Posted on 01/03/2011 10:40:41 AM PST by RnMomof7
I appreciate your concern. I will give you a short synopsis of its origins and then link to a larger article. I apologize for its length... but at least it's thorough.
What is a church? It's not simply a building or a body of believers... definitionally, a church offers sacrifice to God. The Pope pointed this out a few years ago (and I apologize for not finding a link) that there are many Protestant congregations and denominations... but a church offers a sacrifice. The others follow from this logic that there must then be an altar for the sacrifice and a priesthood. Bear with me while I try to flesh this out with Scripture...
The Jewish leaders didn't recognize Jesus at His coming. Most of that lack of recognition is due to their desire to not lose their places of honor. Jesus threatened their positions. That is why you mainly see the authorities lining up against Jesus while the faithful lay people listen to Him and believe. Those who understood what would be at the coming of the Messiah were the easiest to convince. Think of how Jesus answered John the Baptist's inquiry... He didn't give a direct affirmative answer, He pointed out that the blind see and the lame walk... these are things that would be in the day of the Messiah.
Just so for the Church. The Jews knew a few other things about the day of the Messiah... that the Passover observance would continue forever and that in the day of the Messiah only the "Thanks and Praise" offering for deliverance would remain. This is the offering recorded of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels and recounted by St Paul in 1 Corinthians. It is the same offering the Church makes with each Mass as instructed by Christ.
When the Jews observed the Passover meal, they were to do so with loins girded and staff in hand in preparation for the exodus. It wasn't a simple remembrance of the mind and heart, it was physical preparation in order that it be a real event for them. Just so in the sacrifice of the New Covenant. What we do "in remembrance" of Christ at His Words is not simply a mind and heart exercise of the memory, it is a direct participation in His Sacrifice given once, for all. All of history focuses like a laser beam on Christ on His Cross. What came before was anticipation and what has come since is fulfillment.
When the priest repeats His Words at the institution of the Eucharist, we participate in His Holy Power of creation. The same God who said, "Let there be light!"--and it was so--says, "This is My Body!"-- and it is so. Our God is not a God of symbolism, but of reality. In the Old Testament, you can find partial fulfillments of prophesy, but in Christ they find their reality. When Christ tells us to Baptize, it is not to give us something to do to pass the time. It is because there is real power in the act... same in the sacrificial offering of the Mass. It is not merely symbol, it is real. If it is real, then the offering can have only one identity... the same One told by Christ... His Body.
The Jews were also promised in Jeremiah 33 two things... that the Kingdom of David would always have a ruler and that the Levitical priesthood would always offer sacrifice. Christ is the Son of David on David's throne and the priesthood has never stopped offering Christ in sacrifice to God in praise and thanksgiving.
Here is the link I promised: The Church. May God bless you.
I’m not sure precisely who you are throwing under the bus, but as you use the plural, it is an indeterminate number of individuals, and the terms that you use (historical revisionist and schismatic) cast rather wide nets. Are you referring only to the conversos in Spain, or multiple things—this has been a wide-ranging thread.
In complex situations, appologizing without sorting out details is sometimes appropriate, and sometimes not. That the spanish monarchs had a virtual stranglehold over the Church within their domains through most of the 16th through 18th centuries may or may not be an insignificant fact—yes, they are Catholics, and so the Pope may apologize on their behalf, and yes many of their decisions may have clashed with Catholic doctrine, but if the subject is “how consistent has the papacy been on teaching” rather than “have some Catholics been really nasty” the distinction may be important.
The fallible part does include a teaching authority that is an authority, and is, under certain specific defined circumstances, actually infallible in what it teaches, which does raise some questions that need to be addressed, and so distinctions in addressing these questions may be appropriate. Authorities also come in various gradations—at times making distinctions is helpful, at time, not.
I may or may not agree that the posts to which you are referring might be erroneous, or at least more happily phrased, but tossing out the words and phrases like schismatic and more catholic than the pope without specific referents may muddle things further.
Jewbacca, to repost, hopefully without spacing issues:
The Church teaches that the Church is composed of two components:
1. A visible church, made up of individuals, consisting of the pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, other religious persons, and the laity.
2. The Church’s Spirit, referred to as the “Spotless Bride of Christ.”
Part (1) is human, fallible, and subject to the same corruption as the rest of the world, while Part (2) is not.
Unlike the schismatic (yes, you are schismatic, or at least very close to being) posters on this thread, His Holiness Pope John Paul II recognized this dichotomy, and specifically apologized for the temporal sins committed in the name of the Church against Jews and others during the Inquisition, in a letter called “The Church and Faults of the Past,” dated March 13, 2000, which (among many other things) specifically adopted Pope John Paul’s 1994 Apostolic Letter “Tertio Millennio Adveniente,” quoting it as follows:
“Hence it is appropriate that as the second millennium of Christianity draws to a close the Church should become ever more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and His Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of her faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal. Although she is holy because of her incorporation into Christ, the Church does not tire of doing penance. Before God and man, she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters.”
Contrary to the historical-revisionist on this thread who ignorantly seek to minimize the wrongs committed by the Temporal Component of the Church (Component 1 above), His Holiness went on to specifically decry the treatment of our elder brothers, the Jews:
“The hostility and wariness of numerous Christians toward Jews over the course of time is a painful historic fact.”
As further explained by Fr. Brugues, the English spokesman at the Vatican to explain the apology: the apology above “was a reference to the Inquisition, which was marked by the torture and killing of people branded as heretics, and the enforced conversion of non-believers.”
(Note the distinct lack of the pathetic attempt to wash our hands of these sins by passing off the Ethnic Cleansing of the Inquisition onto the Spanish Monarch — the Temporal Church and the Political Powers worked hand-in-hand, and to pretend otherwise is a sin.)
In sum, the statements of the schismatics on this thread (who probably consider themselves truer Catholics than John Paul) do not reflect the teaching or beliefs of Christ’s Holy Church, and should be disregarded.
They don’t allow others to do what they allow for themselves, thus we have the papacy, the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, all taught as official church doctrine with NO Scriptural proof.
But by gosh, those Protestants had better be able to show that the term *sola scriptura* is in the Bible somewhere or it’s heresy.
The word *hypocrite* is in the Bible and that is someone who says one thing and does another.
I actually found this post to be rather funny. Of course the Church can define doctrine... that is the whole question of authority! pgyanke can't do this, but the Church can. There is room for a debate on this issue but there is no hypocrisy.
As to whether Protestants should be able to show Sola Scriptura in the Bible... well, if you believe Sola Scriptura, where else are you going to look?!
Love it! Thank you for that! However, one bone of contention... they lack authority. They have no ability to define doctrine. I think, though, that we will once again see unity in the Church before too long. Great things are afoot! I pray both lungs will once again breathe together.
I did not want to name names for the reason I thought it would not be contructive.
Those who attempted to deflect blame of the Chuch (Component 1 of the Church, not 2) for Ethnic Cleansing of the Jews from Spain, et al, know who they are.
It was a sin to cast the Jews -— who remain the Apple of God’s eye, even in their denial of Christ, by the way -— off into muslim lands, to force them to live lies, or to convert at the sword.
I, for one, stand with John Paul and the Church’s stated position, not with the Schismatics — and that is what they are.
And we stop right there.
EXACTLY! Thank you for stating the conundrum so clearly!
Christ is seated on His Throne. His Spirit has come into the world that we not be orphaned. And yet... the Protestant position is to put hands over ears and deal only with what was 2,000 years ago. The Holy Spirit has come into the world to grow our understanding of the Heavenly realities... and He has not been quiet. The history of God's people did not end with the Canon of Scripture... how could it? Here we are!
Some Catholics, as is witnessed in this very topic, go into heretical beliefs when they place the authority of men above the authority of God and Jesus. To say that the RCC is of greater authority than God or Jesus is quite the statement of hubris.
I would appreciate it if you could point those posters out to me... they would very clearly be in error. No creation can have more authority than its creator... that is axiomatic. I have never seen any Catholic on here or anywhere claim the Church has more authority than God or Jesus. The Church simply have His Authority that He gave to Her (Matt 18:17-20 et al).
>> Please note that you, as other catholics, frequently give higher honor to you traditions than you do the scriptures. Scriptures are just that...been when it comes to your traditions..they are "Holy"..."Sacred" etc.etc.
Scripture is Sacred by virtue of being Scripture. We denote "Sacred" Tradition specifically so it is not confused with simple traditions. We do not hold all traditions sacred, only those given us by Christ through the Apostles.
Ever heard of the Didache?
I haven’t been following the conversos portion of the thread particularly closely, and am not that familiar with the documents involved, and so have stayed out of that portion of the discussion. As intertwined with this discussion are multiple other discussions, several of which (Hitler and Galileo) are historical, the term “historical revisionists” could include those involved in these discussions.
That said, the portion of the apology that you quote is extremely broad, saying that some Catholics have done nasty things to Jews. The Papal spokesman, speaking in a less official and more precise way, does clarify things somewhat. Still, I would not call some one a schismatic for pointing out that Popes previous to the forced conversions under discussion had condemned forced conversions, and that no Pope had reversed this position, nor would one be a schismatic to explore the possibility that some Jews may have been cooperating with the Muslims whose invation had finally been completely repulsed. If there was a problem, ethnic cleansing wasn’t the answer.
Likewise, today abused sexuality is a problem, and abortion is not the answer, but many Catholics do abuse sexuality and facilitate abortion—would it be prudent for the Church to do more? Should the Pope excommunicate Biden, Pelosi, et al.? I’m not going to be more Catholic than the Pope on this one either, but if these folks aren’t excommunicated and 200 years now an general apology about Catholics and abortion is issued, I would hope that in more intellectual circles it would be pointed out that the Church wasn’t carte blanch in favour of abortion. Not only do I try to be in line with BXVI and JPII, but with all of the Popes—claiming to be as Catholic as a recent Pope and more Catholic than a previous Pope is also problematic.
If there are specific points about the conversos discussion that are being handled badly, it is worth pointing out which—your next to last paragraph was helpful in this regard. Even there, to say that a thing is objectively a sin is one thing, to judge a historical era without understanging an era is another. Usury is also a sin, many today are probably objectively guilty of it, and a 14th century theologian would be horrified by our society, but a combination of changing historical circumstances and widespread ignorance ought to mitigate, though not eliminate, the horror.
“The history of God’s people did not end with the Canon of Scripture”
I agree. And Protestants don’t presume to live in the 1st Century as proof that we know history moves on. Yet the Word is eternal and sufficient in its completeness and we pay attention to what was told to us in Rev. 22:18/19
History may not have ended then, but the Canon of Scripture did. That said, any words of any church leader that contravene Scripture are then false because their authority properly derives from Scripture. Yet, in this topic, we have some who place the authority of the RCC in primacy to Scripture and that’s simply wrong.
It isn't a quick reply, but a learned one.
History may not have ended then, but the Canon of Scripture did.
I hear this all the time from well-meaning Protestants... but it is nonsense! The Bible is not a book, it is a library. Revelation is one book in that library. There is a warning in that book... do not add to nor take away from the Revelation given by John.
At the time of his writing, there was no compiled Canon of Scripture and it's pretty easy to argue that if we followed your interpretation of this verse, there wouldn't be! How could we possibly have the authority to compile Scripture when we have been admonished to not add to Scripture?!
If you look online, you can easily find dates (assumed dates in some cases) for books of the Bible. Some were likely written after Revelation... guess we have to get rid of them? Books like James, 2 Peter, the Epistles of John...
That said, any words of any church leader that contravene Scripture are then false because their authority properly derives from Scripture. Yet, in this topic, we have some who place the authority of the RCC in primacy to Scripture and that’s simply wrong.
You are correct that Scripture can't be contravened... you are wrong, though in authority. If we look to Scripture to find who has the authority, you will find that Scripture points to the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).
You sound as if you hold that John wrote Rev 22 and then sent the whole Bible off to the printers. Rev 22 refers, in the original sense, to the whole book of Revelation. Not until the second century does the discussion begin as to what is revealed and not until the later part of the fourth is it more or less settled—we do have a few codices that were assembled earlier, and while they are in broad agreement as to what is included, they are not in perfect agreement, and to the extent that they do agree,they look more like the Catholic/Orthodox construction than what most protestants use.
I would agree that words truly contradicting scriputre must be false, and this is true of church authorities as well, however, not because church authorities derive their authority from scriptures, as you claim, but because the scriptures are true. An Iman can contradict scripture, and he is wrong not because he derives his authority from scripture but because scripture is true. An Iman could contradict the Koran, from which he derives his authority, and state truth because the Koran isn’t always true.
The RCC has never claimed that scripture is wrong (which is not to say that all translations are without flaw). It has claimed that scripture has been wrongly understood, and that someone wrongly understanding scripture may be in error.
Well said.
I appreciate both of your kind points and you have my respect as fellow FReepers. That said, I’ll never be convinced of the authority of the RCC to speak on behalf of God or Jesus. The Popes are just men to me and while some of them are worthy of respect, some of them aren’t.
The Popes are just men to us too... but men with a special office and authority. Just as the Apostles were just men chosen by Christ to minister to His Church, so are the Pope and bishops of today. Just as Peter's conduct toward the gentiles deserved a rebuke, so does the conduct of God's servants today when they fall short.
God bless you.
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.