ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Church of England delays suicide

I'm a little surprised at the result of the Synod vote as I was confident that the Anglicans were literally Hell-bent on following the Episcopalians in their death spiral into the historical dustbin of post-Christianity:
In a knife-edge decision at a special sitting of the Synod in London, bishops and clergy voted through the change by large majorities.  But the measure failed to secure the required two thirds support among representatives of the laity by just 6 votes.  Although 324 members of the Synod voted in favour of the change, 124 voted against and 11 abstained.
It's amazing that so many churches are determined to follow the world rather than the Word.  But then, it was written that they would do precisely that.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that a nominally Christian denomination that ordains women isn't Christian, merely that it won't be Christian for long.

Labels: ,

215 Comments:

1 – 200 of 215 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Heh November 20, 2012 2:29 PM  

The Left was so exhausted from rigging the Presidential election they didn't have time to rig this one.

But, it doesn't matter. There will be another vote... and another... and another... until the Left gets what it wants. And then never again!

Anonymous stg58 November 20, 2012 2:49 PM  

A South Carolina parish broke off from EP USA this week. The bishop there said they had had enough with the national church body. Delay of suicide here, too.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner November 20, 2012 2:51 PM  

Churchian divorcees are so hawt, and they will tell you; yes they can preach jus like Poppa.

Real men, like Jesus, needs to get into the Churchians, as it was written.

Blogger Christina November 20, 2012 2:54 PM  

It's so freakin depressing. It doesn't matter what non-ecclesiastical churches believe, we've got a bunch of ecclesiastical churches stateside floating around in an ambiguous abyss with no dioceses, no bishops, and no connection to one another - and its kinda painful for them. First the ECU went pagan and then this with the Anglican convention. Seriously depressing.

Anonymous Anonymous November 20, 2012 2:55 PM  

Of course they should have voted in women bishops. The obvious next move would then be to change the main prayer to 'Our Mother who art in heaven.....'

Anonymous JP (real one) November 20, 2012 2:59 PM  

"A South Carolina parish broke off from EP USA this week. The bishop there said they had had enough with the national church body. Delay of suicide here, too."

Conservative/Continuing Anglicans are totally different from the ECUSA or CoE. Like most other denoms (Methodists, Presbyterians), you have the mainline/liberals who have been off-track for decades, and more faithful groups who split off.

Anonymous drose November 20, 2012 3:07 PM  

You haven't seen weird until you've been to a Pentacostal church pastored by a woman. It's like a carnival freakshow with free admisson.

Anonymous JartStar November 20, 2012 3:09 PM  

Having recently attended a denomination who allows women clergy for 2 months it became clear that the focus was not on Christ but rather on a very nebulous “personal walk with Jesus”. The walk was never clearly defined and we left as the church as it was so lightweight in theology and topics it felt more of a social club of very nice people who listened to Christian music.

There were many good Christians in the church, but it was so sorely lacking in depth it is arguable that an unchurched person who joined could scarcely be called a Christian based upon what they were teaching.

Anonymous Anonymous November 20, 2012 3:10 PM  

A knife edge decision that is also by a large majority? Awesome journalism.

--Hale

Anonymous The irReverend Idle Spectator November 20, 2012 3:15 PM  

Ordain the women Vox. They already run their limp-dicked Christian men and families into the ground and have feminized the church. Let them be in charge of the holy corpse. You know, because Jesus was a servant and no one is really in charge and everyone is equal and stuff, but the woman still needs to be put on a pedestal and stuff because apparently it is still 1952 with drive-in movies and she's a special angel. Or so I have been told. Hey woman, you wanted to drive...

Churches can be good places for those church girls bored with the usual Christian nice guys. Or that special "I'm not like that anymore..." woman, followed by the "It was a mistake" divorced girl.

"Would you like to join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" WOULD I?!
"Have you heard the good news about Presbyterianism?" Not yet! Tell me more!
"It's fortold by Jehovah that only..." Come on in!
"Seventh-day Adventists practice a strict diet with..." Thin women? I'm there.

Sluts in the name of the Lord and resurrected Penis Sword. Hallelujah!

Blogger vandelay November 20, 2012 3:19 PM  

I wouldn't go so far as to say that a nominally Christian denomination that ordains women isn't Christian, merely that it won't be Christian for long.

This is very true. My brother is an associate pastor at a small rural, traditional church, though his personal theology is very liberal and progressive. He beleives women should be ordained/preachers, as well as just about every other liberal orthodoxy you could think of, and yet is a deep beleiver in Christ and that Jesus' offer of redemption is the heart of Christianity, rather than some nebulous, undefined notions of love and forgiveness that you'll often see. Though I'm not a Christian myself (I'm agnostic) I beleive that he is one, though I just don't think he understands the full implications of his political stands.

Blogger Shmiggen Mghow November 20, 2012 3:25 PM  

I'm glad I was raised Catholic. We're the Marine Corps of Christianity, and we're not changing for anyone. If you go to a Latin Mass, you are witnessing how it has been done for centuries.

Anonymous Kickass November 20, 2012 3:27 PM  

We just decided not to join a Church that is doing incredibly good works in the area because we got to know some things that were not good signs.

While they had the works in spades an older and "dominating" Pastor was run off and replaced by a very, very young guy. When asking around the women whether or not women would pastor there or not they had smirks on and said "not YET!".

I think this is one the first symptoms. Kind of a random cough that pops up on a soon to be cancer patient. It may not be the end for that Church, but if not stopped it is the beginning of the end.

Anonymous Kickass November 20, 2012 3:30 PM  

Shmiggen, according to the Bible you are the half-breed child of Christianity and a not so nice women.

And yes, the Mass has not been changed for centuries but it was done under a different name. Have you researched that one yet?

It is eye opening when one stops being spoon fed and starts researching history for themself.

Best to you.

Anonymous Anonymous November 20, 2012 3:30 PM  

If you go to a Latin Mass, you are witnessing how it has been [Pointlessly] done for centuries.

There. Fixed it for you.

--Hale

Anonymous rienzi November 20, 2012 3:32 PM  

The surprising thing is that they were actually able to gin up a grand total of 206 votes for the "House of Laity". There are actually that many members of the laity left in the C of E? Not just delegates but total laity? Amazing!!

Anonymous TLM November 20, 2012 3:33 PM  

Shmiggen Mghow

Surely you jest?

Anonymous LI November 20, 2012 3:35 PM  

I'm not Christian, but I find discussions like this very interesting. I know you guys criticize most aspects of mainstream Christianity. I am sincerely interested to know what you consider real Christianity and what your ideal church would look like.

Blogger JDC November 20, 2012 3:45 PM  

The Anglican church will probably do what the ELCA did when voting on ordaining homosexuals and blessing same-sex marriages. What the ELCA did was change the rules to require only a simple majority as opposed to a 2/3. The ELCA's churchwide council, 6 months before the churchwide assembly, decided that since ordaining homosexuals and blessing same-sex marriages wasn't a big deal (my words) it should only require a simple majority instead of the established precedent of 2/3 for major changes.

Now - the kicker here - is that since it was a recommendation from the ELCA council - it needed a 2/3 vote to overturn. So it goes - the resolutions for ordaining homosexuals (55%) and blessing same-sex marriages (61%) passed.

In a pastor's conference 2 months later, our the presiding bishop then and now - mark hanson, gave a presentation. During Q&A I asked him what the council's reasons were for changing the 2/3 requirement to a simple majority. He hemmed and hawed for a bit and then stated, "I can see how some would view this as manipulative." He then went on to say that to overturn these resolutions, a 2/3 vote of the CWA would be required.

I expect similar shenanigans with the Anglicans in the next decade.

Blogger JDC November 20, 2012 3:50 PM  

Quote:Of course they should have voted in women bishops. The obvious next move would then be to change the main prayer to 'Our Mother who art in heaven.....'

Some churches are already worship at the altar of the

"feminine persona"

Anonymous willneverpostagain November 20, 2012 3:58 PM  

They should have taken advantage of the vote. Here you had 324 members who actually outed themselves as the evil influence in the church!! A truly Christian church would have had them kicked out. Let them start their own "Church of the Holy Petticoat".

Anonymous JartStar November 20, 2012 3:59 PM  

LI -

The most important is affirming that Jesus is Lord God and salvation comes through Him alone.

Signs that a church is Christian:

1.Affirming what is in the ancient Christian creeds as true: Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian. The church doesn’t have to recite them, only agree that what is in them is true.

2.Believing the Bible is the inspired word of God.

3.Properly teaching the Law, that we are sinners, and the Gospel, that through Jesus Christ one is forgiven when repentant of their sins.

You will find that when women are introduced into the clergy one or more of these things falls by the wayside over time. For instance: sin will be redefined to fit with the times (homosexuality comes to mind), or God will be redefined as a gender neutral instead of Father.

I've heard the latter with my own ears in the last month from a woman pastor.

Anonymous JartStar November 20, 2012 4:10 PM  

JDC - My goodness. I knew the ELCA had turned into a circus but I had no idea. Sweet feathery pig on a stick!

Anonymous Mr. B.A.D. November 20, 2012 4:14 PM  

I'm taking bets on how many posts before some fag-hag starts in on how Jesus never mentioned homosexuality so it must not have been important.

Blogger JohnG November 20, 2012 4:23 PM  

"...the Anglicans were literally Hell-bent on following the Episcopalians in their death spiral into the historical dustbin of post-Christianity" - Vox

I thought they already hacked of on marrying gays. In the heirarchy of things that piss God off, I'm thinkin womyn clergy are a little lower on the list...

Blogger Shmiggen Mghow November 20, 2012 4:25 PM  

Looks like I opened a can of worms. Didn't intend to bash other creeds but I suppose it does look like that. My apologies. What I meant was Catholicism was the 'original' church - the very first church - directly from St. Peter himself. All of the other denominations 'sprang' from the Catholic church and became known as 'Protestant'.

That's just a history lesson. What's important is that homosexuality is not endorsed and women are not going to become priests anytime soon. Catholics are going to take in a lot of alienated Christians from the wreckage of Anglicanism and Episcopalianism.

Anonymous Ghost of Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus November 20, 2012 4:25 PM  

@JDC November 20, 2012 3:50 PM

"Incoming!" (Thunderbolts from Eden, signed by Martin Luther. Forward grudgingly by former opponent thrashed in 1525.)

Blogger Spacebunny November 20, 2012 4:30 PM  

What I meant was Catholicism was the 'original' church - the very first church - directly from St. Peter himself. All of the other denominations 'sprang' from the Catholic church and became known as 'Protestant'.

Yeah, all of those little individual home churches and people meeting in the catacombs, those don't count, right? Someone needs a history lesson, dear. Oh and let's not forget that pesky Eastern Orthodox group. Nope, nothing to see here....

Anonymous Ghost of C.F.W. Walther November 20, 2012 4:49 PM  

@Shmiggen Mghow November 20, 2012 4:25 PM

Sorry dude, but you are going to get schooled here:

Simon Magus may as well been the reincarnation of Nimrod [1]

The undisputed ORTHODOX Church on planet Earth


-----------
[1] Guess who Nimrod is.

Anonymous Mike M. November 20, 2012 4:57 PM  

I've thought for about a decade that we might well see a Reunified Christian Church by 2100. The conservative denominations are realizing that they have a lot in common...and that their differences are very small in comparison.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner November 20, 2012 4:59 PM  

Having been raised Catholic, and rejected it, I have yet in my life met a Christian who actually lived Christianity, although I have read of of few suspects, and would delight at a chance encounter.

Anonymous redsash November 20, 2012 5:00 PM  

When one worships God, they must do so in spirit and truth. If a church teaches as doctrines the precepts of men, then in vain do they worship God. It follows that anyone attending a church whose government is not biblical, worships God in vain. (John 4:24, Matt. 15:9, 1 Tim. 2:11-14 3:1-13)

Anonymous Johnycomelately November 20, 2012 5:05 PM  

I'm taking odds on the first female bishop's sermon involving an anecdote from Twilight.

Any takers?

Anonymous redsash November 20, 2012 5:08 PM  

They were first, FIRST, called Christians at Antioch. Note, they were called Christians and not Catholics.

Anonymous JartStar November 20, 2012 5:09 PM  

I have yet in my life met a Christian who actually lived Christianity

How would you define "lived Christianity"?

Anonymous Anonymous November 20, 2012 5:09 PM  

The Word doesn't say that women shouldn't be bishops. In fact, there were women bishops in the NT. It's far more faithful to the word to allow women bishops than otherwise.

Scot McKnight's The Blue Parakeet is a great read on this topic.

Anonymous Matt November 20, 2012 5:09 PM  

A knife edge decision that is also by a large majority? Awesome journalism.

That's actually an accurate assessment. The proposed change required a two-thirds vote. The final vote came in a hair under two thirds, though it was still well above 50%.

Blogger vandelay November 20, 2012 5:12 PM  

I have yet in my life met a Christian who actually lived Christianity

You probably haven't looked too hard. I've met several, despite having been absolutely surrounded by what Vox calls "Churchians" for most of my young life.

Blogger Shmiggen Mghow November 20, 2012 5:12 PM  

Great. Another conspiracy theory wacko. How's life in your cabin treating you?

Blogger JDC November 20, 2012 5:13 PM  

Some time about the middle of the first century AD, and very likely in the year 49, Paul of Tarsus traveled south from Antioch to Jerusalem and there met the surviving followers of Jesus of Nazareth, who had been crucified about sixteen years before. The Apostolic Conference, or Council of Jerusalem, is the first political act in the history of Christianity and the starting-point from which we can seek to reconstruct the nature of Jesus's teaching and the origins of the religion and church he brought into being.
"A History of Christianity," Paul Johnson, p 4.

Anonymous Anonymous November 20, 2012 5:13 PM  

I posit the worst misogynists are those women whose intent is to masculinize themselves and other women.

Such women are very much at play in this discussion.

However, gender is something beyond us, only seen in part in the regular relationships between the genders. On the level of theology, gender is rooted in Christology, and the issue of female pastors was over before it began.

Lewis, in his classic Priestesses in the Church - made it clear that it would become an issue, and we see it presently in the hilarious, but likewise tragic efforts of feminists and the effeminates in the Church of either gender, to somehow re-write the very nature of Christ to suit their social and mental paradigms . . .

With the Church, we are farther in: for there we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge. Or rather, we are not dealing with them but (as we shall soon learn if we meddle) they are dealing with us.

jb

Blogger IM2L844 November 20, 2012 5:14 PM  

I am sincerely interested to know what you consider real Christianity and what your ideal church would look like.

LI, you may have figured out by now that you won't find consensus around here. Calvinism, Arminianism, Catholicism, Judaism, Agnosticism, and Atheism are all represented...some better than others. But it's a mistake to assume any of the regulars are in any way ignorant of each of the various ism's doctrine's or history as Shmiggen is finding out now or soon will.

Anonymous mapper November 20, 2012 5:19 PM  

From my vantage point, the two newest religious denominations for teh ladyz are "Twilight" and "The Color Run". Sad.

A person who believes in nothing will believe anything.

Anonymous paradox November 20, 2012 5:27 PM  

The Continuing Anglican Movement
is doing real well in place like Africa and OK in parts of the US. Same as any Christian denomination. I'm sure they will be the only Anglicans in the future, as the anathema UK Anglican Church dissolves like the Unitarians.

The only thing I see is that these conservative Anglicans will merge with the Catholic or Orthodox Church. That's what happened to my Traditional Anglican Church, it merged with the Catholics for an Anglican Rite. Traditional Anglicans still have the original mass, where the pastor/priest faces Ecclesiastical East.

Anonymous Anonymous November 20, 2012 5:36 PM  

Absolutely true: I was dabbling with the main(dying) line churches; a lot took on women clergy in the 80's and 90's. Ten year later, they "reimagined" things away from sin, salvation, sexual morality, even atonement and redemption. The gay stuff ELCA was the last straw; I left with no regrets. Faustina

Anonymous Anonymous November 20, 2012 5:43 PM  

I'm just gonna leave this here.

Blogger Beefy Levinson November 20, 2012 5:43 PM  

Catholics who are concerned about the priest shortage often suggest that Holy Mother Church should ordain women and married men. I respond that the Anglicans and Episcopalians have been doing that for some time and they're experiencing a shortage of laity.

It's true that the Catholic Church as a whole is the Marine Corps of Christianity. But lots of individual parishes and whole dioceses are given over to Churchianity. The diocesan bureacracies and educational establishments are run mostly by women and a lot of parishes have women "pastoral associates." There are still a few priests out there who are like Fulton Sheen, but many more are either closeted homosexuals or emasculated buffoons too cowardly to take their own side in an argument.

Anonymous paradox November 20, 2012 5:54 PM  

Beefy Levinson November 20, 2012 5:43 PM

Catholics who are concerned about the priest shortage often suggest that Holy Mother Church should ordain women and married men.


If Catholics allowed the ordination of married men, like the Orthodox Church does, I would seriously look at joining. Women on the other hand I would say hell no.

Anonymous johnc November 20, 2012 5:55 PM  

Women's ordination is clearly contrary to Christianity. But then again so is rejecting the Trinity.

Blogger Shmiggen Mghow November 20, 2012 6:13 PM  

"But it's a mistake to assume any of the regulars are in any way ignorant of each of the various ism's doctrine's or history as Shmiggen is finding out now or soon will."

I have no problem with people educated in history, so long as they steer clear of conspiracy theories. My point stands: The Catholic Church is among the oldest institutions in the world and has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilization. Catholic tradition and doctrine hold that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD in Judea within the Roman Empire. The Catholic Church teaches that the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, in an event known as Pentecost, signaled the beginning of the public ministry of the Catholic Church. Catholic doctrine teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is the continuation of this early Christian community. It interprets the confession of Peter found in the Gospel of Matthew as Christ's designation of Saint Peter the Apostle and his successors, the Bishops of Rome to be the temporal head of his Church, a doctrine known as apostolic succession.

My original point at the top of the thread was about how glad I am not to be a member of those denominations that are, as Vox says, 'committing suicide'. That's exactly what they are doing. If they do not keep the faith, no matter how unpopular, they will disappear from the face of the earth. Thus far Catholicism hasn't caved into gay marriage and feminism. I doubt they ever will, although it is possible.

Anonymous RC November 20, 2012 6:13 PM  

The Word doesn't say that women shouldn't be bishops. In fact, there were women bishops in the NT. It's far more faithful to the word to allow women bishops than otherwise."

True, since the Word never uses the term. There are a few no-so-nebulous remarks about women not being in authority over men, submission, and so forth. But feel free to join the majority of bishops and twist away.

I recently had a book given to me written by one of the founders of Willow. He actually argued that Paul's instruction to women was because they were not yet prepared to teach. It then followed that no one would want someone teaching who was unprepared; therefore, once the unprepared women and men had been prepared, they should both be allowed to teach. Apparently Paul could not be perfectly clear because of the existing culture. It's entertaining when theologians shove God into their box.

What logic this?

Blogger Beefy Levinson November 20, 2012 6:20 PM  

If Catholics allowed the ordination of married men, like the Orthodox Church does, I would seriously look at joining.

If the Church changed her discipline tomorrow, I expect there would be a momentary uptick in ordinations but it would quickly return to what we're seeing now. When Pope Benedict XVI was still Cardinal Ratzinger he said (I'm paraphrasing) that times of crisis in the priesthood always coincide with times of crisis in marriage. Imagine Father asking parishioners to pony up because Mrs. Father took him to the cleaners in divorce court.

There's an interesting historical detail not many Christians know about: it's true that the early Church ordained married men, but in many locales it was expected that the ordained husband would stop sleeping with his wife and begetting children:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

In some ways, the Western Church's current discipline is easier than what went before.

Anonymous Anonymous November 20, 2012 6:33 PM  

Get the Christology wrong . . .

And everything else is up for grabs.

jb

P.S. Ghost - good post and link. It will be ignored, but it is spot-on.

Anonymous paradox November 20, 2012 6:38 PM  

Beefy Levinson November 20, 2012 6:20 PM

If the Church changed her discipline tomorrow, I expect there would be a momentary uptick in ordinations but it would quickly return to what we're seeing now.


It just seems contradictory when the Easter Rite of the Catholic Church allows ordination of married men. Another option, I know that the priesthood is to be for life, but if the RCC allowed for terms, say 5 year stints that would really improve the ranks.

Blogger Rantor November 20, 2012 6:39 PM  

@RC,

What are you talking about? The word Bishop comes from the Greek Episkopos, meaning the overseer. It is in the bible and the qualifications for the office are clearly described in Timothy and Titus. The description is in both cases of a man, "a husband of one wife."

After you say the word isn't used in the NT you then claim that there were women bishops in the NT. How could that be. Once you stop being irrational, tell me about the women, plural, who were bishops in the NT. It burns...

Anonymous Mike Polenta November 20, 2012 6:41 PM  

WTF!.

Anonymous RC November 20, 2012 6:42 PM  

@Rantor,

The original paragraph was from anonymous, not me.

Blogger Rantor November 20, 2012 6:53 PM  

@RC

apologies,

@ Anonymous, for violating a rule of the blog, no anonymous posts, and being inherently irrational, I nominate you for expulsion.

Blogger Crude November 20, 2012 7:00 PM  

If Catholics allowed the ordination of married men, like the Orthodox Church does, I would seriously look at joining.

It does - Byzantine Rite. Sure, it's not roman, but frankly we've got better architecture anyway.

Anonymous Kyle In Japan November 20, 2012 7:06 PM  

The Anglicans aren't all bad. They have NT Wright, who is undoubtedly one of the greatest living Bible scholars and staunchly against gay marriage (though I don't know - or particularly care about - his opinion on ordaining women.)

While I'm inclined to agree with the general sentiment around here about not making women priests/pastors/etc., it's more because of socio-historical considerations and all the stuff on Game that Vox writes about. On a Scriptural basis alone, it's much harder to make that argument because the proof texts used in 1 Timothy, etc. are often taken out of context by complementarians and ignore the original language and context (for example, the Greek in 1 Tim. seems to be a present-progressive tense, so Paul is saying I am not permitting (women to teach) rather than I do not permit women to teach (ever.)

The problem is, the crowd around here just screams and points fingers whenever somebody talks about studying the socio-historical context of the Bible. I'm convinced that (for a whole host of reasons) this is crucial to understanding what the Bible really says, and we often miss it by reading it in English with our 21st-century individualist Westerner goggles, instead of approaching it from the mindset and context of the original readers. Socio-historical context isn't the enemy, it's a valuable tool in studying and understanding the Bible, and until you "get" it, you won't be able to have substantive conversations (and hopefully refute) the complementarian folks.

It would absolutely make my day if one of you guys could provide a link to somebody who convincingly shoots down the egalitarian interpretations of verses in Paul's letters, etc. I will say that I find John Piper and his ilk from the "council on Biblical manhood and womanhood" to be very unconvincing and rooted in the same de-contextualizing hermeneutic of Calvinism. The problem is that people like, say, Ben Witherington are very well versed in the original languages and culture of the Bible, and these opinions take precedence over internet polemecists who don't seem interested in seriously delving into the passages in question - along with the languages and social context - and say, "you're just twisting the text around!" with providing any further elaboration beyond what an individual verse says in English.

Until someone can provide convincing arguments otherwise, I have no choice but to accept that the Bible's case against female pastors is not as strong as I would like. That being said, I don't find arguments against the husband having authority over the wife in Ephesians to be convincing at all, so there is hope.

Anonymous Kyle In Japan November 20, 2012 7:08 PM  

Sorry, the first line of the second paragraph should be "...it's more because of historical considerations in church tradition, etc..."

And also "and (hopefully) refute the egalitarian folks."

Anonymous Outlaw X November 20, 2012 7:15 PM  

I have noticed something in my life from church to places like Coat to Coast radio. The women are looking for a daddy. I noticed so many women with their children at church and afterword in social settings found 85% of them were married and were looking for something else. The Husband still brought home the bread but the women wanted something more.

Letting women become priests or preachers is a big mistake. It is a natural consequence of nature; God's nature. Men seem to keep to themselves while women seem to reach out for something that they don't even realize they are doing.

There is a reason women should not be priests or preachers and it is biological not spiritual.

Anonymous Trav. Formerly Anonymous November 20, 2012 7:29 PM  

Kyle, you're exactly right. The Biblical arguments against women in leadership don't work.

I too am also more sympathetic to arguments based on sociology etc. But if we're discussing those kinds of arguments, then Vox has no place saying that "Christianity has died" in those churches or any other such nonsense.

Anonymous p-dawg November 20, 2012 7:36 PM  

The Scripture is more than the NT, which even the NT says. Haven't yet found a "Christian" church which advocates actually following the Law. Also, I haven't found one which is not a 501(c)3 corporation, which is expressly forbidden in the Scripture (even the NT). "Christianity" is a bad joke. Only it isn't funny anymore after all these years.

Anonymous zen0 November 20, 2012 7:41 PM  

There is a reason women should not be priests or preachers and it is biological not spiritual.

Its both. The hierarchy of authority was established by God from the beginning. Man is the head of the woman. Christ is the head of the Church. When women in the Church are given a place of authority over men in the Church, they are emblematically signalling a rebellion against the Divinely established structure.

Doesn't mean they can't teach. Just not from a position of authority.



Plus, they are prone to flights of egotistically driven fantasy, like stoners.

Blogger Shmiggen Mghow November 20, 2012 7:43 PM  

It is being ignored precisely because it is not spot on, but rather the blather of a conspiracy-theorist nutbar.

Anonymous zen0 November 20, 2012 7:51 PM  

Catholic doctrine teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is the continuation of this early Christian community. It interprets the confession of Peter found in the Gospel of Matthew as Christ's designation of Saint Peter the Apostle and his successors, the Bishops of Rome to be the temporal head of his Church, a doctrine known as apostolic succession.

I think most people are aware of interpretations of Catholic doctrine. Some consider them "doctrines of devils".

Anonymous Outlaw X November 20, 2012 7:55 PM  

"Man is the head of the woman. Christ is the head of the Church."

Women are more interested in the process and less interested in the results. Your example points that out fine, won't argue with you.

Blogger IM2L844 November 20, 2012 8:00 PM  

My point stands: The Catholic Church is among the oldest institutions in the world and has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilization. Catholic tradition and doctrine hold that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD in Judea within the Roman Empire. The Catholic Church teaches that the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, in an event known as Pentecost, signaled the beginning of the public ministry of the Catholic Church. Catholic doctrine teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is the continuation of this early Christian community. It interprets the confession of Peter found in the Gospel of Matthew as Christ's designation of Saint Peter the Apostle and his successors, the Bishops of Rome to be the temporal head of his Church, a doctrine known as apostolic succession.

Since you presume to teach us about the traditions, doctrines and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, I'm curious how much you actually know about it. What can you tell us about the Anathemas of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catholic Church's authorized official position on them?

Anonymous zen0 November 20, 2012 8:07 PM  

That being said, I don't find arguments against the husband having authority over the wife in Ephesians to be convincing at all, so there is hope. Kyle in Japan

So you see that the man has authority over the woman, and is the head of the woman in a marriage.

Do you not see this is a type of Christ and the Church? Christ has authority over the Church. This is a divinely ordained hierarchy, and must be reflected within the body of the Church as a whole, otherwise the power of its meaning is diminished, and the transmission of blessings in faith and knowledge are interrupted.

Anonymous Outlaw X November 20, 2012 8:12 PM  

"ince you presume to teach us about the traditions, doctrines and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, I'm curious how much you actually know about it. What can you tell us about the Anathemas of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catholic Church's authorized official position on them?"

I am Catholic and it really don't matter, some or most of the Bishops and priest are stupid, (not ignorant) I have written letters to them telling them exactly what was going to happen with Obama and his healthcare. They all pretty much thought me a fool until now. To put your faith into a man is foolishness, though I believe the Catholic faith I do not spend my time worrying about the men who pretend to protect it.

Anonymous zen0 November 20, 2012 8:31 PM  

Trav. Formerly Anonymous November 20, 2012 7:29 PM

Kyle, you're exactly right. The Biblical arguments against women in leadership don't work.

I too am also more sympathetic to arguments based on sociology etc. But if we're discussing those kinds of arguments, then Vox has no place saying that "Christianity has died" in those churches or any other such nonsense.


Now that you have outed yourself as a wolf in sheep's clothing, I don't think Kyle should listen to your siren song of perdition.

Can you hear me, Kyle?

Anonymous MikeM. November 20, 2012 8:45 PM  

It's worth pointing out that the Catholic Church's policy against married priests is just that. Policy. Practical, not Scriptural - and they cheerfully admit it. The arguments being that a man could not properly discharge his duties as both father and priest. As well as the issue of making sure that Church property didn't fall into the hands of priest's children.

Personally, I think a good case could be made for the ordination of married men - after their children are grown.

Anonymous zen0 November 20, 2012 8:52 PM  

The problem is, the crowd around here just screams and points fingers whenever somebody talks about studying the socio-historical context of the Bible. I'm convinced that (for a whole host of reasons) this is crucial to understanding what the Bible really says, and we often miss it by reading it in English with our 21st-century individualist Westerner goggles, instead of approaching it from the mindset and context of the original readers.

Anonymous Outlaw X November 20, 2012 8:57 PM  

" As well as the issue of making sure that Church property didn't fall into the hands of priest's children."

The Church property does not belong to the priest and the ordination of priests belongs to the Bishops, so it is a a non sequitur.

Anonymous zen0 November 20, 2012 9:01 PM  

Try again: instead of approaching it from the mindset and context of the original readers.

What are you babbling about, Kyle? An understanding of the Bible is aided by understanding the positions of the WRITERS.

Their message is UNIVERSAL, meant for ALL TIMES AND PLACES.

They start off knowing what the meaning of "is" is.

Idiomatic phrases are open to interpretation, but in the overall scheme, the principles are fairly clear.

Anonymous Tom O. November 20, 2012 9:09 PM  

Haven't yet found a "Christian" church which advocates actually following the Law.

You didn't read the NT, or even know it very well.

"But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." (Galatians 5:18)

While it's understandable that an atheist/agnostic such as yourself would not know much about the NT, the your self-righteous attitude and arrogance isn't. The reason we don't follow the Law is because those born in Christ are led by the Spirit, not by the Law, and this is a point taught in the NT. Please keep in mind next time you throw your filthy accusations at others.

Anonymous Tom O. November 20, 2012 9:10 PM  

errata: omit the word "the" in the third paragraph, first sentence, second clause.

Anonymous Outlaw X November 20, 2012 9:28 PM  

<" As well as the issue of making sure that Church property didn't fall into the hands of priest's children."

The Church property does not belong to the priest and the ordination of priests belongs to the Bishops, so it is a a non sequitur. >

Also remember The Catholic church preaches a social Gospel like Jesus who spends little time on an apocalyptic one. Although they do not negate the revelation of the second coming they deal with the now. They are not the evangelicals who are always telling their flock that "THE END IS NEAR". Neither are they worshipers of the State of Israel and end times prophecy.

Anonymous TLM November 20, 2012 9:38 PM  

Change your moniker to Beta in Japan. What a bunch of nonsense about women Bible teachers and pastors.

Blogger IM2L844 November 20, 2012 9:40 PM  

To put your faith into a man is foolishness, though I believe the Catholic faith I do not spend my time worrying about the men who pretend to protect it.

I was addressing Schmiggen's implied ascription of esteem to the Catholic Church. It is equally foolish to put ones faith in an institution. Particularly one that is undeserving of presupposed esteem. I don't think the Catholic Church is intrinsically evil or that Catholics are bad people or stupid people, but placing the Catholic Church on a pedestal is misguided. Facts can be pesky things that do matter.

Blogger James Dixon November 20, 2012 9:42 PM  

> I'm thinkin womyn clergy are a little lower on the list...

This wasn't about women clergy. They already allow those. This is about women bishops.

And the reason it's important to the CoE is the apostolic succession. Christ did not take any female apostles, so it's not clear if a woman can pass on the succession or not.

Anonymous Kyle In Japan November 20, 2012 9:50 PM  

"So you see that the man has authority over the woman, and is the head of the woman in a marriage."

Yes. I think this is pretty clear. But the trouble comes once you notice that the family is not the church, and roles in the family are not the same as in church. This is why I think it's easier to defend the complementarian position in the family than in the church.

"What are you babbling about, Kyle? An understanding of the Bible is aided by understanding the positions of the WRITERS."

I'm using writers and their original audience synonymously here. So your statement here is more or less what I'm saying.

"Their message is UNIVERSAL, meant for ALL TIMES AND PLACES.

They start off knowing what the meaning of "is" is.

Idiomatic phrases are open to interpretation, but in the overall scheme, the principles are fairly clear."

This is where we disagree. The Bible is universally APPLICABLE, but not universally ACCESSIBLE. For example, Paul's letters are written to specific congregations usually to deal with specific problems in those churches. While they contain much that is relevant for us, too, 21st-century Americans are NOT the original audience - the Corinthians or Galatians or Thessalonians were.

This is why it's important to try our best to put ourselves in their shoes, so to speak, in order to best understand the original message. This shows up again in Genesis (the understanding of the creation account understood in the context of the Exodus from Egypt, the familiar myths from other ANE cultures, and temple worship) in Revelation (apocalyptic literature), and many other places.

I've been reading a book called Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes that's a pretty good introduction to the issues involved (and, so far, hasn't said anything about homosexuality or gender roles, the authors seem to be evangelical and don't have an axe to grind.)

Anonymous zen0 November 20, 2012 9:55 PM  

And the reason it's important to the CoE is the apostolic succession. Christ did not take any female apostles, so it's not clear if a woman can pass on the succession or not.

All the apostles were handpicked by Jesus. When his apostles tried to pick a replacement apostle for Judas, they were simply ignored. Instead, Saul of Tarsus, persecutor of the Church was picked personally by the risen Christ. I think this is a clear indication that the human institution of apostolic succession is bogus and redundant.

Anonymous Outlaw X November 20, 2012 9:56 PM  

" I don't think the Catholic Church is intrinsically evil or that Catholics are bad people or stupid people, but placing the Catholic Church on a pedestal is misguided. Facts can be pesky things that do matter."

There is a difference between the Catholic church and the Catholic Faith. I mean even local priests in parishes have changed the Confession of faith from "us men" to "us all". Well hell does that mean my dog, orangutangs , ants and termites as well?

They did it in local parishes to make women feel they were included, ignorant women who don't know they are included in "men" and dogs and cats are not. Most so called religious bigotry is really the ignorance of the Language.

Anonymous Kyle In Japan November 20, 2012 9:57 PM  

"Change your moniker to Beta in Japan. What a bunch of nonsense about women Bible teachers and pastors."

Well, excuse you. Perhaps if you had actually read what I wrote instead of emoting, you would have noticed that I am NOT in favor of either of those things - only looking for a better rationale for making such an argument on a purely Biblical basis - in addition to the clear social basis that is often discussed here and on other blogs.

Anonymous zen0 November 20, 2012 10:09 PM  

only looking for a better rationale for making such an argument on a purely Biblical basis -

Try this:

Women Pastors and Elders

Anonymous stg58 November 20, 2012 10:15 PM  

Yes. I think this is pretty clear. But the trouble comes once you notice that the family is not the church, and roles in the family are not the same as in church. This is why I think it's easier to defend the complementarian position in the family than in the church.

It really isn't any easier, Kyle.

Ephesians 5:21-25

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Blogger Shmiggen Mghow November 20, 2012 10:20 PM  

My apologies if my comments seemed too pointed or even bigoted.

Anonymous Anonymous November 20, 2012 10:34 PM  

Sh Mg

Given your ad hominem, and your complete lack of understanding of Walther or the LCMS, it would seem your comments are not "too pointed" or "bigoted" . . .

Just plainly ignorant.

Pax - jb

Blogger Piedraman November 20, 2012 10:40 PM  

@Schmiggen - Don't let the haters get you down. The ilk are a raucous crowd, but they usually come around to the bigger picture eventually. It's just hard for some of them not to stop and indulge their knee-jerk anti-Catholic bigotry.

Anonymous zen0 November 20, 2012 10:47 PM  

It's just hard for some of them not to stop and indulge their knee-jerk anti-Catholic bigotry.

Doctrinal disagreements are not bigotry. They are doctrinal disagreements.

Schmiggen does not know how close he came to being nuked by the site hostess. She probably had other things to do.

Blogger IM2L844 November 20, 2012 10:49 PM  

My apologies if my comments seemed too pointed or even bigoted.

No apology necessary. Differing opinions are thought provoking. Nothing wrong with that. Excessively pointed remarks are fairly common around here. Don't be too concerned about it. As far as I can tell, it's mostly a bunch of reasonably decent people who can take it as well as they dish it out...usually...as long as it's not habitual.

As far as Catholics go, I'm a fan of some of the Catholic legacy. They've had some great philosphers and I appreciate the way the Church documents supernatural phenomenon. And how about them Saints, eh? They did some cool stuff.

Anonymous stg58 November 20, 2012 10:50 PM  

@Schmiggen - Don't let the haters get you down. The ilk are a raucous crowd, but they usually come around to the bigger picture eventually. It's just hard for some of them not to stop and indulge their knee-jerk anti-Catholic bigotry.

When you run up to a house screaming, yelling and kicking the door down with your Catholic battering ram, why are you surprised to have a Protestant/Baptist/Orthodox shotgun shoved in your face?

Anonymous Outlaw X November 20, 2012 10:54 PM  

"It's just hard for some of them not to stop and indulge their knee-jerk anti-Catholic bigotry."

I'm Catholic and don't think the most of the ilk are anti Catholic, I think they mostly are miss-informed about the RCC. If they actually read the catechism and understood the politics they would see it differently. I never blame a man for his ignorance, only for his stupidity and that is a challenge to do so. No apology's necessary. I don't argue with the ill informed and we shouldn't when they made their mind.

Anonymous Snickers November 20, 2012 11:05 PM  

p-dawg November 20, 2012 7:36 PM
Also, I haven't found one which is not a 501(c)3 corporation, which is expressly forbidden in the Scripture (even the NT).

Churches here in the United States are automatically tax exempt under 501(c)3, just by being a Church. There is no reason to register your Church to be tax exempt. Of the 13 or so churches in my town one is registered, a Church of Christ. None of the methodist, presbies,baptist, lutherians, episcipals, catholic, four square (whatever that is), etc are registered.

So, are you saying that existing as a church in the United States is expressly forbidden in the Scripture or just being part of one of those Church of Christs is?

Either way please back that up, I am curious.

Anonymous Grinder November 20, 2012 11:11 PM  

The so-called Roman Catholic Church is only as old as the Eastern Orthodox Church beginning in 1054. That was the year of the Great Schism, following decades, centuries even, of disputes between the sides. Depending on who you listen to, each side blames the other for the split. I am an Orthodox Christian and although I don't like how they keep preaching turn the other cheek philosophy, at least the priests are men only, and almost always married, and there is no bowing to kiss the ring of some Pope who apologizes to muslims for the crusades and kissing the asses of jews. The RCC was already a mafia-infested organized crime outfit prior to Vatican II and since then has been in a death spiral with closet homosexuals/child molesters teeming in its ranks. This is never discussion I have with my family at Christmas or Thanksgiving since my mother is RC (churchgoer by tradition but not a fan of any of the Popes).

Anonymous Outlaw X November 20, 2012 11:22 PM  

" The RCC was already a mafia-infested organized crime outfit prior to Vatican II and since then has been in a death spiral with closet homosexuals/child molesters teeming in its ranks."

You Probably think as a Catholic I would defend the RCC, you would be wrong. I said before and will say again I believe in the Catholic faith and never believed in the men. Your objection is noted. Now ask yourself why the Orthdox are not subject to the same scutiny?

Anonymous Crude November 20, 2012 11:24 PM  

Schmiggen,

As others said, don't worry. Raucous place here, and hearing the RCC brought up in a positive light prompts some people to object. And others to freak the hell out and reach for their most relevant Chick tract.

And for God's sake, don't scrape and apologize about how you didn't mean to be offensive or bigoted. You aired an opinion and not terribly offensively. If people are going to be offended by that, they can screw off.

Anonymous Grinder November 21, 2012 1:04 AM  

I don't know why Orthodox Christianity is not scrutinized as closely as the RCC. I think it deserves more scrutiny as there has been some shady conduct at times but I don't believe there is anything on the scale of what the likes of Avro Manhattan and Edmond Paris wrote about in their books on the Vatican during the last century.

Blogger Spacebunny November 21, 2012 1:32 AM  

My point stands: The Catholic Church is among the oldest institutions in the world and has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilization.

Except that wasn't your original claim, dear. Your claim, which has been demonstrated to be false is that it was "the very first" church. Typical.

Anonymous stg58 November 21, 2012 2:07 AM  

Here is what I have never understood about the Catholic claim of unbroken succession from Peter. If Jesus meant for Peter to establish an earthly priestly hierarchy which is identical to the Levitical priesthood in many ways, why was Peter the apostle to the Jews? Why didn't he ever leave Israel/Judah? Why was Paul the apostle to the gentiles and spend many years in Rome?

Blogger Shmiggen Mghow November 21, 2012 2:12 AM  

Yes, that was uncalled for. In retrospect it looks like I was begging for a fight. Actually I am just grateful that gay marriage and the ordination of female priests is not on the table within the RCC. Unfortunately it came across as gloating. A simple agreement with the original blog post would have sufficed: that the Anglican church is teetering on the precipice of extinction.

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2012 2:27 AM  

Said so sweetly - ouch!

- Rufus

Blogger Spacebunny November 21, 2012 3:32 AM  

Unfortunately it came across as gloating.

No, it came across as the factually inaccurate statement it was. As to the RCC not having gay marriage and the ordination of female priests on the table, colour me unimpressed considering the gay clergy already there. However, I do think you are correct in that the RCC is unlikely to cave in the foreseeable future with regards to performing gay marriages and ordaining women though.

Anonymous FrankNorman November 21, 2012 4:33 AM  

stg58 November 21, 2012 2:07 AM

Here is what I have never understood about the Catholic claim of unbroken succession from Peter. If Jesus meant for Peter to establish an earthly priestly hierarchy which is identical to the Levitical priesthood in many ways, why was Peter the apostle to the Jews? Why didn't he ever leave Israel/Judah? Why was Paul the apostle to the gentiles and spend many years in Rome?


Paul's remarks about Peter in Galatians seem to torpedo the Romanist notions of Peter being a "Pope". The RCC, like many other religious groups, cherry-picks from the Bible as it suits their existing beliefs.

Anonymous FrankNorman November 21, 2012 4:47 AM  

Now more generally: the entire concept of an "ordained priesthood" is totally unbiblical. As someone else has pointed out, its taking something from the Old Testament and pretending it still applies in the New. They do that a lot.

That being said, I agree with CS Lewis' argument about why the Anglicans shouldn't be ordaining women. If you are going to do the whole "priest as representative of God to the people" thing, at least do it properly.

The push to appoint females to positions of leadership in church organizations is a symptom of worldliness, which if it goes unchecked would lead to apostacy. Why do they want to have women as bishops?
"Because gender discrimination is eeevil!"
Says who? Modern culture, that's who. They are taking their values from the world.
"But where in the Bible does it say we can't have women leaders?"
We showed you where already, and you refused to listen.

Also - look at the motives of the women who want to become "bishops". I suspect that for many of them, it has less to do with any desire to serve God, than with a quest for personal self-fulfillment.

Blogger R. Bradley Andrews November 21, 2012 5:04 AM  

Having unmarried men as priests just sets them up for sexual issues. Very few are called to a celebit life. I am fairly sure that was an addition during times when they wanted to keep church lands from going to the offspring of the priests.

I grew up Roman Catholic and see some alignment with Scripture there and a lot that is far off. That is why I left many years ago.

====

Paul was not one of the 12. He himself proclaims that he had a completely different focus. The early apostles followed the Jewish precedent of picking lots. It may or may not have been correct, but it was quite reasonable given that they were all Jewish, as was Jesus.

====

I need to dig back into it more later, but can anyone note the Scriptures that specifically preclude women from being in church leadership? I am very hesitant to build any doctrine on a single Scripture and that is all that has come to me recently. Please enlighten me if you know otherwise.

Blogger Spacebunny November 21, 2012 5:09 AM  

"Because gender discrimination is eeevil!"
Says who? Modern culture, that's who. They are taking their values from the world.


Without question. There was a woman on the news (British SkyNews)this morning commenting on it. She was saying that while she was a churchgoer, she wasn't particularly religuous (wtf?) and hadn't thought about it before this, but that she believe the Anglican church to be wrong because it wasn't fair.

Anonymous PTR November 21, 2012 5:51 AM  

What evidence is there that catacomb and house churches were not part of the Catholic church.

Anonymous Toby Temple November 21, 2012 6:07 AM  

What evidence is there that catacomb and house churches were not part of the Catholic church.

No rosary. No images/statues of Mary and the saints. No priests and altar boys.

Anonymous Rantor November 21, 2012 6:47 AM  

@P-DAWG,

Still can't find the reference to 501-C3 in my bible...

And there are whole branches of Christianity that emphasize the law; branches that emphasize grace; branches that understand the relationship between grace and the law.

Your ignorance underwhelms.

Anonymous the abe November 21, 2012 7:26 AM  

Why waste an hour on Sunday to get what's available the other six days a week everywhere else?

Anonymous the abe November 21, 2012 7:33 AM  

I was a fairly regular attendee at the Episcopal church early in my adulthood. I read Vox's column about ten years ago about the fate the Episcopal church faces for inviting in the world into the sanctum. It was unpleasant to digest, but it never really left me.

Then once while delivering some things to an Episcopal divinity school, I saw in their stairwell a huge poster promoting thinly-veiled earth worship in the form of environmentalism.

That was literally the writing on the wall confirming what Vox had been saying all along.

Blogger James Dixon November 21, 2012 7:34 AM  

> I think this is a clear indication that the human institution of apostolic succession is bogus and redundant.

I never said I thought the apostolic succession was important, zen0. But the CoE thinks it is. That's what makes it important for the purposes of this discussion.

> Actually I am just grateful that gay marriage and the ordination of female priests is not on the table within the RCC.

Give them time. The enemy will never stop trying.

Anonymous The Anti-Gnostic November 21, 2012 9:20 AM  

I left the Episcopal church and read up on Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Rite. Based on those readings and prayer, I became Orthodox. There is no level of corrupt bishops, obtuse priests, insular congregations, etc., that could drive me out of Christ's Church. They would have to carry me out and lock the doors. Then I would do my Missal at home on Sunday until they let me back in.

Protestants have no conception of the Church as a Divine institution. Thus they eternally fragment into 'non-denominational' mega-churches (which splinter in their turn), the 'home church' movement, and the insidious 'messianic judaism.'

Christians need to wake up from their fog of Protestant heresy. Once the reality of the Church Triumphant and the Sacraments is denied, it all falls apart. There are accounts of Protestant missionaries going to Romania to 'convert' the Orthodox. They ended up joining the Faith.

The Schism between the Eastern and Western Rites is another subject. We are divorced, and God willing we remarry.

Anonymous Jeffrey Quick November 21, 2012 9:38 AM  

Let's assume that the original Church was not "the Catholic church" (in spite of similarities in administration, doctrine and liturgy)
Let us further assume that Catholics are not saved.
I think it's safe to assume that there are folks here who would agree with the above two propositions.
When did the Catholic Church begin?
If it began at any point before the Reformation, then Christians in the West had no chance of salvation within the Church. If it began after the Reformation, then the Reformation was a rebellion against the True Church, and ipso facto evil.
Jesus said, "I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "(Matt. 16:18) (note that the truth of this clause is independent of any claim about Peter as Vicar of Christ)
If the Church was at any historical period inefficacious for the salvation of souls, then Hell had prevailed against it.
Ergo, Jesus lied.
If Jesus lied, none of the rest of what he had to say can be relied on, particularly his statements about Who He was (which are conditional upon His holiness).
Ergo, you're wasting your time.

Note that this argument does not address whether Protestants are ALSO saved. Where Christ draws the boundaries of His church is "beyond my pay grade." Nor does it address whether most or all Catholics will end up in Heaven. (the tradition of the Church Fathers is that most Christians will end up in Hell.) But it does address whether salvation is accessible within the Catholic Church

Anonymous stg58 November 21, 2012 10:19 AM  

Quick,

Let's take that idea a step further. How did David, Moses, Elijah, etc get to heaven? There was no Jesus revealed to them, no missionaries, Romans 10. Nothing. How did people in the OT become eternally saved?

Anonymous stg58 November 21, 2012 10:20 AM  

Quick,

Let's take that idea a step further. How did David, Moses, Elijah, etc get to heaven? There was no Jesus revealed to them, no missionaries, Romans 10. Nothing. How did people in the OT become eternally saved?

Anonymous Orlok November 21, 2012 10:40 AM  

LI-To answer your question what is Christianity it is easier to first say what it is not: It is not this hodgepodge of fear based profit centers getting together on Wednesday,Friday,Saturday and Sunday ( depending on the denomination or creed). What the true Church is, is (in spiritual truth)the body of the Christ .Personally called by God the Father.There are no schisms or denominations in this body.Your curiosity is a symptom of Gods calling. I urge you to respond with a simple prayer for him to reveal himself to you.

Anonymous Other Josh November 21, 2012 10:54 AM  

stg58, people in the OT were eternally saved in the same manner people today are - by faith.

From Genesis 15:6 - Abraham believed God and God credited it to him as righteousness

People in the OT didn't know the name "Jesus", but they knew God was sending a redeemer who would make things right between them and God - so they trusted in God for this and God credited it to them as righteousness.

Remember Job? The dude lived before Abraham. He had no jewish writings to guide him. But what did Job say in Job 19:25-26? "I know my Redeemer liveth, and that in the end, He will stand on the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh will I see God."

Job had faith! God credited to him as righteousness. Good ole' Job will be in heaven with Abraham, King David, and everyone else who believed God for the redeemer who would redeem them from sin.

Blogger Shmiggen Mghow November 21, 2012 11:19 AM  

It is not factually incorrect. Catholicism was the 'original' church - the very first church - directly from St. Peter himself. All of the other denominations 'sprang' from the Catholic church and became known as 'Protestant'. Everyone knows this. Those who disagree tend to be conspiracy theory wackos.

Anonymous Clay November 21, 2012 11:23 AM  

You're pushin' your luck, Schmiggen.

Anonymous Toby Temple November 21, 2012 11:27 AM  

It is not factually incorrect. Catholicism was the 'original' church - the very first church - directly from St. Peter himself. All of the other denominations 'sprang' from the Catholic church and became known as 'Protestant'. Everyone knows this. Those who disagree tend to be conspiracy theory wackos.

Where in the New Testament can we find "catholicism" describing the practices and traditions of Chris and his followers?

Anonymous The Anti-Gnostic November 21, 2012 11:35 AM  

Read the accounts of the Last Supper, the Baptism, fasts, feasts, unction, bishops, deacons, conciliar governance, etc.

Blogger Spacebunny November 21, 2012 12:07 PM  

It is not factually incorrect.


Yes. It is. Your historical and biblical ignorance is appalling. But typical. And your lame attempts to label everyone not as historically and biblically ignorant as you as conspiracy theorists is amusing to say the least.

Anonymous Claymore November 21, 2012 12:23 PM  

R.BA said, "...can anyone note the Scriptures that specifically preclude women from being in church leadership?

Read 1 Timothy

Anonymous Other Josh November 21, 2012 12:24 PM  

If you care to honestly learn what Christ thinks about "clergy" than read this comment in its entirety:

Jesus hates the idea of clergy. He does not want men to lord authority over His body. He is the head – no one else is.

Here are the words of Jesus in Revelation 2:6: “But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.”

What was the practice of the Nicolaitans? Their name describes them. In the greek language, Nicolaitan is broken down into NIKOS and LAITON. NIKOS means “Conquest, victory, dominance over the defeated”. LAITON means “The Laity”. The Nicolaitans held dominion over the laity.

The Nicolaitans introduced the clergy/laity system. They created lords over God’s heritage (his redeemed people), and Jesus said He hated it. Jesus, Himself, is the Head of the church. There is no need for any other. He does not need any “middle-management” between Him and His redeemed people.

Jesus said we are all brothers, and the local churches were to select elders (Titus 1:5-9) from among themselves who would shepherd the local church body. The Apostle Peter, himself wrote in 1 Peter 5:1-4:

To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them — not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; NOT LORDING AUTHORITY OVER THOSE ENTRUSTED TO YOU, BUT INSTEAD LEADING BY EXAMPLE TO THE FLOCK. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. (emphasis mine)

Notice, Peter didn’t call Himself the Chief Shepherd. He was referring to the Lord Jesus. He called himself a "fellow elder" no greater and no more special than the other elders.

That is Jesus’ and the Apostle Peter’s idea of church leadership: Shepherding. Caring for the flock of God’s people. Not lording authority. Not carrying a title such as “Pope”, “Father”, or “Priest”. Not raising a person up so they are above the laity. Christ hates that practice because we are all brothers, we are all on the same level before God, and Christ Himself is the Head and Chief Shepherd of the body.

Jesus specifically taught that men were not to carry special titles in Matthew 9:8-12

But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. FOR WHOEVER EXALTS HIMSELF WILL BE HUMBLED, AND WHOEVER HUMBLES HIMSELF WILL BE EXALTED. (emphasis mine).

No man should ever be exalted to be above the laity. Never. This goes directly against the will of Jesus Christ. We are all brothers before the Lord Jesus. No one is higher than the other.

Blogger JDC November 21, 2012 12:27 PM  

Good Lord RCCer's - and you wonder why people enjoy bashing you so much? IMO most RCC bashing doesn't come from disagreement with doctrine (although there is plenty of it), but with the RCC position that salvation can only be achieved by participating in the RCC - e.g. "There is no salvation apart from participation in the sacraments of the Catholic church."

I have many RCC friends - I respect the RCC tradition - I respect the hard stance RCC takes on certain issues. My respect turns into disdain however when one declares that an earthly institution is necessary for salvation instead of being justified by faith through grace alone. I would think the RCC would have to throw out the entire book of Galatians in order to justify this position.

And by the way - the RCC wasn't the first church. Give it up - you can declare it all day and it doesn't make it true.

Blogger JDC November 21, 2012 12:30 PM  

Quote; No man should ever be exalted to be above the laity. Never. This goes directly against the will of Jesus Christ. We are all brothers before the Lord Jesus. No one is higher than the other.

You misunderstand the office of pastor / clergy. They are not above in any sense of the word, merely "set aside" for a particular ministry in the church. Some call it preaching, some call it word and sacrament ministry, some call in under-shepherding. Any church that teaches that clergy are somehow better are scripturally inaccurate - but anyone who presumes to teach or preach needs to know that they are held, by God, to a higher standard. Doesn't mean better or worse, merely set aside.

Anonymous Orlok November 21, 2012 12:35 PM  

Other Josh - just because the OT prophets will be saved from death does not make them ' christians' they represent the "first, which shall be last" .

Is not factually correct- according to the Bible - Peter was the Apostle to the Circumcised and was in Babylon at the time the Roman Catholic puts him in Rome. Additionally when Paul -the Apostle to the Gentiles wrote to the Church in Rome, he never once addressed the so called first Pope Peter -because he was in Babylon- If you accept Sola Scriptura over Church teachings you will see the truth of this.

Anonymous Other Josh November 21, 2012 12:39 PM  

JDC, the danger is many churches and many Christians have the belief that the pastor/clery is above the laity. This is wrong.

I agree with your comments on "set aside".

There is a need for local church leadership as it is described in scripture. The problem is, many denominations and ESPECIALLY the Roman Catholic Church depart from scripture and form their own system of church government and dominion over the laity.

Blogger Shmiggen Mghow November 21, 2012 12:39 PM  

Eh, I'm not doing the bashing here. I thought people had a problem with my style, not the substance of what I was saying. If you can come up with the Church that predates the RCC then go for it.

Blogger Spacebunny November 21, 2012 12:44 PM  

I have many RCC friends - I respect the RCC tradition - I respect the hard stance RCC takes on certain issues. My respect turns into disdain however when one declares that an earthly institution is necessary for salvation instead of being justified by faith through grace alone.

Pretty much sums it up.

Eh, I'm not doing the bashing here.

Riiiight. Calling people who disagree with you and point out your factual errors "conspiracy theorists" that's meant as a compliment I'm sure.

Blogger Shmiggen Mghow November 21, 2012 12:53 PM  

What do you call it, then?

Anonymous Credo in Unum Deum November 21, 2012 1:00 PM  

"And by the way - the RCC wasn't the first church. Give it up - you can declare it all day and it doesn't make it true.

It was. We don't need to keep declaring it to prove that it is the truth. We need to keep declaring it because individuals like you have hardened your hearts to the Church of Jesus.

Have you even read Justin Martyr?

Read how he described a Christian worship service. IT'S A MASS!!

Hell, the first public act that our Saviour performed on the Road to Emmaus with two of his closest followers was a Mass! He spoke on the scriptures (Liturgy of the Word) and then Broke Bread (Liturgy of the Eucharist). It was in the breaking of the Bread that those two recognized Jesus, it NOT in the Word.

"My respect turns into disdain however when one declares that an earthly institution is necessary for salvation instead of being justified by faith through grace alone."

So you disagree with Jesus, and St. Paul in 1 Tim. 3:15?

The very fact that you use a Bible is thanks to the Church. You are putting your faith in a bunch of now-long-dead Bishops, who compiled the Bible, and got it all right. No where in Sacred Scripture (aside for the Apocalypse of St. John perhaps) do any of the books in Sacred Scripture make the claim that they are divinely inspired.

In fact, many of the letters of St. Paul, taken by themselves, without the Catholic Church's say-so, would probably have never been considered scripture.

The Church of England is just like any other Protestant Church out there. It has a certain degree of Truth. Some protestant churches have more of the Truth than others, and they certainly have more truth than other religions out there. But the Catholic Church, centered in Rome, has the fullness of Truth.

It was founded by Almighty God Himself in the flesh. Every other version of Christianity, or even any other faith for that matter, was founded by a fallible, sinful human being. I will no more put my trust into Martin Luther, John Calvin, or Henry VIII, any more than I would put my trust into a modern man who has just read the KJV and starts preaching on the street corner. My loyalty lies with Jesus and the Church he founded.

The Catholic Church is It. Take it or leave it at your peril.

The Blessed Virgin Mary and I are still praying for all you lost protestants here!

Anonymous Rantor November 21, 2012 1:11 PM  

@Quick,

Salvation is not from an institution it is from Christ and the Church is the body of Believers, even if the Catholics were wrong, that does not mean the Church left the earth, it means the Catholic Church was corrupted. There were still Coptic Christians, Orthodox Christians and Reformed Christians in addition to who knows how many local groups of Christians undisturd by bureaucracy and the selling of blessings.

And yes the body of believers that makes up the Church is all that is needed for Satan not to prevail. No Cardinals cavorting in red or Popes in white robes are required.

Anonymous stg58 November 21, 2012 1:13 PM  

Throw the Virgin Mary in there nothing like a little idol worship!

Anonymous Orlok November 21, 2012 1:31 PM  

Credo in Unum Deum- your quote: the Catholic Church, centered in Rome, has the fullness of Truth.
Shows your true love and god- your fake mother of all whores church. Turn from your idols and embrace Jesus Christ. Its too perilous to continue in your ignorance.

Blogger Beefy Levinson November 21, 2012 1:37 PM  

If the RCC was not the first Church, then when, exactly, did that brontosaurian impostor lumber on to the historical stage and displace the "real" church? Was it Constantine's reign? Diocletian? Marcus Aurelius? St. Paul?

There is absolutely no evidence for some underground secret network of real Christian churches operating under the nose of the RCC. Zero, zip, nada. The first Church was the Catholic Church, always and everywhere. Protestantism was born from one psychotic monk's pride, one Swiss lawyer's despair, and one English king's lust.

Blogger JDC November 21, 2012 1:40 PM  

Quote from Credo in Unum papa: The Catholic Church is It. Take it or leave it at your peril.

Look, it's my duty as a knight to sample as much peril as I can.

Blogger Spacebunny November 21, 2012 1:48 PM  

I love how the Catholics declare every church ever founded (or house church where a few people gathered to study) prior to Protestantism to be ex post facto RCC. The absurdity of such a stance is amusing to say the least.

Anonymous Orlok November 21, 2012 2:02 PM  

amen spacebunny.
Hey guys...(Beffy Levnison and Credo) The real Church is, and always has been a spirtual body - NOT a mixed up half pagan half christian fear centered,man made law based amalgamation tax free profit center. Try reading the Bible instead of burning them along with there writers. Your carnal understanding is an amazing thing to witness. Counter Reformation Jesuit trained and approved maybe -but not God the ultimate Judge.

Anonymous Rantor November 21, 2012 2:27 PM  

@ Credo,

Prior to the RCC the church that included the Bishop of Constantinople was not RCC. The Church wasn't Roman until after the Schism. Get a clue.

Second, that is the most bizarre interpretation of 1 Tim 3:15 I have heard.

Blogger Shmiggen Mghow November 21, 2012 3:27 PM  

I never said it was the best church and everything else was therefore invalid. I said it was the first church, founded by Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD in Judea within the Roman Empire. The coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, in an event known as Pentecost, signaled the beginning of the public ministry of the Catholic Church. The contemporary Catholic Church is the continuation of this early Christian community. It interprets the confession of Peter found in the Gospel of Matthew as Christ's designation of Saint Peter the Apostle and his successors, the Bishops of Rome to be the temporal head of his Church, a doctrine known as apostolic succession. None of this is a secret. That's fine if you protest this, that is why you are known as a 'protestant'. But it does not alter the fact that Catholicism is the 'original' church and that all the other denominations 'sprang' out of Catholicism.

Blogger Spacebunny November 21, 2012 3:32 PM  

I said it was the first church, founded by Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD in Judea within the Roman Empire.

Nope, that's not what you said dear. It's a paraphrase with a slight goalpost move.

But it does not alter the fact that Catholicism is the 'original' church and that all the other denominations 'sprang' out of Catholicism.

Except for the small problem that this is not actually a fact, dear. Continuing to claim it to be so isn't going to make it one.

Anonymous stg58 November 21, 2012 3:45 PM  

The Catholics' claims of everything being Catholic remind me of a two hour conversation I had with one of those 1-800 Islam phone numbers where they claim that Abraham, Moses and Jesus were Muslims because they were faithful and suitted themselves to God.

By the way, Baptist killers, please tell me why the OT levitical priesthood and the Catholic priesthood are almost identical, only differing in language and titles.

Blogger Shmiggen Mghow November 21, 2012 4:11 PM  

It is what I said. Check it out again. And how is this not a fact?

Anonymous PTR November 21, 2012 4:17 PM  

Toby Temple November 21, 2012 6:07 AM

What evidence is there that catacomb and house churches were not part of the Catholic church.

No rosary. No images/statues of Mary and the saints. No priests and altar boys.


Obviously no rosary and probably no alter boys. What's your evidence for no images and priests?

Anonymous PTR November 21, 2012 4:20 PM  

Could someone provide a short summary of early church history time line from the non-Catholic perspective? Say, up until the RCC was invented?

Anonymous stg58 November 21, 2012 4:25 PM  

Church History, Sylvester and C.B Hassell. That will give you the Baptist Perspective. Jesus to about 1900 AD.

Anonymous PTR November 21, 2012 4:31 PM  

stg58 November 21, 2012 4:25 PM

Church History, Sylvester and C.B Hassell. That will give you the Baptist Perspective. Jesus to about 1900 AD.



Thanks but all I want is a simple time line. No arguments or evidence required.

Blogger JDC November 21, 2012 4:37 PM  

How is this not fact?

IMO it depends on how you define church. For a RCC the church can only exist where there is a pope, bishops and priests. For a RCC this is the only acceptable form of church - without holy papa, no church.

For others the church means something entirely (I take a Lutheran perspective here and don't pretend to speak for anybody but myself). For some the church is:
a. "is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd." (Smalcald Articles).
b. "at its core, it [the Church] is a fellowship of faith and the Holy Spirit in hearts." (Apology to Augsburg)
c. The Church so understood is "no Platonic state, as some wickedly charge. But we do say that this Church exists: truly believing and righteous people, scattered throughout the world." (Augs Confession)

Luther continues:
In short, the church is a dwelling, in order that God may be loved and heard. Not wood or stones, not dumb animals, it should be people, who know, love, and praise God. And that you may be able to trust God with certainty in all things, including cross and suffering, you should know that it is the true church, even though it be made up of scarcely two believing persons. That’s why Christ says: He who loves me keeps my Word; there I will dwell, there you have my church.

RCC church = pope, bishop, priest (throw in good ol Mary if ya like).
Others = church is the worldwide collection of believers in Christ.

Blogger R. Bradley Andrews November 21, 2012 5:00 PM  

The "original church" was Jewish. The Jerusalem council had Jewish people on it, not Romans/Latins. Most Christians have no idea of the Jewish roots of their faith.

Claymore, one book is not sufficient to make a doctrine. That is my reason for asking. The Bible wisely says that we should only trust things like that out of the mouth of 2 to 3 witnesses. I want to find where it states that other than there.

Anonymous Other Josh November 21, 2012 5:35 PM  

Here are the only dates you need to know:

Constantine's Edict of Milan granted tolerance of Christianity in 313 AD.

In 380 AD, Nicene Christianity become the official Christian religion of Rome.

In 381 AD, Nicene Christianity became the official religion of Rome and pagan religions were outlawed.

Before 313 AD, the Roman Empire persecuted Christians, subjecting them to imprisonment, torture, and death. Some emperors made this a priority.

Anonymous Other Josh November 21, 2012 5:38 PM  

Another important date:

After 381 AD, the official christian religion of Rome imprisoned, tortured, and killed Christians who refused to associate with the established state religion of Roman endorsed Christianity.

Anonymous stg58 November 21, 2012 5:49 PM  

It looks like 381 AD was when the church started then, after it was absorbed by the Roman Empire. Where else do the Catholics get their totalitarian attitude?

Anonymous PTR November 21, 2012 6:11 PM  

So no evidence of papal claims veneration of Mary and saints no mass prior to Constantine.





Blogger Markku November 21, 2012 6:36 PM  

The history of the Church is that there never was one, in the sense that RCC means.

ekklēsia
1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

This is the plain meaning of the word. There is only an aggregate of people: The called out ones. The word Church is pure equivocation.

Blogger Markku November 21, 2012 6:40 PM  

As if the Roman Catholic Church were "a church", Greek Orthodox were "another church" and the former where the "first church"... Utter crap. There are those who are called out, and those that aren't.

Anonymous MendoScot November 21, 2012 6:48 PM  

Where two or three are gathered together in my name...

Anonymous MendoScot November 21, 2012 6:49 PM  

Should have capitalized.

Blogger Markku November 21, 2012 7:21 PM  

This is what Ignatius (ca. 35 or 50-between 98 and 117) says about the organization of the Ekklesia in The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

"Nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop, who ministers as a priest to God for the salvation of the whole world. (...) Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father."

What say you, Shmiggen? Is there anyone in the body of Christ who is in a position of authority over the bishop of a local assembly? Don't be evasive.

Anonymous Clay November 21, 2012 7:56 PM  

I don't think I've ever seen SB drop the "Dear" bomb on anybody but Schmiggen, without going all nuclear on them.

You must be getting soft, SB:)

Blogger Markku November 21, 2012 9:27 PM  

Going a bit forward in history now. Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225 AD)

"Let them produce the original records [2181] of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs [2182] ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit [2183] their registers: [2184] as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. [2185] In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive [2186] something of the same kind."

Wut? "As also the church of Rome", mentioned after Smyrna? Does that sound like it originated in a period where the bishop of Rome ("pope") was considered to be in authority over the other bishops?

Anonymous Jeffrey Quick November 21, 2012 9:36 PM  

But it does not alter the fact that Catholicism is the 'original' church and that all the other denominations 'sprang' out of Catholicism.

Except for the small problem that this is not actually a fact, dear. Continuing to claim it to be so isn't going to make it one.

I've not seen you submit any evidence for your claim that the RCC was NOT the original Church. So calling a technical foul on Schmiggen's argument is not really going to work here. Both of you need to get your evidence on the table if you actually expect to persuade anyone.

One ridiculous argument that's been made here is "no rosary = no Catholicism". The rosary is not a doctrine of the faith; it's a prayer technology, in the same way that TV is an evangelization technology. St. Dominic (12th c) is generally credited with the development of the rosary. If the RCC is Constantinian "state religion", then there was 6 or 7 centuries of Catholicism without the rosary. If the early church was not Catholic because it lacked the Rosary, then it was also not the religion of Billy Graham (or of later televangelists) because they didn't have TV either.

Anonymous Clay November 21, 2012 9:36 PM  

We're all Christians. Let's quit bickering over the "brand". Protestants, Catholics, can kiss my ass. I'm not too fond of either. This is just what the "secularlists" want.

Hey, let's go shake some snakes, and drink poison.

Blogger Markku November 21, 2012 10:13 PM  

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (died September 14, 258)

---
"I come now, dearest brother, to the character of Cornelius our colleague, that with us you may more justly know Cornelius, not from the lies of malignants and detractors, but from the judgment of the Lord God, who made him a bishop, and from the testimony of his fellow-bishops (...)

Moreover, you are to know that our colleagues have investigated, and have certainly discovered that he has been blemished with no stain of a certificate, as some intimate; neither has he mingled in sacrilegious communion with the bishops who have sacrificed, but has merely associated with us those whose cause had been heard, and whose innocence was approved."
---

Gee, I wonder who this "colleague" that his "fellow-bishops" "investigated" was.

---
"And he was made bishop by very many of our colleagues who were then present in the city of Rome (...) Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men, when no one had been made so before him, when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter [2461] and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant"
---

Oh, the bishop of Rome.

Wait...

Blogger Markku November 21, 2012 10:22 PM  

Gone through two and a half centuries' worth of Ante-Nicene Fathers now, looking at every occurrence of the word "Peter". Not a trace of evidence about authority over other bishops yet. Only evidence to the contrary. But I'm sure it'll turn up, at least after Constantine comes to the picture.

More tomorrow.

Blogger Markku November 21, 2012 10:23 PM  

Fixed link: http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

Anonymous PTR November 21, 2012 11:12 PM  

And yet Clement gives judgement on issues in Corinth and Ignatius acknowledges a preeminence of Rome even if not a clear acknoledgement of papal claims..

Meanwhile your quotes Markku are very supportive in other ways.

Blogger R. Bradley Andrews November 21, 2012 11:44 PM  

The one who makes the sweeping claim should prove the sweeping claim.

Anonymous Clay November 22, 2012 12:10 AM  

I suppose I am am a simple man; what is wrong, and what is right. You guys always seem to want to try to make it more than it is, and assign blame. Our "Religions" only seem to cloud the issues, today.

I 'spose that's why we have Obama as our President today.

Blogger Spacebunny November 22, 2012 1:33 AM  

I've not seen you submit any evidence for your claim that the RCC was NOT the original Church.

Right, except for the mountain of evidence already presented on this thread and the demonstrated fact of the idiot Catholics attempting to use ex post facto fallacy. Gotcha.

Blogger Spacebunny November 22, 2012 1:35 AM  

If the RCC is Constantinian "state religion", then there was 6 or 7 centuries of Catholicism without the rosary.

Another example of attempting fallacious ex post facto reasoning.

Anonymous Clay November 22, 2012 4:02 AM  

Whatever I am, or maybe, I
'll share the Holy Gredandes in the foxhole with the SB (dig deeper, hunny)

Anonymous Toby Temple November 22, 2012 4:13 AM  

What's your evidence for no images and priests?

None of them being mentioned on any record in the NT where the Christians gathered in the name of Christ.

The only times priests are mentioned are when referring to Jewish traditions that were instituted by Moses.

Anonymous FrankNorman November 22, 2012 4:27 AM  

Its pretty plain from history that the early Christian Church in the late classical era was not Roman Catholicism as modern-day people know it. RCCers who think it was, are simply ignorant about how their religion has changed and mutated over time. How much of the teachings and practices they have been taught to regard as central to their faith were actually things added centuries after the time of the Apostles.

Its the Protestants and Baptists who believe in clearing away all that accumulation of man-made stuff, and getting back to the proper Gospel.

Blogger Markku November 22, 2012 4:30 AM  

And yet Clement gives judgement on issues in Corinth

Judgement went the other way also.

Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, to Cyprian, Against the Letter of Stephen. a.d. 256.

"And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, [2946] on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority."

If you look at any Roman Catholic list of popes, you'll find Stephen there.

Anonymous PTR November 22, 2012 4:50 AM  


Toby Temple November 22, 2012 4:13 AM

What's your evidence for no images and priests?

None of them being mentioned on any record in the NT where the Christians gathered in the name of Christ.

The only times priests are mentioned are when referring to Jewish traditions that were instituted by Moses.


I believe the question at hand was what was the evidence for there being no priests or images in the catacombs or house churches. Markku's quote has Ignatius writing at the beginning of the second century "Nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop, who ministers as a priest to God for the salvation of the whole world. (...) Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father."

Clearly, then, at an early stage of church history we have bishops with a priestly role taken as given. Maybe not a scriptural argument (and therefore not to your taste) but I understood we were debating respective historical fictions.

As for images - there are still extant images in the catacombs and some are of the Virgin. Of course we've had 2,000 years to express our Constantinian deviousness and graffiti those after the fact.

Anonymous FrankNorman November 22, 2012 5:09 AM  

If you look at any Roman Catholic list of popes, you'll find Stephen there.

Is that the Stephen who declared, on his supposed authority as bishop of Rome, in favour of Arius as against Athanasius?

Anonymous PTR November 22, 2012 5:27 AM  

Markku November 22, 2012 4:30 AM

And yet Clement gives judgement on issues in Corinth

Judgement went the other way also.

Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, to Cyprian, Against the Letter of Stephen. a.d. 256.

"And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, [2946] on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority."

If you look at any Roman Catholic list of popes, you'll find Stephen there.


Are you saying that any bishop contesting the primacy of the Roman bishop disproves the papacy. If that were so why go back to the third century - you can find scores (and more) catholic bishops today who tell the pope to butt out. I can only assume you allow no scope for the development of understanding of the revelation once made to the apostles and you expect to find the whole shebang crystal clear from 33a.d. But you are a Trinitarian, if I recall correctly, and the historical evidence points to that being dwelt on by the church for a time to fully understand and finally resolve in favour of God being Triune.

Moreover, your text makes it clear that Stephen was making distinctly familiar Petrine claims and - oh look - it pre-dates Constantine.

Anonymous PTR November 22, 2012 5:48 AM  

Markku November 22, 2012 4:30 AM

And yet Clement gives judgement on issues in Corinth

Judgement went the other way also.



But does Firmilian use this kind of language:
"If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger." and "You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit ..."

Anonymous Anonymous November 22, 2012 6:01 AM  

Idiocracy, why fight over this?

Anonymous Jeffrey Quick November 22, 2012 6:52 AM  

FrankNorman:
"Its pretty plain from history that the early Christian Church in the late classical era was not Roman Catholicism as modern-day people know it. ...

Its the Protestants and Baptists who believe in clearing away all that accumulation of man-made stuff, and getting back to the proper Gospel."

I don't think anyone who would argue that the RCC was the first church would argue that it hasn't changed. It's analogous to the anti-abortion argument: there's a living being in continuous evolution, referred to by most women as "baby", and it's up to the pro-aborts to explain how the act of birth changes that being in such a fundamental way that what was before wasn't human. The problem is that Protestants DIDN'T clear away the man-made stuff; they substituted DIFFERENT man-made stuff (the 19th-c. doctrine of the Rapture/Millennium, for one). If the Church is the Body of Christ, it works by its parts being coordinated. If every cell in the body gets to do its own thing, the body dies of cancer.

Now, to clarify: I believe in "mere Christianity". I happen to think that the RCC is the vehicle that God intended for the practice of that. But I'm not Christ, and I don't get to say who is in His Church, and certainly who is and isn't saved. OK? I may place bets: I don't think I will see Nancy Pelosi, and I'll probably see some of my Amish neighbors (and obviously I'm betting on myself). But ultimately it's speculation.

And now, time to hit the road. I'm not bailing; I'm having a life.

Anonymous Rantor November 22, 2012 7:11 AM  

Quick,

You still don't get it. The RCC was not the first church, the apostles in Jerusalem were the first church. The Church in Rome did not achieve Primacy for centuries, I would argue that there was a larger and wider church throughout the Western World until the great schism in 1054.

Blogger Markku November 22, 2012 7:23 AM  

Are you saying that any bishop contesting the primacy of the Roman bishop disproves the papacy.

No, I'm saying that Clement pronouncing judgement on other bishops doesn't prove that Rome held any authority over them, since you also have other bishops pronouncing judgement on the Roman one in the same era. This is exactly what you'd expect if the bishops were peers.

Moreover, your text makes it clear that Stephen was making distinctly familiar Petrine claims

Only that there is a succession to any particular position of a bishop in any particular place. But that we already knew from Tertullian, as I already quoted:

"let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs [2182] ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men"

Note, again, that Smyrna was mentioned before Rome.

But does Firmilian use this kind of language:

This is similar in tone (still talking about Stephen)

"Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity."

How could the Roman bishop "betray and desert unity" if said unity were actually defined by agreeing with him? And it is not the fact of disagreement that disproves the concept of papacy being in place in the first centuries: Firmilian could simply be wrong. But then we would expect to hear him accuse Stephen of abusing his position of authority, not of deserting unity.

Blogger Markku November 22, 2012 7:33 AM  

But you are a Trinitarian, if I recall correctly, and the historical evidence points to that being dwelt on by the church for a time to fully understand and finally resolve in favour of God being Triune.

Guess who came up with the Trinity as a specific concept and word? Tertullian. Guess what Tertullian is not? A Catholic saint.

Wikipedia: "However, unlike many Church fathers, he was never canonized by the Catholic Church, as several of his later teachings directly contradicted the actions and teachings of the apostles."

Quote from Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225 AD), from Against Praxeas:

"If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness;" [7894] whereas He ought to have said, "Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness," as being a unique and singular Being?"

Blogger Markku November 22, 2012 7:41 AM  

I don't think anyone who would argue that the RCC was the first church would argue that it hasn't changed

You are equivocating with a modern meaning of the word church. The Bible nor the Ante-Nicene Fathers know of no such meaning. They know only two meanings: The Catholic Church (not the same as Roman Catholic Church; Catholic simply means universal) and a specific congregation (as in Revelation: "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write...")

Since the Roman Catholic Church is not in any particular location, it cannot be a church in the second meaning. If you want to maintain that it is a church in any Biblical meaning, you are left with the option of claiming that it is indeed exactly the same as the Body of Christ.

Blogger Markku November 22, 2012 7:53 AM  

And if you do claim that, you set yourself against Vatican II. You would set yourself against your current pope, who is exactly the one that you claim to hold spiritual authority over you. The argument would commit suicide.

At least it was internally coherent in the early days, when RCC did claim that it is the same thing as the Body of Christ.

Anonymous PTR November 22, 2012 2:57 PM  

Markku November 22, 2012 7:23 AM

Are you saying that any bishop contesting the primacy of the Roman bishop disproves the papacy.

No, I'm saying that Clement pronouncing judgement on other bishops doesn't prove that Rome held any authority over them, since you also have other bishops pronouncing judgement on the Roman one in the same era. This is exactly what you'd expect if the bishops were peers.


Given the introduction to Clement's letter it is probable he was asked to intervene since he apologises for how long it has taken him to address the issue. He then proceeds to pass judgement on certain persons in Corinth. In your example one bishop seeks the support of another bishop in controversy with the Roman bishop. They still do and I assume you'd accept that papal authority is a feature of present day Catholicism. Only one of those letters was an act of exercising authority in another bishop's see.

Anonymous PTR November 22, 2012 3:00 PM  

But does Firmilian use this kind of language:

This is similar in tone (still talking about Stephen)

"Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity."



Come on, not even close. There's no claim to any personal authority there.

Blogger Markku November 22, 2012 3:42 PM  

I went to see the context, and there was no such quote in the text. I made sure both parties were talking about The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. My preface says this:

"The first Epistle, bearing the name of Clement, has been preserved to us in a single manuscript only. Though very frequently referred to by ancient Christian writers, it remained unknown to the scholars of Western Europe until happily discovered in the Alexandrian manuscript. This ms. of the Sacred Scriptures (known and generally referred to as Codex A) was presented in 1628 by Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I., and is now preserved in the British Museum."

I found an ebook that contained your quote, and the texts seemed to be different in their entirety apart from a similar beginning. I'm trying to figure out what's going on. Since the text containing the quote is much shorter, I'm guessing it is an attempt to reconstruct it from quotes from later church fathers, until the manuscript was actually found in Alexandria.

Blogger Markku November 22, 2012 4:09 PM  

Just to made sure, I carefully went through the entire (longer) text. The only place that I found, that was even remotely similar to the quote, was this:


"It is right and holy therefore, men and brethren, rather to obey God than to follow those who, through pride and sedition, have become the leaders of a detestable emulation. For we shall incur no slight injury, but rather great danger, if we rashly yield ourselves to the inclinations of men who aim at exciting strife and tumults, so as to draw us away from what is good."

I also found this, which gives an entirely different picture of the relationship between the recipients of the letter (note: not the same people as those who are causing the sedition; the text says that they are not even obeying their own presbyters)

"Let us then also pray for those who have fallen into any sin, that meekness and humility may be given to them, so that they may submit, not unto us, but to the will of God. (...) Those exhortations by which we admonish one another are both good [in themselves] and highly profitable, for they tend to unite [248] us to the will of God."

Submit, not to us? Admonish one another?

Anonymous PTR November 22, 2012 7:18 PM  

The Faith of the Early Fathers Vol One by William A Jurgens.









Blogger Markku November 23, 2012 7:22 AM  

The Faith of the Early Fathers Vol One by William A Jurgens.

I'm not really doubting the book quoting the manuscript, but the manuscript itself. The shorter text seems totally disjointed. There are chapters consisting of just two isolated sentences. The longer text has a consistent train of thought. Since the longer text was only found around 1628 and it is the only original manuscript available, everything seems to point to a reconstruction having been used before the discovery. That is, reconstruction from later popes quoting (or supposedly quoting) Clement.

Anonymous The Anti-Gnostic November 23, 2012 11:45 AM  

Its the Protestants and Baptists who believe in clearing away all that accumulation of man-made stuff, and getting back to the proper Gospel.

Which Gospels? You realize there were more than four of them, don't you? It was the Church, with all her Saints and Sacraments, that selected and translated the ones that made it into the Canon.

Protestants don't even need churches. They can just walk all around with the Bibles the Church wrote for them instead. In fact, with the home church movement that's exactly how they end up. Or they become 'messianic jews.'

Blogger Markku November 23, 2012 1:37 PM  

It was the Church, with all her Saints and Sacraments, that selected and translated the ones that made it into the Canon.

Yeah, translated by saints like William Tyndale. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church would certainly not like a Bible that the laity could actually read, so he was understandably burned at the stake.

And manuscripts made by saints like Desiderius Erasmus. Read the Praise of Folly sometime and see what it says about popes.

Blogger Markku November 23, 2012 1:53 PM  

That is exactly the argument that the pharisees could have made in Jesus's time. They could show a succession all the way to Moses and say that the scriptures are still available only thanks to them. This would be exactly as true as the same argument made by Catholics.

But the pharisees didn't get any slack from Jesus. Quite the opposite.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic November 23, 2012 3:49 PM  

FWIW, I'm Orthodox.

If Christ had not wanted a Church, He would not have told Peter to start one.

1 – 200 of 215 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts