The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

I do know better.

That's yet to be demonstrated.

It’s total nonsense to pretend that there is no disagreement, hard feelings, or animosity between the two groups.

I agree it's nonsense to pretend. So, what's the major disagreement?

I heard it from both sides.

Heard what?

So John 5:39 would be: “You are searching.....” not a command to search or a recommendation to action.

I am not a Greek to English translation specialist...I don't even know Greek...

I could go thru the 26 or so Greek Lexicons out there and see how everyone disagrees with each other, but so many people have done that already that I don't think one more opinion would leave a mark...

Since all those Protestant KJV translators and those Catholic Douay-Rheims translators and those Aramaic translators disagree with the minor translations that are left and agree with each other, I'll leave it up to those experts to determine whether the verse is a command or a mere statement...But thanks anyway...

That is covered under baptism of desire, though there is debate about this btwn RCs and sedevacantist Catholics.

From what i see they officially are in full communion but there are issues, mainly due to historical issues between them and Orthodox churches. Below are a few excerpts relevant to this, chronologically listed, with two overviews first, with links for more:

► The Ukrainian Catholic Church

Rite: Byzantine

Membership: 4,321,508

The Ukrainians first received the Christian faith by way of Constantinople. Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev attended the Council of Florence and agreed to union between the Catholics and Orthodox, but the union was ultimately rejected.

In 1569, Jesuits began working for a local union between Catholics and Orthodox as a way of reducing Protestant influence. The Orthodox, for their part, favored such a union to preserve their Byzantine traditions at a time when the Polish Latin Rite Church was expanding.

A synod of Orthodox bishops at Brest in 1595 proclaimed a reunion between Rome and the metropolitan of Kiev. After similar moves in Przemysl in 1692 and Lviv in 1700, two-thirds of Ukraine had become Catholic. But as Orthodox Russia expanded its control into Ukraine, Catholicism was gradually suppressed. In 1839, Tsar Nicholas I abolished the union in all regions under Russian rule, but the Ukrainian Catholic Church thrived in areas under Austrian control. Later, the Soviet Union forced the Ukrainian Catholic Church into the Russian Orthodox Church.

With the fall of the USSR, Ukrainian Catholics emerged from the catacombs, but they've not yet recovered all of their stolen property [the Soviets gave the Orthodox UC buildings years ago]. Lubomyr Cardinal Husar is popularly given the title of Ukrainian Catholic patriarch, but this title hasn't been approved by Rome due to sensitive relations with the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox. http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0804.html
► Catholicism in the Ukraine:

Unresolved problems

Over 400 years ago Orthodox Christians of the present day western Ukraine broke away from the Orthodox Church and entered into union with Rome. Although they kept their religious traditions and rites they were not totally free from forces of latinization in the various aspects of their ecclesial life. Today, the place of the Greek Catholic Church in the Western Ukraine within Christianity is a topic of dispute and confusion. The Greek Catholic Church is an obstacle in Catholic-Orthodox relations. To overcome this obstacle it is necessary to examine various areas, the historical, the theological and then possibilities for the future. In the study it is deemed essential not to lose sight of the fact that each Church, now and historically, is made up of people, of souls, with their own ways of thinking, their rights and their identity.

Historical Tensions

Since the councils of Brest and Uzhgorod the relation between Russian Orthodoxy and the Greek Catholics of Western Ukraine, as well as with the Church of Rome, have been tense and unfriendly. In order to promote a policy of friendship and forgiveness and Christian peace between these Churches, among these Christians it is certainly necessary to reread history in an open and unprejudiced way...

There are two particular areas of concern in any attempt to resolve the problem surrounding Greek Catholicism. The ideal solution would be the establishment of Eucharistic communion between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. This of course would need in the first place a common agreement on the theological differences, that these differences are complementary rather than contradictory. The understanding and the theological openness to investigate the meaning and the nature of the Papacy is essential to such a process. A theological resolution, maybe only possible through the means of a general ecumenical council, and logically speaking, would mean that the Greek Catholic Churches can not be held to be of an unorthodox or heterodox faith.

The remaining issue, which might well be best to be treated chronologically as the first issue to resolve is the nature of canonical jurisdiction of the Greek Catholic Churches. The present situation of falling under the jurisdiction of Rome is unpleasant to the Orthodox understanding of ecclesial communion. It is also a situation which is not harmonic with the Eastern Christian traditions, theology and spirituality of ecclesial life. http://www.catholic-church.org/church-unity/gk_cat_e.htm

► January 1976 Ukraine Church angry with Rome

By a Staff Reporter

The rift between Rome and the Ukrainian Catholic Church over the Pope's unwillingness to appoint Cardinal Joseph Slipyj as patriarch of the Ukrainian Church, widened last Sunday when police were called to deal with a demonstration at the Ukrainian Catholic cathedral near Oxford Street, London

The police, who were summoned by Bishop Augustine Hornyak, removed one of a group of demonstrators who were singing carols to prevent the Bishop from preaching his sermon.

Many Ukrainian exiles feel that Vatican "Ostpolitik" is betraying their struggle against Soviet Russia and want support from Rome in their militant stand. The creation of a separate patriarchate would help unify the Ukrainian diaspora and carry on their cultural and national identity until the hoped for liberation comes. http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/16th-january-1976/1/ukraine-church-angry-with-rome

► ORTHODOX - CATHOLIC RELATIONS IN THE USSR [1991?]

by Patricia Lefevere

Catholic and Orthodox believers "must" work together if they are "to testify about Christ in the secular world," said Archbishop Kirill (Goundiaev) of Smolensk in the Soviet Union. But the problem is that they are "unable" to do so--at least in the western Ukraine where bitter and long-standing political, ecclesiastical and ecumenical rivalries have pitted one group of believers against the other in a "nationalistic struggle," he said.

The hostilities could not have come at a worse time, said Kirill, who directs the external affairs department of the Russian Orthodox Chruch. "Our divisions are scandalous; they are turning people away from the church at a moment when great expectation was forseen for Christianity" in the Soviet Union...

In an interview two years ago with this reporter in Moscow, the archbishop predicted that restoration of the legal rights of Ukrainian Catholics [the Soviets stole the UC buildings years ago by giving them to the Orthodox] --if undertaken outside the ecumenical sphere would only further divide the two groups and would soon lead to "warfare." While warfare has been avoided, there have been "ugly" scenes between members of the two churches in many parts of the western Ukraine during recent months. These have included hunger strikes by both sides, arrests, and protest marches resulting from the handing over of churches--most recently used by the Orthodox --to Ukrainian Catholics. http://www.georgefox.edu/academics/undergrad/departments/soc-swk/ree/Lefevere_Orthodox_articles_previous.pdf

► In Ukraine, Pope Tries to Heal Rift With Orthodox Church

By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

Published: June 24, 2001 Setting aside objections from the Orthodox church that broke with Rome a millennium ago, John Paul II made his first visit to Ukraine today and tried to placate his unwilling hosts.

''I wish to assure them that I have not come here with the intention of proselytizing,'' the pope said during a formal airport arrival ceremony that no Orthodox religious leaders attended.

The pope urged both churches to ''ask forgiveness'' of each other and not to let past errors hinder ''mutual knowledge.''

Metropolitan Vladimir, who heads the largest Ukrainian Orthodox church, one that is subordinate to Moscow, managed to be out of town today to avoid any chance of meeting the pope..http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/24/world/in-ukraine-pope-tries-to-heal-rift-with-orthodox-church.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/24/world/in-ukraine-pope-tries-to-heal-rift-with-orthodox-church.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

► September 13, 2011 (Reuters) – A senior leader of the Russian Orthodox Church on Monday called on the Vatican to do more to resolve outstanding disputes so that a meeting between Pope Benedict and the Russian Patriarch could take place.

In an exclusive interview with Reuters, Russian Orthodox Metropolitan (Archbishop) Hilarion, urged the Vatican to show “some signs” of readiness to resolve a decades-long conflict between Orthodox and Catholics in Ukraine that has been blocking a meeting of the two world religious leaders.

An unprecedented meeting between Benedict and Patriarch Kirill could begin to heal the 1,000-year-old rift between the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity, which split in the Great Schism of 1054. — http://palamas.info/russian-orthodox-leader-urges-vatican-to-resolve-dispute-and-pave-way-for-summit/

Well, I will admit to not knowing all the translations out there, but I did what I always do when someone gives me a quote in a post, I searched it on biblegateway.com.

In my Bible, the you is present and I wanted to see if it was present in others, the KJV was the only one that did not have some version of you or ye.

I have seen it used that way on these forums by non Catholics, so I have no idea which translation is the correct one.

However the the message is the same. Jesus is telling them that they search for eternal life in Scriptures and do not know when the one who can give it them is standing before them. As a Catholic, it always makes me think of the Eucharist.

“I am not a Greek to English translation specialist...I don’t even know Greek...”

Nor am I, but we have at our fingertips the greatest communication and research device conceived by the mind of man, outside of reading and writing its self.

It only took about 15 or 20 minutes to find that information and finding it deepens our understanding of our patrimony, the Sacred Scriptures.

So from the information I provided the “you” is there in Greek and the searching was a serious searching, diligent, perhaps daily but nonetheless a practice taking place at the time and so a translation into English should reflect that.

Indeed, the Pharisees were searching the Scriptures as the source of eternal life and had contempt for “this accursed people who know not the Law” and despite what they had seen Jesus do he could not be the Messiah or a prophet because, As John 7:52 relates, they said, ‘Search the Law and see no prophet comes from Galilee’.

As you say:
“However the the message is the same. Jesus is telling them that they search for eternal life in Scriptures and do not know when the one who can give it them is standing before them”.

Now that’s spiritual blindness on their part.

*****No doubt He was because they had lost sight of what the Law was all about.*****

Had they? They knew only what was revealed in Scripture and the Ten Commandments and the law of Moses were Scriptural. It was not that their interpretation was wrong, it was that they used Scripture to elevate themselves to things Scripture did not give them the authority to do.

As Jesus says, they wanted a place of honor and the accolades of the people, they used Scripture for earthly gain. Their traditions were for themselves and not for the people.

It can’t be both ways, God either gave them the law to follow or He didn’t, Scripture is the inerrant Word of God or it isn’t. The things the leaders were angry about weren’t because of tradition. It wasn’t their tradition that only God could forgive sins, that is Scriptural. It wasn’t their tradition that the Sabbath was a day to refrain from work, that is Scriptural. It wasn’t their tradition with the adulteress, it was Scriptural.

****He had to have confined Himself to the letter of the Law. *****

So which is it? Did God confine Himself to the letter of the law? Or did He reveal the spirit of the law?

****That’s because they relied too much on tradition they had added to Scripture. *****

Please elucidate which traditions they relied on so heavily that they could not recognize the Messiah. This has been claimed a couple of times in this thread and yet, no one has named those traditions.

These links can help answer your questions or concerns.

Here is a link to a Greek Interlinear Translation.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

This is to John 5
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh5.pdf

Jesus' own words......

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Luke 24:44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

The things the leaders were angry about weren’t because of tradition.

Sure it was.

This was Jesus argument (complaint/criticism/whatever) of the Pharisees......

Matthew 15:1-9 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

8 “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

Mark 7:1-13 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches. ) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God) — 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Please elucidate which traditions they relied on so heavily that they could not recognize the Messiah. This has been claimed a couple of times in this thread and yet, no one has named those traditions.

mm:Sure the Jews didn't expect Him to do what He did. That's because they relied too much on tradition they had added to Scripture.

It wasn't which specific traditions that kept them from seeing that He was the Christ but that they relied on tradition in general, which means they didn't rely on Scripture. If they had relied on Scripture they would have seen it. Others did.

However, part of the problem was a partial blindness God put on them in order that Scripture be fulfilled.

1 Corinthians 2:6-8 6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

When all else fails, accuse the other person of making stuff up. A typical Catholic’s tactic of last resort.

Roman Catholics didn’t consider them *real* Catholics. Borderline, sort of maybe, but pretty iffy about getting in. Better than Orthodox or Protestants however.

Ukrainian Catholics rightly perceived the spiritual snobbery of the Roman Catholics who looked down their noses at them as being not quite good enough.

Hardly unity within Catholicism.

Thanks, daniel, for the information provided on Ukrainian Catholicism.

That is covered under baptism of desire, though there is debate about this btwn RCs and sedevacantist Catholics.

One baptism, eh?

"Heard what?"

I think we are seeing evidence of a persecution complex. Now the stories of Catholics not being nice and not allowing just anyone to rewrite the Catechism are being projected to the entire billion plus Catholics not being nice to the five million Ukrainian Catholics. I think the real story is you have to be likable to be liked.

Dream on.

It was theological differences.

The typical Roman Catholics condemning to hell anyone who doesn’t agree with their church doctrine or is not Roman Catholic.

Oh, except for the Muslims who worship the same God.

hmm, let me go back and check my Bible. i thought Matthew 28 was AFTER the thief died and i also seem to remember Acts 2:38 was AFTER Matthew 28. But i could be wrong.

snotty remarks? i laugh when Obama tries to quote Ronald Reagan against the Republicans, as if Reagan was a liberal. in the same vein, i laugh when i read St Athanasius, a great Doctor of the Catholic Church and defender of orthodoxy, quoted by those he would have considered heretics and outside the Church, in an attempt to make it seem he was not Catholic. pretty funny.

the question those who attack the Church can’t seem to deal with is, how did the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church come into existence? was it due to man or God?
the answer is comtained in the Bible and in history.
After Jesus gave the Apostles the great commission in Matthew 28 and later sent Paul to the Gentile world, the Apostles went throughout the known Roman world preaching Jesus Christ, making disciples in all nations, baptizing them and teaching them. After all the Apostles died, the men they ordained continued in the Apostles doctrine, whether they received the teaching by letter ( Scripture ) or by word of mouth ( Sacred Tradition ) Obviously the majority of what Paul and the rest of the Apostles was taught orally, as most of the Apostles never left any writings and Paul preached over 30 years after his conversion.
now, the local churches planted by the Apostles soon compared notes with each other, compared and shared what they each received from the Apostles and what did they discover? THEY RECEIVED THE SAME FAITH, WHETHER ONE WAS IN JERUSALEM, CORINTH, INDIA, GREECE, TURKEY, EGYPT OR ROME. this “universal” Faith became known as the Catholic Faith, since it was universally believed everywhere and had the Holy Spirit guiding it. these Catholics were able to trace their Faith directly back to the Apostles, something their opponents such as the Gnostics could not do ( and opponents can not do to this day ) Their Bishops were laid hands on by those who had been ordained by the Apostles and they in turn ordained others, which again continues to this day. They were the custodians of the Scriptures, since it was to the Church that the NT was written to and it was the Church that compiled the books of the NT, using the oral Tradition to determine the genuine books from the spurious. so the Church is divinely instituted and MUST be on earth CONTINUOUSLY from 33ad until Jesus returns at the end of the world.
now, what do we know about the advent of new doctrines. we know when a new false doctrine is introduced ( Arianism for example ) we can trace from history it’s source and the controversy that ensued. the Church was very firm in guarding the deposit of faith it had received.
so where do we find any controversy on infant baptism in Church history? the answer is we don’t until the 16th century.
does anyone doubt that if tomorrow morning a Baptist minister in Houston TX got up in front of his people and informed them he was going to baptize an infant, THERE WOULDN’T BE A GREAT CONTROVERSY? of course there would be, he would be fired in a hear beat. Does anyone not believe the same thing would have happened in the 1st or 2nd century if infant baptism was not an Apostolic teaching, received by the Universal Church everywhere?
so Catholics join the great St Athanasius in holding fast to the doctrines received from the Apostles by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
we pray that others will read John 17 and stop attacking this Divine Institution.

"The typical Roman Catholics condemning to hell anyone who doesn’t agree...

The Church condemns no one to hell and there are no 'typical Catholics'. But thank you for thinking of us so often. I'm sure it is the Holy Spirit calling you back to His Church.

Peace be with you.

for someone who claims to have been Catholic at one point, there just doesn’t seem to be any understanding of Catholic doctrine. don’t understand how the baptism of desire is part of the One Baptism huh? simply amazing.
but then again, we shouldn’t be suprised, anyone who does’t realize the Ukranian Catholics are Catholic just as much as Roman Catholics are Catholic, maybe they were never Catholic at all!
kinda like me claiming to be a doctor and then saying the heart is in the foot. ignorance exposes one and some have no shame as they are exposed every time they claim some knowledge of what the Church teaches.

“Please elucidate which traditions they relied on so heavily that they could not recognize the Messiah. This has been claimed a couple of times in this thread and yet, no one has named those traditions.”

One is reflected in the questions put to John the baptizer by some of the Levites and priests. (John 1:19-26)

They wanted to know if John was The Prophet foretold in the Torah or perhaps the Christ or Elijah.

Elijah was looked for to come in the flesh ahead of the Messiah, so no Elijah, No messiah yet. And where was The Prophet?

John chapter 7 relates some of the other traditions current.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery