scripture.
We know that we must be born again in order to understand the things of God, and John tells us we are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
The funny thing is that as you come to realize all good things in you are the work of the Holy Spirit and not your own, you actually want to try harder.
And even that is the work of God in you.
It all comes back to the source.
Under strong determinism, the murderer had no choice. He does not need to apologize.
So even if God allowed me no freedom of movement, nevertheless I accept personal responsibility for my own thoughts and deeds, confess my sins and repent.
If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. - I John 1:9-10
I join in earnest prayer for your sister-in-law!
AMEN!!!
Pray for my s-i-l who is off playing taliban tag.
You and your family have given more than your share, x. Prayers for God's continuing protection. Christ abides.
To God be the glory, not man, never man!
The short of the long story is this: the middle and passive forms in Greek are identical and, consequently, it is impossible to determine grammatically which form (active/middle or passive) the author intended to convey.
The best that I can say it read "having been set (tetagmenoi) into life everlasting." It's ambiguous as to when and by whom, although just about in every instance in the Bible that I could find the verb τασσω (tasso), meaning to set or arrange, etc. identifies the one who is setting or arranging.
This is not the only example of ambiguous or indeterminate verses. For instance, the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον (ef ho pantes hemarton) in Romans 5:12 can be read in two different ways and, like Acts 13:48, understood in a manner that is theologically as different as night and day! One reading led to the Eastern view that the original sin was not inherited and the Western (Auguistinian) view that it was!
The Reformed argument that the middle voice is "almost never used" is weak, imo. Almost doesn't mean never. This argument is made that much weaker by the fact that "almost never" or truly never used exceptions are not dismissed in other instances.
For example, nowhere in the New Testament does the standalone ανοθην (anothen) in John 3:3 mean "again," but most English-language Bibles translate it as such—for doctrinal reasons, ignoring the lexicon completely.
Other than the Reformed "almost never used" argument as their only Trump card, other sources point to a different conclusion.
I consulted the Church Slavonic version which is the closest in my opinion to the Greek (simply because Church Slavonic was created based on Greek and for the purpose of one-on-one translation from Greek). There is no doubt that it renders Act 13:48 in the passive voice...
...but there is also no indcation of any predestination implied here, implicitly or explicitly!
This is good because there is no ambiguity in the Slavonic version whatsoever as regard their appointment bieng made right there and then.
The Greek Church never taught the Reformed-type predestination, and the Slavonic version certainly does not read it as something eternally arranged. Rather they were set (not pre-set) for salvation by believing.
In summery, the Eastern view is that "Divine determination depends on the life of a man, and not his life upon the determination." [Bishop +Theofan the Recluse]
(like the sabbath was made for man and not man for sabbath... Unfortunately, the Western Church wasn't so lucky as to stick to its original teaching. The Latin Vulgate Bible added the word prae to the original ordinati to create praeordinati (lit. pre-arranged, pre-ordianed) during St. Augustine's lifetime (4th century), obviously under his inlfuence and his strong denial of free will (before he recanted).
Prior to that the Latin text read the same as the Slavonic does, i.e. simply "they were arranged (ordinati) to life everlasting." by believing.
However, this detail is interesting to me as evidence of an ongoing corruption and manipulation of biblical manuscripts in the early Church (gasp!) in order to make the "pristine" word of God conform to the evolving doctrine!
The Bible, as usual, being so thoroughly redacted over time, is full of contrasting statements. Thus, biblical support exists for predestination (mostly Paul) and free will (mostly the Old Testament), and Act 13:48 is no exception to this dichotomy.
Finally, I found this, imo, fairy well styled orthodox summary of Acts 13:48 as given by John Wesley:
“Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.”
and Jesus then explains.
“Exactly, Gnostic. He reveals the mystery of the parable to a select few. Doesn't get much more Gnostic than that.”
Hardly. In chapter 10 he had already told the disciples to preach from the house tops what he had told them in secret and at the end of Matthew he commands them to go with the message to the whole world. Within a few years Matthew records Jesus words for anyone to read. Gnostism? Nope.
“But the Bible tells us that hardening of the heart is God's doing. So, if their hearts were hardened it wasn't their will but God's will.”
Where is that stated? If you are referring to John 12:40 wherein Isaiah 6:10 is quoted, in both cases it is the REACTION of people to Jesus’ performance of miracles and Isaiah's preaching that constituted the hardheartedness.
So it is said, God did it though the people acted quite freely of their own will.
We are warned not to harden our own hearts.
I know why he spoke in parables. That was not the issue. I stated that the reason some didn't get it was because God dind't give them the spiritual "eyes and ears" so they couldn't. Our friends betty boop and Alamo-Girl seem to have a different opinion on that, so you are preaching to the wrong poster. Hash it out with them.
Yes, you have to believe in both. Very perceptive of you.
If our salvation depended on our fulfilling our "personal responsibilities," all men would be damned.
All men are under the curse of Adam. All men are sinners. All men "deserve" condemnation and eternal punishment.
Before the foundation of the world God mercifully chose for Himself, for His own glory and purpose, some men to redeem by the death and resurrection of His dear Son who has purchased their sins and paid for every one of them. These people, from all nations and races and eras, make up the family of God on earth. They have always been His.
"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" -- Eph. 1:4
Those men, through nothing in themselves, will, at a time of God's choosing, know their salvation has been won by Christ alone and believe in Him as Lord, God and Redeemer to the saving of their souls.
Therefore, all men are responsible for every sin they commit. But not all sins are paid for by Christ. Only the sins of His flock. The rest stand condemned in their sins which is exactly where they want to be.
So even if God allowed me no freedom of movement, nevertheless I accept personal responsibility for my own thoughts and deeds, confess my sins and repent.
There is NOTHING that differentiates me, a believer, from the non-believing murderer but the obedience and righteousness of Christ, mercifully imputed to me. It is HIS "personal responsibility" that saved me, all by grace alone.
As I said before, this grace brings with it a sorrow for our sins, a desire to repent, and a stronger intent to live a life through Christ that glorifies God.
And because God is all loving and holy, this results in a happier, more productive life for those who are His. Christianity is the epitome of mental well-being. 8~)
I did notice you were giving the reformed perspective. I just wish you believed it. 8~)
I think you are missing the poing (again). Read #635.
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.