Obamaweek: You know who’d make a great Pope?
posted at 11:00 am on July 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It seems as Barack Obama’s polling numbers increasingly come down to Earth, his media apologists get more desperate to hail him as the secular Messiah. Perhaps no effort gets quite so embarrassingly sycophantic as Newsweek’s decision to print this mash note from Kathleen Kennedy Townsend on the occasion of Obama’s first visit with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican this week. Townsend argues that Obama is literally more Catholic than the Pope. Here are Newsweek’s alpha and omega:
In truth, though, Obama’s pragmatic approach to divisive policy (his notion that we should acknowledge the good faith underlying opposing viewpoints) and his social-justice agenda reflect the views of American Catholic laity much more closely than those vocal bishops and pro-life activists. When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they’ll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won’t care, because they know Obama’s on their side. In fact, Obama’s agenda is closer to their views than even the pope’s. …
Notre Dame awarded the president an honorary degree because it saw the need to highlight the best of Catholic teaching as applied to politics: the ability to open the eyes of those who would prefer to keep them closed, and to open the hearts of those who would prefer not to know the pain that their actions cause. The pope has a lot to learn about Catholic politics in America. Barack Obama can teach him.
In between these two paragraphs, Townsend fills the pages with the usual liberal complaints about the church, including gay rights, abortion, and — this is the best part — a complaint that the church hierarchy doesn’t listen to the congregations and change religious doctrine to match public opinion. She lauds Obama for his ability to “listen” to other points of view, apparently missing the months-long repetition that no one had an alternative to Porkulus when Republicans and Democrats both tried to get votes for smaller and more intelligently-crafted alternatives.
Townsend makes the same mistake about religion that many other Catholics (and not just Catholics) make about it. A church isn’t a democracy, nor is it a nation. The Catholic Church serves what its sees as eternal truths about God, Jesus Christ, and the world, and invites those who believe similarly to join. No one is forced to remain a Catholic anywhere in the world, nor are Lutherans, Episcopalians, and so on. Certainly one can disagree on policy and practices, as many Catholics do, but on doctrine, the church does not take polls.
Thus, one can agree on the doctrine of social justice but disagree on the best policies to achieve it. One can agree on the dignity of human life and still disagree on issues like incarceration, executions (which, contrary to popular belief, is not proscribed by Catholic doctrine), charity for the poor, and the economic policies of free nations. But someone who believes that infants born during botched abortions should not be protected by a law requiring the abortionists to seek independent medical help for them is acting contrary to Catholic doctrine, which is and should be immutable.
At least Obama doesn’t claim to be Catholic, even if Townsend thinks he’s more Catholic than Benedict. Townsend wants a church that bends to the will of the mob, which isn’t a church at all but a social club or a political party. Let Obama remain the head of his political party, and perhaps Catholics like Townsend should pay more attention to the church’s teachings — or find a social club to join instead.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
We participate in the nature(in the Divine Energies) of God.
Christ said:
And as you know:
This is not some new age crystal thing..this is the ancient doctrine of Deification that was taught by Christ and the Apostles.
MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 11:32 AM
In the Church of Obama, abortion is a sacrament.
And loving thy neighbor, consists of looting the nation’s treasury and presenting it as a gift to major Democrat donors.
NoDonkey on July 13, 2009 at 11:35 AM
People who refuse to mention what church they attend while prosyletyzing inevitably turn out to come from some Christian-flavored cult. It’s the reason for the secrecy… if you knew, you’d shun them. I KNEW that would be Thacker’s answer.
Thacker’s justification is another lie. Scripture commands that Christians fellowship with other Christians (Acts 2:42). And in Revelations messages are addressed to churches, not solitary believers. The followers of Christ, from the very beginning, were organized into churches. Thacker’s answer from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is a deliberate misinterpretation.
And once again, any HotAir topic that even tangentially touches on the Church is turned by Catholic-hating trolls like Thacker into a “Catholics aren’t Christians” thread.
theCork on July 13, 2009 at 11:36 AM
So it is written (but not read) so it shall be done.
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Very serious. Look at your own comments. You did not address the question. When did Peter receive the keys? You pasted nearly a chapters worth of information I have yet to respond to because of its length but I saw nothing about when Peter received the keys. I think that you still don’t understand my point. I’ll try to be more specific below.
No it doesn’t. In the text Christ said that he will give the keys to Peter. This is future perfect tense. Try to understand what I’m saying. If I told you that I will give you $1000 dollars you would anticipate when I actually will give you the money. You would not think that I had already given it to you. Do you understand my point now?
Yes he did only say to Peter “I will give you the keys to the kingdom.” I’ll sy it again so that it’s clear. Sure he said he would give him the keys but he didn’t actually give them to him yet.
Yes you did and I’ll get to that lengthy post tonight.
I appreciate you speaking kindly here but I think (hope) that you see that you were the one who misunderstood my comment.
I agree that he didn’t say those exact words but he also doesn’t say that Peter is the rock. He simply names him Rock. Scholars all agree that he uses a demonstrative pronoun. I have extensively looked at this from the view of the early church fathers. They differ in their opinions on what is meant by rock but they emphasize on the confession of Christ like I do. I’ll provide the quotes tonight.
It was Peter’s declaration of faith that the Holy Spirit used to point out Peter to Jesus. So that Jesus chose Peter. And because of this He calls Peter “blessed.” (Actually, Jesus did not need to have Peter pointed out, because He was God, but He used this to point it out to the others.)
Like I posted about Joseph in Genesis. “SINCE GOD HAS MADE ALL THIS KNOWN TO YOU, no one can be as wise and discerning as you are. You shall be in charge of my palace.”
God pointed out Joseph to be the head in the King’s absence from the Kingdom. God was pointing out Peter to be the earthly head during Jesus’ temporary absence from Earth. (of course Jesus alone is the true head of the Church, like Pharoah remained the King.) Because when Jesus heard Peter’s faith declaration, He said, “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU, but my heavenly Father.”
The binding and loosing, as I have already mentioned, was later given to all the Apostles. This was Rabbinical religious authority language. To bind and loose in the Greek and Hebrew in part meant to open and shut, to forbid and allow. Jesus was giving His Apostles the religious authority that once belonged to the chair of Moses. (Matthew 23:2-3 The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.”)
But the keys were only to Peter and you won’t find Jesus giving keys to anyone else in Scripture. And I already explained the keys.
Look at the grammar and language in the passage. There are two whole sentences between Peter’s declaration of faith and Jesus saying “upon THIS ROCK.” It cannot be the rock. You are bypassing all the personal “yous.”
Honestly, it seems to me that you have to twist yourself into a pretzel and ignore most of the text to not believe that Jesus was talking to Peter and calling him the rock. There are many Protestants who agree with the Catholic interpretation of this passage. In fact, today, most Protestant theologians do. They simply do not believe that this was an office that had succession. I can understand that way of thinking, even if I disagree. But I cannot understand how someone can say it was only the declaration of faith and it was all the Apostles.
Elisa on July 13, 2009 at 10:03 AM
shick on July 13, 2009 at 11:38 AM
How is Acts 2:44-46 working out for ya?
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Darn it. I didn’t mean to send it yet. I have to stop for now. Later.
shick on July 13, 2009 at 11:41 AM
You also are ingnoring the future perfect tense of will give. It’s simple.
shick on July 13, 2009 at 11:44 AM
When I’m finished with the clear and simple interpretation of Matthew 16 then perhaps I’ll address your 10,000 protestant denominations point. Until then, I’ll have to ask you to wait.
shick on July 13, 2009 at 11:46 AM
The question is “what keys?”
Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom, not the keys to heaven. He opened the kingdom to Jews at Pentecost and to Gentiles in Acts 10.
At the time of the giving of the keys (Mt 16), he was under strict instruction to preach “the gospel of the kingdom” to Jews only (Mt 10:5-7). He did this faithfully (all the way until that instruction changed at Acts 10).
Gentiles had faith and gentiles had eternal life… we see this in the gospel accounts… but they did not have a right to the priesthood as that was reserved under the Covenant with Israel for Jews (and proselytes) only. This is the kingdom of priests spoken of in Ex 19 and by Peter in his epistle to the Diaspora.
Cornelius received the gift of the Spirit before he was washed in baptism and the centurion is said to have the greatest faith in all Israel… but it wasn’t until Cornelius that gentiles could serve as priests in the Kingdom… note that Romans 11 ONLY Gentiles were threatened with being “cut off.” That is, until the end of the Acts age, God recognized and marked a difference between Jewish and Gentile believers.
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Seriously? When did I ever say that Catholics aren’t Christians? Wow. . . I think we are fellowshipping with Christians here, on this blog, today. I guess this doesn’t qualify to you.
How about the whole ‘judge not lest ye be judged’? It seems to me that Catholics are judging other Catholics to not be Christian if they support abortion rights. That seems ludicrous to me even though I am staunchly pro-life. I wouldn’t condemn someone to hell if they supported abortion. And I hope that your next pope doesn’t believe in abortion up to the end of the first trimester. . . because then, as a Catholic, you’d have to change how you feel on the topic of abortion.
There is no secrecy among my church. I actually don’t attend a church weekly. I read the Bible, and I watch Charles Stanley (Baptist) every week. I’ve been to several different churches over the past couple of years. I grew up in a non-denominational church that was based on the Methodist faith. My mom was raised Presbyterian, my dad was raised Methodist.
You would think that Catholics with such hatred toward me for having an opinion would be smug in the idea that I’m simply going to hell and they are going to heaven. But they aren’t. . . they must not be confident in their beliefs.
I’m comfortable talking about whatever and having you judge me however you want because I know I’m saved. I know I’m going to heaven. I love God. God loves me. And nothing anyone can do or say can take it away from me.
It’s a peaceful feeling Cork, I hope that one day you experience the peace that comes from a personal relationship with Jesus. And you CAN be Catholic and believe that. You can even support abortion rights and be saved. YOU are the one judging Catholics. I am just disagreeing with their doctrine. I’m not condemning anyone to hell or salivating at any hope of ‘EXCOMMUNICATING’ someone who I might disagree with.
ThackerAgency on July 13, 2009 at 11:54 AM
If you want to throw in the Orthodox… that’d be 10,001 and this spurious argument could be used by a Muslim to argue that “Christianity” is completely in error since its adherents are far more separated than those in Islam.
And since no Christian believes “denomination = Christianity” the argument is convenient but silly. Within the OC there are differences of opinion on certain doctrines (as there are in the RCC), you just don’t call them denominations.
I fellowship at a SBC, yet I completely disagree with them on several doctrines… but the SBC doesn’t claim that it IS Christianity, merely that it is a gathering of similarly-minded Christians who choose to worship a certain way. It makes no claim as to its necessity in salvation (in fact, they would vehemently deny such a claim).
But I won’t be happy until you accuse me of Nestorianism! Please?
;)
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Ok. But it was actually 20,000+ protestant groups that I mentioned. Probably a lot more than that considering all the new “non denom” groups..
Protestant simply means Protestor as you know.
Considering that no protestant group has Apostolic Succession, they should be called Neo-christians or maybe neo-gnostics or something instead.
MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Protestant apostolic succession comes from the words of the Bible. If the words of the Bible haven’t changed, then we are reading the same document that the original Christians read. Those denominations that believe it is important to have ‘updated’ theology through human apostolic succession are practicing in idolatry in my opinion.
If the Bible hasn’t changed, who preaches it isn’t important. What is important is WHAT IT SAYS.
ThackerAgency on July 13, 2009 at 12:03 PM
The word petros refers to a rock (of any size) as a separate entity, whilst the word petra refers to rock generically as a material. When dealing with construction material, petra would have been the word used.
The operative attribute for either in this case is strength and that’s the concept Jesus is conveying.
Hence, Jesus referred to Peter as an individual rock, as well as the strong foundation for his Church. It makes no sense to switch subjects from a definite to an implied one in the middle of a sentence, and if Jesus did that here, it’s the only place in the entire New Testament where he did it.
I’m amazed at the verbal gymnastics performed here to avoid Jesus’ true meaning. The Catholic meaning requires no gymnastics — just a simple understanding of subject/verb/object kinds of structures of the sort Jesus constantly used in his daily speech, without fanciful implied multiple subjects.
Well spoken, particularly with the analysis of the pronouns and adverbs surrounding the main words.
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 12:03 PM
And once again the egregious history of the RCC and its historic and current anti-Americanism is ignored… and any mention of it is labeled “bashing” and “hate.”
I assert that if ANY OTHER WORLD LEADER had spent 2006 trying to draw a moral equivalence between Israel and Hezbollah… such a person would have been vilified at HA (and rightly so)… but the Pope will not be held to that standard.
Again, you can quote the Koran from 1400 years ago to “expose” Islam, but heaven forbid you quote a Pope from 100 years ago… the latter somehow amounts to “bashing” and “hate.”
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM
And Protestant is ‘protester’ because the Catholic Church gave them that name for protesting the authority of the pope. We don’t just protest. . . there is a specific thing that we protest.
ThackerAgency on July 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Yes, the Big -0- wants his hands in everything, and the left is only too happy to let him have his way.
Auto Industry: check
Banking Industry: check
Healthcare Industry: work in process
Energy Industry: work in process
Religion Industry: never say never!
Maybe a big first step here would be for the Pope to name Omaba the “Abortion Czar”. Imagine the media frenzy that would result? It would only of course be “for the children”.
/barf off
Sweet_Thang on July 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM
The Church is responsible for your unchanged Bible. You know, those guys who do apostolic succession?
Thank you.
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Right! That’s why I believe Peter is Satan.
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Us Orthodox are aware that the Orthodox Church is Christianity and is the fullness of Christianity. Everything else is not.
There are no “denominations”.
Read the Bible.
Read what Christ says about this:
There is no schism wihtin the church..the Church is one. Those who are heretics and schismatics have left the Church.
MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Sock puppet?
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 12:06 PM
And the kernel of the matter is who left whom.
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Doesn’t change the Muslim argument… or better, the Hindu argument.
You miss the point which is that the number of denominations (which varies in these discussions from 10,000-200,000) is meaningless. It’s convenient for you, but means nothing upon closer inspection.
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 12:09 PM
They didn’t write it. No Catholic wrote any of the Bible. If it wasn’t for the dead sea scrolls I might agree with the Muslims that it was changed.
I don’t believe in the Bible because of the Catholic compilation of the books. I believe in the Bible because the text matches exactly the dead sea scrolls found that were buried right around 100AD. It is pretty funny that Catholics take credit for the Bible when they didn’t write any of it.
ThackerAgency on July 13, 2009 at 12:09 PM
People like you make no attempt to listen. As a protestant I disagree with Thacker on some issues. I especially disagreed with him when he called other Catholics fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. You weren’t listening. You make no attempt to listen. So what you say about him is a lie. There is not much point discussing these issues with people that do not listen.
It’s also another thing to accuse someone of hating catholics. That lame argument can go both ways. let me rephrase that for you.
Do you see how lame that is?
shick on July 13, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Thank you shick
ThackerAgency on July 13, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Who cares what the mohammedans say. They are just a heretical group that left the Orthodox church also. The muslims are very divided and there are many mohammedan sects.
MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 12:13 PM
You see, the OC and RCC can write things like this all day long and get away with it at places like HA… but if Pat Robertson came out and said that the Assemblies of God is the only true Church and only within it are found the fullness of the means of salvation… WW III would ensue and HA would be screaming for his head.
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 12:13 PM
I guess she doesn’t realize agreeing with people doesn’t mean your right.
Just because more Catholics here don’t abide by the faith doesn’t mean they’re the ones who create the laws and rules of the church.
But again this is Newsweek, where facts never got in the way of a good puff piece.
Rbastid on July 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM
It was the Orthodox church who canonized and preserved the bible.
If you believe the Bible is canon then you believe the Holy councils of the Orthodox Church are inspired and that the Orthodox Church is THE Church that Christ founded.
MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Your welcome. You do remarkably well by yourself with scripture. But you should find a local church to attend. I like Charles Stanley but I disagree with him on his position on God’s sovereignty.
shick on July 13, 2009 at 12:17 PM
That was funny because its true. Your previous comments are very good as well. I’m going to bookmark your points for my future use.
In His Grip,
Shick
shick on July 13, 2009 at 12:18 PM
I know. The Lord has been trying to get me to go to this one church in town. I need to listen. I think I’m going to go next week. Mainly I feel the need to tithe. I’ve been blessed and am very thankful for it.
ThackerAgency on July 13, 2009 at 12:19 PM
All men are sinners. You do know the Bible teaches the concept of repentance, right? Even after you “accept” Jesus you will sin. That doesn’t mean you don’t have to repent for your sins before the proverbial judgement day. Just because you “accept” Jesus doesn’t mean you have the freedom, in Jesus’ eyes, to murder, rob, steal, rape, pillage, etc.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
I refer you to 1 Corinthians 13, where Paul speaks of charity. Note particularly verses 2 and 13:
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
If faith alone really were sufficient for salvation, I would ask how one could have all faith – real faith that can move mountains – and still be nothing if charity is lacking? I would also ask why charity would be said to be the greater than faith? Wouldn’t it be safer to say salvation is by charity alone, or at least by charity plus faith alone? But then the faith isn’t very alone anymore.
There are passages in the New Testament where Christ is asked what one must do to gain eternal life. His responses never came close to teaching “faith alone.” Rather, he spoke of following God through obedience to commandments and through taking care of others (charity).
Fed45 on July 13, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Obama would be a likely choice to head the “Charter for Compassion” people — a multi-culti religion now being formed around the Golden Rule. http://www.charterforcompassion.com
They can have him.
KyMouse on July 13, 2009 at 12:21 PM
I can’t resist: So Thacker, you accept all of the books in the Dead Sea scrolls as Gospel?
theCork on July 13, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Can I ask a serious question? Who takes the time to purchase and read this trash?
marklmail on July 13, 2009 at 12:26 PM
You’re having difficulty following… the argument is that the number of so-called “denominations” is meaningless. It sounds good, but it’s a red herring.
Your point makes my point… You can throw out whatever number you’d like, but it proves nothing… by stating that the Muslim can throw out whatever number he likes but it’s meaningless is my point. You can say “Heretics = 10,000 denominations = ergo false”… but the Muslims can say “Christianity = 10,001 denominations = ergo false.”
Spurious. Neither time nor number is an arbiter of what is true. Truth stands on its own whether it has any adherents or not.
And I say again, many of the “divisions” in evangelical Christianity have nothing to do with eternal life. We believe there is but one true Church though we may worship differently or hold varying views on secondary doctrines. In the OC as in the RCC there are also diverse views on varying secondary topics, you just don’t call these divisions “denominations.”
I recognize no denomination and I have never “joined” a church. I fellowship among the SBC but I do not call myself a Baptist and I am not a “member” of any church. They’d never say that I don’t have eternal life unless I’m “in” because they don’t function the same way the OC functions. You are applying your standard to groups that make no such claims.
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 12:26 PM
You’re absolutely right.
What Christ is talking about is unselfish love and he is teaching us how to align with the Uncreated Divine Energies of God and how to participate in the Divine Nature(Deification).
Protestants are unaware that the word for Faith that they use is actually pistis in Greek and means FAITHFULLNESS.
Again Thackeragency greatly errs because he forgets about how Christ warns us not to Grieve the Holy Spirit and he thinks that Salvation is purely some sort of intellectual agreement or adhering to a world view or intellectual concept…
MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 12:30 PM
There are 4 Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those were all eye witness accounts of Jesus’ time on the earth. None of the authors were Catholic.
The rest of the New Testament (except Revelation) was written by Paul as letters to the early Church. Paul was a Jewish persecutor of Christians until the road to Damascus where he became a Christian. He then spread the Gospels to the entire region and his letters to the young Christian church became the foundation for the rest of the New Testament.
There is debate over who wrote the book of Revelation. While it says the revelation of John, they don’t know if it is the same John of the Gospel.
Now, would you like for me to break down the old testament for you as well? I’ve taken plenty of college level courses with professors who taught the Bible without believing it.
ThackerAgency on July 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Right! That’s why I believe Peter is Satan.
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Touche!!!
Fed45 on July 13, 2009 at 12:32 PM
I used to be on the other team (a teacher in fact)… but don’t tell anybody, because actually being familiar somehow disqualifies me.
;)
If you’re not one you’re “ignorant”… but if you’ve been trained in one and you’ve served and taught and then left, you “have an axe to grind”… so they win on either count. Either way your arguments can be dismissed. LOL!
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 12:33 PM
If the title of this thread regarded Protestantism, yes. Otherwise, no. I didn’t call you or mankai trolls… interesting to see you self-identify.
Enough. There are other websites that police themselves better. I’ll avoid HA for awhile and see if things improve later.
theCork on July 13, 2009 at 12:35 PM
When we become part of a faith, any faith, and scorn it, for not bowing to the congregational whims of idiots like this woman….God no longer has a part in the lives of those who think this way. It has become a political group, or club, and it’s rediculous.
Just because some believe it’s ok to kill unborn babies, over the words of God saying “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, doesn’t make it ok. Morally, or ethically. Just because some years back, some came out of the closet, to espouse their sexual preferences, and deemed it ok, then try to force others to believing it’s ok……doesn’t make one who refuses, less Catholic.
This goes for any faith. When we force our “will”, because of the popular opinions of the day, on our faith, and expect the faiths to bow to those opinions, and change doctrine….God no longer is a part of that faith, or person, in my opinion.
Obama would suck as a pope, for one basic reason. He’s a mortal man, who thinks he’s above God. He doesn’t bow into submission to God, and what God has laid out for us. He rails against it, and tries to pursuade others to do so, as well. He believes he is above God.
capejasmine on July 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Resurrection life has always by faith alone (since Adam), but entrance into the Kingdom (which is quite different) required obedience to the Law as part of the Covenant of Ex 19:5-7. The Lord came only to Israel in his capacity as King (Mt 15) and commanded that the “gospel of the kingdom” be preached to JEWS ONLY (Mt 10:5-7).
The Bible commands a lot of things that were never meant for us. If you believe the Lord was speaking directly to you at all times, I suggest you sell everything you have and give to the poor.
While I got ya, he also commands that you give to all who ask of you (My 5:42)… You can send me a certified check in the amount of everything you own once you sell it.
Thanks!!
Oh, and don’t forget to start building that ark. I hear a storm’s brewing.
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 12:40 PM
If only Obama believed in God….
RR
ramrants on July 13, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Again it doesn’t matter what the mohammedans say.
Mohammedans are protestant heretics.
This is a great age of apostasy.
Almost all of the world is some apostate form of Christianity(including the mohammedans who were taught by Arian heretics).
Regardless there are still 600 million+ Orthodox christians who are catechized(discipled),all believe the same thing and we partake of the Body and blood of christ in the apostolic Eucharist and when we do we are the Body of Christ on earth.
This is the fullness of Christ that He was referring to in the Bible.
MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 12:41 PM
And the RCs claim they have 400 million more than that.
And you continue to miss the argument. Not that “numbers = truth” but there are millions upon millions of evangelicals who gather under the risen Christ alone regardless of what it says on the marquee.
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 12:48 PM
By their non-fruits shall you know them?
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Yes, but the denominations argument is yours. You keep proving how spurious it is by claiming that it’d be worthless for Muslims to make it… but as you are seeking to use it, so could they. So either the argument itself is worthless and proves nothing (which you keep arguing about Muslims using it) or it is legitimate (which then empowers the Muslims or Hindus to use it).
Try and follow the logic.
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Couple of points:
First, I have already laid out a couple of times that the words of the Lord Jesus must be read in context of the gospel of the kingdom as preached in his earthly ministry.
But even with that, by their fruits we will know whom? People who may or may not have resurrection life depending on how they finish?
No.
By their fruits you will know who is ALREADY a false prophet or he who has ALREADY found eternal life.
And you skipped this just before your reference:
Now, I believe this refers to the Kingdom… but if you want to apply it to the church of this age (or of any age)… I wouldn’t go bragging about 600,000,000 adherents.
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 12:57 PM
No. Mohammedans can use that and prove that Christ said the Church is One and that the protestants etc. are NOT the Church.
They can’t say that Christianity is flawed because there are schismatics and heretics because Christianity IS the Orthodox Church and mohammedans using this same logic would come to the same conclusion also.
Now do you see what I mean?
MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM
You are inferring something I never implied. I do not disagree that Jesus gave Peter the authority to lead His Church have Christ’s cruxifiction. But Jesus’s message is that is was through REVELATION that Peter knew Jesus was the Christ. That is the foundation of the Church. I find it odd that a Church that believes their leader is the “Vicar of Christ” does not believe that leader can receive revelation from Jesus.
The Catholic tradition has insisted upon a divine founding and inspired a perpetuation, linking its beginning with the charge given to Peter in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew. Around the inside of the dome of Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome are inscribed these words: “Tu es petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam … et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum.” These are words spoken by Jesus directly to Peter and not to all the apostles as a quorum.
Many authors, interpreters, and translators have sought to determine from this text the original intent of the writer. Keep in mind the Gospels were translated by men, thus subject to error. We should not be so much concerned with the writer but with the intent of the speaker, Jesus Christ. The best translation of this text in the Catholic version (the King James Version is practically the same) is, “… thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, … And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 16:18, 19, Douay Version.)
It is obvious that the position of the Catholic Church relative to the primacy of Peter rests upon this scripture. Both the doctrine of Petrine priority and the principle of Roman supremacy are derived either directly or by implication from this text. It was to Peter that the revelation was given: “… flesh and blood hath not revealed in unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 16:17.)
The claim of the Catholic Church rests on the idea that the authority bestowed upon Peter has been perpetuated through the centuries in the papacy.
Like I said, I accept the presidency of Peter but take the position that the Church was to be built upon the rock of revelation—not on Peter. Further, the point at issue is whether there has been an inspired perpetuation and transmission of Petrine primacy or a deviation and departure from the spirit and intent of the conferred divine commission, as recorded in the New Testament.
Again, I would like to see the evidence of Peter passing this authority to lead Christ’s Church on to someone else after he died, and if he did, who that person was. I also find it rather perplexing that a Church that believes in divine succession finds it necessary to vote, often multiple times, on who the successor should be. In my mind it should be obvious through revelation who the successor should be. Afterall, wouldn’t Jesus be the one to know who his successor should be?
Fed45 on July 13, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Actually, resurrection will happen to everyone, whether they have faith or not. It’s the judgement one has to concern themselves with ;-)
Fed45 on July 13, 2009 at 1:01 PM
I never implied otherwise. You are making a bit of a strawman argument. It is clear when Jesus is talking to those who want to follow him and when he is not.
Fed45 on July 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM
perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Acts 15 where the Holy Spirit shows the Church how to arrive at correct doctrine..through Holy Synods of all the bishops of the church…not papal infallibility. All the Apostles were equal and under the headship of Christ
Christ gave all the Apostles(and the bishops and priests they ordained)the keys to the kingdom and the ability to bind and loose.
MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 1:06 PM
You’re not following. First let me say again that you are applying your own standard of denomination in a way that we do not. The SBC (for example) does not claim to be “the church” it is merely one way to worship as part of the “one church.”
Should I write again that we believe there is but “one church”?
You have disagreement, you just keep the same label. We have disagreements… and since we don’t threaten anybody with eternal damnation for leaving… people choose to worship and gather under different names… all the while maintaining that there is but one true church.
My argument is that the denominations argument proves nothing. I am merely stating that since YOU choose to use whatever number you’d like ti choose (10,000) as “proof” (I think the argument is silly and self-serving), then you must allow the Hindu to use it as “proof” and he says that “Christianity” is false because he sees “10,001″ denominations.
You tell him he’s ignorant because he doesn’t know that the OC is the only true church… I tell you you are ignorant because Evangelicalism teaches that there is but “one true church.” He looks at Christianity in the same way you choose to look at Evangelicalism. He chooses to see Christianity as a hodge-podge of “denominations” and so do you.
I agree with your statement that there are no denominations… just one true church… we just define it differently.
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Delicious. Of course, us Catholics would immediately point out that those people Jesus gathered to him prior to his ascension into heaven were the first Catholics, and among these were authors of Gospel.
During the Middle Ages, it was the Catholic hierarchy which assured, in an age of hand copying of text, that every church had at least one Bible. The entire Bible is read in daily Mass over a three year cycle, and has been for millenia. The Word was cherished and perserved by the Church. In this era of mass-produced Bibles, one can easily underestimate the effort involved.
This is an interesting commentary on the translation of the KJV:
One immediately wonders about the primal fount of all this well-preserved Biblical scholarship — who held most of these texts so that they were available? Could it perhaps have been the Catholics, whose churches and monasteries had been taken by the Crown? I know the answer, but do you?
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Acts 15, eh? That would be where the Apostles separated Jewish and Gentile believers giving each different rules.
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Sorry… didn’t mean to be so smarmy in your direction… it was general statement for those continually grabbing the words of Christ as though he was speaking to all men of all ages.
But I still note that in his earthly ministry he was “sent to none but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel” and that the “gospel of the kingdom” was to be preached to none but to “the lost sheep of Israel.”
In regard to your comment about “resurrection life” thanks for letting me clarify… I should have stated that “eternal” resurrection life has always been a gift of grace by faith alone. Or more precisely, the resurrection unto a new, sinless, heavenly body (1 Cor 15) is a gift, etc.
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 1:19 PM
But christ says the church is ONE.
In order to participate in the holy Eucharist and become the body of Christ..every one must be catechized and all must believe the same thing.
The church does not allow protestants to partake of the Holy Eucharist unless one is catechized and baptised.
How could it be that the one church is full of many thousands of different sects that all believe opposite things from each other?
The Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion.
MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 1:20 PM
But any believing Christian (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) is welcome to partake in communion in Protestant churches. The denomination of those at the first communion was Christian. Why must it be different now other than to maintain control over an earthly organization?
The Protestant church is where most of the growth among Christians are worldwide.
ThackerAgency on July 13, 2009 at 1:26 PM
As you may know the apostles and the disciples of the apostles called the church the Orthodox Catholic Church.
MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 1:33 PM
But he is — unless you believe in predestination, in which case he is only speaking to those predestined to go to Heaven, and — but wait, why would they need speaking to? I’m confused….
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 1:33 PM
“Sect” is your word. I recognize no sect.
The only “opposite beliefs” we may have concern things such as predestination or mode of baptism. Now, I was trained as a Roman Catholic teacher so I don’t know where the OC is in this area… but within the RCC there are different notions on election. Of course, at the end of the day, all RCs would submit will and intellect to Pope, bishop or ecumenical council on any given issue, but that is hardly an argument for “unity.” It is merely an argument for submission to an agreed upon final authority.
As for the Eucharist, that is an entirely different subject… and a subject that I would most likely be very alone on in here (even among Evangelicals). But I will use that as an example… whereas I would be in complete opposition to most Evangelicals on the subject, it doesn’t mean that I am not in the same ONE church that they are in (or any believer no matter the label, even OC or RC).
Trying to argue some of these points on a comments board is like trying to discuss physics on an etch-a-sketch… so I’ll have to leave a lot of this where it is… but simply put, I believe the scripture teaches that the Lord’s Supper is a Jewish ordinance connected to the New Covenant (Jer 31; Heb 8) which has nothing to do with the church of this age. I believe the OC, the RCC and most Evangelicals borrow too much from Israel’s covenants and thus great confusion ensues.
You noted Acts 15… well there we still have Jewish believers and Gentile believers in Acts 15 (the period during which 1 Cor 11 was written)… Paul affirms the differences in Acts 21… I do not see Jewish or Gentile believers separated today.
Etch-a-Sketch… not enough space.
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 1:34 PM
But not atheists, Muslims, Bahais, Hindus, Sikhs. Sounds pretty controlling to me…
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 1:37 PM
OK, sell everything that you have and send it to me. I’m asking!
Thanks!
Should I preach to Jews only? Should I obey the High Priest? Am I going to sit on one of 12 thrones judging one of the 12 tribes of Israel in the kingdom? Was I given the keys of the kingdom? Should I quit my job and follow Him?
He’s speaking to whomever He says He is speaking. There’s no secret trick here.
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I got a solution. Why don’t you go through the Bible and strike out all those passages which you think don’t apply today. Then you can tell the rest of us which words are no longer applicable (and hence no longer sacred) and we can change our Bibles to match yours. We’ll call it the Mankai Bible, put it in the National Archives, and eventually some President will want to be sworn in with his hand on same. We can start with any references to Peter, any to Hebrews, and move on from there.
Sound good?
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 1:44 PM
I don’t think I understand what you’re saying here.
You do or don’t believe the Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ God?
and if you do..you also believe the heretics who deny this and believe in a different God and claim we are all predestined to hell or heaven are of the same belief and Church as you?
MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 1:48 PM
No. Yes. No. No. Depends on the job, and whether said job already permits you to follow Him.
And to whom does He say he is speaking? There is indeed a secret trick, because the Gospel is for everyone. Every word of it gives us an understanding of Jesus, and, through Jesus, God’s Will. We may freely make of that what we will, and He will make of us as is His Will.
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 1:52 PM
For that matter (to whom is he speaking) James wrote to the twelves tribes who were scattered abroad. How do I know that? because shockingly he wrote that he was writing to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. Peter wrote to the Disapora. How do I know that? Guess.
This makes sense since they were sent “unto the Circumcision” and carried “the gospel of the Circumcision.”
At the Council of Jerusalem, they delineated two different standards of life (not two different means of obtaining eternal resurrection life)… one for Jewish believers and one for Gentile believers. This dichotomy is seen all through the Acts age and in the Acts epistles. It is not until post-Acts that Paul reveals that which was NEVER seen before and NEVER spoken of by the prophets… the one new man made up of Jew and Gentile (Eph 3).
In Acts 26:23 Paul claims that he had preached on what was preached by Moses and the prophets… in Galatians 3 he stated that the prophets saw Gentiles blessed… in Romans 15 he quotes Isaiah in regard to Gentile blessings… but in Ephesians 3 (post-Acts) Paul reveals a new man that was not seen by the prophets and that which was hidden from BEFORE the foundation of the world.
The Acts church is a Bride (Israel – Jer 31) with its own head made up of Jewish and Gentile believers in which the Jew is first. It was known SINCE the foundation of the world. The Church of the Body of this Age is pictured as male and its head is Christ and was hidden from BEFORE the foundation of the world.
That is why in Acts 15, the Holy Spirit approves that Jewish and Gentile believers be given different rules, why Paul reaffirms that in Acts 21, why Paul warns only Gentile believers in Rom 11 of being “cut-off” from Israel, etc.
Confuse the letter on the envelope.. confuse all.
Etch-a-sketch. Gotta go. :)
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 1:56 PM
OK… He commanded that you give to all who ask… I’m asking.
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 1:56 PM
I believe it is exactly what He said it is, to remember him as the new Passover of the New Covenant. It’s completely Jewish and is connected to the New Covenant which is solely for Israel (Jer 31; Heb 8).
If the ordinance is so essential to the faith and to salvation, why didn’t the disciples try to eat Him in John 6… and why does John completely omit the ordinance in his gospel?
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Maybe you should build an ark… refuse to preach to Gentiles… eat human dung sandwiches… marry a harlot… sacrifice sheep… sell everything that you have… live in a commune… collect money to send to Jerusalem… put blood on your door posts… take a vow… go to the Temple for prayer… raise the dead…
Are all these for you? Or do you need some guru to help you know which ones are for you and which ones are not?
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 2:03 PM
So do I.
MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Late to the party as usual. It is for people like Kathy Townsend that the modern Unitarian church exists. My mother-in-law needles me regularly about so many Unitarians being former Catholics that came out into the light. My stock reply is that when one has a habit of stumbling and falling, it is in their interest to migrate somewhere where the laws of gravity are different. The gift of choice being ours, they have a perfect right to do so. I just don’t happen to find it admirable.
.
wkgdyw on July 13, 2009 at 2:12 PM
My question stands… why didn’t they try and eat Him in John 6… and why does John omit the Supper from his account which, by the way, John states contains ALL that we need to know to have eternal life?
Why doesn’t Paul ever mention it in his public ministry? Why does Peter omit it at Pentecost? Why isn’t this absolute necessity raised with Cornelius who has the Holy Spirit before he’s baptized?
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 2:18 PM
…and even if you take this literally… where does He say you must do it more than once?
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 2:21 PM
So many people are ignorant of the Catholic Political Responibility… Here it is, in order of proportional reasoning, as taught by the USCCB & Vatican… (www.USCCB.org)
1) LIFE – Unborn babies
2) FAMILY – Marriage between a man and woman, with as many children as God gives them as long as they both shall live
3) SOCIAL JUSTICE – Programs that DO NOT promote dependency (i.e. the republican/conservative plans. teach a man to fish)
4) GLOBAL SOLIDARITY - because we are all God’s children.
Also, when it comes to Social Justice, it’s give alms to the poor NOT give to the government. Through charities. The Apostles, first Catholic Bishops, taught if someone does not want to work, nor should that person eat. If they really can’t work, then yes, we need to help them. When the Church was growing from 33 AD to at least 1500 AD, I don’t know of any government that took care of the poor (I could be wrong about this piece).
Rich nations should give to help poorer, by way of charities… not heavily taxing the people… by trade with those nations, having businesses built there so they can be self sufficient, etc….
Obama is about as far as you can get from Catholic teaching in America.
…back to work I go…
Pax Christi!
ironmonk on July 13, 2009 at 2:23 PM
The RCC…
# opposes the Constitutionally-approved death penalty (sic)
# supports the international socialist “Living Wage”
# calls for open US borders
# demands that third world debt be forgiven sans conditions (”No Structural Adjustment”)
# supports increases in entitlements
# has historically sided with Arab terrorists over Israel. In 2006 B16 tried to draw a moral equivalence between Israel and Hezbollah.
I’m not buying the revisionism.
mankai on July 13, 2009 at 2:27 PM
What are you talking about? The quote I gave you was from the Gospel of John. Also St john wrote his epistles and the book of revelations (which was ALL about the liturgical life of the Church)..i.e. read where He receieves the Holy Eucharist on his tongue in heaven for instance.
What do you mean? St Paul frequently talks about it and even warns of the grievous danger of partaking of the Holy Eucharist which is Christ’s literal Body and Blood unworthily..
This is why it so dangerous to be unaware of the CORRECT interpretations of the Bible that are preserved in the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church.
You just make up your own interpretations and put yourself in the position of being the final arbriter of all truth and fall into dangeorous heresy.
MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Not in my baptist church. We build a hedge around our communion. We do so because scripture tells us that we should respect it and that it is a sacrament reserved for the church. We don’t respect it because we believe the actually wafer/cracker is God in the flesh. That’s would be idolatry. Instead we respect what it symbolizes. I don’t mention it to start a new discussion but correct you that all protestant churches have open communion.
I will not engage on the topic of communion in this thread. There’s already enough on the table as it is.
shick on July 13, 2009 at 2:32 PM
It was finished.
shick on July 13, 2009 at 2:34 PM
The book of Acts mentions them partaking of the holy Eucharist every sunday and even every time they got together.
The problem for you is the english translations do not mention the actual greek words and if they did this would be obvious to you.
For instance LITURGY is often poorly as “ministered”..whereas in the Greek it mentions the apostles performing the Liturgy and that Christ is a Liturgist etc..
Also confession. the Bible clearly mentions that the presbyters(Priests) were given the ability to bind and loose and forgive sin.
We practice the God given mystery of confession before we partake of the Holy Eucharist and like I mentioned..St paul warns of the grievous danger of partaking of the Holy Eucharist(which he specifically mentions is Christ’s body and blood) unworthily.
MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 2:39 PM
And Muslims would say that they were all Muslim. . . including Jesus.
So far as I understand it, atheists, Muslims. . .etc are welcome to celebrate the open and public profession of Jesus Christ as Messiah.
The only Christians I know that claim ‘conversions’ of Christians joining their church are Catholics. That has always seemed like preaching to the choir to me. Why concern yourselves with other Christians when Jesus commanded every Christian to preach the good news of the Gospel to everyone. Why not aim to get those that haven’t heard it instead of those who already believe unless you are just looking to your church’s coffers.
Bottom line for me. . . THIS DISCUSSION is why I don’t like organized religion or churches. Any discussion about denominations and such take away focus from the one important unifier of all Christians. CHRIST.
Christ didn’t die for one denomination or another. Christ is a gift for everyone. You just have to accept it. Any bickering between the religions. . .and especially any claim to ’superiority’ immediately makes me think ‘IDOLATRY’ and inappropriate.
Again, the fastest growing portion of Christianity is Protestantism worldwide. Africa and Asia are Protestant continents. If it weren’t for the Latinos, North and South America would be too.
ThackerAgency on July 13, 2009 at 2:51 PM
But…but…but…you don’t welcome them to Communion, per your previous comment. What you just said doesn’t negate your previous statement.
I’m merely pointing out the exceptions in the “membership rules” you previously stated.
With regard to your position concerning the Church restricting Communion to those “in communion” with the Church, the exceptions you state seem pretty hypocritical.
If some Muslim wants a free piece of bread, why not?
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 3:05 PM
I have my guru. His name is Jesus. Care to meet him?
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 3:08 PM
It’s not a free piece of bread. If you partake, you are showing agreement with the Bible and what Jesus did with His disciples.
If Muslims want to partake, they must believe. Because if a Muslim were to take communion in some countries, their lives would be in danger. They risk a lot more than the church if they take communion because of what it means.
You can be a Muslim right now today if you just repeat a sentence. Would you like for me to tell you the sentence you say to become a Muslim? It’s really quite simple. Say it and you are Muslim (no matter what faith you consider yourself to be – whether you believe it or not). If you say this sentence, to Muslims, you will have ‘converted’.
ThackerAgency on July 13, 2009 at 3:09 PM
+1000. Witty and pointed, and oh so true.
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Ok. Tell it to me. By the way, does writing it make you one too?
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 3:12 PM
and I was going to say that I wouldn’t be posting it because I know what it means.
I don’t believe it. Belief is a very important thing. The taking of communion is more important to the individual than it is to the Church.
ThackerAgency on July 13, 2009 at 3:14 PM
I think you are now approaching the Catholic viewpoint on Holy Communion, except that we expect full agreement with the Bible and what Jesus did with His disciples.
In your view, taking communion (an act, which I have pointed out a Muslim can do without any faith at all) shows that full agreement, whereas in Catholicism, a bit more is required.
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 3:18 PM
I have personally chosen not to partake in communion in a place that was offering it when I was 18. Why? I did not think they were worthy. That was a personal choice.
I WAS WRONG TO JUDGE INTENT.
But judging is a popular thing for the most pious to do. . . even though it is explicitly forbidden by Jesus himself.
Again, communion is more important to the individual taking it than the organization providing it.
ThackerAgency on July 13, 2009 at 3:23 PM
But if the organization providing it is charged by God with protecting the sanctity of the body and blood of Jesus, then there is indeed some importance associated with the organization. When the officiant says “do this in memory of Me”, how can that person be assured that the recipient is remembering Jesus correctly? Should the body and blood of our Lord be given to those who might not remember him correctly?
If an officiant gives that body and blood to someone whom the officiant knows does not remember Jesus properly, then has the officiant violated Jesus’ charge?
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 3:34 PM
So Jesus does indeed allow us to judge, but cautions us that the means and modes of our faulty judgments may come back to haunt us, both by the judgments of others, and, last but not least, by the Judgment of God.
If you choose not to take communion because you disagree with the liturgy or the beliefs of the officiant, that is fine. You are, I think, obligated to politely do so, both in deference to your own beliefs but also to theirs.
I do not participate in religious services with groups whose beliefs are not mine, but if placed in such a situation (such as at a funeral), I am respectful of their observances.
I am reminded of a co-worker who is an ex-Catholic convert to Wicca. When he married, he was already a practicing Wiccan, but he chose to do so to placate his parents in a Catholic Church, and gave the priest and some members of his family several seemingly benign duties which were actually Wiccan rituals, claiming them to be tradition. He (and, he claims, his wife) thought it quite funny that he duped the priest and his entire family into performing a Wiccan fertility ritual. Obviously, and I’m judging when I say this, the guy was not respectful, and I didn’t think much of his “joke”.
unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 3:54 PM
I missed this earlier.
Kepha does not mean “stone.” It means rock, period. A stone in Aramaic was “evna.”
Already explained that keys was a hallmark of royal authority given to the chief steward and that it was an office with succession.
And Peter in fact asked Clement to succeed him as Bishop of Rome, but Clement declined. So then it went to Linus, I think, and Clement became the 3rd or 4th Bishop of Rome. I can’t remember right now.
Note: Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch and martyr in 110AD who I quoted earlier was hand picked by Peter who was the first Bishop of Antioch, before he went to Rome. In the early Church Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople and Antioch were the 5 largest Christian centers.
Elisa on July 13, 2009 at 3:56 PM
in Act 15. Not sure where you got that. Maybe you are thinking of when Paul rebuked Peter to his face? When Peter behaved cowardly and didn’t follow his own teachings?
All the Apostles then and all the Bishops of the Church today have the binding and loosing authority I already talked about. But only Peter received the keys.
Today, as then, it is all the Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome who the Holy Spirit uses to declare doctrines of faith formally with the special charism to be “free from error.”
As for Acts 15, the first Church council.
Peter makes the declaration of faith, as Popes do today and then James, as bishop of Jerusalem, announces the practical course of action, like when Bishops today put the Church’s and Pope’s teachings into action.
Before Peter spoke there was discussion and debate. After Peter spoke, there was no further disagreement or debate. Everyone (Paul, Barnabas, James and scripture) agreed with Peter. The debate ended with Peter.
Peter says, “God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel.” Peter said he was chosen amongst them for a special mission to the Gentiles.
And the most important thing out of the entire passage is where PETER MAKES THE DECLARATION OF FAITH AND STATED THE ARTICLE OF FAITH:
“No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and it was up to him to uphold and implement any of the council’s decisions pertaining to the Jew/Gentile question, especially in Jerusalem. Any way he saw fit.
Peter is the one who made the Article of Faith and Dogmatic decision. That we are all saved by the grace of God and not by Jewish law. That the Gentiles are also saved the same way.
Then Paul and Barnabas witness to this. Then James does 2 things. First he quotes Peter (Tradition) and then he quotes the Prophets (Scripture). That is how all council dogmatic decisions are today.
The second thing that James does is say they shouldn’t make it hard for the Gentiles and instead they should write a letter to the Gentiles instructing them. He doesn’t say anything that defines faith. So Peter says that all are saved by grace and James says to write proper instructions to the Gentiles. One is defining faith and the other is implementing the council’s decision and giving a practical course of action.
And remember, later it says that they were of “one accord” and it was the “decision of the Holy Spirit and us.” Again, same as councils today. There may not be 100% agreement during the debate and some may question the final decisions of the council, but they all accept it as the decision of the Holy Spirit.
Elisa on July 13, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »