-
The Grey Lady’s Grudging Abortion Admission
June 14, 2013 | 63 comments
-
The Casual Tyrant
June 12, 2013 | 157 comments
-
Washington Gets a Wetumpkan
June 5, 2013 | 182 comments
-
Slow Lerners
May 29, 2013 | 77 comments
-
Eugenic Abortion 2.0
May 23, 2013 | 68 comments
Special Report
Who Is Pope Francis?
Neither liberals nor conservatives know what they are getting.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, defies easy categorization. Neither liberals nor conservatives quite know what they are getting.
The left has immediately pounced on him for his reported opposition to gay adoption, gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia, even as they approve of his name, which they interpret as a sign that he is oriented towards “Social Justice” and eschews “pomp.”
Meanwhile, traditionalists, while praising his humility and happy to see his past pro-life, pro-marriage statements, aren’t uniformly thrilled either, with some seeing him as an elliptical Jesuit who will arrest the Church’s orthodox trajectory and liturgical tightening under Benedict XVI.
It has been reported that Bergoglio came in second at the last conclave, suggesting that he appealed to those who found Joseph Ratzinger too retrograde (though it has been reported that Bergoglio threw his support behind Benedict). Bergoglio apparently emerged from this one as a fusionist candidate between the two camps in a field without frontrunners.
Still, a 76-year-old “slow-moving” prelate “with one lung,” as a reporter for Atlantic Monthly described him, is an enigmatic choice, particularly since Benedict resigned to make way for a pope with more “vigor” and “stamina.” The choice may raise more questions than answers about Benedict’s resignation.
At one time, the Jesuits would have hailed the first Jesuit pope as a crowning moment for an order founded out of papal zeal. They would have quoted St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Francis Xavier on the need for a strong papacy. Instead, they seemed pleased that Bergoglio named himself after a Franciscan. Like the secular media, the modern Jesuits see St. Francis of Assisi as the patron saint of community organizing, even though by today’s standards his actual views would be regarded as militantly orthodox and he would have seen the conflation of the corporal works of mercy with specific left-wing political programs as mystifying.
Pope Francis makes history as the first pope from Latin America, where the faith is strong in numbers if receding. But perhaps more remarkable is that he is a Jesuit: Who would have thought a conclave, ostensibly searching for a reformer, would pluck him from one of the most troubled orders in the Church?
Some liberal Jesuits have apparently criticized Bergoglio, which is a good sign. But that may not mean much, since the order has grown so radical that even centrists within the order receive flak. Informed reports on where he stands on the theological spectrum within the order will likely appear in the next few days and fill out the picture.
If he is an orthodox reformer in the mold of St. Francis of Assisi and a missionary in the spirit of St. Francis Xavier, he will need to start close to home. The Jesuits have grown so worldly and heterodox that if St. Ignatius of Loyola were alive today he wouldn’t even be ordained into it. The Jesuit system of colleges and universities has gone from defending the faith to defaming it.
The focus on curial corruption seems to have deflected attention from this larger disease of bad theology, liturgy, education, and discipline, of which corruption and chaos at the Vatican are mere symptoms. Benedict took a stab at healing it, but the job remains largely undone.
One suspects the Catholic left is breathing a sigh of relief that his successor may have even less stomach for that task. On the finer theological and liturgical points, where the most consequential struggles within the Church are fought, Pope Francis is probably seen as an improvement over Benedict. A few spirit-of-Vatican II types have identified what they consider heartening quotes from past interviews, such as, “One does not remain faithful, like the traditionalists or fundamentalists, to the letter,” and, “It is true that going out onto the street implies the risk of accidents happening, as they would to any ordinary man or woman. But if the Church stays wrapped up in itself, it will age. And if I had to choose between a wounded Church that goes out onto the streets and a sick withdrawn Church, I would definitely choose the first one.”
The choice may prove even trickier than that, as the Church is both wounded and withdrawn and cries out for a St. Francis of Assisi and St. Francis Xavier.
Photo: UPI
About the Author
George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (146) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George Neumayr
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/14/who-is-pope-francis
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
- The Lehrman Standard
- There’s Something About Cambridge
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 3.14.13 @ 6:24AM
Locally the response seems to be (1) by the older people, relief that the choice was not an American, and is Catholic; and (2) disappointment and dismay among the Kewl Kidz that the Pope is Catholic and that he's old. Personally, I will wait and see. I wish him luck. He will need it.
TLP| 3.14.13 @ 2:53PM
He's a Jesuit.
You remember the Jesuits, don't you?
They were all over Central and South America, fighting for the Godless Communists, for 30 Years.
God help us.
Recusant| 3.14.13 @ 7:08PM
From what I understand, when he was superior for his region, he stood against Liberation Theology, much to the chagrin of his confreres.
mishal762| 3.16.13 @ 8:25PM
Its definitely the most-financially rewarding Ive ever done. Make money with Google. I started this five months/ago and immediately started making a cool at least $78 per-hour. And whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids. I follow this great link
>> www.Google.Fab17.cℴm
Jack in Wi| 3.14.13 @ 6:57AM
May he have the humility, love of peace, and the poor of St. Francis of Assisi. May he have the zeal, orthodoxy, and courage of St. Francis Zavier in speading the faith.
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 7:24AM
Who is he?
He's a guy from Argentina who's been chosen to lead the Catholic Church.
That's about it.
The rest of the Christian world is not really that interested in the machinations of the Catholic Church, for many reasons.
Personally, I'm just glad the nonsensical hullabaloo is over. Listening to "the Wizards of Smart" who cover Catholic-related issues in the media kvetching about how the next Pope will deal with this or that worldly issue was amusing, to say the least. Not one of them ever took the time to ask "How will the next Pope seek to affirm and apply the inspired Word of God to the millions of people worldwide who need to hear the Good News?"
That's because it's not the Pope's job - or the Catholic Church's job - to spread the Gospel. They focus on preserving Catholicism, instead. And given that this Pope is also a member of the uber-liberal Jesuits, the next few years will be lots of fun as the leftwing factions within the Church will feel emboldened to challenge to conservative factions repeatedly on matters of "faith and tradition."
So "Buena Suerte" to Senior Bergoglio - the new guy with the funny hat and the Pope mobile!
Joellen| 3.14.13 @ 7:42AM
Well Dr. Right, like Appleby I will wait and see and most importantly, pray for our new Pope.
As for your comment "how will the next Pope seek to affirm and apply the inspiried Word of GOD....", I think many have witnessed his testimony already as reported in this article. He is a humble man, who moves among the people, just as CHRIST did. He tends to the sick, and understands the ills of what the world inflicts. That to me speaks volumes.
I am worried about his Jesuit/social justice title, but again I will pray that he heed only to the HOLY SPIRIT and not to the world.
As for "Good Luck" to the new guy with the funny hat and the Pope Mobile - as a WARRIOR - he doesnt rely on luck - he is BLESSED by GOD.
Stephie| 3.14.13 @ 8:03AM
Great post Joellen!
Thank you ~
TLP| 3.14.13 @ 2:55PM
Contest tomorrow ladies, and Doctor Right, at Monday's Wes Welker Story.
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 8:30AM
Lots of people are "humble" in a worldly sense. Lots of people also "move among the people" - Bill Clinton, for example - so I'm not sure how that is at all an indication of Godly behavior. And Muslims have hospitals, too, and tend to the sick.
And he understands "the ills of what the world inflicts"? Well, that's good, too...but so do many others, myself included, and I don't consider myself to be a "leader" in the Biblical sense, so what's that really worth???
And frankly, he's no more "BLESSED by GOD" than the guy who lives across the street, or sits next to you on the bus, or serves your coffee at Starbucks.
The constant elevation by Catholics of a man to an exalted position - utterly unsupported by historical fact OR by scripture - is a bothersome practice.
But let's wait and see what Mr. Bergoglio will do before we pass judgment on his tenure. Will he actually clean out the REAL rot from Catholicism - uncover the scandals, root-out the perpetrators and those who covered them up, excommunicate the liberal heretics and clean out the corruption that is at the core of the Catholic Church - or will he simply pursue, like Benedict and John Paul II before him, business "as usual?"
More likely the latter...
And that's why you should look to God for guidance...and not to a man called "the Pope."
Because he's just a man.
Al Adab| 3.14.13 @ 9:36AM
Given an institution with a two thousand year continuous history, it should be no surprise that any revolution in leadership is not sought. Change for its own sake, as we Americans are learning, is a dangerous delusion.
The Church, especially the Roman church, is the central institution of Western Civilization. That this new Pope hails from the New World is a clear sign that The Church understands its supra national nature. To maintain firmly the tenents of Western Civ is a great burden.
The Church is not a democracy and need not follow the fads and fashions of the day. Instead, it is a bulwark against popular morality and it stands as a clarion of timeless Truth which so many, especially again Americans, find distasteful.
Morals and Truth are not subject to the vote and do not change with the wind. There do exist universal Truths and The Church (not alone the Roman rite, but all believers) is the institution in which they are maintained and proclaimed.
Joellen| 3.14.13 @ 9:42AM
Amen Al Adab you speak with clarity.
TLP| 3.14.13 @ 2:57PM
You spelled "Clariton" wrong.
Contest at Monday's Wes Welker Story.
Al Adab| 3.14.13 @ 3:51PM
Achoo. See you tomorrow.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.14.13 @ 10:42AM
Uh, the Roman Catholic denomination has not been around for 2000 years, unless you confuse the Roman denomination with the whole church.
PJ| 3.14.13 @ 10:52AM
Sorry Vernon,
Historical facts are on the side of the Catholic & Orthodox Churches. Primary, authenticated sources exist.
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 11:30AM
Sorry, PJ, but...no, they are not. You are wrong.
The RCC did NOT exist during Christ's ministry (as described in the Gospels), and it did not exist immediately after the crucifixion and resurrection.
It did not really exist until around 317 AD.
I'd be interested in what those "authenticated sources" you speak of actually are. I'm willing to bet they are RCC sources.
The Bible and history are not on the side of the RCC.
C. Vernon - you are correct!
JP| 3.14.13 @ 11:53AM
Roman Emporer Decius wrote in 200AD that he would rather receive news of a rival to his throne than new of another Roman Bishop. He wrote this after he had Pope Fabian executed (see the writings of historians Wolfram, Potter, and Scarre)
JP| 3.14.13 @ 11:58AM
For further documentation see the historical dictionaries of the Christian Church put together by scholars at Oxford (no friends of the RCC); they've documented the works of Ireanus, Polycarp (a disciple of St John), as well as various Roman Emporers through the times of the Goths and Visgoths. Their anthropological works trace the Bishops of Rome all the back to Peter.
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 12:27PM
The Pope's official title is "Bishop of Rome."
However, there were Roman "Bishops" before there was a Papacy.
That's because the word "Bishop" comes from the Greek word "presbuteros" (or "Presbyter") which means "Elder," or "Overseer."
And guess what the Biblical requirements of an "Elder" are?
Well, let's look to 1 Timothy 3:2 (that's in the Bible):
" 3:2 The overseer 3 then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, 4 temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money. 3:4 He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity."
Did you catch the part about "one wife"? That implies marriage.
Is the Pope married? Was the last Pope married? How about the one before him?
No?
Why not??? It's a REQUIREMENT for a Bishop.
See the writings of Wolfram, Potter, and Scarre???
Maybe you should see the writings of "The Bible".
Al Adab| 3.14.13 @ 1:54PM
Clerical celibacy grew out of a problem concerning the maintenance of church lands during the middle ages circa 1000AD. Too many married priests and bishops were passing those lands to their own families and removing them from church control. All part of that long, complex history of which we speak.
TLP| 3.14.13 @ 3:01PM
EXACTLY, Al.
The Bishops were given Land by the Church for them, and their FAMILIES.
The problem arose when the Bishops Kids didn't become Priests, and the Church lost the land.
Thou art Truly wise, my friend.
CJW| 3.14.13 @ 4:43PM
That is not entirely correct,T. Much of the Church lands were owned by religious orders and stayed with those orders and not with individuals, for example as monasteries.
After the Luther and King Henry VIII "reformation" these lands were taken over by the German princes and the English well-connected friends of Henry. Sort of like the well connected current Ruling Class (Solyndra) dividing the spoils in DC.
markenoff| 3.14.13 @ 3:00PM
Clerical celibacy is Church discipline that has proven its usefulness over time, particularly in the struggle against communism. I heard a Russian Orthodox priest talk about how they couldn't stand up against the communist not for fear of what the communist would do to them but for fear of what they would do to their families. Contrast that with the more independent stance the Polish Catholic priests could take simply because they did not have their families to worry about.
Saint Maximilian Kobe is another example. He took the place of a married man. Would he have done that if he himself was married?
Al Adab| 3.14.13 @ 3:54PM
It was not my intent to impune its usefulness Mark, simply to point out its origin.
Not so wise TLP, although I appreciate the compliment, just well read.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.14.13 @ 4:27PM
But of course, no matter how useful clerical celibacy was or is, it is in direct disobedience to biblical teaching on the requirements of those who minister the gospel in word and sacrament.
CJW| 3.14.13 @ 4:27PM
So the phrase "the husband of one wife" means to you that the man must be married, as opposed to meaning that he, if married, be married to only one wife? Do you seriously believe that the Bible mandates that a bishop must be married?
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.14.13 @ 4:29PM
CJW, when you combine the command against polygamous ministers and the requirement of ruling one's own house, it's obvious that marriage is a prereq for ministry.
CJW| 3.14.13 @ 4:34PM
That is your interpretation, and a poor one. Do you believe all rabbis must be married, or is your answer only the New Testament requires it? I am not familiar with the Protestant churches/denominations rules for ministers, pastors, etc. Do any or all require marriage as a condition of being a minister?
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 7:38PM
It's NOT "his" interpretation; it is THE correct interpretation.
Any other conclusion is intellectually dishonest.
There's a reason the Bible says what it says:
That's how God wanted it.
CJW| 3.14.13 @ 8:52PM
Sure, whatever you say is the correct interpretation. You must not be very secure in whatever religion you practice to be obsessed with the Pope and the RCC.
You are not intellectually honest to actually believe that the Bible requires ministers, priests, bishops to be married. But if you want to believe it , believe it.
You do know that the Bible includes the Old Testament, do you also believe that the "Bible" requires rabbis to marry?
You remind me of Jack Wi, He is obsessed with Jews and you are obsessed with RCC. Same mentality, different object of obsession. Get over it.
Again, tell me all the Protestant churchs/denominations that require the minister to be married. That is absurd.
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 1:17AM
And this is the hallmark of protestantism. Whatever I think the Bible (the New Testament Canon established by the Catholic Church) says is the one and only way it can be interpeted. So what if I never darkened the door of a seminary or ever studied theology. However I interpret the Bible (the New Testament Canon established by the Catholic Church. Why should I go back and read the letters of Clement or the Gospel of Peter or Andrew or Dionysus the Areoprogite?) is the way it shoulde be interpreted. Every man his own church.
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 1:22AM
Did not realize that God spoke directly to Doctor Right.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.14.13 @ 7:46PM
CJW, See, 1 Tim. 3:
"This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for IF A MAN DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO RULE HIS OWN HOUSE, HOW WILL HE TAKE CARE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."
Just put two and two together. Marriage is, of course, only one requirement. Anyone who wants to be an "administrator" of the church must among other things not only be married but also must be able to rule his own children.
How can a celibate priest meet these requirements?
CJW| 3.14.13 @ 8:54PM
I am not criticizing your faith, but your interpretation does not make any sense. If that is what your want to believe, believe it. But tell me which Protestant churches/denominations agree with your interpretation and requires the ministers to marry. Also, do rabbis have to marry? The Bible does include the Old Testament, or Jewish Bible.
markenoff| 3.14.13 @ 5:19PM
So there can be no unmarried protestant bishops, "presbyters", "elders" or "overseers"?
What protestant denominations require that a bishop, "presbyter", "elder" or "overseer" be married?
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 7:39PM
Not enough of them.
Recusant| 3.14.13 @ 7:16PM
Well, this is a curious fantasy.
Could you please explain how Arianism (you know, the guys Constantine tried to put in charge) failed?
Recusant| 3.14.13 @ 7:16PM
Well, this is a curious fantasy.
Could you please explain how Arianism (you know, the guys Constantine tried to put in charge) failed?
markenoff| 3.14.13 @ 5:15PM
None of the 30,000+ protestant sects predate Martin Luther so none of them has been around for more than 500 years.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.14.13 @ 7:31PM
There are not 30000 + Protestant sects. This is just anti-protestant propaganda. As if there were no disagreements in the Roman Catholic sect.
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 12:46AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....of_members
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 12:49AM
Technically you are correct. Under protestatism, taken to its logical consequences, every man is his own denaomination. I read the Bible (the New Testament Canon established by two councils of the Catholic Church) I interpet however I want to and everyone else who doesn't agree with me totally is a different denomination. So really there are a couple of billion protestant denominations.
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 1:20AM
Protestants always run into the same problem. How do you explain how the Christian faith survived from the death of the last Apostle until Luther decided to start his own church so he could bang a nun without acknowledging the role the Catholic Church played in promulagating the faith in the west and the Greek Orthodox in the east.
PJ| 3.14.13 @ 10:30AM
Give the new guy a chance to clean out the corruption. He barely got out of the gate.
SUBVET| 3.14.13 @ 10:51AM
Doc............ couldn't have said it better...good job.
Just like bojangles the pope is just a pup-it if anyone thinks either one has any influence on how things are done your part of the problem.
TLP| 3.14.13 @ 3:03PM
That was pretty harsh.
Even for you.
Contest tomorrow at Monday's Wes Welker Story.
Kaminsky bailed.
CJW| 3.14.13 @ 4:30PM
It is not harsh, it is stupid. If anyone thinks John Paul II had not effect on the fall of the evil empire, then he is a fool.
aware| 3.15.13 @ 5:39AM
Only someone who is ignorant of simple economics, or who thinks the communist system is economically viable, would believe it takes a pope for the whole rotten nightmare to arrive at its appointed doom.
JP| 3.14.13 @ 8:41AM
During the difficult times of the Reformation, a young worldy student who came from a wealthy family was struck by God. God himself gave this young Man, Francis, his marching orders, "Rebuild my Church!".
It is no mistake that this Pope took the name of Francis. He is niether a conservative of a liberal - Pope Francis is a servant of God. As George stated, Francis of Assisi was no sandal wearing beard-the-wierdo that so many Christians think of. He was no hippie. He was a orthodox reformer of the Church, like Theresea of Avila.
Pope Francis will do 3 things: he will reform the Vatican bureaucracy; create a new spirit of Catholic evangelization in the mold of Saint Francis (at all times preach the Faith. And if necessary, used words); and he reaffirm Christian Dogma.
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 9:21AM
It's amusing and quite ironic that you attach the word "faith" to Catholicism, but use the word "dogma" in reference to Christianity.
That pretty much sums up Catholicism and the Catholic view of the Bible and history:
"Catholicism first...we'll deal with the rest later. And trust us."
Al Adab| 3.14.13 @ 9:37AM
There was also Francis Xavier, remember?
Joellen| 3.14.13 @ 10:04AM
Right Al Adab, we knew that from the beginning the left would perpetuate their leftist agenda, by incorrectly labeling Saint Francis of Assisi as a socialist, and ignoring Saint Francis Xavier as .Mr. Neumyar asserted.
As for Dr Rights assertion that Catholics put the Church first, wrong again Dr. Right.
We put the Holy TRINITY first, again I'll repeat the Church and its members are instruments and once again I'll repeat - we still live in the world and since we are of the world - we sin.
And in the Church there is a battle, maybe you can log into ChurchMilitant.com (I've suggested this many a time); and come to understand that we know the Church has been infested - but we do not run, we fight - and we fight like St Paul instructed us to.
Finally, Catholics do read the bible Dr Right - and in reading it, I've noticed everyone who GOD chose to work for him - still committed sin - whether it be pride, lust, disobedience - whatever it was they sinned. Yet GOD still knowing they would sin, used them - HE has a plan, and in that I do agree with you "TRUST HIM".
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 11:37AM
Joellen:
This pains me to say, but one cannot put the "Holy TRINITY" first and yet continue to be a Catholic.
That's because so much of Catholicism is in direct conflict with the Bible that you end up serving two masters...or none at all.
And yes...we ALL sin. Of this, there is no doubt. And none of us are at all worthy of the promise of salvation granted by Christ's sacrifice. Of this, there is also no doubt. But I'm unsure what this has to do with "faith" in the Catholic Church.
I'm glad you read the Bible, but again, how do you square what you read with Catholic faith, tradition, and dogma, much of which is in direct opposition to scripture???
Yes, God has a plan, and we should trust Him. NOT a Pope.
JP| 3.14.13 @ 11:44AM
Read the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. About every sentence is heavily footnoted with Biblical references.
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 11:58AM
Again, so what???
Are you implying that deceivers would NEVER, ever sprinkle their deceit with a little bit of truth, so as to please the masses?
If so, you're very naive.
Ands WHY would I have to read the Catholic Catechism to see it's REFERENCES to the Bible?
Why not just go to the original source material - the Bible - instead???
Catholicism is not logical.
Al Adab| 3.14.13 @ 12:09PM
As a Christian and non-Roman rite adherent, I will simply avoid most of this discussion of particular dogma.
Protestants have the priesthood of the believers. The Eastern rite differs over filioque.
The Roman rite maintains a universal hierarchy.
Coptic church still exists.
All these and more yet claim to be Christian and we believers should recognize the validity of each insofar as it maintains the diety and intercessory nature of the being and life of Christ.
This Pope coming from the New World represents an opportunity for the Faith to recognize its calling to preach unto the entire world.
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 12:29PM
You're probably wise to avoid the back-n-forth, but I can't.
BTW, I'm neither Catholic NOR Protestant. I don't belong to any denomination.
I'm just a Christian.
SUBVET| 3.14.13 @ 12:46PM
and I might say a well read one.....indeed.
Great points Doc........it's hard to refute the truth.
Al Adab| 3.14.13 @ 12:54PM
As am I Dr.
The early "church fathers" Clemment, Origen, Polycarp, etc. of course wrote in Greek. In the West, the Church as institution began to replace the governing power, especially post Constantine, and was able to govern its people aside from the Roman authority. The Bishops began to exercise judgeship authority and so on. Long history of development.
This was not the case with the eastern Greek speaking church which along with what we call Byzantium maintained a continuous development without the replacement of government authority under the eastern emperors. The differences in claims to authority stem from that and the authority of the Roman rite to establish teachings and traditions under its own hierarchy.
Like I mentioned earlier, a long complex and fascinating history of Church development.
TLP| 3.14.13 @ 3:20PM
That your Contest Entries were so all encompassing.
Contest tomorrow at Monday's Wes Welker Story.
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 1:25AM
Um, yeah, whatever Bible you read only exists because the Catholic Church 1) established what books would be included in it and 2) preserved it through the ages when most people were illiterate, there were no printing presses and paper had not been introduced into the western world.
Under these conditions don't you think the "deceivers" could have just rewritten the Bible to suit their needs like the Muslimes rewrote the Koran?
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 12:02PM
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 82, reads:
“. . . the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”
On WHAT factual basis is this claim based??? On WHAT Biblical basis?
This is equivalent to those who state a belief in a Constitution that is a "living and breathing document."
In other words, if "Tradition" (which is established by men if NOT found in scripture) is elevated to equal status with scripture, then all bets are off; anything goes, and that's the genesis of the Catholic Church.
markenoff| 3.14.13 @ 5:40PM
Tradition predates scripture. There was no canonical New Testament scripture until two councils of the Catholic Church established the canon of the New Testament in the early 4th century. Prior to that time New Testament scripture WAS tradition.
All major and most minor of the 30,000 protestant sects that have arisen over the last 500 years accept the canon of the New Testament established by the Catholic Church. Therefore they implicitly accept the authority of the Catholic Church to determine the canonical books of the New Testament. Accepting that authority leads to the conclusion that until at least that time protestants accept that the Roman Catholic Church was THE Christian Church.
In Matthew 28 (NIV) it says: " Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”"
If you are a protestant who implicily accepts the authority of the Catholic Church by accepting the canon of the New Testament but believe that at some time since then the Holy Spirit abandoned the Catholic Church than you either think that Jesus lied to the apostles or was wrong. Either way the implication is that Jesus is not the Son of God who would not lie or be wrong.
markenoff| 3.14.13 @ 5:42PM
In 2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV) Paul writes:
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"
Some protestants interpret this as "ONLY scripture etc..." This is a logical flaw of confusing the necessary with the sufficient condition. Additionally, we consider this book to be scripture now. But was Paul writing as if his letters were scripture? Why do we consider Paul's letters (and not, say, the letters of Clement) to be scripture. Because the Catholic Church says they are scripture.
Also, many protestants teach "Sola Scriptora" (only scripture). So why, when I walk into a protestant book store it is full of books that are not the bible?
Protestantism is illogical.
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 7:48PM
I'm not a Protestant, so I'm not concerned with what Protestants think.
And the idea that the scriptures only exist as a Bible is a false Catholic conceit to try and explain away the fact that those letters existed long be3fore the council of Nicea, and were already revered enough to merit scrutiny in the first place.
Your examples are as flawed as your logic. Of course religious bookstores are full of other books besides the Bible; so what??? The insinuation that readers are elevating these books to equal status with the Bible is absurd.
Catholics are not only ignorant on scripture, they are also often laughably arrogant.
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 1:29AM
Yes but they were not the only books that were "revered" (letters of Clement, gospels of Peter and Andrew) and protestants accept the Catholic Canon as authoritative therefore they must accept the authority of the Catholic Church counsils that established that Canon. No protestant canon has rejected any of the Roman Catholic Canonical New Testament books nor added any new ones.
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 1:40AM
But if ny position is "Sola Scripturo" why do I need any other books? Why do I need Joel Osteen's or Billy Graham's insights on the New Testament (the canon established by the Catholic Church) when I can just read scripture? Every man a priest right? We don't need no high falutin theology degree. God will speak directly to us.
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 1:41AM
You should read Eusebius.
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 7:43PM
"Tradition predates scripture."
Rubbish, and utterly illogical, given that scripture describes the exact time and place when Christianity was birthed, both literally and figuratively.
If it ain't in scripture, it ain't justifiable. Period.
CJW| 3.14.13 @ 9:00PM
What was the exact time when Christianity was birthed?
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 1:34AM
For protestants, Christianity is birthed every time one of them opens the Bible and decides that no existing church is authentically Christian which has given us Lutheranism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, the Scott-Campbell revival, Jim Jone's People Temple and David Koresh.
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 1:32AM
Except they were not scripture until the Roman Catholic Church decided they were scripture. Prior to that they were just books that were traditionally read by the faithfull. Paul's letters did not become scripture as he was writing them. They only became scripture when two councils of the Catholic Church accepted them as scripture.
Al Adab| 3.14.13 @ 1:56PM
Joellen:
I look forward to the day we meet, either in this life or the next.
Al Adab| 3.14.13 @ 1:56PM
Joellen:
I look forward to the day we meet, either in this life or the next.
Al Adab| 3.14.13 @ 1:56PM
Sorry. Double punched the laptop.
TLP| 3.14.13 @ 3:21PM
You spelled "Chillin" wrong.
JP| 3.14.13 @ 11:43AM
No irony was intended. The Pope is the Pope of all Christians. And believe it or not, there is Christian Dogma whether Protestants believe it or not.
I suggest your read Pope John Paul II's encyclical Dominus Iesus.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.14.13 @ 11:48AM
As long as the RC denomination maintains its tridentine doctrine of justification, I see little reason for regarding the Pope as a pope for all Christians.
JP| 3.14.13 @ 11:59AM
It matters not what you think. All Christian Churches trace their roots back to Rome.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.14.13 @ 12:58PM
Okay, it matters not what you think either. All true Christian churches trace their roots back to Jerusalem.
TLP| 3.14.13 @ 3:24PM
If not for Constantine, there wouldn't be a Christian Church.
And, no, I'm not a Catholic.
markenoff| 3.14.13 @ 5:44PM
Constantine was neither necessary nor sufficient for their to be a Church. He was simply used by God to further His plan.
Recusant| 3.14.13 @ 7:27PM
Constantine could be credited with founding the religo-political framework of Christendom, but he did little more than let the Church out of pagan oppression.
Of course, in doing so, he had the silly idea of instituting Arian oppression instead.
I only hope that Doctor Right has a greater love of Christ than hatred of His bride.
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 7:49PM
Absurd, considering that there WERE Christian Churches long before Constantine and the advent of Catholicism.
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 1:37AM
'All true Christian churches trace their roots back to Jerusalem."
To Jerusalem but through who? How do you explain the survival of Christianity from the death of the last Apostle until Luther decided to start his own church in order to bang a nun withou accounting for the fact that the Roman Catholic Church preserved Christianity in the west and the Greek Orthodox Church preserved it in the east?
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 11:55AM
Wrong again.
I am a Christian. I don't recognize a "Pope" as having any measure of authority over me, or my faith. Nor do millions of other Christians.
Yes, there is "Christian dogma." So what? It's not synonymous with Catholicism, which has it's own distinct dogma that often differs from Biblical Christianity.
You suggest I read Pope John Paul II's "encyclical Dominus Iesus"?
That's interesting. Because I suggest that you and the new Pope read something called "The Bible," instead.
The Head of the Christian Church is Jesus Christ.
The "Pope" is nothing but the elected leader of the Catholic Church.
It's Catholicism that went astray from Christian principles and "dogma;" not the other way around.
Al Adab| 3.14.13 @ 1:22PM
Dr:
You and I as well as our fellows here should remember what unites us rather than the dogmas which divide. Christ will sort those out. We might do well to recall what Alexander Campbell told his followers , "To be not the only Christians, but Christians only."
TLP| 3.14.13 @ 3:28PM
Listen to Al, Doctor Right.
I'm not a Catholic, either.
But, like it or not. The Pope has a Role to play.
One wonders what the Map would look like, today, if not for John Paul II.
Contest tomorrow at Monday's Wes Welker Story.
Al Adab| 3.14.13 @ 3:55PM
As suggested yesterday, this selection may just have stopped a war over the Falklands.
Joellen| 3.14.13 @ 8:47AM
"He's just a man", so was Saint Peter, who JESUS proclaimed to be the Rock of HIS Church.
As for the rest of your words, I am surprised that you took some of it out of context - equating bubba clinton to a man of faith; and I never said he was MORE blessed than anyone, so I repeat, as a man of faith, he relys on GOD to provide in this new endeavor. As for elevating a man to an exalted position - as a Catholic - I understand he is an instrument of the Holy Spirit - do I Respect that position - yes, just like I respect the owner of the company I work for.
You and I both know Dr. Right, the world is corrupt and all in it. You are right the Catholic Church has its ills - and I'll be the first to call it out, which I have. But the difference between the two of us, I have faith that the HOLY SPIRIT will lead and I know that GOD wins in the long run.
So again, I will be still and pray it out.
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 9:28AM
Yes, just a man.
And no, NOT like the Apostle Peter, who spent 3 years side-by-side with Christ, personally witnessed His miracles, listened to His teachings, and was personally tasked by Christ top spread His word (Christ's word - NOT the Catholic Church's word) among the people.
In other words, Mr. Bergoglio, like all other Popes before him, was NOT selected by Christ.
And he does NOT represent a lineage that stretches all the way back to Peter. First of all, Peter was NEVER a Pope; that's a fallacy that Catholics are happy to spread in service to their organization. Second, if true, that would include many Popes who were lecherous, deceitful, even murderous in their pursuit and maintenance of power. How is that in any way "Godly"?
The Catholic Church is now and has always been primarily a political organization that has used the venere of Christianity as cover. A brief study of scripture will reveal numerous instances where Catholic practices are in DIRECT opposition to God's Word, but most Catholics never bother to find out why this is so...they just accept the deceit, and move on.
FYI...ALL Christians are "Saints." Again...read the Bible.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.14.13 @ 10:46AM
As a Protestant, I agree with most of your sentiments here Doc. However, at this point, I think we should be supportive of a good Pope. While the Roman denomination needs a great deal of theological reform, the main problem now is moral and political reform. I would be glad for a Pope that stood for Christian values against liberalism and moral decline.
SUBVET| 3.14.13 @ 11:04AM
Vernon......sir the reformation you speak of will never happen. The players behind the seens will not let it happen.
Why should anyone support something they don't believe in. I woke up the day I questioned why do I have to tell another "man" my sins.
My relationship is with the LORD.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.14.13 @ 11:45AM
True, but would you rather have a Roman denomination dedicated to removing homosexuals from its priesthood or one that celebrates the homosexual lifestyle?
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 1:51AM
Yeah, not the players behind the seens (sic) but the people in the pews. Anyone who doesn't agree with the Catholic Church's teachings has several thousand protestant denominations to choose from. But those of us who actually agree with the Church's teachings have nowhere else to go. We, the people, will keep the Church Catholic no matter what the people behind the seens (sic) want to do.
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 11:42AM
"Support" is a double-edged sword, Vern, that can mean many things.
I, too, would welcome a Pope who would TRULY reform Catholicism in order to clean-up the RCC and, most importantly, to steer Catholics back towards a simpler, truer Christianity, as this could only strengthen the Christian world.
But this will NEVER happen. The College of Cardinals would never select a man whose principles were dedicated to tearing-down ("reforming") the institution they have spent their entire lives serving.
No, they will select a man who will do some PR-oriented surface reform for the masses, but will maintain the Catholic Church's "integrity" and not upset the proverbial apple cart.
In other words...business as usual.
How can anyone support that???
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 1:48AM
"the Roman denomination needs a great deal of theological reform"
Like following mainline protestant denominations in accepting divorce, homosexuality, married clergy, openly homosexual clergy and contraception?
Jack in Wi| 3.14.13 @ 11:20AM
Dr. Right is wrong as usual. Read the Book of Acts. Peter is the leader of the Apostles. In the whole 4 Gospels Peter is mentioned the most by far. He is the Lords second in command and was given the keys to the Kingdom, even though he failed the Lord 3 times at the night of the Crucifiction. At the Lords command he was the first to go to the gentiles at the house of Cornelious and eat with and baptise the gentiles. The leader of the Church in Rome was always the leader of Christianity ever since the time of Peter. It was true then at it is true now. 35,000 Protestant sects are nothing but a tower of babble fighting over the Bible which the Catholics put together. Christ is the head of the Church and the Pope is his earthly general manager.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.14.13 @ 11:42AM
There are not 35000 Protestant sects. There are plenty of disagreements in the Roman sect, too.
Peter was certainly the leader of the early church of Jews (Paul was the leader of the Gentile churches). But the idea that the Roman pontif is the chosen successor of Peter is just pretentiousness of a high order. Besides, Peter was a Jew. Why do you care what Jews thought?
markenoff| 3.14.13 @ 5:53PM
"Number of Christian Denominations:
According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity (CSGC) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world. This statistic takes into consideration cultural distinctions of denominations in different countries, so there is overlapping of many denominations. "
http://christianity.about.com/.....ntoday.htm
Nice anti-semitic slur there at the end.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.14.13 @ 8:09PM
markenoff, for a refutation of this ridiculous number, please see:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2218
Also, there is no anti-Semitic slur at the end. Please read more carefully.
markenoff| 3.14.13 @ 6:02PM
Even within the same protestant denomination there are serious doctrinal divisions. My first wife was Church of Christ which dates all the way back to the Campbell Scott movement of the 1870s. The church where she was raised allowed instrumental music and celebrated Christmas. When we moved to Cincinnati the first CHurch of Christ we attended neither used instrumental music nor celebrated Christmas. We settled on another that did not use instrumental music but did celebrate Christmas. The argument against instrumental music was that the early Christians did not use instrumental music in worship (how they know that I don't know) so their congregation did not. However, I know that the early Christians did not use PA systems and big screen Powerpoint presentations in their worship but for some reason this congregation die. This illustrates the anarchy of protestantism when anyone (Jim Jones, David Koresh) can start their own church.
Additionally, the educational requirements to be a protestant minister are much lower than to even be a Catholic Deacon. I know my brother in law had much more rigorous instruction for five years than any of the protestant pastors at the churches I attended with my ex-wife and certainly more than the Reverends Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 7:51PM
Actually, the Church of Christ dates back to...Christ.
Campbell did not establish a Church; he merely helped to RESTORE it.
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 1:45AM
So Luther, Wesley etc. got it wrong?
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 1:56AM
Does not explain how three churches that were ostensibly the same denomination could have three so diametrically opposite teachings. Is it a sin to use instrumental musis during worship or not? Is it a sin to celebrate Christmas or not?
Again, goes back to the point that if you are protestant you can just make it up to suit yourself. Every man his own churh. Why is your interpetation of the New Testament (the Canon established by the Catholic Church) any valider than mine?
markenoff| 3.14.13 @ 6:06PM
C. Vernon Crisler: Christ was a Jew. Why do you care what Jews thought?
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.14.13 @ 8:04PM
markenoff, perhaps you are unfamiliar with Jackboot in WI and his incessant attacks upon Israel and Jews.
Occam's Tool| 3.15.13 @ 8:12PM
Markenoff: Mr. Crisler is absolutely correct. FudgePacker Jack from Wi. is an antisemite of the first order, whereas Mr. Crisler, to the best of my knowledge, errs only in assessment of the relative worth of some baseball players. :-)
In doing his final line, Mr. Crisler was kicking the Jackboot in his non-existent cojones, NOT slurring Jews. Trust me on this one. I would not steer you wrong. Mr. Crisler is a lovely man, and a Righteous Gentile. A perusal of his oevre would quickly reveal this.
I would have nice people who should be friends recognize their niceness, Markenoff. :-)
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 11:46AM
Jack, in regards to you, I've never been wrong.
And I'm not wrong here, either.
NONE of which you say in any way makes Peter the "first Pope," or provides any basis whatsoever for the foundation, structure, organization, ands VAST WEALTH of the Catholic Church and their "Princes," the Cardinals. Additionally, there is no historical or Biblical proof whatsoever that the Pope is Christ's "earthly general manager."
NONE. ZIP. ZILCH.
How utterly absurd.
But, like a LOT of Popes, you're also an anti-Semite, Jack...so I understand the allegiance.
gene| 3.14.13 @ 2:38PM
The Pope is indeed the "Bishop of Rome". However in the first centuries of the Church he did not have any authority over any other Bishops in other regions. They were autonomous.
That came later in the 4th Century. Only later did this concept arise that he had authority over "ALL" the other Bishops. That is a part of history that many seem to forget about.
gene| 3.14.13 @ 2:54PM
Also Peter who was to be infallible on matters of faith did just the opposite when confronted by Paul in Gallatians. He stated that Paul was right not him.
Recusant| 3.14.13 @ 7:41PM
Infallibility does not equal impeccability, and it only pertains only to his teaching, which we see in Acts.
markenoff| 3.14.13 @ 5:46PM
So who spread Christ's word after Peter died? You have to accont for the 1500 years between Peter and Luther.
Recusant| 3.14.13 @ 7:38PM
I have.
Isaiah 22:22
Matthew 16:19
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 1:44AM
Well he didn't spend 3 years side-by-side with Christ. He also didn't deny Him three times in one night. He has, however, spent a lifetime serving Christ. Might be a good start.
Derek Leaberry| 3.14.13 @ 9:11AM
More than likely we have in Pope Francis I a plodding caretaker who will perform the job for a decade. Don't expect conservative vigor. As for devotees of the Latin Mass, we will be further on the outside than we were under Pope Benedict XVI. Jesuits despise the Latin Mass.
Recusant| 3.14.13 @ 7:42PM
Well, you won't get far with that attitude.
He isn't your ideal candidate, but work with what you have.
MelvinNC| 3.14.13 @ 9:28AM
My beloved wife is a Roman Catholic. Myself I am what I call a Catholic wannabe. Taking half hearted steps to become of this faith.
I really loved Pope John Paul, Pope Benedict, I didn't feel the way that I felt for John Paul, but Pope Francis, I feel humility, understanding, and above all....humanity.
This is the Pope that I want to be baptized under. Today after work I am going down our Parish and sign up for the classes, so that I can be baptized.
"So Melvin why tell us this." Even though I have not met many of you who post regularly, in an indirect way I have befriended you, and consider you my on-line friends. And through the years have take your criticisms and advice in stride.
My dear friends I just feel joyous today. God bless you Pope Francis.
I know I haven't received my Catholic bonafides yet, but I don't think God will mind.
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 9:30AM
I wish you the best. But don't follow a man; follow God's Word.
Men will always let you down; God will NEVER let you down.
MelvinNC| 3.14.13 @ 9:59AM
Thank You Doctor Right. Yes you are absolutely correct.
I should have said, Pope Francis has given me the inspiration to take the steps within my life, to become a Catholic, and to be a better man, husband, father, and grandfather.
You know, I have been staring and contemplating your brief two lines. Again thank you for your thought provoking words.
Occam's Tool| 3.15.13 @ 8:14PM
Melvin: may G-d Bless you, and have a lovely St. Patty's day. And a safe one.
PJ| 3.14.13 @ 10:48AM
"I know I haven't received my Catholic bonafides yet, but I don't think God will mind."
God is infinitely patient & will always be ready to welcome you in His Church no matter what. (I too like his humilty. And he also seems to have a wicked sense of humor which will be needed when dealing with various Curia members.)
MelvinNC| 3.14.13 @ 11:05AM
PJ, God has blessed me with an understanding wife, three beautiful grandchildren, life, health, and a future.
It is hard to put into words. Why here, why now, why do I have this joyous feeling within my being right now when Pope Francis became the head of the Catholic Church.
I know I have always have been coming up with excuses of putting off taking the classes to be baptized, but today is a finality.
Today, I will make time for him.
Thank You PJ
PJ| 3.14.13 @ 10:35AM
For all those who favor the Latin Mass, the new pope has a history of not enforcing the Summorum Pontificum. I heard of many bishops being adamantly opposed to the Traditional Mass & I guess he's one of them. That could change now that he is pope.
Doctor Right| 3.14.13 @ 11:48AM
The language of a worship service is wholly irrelevant. This "Latin Mass" controversy is just another distraction.
The Bible is available in MANY languages, and it's translation is accurate ands reliable.
GOD doesn't speak only Latin.
SUBVET| 3.14.13 @ 1:01PM
Doc..........it's refreshing to hear someone who can tell the truth about Christianity. I my self believe you are on the mark. I commend you on your knowledge and the way you respond to posters.
Your doing God's work......bless you.
Petronius| 3.14.13 @ 3:59PM
Latin is Not proscribed at all. What the Holy Office and Prefect of the Congregation really prohibit is the Old Tridentine Rite.
Michele San Pietro| 3.14.13 @ 10:47AM
Personally, I trust the new Pope. He has excellent credentials, and I'm sure he will make a great Pontiff.
Egil| 3.14.13 @ 1:49PM
Below is a link to an interesting profile of Pope Francis, which might put to rest some fears of conservatives....
A brief quote from it: "'He's a very simple man. He's very austere. And also, I think he's an intelligent man and someone who is very good at communicating' [said a philosophy professor and friend of the pope].... he has also campaigned strongly against the progressive social agenda of the Argentine government. Like John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, he regards the Roman Catholic Church's core values as under attack from secular society."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....oglio.html
SUBVET| 3.14.13 @ 1:59PM
Great words of encouragement but in the end just like barry you do what the leaders say. The pope is just a mouth piece.
SUBVET| 3.14.13 @ 2:03PM
Egil.......may I refer you to a post above by Dr. Right at 11:42 AM
In other words business as usual........
Egil| 3.14.13 @ 2:21PM
Hi Subvet. I share some concerns with you and Dr. Right about the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and intermediaries between God and man, but I know that there are also many very good Christian Catholics, who are sincere in their faith, and dedicated to the Gospel. Many popes, including John Paul II and Benedict XVI, have done great work. There is still a lot to clean up in the Roman Catholic Church. Maybe it will require a Hercules, cleaning up the Augean Stables. Whatever happens will be God's will, and I have some confidence that Pope Francis is a man of God.
Petronius| 3.14.13 @ 4:06PM
If He proclaims Interdict upon the Society of Jesus, He's the real deal. And if He Excommunicates politicians for Hypocrisy, we have a winner.
Recusant| 3.14.13 @ 7:51PM
Why? The Biological Solution (just waiting the liberals out) is in full swing.
The one young Jesuit that I know of is quite orthodox.
Derek Leaberry| 3.14.13 @ 4:48PM
Questions for Protestants who believe that the Bible is the only source of Christian belief- after Jesus ascended back to Heaven, who came up with the Gospel and the several books of the Bible? Did Our Lord have Guttenberg print up a few? But that's right, Guttenberg only invented the printing press in 1450. Or was it the Apostles, disciples and the various learned men of the early Catholic church who wrote it by hand?
vigilant| 3.14.13 @ 5:16PM
We sure could get deep into theological discussion here. Have prayed and pondered whether I should weigh in. I know this: sincere desire for truth is always graciously rewarded. But it takes the thirst and courage of independent seeking, not reliance on a man or an institution to tell us what to believe.
Learning the New Testament's original Greek opened up so much to me. Matt. 16:18 says, "You are 'Peter'--petros in the Greek--a small stone or boulder, a piece removed from the rock, and on this 'rock'--petra--a large mass, an immovable monolith--I will build my church." The same word, petra, is used in I Corinthians 10:4 when talking about the rock that followed the Israelites through the wilderness--"and the rock (petra) was Christ". The smallest difference, not always apparent in an English translation, can have huge implications. Thanks to all for the honest and heartfelt conversation here today.
markenoff| 3.14.13 @ 6:12PM
Jesus and the Apostles did not speak Greek. They spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic Rock is Cephas.
In Greek petra is the feminine form. Peter was a man. Obviously, when conveying what was said about a man in Aramaic in the Greek language one would use the masculine form of the verb, petros.
markenoff| 3.14.13 @ 6:14PM
Meant "word" typed "verb".
Recusant| 3.14.13 @ 7:58PM
1. You are using Attic Greek (Athens 500 BC), not Koine Greek, the dialect in which the Gospels were written in, which has no distinction between petros and petra.
2. Paul also uses his Aramaic name, which spelled in Greek is Cephas.
3. Ancient writings suggest that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, which would be sensible considering the ostensible Jewish appeal in this particular Gospel, then later translated into Greek.
vigilant| 3.14.13 @ 8:48PM
markenoff, you're very confident in your assertions. I doubt I could convince you otherwise, but I urge you to prayerfully research for yourself before closing the door on the subject.
Recusant, there is ample evidence that the original texts were for the most part Koine. Very little of the original text is in Aramaic. Peter, as did many other Jews, spoke fluent Koine Greek, as it was the common trade language of the time. His Greek, in fact (NOT translated from Aramaic, as you postulate), was very sophisticated. Yes, one word is masculine and one feminine--in the Koine, which I am using, and which certainly DOES differentiate between the two words. Explain it away as you need to.
Try as I might, markenoff, I can't make sense of your last sentence. Sounds like convoluted logic used to force the facts to agree with one's preconceptions. But argument isn't productive and not my intent here. My hope is that someone reading this will give it some deeper thought and begin searching Scripture for themselves, rather than relying on what they've always assumed because someone they trusted told them it was so. It would be a sad thing to be counted among those who are "ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth", which truth is simple and profound, and leads to a peace which passes understanding because it invites us into an intimate relationship with its Author. That's all I wish, Greek and Aramaic notwithstanding, for my fellow travelers here.
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 2:11AM
Never said the text was Aramaic. I said they spoke Aramaic. So when Christ called Peter His rock he would have done it in Aramaic even if the both spoke Koine Greek.
"Peter, as did many other Jews, spoke fluent Koine Greek"
This is an assertion that you have zero proof of. Zilch, nada.
I though my last sentence was very clear but I will explain it for you.
vigilant is talking about reading "the New Testament's original Greek" and finding that in his Greek version Peter is referred to as "petros" the Greek for small rock as oposed to "petra" a large or foundational rock. My point is that it is very unlikely, even if both Christ and Peter were fluent in Koine Greek, that they would have used Koine Greek on a daily basis if their shared native tongue was Aramaic. Therefore when Christ called Peter His rock on which he would build His church He used the Aramaic (their shared native language) word Cephas for rock and not the Koine Greek (which you assert Peter knew with no evidence) and later when Matthew wrote the Gospel in Greek and had to translate what he heard in Aramaic into Greek he used the masculine form of the Koine Greek word rock (petros) because Simon Peter (Cephas) was a man. Obviously if you were writing the Gospel (even if you did not know it would be a Gospel until accepted as Canonical by a council of the Catholic Church 300 or so years later) you would want to have gender agreement between your nouns. I hope that clarifies things for you.
Belianis | 3.14.13 @ 9:15PM
In 2012 a very conceited jackass who described himself as a devout Catholic--obviously as devout as Biden and Pelosi--said that he did not like Pope Benedict.
Well, since he clearly does not like wurst and sauerkraut let us see if churrasco and gnocchis are more to his liking.
Occam's Tool| 3.15.13 @ 8:01PM
I wish the Church luck in stopping the rise of Islamofascism in Europe. I fear that battle is already lost.
markenoff| 3.16.13 @ 2:14AM
I believe in our lifetime the Vatican will be forced to leave Italy due to Islamofascist pressure. I predict they will relocate to Brazil. We will see waves of non believers in Mo, the pedophile bandit (may he rot in hell) flee Europe for the western hemisphere. We will also see the wholesale desecration of US military graves in newly Islamicized European countries. The vandalism has already started.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 3.17.13 @ 5:58PM
That will never happen but militant anti-clerical elements within secular Western European society could just as the Bolsheviks drove much of the Russian Orthodox Church underground. The Wahhabists would be ill advised to stoke the fires of nationalism within Europe as they could very well find themselves on the receiving end of nationalist wrath if and when the European Union falls apart. They shouldn't forget that the Europeans are just two or more generations away from ancestors who slaughtered millions upon millions of fellow Europeans what do you think they would do to Wahhabist outsiders or invaders? The tribal nature of Europe is not dead it is just laying dormant for the time being like a volcano about to explode.