The following is my contribution to a series of posts by Ted and Bryn Mawr on another thread. I quoted their posts in full here, as they (the posts) had become immersed in a discussion on a different subject, but while I was typing the post you are now reading, that material was deleted, then briefly restored, then deleted again. Possibly it will be restored once again, but in any case those posts can still be found, as far as I know, interspersed within the 'Religions - Have Your Say' thread on the 'General Religious' forum.
Ted wrote: 1. I recently attended a workshop given by a Fr. Diamond, a Roman Catholic priest.
2. He is a specialist in the early church and was quite adamant that there is indeed a break in the "apostolic succession".
3. Bishops at the time of Peter and following his death were strictly the business managers for the local churches; somewhat like a CEO for the local.
4. Fr. Diamond claims that the list of leaders n the years following the death of Peter were created by the early church.
5. Many theologians today also acknowledge that the words attributed to Jesus declaring that he would build his church on Peter are not in fact the words of Jesus but were added later by the early church.
6. One theologian, Ehrman, I think, said that if anyone was the first pope it should have been Paul and not Peter.
7. Geza Vermes supports this in his book "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ" If you wish a page reference I can look it up for you.
8. The pope is accepted by his church as the Bishop of Rome and granted control of Roman Catholicism.
9. Within the Agnlican church we have the Archbishop of Canterbury who is the titular head of the church.
10. I have apsolutely no problem with the concept of apostolic succession. Whether or not there was a break is really unimportant.
11. What is important is that the message being presented comes from the authority that we have given to the Bible, the church traditions or the church counsels. In all cases they derive directly from the teachings of Jesus who did establish the first church.1. Could you identify him more specifically, a first name and/or name of church and city, for example?
2. Well, I was not there, but I seriously doubt that he made any such assertion. For that to have happened, all of the apostles and their successors would have had to have died without consecrating any additional bishops. That is the essence of Apostolic Succession. What he probably said was...well, we'll get to that below.
3. Many of them undoubedly served that function, 'strictly' if you wish, but they obviously had less mundane duties as well.
4. Here you are probably closer to what he actually said. The names and number of bishops of Rome between Peter and Clement I is uncertain. Between Clement and Irenaeus (not a pope but the most reliable of the early Church historians) the names are virtually certain but the dates approximate. From Irenaeus on the list is pretty well documented. It seems quite probable, however, that men named Linus and (Ana)Cletus served in that office between Peter and Clement I. Whether there were one or more others is uncertain. That is not 'creating a list', but making use of the information available WITHOUT 'creating' anything extraneous.
5. Really? Which theologians are those and when do they assert that such a thing happened, and to what purpose? This gets into a whole 'nother area, that of the integrity of the NT, which might be better discussed separately. In another recent thread, another poster (not Ted, BM, nor I) asserted that the NT was altered at the Council of Nicaea, but gave no substantiation or possible reason. Not very convincing. The purpose of the (1st) Council of Nicaea was to condemn Arianism and, through the Nicene Creed, affirm Christ's oneness in being with the Father. It had nothing to do with changing the Bible as far as I know.
Nor am I aware of any words of Jesus being 'added later by the early Church'. I would like more specific information here.
6. I am no more familiar with 'Ehrman' than with 'Father Diamond', but in any case, Paul's status as 'Apostle' was self-bestowed, even while admitting that he deserved no such status because he had previously persecuted Christianity, and of course, he was certainly not there when Jesus gave the Apostles their authority, nor is there any evidence I know of that he was ever consecrated a bishop. This would, by definition preclude him from having been the first b. of Rome; in any case, according to tradition, he was martyred there several years before Peter.
Paul's importance in Church history, in Rome and everywhere else he went, is undisputed!
7. Ted, you and I discussed this previously, and as I said then, your mindset seems to be that because Vermes wrote this, then of course he is right and all of Church history wrong. I don't see it as anything more than one lone man's opinion, and an esoteric one with little support.
8. Well, OK, as far as that goes. The 'control' is shared to some extent with the other bishops.
9. Ah! And by whose authority? Henry VIII's, so that he could divorce two wives and murder two others? This is the crux (no pun intended) of the matter.
10. I think that's very important, and the Anglican Church does too. That's why, at one point in its history (I forget the date), it brought in schismatic (Eastern Orthodox) bishops to re-consecrate all of its then-current bishops.
11. On that you and I agree completely!
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bronwen wrote: The following is my contribution to a series of posts by Ted and Bryn Mawr on another thread. I quoted their posts in full here, as they had become immersed in a discussion on a different subject, but while I was typing the post you are now reading, that material was deleted, then briefly restored, then deleted again. Possibly it will be restored once again, but in any case those posts can still be found, as far as I know, interspersed within the 'Religions - Have Your Say' thread on the 'General Religious' forum.
1. Could you identify him more specifically, a first name and/or name of church and city, for example?
2. Well, I was not there, but I seriously doubt that he made any such assertion. For that to have happened, all of the apostles and their successors would have had to have died without consecrating any additional bishops. That is the essence of Apostolic Succession. What he probably said was...well, we'll get to that below.
3. Many of them undoubedly served that function, 'strictly' if you wish, but they obviously had less mundane duties as well.
4. Here you are probably closer to what he actually said. The names and number of bishops of Rome between Peter and Clement I is uncertain. Between Clement and Irenaeus (not a pope but the most reliable of the early Church historians) the names are virtually certain but the dates approximate. From Irenaeus on the list is pretty well documented. It seems quite probable, however, that men named Linus and (Ana)Cletus served in that office between Peter and Clement I. Whether there were one or more others is uncertain. That is not 'creating a list', but making use of the information available WITHOUT 'creating' anything extraneous.
5. Really? Which theologians are those and when do they assert that such a thing happened, and to what purpose? This gets into a whole 'nother area, that of the integrity of the NT, which might be better discussed separately. In another recent thread, another poster (not Ted, BM, nor I) asserted that the NT was altered at the Council of Nicaea, but gave no substantiation or possible reason. Not very convincing. The purpose of the (1st) Council of Nicaea was to condemn Arianism and, through the Nicene Creed, affirm Christ's oneness in being with the Father. It had nothing to do with changing the Bible as far as I know.
Nor am I aware of any words of Jesus being 'added later by the early Church'. I would like more specific information here.
6. I am no more familiar with 'Ehrman' than with 'Father Diamond', but in any case, Paul's status as 'Apostle' was self-bestowed, even while admitting that he deserved no such status because he had previously persecuted Christianity, and of course, he was certainly not there when Jesus gave the Apostles their authority, nor is there any evidence I know of that he was ever consecrated a bishop. This would, by definition preclude him from having been the first b. of Rome; in any case, according to tradition, he was martyred there several years before Peter.
Paul's importance in Church history, in Rome and everywhere else he went, is undisputed!
7. Ted, you and I discussed this previously, and as I said then, your mindset seems to be that because Vermes wrote this, then of course he is right and all of Church history wrong. I don't see it as anything more than one lone man's opinion, and an esoteric one with little support.
8. Well, OK, as far as that goes. The 'control' is shared to some extent with the other bishops.
9. Ah! And by whose authority? Henry VIII's, so that he could divorce two wives and murder two others? This is the crux (no pun intended) of the matter.
10. I think that's very important, and the Anglican Church does too. That's why, at one point in its history (I forget the date), it brought in schismatic (Eastern Orthodox) bishops to re-consecrate all of its then-current bishops.
11. On that you and I agree completely!
2. I too was extremely surprised by this claim. As you imply, it would have had to have been very early in the church's history but, even so, the likelihood of all of the Apostles and Bishops failing to pass on the flame and the church surviving the experience is remote beyond belief.
As I understand it, the only claim that the Church of Rome has to the primacy lies in the direct succession from St Peter. Without that, the power of the Pope is mere politics.
A large part of John Henry Newman's reasoning was that by leaving the Church of Rome, the Anglican Bishops had lost the Apostolic Succession (both by denying the primacy of the Pope and by being excommunicated) and thus the Anglican Church was no longer part of the Christian Communion. If this were so, and the Apostolic Succession was indeed lost in the early church then it follows that there *is* no Christian Communion.
Having said that, to my mind the likes of the Borgias so demeaned the post that I doubt that any moral succession remains.
1. Could you identify him more specifically, a first name and/or name of church and city, for example?
2. Well, I was not there, but I seriously doubt that he made any such assertion. For that to have happened, all of the apostles and their successors would have had to have died without consecrating any additional bishops. That is the essence of Apostolic Succession. What he probably said was...well, we'll get to that below.
3. Many of them undoubedly served that function, 'strictly' if you wish, but they obviously had less mundane duties as well.
4. Here you are probably closer to what he actually said. The names and number of bishops of Rome between Peter and Clement I is uncertain. Between Clement and Irenaeus (not a pope but the most reliable of the early Church historians) the names are virtually certain but the dates approximate. From Irenaeus on the list is pretty well documented. It seems quite probable, however, that men named Linus and (Ana)Cletus served in that office between Peter and Clement I. Whether there were one or more others is uncertain. That is not 'creating a list', but making use of the information available WITHOUT 'creating' anything extraneous.
5. Really? Which theologians are those and when do they assert that such a thing happened, and to what purpose? This gets into a whole 'nother area, that of the integrity of the NT, which might be better discussed separately. In another recent thread, another poster (not Ted, BM, nor I) asserted that the NT was altered at the Council of Nicaea, but gave no substantiation or possible reason. Not very convincing. The purpose of the (1st) Council of Nicaea was to condemn Arianism and, through the Nicene Creed, affirm Christ's oneness in being with the Father. It had nothing to do with changing the Bible as far as I know.
Nor am I aware of any words of Jesus being 'added later by the early Church'. I would like more specific information here.
6. I am no more familiar with 'Ehrman' than with 'Father Diamond', but in any case, Paul's status as 'Apostle' was self-bestowed, even while admitting that he deserved no such status because he had previously persecuted Christianity, and of course, he was certainly not there when Jesus gave the Apostles their authority, nor is there any evidence I know of that he was ever consecrated a bishop. This would, by definition preclude him from having been the first b. of Rome; in any case, according to tradition, he was martyred there several years before Peter.
Paul's importance in Church history, in Rome and everywhere else he went, is undisputed!
7. Ted, you and I discussed this previously, and as I said then, your mindset seems to be that because Vermes wrote this, then of course he is right and all of Church history wrong. I don't see it as anything more than one lone man's opinion, and an esoteric one with little support.
8. Well, OK, as far as that goes. The 'control' is shared to some extent with the other bishops.
9. Ah! And by whose authority? Henry VIII's, so that he could divorce two wives and murder two others? This is the crux (no pun intended) of the matter.
10. I think that's very important, and the Anglican Church does too. That's why, at one point in its history (I forget the date), it brought in schismatic (Eastern Orthodox) bishops to re-consecrate all of its then-current bishops.
11. On that you and I agree completely!
2. I too was extremely surprised by this claim. As you imply, it would have had to have been very early in the church's history but, even so, the likelihood of all of the Apostles and Bishops failing to pass on the flame and the church surviving the experience is remote beyond belief.
As I understand it, the only claim that the Church of Rome has to the primacy lies in the direct succession from St Peter. Without that, the power of the Pope is mere politics.
A large part of John Henry Newman's reasoning was that by leaving the Church of Rome, the Anglican Bishops had lost the Apostolic Succession (both by denying the primacy of the Pope and by being excommunicated) and thus the Anglican Church was no longer part of the Christian Communion. If this were so, and the Apostolic Succession was indeed lost in the early church then it follows that there *is* no Christian Communion.
Having said that, to my mind the likes of the Borgias so demeaned the post that I doubt that any moral succession remains.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bronwen:-6
Greetings.
I can assure you that is exactly what Fr. Diamond said. I have misplaced the information he gave us but will try to locate it as well as finding out his location.
Have said that I refer you to pg 56 "Misquoting Jesus", Bart. D. Ehrman. "An interesting illustration of the intentional change of a text is found in one of our finest old manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus (so named because it was found in the Vatican library, made in the fourth century."
"And so the text he had slowly copied had some additions that he was to make; and he was to make two copies." Ibid, 49.
"But above all, the reference to the church, twice in Matthew 18:17 and once previously in Matthew 16:18, clearly indicates that we are faced here with the early Christianity and not with Jesus." pg164, "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ", Geza Vermes.
From "A History of Christianity", Paul Johnson. Re Eusebius creating his list for the apostolic succession. "Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa on the edge ofthe Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were gorgeries, almost certainly manufacatured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox bishop, and actually a contemporary of Eusebius.. . . Thus orthodoxy did not arrive until the last decades of the third century."
Roman Catholic John Dominic Crossan, a Biblical historian and Priest has listed in his book the sayings of Jesus that can be traced back to the historical Jesus, with the rest being editorial additions. Nowhere in that list is there any references to the creation of the church.
D. Gordon former dean of students at the Vancouver School of Theology and a theologian has also confirmed for me that there was in fact a break in the apostolic succesion and also that those references are editorial additons by the early church.
If we add to that Fr. Diamond's comments we now have biblical scholars who are saying the same thing. Two of them are Roman Catholic scholars.
One further comment on good old Henry VIII. Separation did not begin with Henry but many years before. A check of any good history book with show that Henry was the final straw that broke the camels back. The English people in general resented the papal demand that the state bow to his wishes thus placing him above the king in even earthly or state issues.
Shalom
Ted:-6 :-6
Greetings.
I can assure you that is exactly what Fr. Diamond said. I have misplaced the information he gave us but will try to locate it as well as finding out his location.
Have said that I refer you to pg 56 "Misquoting Jesus", Bart. D. Ehrman. "An interesting illustration of the intentional change of a text is found in one of our finest old manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus (so named because it was found in the Vatican library, made in the fourth century."
"And so the text he had slowly copied had some additions that he was to make; and he was to make two copies." Ibid, 49.
"But above all, the reference to the church, twice in Matthew 18:17 and once previously in Matthew 16:18, clearly indicates that we are faced here with the early Christianity and not with Jesus." pg164, "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ", Geza Vermes.
From "A History of Christianity", Paul Johnson. Re Eusebius creating his list for the apostolic succession. "Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa on the edge ofthe Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were gorgeries, almost certainly manufacatured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox bishop, and actually a contemporary of Eusebius.. . . Thus orthodoxy did not arrive until the last decades of the third century."
Roman Catholic John Dominic Crossan, a Biblical historian and Priest has listed in his book the sayings of Jesus that can be traced back to the historical Jesus, with the rest being editorial additions. Nowhere in that list is there any references to the creation of the church.
D. Gordon former dean of students at the Vancouver School of Theology and a theologian has also confirmed for me that there was in fact a break in the apostolic succesion and also that those references are editorial additons by the early church.
If we add to that Fr. Diamond's comments we now have biblical scholars who are saying the same thing. Two of them are Roman Catholic scholars.
One further comment on good old Henry VIII. Separation did not begin with Henry but many years before. A check of any good history book with show that Henry was the final straw that broke the camels back. The English people in general resented the papal demand that the state bow to his wishes thus placing him above the king in even earthly or state issues.
Shalom
Ted:-6 :-6
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Ted wrote:
Roman Catholic John Dominic Crossan, a Biblical historian and Priest has listed in his book the sayings of Jesus that can be traced back to the historical Jesus, with the rest being editorial additions. Nowhere in that list is there any references to the creation of the church.
Not having your reference works I cannot, at this stage, comment on your quotes, but the above statement is nonsensical. It assumes that there are only two states, attributable and additions. A large number of the sayings would be neither - their status would be unprovable.
Could you provide some more detailed information about this "break" in the succession - both when it was or the form it took?
Roman Catholic John Dominic Crossan, a Biblical historian and Priest has listed in his book the sayings of Jesus that can be traced back to the historical Jesus, with the rest being editorial additions. Nowhere in that list is there any references to the creation of the church.
Not having your reference works I cannot, at this stage, comment on your quotes, but the above statement is nonsensical. It assumes that there are only two states, attributable and additions. A large number of the sayings would be neither - their status would be unprovable.
Could you provide some more detailed information about this "break" in the succession - both when it was or the form it took?
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Having looked into Hans Kung's, an RC theologian, book "The Church" his understanding of apostolic succession has nothing to do with actual historical succession but has to do with following in the footsteps of the apostles.
As far as the words attributed to Jesus in the Bible 15% can be traced bac to the historical Jesus and the other 85% are additions by the early church and scribes. However, one should not be surprised at this as it was not considered to be deceptive at the time but the scribes, as noted above, writing their interpretations of what Jesus was reported to have said. This has been confirmed to me by theologian D. Gordon and with dozens of books to check I will add more to this point later.
"Historical Metaphorical Meanings As in John's gospel thoough 'I am the way and the truth and the life" is attributed to Jesus, it does not go back to Jesus himself. Rather, it is the product of a later stage in the developing traditions and was perhaps created by the author of John himself" pg 217, "Reading the Bible Again For the First Time", Marcus Borg.
"Jesus Never Claimed to Be the Messiah
One way to solve the problem is to say that Jesus never in fact claimed to be the Messiah at all, and that ark and the other gospel writers had written their stories of Jesus' life and teaching with aeye more to what they believed about Jesus tyhan to wwhat he might have claimed for himself. pg 68, "Introducing the New Testament", John Drane
"Secondly, the gospels are not only a developing tradition, tut they also combine memory and metaphor. Like the Bible in general, they are a mexture of historical memory and metaphorical narrative. Metaphor and metaphorical narratives, as I emphasized in my chapter on the Bible, can be profoundly true even though not literally factual." pg84, "The Heart of Christianity" Marcus Borg.
The above are also supported by Achtemeier, Green and Thompson in their book "Introducing the New Testament".
I will see what else I can find on the apostolic tradition. However, I think it should become clear that the Gospels are not historical biographies but narratives designed to present truths abut God as the early Christians had come to believe. It was a developing tradition.
Shalom
Ted:-6
As far as the words attributed to Jesus in the Bible 15% can be traced bac to the historical Jesus and the other 85% are additions by the early church and scribes. However, one should not be surprised at this as it was not considered to be deceptive at the time but the scribes, as noted above, writing their interpretations of what Jesus was reported to have said. This has been confirmed to me by theologian D. Gordon and with dozens of books to check I will add more to this point later.
"Historical Metaphorical Meanings As in John's gospel thoough 'I am the way and the truth and the life" is attributed to Jesus, it does not go back to Jesus himself. Rather, it is the product of a later stage in the developing traditions and was perhaps created by the author of John himself" pg 217, "Reading the Bible Again For the First Time", Marcus Borg.
"Jesus Never Claimed to Be the Messiah
One way to solve the problem is to say that Jesus never in fact claimed to be the Messiah at all, and that ark and the other gospel writers had written their stories of Jesus' life and teaching with aeye more to what they believed about Jesus tyhan to wwhat he might have claimed for himself. pg 68, "Introducing the New Testament", John Drane
"Secondly, the gospels are not only a developing tradition, tut they also combine memory and metaphor. Like the Bible in general, they are a mexture of historical memory and metaphorical narrative. Metaphor and metaphorical narratives, as I emphasized in my chapter on the Bible, can be profoundly true even though not literally factual." pg84, "The Heart of Christianity" Marcus Borg.
The above are also supported by Achtemeier, Green and Thompson in their book "Introducing the New Testament".
I will see what else I can find on the apostolic tradition. However, I think it should become clear that the Gospels are not historical biographies but narratives designed to present truths abut God as the early Christians had come to believe. It was a developing tradition.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
From the "New Dictionary of Theology" p431 , Ferguson, Wright, Packer.
"Acts mentions the appointment of elders (presbyteroi) in the church founded by Paul and his companions, and a similar group groups appears at Jerusalem (Acts,14:23; 15:2; 21:18). Elders and overseers (presbyters and bishops) were probably alternativenames for the same leaders in these local churches (see Acts 20:17,28). There is no clue as to why the titles came to indicate separate offices later on."
Later on:
"After 200 in writers such as Tertullian and Hippolytus, the ordained ministry especially that of the bishop, began to be described in sacerdotal terms."
It would thus appear that there were no bishops as we now know then=m in the first 170 years after the church was founded. Up to that point presbyters and bishops were in fact the same thing and they were simply local church administrators.
As the church began to grow and expand it became necessary to establish some kind of central authority to maintain the teachings of the apostles and Jesus himself.
Shalom
Ted:-6
"Acts mentions the appointment of elders (presbyteroi) in the church founded by Paul and his companions, and a similar group groups appears at Jerusalem (Acts,14:23; 15:2; 21:18). Elders and overseers (presbyters and bishops) were probably alternativenames for the same leaders in these local churches (see Acts 20:17,28). There is no clue as to why the titles came to indicate separate offices later on."
Later on:
"After 200 in writers such as Tertullian and Hippolytus, the ordained ministry especially that of the bishop, began to be described in sacerdotal terms."
It would thus appear that there were no bishops as we now know then=m in the first 170 years after the church was founded. Up to that point presbyters and bishops were in fact the same thing and they were simply local church administrators.
As the church began to grow and expand it became necessary to establish some kind of central authority to maintain the teachings of the apostles and Jesus himself.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Hi Ted.........
You know I don't give a crap about what was or was not said in the Bible. Man's spirit is wholly contained in his mind/soul. There is no need to worship in a church. There is only the need of the individual to believe. This is the path after death.
Vanessa
You know I don't give a crap about what was or was not said in the Bible. Man's spirit is wholly contained in his mind/soul. There is no need to worship in a church. There is only the need of the individual to believe. This is the path after death.
Vanessa
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
nvallyvee:-6
That has certainly been the western interpretation of the scriptures. Personally I think the church as an institution is important because it is community. It is in this community that we support each other and can do larger things such as soup kitchens or seeing to the health and social needs of others. Essentially the church is the whole body of Christians. The building as such, is where the church meets.
It is also interesting to note that Jesus did have a community of followers including both maen and women. Paul himself established many churches as community. In Acts we read that "they held all things in common".
I am not saying you are personally wrong but that is simply another take on the issue.
Shalom
Ted
That has certainly been the western interpretation of the scriptures. Personally I think the church as an institution is important because it is community. It is in this community that we support each other and can do larger things such as soup kitchens or seeing to the health and social needs of others. Essentially the church is the whole body of Christians. The building as such, is where the church meets.
It is also interesting to note that Jesus did have a community of followers including both maen and women. Paul himself established many churches as community. In Acts we read that "they held all things in common".
I am not saying you are personally wrong but that is simply another take on the issue.
Shalom
Ted
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Ted......
OK ............ I will agree that there are not soup kitchens that do not come out of a religious base. But what the heck? Are you saying that individuals never give in Christian manner?
OK ............ I will agree that there are not soup kitchens that do not come out of a religious base. But what the heck? Are you saying that individuals never give in Christian manner?
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bryn Mawr:-6
Let us now look at "Jesus in the Churches Gospels" by John Reumann. p313
"As for the church here in Matthew's reference, ([Matt. 16:17-19], it emerges as (1) an assembly of disciples built upon confession of Jesus Christ. The 'rock' is Peter-as-confessing, not merely his confession or simply Peter as a person. (2) It is, Jesus says, 'my church'--i.e, his assembly, in contrast to the 'synagogue' assembly of the Jews and in contrast to all other 'assemblies' which do not make confession of his lordship. (3) 'I will beuld it,' Jesus is depicted as saying during his ministry; that means in the future after the cross and resurrection. (4) That 'the gates of death shall not prevail against it' is a promise of victory through the risen lord. Elsewhere Matthew puts this promis in terms of the risen lord's presence (18:20,'There am I in the midst of them'; ' . . .always, to the close of the age,' 28:20). Here the promise is in terms of 'keys' (16:19, keys to death and Hades, keys which denote authority over these enemies and in the community (cf. 28:18)."
If we couple this with Hans Kung's assertion that apostolic succesion means following the the footsteps of the apostles then we see that all apostles have been given these keys and according to the Dictionary of Theology apostles are all the Christian followers of Jesus and his apostolic team.
I know there has been much controvery over this issue down through the centuries. However, the scholarship used here and above, and the scholars with whom I have personally conversed, convinces me that these words did not come from Jesus but were added by the early Christians and that the church is in fact built on all of the followers of the apostles or if you like the "Priesthood of all believers".
Shalom
Ted:-6
Let us now look at "Jesus in the Churches Gospels" by John Reumann. p313
"As for the church here in Matthew's reference, ([Matt. 16:17-19], it emerges as (1) an assembly of disciples built upon confession of Jesus Christ. The 'rock' is Peter-as-confessing, not merely his confession or simply Peter as a person. (2) It is, Jesus says, 'my church'--i.e, his assembly, in contrast to the 'synagogue' assembly of the Jews and in contrast to all other 'assemblies' which do not make confession of his lordship. (3) 'I will beuld it,' Jesus is depicted as saying during his ministry; that means in the future after the cross and resurrection. (4) That 'the gates of death shall not prevail against it' is a promise of victory through the risen lord. Elsewhere Matthew puts this promis in terms of the risen lord's presence (18:20,'There am I in the midst of them'; ' . . .always, to the close of the age,' 28:20). Here the promise is in terms of 'keys' (16:19, keys to death and Hades, keys which denote authority over these enemies and in the community (cf. 28:18)."
If we couple this with Hans Kung's assertion that apostolic succesion means following the the footsteps of the apostles then we see that all apostles have been given these keys and according to the Dictionary of Theology apostles are all the Christian followers of Jesus and his apostolic team.
I know there has been much controvery over this issue down through the centuries. However, the scholarship used here and above, and the scholars with whom I have personally conversed, convinces me that these words did not come from Jesus but were added by the early Christians and that the church is in fact built on all of the followers of the apostles or if you like the "Priesthood of all believers".
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
nvallyvee:-6
As a Christian pluralist I could never say that. Jesus has shown us the way and the central tenets of the world's great faiths all teach the same thing. Assuming the future kingdom, which I accept, there will be a lot more than just "Christians" there.
Ghandi, the Buddha, the prophet Mohammed, the First Nations etc will all be part of that kingdom as per the parable in Matt. 25:31ff.
None of us is the judge but we will be judged. Read Micah 6:8 where it tells us that what God requires of us is to "do justice, love kindliness and walk humbly with your God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
As a Christian pluralist I could never say that. Jesus has shown us the way and the central tenets of the world's great faiths all teach the same thing. Assuming the future kingdom, which I accept, there will be a lot more than just "Christians" there.
Ghandi, the Buddha, the prophet Mohammed, the First Nations etc will all be part of that kingdom as per the parable in Matt. 25:31ff.
None of us is the judge but we will be judged. Read Micah 6:8 where it tells us that what God requires of us is to "do justice, love kindliness and walk humbly with your God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Ted wrote: nvallyvee:-6
As a Christian pluralist I could never say that. Jesus has shown us the way and the central tenets of the world's great faiths all teach the same thing. Assuming the future kingdom, which I accept, there will be a lot more than just "Christians" there.
Ghandi, the Buddha, the prophet Mohammed, the First Nations etc will all be part of that kingdom as per the parable in Matt. 25:31ff.
None of us is the judge but we will be judged. Read Micah 6:8 where it tells us that what God requires of us is to "do justice, love kindliness and walk humbly with your God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Actually, I think the GOD of every religion showed mankind the path.
As a Christian pluralist I could never say that. Jesus has shown us the way and the central tenets of the world's great faiths all teach the same thing. Assuming the future kingdom, which I accept, there will be a lot more than just "Christians" there.
Ghandi, the Buddha, the prophet Mohammed, the First Nations etc will all be part of that kingdom as per the parable in Matt. 25:31ff.
None of us is the judge but we will be judged. Read Micah 6:8 where it tells us that what God requires of us is to "do justice, love kindliness and walk humbly with your God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Actually, I think the GOD of every religion showed mankind the path.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Ted wrote:
If we couple this with Hans Kung's assertion that apostolic succesion means following the the footsteps of the apostles then we see that all apostles have been given these keys and according to the Dictionary of Theology apostles are all the Christian followers of Jesus and his apostolic team.
I know there has been much controvery over this issue down through the centuries. However, the scholarship used here and above, and the scholars with whom I have personally conversed, convinces me that these words did not come from Jesus but were added by the early Christians and that the church is in fact built on all of the followers of the apostles or if you like the "Priesthood of all believers".
If we take the usual definition of an Apostle - one of the twelve who received the Holy Spirit directly from Jesus and of Apostolic Succession - the consecration of a Bishop directly by an Apostle or by a Bishop who is in the succession, how and when did the break in Apostolic Succession occur?
Upon that does the recognised authority of the Pope rest.
If we couple this with Hans Kung's assertion that apostolic succesion means following the the footsteps of the apostles then we see that all apostles have been given these keys and according to the Dictionary of Theology apostles are all the Christian followers of Jesus and his apostolic team.
I know there has been much controvery over this issue down through the centuries. However, the scholarship used here and above, and the scholars with whom I have personally conversed, convinces me that these words did not come from Jesus but were added by the early Christians and that the church is in fact built on all of the followers of the apostles or if you like the "Priesthood of all believers".
If we take the usual definition of an Apostle - one of the twelve who received the Holy Spirit directly from Jesus and of Apostolic Succession - the consecration of a Bishop directly by an Apostle or by a Bishop who is in the succession, how and when did the break in Apostolic Succession occur?
Upon that does the recognised authority of the Pope rest.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bryn Mawr wrote: 1. If we take the usual definition of an Apostle - one of the twelve who received the Holy Spirit directly from Jesus and of Apostolic Succession - the consecration of a Bishop directly by an Apostle or by a Bishop who is in the succession, how and when did the break in Apostolic Succession occur?
2. Upon that does the recognised authority of the Pope rest.1. That is, of course, the key question, and that is EXACTLY how the RCC defines Apostolic Succession. The only concession, and in my opinion a rather 'left-handed' one, by Christ to those denominations which do not have it, is His admonition to the Apostles not to stop those who were preaching in His name but not part of the community He founded on the Apostles 'because whoever is not against us is for us', and as I remarked in a post on another thread, one can hope that those referred to eventually found their way to membership in Christ's AUTHORIZED community.
2. Also correct. Every time a pope dies, there is, obviously, a lapse in the papacy. That has nothing to do directly with Apostolic Succession. It's not a case of 'the pope is dead; long live the pope' as in monarchies.
Bryn Mawr wrote: A large part of John Henry Newman's reasoning was that by leaving the Church of Rome, the Anglican Bishops had lost the Apostolic Succession (both by denying the primacy of the Pope and by being excommunicated) and thus the Anglican Church was no longer part of the Christian Communion. If this were so, and the Apostolic Succession was indeed lost in the early church then it follows that there *is* no Christian Communion.I do not doubt that Newman saw it that way; my understanding, though, is that the Church now sees it purely (or nearly so) in terms of valid sacraments and valid orders. It distinguishes between Churches that are 'merely schismatic', namely, the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and 'Old' Catholics, and those that are heretical, which is to say, the rest of Protestantism.
2. Upon that does the recognised authority of the Pope rest.1. That is, of course, the key question, and that is EXACTLY how the RCC defines Apostolic Succession. The only concession, and in my opinion a rather 'left-handed' one, by Christ to those denominations which do not have it, is His admonition to the Apostles not to stop those who were preaching in His name but not part of the community He founded on the Apostles 'because whoever is not against us is for us', and as I remarked in a post on another thread, one can hope that those referred to eventually found their way to membership in Christ's AUTHORIZED community.
2. Also correct. Every time a pope dies, there is, obviously, a lapse in the papacy. That has nothing to do directly with Apostolic Succession. It's not a case of 'the pope is dead; long live the pope' as in monarchies.
Bryn Mawr wrote: A large part of John Henry Newman's reasoning was that by leaving the Church of Rome, the Anglican Bishops had lost the Apostolic Succession (both by denying the primacy of the Pope and by being excommunicated) and thus the Anglican Church was no longer part of the Christian Communion. If this were so, and the Apostolic Succession was indeed lost in the early church then it follows that there *is* no Christian Communion.I do not doubt that Newman saw it that way; my understanding, though, is that the Church now sees it purely (or nearly so) in terms of valid sacraments and valid orders. It distinguishes between Churches that are 'merely schismatic', namely, the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and 'Old' Catholics, and those that are heretical, which is to say, the rest of Protestantism.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Ted wrote: 1. I can assure you that is exactly what Fr. Diamond said.
2. I have misplaced the information he gave us but will try to locate it as well as finding out his location.
3. Have said that I refer you to pg 56....
4. Roman Catholic John Dominic Crossan, a Biblical historian and Priest has listed in his book the sayings of Jesus that can be traced back to the historical Jesus, with the rest being editorial additions. Nowhere in that list is there any references to the creation of the church.
5. R. Gordon former dean of students at the Vancouver School of Theology and a theologian has also confirmed for me that there was in fact a break in the apostolic succesion and also that those references are editorial additons by the early church.
6. One further comment on good old Henry VIII. Separation did not begin with Henry but many years before. A check of any good history book with show that Henry was the final straw that broke the camels back. The English people in general resented the papal demand that the state bow to his wishes thus placing him above the king in even earthly or state issues.1. Well, you will excuse me if I continue to doubt that, because it's illogical, which is to say, if true it would invalidate his own ordination and what would be the purpose of his even remaining a priest? He might as well find a nice woman, get married, settle down, raise a family and get a job in the business sector.
2. Well, that would be helpful, because then your claims could be verified or debunked from other sources.
3. I'm not disputing any of those quotes; they are, firstly, the opinions of the authors, and also taken out of context. How about providing links so that we can study the context as well? Also, you are being disingenuous by describing Küng as 'an RC theologian' when you are certainly aware that he is an excommunicated heretic.
4. Please name the book. I do not think that is correct as you state it, and even if it were, how does he explain how he came to such a conclusion?
5. Would you give us his full name, or even possibly a link? Assuming he is a priest, Catholic or even Anglican, that leads to the same paradox as no. 1.
6. Can you be specific as to what sort of demands the pope made? I am not familiar with that. I do know that at the time the Reformation was in full force elsewhere and there were various attempts to 'convert' England to Protestantism which Henry resisted strongly, even violently. I do concede, however, that prior to the Counter-Reformation there were plenty of political intrigues involving the papacy, in England and elsewhere. In any case, you didn't answer my question. Whence cometh the Archbishop of Canterbury's authority?
2. I have misplaced the information he gave us but will try to locate it as well as finding out his location.
3. Have said that I refer you to pg 56....
4. Roman Catholic John Dominic Crossan, a Biblical historian and Priest has listed in his book the sayings of Jesus that can be traced back to the historical Jesus, with the rest being editorial additions. Nowhere in that list is there any references to the creation of the church.
5. R. Gordon former dean of students at the Vancouver School of Theology and a theologian has also confirmed for me that there was in fact a break in the apostolic succesion and also that those references are editorial additons by the early church.
6. One further comment on good old Henry VIII. Separation did not begin with Henry but many years before. A check of any good history book with show that Henry was the final straw that broke the camels back. The English people in general resented the papal demand that the state bow to his wishes thus placing him above the king in even earthly or state issues.1. Well, you will excuse me if I continue to doubt that, because it's illogical, which is to say, if true it would invalidate his own ordination and what would be the purpose of his even remaining a priest? He might as well find a nice woman, get married, settle down, raise a family and get a job in the business sector.
2. Well, that would be helpful, because then your claims could be verified or debunked from other sources.
3. I'm not disputing any of those quotes; they are, firstly, the opinions of the authors, and also taken out of context. How about providing links so that we can study the context as well? Also, you are being disingenuous by describing Küng as 'an RC theologian' when you are certainly aware that he is an excommunicated heretic.
4. Please name the book. I do not think that is correct as you state it, and even if it were, how does he explain how he came to such a conclusion?
5. Would you give us his full name, or even possibly a link? Assuming he is a priest, Catholic or even Anglican, that leads to the same paradox as no. 1.
6. Can you be specific as to what sort of demands the pope made? I am not familiar with that. I do know that at the time the Reformation was in full force elsewhere and there were various attempts to 'convert' England to Protestantism which Henry resisted strongly, even violently. I do concede, however, that prior to the Counter-Reformation there were plenty of political intrigues involving the papacy, in England and elsewhere. In any case, you didn't answer my question. Whence cometh the Archbishop of Canterbury's authority?
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bronwen wrote:
I do not doubt that Newman saw it that way; my understanding, though, is that the Church now sees it purely (or nearly so) in terms of valid sacraments and valid orders. It distinguishes between Churches that are 'merely schismatic', namely, the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and 'Old' Catholics, and those that are heretical, which is to say, the rest of Protestantism.
Now I'm intrigued – you appear to be saying that the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists etc are all heretical schismatics. What is their heresy?
I do not doubt that Newman saw it that way; my understanding, though, is that the Church now sees it purely (or nearly so) in terms of valid sacraments and valid orders. It distinguishes between Churches that are 'merely schismatic', namely, the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and 'Old' Catholics, and those that are heretical, which is to say, the rest of Protestantism.
Now I'm intrigued – you appear to be saying that the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists etc are all heretical schismatics. What is their heresy?
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bryn Mawr wrote: Now I'm intrigued – you appear to be saying that the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists etc are all heretical schismatics. What is their heresy?That would vary from one denom to the next. The point is, though, that nearly all of them, under the subterfuge, or excuse if you will, of protesting (rightly) the corruption within the Roman Church's temporal leadership at that time in Church history, almost immediately began changing DOCTRINE, each 'reformer' with his own idea of what Christian doctrine should comprise. Several of those whom Protestants still consider great heroes of the Reformation, notably Tyndale and Wycliffe, went beyond heresy to near-apostasy. Wesley, for example, claimed to have found a 'method' of sanctification outside the community Christ founded on Peter and the other apostles. Calvin came up with 'predestination', based on a few obscure verses of scripture referring to 'the elect' and ignoring Christ's own assurances that eternal life was available to all, and very easily attained. Luther, of course, had 'salvation through faith alone', completely contrary to Christ's entire ministry, and even trying, unsuccessfuly, thank God, to excise from the Bible those books which specifically refuted 'sola fide'.
These differences in doctrine, of course, continue today, though there has been considerable amalgamation in the interim, and untold millions of pages of commentary have been written attempting to rationalize all of the various errors of the 'reformers'. Through all of this the Roman Catholic Church has remained DOCTRINALLY steadfast, and Catholic doctrine today, shared with the other non-Protestant Churches referred to in the previous post, and with the Anglicans, who are both Catholic and Protestant, is mostly the same today as in the earliest centuries of Christianity. This steadfastness is one of the main reasons I have remained a lifelong Catholic. I simply don't find, from either a doctrinal or historical perspective, any validity or authority in Protestantism.
These differences in doctrine, of course, continue today, though there has been considerable amalgamation in the interim, and untold millions of pages of commentary have been written attempting to rationalize all of the various errors of the 'reformers'. Through all of this the Roman Catholic Church has remained DOCTRINALLY steadfast, and Catholic doctrine today, shared with the other non-Protestant Churches referred to in the previous post, and with the Anglicans, who are both Catholic and Protestant, is mostly the same today as in the earliest centuries of Christianity. This steadfastness is one of the main reasons I have remained a lifelong Catholic. I simply don't find, from either a doctrinal or historical perspective, any validity or authority in Protestantism.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bronwen wrote: That would vary from one denom to the next. The point is, though, that nearly all of them, under the subterfuge, or excuse if you will, of protesting (rightly) the corruption within the Roman Church's temporal leadership at that time in Church history, almost immediately began changing DOCTRINE, each 'reformer' with his own idea of what Christian doctrine should comprise. Several of those whom Protestants still continue consider great heroes of the Reformation, notably Tyndale and Wycliffe, went beyond heresy to near-apostasy. Wesley, for example, claimed to have found a 'method' of sanctification outside the community Christ founded on Peter and the other apostles. Calvin came up with 'predestination', based on a few obscure verses of scripture referring to 'the elect' and ignoring Christ's own assurances that eternal life was available to all, and very easily attained. Luther, of course, had 'salvation through faith alone', completely contrary to Christ's entire ministry, and even trying, unsuccessfuly, thank God, to excise from the Bible those books which specifically refuted 'sola fide'.
These differences in doctrine, of course, continue today, though there has been considerable amalgamation in the interim, and untold millions of pages of commentary have been written attempting to rationalize all of the various errors of the 'reformers'. Through all of this the Roman Catholic Church has remained DOCTRINALLY steadfast, and Catholic doctrine today, shared with the other non-Protestant Churches referred to in the previous post, and with the Anglicans, who are both Catholic and Protestant, is mostly the same today as in the earliest centuries of Christianity. This steadfastness is one of the main reasons I have remained a lifelong Catholic. I simply don't find, from either a doctrinal or historical perspective, any validity or authority in Protestantism.
As someone brought up in the Wesleyan tradition I had always thought it amounted to differences in doctrine only and I'm surprised to see you refer to it as heresy. As I'm not that well up in church history, at this point I'll defer to our resident expert in Methodism
Oi Spot - gi'us a clue
These differences in doctrine, of course, continue today, though there has been considerable amalgamation in the interim, and untold millions of pages of commentary have been written attempting to rationalize all of the various errors of the 'reformers'. Through all of this the Roman Catholic Church has remained DOCTRINALLY steadfast, and Catholic doctrine today, shared with the other non-Protestant Churches referred to in the previous post, and with the Anglicans, who are both Catholic and Protestant, is mostly the same today as in the earliest centuries of Christianity. This steadfastness is one of the main reasons I have remained a lifelong Catholic. I simply don't find, from either a doctrinal or historical perspective, any validity or authority in Protestantism.
As someone brought up in the Wesleyan tradition I had always thought it amounted to differences in doctrine only and I'm surprised to see you refer to it as heresy. As I'm not that well up in church history, at this point I'll defer to our resident expert in Methodism
Oi Spot - gi'us a clue
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bryn Mawr wrote: As someone brought up in the Wesleyan tradition I had always thought it amounted to differences in doctrine only and I'm surprised to see you refer to it as heresy. As I'm not that well up in church history, at this point I'll defer to our resident expert in Methodism
Oi Spot - gi'us a clue :)I guess it would depend on how significant and how basic the differences are. Methodism is a wonderful, spirit-filled community that should be commended for preaching the 'social gospel', that we best serve God by serving our fellow man, and it operates fine institutions of higher learning around the world, including the acclaimed system of Wesleyan colleges and universities in the USA. Other 'mainline' Protestant denoms also have much to recommend them, though some others, notably those at the more fundamentalistic end of the spectrum, do not.
From my point of view as a Catholic, and by no means trying to convert anyone, the Reformation was a long-term solution to a relatively short-term problem, a problem that was temporal and not doctrinal. It brought serious doctrinal error into the Christian community, and also cut off a major portion of Christianity from the Eucharist, Christ's greatest gift to His faithful apart from His atoning sacrifice on the cross. The fact that the various Protestant Churches were unable and unwilling to reunite with the Roman Church after the Counter-Reformation had eliminated the temporal corruption in the latter confirms the doctrinal corruption in the former.
I have no doubt, though, that this reunification will eventually occur.
Oi Spot - gi'us a clue :)I guess it would depend on how significant and how basic the differences are. Methodism is a wonderful, spirit-filled community that should be commended for preaching the 'social gospel', that we best serve God by serving our fellow man, and it operates fine institutions of higher learning around the world, including the acclaimed system of Wesleyan colleges and universities in the USA. Other 'mainline' Protestant denoms also have much to recommend them, though some others, notably those at the more fundamentalistic end of the spectrum, do not.
From my point of view as a Catholic, and by no means trying to convert anyone, the Reformation was a long-term solution to a relatively short-term problem, a problem that was temporal and not doctrinal. It brought serious doctrinal error into the Christian community, and also cut off a major portion of Christianity from the Eucharist, Christ's greatest gift to His faithful apart from His atoning sacrifice on the cross. The fact that the various Protestant Churches were unable and unwilling to reunite with the Roman Church after the Counter-Reformation had eliminated the temporal corruption in the latter confirms the doctrinal corruption in the former.
I have no doubt, though, that this reunification will eventually occur.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bronwen wrote: I guess it would depend on how significant and how basic the differences are. Methodism is a wonderful, spirit-filled community that should be commended for preaching the 'social gospel', that we best serve God by serving our fellow man, and it operates fine institutions of higher learning around the world, including the acclaimed system of Wesleyan colleges and universities in the USA. Other 'mainline' Protestant denoms also have much to recommend them, though some others, notably those at the more fundamentalistic end of the spectrum, do not.
From my point of view as a Catholic, and by no means trying to convert anyone, the Reformation was a long-term solution to a relatively short-term problem, a problem that was temporal and not doctrinal. It brought serious doctrinal error into the Christian community, and also cut off a major portion of Christianity from the Eucharist, Christ's greatest gift to His faithful apart from His atoning sacrifice on the cross. The fact that the various Protestant Churches were unable and unwilling to reunite with the Roman Church after the Counter-Reformation had eliminated the temporal corruption in the latter confirms the doctrinal corruption in the former.
I have no doubt, though, that this reunification will eventually occur.
I'd certainly see things like the sale of indulgencies as serious doctrinal errors that needed to be addressed and I certainly do not see that we are cut off from the Eucharist.
I understand from Spot, however, that the unification of the Methodist and Anglican communities is now a done deal and will be implemented within the next year or so.
From my point of view as a Catholic, and by no means trying to convert anyone, the Reformation was a long-term solution to a relatively short-term problem, a problem that was temporal and not doctrinal. It brought serious doctrinal error into the Christian community, and also cut off a major portion of Christianity from the Eucharist, Christ's greatest gift to His faithful apart from His atoning sacrifice on the cross. The fact that the various Protestant Churches were unable and unwilling to reunite with the Roman Church after the Counter-Reformation had eliminated the temporal corruption in the latter confirms the doctrinal corruption in the former.
I have no doubt, though, that this reunification will eventually occur.
I'd certainly see things like the sale of indulgencies as serious doctrinal errors that needed to be addressed and I certainly do not see that we are cut off from the Eucharist.
I understand from Spot, however, that the unification of the Methodist and Anglican communities is now a done deal and will be implemented within the next year or so.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bryn Mawr wrote: 1. I'd certainly see things like the sale of indulgencies as serious doctrinal errors that needed to be addressed and I certainly do not see that we are cut off from the Eucharist.
2. I understand from Spot, however, that the unification of the Methodist and Anglican communities is now a done deal and will be implemented within the next year or so.1. That was a serious abuse of doctrine. The doctrine itself - that the Church has the authority from Christ to 'bind and loose', including things like assigning prayers to be said in lieu of public penence - was not in error, but the application was certainly wrong.
Can you name others? I think not.
2. Really? In the UK or worldwide? I will be watching that closely; I do get BBC radio and TV (World Service), it is my primary source of news in English (CNN Europe's coverage paling by comparison), and they will undoubtedly be reporting on that.
2. I understand from Spot, however, that the unification of the Methodist and Anglican communities is now a done deal and will be implemented within the next year or so.1. That was a serious abuse of doctrine. The doctrine itself - that the Church has the authority from Christ to 'bind and loose', including things like assigning prayers to be said in lieu of public penence - was not in error, but the application was certainly wrong.
Can you name others? I think not.
2. Really? In the UK or worldwide? I will be watching that closely; I do get BBC radio and TV (World Service), it is my primary source of news in English (CNN Europe's coverage paling by comparison), and they will undoubtedly be reporting on that.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bronwen wrote: 1. That was a serious abuse of doctrine. The doctrine itself - that the Church has the authority from Christ to 'bind and loose', including things like assigning prayers to be said in lieu of public penence - was not in error, but the application was certainly wrong.
Can you name others? I think not.
I'm not sure that I agree that the church had the power to ensure salvation or even to wipe out sin where the sinner does not repent.
Off the top of my head, the Doctrine of Papal Infallability and the rules of celibacy - beyond that I'd have to refresh my memory.
Bronwen wrote: 2. Really? In the UK or worldwide? I will be watching that closely; I do get BBC radio and TV (World Service), it is my primary source of news in English (CNN Europe's coverage paling by comparison), and they will undoubtedly be reporting on that.
I got the impression it's worldwide but I'd have to refer you to Spot for the details.
Can you name others? I think not.
I'm not sure that I agree that the church had the power to ensure salvation or even to wipe out sin where the sinner does not repent.
Off the top of my head, the Doctrine of Papal Infallability and the rules of celibacy - beyond that I'd have to refresh my memory.
Bronwen wrote: 2. Really? In the UK or worldwide? I will be watching that closely; I do get BBC radio and TV (World Service), it is my primary source of news in English (CNN Europe's coverage paling by comparison), and they will undoubtedly be reporting on that.
I got the impression it's worldwide but I'd have to refer you to Spot for the details.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bronwen wrote: Wesley, for example, claimed to have found a 'method' of sanctification outside the community Christ founded on Peter and the other apostles.Perhaps if I allow John Wesley to speak on his own behalf here, rather than argue.
http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/wesley/charmeth.stm
I particularly note the following, though the first couple of pages are essential rebuttal to this "method" Bronwen speaks of:
I say those who are called Methodists; for, let it be well observed, that this is not a name which they take to themselves, but one fixed upon them by way of reproach, without their approbation or consent. It was first given to three or four young men at Oxford, by a student of Christ Church; either in allusion to the ancient sect of Physicians so called, from their teaching, that almost all diseases might be cured by a specific method of diet and exercise, or from their observing a more regular method of study and behaviour than was usual with those of their age and station.
I should rejoice (so little ambitious am I to be at the head of any sect or party) if the very name might never be mentioned more, but be buried in eternal oblivion. But if that cannot be, at least let those who will use it, know the meaning of the word they use. Let us not always be fighting in the dark. Come, and let us look one another in the face. And perhaps some of you who hate what I am called, may love what I am by the grace of God; or rather, what "I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus."
I'd also like to attach the following to the thread:
"We do not place the whole of religion (as too many do, God knoweth) either in doing no harm, or in doing good, or in using the ordinances of God. No, not in all of them together; wherein we know by experience a man may labour many years, and at the end have no religion at all, no more than he had at the beginning. Much less in any one of these; or, it may be, in a scrap of one of them: Like her who fancies herself a virtuous woman, only because she is not a prostitute; or him who dreams he is an honest man, merely because he does not rob or steal. May the Lord God of my fathers preserve me from such a poor, starved religion as this! Were this the mark of a Methodist, I would sooner choose to be a sincere Jew, Turk, or Pagan."
http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/wesley/charmeth.stm
I particularly note the following, though the first couple of pages are essential rebuttal to this "method" Bronwen speaks of:
I say those who are called Methodists; for, let it be well observed, that this is not a name which they take to themselves, but one fixed upon them by way of reproach, without their approbation or consent. It was first given to three or four young men at Oxford, by a student of Christ Church; either in allusion to the ancient sect of Physicians so called, from their teaching, that almost all diseases might be cured by a specific method of diet and exercise, or from their observing a more regular method of study and behaviour than was usual with those of their age and station.
I should rejoice (so little ambitious am I to be at the head of any sect or party) if the very name might never be mentioned more, but be buried in eternal oblivion. But if that cannot be, at least let those who will use it, know the meaning of the word they use. Let us not always be fighting in the dark. Come, and let us look one another in the face. And perhaps some of you who hate what I am called, may love what I am by the grace of God; or rather, what "I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus."
I'd also like to attach the following to the thread:
"We do not place the whole of religion (as too many do, God knoweth) either in doing no harm, or in doing good, or in using the ordinances of God. No, not in all of them together; wherein we know by experience a man may labour many years, and at the end have no religion at all, no more than he had at the beginning. Much less in any one of these; or, it may be, in a scrap of one of them: Like her who fancies herself a virtuous woman, only because she is not a prostitute; or him who dreams he is an honest man, merely because he does not rob or steal. May the Lord God of my fathers preserve me from such a poor, starved religion as this! Were this the mark of a Methodist, I would sooner choose to be a sincere Jew, Turk, or Pagan."
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Spot:-6
Not at all. An excellent post.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Not at all. An excellent post.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
I knew that Bronwen would object to what I posted. However, so be it. I stand by what I have posted.
Crossan's book is "The Life of Jesus; a Mediterraniar Jewish peasant. The list is right near the front of the book pgs XIII-XXVI.
Don Gordon, now retired a perseonal friend. As such, being retired any further information is not being made available.
As far as Fr. Diamond goes, of course there re sources that disagree with him but I have already shown there are sources which do not.
As far as Hans Kung is concerned he is a well respected and recognized by theologians all over the world. His excommunication is typical of the Roman church. Anyone who thinks for themselves and is well educated is of course dismissed: Matthew Fox being another good example but also well respected and recognized. It is typical of any business. If an employee disagrees with the boss fire him rather then allow him the right to use the intelligence that God gave him.
Of course the scholars quoted are presenting their opinions based on a great deal of research and discussion with others. It really is a matter of interpretation and not everyone agrees. To me they make the most sense.
Re the demands of the pope. At that time in history the pope was demanding and trying to attain both spiritual and physical control of the state. A check of any good history book will clearly show this. "The History of Christianity" by P. Johnson is one example. I'm sure folks can find others as well.
If I can find the info on Fr. Diamond I will post it. If I am unable to then you can either accept my word for it since I was there or you can assume I am a liar.
From pg 459, "The Church", Hans Kung. ""In this sense apostolic succession means following the faith and confession of the apostles."
"Continuing the apostolic ministry: The Chruch can only remain true to the apostolic withness, the witness of the Bible, through service. Of course, the Church is tot to be the servant of the apostles, who were themselves the servants of the Church. Together with the apostles the Church must serve the Lord, the Lord of the Church and of the apostles. . . Apostolicity is never unchallenged possession, a secure piece of property which the Church has at its disposal. Apostolicity can never mean power through which the Church might rule. It is not a question of others submitting to the Church; the Church must must itself submit by accepting the authority of the apostles and of the Churcv's and the apostles Lord."
"Could Christian, could Christian Churches not agree on these four fundamental dimensions of the Church? Would basic consensus not be possible, given a reasonable contribution of mutual understanding, and sympathy? Not, that is, consensus which would prohibit differences in theological interpretation and doctrine, but a consensus which would overcome the divisions in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." Ibid 461.
Now I was not going to mention communion but it has been mentioned so I will quote two theologians, one a Roman Catholic priest and theologian and one a Lutheran."The Eucharist is a suprme moment of cosmic, planetary, spirtual, and human ambodiment. All the elements meet as one in a ritual engagement from which nobody, (NOBODY) for any reason, should be excluded. Radical inclusion is at the heart of every eucharistic enactment, subversively modeled by the Jesus of Christianity, who welcomed everbody to the eucharistic table, including those who were totally prohibited according to the religious rules of the day; tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners." pg 136, "Evoutionary Faith", Diarmuid O'Murchu.
"Let it be said clearly: it is not the Lord's Supper we celebrate- or it is the Lord's Supper celebrated in such a way as to make us sick or to kill us--it it is celebrated for men only, for women only, for one tribe or nationality only, thor those with caste status only, for the wealthy only, for the able-bodied only. It is simply no defense to say: 'But this is my culture.'.' Such a cultural element is wrong and is to be rejected. This is the meaning of Paul's critique of the Corinthians meal practice (1 Cor, 11;20-21), a critique that is of very great inportance for the countercultural and transoative power of the liturgy." pg69, "Holy People" by Gordon W. Lathrop. He comments elsewhere that if it is not an open eucharist it is in fact not the table of or the meal of, our Lord.
Further and anonimously, because the RC Priest who made these comments was well loved and respected by all including his bishop and is now deceased. When asked about the necessity for an RC priest to consecrate the elements for a congregation made up of many denominations including Roman Catholics he suggested there was no reason an Anglican could not do it just as well. His comment on following the directives of the Vatican and the Bishop was rather simple; "I gave that nonsense up a long time ago." He will remain anonymous because of his stature within the church.
One can either take my word for it or call me a liar. If the church is the whole community of the people of God, then apostolic succession refers to all followers of Jesus. The eucharist is to be open to all as per the example of Jesus. Thank goodness the Anglican Church is moving towards opening the table to all who will come as per the example of Jesus.
Oops, I almost forgot. The archbishop's authority comes from the folks who elected him and because he is an apostle of our Lord as is any ordained clergy. Even ordination is becoming questionable since none of the apostles themselves were "ordained". They were called as is any priest in any of the churches including the Roman Catholic Church.
Now if anyone wants to think I am a liar, I really couldn't care less. I know the truth and so does the Lord. What more do I need. So does my church.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Crossan's book is "The Life of Jesus; a Mediterraniar Jewish peasant. The list is right near the front of the book pgs XIII-XXVI.
Don Gordon, now retired a perseonal friend. As such, being retired any further information is not being made available.
As far as Fr. Diamond goes, of course there re sources that disagree with him but I have already shown there are sources which do not.
As far as Hans Kung is concerned he is a well respected and recognized by theologians all over the world. His excommunication is typical of the Roman church. Anyone who thinks for themselves and is well educated is of course dismissed: Matthew Fox being another good example but also well respected and recognized. It is typical of any business. If an employee disagrees with the boss fire him rather then allow him the right to use the intelligence that God gave him.
Of course the scholars quoted are presenting their opinions based on a great deal of research and discussion with others. It really is a matter of interpretation and not everyone agrees. To me they make the most sense.
Re the demands of the pope. At that time in history the pope was demanding and trying to attain both spiritual and physical control of the state. A check of any good history book will clearly show this. "The History of Christianity" by P. Johnson is one example. I'm sure folks can find others as well.
If I can find the info on Fr. Diamond I will post it. If I am unable to then you can either accept my word for it since I was there or you can assume I am a liar.
From pg 459, "The Church", Hans Kung. ""In this sense apostolic succession means following the faith and confession of the apostles."
"Continuing the apostolic ministry: The Chruch can only remain true to the apostolic withness, the witness of the Bible, through service. Of course, the Church is tot to be the servant of the apostles, who were themselves the servants of the Church. Together with the apostles the Church must serve the Lord, the Lord of the Church and of the apostles. . . Apostolicity is never unchallenged possession, a secure piece of property which the Church has at its disposal. Apostolicity can never mean power through which the Church might rule. It is not a question of others submitting to the Church; the Church must must itself submit by accepting the authority of the apostles and of the Churcv's and the apostles Lord."
"Could Christian, could Christian Churches not agree on these four fundamental dimensions of the Church? Would basic consensus not be possible, given a reasonable contribution of mutual understanding, and sympathy? Not, that is, consensus which would prohibit differences in theological interpretation and doctrine, but a consensus which would overcome the divisions in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." Ibid 461.
Now I was not going to mention communion but it has been mentioned so I will quote two theologians, one a Roman Catholic priest and theologian and one a Lutheran."The Eucharist is a suprme moment of cosmic, planetary, spirtual, and human ambodiment. All the elements meet as one in a ritual engagement from which nobody, (NOBODY) for any reason, should be excluded. Radical inclusion is at the heart of every eucharistic enactment, subversively modeled by the Jesus of Christianity, who welcomed everbody to the eucharistic table, including those who were totally prohibited according to the religious rules of the day; tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners." pg 136, "Evoutionary Faith", Diarmuid O'Murchu.
"Let it be said clearly: it is not the Lord's Supper we celebrate- or it is the Lord's Supper celebrated in such a way as to make us sick or to kill us--it it is celebrated for men only, for women only, for one tribe or nationality only, thor those with caste status only, for the wealthy only, for the able-bodied only. It is simply no defense to say: 'But this is my culture.'.' Such a cultural element is wrong and is to be rejected. This is the meaning of Paul's critique of the Corinthians meal practice (1 Cor, 11;20-21), a critique that is of very great inportance for the countercultural and transoative power of the liturgy." pg69, "Holy People" by Gordon W. Lathrop. He comments elsewhere that if it is not an open eucharist it is in fact not the table of or the meal of, our Lord.
Further and anonimously, because the RC Priest who made these comments was well loved and respected by all including his bishop and is now deceased. When asked about the necessity for an RC priest to consecrate the elements for a congregation made up of many denominations including Roman Catholics he suggested there was no reason an Anglican could not do it just as well. His comment on following the directives of the Vatican and the Bishop was rather simple; "I gave that nonsense up a long time ago." He will remain anonymous because of his stature within the church.
One can either take my word for it or call me a liar. If the church is the whole community of the people of God, then apostolic succession refers to all followers of Jesus. The eucharist is to be open to all as per the example of Jesus. Thank goodness the Anglican Church is moving towards opening the table to all who will come as per the example of Jesus.
Oops, I almost forgot. The archbishop's authority comes from the folks who elected him and because he is an apostle of our Lord as is any ordained clergy. Even ordination is becoming questionable since none of the apostles themselves were "ordained". They were called as is any priest in any of the churches including the Roman Catholic Church.
Now if anyone wants to think I am a liar, I really couldn't care less. I know the truth and so does the Lord. What more do I need. So does my church.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
spot:-6
I see no problem with Methodism. Personally I prefer the liturgical format of the Anglican and Roman Catholic Church. The Lutherans also follow a liturgical format. Some folks are more comfortable with one form or another.
I do however, strongly disagree with the fundamentalist/literalist approach. However, if that is the approach they like they are quite welcome to it. It is not my cup of tea, so to speak.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I see no problem with Methodism. Personally I prefer the liturgical format of the Anglican and Roman Catholic Church. The Lutherans also follow a liturgical format. Some folks are more comfortable with one form or another.
I do however, strongly disagree with the fundamentalist/literalist approach. However, if that is the approach they like they are quite welcome to it. It is not my cup of tea, so to speak.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bryn Mawr wrote: 1. I'm not sure that I agree that the church had the power to ensure salvation or even to wipe out sin where the sinner does not repent.
2. Off the top of my head, the Doctrine of Papal Infallability...
3 ...and the rules of celibacy - beyond that I'd have to refresh my memory.1. Agree with whom? I don't agree with that either, nor to my knowledge has the Church ever taught that. Salvation comes from God's sanctifying grace, which is imparted by Baptism and lost only through serious sin. If lost, it can be regained by (a) asking for forgiveness, (b) sincere sorrow for the sin and (c) a firm resolution not to commit the sin again. One can, of course, confess one's sins directly to God through prayer, but auricular confession to a priest is a sacrament (John 20:22-23) and availeth much in addition to the actual forgiveness. Even tho' the penitent hears the words of absolution, the confession must be sincere, the priest is not a mind reader, God is!
2. What does that mean to you? To the Church it means that the Holy Spirit guides the Church when it defines doctrinal matters of faith and morals 'ex cathedra', that is, universally. Such matters are usually studied carefully for years before any such proclamation is made. Like much of religious belief, the infallibility of such pronouncements is a matter of faith. We do not believe that the HS would lead our Church astray in such matters.
To give a counterexample, if the pope proclaimed (and he ain't gonna, but just suppose) that, as some Protestant Fundamentalists insist, the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago and that species do not evolve, that would fail the infallibility test because those are matters of scientific fact, not faith or morals.
3. Ah, well, your choice of words here is absolutely correct. Those are rules, not doctrines. The Church has always had both a married and a celibate priesthood, the former mainly due to tradition and the latter in imitation of Christ's own celibacy and also for purely practical reasons. Those rules could change at any time, and we've discussed this briefly on other threads. Right now most married priests are in the various Eastern rites (for example, Slovakia has married priests, neighboring Poland is Latin rite with mostly celibate priests) but the Church is S-L-O-W-L-Y opening the Western priesthood to married men, which I think is a very good thing. Of course, I would like to see women, single or married, ordained also.
2. Off the top of my head, the Doctrine of Papal Infallability...
3 ...and the rules of celibacy - beyond that I'd have to refresh my memory.1. Agree with whom? I don't agree with that either, nor to my knowledge has the Church ever taught that. Salvation comes from God's sanctifying grace, which is imparted by Baptism and lost only through serious sin. If lost, it can be regained by (a) asking for forgiveness, (b) sincere sorrow for the sin and (c) a firm resolution not to commit the sin again. One can, of course, confess one's sins directly to God through prayer, but auricular confession to a priest is a sacrament (John 20:22-23) and availeth much in addition to the actual forgiveness. Even tho' the penitent hears the words of absolution, the confession must be sincere, the priest is not a mind reader, God is!
2. What does that mean to you? To the Church it means that the Holy Spirit guides the Church when it defines doctrinal matters of faith and morals 'ex cathedra', that is, universally. Such matters are usually studied carefully for years before any such proclamation is made. Like much of religious belief, the infallibility of such pronouncements is a matter of faith. We do not believe that the HS would lead our Church astray in such matters.
To give a counterexample, if the pope proclaimed (and he ain't gonna, but just suppose) that, as some Protestant Fundamentalists insist, the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago and that species do not evolve, that would fail the infallibility test because those are matters of scientific fact, not faith or morals.
3. Ah, well, your choice of words here is absolutely correct. Those are rules, not doctrines. The Church has always had both a married and a celibate priesthood, the former mainly due to tradition and the latter in imitation of Christ's own celibacy and also for purely practical reasons. Those rules could change at any time, and we've discussed this briefly on other threads. Right now most married priests are in the various Eastern rites (for example, Slovakia has married priests, neighboring Poland is Latin rite with mostly celibate priests) but the Church is S-L-O-W-L-Y opening the Western priesthood to married men, which I think is a very good thing. Of course, I would like to see women, single or married, ordained also.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Ted wrote: 1. I knew that Bronwen would object to what I posted.
2a. Crossan's book is "The Life of Jesus; a Mediterraniar Jewish peasant.
2b. The list is right near the front of the book pgs XIII-XXVI.
3. As far as Fr. Diamond goes, of course there re sources that disagree with him but I have already shown there are sources which do not.
4a. As far as Hans Kung is concerned he is a well respected and recognized by theologians all over the world.
4b. His excommunication is typical of the Roman church. Anyone who thinks for themselves and is well educated is of course dismissed: Matthew Fox being another good example but also well respected and recognized.
4c. It is typical of any business. If an employee disagrees with the boss fire him rather then allow him the right to use the intelligence that God gave him.
5. Of course the scholars quoted are presenting their opinions based on a great deal of research and discussion with others. It really is a matter of interpretation and not everyone agrees. To me they make the most sense.
6. Re the demands of the pope. At that time in history the pope was demanding and trying to attain both spiritual and physical control of the state. A check of any good history book will clearly show this. "The History of Christianity" by P. Johnson is one example. I'm sure folks can find others as well.
7. If I can find the info on Fr. Diamond I will post it. If I am unable to then you can either accept my word for it since I was there or you can assume I am a liar.
8. From pg 459, "The Church", Hans Kung. ""In this sense apostolic succession means following the faith and confession of the apostles."
9. Oops, I almost forgot. The archbishop's authority comes from the folks who elected him and because he is an apostle of our Lord as is any ordained clergy. Even ordination is becoming questionable since none of the apostles themselves were "ordained". They were called as is any priest in any of the churches including the Roman Catholic Church.1. If you had not known that I would think that you were losin' it.
2a. Actually, I think the title is The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Medi...
2b. I will try to find the book but here in Germany it won't be easy unless there is a German translation. If I find it I will report back.
3. Then how about addressing the logic problem that I posed previously. It he believes that, then he must believe his own ordination, and that of every other priest in recent history, is meaningless. Why then does he continue to function as a priest?
4a. I'm not disputing that his admirers are far-flung or that he is a gifted scholar. He is a heretic just the same, as have been some of the best-known theologians in history. My problem is not with Küng but with those like yourself who seem to have the mindset that the heretics are automatically right and 2000 years of Church orthodoxy is automatically wrong. I don't understand such a mindset, what is its source?
4b. On the contrary, his excommunication is quite atypical.
4c. In this case, the boss is JC, so take it up with Him. Seriously, though, a Church with no standards, where everyone is more or less free to believe and espouse what he or she will, is not my idea of a church at all; I suppose I would call it, for want of a better term, a society of free-thinkers. There are such Churches, Unitarianism comes to mind, but that is not what most Christians want or expect. Leaving the differences of the Reformation aside for a second, they expect some sort of orthodoxy on matters of Christian tradition.
Regarding the material that follows, I wish that you would have used quote format because in places it is difficult to tell where the quotes begin and end and where your own interpolations occur.
5. Well put, I agree completely.
6. Which state? If you mean world domination, that is really quite silly. If you mean England, can you BRIEFLY give some examples? I am still not aware of that. In any case, if the Chruch had allowed ol' Hank to divorce two wives and murder two others with impunity, it's unlikely he would have started his own Church. But of course, the Church could never have done that, could it?
7. Here you are being unfair because I never accused you of that and anyone can go back to the first page and see that. I said rather that your characterization of his words was illogical and I therefore guessed that you had misunderstood him, and I still think that is the case. He probably, as I pointed out, said that the list of popes immediately following Peter is uncertain with regard both to their identities and to the dates. That is correct, and that has nothing to do with Apostolic Succession.
8. As Bryn and I previously discussed, that is nothing like what the Church means when it uses the term. That's why Küng has gone his own way.
9. That is indeed why he is an archbishop. He was consecrated by another bishop and so on back to the Apostles. On that I think we agree. My problem is with the schism. There is presumably also a Roman Catholic bishop or archbishop of London. By what logical theory is the authority of the schismatic archbishop, especially in spiritual matters, equal to or greater than that of the one with a history of faithfulness to the Church?
2a. Crossan's book is "The Life of Jesus; a Mediterraniar Jewish peasant.
2b. The list is right near the front of the book pgs XIII-XXVI.
3. As far as Fr. Diamond goes, of course there re sources that disagree with him but I have already shown there are sources which do not.
4a. As far as Hans Kung is concerned he is a well respected and recognized by theologians all over the world.
4b. His excommunication is typical of the Roman church. Anyone who thinks for themselves and is well educated is of course dismissed: Matthew Fox being another good example but also well respected and recognized.
4c. It is typical of any business. If an employee disagrees with the boss fire him rather then allow him the right to use the intelligence that God gave him.
5. Of course the scholars quoted are presenting their opinions based on a great deal of research and discussion with others. It really is a matter of interpretation and not everyone agrees. To me they make the most sense.
6. Re the demands of the pope. At that time in history the pope was demanding and trying to attain both spiritual and physical control of the state. A check of any good history book will clearly show this. "The History of Christianity" by P. Johnson is one example. I'm sure folks can find others as well.
7. If I can find the info on Fr. Diamond I will post it. If I am unable to then you can either accept my word for it since I was there or you can assume I am a liar.
8. From pg 459, "The Church", Hans Kung. ""In this sense apostolic succession means following the faith and confession of the apostles."
9. Oops, I almost forgot. The archbishop's authority comes from the folks who elected him and because he is an apostle of our Lord as is any ordained clergy. Even ordination is becoming questionable since none of the apostles themselves were "ordained". They were called as is any priest in any of the churches including the Roman Catholic Church.1. If you had not known that I would think that you were losin' it.
2a. Actually, I think the title is The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Medi...
2b. I will try to find the book but here in Germany it won't be easy unless there is a German translation. If I find it I will report back.
3. Then how about addressing the logic problem that I posed previously. It he believes that, then he must believe his own ordination, and that of every other priest in recent history, is meaningless. Why then does he continue to function as a priest?
4a. I'm not disputing that his admirers are far-flung or that he is a gifted scholar. He is a heretic just the same, as have been some of the best-known theologians in history. My problem is not with Küng but with those like yourself who seem to have the mindset that the heretics are automatically right and 2000 years of Church orthodoxy is automatically wrong. I don't understand such a mindset, what is its source?
4b. On the contrary, his excommunication is quite atypical.
4c. In this case, the boss is JC, so take it up with Him. Seriously, though, a Church with no standards, where everyone is more or less free to believe and espouse what he or she will, is not my idea of a church at all; I suppose I would call it, for want of a better term, a society of free-thinkers. There are such Churches, Unitarianism comes to mind, but that is not what most Christians want or expect. Leaving the differences of the Reformation aside for a second, they expect some sort of orthodoxy on matters of Christian tradition.
Regarding the material that follows, I wish that you would have used quote format because in places it is difficult to tell where the quotes begin and end and where your own interpolations occur.
5. Well put, I agree completely.
6. Which state? If you mean world domination, that is really quite silly. If you mean England, can you BRIEFLY give some examples? I am still not aware of that. In any case, if the Chruch had allowed ol' Hank to divorce two wives and murder two others with impunity, it's unlikely he would have started his own Church. But of course, the Church could never have done that, could it?
7. Here you are being unfair because I never accused you of that and anyone can go back to the first page and see that. I said rather that your characterization of his words was illogical and I therefore guessed that you had misunderstood him, and I still think that is the case. He probably, as I pointed out, said that the list of popes immediately following Peter is uncertain with regard both to their identities and to the dates. That is correct, and that has nothing to do with Apostolic Succession.
8. As Bryn and I previously discussed, that is nothing like what the Church means when it uses the term. That's why Küng has gone his own way.
9. That is indeed why he is an archbishop. He was consecrated by another bishop and so on back to the Apostles. On that I think we agree. My problem is with the schism. There is presumably also a Roman Catholic bishop or archbishop of London. By what logical theory is the authority of the schismatic archbishop, especially in spiritual matters, equal to or greater than that of the one with a history of faithfulness to the Church?
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bronwen wrote: 1. Agree with whom? I don't agree with that either, nor to my knowledge has the Church ever taught that. Salvation comes from God's sanctifying grace, which is imparted by Baptism and lost only through serious sin. If lost, it can be regained by (a) asking for forgiveness, (b) sincere sorrow for the sin and (c) a firm resolution not to commit the sin again. One can, of course, confess one's sins directly to God through prayer, but auricular confession to a priest is a sacrament (John 20:22-23) and availeth much in addition to the actual forgiveness. Even tho' the penitent hears the words of absolution, the confession must be sincere, the priest is not a mind reader, God is!
2. What does that mean to you? To the Church it means that the Holy Spirit guides the Church when it defines doctrinal matters of faith and morals 'ex cathedra', that is, universally. Such matters are usually studied carefully for years before any such proclamation is made. Like much of religious belief, the infallibility of such pronouncements is a matter of faith. We do not believe that the HS would lead our Church astray in such matters.
To give a counterexample, if the pope proclaimed (and he ain't gonna, but just suppose) that, as some Protestant Fundamentalists insist, the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago and that species do not evolve, that would fail the infallibility test because those are matters of scientific fact, not faith or morals.
3. Ah, well, your choice of words here is absolutely correct. Those are rules, not doctrines. The Church has always had both a married and a celibate priesthood, the former mainly due to tradition and the latter in imitation of Christ's own celibacy and also for purely practical reasons. Those rules could change at any time, and we've discussed this briefly on other threads. Right now most married priests are in the various Eastern rites (for example, Slovakia has married priests, neighboring Poland is Latin rite with mostly celibate priests) but the Church is S-L-O-W-L-Y opening the Western priesthood to married men, which I think is a very good thing. Of course, I would like to see women, single or married, ordained also.
1) It was a response to :-
Bronwen wrote:
1. That was a serious abuse of doctrine. The doctrine itself - that the Church has the authority from Christ to 'bind and loose', including things like assigning prayers to be said in lieu of public penence - was not in error, but the application was certainly wrong.
My understanding of indulgencies, and of Luther's objections to them, is that the church claimed to be able to wipe out the sin and guarantee salvation to anyone who paid the price. You appeared to say that this doctrine was correct and I was disagreeing.
2) To me it means that anything the Pope proclaims (as opposed to general statements) is beyond question and irreversable as it is, in effect, a direct utterance from God.
3) My mistake - I thought it was a doctrinal position and fixed across the Catholic Church.
2. What does that mean to you? To the Church it means that the Holy Spirit guides the Church when it defines doctrinal matters of faith and morals 'ex cathedra', that is, universally. Such matters are usually studied carefully for years before any such proclamation is made. Like much of religious belief, the infallibility of such pronouncements is a matter of faith. We do not believe that the HS would lead our Church astray in such matters.
To give a counterexample, if the pope proclaimed (and he ain't gonna, but just suppose) that, as some Protestant Fundamentalists insist, the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago and that species do not evolve, that would fail the infallibility test because those are matters of scientific fact, not faith or morals.
3. Ah, well, your choice of words here is absolutely correct. Those are rules, not doctrines. The Church has always had both a married and a celibate priesthood, the former mainly due to tradition and the latter in imitation of Christ's own celibacy and also for purely practical reasons. Those rules could change at any time, and we've discussed this briefly on other threads. Right now most married priests are in the various Eastern rites (for example, Slovakia has married priests, neighboring Poland is Latin rite with mostly celibate priests) but the Church is S-L-O-W-L-Y opening the Western priesthood to married men, which I think is a very good thing. Of course, I would like to see women, single or married, ordained also.
1) It was a response to :-
Bronwen wrote:
1. That was a serious abuse of doctrine. The doctrine itself - that the Church has the authority from Christ to 'bind and loose', including things like assigning prayers to be said in lieu of public penence - was not in error, but the application was certainly wrong.
My understanding of indulgencies, and of Luther's objections to them, is that the church claimed to be able to wipe out the sin and guarantee salvation to anyone who paid the price. You appeared to say that this doctrine was correct and I was disagreeing.
2) To me it means that anything the Pope proclaims (as opposed to general statements) is beyond question and irreversable as it is, in effect, a direct utterance from God.
3) My mistake - I thought it was a doctrinal position and fixed across the Catholic Church.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Two things I would like to point out.
Dom Crossan, a Roman Catholic scholar and the present Anglican Bishop of Durham, N. T. Wright are often called upon to engage in public debate. In some things they are poles apart and in orthers they are together. In spite of their disagreements they remain close personal friends with each other.
One of the points I neglected to make is that Dom Crossan believes that open eucharist is essential. He refers to Jesus as both preaching and practising "open commensality", by which he means an open eucharist. These points are made in both "The Historical Jesus" and "The Birth of Christianity".
Shalom
Ted:-6
Dom Crossan, a Roman Catholic scholar and the present Anglican Bishop of Durham, N. T. Wright are often called upon to engage in public debate. In some things they are poles apart and in orthers they are together. In spite of their disagreements they remain close personal friends with each other.
One of the points I neglected to make is that Dom Crossan believes that open eucharist is essential. He refers to Jesus as both preaching and practising "open commensality", by which he means an open eucharist. These points are made in both "The Historical Jesus" and "The Birth of Christianity".
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Ted wrote: 1. In spite of their disagreements they remain close personal friends with each other.
2. One of the points I neglected to make is that Dom Crossan believes that open eucharist is essential. He refers to Jesus as both preaching and practising "open commensality", by which he means an open eucharist. These points are made in both "The Historical Jesus" and "The Birth of Christianity".1. Just as youse and I, Teddy.
2. I will take your word that he believes that. You and I have, however, discussed this before and you are ignoring one very important factor - that the Catholic Church not only withholds the Eucharist from non-Catholics but also from Catholics who are NOT IN A STATE OF GRACE, that is, who have a mortal sin to confess. This has the dual effect of protecting the Eucharist from desecration and also of encouraging the sinner to confess and receive absolution. How this would be handled in the 'open eucharist' situation you and Crossan espouse is a problem the Church is loathe to address.
2. One of the points I neglected to make is that Dom Crossan believes that open eucharist is essential. He refers to Jesus as both preaching and practising "open commensality", by which he means an open eucharist. These points are made in both "The Historical Jesus" and "The Birth of Christianity".1. Just as youse and I, Teddy.
2. I will take your word that he believes that. You and I have, however, discussed this before and you are ignoring one very important factor - that the Catholic Church not only withholds the Eucharist from non-Catholics but also from Catholics who are NOT IN A STATE OF GRACE, that is, who have a mortal sin to confess. This has the dual effect of protecting the Eucharist from desecration and also of encouraging the sinner to confess and receive absolution. How this would be handled in the 'open eucharist' situation you and Crossan espouse is a problem the Church is loathe to address.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bryn Mawr wrote: 1) My understanding of indulgencies, and of Luther's objections to them, is that the church claimed to be able to wipe out the sin and guarantee salvation to anyone who paid the price. You appeared to say that this doctrine was correct and I was disagreeing.
2) To me it means that anything the Pope proclaims (as opposed to general statements) is beyond question and irreversable as it is, in effect, a direct utterance from God.
3) My mistake - I thought it was a doctrinal position and fixed across the Catholic Church.A long time ago I propounded a law that I call 'Ahlthorp's First Law of Religious Bigotry', and don't misunderstand me, Bryn, I'm not implying that you're bigotted, it's just the name I gave it. The Law, simply stated, says that a person's opposition to the teachings of Roman Catholicism is usually inversely proportional to that person's understanding of those teachings. This law would very likely apply to other religions as well.
1. You misunderstand both indulgences and his objections, which, by the way, were shared, and rightly so, by many of the other reformers, including some who remained loyal to the Church throughout that dark period in Church history.
Indulgences were, and are, assigned to prayers that the Church appointed to be said in place of public penance. Prior to indulgences, an adulterer might, for example, as a condition of his/her absolution, be required to stand outside the Church every Sunday for, say, a year, wearing a sign saying, 'I am an adulterer - Please pray for me'. If s/he were unwilling to do so absolution would not be given. Understandably, such acts of penance came to be regarded as excessively strict so a system of appointed prayers, each assigned as being equal in merit to a certain length of public penance were developed. If a prayer is assigned, for example, 300 days indulgence, it is supposed to replace 300 days of public penance. It does NOT imply 300 fewer days in purgatory, nor, in modern times at least, does the Chruch even teach that time will exist in purgatory.
The sale of indulgences which sparked the Reformation had to do not with salvation, but with the release of the souls of the departed from purgatory. A soul in purgatory is already saved whereas a soul is hell is lost forever and all the money or prayers in the world cannot help it. The sellers claimed that for a certain amount of money immediate release of a specified soul, if that soul was in purgatory and not in hell, was promised. This is outright simony, that is, sale of the sacred, and a grave misuse, as I said previously, of ecclesiastical authority. Needless to say, the Church no longer sells indulgences, nor should it ever have done so.
2. Here I think you are confusing ex cathedra pronouncement of doctrine with papal encyclicals. While the latter are regarded by Catholics as having great authority, they do not meet the standards for infallibility, which are very narrowly defined. As far as casual pronouncements or opinions by the pope are concerned, well, he is the pope, but he is also a human being, so they are his own opinions, certainly not binding on Catholics to agree.
3. No, on the contrary, and I actually should have said, the Church has always had a married priesthood, but the MANDATED celibate priesthood in the Western Chruch is relatively recent , going back only to about AD 1000. Before that, there was considerable controversy back and forth, and I suppose the final decision (final at that time in history), of a celibate Western priesthood and a married Eastern priesthood, might be compared to the DH rule in baseball, which I think should be left just as it is, in one league but not the other, since there are advantages both ways. I do NOT think, though, that the current situation in the priesthood should remain. I would like to see many more married men admitted to the Western priesthood, while, of course, still ordaining bachelors as well.
Note, however, fair or not, it is not likely that priests will be allowed to marry any time soon. He will have to be married first, as is the situation now in the Eastern rites. If a priest's wife dies he may not remarry and remain an active priest, and I was told that this applies to bishops in the Anglican Church also; perhaps Ted can affirm or disaffirm this.
2) To me it means that anything the Pope proclaims (as opposed to general statements) is beyond question and irreversable as it is, in effect, a direct utterance from God.
3) My mistake - I thought it was a doctrinal position and fixed across the Catholic Church.A long time ago I propounded a law that I call 'Ahlthorp's First Law of Religious Bigotry', and don't misunderstand me, Bryn, I'm not implying that you're bigotted, it's just the name I gave it. The Law, simply stated, says that a person's opposition to the teachings of Roman Catholicism is usually inversely proportional to that person's understanding of those teachings. This law would very likely apply to other religions as well.
1. You misunderstand both indulgences and his objections, which, by the way, were shared, and rightly so, by many of the other reformers, including some who remained loyal to the Church throughout that dark period in Church history.
Indulgences were, and are, assigned to prayers that the Church appointed to be said in place of public penance. Prior to indulgences, an adulterer might, for example, as a condition of his/her absolution, be required to stand outside the Church every Sunday for, say, a year, wearing a sign saying, 'I am an adulterer - Please pray for me'. If s/he were unwilling to do so absolution would not be given. Understandably, such acts of penance came to be regarded as excessively strict so a system of appointed prayers, each assigned as being equal in merit to a certain length of public penance were developed. If a prayer is assigned, for example, 300 days indulgence, it is supposed to replace 300 days of public penance. It does NOT imply 300 fewer days in purgatory, nor, in modern times at least, does the Chruch even teach that time will exist in purgatory.
The sale of indulgences which sparked the Reformation had to do not with salvation, but with the release of the souls of the departed from purgatory. A soul in purgatory is already saved whereas a soul is hell is lost forever and all the money or prayers in the world cannot help it. The sellers claimed that for a certain amount of money immediate release of a specified soul, if that soul was in purgatory and not in hell, was promised. This is outright simony, that is, sale of the sacred, and a grave misuse, as I said previously, of ecclesiastical authority. Needless to say, the Church no longer sells indulgences, nor should it ever have done so.
2. Here I think you are confusing ex cathedra pronouncement of doctrine with papal encyclicals. While the latter are regarded by Catholics as having great authority, they do not meet the standards for infallibility, which are very narrowly defined. As far as casual pronouncements or opinions by the pope are concerned, well, he is the pope, but he is also a human being, so they are his own opinions, certainly not binding on Catholics to agree.
3. No, on the contrary, and I actually should have said, the Church has always had a married priesthood, but the MANDATED celibate priesthood in the Western Chruch is relatively recent , going back only to about AD 1000. Before that, there was considerable controversy back and forth, and I suppose the final decision (final at that time in history), of a celibate Western priesthood and a married Eastern priesthood, might be compared to the DH rule in baseball, which I think should be left just as it is, in one league but not the other, since there are advantages both ways. I do NOT think, though, that the current situation in the priesthood should remain. I would like to see many more married men admitted to the Western priesthood, while, of course, still ordaining bachelors as well.
Note, however, fair or not, it is not likely that priests will be allowed to marry any time soon. He will have to be married first, as is the situation now in the Eastern rites. If a priest's wife dies he may not remarry and remain an active priest, and I was told that this applies to bishops in the Anglican Church also; perhaps Ted can affirm or disaffirm this.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bronwen:-6
Regarding the remariage of Bishops if their former wife dies: I see absolutely no reason why they could not. The anglican church allows its priests and bishops to marry before or after their appointment to the position.
After a divorce the priest must obtain permission from the bishop to remarry and I think that depends on many factors including the reasons for the divorce. I would assume that the same holds true for the bishop. Though he must seek the approval of the house of bishops.
Re open communion.
First and foremost it is based on the examples presented by Jesus. He sat down to eat with any and all who came and forbade no one not even the tax collectors, prostitutes and the other sinners. This is based on the belief that any meal at wich our Lord sat was in fact eucharistic which many today believe it was. We see in the Parable of the wedding feast that all those invited gave excusses for not coming so the bridegoom sent his servants out into the streets to bring anyone they could find to the feast.
It would also seem to me that if anyone seeks God's grace it is never refused. Here we can see an example of the woman at the well. All Jesus said was "go and sin no more." He made no demand that she repent or confess her "sins"
I think to forbid some folks from coming to the eucharist has somewhat the same taste as the Islamic radicals who commit terrorism or murder to protect as it were the name of "Allah". It is almost as if this all powerful entity needs a human to protect his name and is unable to look after himself. If someone were to "descecrate" the elements they would do so at their own peril.
I am quite confident that God does not need any human intervention to protect the sacredness of anything. S/He is more then able to do this.
We can also look at the story of the children trying to approach our Lord and his disciples tried to interfere when he said "forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of God." Are we not all children of God in spite of our weaknesses?
We in the Anglican communion have open communion for all baptized Christians. D. Gordon said the last time I saw him a few weeks ago that the church was moving towards the position of totally open, that all who will may come. When it comes right down to it a person's relationship with God is indeed a very personal matter between that person and God.
If we turn to the parable of the last days in Matt. 25:31ff we find our Lord inviting those who had no knowledge of their acceptablity, into the kingdom. They were even puzzeled as to when they had done anything to Jesus to gain such a privilege. He replied that since they had helped the least of "these" in their time of need they had done it to him and thus accepted him.
I believe that our role in the scriptures is quite clear we are to teach, heal, etc but any judging is God's role alone and not in our role in any way.
I do believe as you do that the apostles were given the right to forgive or not forgive in his name but he has also made it clear that we are to forgive, even our enemies. That is a difficult one to do. Then we come to the question of who are his apostles and many interpret that as being anyone who follows in the footsteps of the apostles.
I cannot say that all of these are part of the reasons that have been used but it would appear to me to be at least in part so.
I think the basic one is that our Lord refused absolutely no one who came to him. He also seemed to have no problems with inviting literally anyone to a meal held by himself.
Just as between Dom and Tom:
Shalom
Ted:-6
Regarding the remariage of Bishops if their former wife dies: I see absolutely no reason why they could not. The anglican church allows its priests and bishops to marry before or after their appointment to the position.
After a divorce the priest must obtain permission from the bishop to remarry and I think that depends on many factors including the reasons for the divorce. I would assume that the same holds true for the bishop. Though he must seek the approval of the house of bishops.
Re open communion.
First and foremost it is based on the examples presented by Jesus. He sat down to eat with any and all who came and forbade no one not even the tax collectors, prostitutes and the other sinners. This is based on the belief that any meal at wich our Lord sat was in fact eucharistic which many today believe it was. We see in the Parable of the wedding feast that all those invited gave excusses for not coming so the bridegoom sent his servants out into the streets to bring anyone they could find to the feast.
It would also seem to me that if anyone seeks God's grace it is never refused. Here we can see an example of the woman at the well. All Jesus said was "go and sin no more." He made no demand that she repent or confess her "sins"
I think to forbid some folks from coming to the eucharist has somewhat the same taste as the Islamic radicals who commit terrorism or murder to protect as it were the name of "Allah". It is almost as if this all powerful entity needs a human to protect his name and is unable to look after himself. If someone were to "descecrate" the elements they would do so at their own peril.
I am quite confident that God does not need any human intervention to protect the sacredness of anything. S/He is more then able to do this.
We can also look at the story of the children trying to approach our Lord and his disciples tried to interfere when he said "forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of God." Are we not all children of God in spite of our weaknesses?
We in the Anglican communion have open communion for all baptized Christians. D. Gordon said the last time I saw him a few weeks ago that the church was moving towards the position of totally open, that all who will may come. When it comes right down to it a person's relationship with God is indeed a very personal matter between that person and God.
If we turn to the parable of the last days in Matt. 25:31ff we find our Lord inviting those who had no knowledge of their acceptablity, into the kingdom. They were even puzzeled as to when they had done anything to Jesus to gain such a privilege. He replied that since they had helped the least of "these" in their time of need they had done it to him and thus accepted him.
I believe that our role in the scriptures is quite clear we are to teach, heal, etc but any judging is God's role alone and not in our role in any way.
I do believe as you do that the apostles were given the right to forgive or not forgive in his name but he has also made it clear that we are to forgive, even our enemies. That is a difficult one to do. Then we come to the question of who are his apostles and many interpret that as being anyone who follows in the footsteps of the apostles.
I cannot say that all of these are part of the reasons that have been used but it would appear to me to be at least in part so.
I think the basic one is that our Lord refused absolutely no one who came to him. He also seemed to have no problems with inviting literally anyone to a meal held by himself.
Just as between Dom and Tom:
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bronwen wrote: A long time ago I propounded a law that I call 'Ahlthorp's First Law of Religious Bigotry', and don't misunderstand me, Bryn, I'm not implying that you're bigotted, it's just the name I gave it. The Law, simply stated, says that a person's opposition to the teachings of Roman Catholicism is usually inversely proportional to that person's understanding of those teachings. This law would very likely apply to other religions as well.
Whilst I've never claimed to be an expert in matters religious - even those relation to the church I was brought up in, I do not believe that I am bigotted. I will fight against injustice wherever I see it.
Bronwen wrote: 1. You misunderstand both indulgences and his objections, which, by the way, were shared, and rightly so, by many of the other reformers, including some who remained loyal to the Church throughout that dark period in Church history.
Indulgences were, and are, assigned to prayers that the Church appointed to be said in place of public penance. Prior to indulgences, an adulterer might, for example, as a condition of his/her absolution, be required to stand outside the Church every Sunday for, say, a year, wearing a sign saying, 'I am an adulterer - Please pray for me'. If s/he were unwilling to do so absolution would not be given. Understandably, such acts of penance came to be regarded as excessively strict so a system of appointed prayers, each assigned as being equal in merit to a certain length of public penance were developed. If a prayer is assigned, for example, 300 days indulgence, it is supposed to replace 300 days of public penance. It does NOT imply 300 fewer days in purgatory, nor, in modern times at least, does the Chruch even teach that time will exist in purgatory.
The sale of indulgences which sparked the Reformation had to do not with salvation, but with the release of the souls of the departed from purgatory. A soul in purgatory is already saved whereas a soul is hell is lost forever and all the money or prayers in the world cannot help it. The sellers claimed that for a certain amount of money immediate release of a specified soul, if that soul was in purgatory and not in hell, was promised. This is outright simony, that is, sale of the sacred, and a grave misuse, as I said previously, of ecclesiastical authority. Needless to say, the Church no longer sells indulgences, nor should it ever have done so.
Are you suggesting that indulgences did not purport to provide absolution from sin to the purchaser? The intermediation between the purchaser and a soul in purgatoory was only added later (1476 - Pope Sixtus IV). The prime function of an indulgence was to allow a person to pay a sum of money to the church to obtain a piece of paper saying that the church had performed the good works required of the sinner to absolve his sins.
Bronwen wrote: 2. Here I think you are confusing ex cathedra pronouncement of doctrine with papal encyclicals. While the latter are regarded by Catholics as having great authority, they do not meet the standards for infallibility, which are very narrowly defined. As far as casual pronouncements or opinions by the pope are concerned, well, he is the pope, but he is also a human being, so they are his own opinions, certainly not binding on Catholics to agree.
Very possibly - at what point does a declaration by the Pope move from being an Bull to an Encyclical to an Ex Cathedra pronouncement?
What, for example, was the declaration by the Pope in the 1980s after the chemical plant explosial in northern Italy ( or the year befor after the Bhopal disaster) that any pregnant ladies, diagnosed with deformed foetuses, who had an abortion, would be latae sententiae excommunicated.
Bronwen wrote: 3. No, on the contrary, and I actually should have said, the Church has always had a married priesthood, but the MANDATED celibate priesthood in the Western Chruch is relatively recent , going back only to about AD 1000. Before that, there was considerable controversy back and forth, and I suppose the final decision (final at that time in history), of a celibate Western priesthood and a married Eastern priesthood, might be compared to the DH rule in baseball, which I think should be left just as it is, in one league but not the other, since there are advantages both ways. I do NOT think, though, that the current situation in the priesthood should remain. I would like to see many more married men admitted to the Western priesthood, while, of course, still ordaining bachelors as well.
Note, however, fair or not, it is not likely that priests will be allowed to marry any time soon. He will have to be married first, as is the situation now in the Eastern rites. If a priest's wife dies he may not remarry and remain an active priest, and I was told that this applies to bishops in the Anglican Church also; perhaps Ted can affirm or disaffirm this.
I might be old but even I do not count 1000AD as relatively recent. The current Papal hierarchy appears to be determined that the priesthood of the Catholic Church should remain celibate.. What is the doctrinal basis of this?
Please note that I am not just attacking the Catholic Church. My concentration of things Catholic is because I am talking to a Catholic. I have just as many problems with Anglicans, Muslems, Jews and anarchists.
Peace be with you.
Whilst I've never claimed to be an expert in matters religious - even those relation to the church I was brought up in, I do not believe that I am bigotted. I will fight against injustice wherever I see it.
Bronwen wrote: 1. You misunderstand both indulgences and his objections, which, by the way, were shared, and rightly so, by many of the other reformers, including some who remained loyal to the Church throughout that dark period in Church history.
Indulgences were, and are, assigned to prayers that the Church appointed to be said in place of public penance. Prior to indulgences, an adulterer might, for example, as a condition of his/her absolution, be required to stand outside the Church every Sunday for, say, a year, wearing a sign saying, 'I am an adulterer - Please pray for me'. If s/he were unwilling to do so absolution would not be given. Understandably, such acts of penance came to be regarded as excessively strict so a system of appointed prayers, each assigned as being equal in merit to a certain length of public penance were developed. If a prayer is assigned, for example, 300 days indulgence, it is supposed to replace 300 days of public penance. It does NOT imply 300 fewer days in purgatory, nor, in modern times at least, does the Chruch even teach that time will exist in purgatory.
The sale of indulgences which sparked the Reformation had to do not with salvation, but with the release of the souls of the departed from purgatory. A soul in purgatory is already saved whereas a soul is hell is lost forever and all the money or prayers in the world cannot help it. The sellers claimed that for a certain amount of money immediate release of a specified soul, if that soul was in purgatory and not in hell, was promised. This is outright simony, that is, sale of the sacred, and a grave misuse, as I said previously, of ecclesiastical authority. Needless to say, the Church no longer sells indulgences, nor should it ever have done so.
Are you suggesting that indulgences did not purport to provide absolution from sin to the purchaser? The intermediation between the purchaser and a soul in purgatoory was only added later (1476 - Pope Sixtus IV). The prime function of an indulgence was to allow a person to pay a sum of money to the church to obtain a piece of paper saying that the church had performed the good works required of the sinner to absolve his sins.
Bronwen wrote: 2. Here I think you are confusing ex cathedra pronouncement of doctrine with papal encyclicals. While the latter are regarded by Catholics as having great authority, they do not meet the standards for infallibility, which are very narrowly defined. As far as casual pronouncements or opinions by the pope are concerned, well, he is the pope, but he is also a human being, so they are his own opinions, certainly not binding on Catholics to agree.
Very possibly - at what point does a declaration by the Pope move from being an Bull to an Encyclical to an Ex Cathedra pronouncement?
What, for example, was the declaration by the Pope in the 1980s after the chemical plant explosial in northern Italy ( or the year befor after the Bhopal disaster) that any pregnant ladies, diagnosed with deformed foetuses, who had an abortion, would be latae sententiae excommunicated.
Bronwen wrote: 3. No, on the contrary, and I actually should have said, the Church has always had a married priesthood, but the MANDATED celibate priesthood in the Western Chruch is relatively recent , going back only to about AD 1000. Before that, there was considerable controversy back and forth, and I suppose the final decision (final at that time in history), of a celibate Western priesthood and a married Eastern priesthood, might be compared to the DH rule in baseball, which I think should be left just as it is, in one league but not the other, since there are advantages both ways. I do NOT think, though, that the current situation in the priesthood should remain. I would like to see many more married men admitted to the Western priesthood, while, of course, still ordaining bachelors as well.
Note, however, fair or not, it is not likely that priests will be allowed to marry any time soon. He will have to be married first, as is the situation now in the Eastern rites. If a priest's wife dies he may not remarry and remain an active priest, and I was told that this applies to bishops in the Anglican Church also; perhaps Ted can affirm or disaffirm this.
I might be old but even I do not count 1000AD as relatively recent. The current Papal hierarchy appears to be determined that the priesthood of the Catholic Church should remain celibate.. What is the doctrinal basis of this?
Please note that I am not just attacking the Catholic Church. My concentration of things Catholic is because I am talking to a Catholic. I have just as many problems with Anglicans, Muslems, Jews and anarchists.
Peace be with you.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bryn Mawr wrote: 1. Please note that I am not just attacking the Catholic Church. My concentration of things Catholic is because I am talking to a Catholic. I have just as many problems with Anglicans, Muslems, Jews and anarchists.
2a. Are you suggesting that indulgences did not purport to provide absolution from sin to the purchaser?
2b. The intermediation between the purchaser and a soul in purgatoory was only added later (1476 - Pope Sixtus IV).
2c. The prime function of an indulgence was to allow a person to pay a sum of money to the church to obtain a piece of paper saying that the church had performed the good works required of the sinner to absolve his sins.
3a. Very possibly - at what point does a declaration by the Pope move from being an Bull to an Encyclical to an Ex Cathedra pronouncement?
3b. What, for example, was the declaration by the Pope in the 1980s after the chemical plant explosial in northern Italy ( or the year befor after the Bhopal disaster) that any pregnant ladies, diagnosed with deformed foetuses, who had an abortion, would be latae sententiae excommunicated.
4. I might be old but even I do not count 1000AD as relatively recent. The current Papal hierarchy appears to be determined that the priesthood of the Catholic Church should remain celibate.. What is the doctrinal basis of this?1. Oh, I understand that completely.
2a. I am definitely suggesting that. All that is required for absolution is to make a good confession. I have never heard of anyone being charged money for absolution at ANY point in Church history. Now, in certain cases, absolution may be conditional. If someone confessed to having stolen, say, $100, the priest would probably make it clear that the absolution was conditional on the $100 being returned. But that is not what you're talking about.
2b. Unless I'm missing something, you have your dates confused here. The sale of indulgences to which Luther and many other reformers objected took place nearly a century later than that, so the practice definitiely involved (claimed) release of departed souls from purgatory. I think you are correct, however, apart from any corruption of the practice, that indulgences were at first given only to the sinner and then later extended to souls in purgatory by proxy.
2c. No, you are incorrect here, and you are confusing absolution, which is a sacrament instituted by Christ Himself (John 20:22-23) with remission of temporal punishment which is IMPLIED by Christ in Mark 9:49 and referred to elswhere in scripture. In any case, the SALE of such remission was clearly corrupt, as we have already agreed.
3a. Oh, there is never any doubt about ex cathedra formulation of doctrine. It is quite an event, and also quite rare. The doctrines of the Chruch really don't change much, but sometimes it is necessary to define a certain doctrine more precisely, and in those cases, the Church believes that it is guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit. The infallibility is in the PROCESS, not in the pope as a person, though of course, it is always he who makes the official pronouncement, hence the phrase, 'papal infallibility'.
3b. I do not recall the explosion in question nor have I ever heard of such a specific declaration by the pope, nor am I even familiar with the Latin phrase. In any case, the Catholic Church is quite firm in its teaching that abortion is always a grave sin, and this is hardly unique to Catholicism, being shared by many other denominations of Christianity and many other religions. A woman who obtained such an abortion could, of course should, confess and receive absolution, and thereby have the excommunication lifted, and no, she wouldn't have to pay money for that.
4. I assume you mean that that part of the Church (the Western or 'Latin' rite) that HAS a celibate priesthood is determined to keep it. If you are saying that they propose to extend it to the Eastern rites, you are mistaken, and I would like to know your source for that. It is, however, a FACT that more and more married men are being ordained in the Western Church, and I expect this trend to continue for PRACTICAL reasons, namely, that there is a serious shortage of priests. Right now it is mostly confined to ordaining married clergymen of other denominations who wish to (along with their wives) convert to Roman Catholicism and remain clergy. A good place to continue would be by permitting married deacons to advance to the priesthood, a very short step. In any case, a married Western priesthood (still admitting celibate men also, of course) may be coming gradually, but it certainly seems to be coming.
2a. Are you suggesting that indulgences did not purport to provide absolution from sin to the purchaser?
2b. The intermediation between the purchaser and a soul in purgatoory was only added later (1476 - Pope Sixtus IV).
2c. The prime function of an indulgence was to allow a person to pay a sum of money to the church to obtain a piece of paper saying that the church had performed the good works required of the sinner to absolve his sins.
3a. Very possibly - at what point does a declaration by the Pope move from being an Bull to an Encyclical to an Ex Cathedra pronouncement?
3b. What, for example, was the declaration by the Pope in the 1980s after the chemical plant explosial in northern Italy ( or the year befor after the Bhopal disaster) that any pregnant ladies, diagnosed with deformed foetuses, who had an abortion, would be latae sententiae excommunicated.
4. I might be old but even I do not count 1000AD as relatively recent. The current Papal hierarchy appears to be determined that the priesthood of the Catholic Church should remain celibate.. What is the doctrinal basis of this?1. Oh, I understand that completely.
2a. I am definitely suggesting that. All that is required for absolution is to make a good confession. I have never heard of anyone being charged money for absolution at ANY point in Church history. Now, in certain cases, absolution may be conditional. If someone confessed to having stolen, say, $100, the priest would probably make it clear that the absolution was conditional on the $100 being returned. But that is not what you're talking about.
2b. Unless I'm missing something, you have your dates confused here. The sale of indulgences to which Luther and many other reformers objected took place nearly a century later than that, so the practice definitiely involved (claimed) release of departed souls from purgatory. I think you are correct, however, apart from any corruption of the practice, that indulgences were at first given only to the sinner and then later extended to souls in purgatory by proxy.
2c. No, you are incorrect here, and you are confusing absolution, which is a sacrament instituted by Christ Himself (John 20:22-23) with remission of temporal punishment which is IMPLIED by Christ in Mark 9:49 and referred to elswhere in scripture. In any case, the SALE of such remission was clearly corrupt, as we have already agreed.
3a. Oh, there is never any doubt about ex cathedra formulation of doctrine. It is quite an event, and also quite rare. The doctrines of the Chruch really don't change much, but sometimes it is necessary to define a certain doctrine more precisely, and in those cases, the Church believes that it is guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit. The infallibility is in the PROCESS, not in the pope as a person, though of course, it is always he who makes the official pronouncement, hence the phrase, 'papal infallibility'.
3b. I do not recall the explosion in question nor have I ever heard of such a specific declaration by the pope, nor am I even familiar with the Latin phrase. In any case, the Catholic Church is quite firm in its teaching that abortion is always a grave sin, and this is hardly unique to Catholicism, being shared by many other denominations of Christianity and many other religions. A woman who obtained such an abortion could, of course should, confess and receive absolution, and thereby have the excommunication lifted, and no, she wouldn't have to pay money for that.
4. I assume you mean that that part of the Church (the Western or 'Latin' rite) that HAS a celibate priesthood is determined to keep it. If you are saying that they propose to extend it to the Eastern rites, you are mistaken, and I would like to know your source for that. It is, however, a FACT that more and more married men are being ordained in the Western Church, and I expect this trend to continue for PRACTICAL reasons, namely, that there is a serious shortage of priests. Right now it is mostly confined to ordaining married clergymen of other denominations who wish to (along with their wives) convert to Roman Catholicism and remain clergy. A good place to continue would be by permitting married deacons to advance to the priesthood, a very short step. In any case, a married Western priesthood (still admitting celibate men also, of course) may be coming gradually, but it certainly seems to be coming.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Ted wrote: 1. Regarding the remariage of Bishops if their former wife dies: I see absolutely no reason why they could not. The anglican church allows its priests and bishops to marry before or after their appointment to the position.
Well, I was told that a long time ago and the person may have been mistaken or I could have misunderstood. He claimed that it was based on Paul's assertion that a bishop should have only one wife.
I regret that I do not have enough time today to resond to your remarks on the Eucharist except to say that at several points you seem to be confusing the sacraments of Penance and Eucharist.
I also think that your characterization of any meal at which Jesus was present as being comparable to the Last Supper is quite a stretch. But we can discuss this further next week if you wish.
I would also, in this thread or perhaps in a new one, like to hear more about the claims made by yourself and some other posters here that the New Testament was altered at various points in Church history. I have never claimed to be an expert in Bible history, but I have studied it with great interest since high school, which is to say, nearly half a century, and I am not aware of that. Nor, it seems, are the editors of the Anchor Bible, which I regard as state-of-the-art in Bible scholarship, nor do the editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on BIblical literature, 100 very large pages in very small type, make, unless I missed something, any mention of any such tampering.
I would like to hear more about this with documentation, not mere claims by authors wishing to sell their own books.
Well, I was told that a long time ago and the person may have been mistaken or I could have misunderstood. He claimed that it was based on Paul's assertion that a bishop should have only one wife.
I regret that I do not have enough time today to resond to your remarks on the Eucharist except to say that at several points you seem to be confusing the sacraments of Penance and Eucharist.
I also think that your characterization of any meal at which Jesus was present as being comparable to the Last Supper is quite a stretch. But we can discuss this further next week if you wish.
I would also, in this thread or perhaps in a new one, like to hear more about the claims made by yourself and some other posters here that the New Testament was altered at various points in Church history. I have never claimed to be an expert in Bible history, but I have studied it with great interest since high school, which is to say, nearly half a century, and I am not aware of that. Nor, it seems, are the editors of the Anchor Bible, which I regard as state-of-the-art in Bible scholarship, nor do the editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on BIblical literature, 100 very large pages in very small type, make, unless I missed something, any mention of any such tampering.
I would like to hear more about this with documentation, not mere claims by authors wishing to sell their own books.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bronwen:-6
To my knowledge a bishop can remarry. On the comment about Paul. During Paul's life a presbyter and bishop were basically the same. They were local chuch administrators only. I doubt, therefore that Paul would have made such a comment. From the "New Dictionary of Theology", under "Ministry".
"The Lord's supper is supposed to be a patronal shared meal in which haves and have-nots can eat food together in common, but, of course, all of most of the food and drink must come from the haves. What happens,however, is that the nonworking haves can arrive before the working have-nots and eat together whatever they bring or their hots prepares for them. When the have-nots arrive, there is nothing left for them hence 'one goes hungry and another becomes drunk ,' as Paul put it." pg 427 "The Birth of Christianity", J. D. Crossan.
"
"Each brought what he or she could to the common meal, and thus were assured, no matter what happened, of at least one Eucharist---one thanksworthy meal, say--per week." Ibid pg 429.
These being meals without the physical presence of the Lord and being Eucharistic then with the Presence of our Lord it can be no less. Although Crossan does put it more succinctly that the meals that Jesus had with the tax collectors etc were also Eucharistic. Thus I hardly find it the least be of a stretch to refer to it as an Eucharistic meal. I will eventuall find that quote.
The woman at the well story is certainly not a sacrament of penance. God's grace was freely given and the only reply that Jesus made was go and sin no more. There was no requirement for any sort of penance.
There is absolutely no penance in the sectiion Matt:25:31ff. You did this to someone else therefore you did it to me. Enter.
I must object to your reference to "authors wishing to sell their own books." I would hardly refer to honest, scholarly people whetner male or female as just out to sell their books. They are presenting their research findings.
"John Dominic Drossan is generally acknowledged to be the premier historical Jesus scholar in the world."
The "New Dictionary of Theology" will hardly make its authors or compilers rich at that price.
"Marcus J. Borg is Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University." He is also acknowleged to be a well respected Jesus scholar.
"Bart D. Ehrman chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is an authority on the history of the New Testament and early Church, and the life of Jesus." In his book "Misquoting Jesus" he gives numerous examples of changes made over the centuries by the early church. He also points out that among the extant documents used in the Biblical translations there are some 400 000+ variants which in fact makes a wholly accurate printing of the original impossible.
Drossan in his books refers to the "redactors" as does Marcus Borg and Old Testament specialist Anderson in his book "Understanding the Old Testament."
Bishop Spong also refers to the same problems in his works.
From Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" under a section titled "Kind of Changes in Our Manuscripts".: Accidental Changes; Intentional Changes. From the conclusion of that chapter. "We could go on nearly foever talking about specific places in which the texts of the New Testament came to be changed either accidentally or intentionally. As I have indicated, the examples are not just in the hundreds but in the thousands. The examples given are enough to convey the general point, however: there are lots of differences among our manuscripts, differences created by scribes who were reproducing their sacred texts." pg 98.
Shalom
Ted:-6
To my knowledge a bishop can remarry. On the comment about Paul. During Paul's life a presbyter and bishop were basically the same. They were local chuch administrators only. I doubt, therefore that Paul would have made such a comment. From the "New Dictionary of Theology", under "Ministry".
"The Lord's supper is supposed to be a patronal shared meal in which haves and have-nots can eat food together in common, but, of course, all of most of the food and drink must come from the haves. What happens,however, is that the nonworking haves can arrive before the working have-nots and eat together whatever they bring or their hots prepares for them. When the have-nots arrive, there is nothing left for them hence 'one goes hungry and another becomes drunk ,' as Paul put it." pg 427 "The Birth of Christianity", J. D. Crossan.
"
"Each brought what he or she could to the common meal, and thus were assured, no matter what happened, of at least one Eucharist---one thanksworthy meal, say--per week." Ibid pg 429.
These being meals without the physical presence of the Lord and being Eucharistic then with the Presence of our Lord it can be no less. Although Crossan does put it more succinctly that the meals that Jesus had with the tax collectors etc were also Eucharistic. Thus I hardly find it the least be of a stretch to refer to it as an Eucharistic meal. I will eventuall find that quote.
The woman at the well story is certainly not a sacrament of penance. God's grace was freely given and the only reply that Jesus made was go and sin no more. There was no requirement for any sort of penance.
There is absolutely no penance in the sectiion Matt:25:31ff. You did this to someone else therefore you did it to me. Enter.
I must object to your reference to "authors wishing to sell their own books." I would hardly refer to honest, scholarly people whetner male or female as just out to sell their books. They are presenting their research findings.
"John Dominic Drossan is generally acknowledged to be the premier historical Jesus scholar in the world."
The "New Dictionary of Theology" will hardly make its authors or compilers rich at that price.
"Marcus J. Borg is Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University." He is also acknowleged to be a well respected Jesus scholar.
"Bart D. Ehrman chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is an authority on the history of the New Testament and early Church, and the life of Jesus." In his book "Misquoting Jesus" he gives numerous examples of changes made over the centuries by the early church. He also points out that among the extant documents used in the Biblical translations there are some 400 000+ variants which in fact makes a wholly accurate printing of the original impossible.
Drossan in his books refers to the "redactors" as does Marcus Borg and Old Testament specialist Anderson in his book "Understanding the Old Testament."
Bishop Spong also refers to the same problems in his works.
From Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" under a section titled "Kind of Changes in Our Manuscripts".: Accidental Changes; Intentional Changes. From the conclusion of that chapter. "We could go on nearly foever talking about specific places in which the texts of the New Testament came to be changed either accidentally or intentionally. As I have indicated, the examples are not just in the hundreds but in the thousands. The examples given are enough to convey the general point, however: there are lots of differences among our manuscripts, differences created by scribes who were reproducing their sacred texts." pg 98.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Ted wrote: 1. To my knowledge a bishop can remarry.
2. On the comment about Paul. During Paul's life a presbyter and bishop were basically the same. They were local church administrators only. I doubt, therefore that Paul would have made such a comment.
3. The Lord's supper...
4. The woman at the well story is certainly not a sacrament of penance. God's grace was freely given and the only reply that Jesus made was go and sin no more. There was no requirement for any sort of penance.
5. There is absolutely no penance in the sectiion Matt:25:31ff. You did this to someone else therefore you did it to me. Enter.
6. I must object to your reference to "authors wishing to sell their own books." I would hardly refer to honest, scholarly people whetner male or female as just out to sell their books. They are presenting their research findings.
7. From Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" under a section titled "Kind of Changes in Our Manuscripts".: Accidental Changes; Intentional Changes. From the conclusion of that chapter. "We could go on nearly foever talking about specific places in which the texts of the New Testament came to be changed either accidentally or intentionally. As I have indicated, the examples are not just in the hundreds but in the thousands. The examples given are enough to convey the general point, however: there are lots of differences among our manuscripts, differences created by scribes who were reproducing their sacred texts." pg 98.
1. Unless I learn otherwise, I will assume that you are correct.
2. 1 Tim 3:2
3. Well, I understand everything that you've posted here on the subject. I still prefer the current practice in my Church in which the Eucharist is restricted to those who have (a) first confessed and also who (b) understand that, according to Church doctrine, they are receiving the real presence of Christ and thereby sharing in His divinity. So in this respect we will have to agree to disagree.
When I said that you seemed to be confusing the sacraments of Penance and Eucharist I was referring to your suggestions that those burdened with sin need the Eucharist as much as or more than those with a (relatively) clear conscience, and I agree with you, but that is why they are given the opportunity to confess first. I don't know if you are a Jethro Tull fan, but if I were about to receive Our Lord's body and blood and happened to look in a mirror (of the soul) and noticed that I looked like 'Aqualung', I would want to go and clean up first, then come to the table. Wouldn't you?
4. You are correct. There was no such sacrament until after Jesus' Resurrection. He then gave His apostles that authority (John 20:22-23).
5. I did what to whom? You have lost me here. This has little to do with penance but rather with salvation by works rather than faith, affirmed here by Matthew and elsewhere by every one of the other NT writers. Yet certain Protestants continue to insist that salvation is solely by one's faith and that works mean nothing. Hard for anyone outside those particular/peculiar denoms to understand, nor am I sure that their members understand it themselves. But that is off the current subject.
6. Well, in a previous thread I gave the example of Barbara Thiering's Jesus the Man, which I have at home, having found it on a sale table, and it is really quite silly. As I mentioned before, she claims that the gospels are, in effect, riddles, with nearly everyone mentioned therein being really someone else, etc. Very similar to parts of The DaVinci Code except presented as fact rather than fiction. There is no documentation of any of this, the reader is just supposed to take her word for it. I think that some, though certainly not all, of the books you have cited fall into this general category.
7. I am not sure, from the excerpt you give, whether he is referring to differences in translation or alteration of the original languages. If the former, I have no problem with that. That is why it is so important to me that the Bibles I personally use are the result of interdenominational scholarship, and I have named these previously, with the Anchor Bible being, I think, the current state-of-the-art. I would not want to use a Bible that had a substantial denominational bias.
If he is claiming that the original languages were tampered with for a doctrinal or sectarian purpose, I would like to know more about that. As I said, I have never heard of that in half a century of Bible study, and I would say that any such allegations should be regarded as speculation unless firmly documented.
By the way, the Crossan book IS available in German, and both the Düsseldorf and Essen public libraries have the book, though currently both copies are checked out. I will definitely peruse it as soon as possible.
2. On the comment about Paul. During Paul's life a presbyter and bishop were basically the same. They were local church administrators only. I doubt, therefore that Paul would have made such a comment.
3. The Lord's supper...
4. The woman at the well story is certainly not a sacrament of penance. God's grace was freely given and the only reply that Jesus made was go and sin no more. There was no requirement for any sort of penance.
5. There is absolutely no penance in the sectiion Matt:25:31ff. You did this to someone else therefore you did it to me. Enter.
6. I must object to your reference to "authors wishing to sell their own books." I would hardly refer to honest, scholarly people whetner male or female as just out to sell their books. They are presenting their research findings.
7. From Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" under a section titled "Kind of Changes in Our Manuscripts".: Accidental Changes; Intentional Changes. From the conclusion of that chapter. "We could go on nearly foever talking about specific places in which the texts of the New Testament came to be changed either accidentally or intentionally. As I have indicated, the examples are not just in the hundreds but in the thousands. The examples given are enough to convey the general point, however: there are lots of differences among our manuscripts, differences created by scribes who were reproducing their sacred texts." pg 98.
1. Unless I learn otherwise, I will assume that you are correct.
2. 1 Tim 3:2
3. Well, I understand everything that you've posted here on the subject. I still prefer the current practice in my Church in which the Eucharist is restricted to those who have (a) first confessed and also who (b) understand that, according to Church doctrine, they are receiving the real presence of Christ and thereby sharing in His divinity. So in this respect we will have to agree to disagree.
When I said that you seemed to be confusing the sacraments of Penance and Eucharist I was referring to your suggestions that those burdened with sin need the Eucharist as much as or more than those with a (relatively) clear conscience, and I agree with you, but that is why they are given the opportunity to confess first. I don't know if you are a Jethro Tull fan, but if I were about to receive Our Lord's body and blood and happened to look in a mirror (of the soul) and noticed that I looked like 'Aqualung', I would want to go and clean up first, then come to the table. Wouldn't you?
4. You are correct. There was no such sacrament until after Jesus' Resurrection. He then gave His apostles that authority (John 20:22-23).
5. I did what to whom? You have lost me here. This has little to do with penance but rather with salvation by works rather than faith, affirmed here by Matthew and elsewhere by every one of the other NT writers. Yet certain Protestants continue to insist that salvation is solely by one's faith and that works mean nothing. Hard for anyone outside those particular/peculiar denoms to understand, nor am I sure that their members understand it themselves. But that is off the current subject.
6. Well, in a previous thread I gave the example of Barbara Thiering's Jesus the Man, which I have at home, having found it on a sale table, and it is really quite silly. As I mentioned before, she claims that the gospels are, in effect, riddles, with nearly everyone mentioned therein being really someone else, etc. Very similar to parts of The DaVinci Code except presented as fact rather than fiction. There is no documentation of any of this, the reader is just supposed to take her word for it. I think that some, though certainly not all, of the books you have cited fall into this general category.
7. I am not sure, from the excerpt you give, whether he is referring to differences in translation or alteration of the original languages. If the former, I have no problem with that. That is why it is so important to me that the Bibles I personally use are the result of interdenominational scholarship, and I have named these previously, with the Anchor Bible being, I think, the current state-of-the-art. I would not want to use a Bible that had a substantial denominational bias.
If he is claiming that the original languages were tampered with for a doctrinal or sectarian purpose, I would like to know more about that. As I said, I have never heard of that in half a century of Bible study, and I would say that any such allegations should be regarded as speculation unless firmly documented.
By the way, the Crossan book IS available in German, and both the Düsseldorf and Essen public libraries have the book, though currently both copies are checked out. I will definitely peruse it as soon as possible.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
A belated but sincere thank-you to spot for the information on and quotes from Wesley!
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
I do not have the references I was usign here so I will reply proporly later.
Please check your dates. Luther finally exploded in 1517 and the sale of indulgences had been going on for a long time. Luthyer dies in 1546 so could not have been objecting in the 1590s.
latae sententiae is an automatic excommunication without trial.
I will look up the exact detasils of the Italian one. Bhopal was a Union Carbide plant for which, I believe, several executives were found guilty of criminal negligence and which sparked the inttroduction of the offent of corporate manslaughter. It was an act of cruelty I find it very hard to forgive the church.
Please check your dates. Luther finally exploded in 1517 and the sale of indulgences had been going on for a long time. Luthyer dies in 1546 so could not have been objecting in the 1590s.
latae sententiae is an automatic excommunication without trial.
I will look up the exact detasils of the Italian one. Bhopal was a Union Carbide plant for which, I believe, several executives were found guilty of criminal negligence and which sparked the inttroduction of the offent of corporate manslaughter. It was an act of cruelty I find it very hard to forgive the church.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bronwen:-6
#2 ! Timothy is among the books that many scholars including Crossan, Borg etc. consider to be pseudepigraphs.
"Second, scholars generally agree that, although cewertain of the letters attributed to Paul are authentically Pauline, several others are post-Pauline and pseudo-Pauline, that is, they were not written by him but were attributed to his by later writers. The technical ter for such fictional attributions to a historical author is pseudepigraphs, and they are not same as forgeries (the distinction is one of authorial intention) intention). The severn letters accepted as authentic are given in that middle column, and the sex disputed inauthentic are gien in the right column.". pg 106, "In Search of Paul", John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed.
With careful reading of all the letters attributed to Paul we find several contradictions, one of them being in one place he has many women followers who also preach and in another he says that women are to be quiet in church. Those pseudepigraphia often contradict the original Paul.
#6 All I can say is that the books are well documented and have excellent bibliographies and that these scholars are well respected in their field and that some of them are Roman Catholic.
#5. Sorry about that. I should have used quotations even though it was a paraphrase. In Matt. 25 we read "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you , or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them 'Truly I tell you just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me'"
verses 37-40.
According to "The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary" it is quite clear that these folks were totally unaware of ever having done anything to Jesus. We see his reply. Without knowing it they had in fact accepted Jesus' way.
#7 He is saying that they language was altered to say what the scribe wanted it to say, that the text was altered for doctrinal and theological reasons. This fact is now accepted by many scholars. He gives several specific spots in the Bible and shows how they were altered. It is a very informative book and quite in line with the Hebrew translating and interpretation that I engaged in many years ago. It is not new. The Book is "Misquoting Jesus" Bart D. Ehrman and he is indeed supported by Crossan and Borg as well as others. It is a well documented book with an excellent bibliography.
Ah! Crossan's book. Very heavy reading but also very interesting with all of his research explained in detail. It also has 505 pages. It does take awhile to read and digest but well worth the trouble. He is a good Roman Catholic as well. LOL Actually an excellent book.
Shalom
Ted:-6
PS. You make me think and continue my research and then I have to write these damned lenghty posts. LOL I love it. Thanks.
#2 ! Timothy is among the books that many scholars including Crossan, Borg etc. consider to be pseudepigraphs.
"Second, scholars generally agree that, although cewertain of the letters attributed to Paul are authentically Pauline, several others are post-Pauline and pseudo-Pauline, that is, they were not written by him but were attributed to his by later writers. The technical ter for such fictional attributions to a historical author is pseudepigraphs, and they are not same as forgeries (the distinction is one of authorial intention) intention). The severn letters accepted as authentic are given in that middle column, and the sex disputed inauthentic are gien in the right column.". pg 106, "In Search of Paul", John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed.
With careful reading of all the letters attributed to Paul we find several contradictions, one of them being in one place he has many women followers who also preach and in another he says that women are to be quiet in church. Those pseudepigraphia often contradict the original Paul.
#6 All I can say is that the books are well documented and have excellent bibliographies and that these scholars are well respected in their field and that some of them are Roman Catholic.
#5. Sorry about that. I should have used quotations even though it was a paraphrase. In Matt. 25 we read "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you , or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them 'Truly I tell you just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me'"
verses 37-40.
According to "The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary" it is quite clear that these folks were totally unaware of ever having done anything to Jesus. We see his reply. Without knowing it they had in fact accepted Jesus' way.
#7 He is saying that they language was altered to say what the scribe wanted it to say, that the text was altered for doctrinal and theological reasons. This fact is now accepted by many scholars. He gives several specific spots in the Bible and shows how they were altered. It is a very informative book and quite in line with the Hebrew translating and interpretation that I engaged in many years ago. It is not new. The Book is "Misquoting Jesus" Bart D. Ehrman and he is indeed supported by Crossan and Borg as well as others. It is a well documented book with an excellent bibliography.
Ah! Crossan's book. Very heavy reading but also very interesting with all of his research explained in detail. It also has 505 pages. It does take awhile to read and digest but well worth the trouble. He is a good Roman Catholic as well. LOL Actually an excellent book.
Shalom
Ted:-6
PS. You make me think and continue my research and then I have to write these damned lenghty posts. LOL I love it. Thanks.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bryn Mawr wrote: 1. I do not have the references I was usign here so I will reply proporly later.
2. Please check your dates. Luther finally exploded in 1517 and the sale of indulgences had been going on for a long time. Luthyer dies in 1546 so could not have been objecting in the 1590s.
3. Bhopal was a Union Carbide plant for which, I believe, several executives were found guilty of criminal negligence and which sparked the inttroduction of the offent of corporate manslaughter. It was an act of cruelty I find it very hard to forgive the church.1. Ok. I'm assuming they are Catholic sources.
2. My understanding has always been that indulgences were sold with the (false) claim that departed loved ones would thereby be immediately released from purgatory. If you have evidence to the contrary, please give the source. In any case, no one is disputing that it was a corrupt practice.
Maybe I misunderstood you here. You seemed to be saying that the 'indulgences' being sold involved absolution from the buyers' own sins, but that is not logical since all that is necessary for absolution is a good confession and performance of the assigned penance. As far as I know, the most severe penance that would have been imposed at that time would have been something like a pilgrimage to some far-off holy site, but that would be exceptional. It would usually be, as today, prayers, of a quantity which could be said before even leaving the Church.
3. ??? Now you have REALLY lost me. I don't doubt that such an accident occurred, I only said that I did not recall it. It probably didn't get the publicity of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. Or my memory may be failing me in my old age.
What does that have to do with cruelty by the Church?
2. Please check your dates. Luther finally exploded in 1517 and the sale of indulgences had been going on for a long time. Luthyer dies in 1546 so could not have been objecting in the 1590s.
3. Bhopal was a Union Carbide plant for which, I believe, several executives were found guilty of criminal negligence and which sparked the inttroduction of the offent of corporate manslaughter. It was an act of cruelty I find it very hard to forgive the church.1. Ok. I'm assuming they are Catholic sources.
2. My understanding has always been that indulgences were sold with the (false) claim that departed loved ones would thereby be immediately released from purgatory. If you have evidence to the contrary, please give the source. In any case, no one is disputing that it was a corrupt practice.
Maybe I misunderstood you here. You seemed to be saying that the 'indulgences' being sold involved absolution from the buyers' own sins, but that is not logical since all that is necessary for absolution is a good confession and performance of the assigned penance. As far as I know, the most severe penance that would have been imposed at that time would have been something like a pilgrimage to some far-off holy site, but that would be exceptional. It would usually be, as today, prayers, of a quantity which could be said before even leaving the Church.
3. ??? Now you have REALLY lost me. I don't doubt that such an accident occurred, I only said that I did not recall it. It probably didn't get the publicity of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. Or my memory may be failing me in my old age.
What does that have to do with cruelty by the Church?
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Ted wrote: 1. [1st] Timothy is among the books that many scholars including Crossan, Borg etc. consider to be pseudepigraphs.
2. Ah! Crossan's book. Very heavy reading but also very interesting with all of his research explained in detail. It also has 505 pages. 1. That is a contradiction in terms. If it is in the Bible, and it is, then it is not pseudepigraphic.
If you mean that it was written in Paul's name by someone else, that is generally conceded. That has nothing to do with its canonicity.
It you mean that it is spurious, that may be true, but it is too late. The canon is closed and not likely to ever be reopened.
I'm not sure I get your point here, though. For whatever reason, widowed Anglican bishops may either marry and remain active bishops or they may not. I have already said that I will take your word for it (that they may) until I learn differently.
2. Well, I don't intend to read the entire 505 pages in German, only that part of the introduction (pp. xiii - xxvi) that you specified, to see if you are misinterpretimg Crossan's intent, as I suspect.
2. Ah! Crossan's book. Very heavy reading but also very interesting with all of his research explained in detail. It also has 505 pages. 1. That is a contradiction in terms. If it is in the Bible, and it is, then it is not pseudepigraphic.
If you mean that it was written in Paul's name by someone else, that is generally conceded. That has nothing to do with its canonicity.
It you mean that it is spurious, that may be true, but it is too late. The canon is closed and not likely to ever be reopened.
I'm not sure I get your point here, though. For whatever reason, widowed Anglican bishops may either marry and remain active bishops or they may not. I have already said that I will take your word for it (that they may) until I learn differently.
2. Well, I don't intend to read the entire 505 pages in German, only that part of the introduction (pp. xiii - xxvi) that you specified, to see if you are misinterpretimg Crossan's intent, as I suspect.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bronwen wrote:
3. ??? Now you have REALLY lost me. I don't doubt that such an accident occurred, I only said that I did not recall it. It probably didn't get the publicity of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. Or my memory may be failing me in my old age.
What does that have to do with cruelty by the Church?
Specifically, as I said in my original post, that, knowing the effects of the chemicals released were to cause foetal abmormalities (in a big way), the Pope specifically refused permission for any women affected to have an abortion.
In line with doctrine maybe but cruel nontheless.
3. ??? Now you have REALLY lost me. I don't doubt that such an accident occurred, I only said that I did not recall it. It probably didn't get the publicity of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. Or my memory may be failing me in my old age.
What does that have to do with cruelty by the Church?
Specifically, as I said in my original post, that, knowing the effects of the chemicals released were to cause foetal abmormalities (in a big way), the Pope specifically refused permission for any women affected to have an abortion.
In line with doctrine maybe but cruel nontheless.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Browen:-6
Re Crossan's book of 505 pages; LOL.
Part of the problem, and I would have to look it up if you wish is that the pseudepigraphs are in places contradictory to the authentic letters of Paul.
From pg 106, "In Search of Paul"; Crossan and Reed.
"Our basic argument is that the New Testament content and sequence has literally and figuratively framed Paul by locating those seven authentic Pauline letters after Luke's Acts of the Apostles, which corrects Pau's story before we read him, and among or before those inauthentic letters, which correct Paul's theology after we have read him. We concentrate on the seven authentic ones rather than the six inauthentic letters to ask this one question; What was the historical Paul's position on slavery and patriarchy?"
Such contradictions do a disservice to both scripture and Paul himself and lead folks to erroneous conclusions. That is an attack on our very faith.
I did know about and remember Bophal. It was indeed a very tragic event. I was not aware of the churches reaction. But it was a good example of how multinationals consider the people of the third world. The are only a source of cheap labour and their lives do not count.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Re Crossan's book of 505 pages; LOL.
Part of the problem, and I would have to look it up if you wish is that the pseudepigraphs are in places contradictory to the authentic letters of Paul.
From pg 106, "In Search of Paul"; Crossan and Reed.
"Our basic argument is that the New Testament content and sequence has literally and figuratively framed Paul by locating those seven authentic Pauline letters after Luke's Acts of the Apostles, which corrects Pau's story before we read him, and among or before those inauthentic letters, which correct Paul's theology after we have read him. We concentrate on the seven authentic ones rather than the six inauthentic letters to ask this one question; What was the historical Paul's position on slavery and patriarchy?"
Such contradictions do a disservice to both scripture and Paul himself and lead folks to erroneous conclusions. That is an attack on our very faith.
I did know about and remember Bophal. It was indeed a very tragic event. I was not aware of the churches reaction. But it was a good example of how multinationals consider the people of the third world. The are only a source of cheap labour and their lives do not count.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bryn Mawr wrote: Specifically, as I said in my original post, that, knowing the effects of the chemicals released were to cause foetal abmormalities (in a big way), the Pope specifically refused permission for any women affected to have an abortion.Fair enough. You seemed to be implying that I doubted that the accident occurred. That I do not doubt. That the pope made such a SPECIFIC (your word) refusal I do not flatly deny but doubt SOMEWHAT. I would like more information. 'Refusal' implies some sort of request. Who made such a request, of whom was it made, and how did it reach the pope? What I am saying is, a Catholic woman who wished to abort a fetus would not go directly to the pope, she would most likely go to her parish priest and he would explain to her the Church's teaching on the matter. It's unlikely that the matter would ever reach the pope, hence my doubt.
In any case, though, the pope cannot change morality at his whim. It is up to the woman to pray for a healthy child, or if that is not possible, pray for a miscarriage, but in any case, follow her conscience, using, if she is an observant Catholic, the Church's teachings as a guide. I don't see 'cruelty' on the part of the Church or the pope as a person here, nor do I see anything exceptional about the situation. Children with handicaps are, sadly, born every day. As I said previously, if the woman chose to have an abortion, she could confess and receive absolution. It happens all the time.
Suppose the woman were a Baptist, say? Whom would she then ask for permission to abort? I'm not trying to make light of a tragic situation, I'm just trying to understand why you are singling out the pope and the Catholic Church. You are certainly aware that many other religions also forbid abortion. For that matter, how do you imagine that Jesus Christ Himself would advise a woman in that situation?
If you can provide a link to the pope's 'specific refusal', please do so. I would like to know the details.
In any case, though, the pope cannot change morality at his whim. It is up to the woman to pray for a healthy child, or if that is not possible, pray for a miscarriage, but in any case, follow her conscience, using, if she is an observant Catholic, the Church's teachings as a guide. I don't see 'cruelty' on the part of the Church or the pope as a person here, nor do I see anything exceptional about the situation. Children with handicaps are, sadly, born every day. As I said previously, if the woman chose to have an abortion, she could confess and receive absolution. It happens all the time.
Suppose the woman were a Baptist, say? Whom would she then ask for permission to abort? I'm not trying to make light of a tragic situation, I'm just trying to understand why you are singling out the pope and the Catholic Church. You are certainly aware that many other religions also forbid abortion. For that matter, how do you imagine that Jesus Christ Himself would advise a woman in that situation?
If you can provide a link to the pope's 'specific refusal', please do so. I would like to know the details.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bronwen wrote: Fair enough. You seemed to be implying that I doubted that the accident occurred. That I do not doubt. That the pope made such a SPECIFIC (your word) refusal I do not flatly deny but doubt SOMEWHAT. I would like more information. 'Refusal' implies some sort of request. Who made such a request, of whom was it made, and how did it reach the pope? What I am saying is, a Catholic woman who wished to abort a fetus would not go directly to the pope, she would most likely go to her parish priest and he would explain to her the Church's teaching on the matter. It's unlikely that the matter would ever reach the pope, hence my doubt.
In any case, though, the pope cannot change morality at his whim. It is up to the woman to pray for a healthy child, or if that is not possible, pray for a miscarriage, but in any case, follow her conscience, using, if she is an observant Catholic, the Church's teachings as a guide. I don't see 'cruelty' on the part of the Church or the pope as a person here, nor do I see anything exceptional about the situation. Children with handicaps are, sadly, born every day. As I said previously, if the woman chose to have an abortion, she could confess and receive absolution. It happens all the time.
Suppose the woman were a Baptist, say? Whom would she then ask for permission to abort? I'm not trying to make light of a tragic situation, I'm just trying to understand why you are singling out the pope and the Catholic Church. You are certainly aware that many other religions also forbid abortion. For that matter, how do you imagine that Jesus Christ Himself would advise a woman in that situation?
If you can provide a link to the pope's 'specific refusal', please do so. I would like to know the details.
It didn't occur to me that you doubted my word but I thought you were asking for more details - I've now found the reference :-
In 1976, a chemical plant explosion near Seveso, Italy, resulted in the highest known exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in residential populations.
It is my recollection that, due to the scope of the disaster and the known effects, that a direct appeal was made to the Pope for a dispensation in this instance. It was not a case of a woman diagnosed with a deformed baby and appealed to the Pope, it was the almost certanty that the number would run into the hundreds and an appeal was made on their behalf.
In any case, though, the pope cannot change morality at his whim. It is up to the woman to pray for a healthy child, or if that is not possible, pray for a miscarriage, but in any case, follow her conscience, using, if she is an observant Catholic, the Church's teachings as a guide. I don't see 'cruelty' on the part of the Church or the pope as a person here, nor do I see anything exceptional about the situation. Children with handicaps are, sadly, born every day. As I said previously, if the woman chose to have an abortion, she could confess and receive absolution. It happens all the time.
Suppose the woman were a Baptist, say? Whom would she then ask for permission to abort? I'm not trying to make light of a tragic situation, I'm just trying to understand why you are singling out the pope and the Catholic Church. You are certainly aware that many other religions also forbid abortion. For that matter, how do you imagine that Jesus Christ Himself would advise a woman in that situation?
If you can provide a link to the pope's 'specific refusal', please do so. I would like to know the details.
It didn't occur to me that you doubted my word but I thought you were asking for more details - I've now found the reference :-
In 1976, a chemical plant explosion near Seveso, Italy, resulted in the highest known exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in residential populations.
It is my recollection that, due to the scope of the disaster and the known effects, that a direct appeal was made to the Pope for a dispensation in this instance. It was not a case of a woman diagnosed with a deformed baby and appealed to the Pope, it was the almost certanty that the number would run into the hundreds and an appeal was made on their behalf.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bryn Mawr wrote: 1. In 1976, a chemical plant explosion near Seveso, Italy, resulted in the highest known exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in residential populations.
2. It is my recollection that, due to the scope of the disaster and the known effects, that a direct appeal was made to the Pope for a dispensation in this instance. It was not a case of a woman diagnosed with a deformed baby and appealed to the Pope, it was the almost certanty that the number would run into the hundreds and an appeal was made on their behalf.1. Huh? I thought we were talking about Bhopal, India.
2. A direct appeal was made by WHOM? How was it worded and how was the response worded?
If I plan to go on vacation out in the woods and tell my pastor I will be unable to attend Sunday Mass, he will give me a dispensation. If I wanna kill one of my kids while I'm out there he won't. Once again, I don't mean to make light of a tragic situation. You don't get dispensations to commit murder in the Catholic Church. In Islam, perhaps, if the victim is a Jew or an American.
And by the way, you didn't say how you thought JC might advise the woman.
2. It is my recollection that, due to the scope of the disaster and the known effects, that a direct appeal was made to the Pope for a dispensation in this instance. It was not a case of a woman diagnosed with a deformed baby and appealed to the Pope, it was the almost certanty that the number would run into the hundreds and an appeal was made on their behalf.1. Huh? I thought we were talking about Bhopal, India.
2. A direct appeal was made by WHOM? How was it worded and how was the response worded?
If I plan to go on vacation out in the woods and tell my pastor I will be unable to attend Sunday Mass, he will give me a dispensation. If I wanna kill one of my kids while I'm out there he won't. Once again, I don't mean to make light of a tragic situation. You don't get dispensations to commit murder in the Catholic Church. In Islam, perhaps, if the victim is a Jew or an American.
And by the way, you didn't say how you thought JC might advise the woman.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bronwen wrote: 1. Huh? I thought we were talking about Bhopal, India.
2. A direct appeal was made by WHOM? How was it worded and how was the response worded?
If I plan to go on vacation out in the woods and tell my pastor I will be unable to attend Sunday Mass, he will give me a dispensation. If I wanna kill one of my kids while I'm out there he won't. Once again, I don't mean to make light of a tragic situation. You don't get dispensations to commit murder in the Catholic Church. In Islam, perhaps, if the victim is a Jew or an American.
And by the way, you didn't say how you thought JC might advise the woman.
1) I gave two examples
2) My memories not *that* good - I'll try to find references
3) There are several instances of Jesus advising against the run of the prevailing law - the stoning of the adulteress springs to mind. Referring back to several previous debates with various members, I do not see abortion as murder and I do not agree with the Catholic Church's position on contraception either - putting them both together is, in my opinion, against all reason in today's world - unless you're planning on out breeding your opposition.
2. A direct appeal was made by WHOM? How was it worded and how was the response worded?
If I plan to go on vacation out in the woods and tell my pastor I will be unable to attend Sunday Mass, he will give me a dispensation. If I wanna kill one of my kids while I'm out there he won't. Once again, I don't mean to make light of a tragic situation. You don't get dispensations to commit murder in the Catholic Church. In Islam, perhaps, if the victim is a Jew or an American.
And by the way, you didn't say how you thought JC might advise the woman.
1) I gave two examples
2) My memories not *that* good - I'll try to find references
3) There are several instances of Jesus advising against the run of the prevailing law - the stoning of the adulteress springs to mind. Referring back to several previous debates with various members, I do not see abortion as murder and I do not agree with the Catholic Church's position on contraception either - putting them both together is, in my opinion, against all reason in today's world - unless you're planning on out breeding your opposition.
The Early Church and Apostolic Succession
Bryn Mawr wrote: 1) I gave two examples
2) My memories not *that* good - I'll try to find references
3a. There are several instances of Jesus advising against the run of the prevailing law - the stoning of the adulteress springs to mind.
3b. Referring back to several previous debates with various members, I do not see abortion as murder and...
3c. I do not agree with the Catholic Church's position on contraception either -
3d. ...putting them both together is, in my opinion, against all reason in today's world - unless you're planning on out breeding your opposition.2. I didn't expect you to do so from memory; but saying 'a direct appeal was made' really creates more questions than it answers. It's very unlikely that anyone familiar with Catholic teaching would have made such an appeal. What about already-born children who may have been harmed? Did the parents want to kill them too? What's the difference? It reminds me of an old minstrel-show 'three-liner':
Mistah Bones, I had ta shoot mah dawg!
Had to shoot yo' dawg? Was he mad?
Well, he wasn't exactly thrilled!
3a. Not a very good example, because there He was preventing a killing rather than permitting one.
3b. You have a right to your opinion of course, but again (lordy, why must I keep repeating things?), most of Christianity, as well as many other religions, disagree. It is hardly a Catholic monopoly. How many Protestant denoms can you name that see abortion as OK? I'm not saying there aren't any, I'm just asking.
To me, speaking medically rather than religiously, it would depend on the progress of the pregnancy. If it were advanced, say over five or six months, I would see it as, essentially, a living child. And I assume from your avatar that you are male, which might also make a difference in your point of view. I could not abort a child at that stage of development. At an earlier stage, were I not observant of Catholic teaching, I possibly might under certain circumstances.
3c. Neither do I, but that has very little to do with abortion.
3d. You can't put them both together.
2) My memories not *that* good - I'll try to find references
3a. There are several instances of Jesus advising against the run of the prevailing law - the stoning of the adulteress springs to mind.
3b. Referring back to several previous debates with various members, I do not see abortion as murder and...
3c. I do not agree with the Catholic Church's position on contraception either -
3d. ...putting them both together is, in my opinion, against all reason in today's world - unless you're planning on out breeding your opposition.2. I didn't expect you to do so from memory; but saying 'a direct appeal was made' really creates more questions than it answers. It's very unlikely that anyone familiar with Catholic teaching would have made such an appeal. What about already-born children who may have been harmed? Did the parents want to kill them too? What's the difference? It reminds me of an old minstrel-show 'three-liner':
Mistah Bones, I had ta shoot mah dawg!
Had to shoot yo' dawg? Was he mad?
Well, he wasn't exactly thrilled!
3a. Not a very good example, because there He was preventing a killing rather than permitting one.
3b. You have a right to your opinion of course, but again (lordy, why must I keep repeating things?), most of Christianity, as well as many other religions, disagree. It is hardly a Catholic monopoly. How many Protestant denoms can you name that see abortion as OK? I'm not saying there aren't any, I'm just asking.
To me, speaking medically rather than religiously, it would depend on the progress of the pregnancy. If it were advanced, say over five or six months, I would see it as, essentially, a living child. And I assume from your avatar that you are male, which might also make a difference in your point of view. I could not abort a child at that stage of development. At an earlier stage, were I not observant of Catholic teaching, I possibly might under certain circumstances.
3c. Neither do I, but that has very little to do with abortion.
3d. You can't put them both together.