It isn't apparent. It is a direct comparison. Almost to a tee.
We do claim an explicit scriptural commissioning and promises.
So did they... Only theirs is FOREVER, and still they were destroyed.
That may explain why we do not claim to have delineated and defined every possible aspect of the Faith. Crises come up, and then resolutions are arrived at -- as at Jerusalem, so at Vatican II
No. Perhaps that works internally, but the big "conflicts" have not been resolved... At least not since the sword has been taken away from her. Her two biggest schisms remain apart. And rightly so. So I cannot accept that statement as accurate.
But while it seems to trouble the half-empty side of the aisle, I think it's a step forward to say that other "Ecclesial assemblies" include "separated brethren." It's good because of the obvious fact that there are some very holy people who ain't all the way in the Catholic Church.
There's a great bunch of holy people (as much as one can use the term as such) who will *never* be in the Roman church *at all*. And that's O.K.
I don't find the term "separated brethren" to be any step forward. It amounts to silver-tongued diplo-speak ((c)Quix Inc.). Nothing has changed, nor will it.
If Christ Himself came down and told me to bow to "saints" and accept the "eucharist", I would do it - But that ain't gonna happen. It is written.
I'm inclined to be very careful in assessing fruits. It may be a drag that some people get themselves crucified on Good Friday out of a perverse misunderstanding of appropriate penance. But it beats the heck out of fighting each other on Good Friday because they have no idea that there might be better ways to spend the day.
That is not the point. We are assessing the fruits of an organization - not the individuals within it. God WILL judge the churches (5 maids without oil), just as He will judge the nations. Do you think that America will escape judgment because of the Bible Belt? Why would churches (rites/confessions/denominations) be any different?
I think cannibalism has shown a marked decline. That's not such a bad fruit.
Ooh, look! A shiny, new "We don't eat people" badge! That'll look good on the uniform! ; )
No. Perhaps that works internally, but the big "conflicts" have not been resolved... At least not since the sword has been taken away from her. Her two biggest schisms remain apart. And rightly so. So I cannot accept that statement as accurate.
I think you want to be careful. The Papacy had the sword only in limited areas, the Papal States. And she GOT such sword as she had at the request of the Byzantine emperor who saw Italy in chaos -- where it has pretty much stayed ever since. The Papacy actually delayed the sack of Rome, don't forget. These were very tough times.
There's a great bunch of holy people (as much as one can use the term as such) who will *never* be in the Roman church *at all*. And that's O.K.
I don't find the term "separated brethren" to be any step forward.
Two sentences giveth but the last one taketh away. It's a serious advance. If were going to obsess about the Tridentine anathemas, it has the effect of reducing their range or scope. Yes non-Catholics (except for "Orthodox" under certain circumstances) are 'functionally' excommunicated (except in moments of emergent stress), but it's more about regret than condemnation and is accompanied by offers of blessings and prayers for reconciliation.
I think it's a great advance to go from "Wow, most of them, deprived of many means of grace and in active resistance to unity as they are, are in deep spiritual peril" to "Wow! Looky there! Grace and sanctity!"
(Sorry, jumping around. Stealing this time from what I should be doing.)
You say, about claiming scriptural warrant for authority, that the "Scribes and the Pharisees" laid claim to it.
Now, FWIW, we claim John 20:21 and other texts. Did the scribes and the Pharisees have a similar explicit text which could be construed as granting them (burdening them with) the kind of authority that the (soi-disant -- see how dialectical I'm being?) successors to the Apostles claim?
If so, it's news to me.
I think cannibalism has shown a marked decline. That's not such a bad fruit.
Ooh, look! A shiny, new "We don't eat people" badge! That'll look good on the uniform! ; )
It's part of Michelle's nutrition initiative.
I think that much of the sort of unspoken 'ground' of the mugging of Catholics is predicated on a misunderstanding of the political and moral chaos of the time. I recently inflicted on myself some National Geographic show about Mayan documents which blamed"the Inquisition" for destroying a lot of Mayan Documents. That is just plain ignorant.
Now I think it's a shame that the documents are destroyed. But I didn't see the piles of victims of human sacrifice, the temples built for the purpose of ritualizing the tearing out of the hearts of living prisoners. I didn't see the baby farms where humans were fattened for slaughter like livestock.
So it's easy for my academic interests to override my refined horror. I once came across a living man who had just eaten his gun. That memory will not go away. I can imagine how the soul-searing sight of piles of human sacrificial victims might incline one to the burning of documents ...
"He jests at scars that never felt a wound." It's easy for us who have not had family members murdered before our eyes in the streets of Italy to scoff at the sometimes spastic efforts to restore some kind of order in the middle ages.
Okay. I'm incoherent. Maybe I can make up for it this PM. Gotta pretend to some kind of usefulness.