大象传媒

As I am a Protestant, and do not wish to be sectarian, I hesitate to comment, but whatever the denomination my feelings would be the same.

"And now abideth faith, hope and charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

Funny how God seems able to use a lot less words, yet say more.

And we are still unpacking Paul's encyclicals 2000 years later!

Think you'll find it was St Peter who wrote an encyclical since he was Pope, not Paul.

William - why do you hide behind "Some critics" when you say this is "ecclesiastical spin of the highest order, and will consider this document a route map for annexation". These are your thoughts, aren't they?

It's a particular response to a real situation and also provides a pastoral roadmap for other situations. For years people have been boring us to death about ecumenism but clearly what they meant was everyone staying exactly as they are. This is true ecumenism in action.

Now come on William, pu-lu-ease (!) :-) I suspect you might guess I would see no discontinuity between the words of God and the recorded words of an apostle, as, in 'the same manner also' (!), I see no discontinuity between the words (of God) spoken over, well, I suppose, 4000 years or so (redemptive historical and all that jazz).

So pro rata I still reckon God does less babble and more substance.

;-)

William

"Inspiration is one thing, dictation is quite another."

I agree. I'm not a dictationist (if there is such a word); I understand God's activity to be more organic and communal than that. But there is debate about it all right, didn't the chap who used to be at Westminster, Peter Enns, get in trouble for applying the word incarnation to this issue, or something like that, I don't know all the details.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This is really a lot of fuss about nothing - very few Anglicans will want to take up Ratzinger's offer and the Anglican Church will only be immeasurably richer for the departure of those that do. I am reminded of one of James Kincade's witticisms when he remarked of a pupil's leaving Methody for Hunterhouse that it was a move which would simultaneously raise the average IQ of both institutions.

Those who are interested in the debate within Anglicanism might be interested in from Affirming Catholicism, a group of liberal Anglicans in the Catholic tradition of which I am a member. The vast majority of Catholic Anglicans haven't the remotest interest in joining the travesty that is Romanism under Benedict XIV.

William, perhaps you're just a poor writer. It doesn't read like, on the one hand and on the other. You have the story and then the negative criticism which isn't your view but some "critics'"

Parrhasios - sorry, but you guys are just kidding yourselves with this Catholic Anglican stuff. John Henry Newman tried it and discovered it's contradictory to be a "Catholic wing" in a reformed communion

Parrhasios

Your last sentence hits the nail on the head.

Hans Kung stated that the major issue at the moment is not Roman Catholicism versus other Christian denominations, its Roman Catholicism versus..... Catholicism.

Hi team! Just back from Heliopolitan's cycle challenge to Nazareth. Great to see the old place again :-) I've missed a lot on the blog from being away, but, Will, perhaps a post on the recent debate between Archbishop thingy from Abuja, Ann Widdecombe, Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens is in order? It was very entertaining, and pertinent to the issue of Anglicans who wish to defect.

-H

Welcome back Helio! Hope your legs still work!

Yup, welcome back!

I'm not so sure if that debate warrants a thread. The bishop and Ann Widdecombe did very poor, while Hitchens and Fry managed to put their points across very effectively. No wonder that the final vote was a complete rout. What's there to discuss?

Not that it wasn't enjoyable viewing. In case you missed it:

Yep

Anne Widdecombe and the Bishop of Thingy. That's who I want representing my side.

GV

Nice one, Will :-)

Bernie - thanks - legs working well. We had a >1300m constant climb over 26km at one stage - that after cycling 70km previously, so it was pretty draining. Glad to be alive. Speaking of His Holiness, I note he was in Nazareth in May. I don't think he could have done the cycle, encyclical or no. Unfortuntately he seems to have despoiled a large area of the Mount of Precipitation, one of my favourite areas of Nazareth, with a large open-air auditorium. Hey, maybe he'll be able to work out a road map to welcome Islam back into the Catholic fold - after all, at one point it was viewed as a Christian heresy.

After my innocent attempt at humor was cruelly trodden on by the 大象传媒 censors I'll be forced to merely ask the question that accompanied it--what is the Roman Catholic churches' position on divorced priests and laity? I was making the point that it was a significant barrier to communion, given church teachings on the subject.

How come Will gets color coding?

William - would you say you were being neutral? ;-)

Tat - not sure exactly what your question means. Catholic Church's position isn't so much about divorce but about remarrying after divorce. Someone who is merely divorced is free to receive the sacraments so long as they are otherwise in a state of grace. If they remarry, however, they are essentially in the same position as anyone having sex outside of marriage. That's what Jesus said anyway.

Will - you are very touchy aren't you? Is that why you get a different colour, does it reflect mood?

Here's the thing - you didn't quote any critics - you didn't say "Joe Bloggs accused the Vatican of etc" - you said "some critics will regard" and then you put words in their mouths. It's a classic standard way people present their own views under the guise of someone else. If that's not what you were doing I accept your word for it. Perhaps you need to be more careful in future or some people will think you are deliberately disguising your position.

I'm well able to read - I read RJB rubbish all the time when he doesn't remember accusing the Pope of being a Nazi or a member of the Gestapo.

William, getting back to an earlier aspect of this thread, forgive me if I鈥檓 being cynical, but I get the feeling you are being a bit naughty to rile those who do believe that God speaks to us through the Bible, and that God did write the scriptures through people. I sincerely believe that. So it IS God鈥檚 voice I hear when I read the Bible, as well as Paul鈥檚/ Peter鈥檚/ James鈥� etc.
Places to go which talk about this:
2 Timothy 3:16 鈥淎ll scripture is God-breathed.鈥� Paul鈥檚 words.
2 Peter 1:20 鈥淔irst of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one鈥檚 own interpretation, because no prophecy ever cam by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.鈥� So definitely not 鈥榙ictation,鈥� but more, 鈥渢ruth through personality,鈥� to borrow Brook鈥檚 term on preaching.
And then 2 Peter 3:15-16, 鈥淪o also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.鈥�
(What I like about this last one is that even Peter recognised that it isn鈥檛 always easy to get your head around what Paul means.) But in relation to the argument on this thread 鈥� the last clause infers that the apostle Peter views the apostle Paul鈥檚 writings as scripture, i.e. 鈥渢o be identified with the words of God.鈥� (your words, post # 6).

William said:

"Some critics will regard that as ecclesiastical spin of the highest order, and will consider this document a route map for annexation."

Spot on William. The Roman Catholic church want to unify all Religions - as long as *they* are ruling as the *true* church.

Mccamleyc - your ad hominem attacks against William are quite lame and unjustified.
Peter was the first pope not paul you say - paul must have got it wrong when he rebuked Peter in Galatians. (There was me thinking the pope was Infallible)

Galatians 2 11:When Peter came to Antioch I challenged him to his face because *HE WAS WRONG* (sounds like a pretty poor pope to me)




J

Everyone's getting very touchy these day, have you noticed? Must be the weather. Some people will say that's climate change. Challenging William on something is hardly an ad hominem attack; I save those for RomeJellyBean.

Anyway, the sky is blue, the sun is shining, I'm off on a retreat this weekend and I will offer up some prayers for all your good intentions, believers or otherwise, even the humanists.

Parrhasios

"The travesty that is Romanism under Benedict XIV."

The Eucharist is central to Roman Catholicism. This is the present attitude towards it in my Church. This is what the Anglicans are being welcomed to:

On October the 2nd, 2005, The Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist was held in Rome for three weeks. It had been a long time coming and was a result of worldwide concerns that the Eucharist was not as readily available as it should be to the poor, due mainly to the shortage of priests.

It is common in the developing world for people to only get the Eucharist on a monthly or even bi-monthly basis. For many this also involves treking for miles.

There was great hope that the gathering of Bishops would discuss matters and make the necessary changes from those discussions, to help the poor. (One third of the Catholic population of the planet do not have ready access to the Eucharist.) This meant looking at issues which would address the shortage of priests.

Such issues were - mandatory celibacy, the role of women, the ordination of mature married men whose families had grown up and left home, permanent Deacons etc....

From day one, in the presence of Benedict, the proceedings were hijacked by the 'Romans'. The proceedings were carried out exclusively in Italian, thus giving a very strong bias to Bishops who spoke the language. Such Bishops attended seminaries in Rome in their younger years, or they had worked in Rome, or were presently working in Rome. These Bishops were all vehemently against any real changes. This is the very real "Romanism" to which you refer.

After three weeks in which Bishops from the poorer countries, the very countries which were directly affected by the shortage of priests, attempted to speak on these issues, they were quite simply ignored.

At the end, the decision was made to.... make no change and follow the status quo. (Although one proposal was put forward that the Church should seriously consider the re-opening of Junior Seminaries!! For those who dont know, Junior Seminaries are where pre and post-pubescent boys leave their families and do their Secondary School education under priests. Remember, this was in 2005!!)

The Pope hosted a 'little luncheon' to close the Synod. The following is a report of that 'little luncheon', from the Catholic Press:

"The menus started with shrimp, topped with zucchini flowers. Male and female 'sommeliers' - with silver tastevins hanging from their necks - roamed the dining room to keep the crystal glasses topped up with fine red and white wines, while waiters in white coats first served 'agnolotti' (stuffed pasta), then later, roast veal with potatoes and artichokes.

The dessert was 'mille foglie (flaky pastry), deliciously complimented with every clerics favourite champagne, 'Veuve Clicquot.' "

At the conclusion of the meal Pope Benedict addressed the gathering of Bishops:

"The Lord would never have chosen the image of a banguet as presaging Heaven if he did not approve of the beauty of a good meal and the joy of the things of this world which he created."

Parrhasios, this is our Faith. This is the Faith of the Church - under Benedict XIV.

This is the Faith into which these Anglicans are being welcomed.

Mccamleyc:

List of critics especially for you:

1 R C Sproul

2 J McArthur

3 J Prasch

4 D Hunt

5 W Grudum

6 R L Raymond

7 J Piper

8 A Martin

9 J White

10 G Fee

"The simple claim, "Paul said X, therefore God says X" is not one that is accepted by many modern theologians or ethicists."

Yeah, it's difficult to sum up just the debate in Evangelicalism up in one line. Peter M mentioned Peter Enns earlier. I read Enns, and I'm reading GK Beale's response. I don't really agree with either.
It all depends on what you mean by "God says". God dictating to Isaiah has to be different than God speaking through Paul. Now Paul could, and did, use "God says" of passages that do not record prophetic speech.
But sometimes our exact form of words matter. (Legal documents and such). Sometimes they don't. ("Shut the door" v "Close the door").
So Paul could make great play on the word "seed". Yet he would freely quote from the LXX and so forth. There probably wasn't one 'set' version of the Old Testament in Paul's day. So I don't think the dictation model helps us much. (Beale wouldn't either BTW). But it's sort of the default setting in Evangelicalism - which is why Bart Ehrman has had such incredible success poiting out the trivially obvious.
So no, I don't read Will as being unduly critical here. It's an issue worth discussing.
GV

"Galatians 2 11:When Peter came to Antioch I challenged him to his face because *HE WAS WRONG* (sounds like a pretty poor pope to me)"

That's not relevant to the debate on Papal Infallibilty. The Pope's pronouncements are only infallible in a very narrow set of circumstances. So narrow in fact that the best critique would be - "what use is it?"

GV

GV Said

"That's not relevant to the debate on Papal Infallibilty. The Pope's pronouncements are only infallible in a very narrow set of circumstances. So narrow in fact that the best critique would be - "what use is it?"

So you don't believe the pope is infallible?

Anybody could be infallible if the criteria was so narrow!
I could say with infallibility that the twin towers have fallen - does that make me infallible?

Why have a pope at all? there is not one verse that warrants his postion or title.

J

I'm a little surprised that my initial comment #1 has become a debate on inspiration, dictation, authority and so on.

My actual point in quoting, "And now abideth faith, hope and charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity", was to draw a contrast between the way we in the church often tie ourselves up in knots when actually the gospel is pretty straightforward. In fact (and this is a risky comment for a conservative reformed christian) the message on the lips of the prophets and apostles, whatever one makes of the inspiration debate, is pretty straightforward.

I don't get past, 'act justly, love mercy', all that often!

However, this article, by Kenneth Bailey, may be of interest, and even of help, to some.

J Said:
"Why have a pope at all? there is not one verse that warrants his postion or title."
Funny that a gospel reading this week (10 November) was Mt 16:13-19. Whether they are right or not, Roman Catholics seem to feel that when Simon Peter recognised that Jesus was the Son of the living God by some kind of devine inspiration, that Jesus then decided to build His Church on Peter "the Rock". The last part of that reading leads to a couple of serious responsibilities possibly including Papal infallibility but it is only invoked over spiritual matters which have undergone a tremendous amount of spiritual rigor and so very rarely. Normal direction by the Pope is not so blessed or for that matter personal actions as Paul's point to Cephas (Peter) in Antioch.
At least that is my understanding and I apologise if I misunderstood your point or direction. I realise this is more off topic from the original thread and so may not be appropriate. Again apologies if it is.
F.

Frank said:

"Whether they are right or not, Roman Catholics seem to feel that when Simon Peter recognised that Jesus was the Son of the living God by some kind of devine inspiration, that Jesus then decided to build His Church on Peter "the Rock"."

For me Frank - Peter was only *one of* the rocks(greek can also mean pebble) which Christ built his church on - Eph 2:20 makes this clear.

but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the most important *rock*, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by [4] the Spirit.

Again also in Eph 4

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds [2] and teachers, [3] 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith

Peter was simply an apostle there, is no record of him being in a *higher* postion than the rest of the apostles.

So Peter was indeed a rock/pebble which Christ built his church on - but he was one of many and he clearly did not have any more authority than the rest of the apostles.
Christ is and always will be *THE* rock which hell shall not prevail against.

I think this is relevant to the thread as *infallibilty* and the popes position effects society and social issues.

J

Jason said, "For me Frank - Peter was only *one of* the rocks(greek can also mean pebble) which Christ built his church on - Eph 2:20 makes this clear..."

Good points. I certainly agree that we are all part of the body of Christ, the Church, although, I'm not sure whether we should assume that Jesus said that Peter was the pebble upon which to build his church :-).


I am just rediscovering my religion and so I am not very well versed and I probably let the scripture talk too much to me instead of reading a lot of biblical commentary or exegisis. I felt that when Jesus was talking about whatever was bound and loosed by Peter on earth would also be in Heaven had a judgement aspect to it. It seemed to me that since Peter had discerned that Jesus was the Son of God by no outward sign but by inward communion with the Spirit that Jesus was confident that Peter's judgement on specific spiritual things would be backed up by Heaven, or perhaps that Peter by the guidance of the Holy Spirit would represent the position of Heaven and so could bind or loose in Heaven as well as here. If that is the case, then was Peter given the original authority to help the church establish its teaching where it wasn't clear from those things written down in the gospels?

Of course that, by extension, begs the question on whether everyone should interpret the Bible and the Word of God completely on their own or look to the Church to help them understand that. Of course that starts down the entire road of reformation and those age old debates which certainly must be off topic.

Going back to the original question of why have a Pope at all? Perhaps it鈥檚 because at the end of the day for the Catholic Church at least, the Pope is a servant of all on earth before you get to the suffering servant, Jesus Christ, in Heaven. Remember that the spiritual 鈥渂uck stops here鈥� model is that the laity tackle anytihng that they can in carrying out the Word of God. What they can鈥檛 do, the priests then help with. Where they stop the Bishops pick up the slack and whatever they can鈥檛 do, the Pope gets stuck with. I guess that鈥檚 why we all pray for the intentions of the Pope to lend spiritual weight to those things he prays for.

#egarding papal infallibility and the role of the Pope鈥檚 position in affecting social issues and society, I believe the two are separate issues but probably confused by a lot of society. My understanding is that Papal infallibilty is used to further define the Tradition and the Magisterium where it's not clear on certain spiritual questions but not to decide on social issues.

Of course the Pope's position does carry a lot of weight and he should always be cognizant of that. So should all our religious and moral leaders. Unfortunately, Rock stars also come to mind as they have a tremendous amount of influence as well.

I hope I didn鈥檛 miss your points and I hope I didn鈥檛 ramble on too much. Thank you again for sharing your knowledge and opinions.

"I prayed for a Papacy which would be characterized above all else by forgiveness, and not one which would be obsessed with the 'Thou art Peter.' "

Austrian Bishop Stecher on the occasion of his retirement.