Over at LumenGentleman's site, the Summorum Pontificum Contact Database has been set up.

So far, only 3 from South Africa - one from Onderstepoort, the country's veterinary centre, and two from the Eastern Cape - me and someone from Grahamstown.  Quite far, and I'd hope for something closer, but I've never visited Grahamstown, and I might if they have the Latin Mass in its extraordinary form.

I went to Mass here in Umtata tonight.  This time they said the creed.  Communion was via the "take and dip" method, with no extraordinary minister of the Eucharist assisting - the chalice was on the altar, the priest down below.  Interestingly, half the congregation didn't self-communicate.  And at least they said the creed this time.

If you're from South Africa, and want to see more use of the 1500 year old liturgy, the one used at Vatican II, also known as the Tridentine Mass, the old Latin Mass, the Liturgy of Pope Pius V, celebrated according to the missal published by Blessed John XXIII, then go and register as a contact.

This letter is certainly food for thought:


Is that how we should respond?

Roland S. Martin, a contributor to CNN, has pretty much said that.  Except he aimed his statements at HH Pope Benedict XVI and the recent statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The letter you see above is a parody of Martin's letter, written by me, to depict what an early dissenter from the Apostolic faith may have said back then.

Martin's blog contains the same CNN article.

The original Christian Church wasn't named "Catholic" back then - that is a name that was applied a bit later, and became more concrete as time went on.  Should we expect the Christian Church of the twenty-first century to view itself any differently than the Christian Church of the first century?  The way Catholics see it, we're just standing up for the same truth that the Apostles did.  To acknowledge those who have gone their own way as part of the same Church would be to deny the Apostles who didn't compromise on this issue either.

I admire the Pope and the CDF for their clear statement.  I also admire them for acknowledging that those who, for no fault of their own, are outside of the original Christian Church, are still our brothers and sisters in Christ, albeit separated.  Like the Gnostics and others, they're perfect brothers and sisters in Christ, but in imperfect union with the original faith.

For more commentary on Martin's objections, go to Jimmy Akin's blog.

My second post at Re-Inventing the Adventist Wheel has just gone online.

It is entitled "God reaching out through space and time" and deals with sacraments, hoping to explain in less mystifying terms, and more in terms of Adventists' experience, how we view sacraments.

Recently, the Vatican's International Theological Commission allegedly released a document indicating that Limbo, the place where unbaptised babies go after death, may be restrictive, and that there are good reasons to hope that they might be in heaven.  (Also see the Pontifications blog.)

This has caused some consternation in some corners of the Church.  But then so did the concept that God could understand languages other than Latin.  Some cling to the idea that Limbo is a formal part of the Tradition of the Church, when really it isn't, as can be seen by looking at the hopes and prayers of the saints throughout the centuries.  It certainly has never been defined as such, and I've only seen claims regarding texts explained better elsewhere.

So I took a look at some of what HH Pope Benedict XVI said prior to his becoming pope.

This is a very wise man.  I've always been impressed by him, and this leads me to believe that he thinks at a level far above most.  He's orthodox, very much so, in his theology, and he's not going to go around approving documents that are not orthodox in their teachings.

Some say that he's ignoring tradition - no he's not.  He has it very well understood.  He knows what the history of limbo is, and knows where it can and can't go.  Think again.

Some say he's fallen prey to the "hell doesn't exist and because God loves all people, all people will be saved" mentality.  Some say that he's fallen prey to the modern lovey cuddley idea that punishment is bad and cute babies can't be punished.  In reality, he's far too smart and far too orthodox for that.  Think again.

Some say that the idea that the unbaptised can go to heaven detracts from the importance of the teaching that salvation comes through Christ alone.  In reality, that is far from the truth.

HH Benedict XVI has shown that he can, without betraying the historical truths contained in the Apolostic faith taught by the Catholic Church, preach God's love and mercy by raising our understanding of those truths beyond the rigid interpretations required by a need for defensiveness and protectiveness, as is often the case in apologetics, canon law, and other branches of theology.

I'm hoping for more incredible insights from one of the most brilliant minds God has given to lead the Church.  Hopefully more will be said, from him directly, on this issue. God is not the abortionist of the soul.

Some worthwhile reading: Limbo In Limbo? ... by Jimmy Akin Development and Negation III: limbo ... by Michael Liccione Limbo ... by Alvin Kimel [a 5-part series; each part separately below] Limbo: Doctrinal Development in Action ... by Alvin Kimel Consigning Limbo to Oblivion ... by Alvin Kimel Keeping the kids in limbo ... by Alvin Kimel The doubt that leads to limbo ... by Alvin Kimel The emptiness of limbo ... by Alvin Kimel Evangelium Vitae ... HH Pope John Paul II

Sources - Asia News; Annunciations; Whispers in the Loggia [full sermon text]; Young Fogeys

Fr Jay Toborowsky comments on his Young Fogeys blog:


I've been waiting years to hear this most logical 14 Nisan crucifixion timing from a Catholic priest.  And now I hear it from the pope himself.  I always get given the 15 Nisan story.  The explanation above goes a long way to explain why the Wednesday crucifixion theory of Herbert Armstrong is wrong, so ironically it was Herbert Armstrong who was adamant that Jesus died on 14 Nisan.

That is the obvious time for Jesus to have died.  After all, Jesus death wasn't timed to coincide with the killing of the lambs, nor was it meant to be approximate; the Passover lamb sacrifice foreshadowed Jesus' death, and its original timing was designed to coincide with Jesus' death.

Adventism seems to like sticking up anti-Catholic billboards.  This time it was an Adventist spin-off denomination, Eternal Gospel Church.  This was around the beginning of February, and commented on at Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.

Interestingly, the sign people, CBS Outdoors, refused to let Catholics pay for a sign simply stating the truth - "CBS sponsors Anti-Catholicism."

Other photos available on the Catholic League site.

Articles:
CBS Stifles Free Speech; Promotes Anti-Catholicism
CBS Pulls Anti-Catholic Billboards

CBS Outdoors apologised for the offensive signs, and removed them.

CBS Outdoor made the right decision today to remove the bigoted statements attacking the pope and the Catholic Church as the Antichrist. - Catholic League president Bill Donohue.

Interestingly, on their website, they list as an upcoming speaker Jan Marcussen, someone I had contact with some years ago.  His newsletter was one of the most rabid I've ever come across, grossly misrepresenting anything not in agreement with them.  I wrote them a letter, and it made it into the newsletter - completely distorted, made to say things I never wrote.  This was one of the first contacts I had with Adventism.  It looks like nothing has changed, at least as far as this group goes.  Probably why mainstream Adventism wants nothing to do with them.

Boston Woman Suing Abortion Practitioner and Planned Parenthood for Failing to Kill Daughter

A case of a failed abortion requested by mother Jennifer Raper.

B.C. Doctor Ordered to Pay $325,000 for 'Wrongful Birth'

A case of a failed abortion for reasons of eugenics that ruined the plans of the parents.

What a sick world we live in.  And what sort of self-esteem will those children have when they are older?

No Such Thing as "Right Not to be Born": Italian Court

Thank God that some still have some moral sense.

Christianity Today has an article entitled "Jesus and the Sinner’s Prayer" (subtitled "What Jesus says doesn’t match what we usually say.") by David P. Gushee.

A few quotes:


And:


Once saved, always saved?  That's Calvin, not Jesus.

We save ourselves?  That's Pelagius and others, not Jesus.


The bold section above is the teaching of Jesus and the Catholic Church.

Lent is a 40 day preparation for Easter, yet it can start on a Monday 48 days before Easter, or a Wednesday 46 days before Easter, while Easter is always on a Sunday.

How does this work?

The date for Easter, as most people know it, is calculated according to rules defined by the Catholic Church centuries ago.  Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Dutch Reformed, and other Protestant churches that celebrate Lent, a 40 day preparation before Easter, along with most Catholics, keep Lent the way most people know it.

Western Lent is as follows:

• starts on Ash Wednesday
• starts 46 days before Easter Sunday
• lasts 40 days
• ends on the day before Easter Sunday
• does not include the Sundays during that period

The Catholic Church in Milan keeps a completely different Lent to either the one known to most Western Catholics or the one known to the Eastern Christians.

Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox both count Lent differently.

Eastern Lent is as follows:

• starts on Clean Monday
• starts 48 days before Easter Sunday
• lasts 40 days
• ends on the day before Lazarus Saturday, which is the day before Palm Sunday, which is the Sunday before Easter Sunday
• includes the Sundays during that period

Lent this year [2007] started on Monday 19 February for Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, and on Wednesday 21 February for Western Catholic and Protestants.

This image shows this year's Lent, with day counts for Eastern and Western Lent.
Click on the image to open a larger version.

A further problem arises from the fact that Protestants follow the Catholic calculation for the date of Easter, while the Orthodox use a different calculation - so they usually celebrate Easter 1-4 weeks after Catholics and Protestants.  So sometimes the two Eastern Lents do not begin the same week.  And so sometimes there are THREE Lents - one for the West, one for the Eastern Catholics who keep the Easter as defined by the Catholic Church, and one for the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics who keep the Easter defined by the Eastern rule.

Note: the Eastern Catholics who follow the Eastern rule still acknowledge the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, currently HH Pope Benedict XVI, even though they celebrate Easter on a different date.  (They even have married priests with kids and all.)  "The Eastern Catholic Churches are in full communion of faith and of acceptance of authority of the see of Rome, but retain their distinctive liturgical rites, laws and customs, traditional devotions and have their own theological emphases." - Eastern Catholic Churches, Wikipedia

In 2007, the dates for Eastern and Western Easter coincide.  The next image shows the dates of Easter from this year until 2030 AD.
Catholic / Protestant Easter dates can be calculated at the following page: Dates of Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday

At Easter Dates, the dates of Easter (Orthodox and Catholic/Protestant) are listed for 1990 till 2050.  A calculator is available to calculate the date of Easter between 326 AD and 4099 AD.  A text file (zipped, 32K) containing all these dates can be found here.

More info on Orthodox Easter and Lent:

More info on Eastern Catholics keeping Eastern Easter, or a different Lent:




And finally, on the differing dates for Easter, Celebrating Together Redemption in Christ: Catholic Hopes for a Common Date of Easter

Now Lent is no longer the puzzle it was.

Found via James Akin's blog, reporting on Anglican / Catholic unity, where a journalist claims that unity is imminent (James says it's nonsense, I agree.)

One of the comments on the original article says the following:


How incredibly true that it.  If only people would realise how Catholicism really views the Bible.  There are so many misconceptions out there.

Someone else says:


That's one of the misconceptions.  There are many degrees of meaning to a word, and fundamentalist Protestants, of whatever denomination, don't recognise that - they restrict their language to the meaning they use.  Worship can also mean simply paying respect to someone, and the Bible has plenty of examples of this - conveniently ignored by those who want to complain about Catholicism.  We don't worship Mary as we do God.  We honour her, much like they honour the Bible.  Prayer - it's something that can be used as a form of worship; but it can also simply be a request.  Again, there are different degrees of meaning, and Catholics do not limit their use of the word to modern Protestant definitions.  The actual English word can mean a request, or to address someone.  Sometimes Catholic English and Protestant English use different definitions for the same words.  If people want to understand each other, that is am important factor to take into account.  You can't judge a statement unless you know what was intended by it.

I have been asked by an Adventist:

OK let say a catholic individual study his or her bible and learns John 3:16, 1john 1:9, Col 2:14 and other. He began to understand the death of Jesus paid in full for penalty of his sins. That Jesus took away all his sins and reconciliation with God and made possible through the blood of Jesus. But the catholic teaching says he has to suffer for his sins in purgatory before he enters heaven. What is he to do?

The passages he cites:

John 3:16 KJV  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1 John 1:9 KJV  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Colossians 2:14 KJV  Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

If we sin, we need forgiveness.  Once we are forgiven, we usually still need to learn a better way.  That is the purpose of Gods' discipline - teaching us that bad things are bad, and to prefer good things.  God could, of course, snap his fingers and make us all perfect ... but he doesn't.  He teaches us through the consequences of our sins.  If we lie, and ask for forgiveness, we are forgiven, but still get to learn from the embarrassment, or pain, or loss, or whatever the lie caused.

Purgatory is often misunderstood to be a place we go to in order to finish the punishment for sin that wasn't removed by Christ.  That's not exactly true.

Christ paid the full price for our salvation, but what he didn't remove was the discipline we would require in order to grow as Christians.  I think that is a belief shared by the vast majority of Christian denominations. The difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Catholics believe that, when discipline is still needed to finish our development into a fully Christ-like servant of God, that process continues after death, before entry into heaven.  Protestants, seemingly, consider that pending discipline to be discarded/ignored, and what is lacking simply added on without that process of learning, so entry into heaven would be "immediate".  Probably Adventists believe the same as Protestants, with the difference regarding the timing of entry into heaven relative to the time of death / end of time.

So, for Catholics, purgatory exists in this life (not always stated that way) and after death; for Protestants, purgatory (not called that) exists in this life, and not after death.

However ... Adventists, I think (but not all Protestants), believe that even the saved will have to face their sins in the final judgement.  They won't be condemned by them, but they will have to face the reality of what their sins actually meant (a realisation few people reach in this life.)  I doubt Adventism would call it a purification, but I can't imagine that such a revelation about the true nature of their sinfulness would NOT bring about a change for the better in those who are saved, which then amounts to the same thing.

And that is purgatory ... not a mystical version of hell that has fire and brimstone but one can escape from when enough pain has been inflicted, but rather the trials and tribulations of life that make us grow - if we let them - into a more Christ-like person.

True faith in Christ requires that process - and in that sense, and only that sense, is sanctification/purgatory a requirement for salvation.  But if it's part of the definition of true faith that we submit to God and let him change us, then it's not truly an "extra" but rather part of the results of true faith that we are sanctified / purified of our sinful nature.

The following from the article “Sanctification� by Dr William Ames (a puritan, 1567-1633) shows the process that we see as purging:

1. The real change of state is an alteration of qualities in man himself. 2 Cor. 5:17, Old things have passed away; all things are new.

2. The change is not in relation or reason, but in genuine effects seen in degrees of beginning, progress, and completion. 2 Cor. 4:16, The inner man is renewed day by day.

4. Sanctification is the real change in man from the sordidness of sin to the purity of God's image. Eph. 4:22-24, Put off that which pertains to the old conversation, that old man, corrupting itself in deceivable lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind. Put on that new man who according to God is created to righteousness and true holiness.

5. just as in justification a believer is properly freed from the guilt of sin and has life given him (the title to which is, as it were, settled in adoption), so in sanctification the same believer is freed from the sordidness and stain of sin, and the purity of God's image is restored to him.

13. The starting point of sanctification is the filthiness, corruption, or stain of sin. 2 Cor. 7: 1, Let us purge ourselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, being led to holiness in the fear of God.

14. Its end is the purity of God's image (said to be fashioned or created once more in Knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, Eph. 4:24) or Conformity to the law of God, Jas. 1:25; Newness of life, Rom. 6:4; the New creature, 2 Cor. 5:17 and Gal. 6:15; and the Divine nature, 2 Peter 1:4.

The relevant biblical texts:

Hebrews 12:6-11 KJV  For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.  [7]  If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?  [8]  But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.  [9]  Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?  [10]  For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.  [11]  Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

1Co 3:15  If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

In summary, Jesus paid the full price for our sins.  That is the atonement, which relates to justification.  But he did not take away the chastisement necessary for our growth as Christians.  That is sanctification, and Catholics call its completion purgatory - they are one and the same thing. So there is no confict at all with the atonement achieved for us by Christ.  That atonement is not what we complete by sanctification.

When Anglican parishes convert to Catholicism (at least in the USA), they retain their liturgy instead of using the usual liturgy used in most Catholic parishes, as happens when an entire congregation from another denomination converts.

Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church is the first Anglican Use parish, established on August 15, 1983.  They now have a blog, in addition to their website.

Again from the SDA2RC blog, something the Worldwide Church of God splinter groups, Jehovah's Witnesses, and some Adventists, such as Bacchiocchi, need to consider - the evidence that Christmas was not derived from a pagan celebration.  This is an article by William Tighe in Touchstone Magazine.

Bacchiocchi, although antagonistic towards Christmas and other Christian days of worship, gives us some good news about Adventism (although he doesn't consider it to be good news.)

From his Endtime Issues newsletter number 161:



Bacchiocchi forgets that, IF it had a pagan origin, the holiday, as used by Christians, entirely preaches Christ born for us.  Why is replacing something bad with something good a bad thing to do?


That's one personal opinion.  Most Christians through the centuries have felt that Christ's birth was worth decorating with joyful celebration, and physical decorations - candles, a manger, lights - are a fitting expression of this.  Just because Jesus was humble doesn't mean we can't worship him with glory.

Bacchiocchi simply repeats many of the old Worldwide Church of God arguments against Christmas, providing one side of the claims.  For the other side of the evidence, see Touchstone Magazine and Truth or Fables.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches often object to the western / Catholic concept of original sin.

The SDA2RC blog lists two excellent articles by Orthodox authors about why this may simply be a misunderstanding of terminology, with both sides quite compatible in their beliefs.

That's something I've felt about many Protestant teachings as well.  If people are willing to listen to and try to understand each other, they usually find they agree on more than they realised.  If they only want to disagree, and judge without finding out what is really believed - pre-judge, or prejudice - all we get is a waste of time.

The guilty parties?  The City of San Francisco, and Judge Marily Hall Patel.

The terms "liberal fundamentalism" and "progressive bigotry" may appear to be self-contradictory, like the term "military intelligence" - but they describe well those on the political left extreme who can't stomach the toleration of views other than their own.  Freedom of speech?  Freedom of religion?  Yes, if it's theirs.

Original article - Federal Judge Says San Francisco's Labeling of Catholics as "Hateful" is Constitutional.

It looks like Gregorian University once again (if Bacchiocchi is right about what they said about his thesis) acts tactlessly, perhaps for political reasons.

From the Orthquote list, 18 Nov 2006:

From St. John of Kronstadt (My Life in Christ; Holy Trinity Monastery pg. 174):
 
"Prayer is spiritual breathing; when we pray we breathe in the Holy Spirit; “praying in the Holy Spirit� (Jd. 1:20). Thus, all church prayers are the breathing of the Holy Spirit; as it were spiritual air and also light, spiritual fire, spiritual food and spiritual raiment."

Six Imprisoned Health-Care Workers in Libya Are Pawns in a Far Larger Strategic Game

The repercussions are enormous

Author: Laurie Garrett

Source: PLoS Medicine

PDF (56K)
HTML

Certainly something to read in the current politically tense world.

Foxnews.com has published a photoessay of HH Pope Benedict XVI's trip to Turkey.  It can be found here.

Common Declaration by Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I

This fraternal encounter which brings us together, Pope Benedict XVI of Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, is God’s work, and in a certain sense his gift. We give thanks to the Author of all that is good, who allows us once again, in prayer and in dialogue, to express the joy we feel as brothers and to renew our commitment to move towards full communion. This commitment comes from the Lord’s will and from our responsibility as Pastors in the Church of Christ. May our meeting be a sign and an encouragement to us to share the same sentiments and the same attitudes of fraternity, cooperation and communion in charity and truth. The Holy Spirit will help us to prepare the great day of the re-establishment of full unity, whenever and however God wills it. Then we shall truly be able to rejoice and be glad.

1. We have recalled with thankfulness the meetings of our venerable predecessors, blessed by the Lord, who showed the world the urgent need for unity and traced sure paths for attaining it, through dialogue, prayer and the daily life of the Church. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I went as pilgrims to Jerusalem, to the very place where Jesus Christ died and rose again for the salvation of the world, and they also met again, here in the Phanar and in Rome. They left us a common declaration which retains all its value; it emphasizes that true dialogue in charity must sustain and inspire all relations between individuals and between Churches, that it “must be rooted in a total fidelity to the one Lord Jesus Christ and in mutual respect for their own traditions� (Tomos Agapis, 195). Nor have we forgotten the reciprocal visits of His Holiness Pope John Paul II and His Holiness Dimitrios I. It was during the visit of Pope John Paul II, his first ecumenical visit, that the creation of the Mixed Commission for theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was announced. This has brought together our Churches in the declared aim of re-establishing full communion.

As far as relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople are concerned, we cannot fail to recall the solemn ecclesial act effacing the memory of the ancient anathemas which for centuries had a negative effect on our Churches. We have not yet drawn from this act all the positive consequences which can flow from it in our progress towards full unity, to which the mixed Commission is called to make an important contribution. We exhort our faithful to take an active part in this process, through prayer and through significant gestures.

2. At the time of the plenary session of the mixed Commission for theological dialogue, which was recently held in Belgrade through the generous hospitality of the Serbian Orthodox Church, we expressed our profound joy at the resumption of the theological dialogue. This had been interrupted for several years because of various difficulties, but now the Commission was able to work afresh in a spirit of friendship and cooperation. In treating the topic “Conciliarity and Authority in the Church� at local, regional and universal levels, the Commission undertook a phase of study on the ecclesiological and canonical consequences of the sacramental nature of the Church. This will permit us to address some of the principal questions that are still unresolved. We are committed to offer unceasing support, as in the past, to the work entrusted to this Commission and we accompany its members with our prayers.

3. As Pastors, we have first of all reflected on the mission to proclaim the Gospel in today’s world. This mission, “Go, make disciples of all nations� (Mt 28:19), is today more timely and necessary than ever, even in traditionally Christian countries. Moreover, we cannot ignore the increase of secularization, relativism, even nihilism, especially in the Western world. All this calls for a renewed and powerful proclamation of the Gospel, adapted to the cultures of our time. Our traditions represent for us a patrimony which must be continually shared, proposed, and interpreted anew. This is why we must strengthen our cooperation and our common witness before the world.

4. We have viewed positively the process that has led to the formation of the European Union. Those engaged in this great project should not fail to take into consideration all aspects affecting the inalienable rights of the human person, especially religious freedom, a witness and guarantor of respect for all other freedoms. In every step towards unification, minorities must be protected, with their cultural traditions and the distinguishing features of their religion. In Europe, while remaining open to other religions and to their cultural contributions, we must unite our efforts to preserve Christian roots, traditions and values, to ensure respect for history, and thus to contribute to the European culture of the future and to the quality of human relations at every level. In this context, how could we not evoke the very ancient witnesses and the illustrious Christian heritage of the land in which our meeting is taking place, beginning with what the Acts of the Apostles tells us concerning the figure of Saint Paul, Apostle of the Gentiles? In this land, the Gospel message and the ancient cultural tradition met. This link, which has contributed so much to the Christian heritage that we share, remains timely and will bear more fruit in the future for evangelization and for our unity.

5. Our concern extends to those parts of today’s world where Christians live and to the difficulties they have to face, particularly poverty, wars and terrorism, but equally to various forms of exploitation of the poor, of migrants, women and children. We are called to work together to promote respect for the rights of every human being, created in the image and likeness of God, and to foster economic, social and cultural development. Our theological and ethical traditions can offer a solid basis for a united approach in preaching and action. Above all, we wish to affirm that killing innocent people in God’s name is an offence against him and against human dignity. We must all commit ourselves to the renewed service of humanity and the defense of human life, every human life.

We take profoundly to heart the cause of peace in the Middle East, where our Lord lived, suffered, died and rose again, and where a great multitude of our Christian brethren have lived for centuries. We fervently hope that peace will be re-established in that region, that respectful coexistence will be strengthened between the different peoples that live there, between the Churches and between the different religions found there. To this end, we encourage the establishment of closer relationships between Christians, and of an authentic and honest interreligious dialogue, with a view to combating every form of violence and discrimination.

6. At present, in the face of the great threats to the natural environment, we want to express our concern at the negative consequences for humanity and for the whole of creation which can result from economic and technological progress that does not know its limits. As religious leaders, we consider it one of our duties to encourage and to support all efforts made to protect God’s creation, and to bequeath to future generations a world in which they will be able to live.

7. Finally, our thoughts turn towards all of you, the faithful of our two Churches throughout the world, Bishops, priests, deacons, men and women religious, lay men and women engaged in ecclesial service, and all the baptized. In Christ we greet other Christians, assuring them of our prayers and our openness to dialogue and cooperation. In the words of the Apostle of the Gentiles, we greet all of you: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ� (2 Cor 1:2).

At the Phanar, 30 November 2006

Benedict XVI     Bartholomew I

Source - The Ecumenical Patriarchate website

"But," says one, "do you wish us to understand, that if a man is to be saved he must use violence and vehement earnestness in order to obtain salvation?" I do, most assuredly; that is the doctrine of the text. "But," says one, "I thought it was all the work of God." So it is, from first to last. But when God has begun the work in the soul, the constant effect of God's work in us is to set us working; and where God's Spirit is really striving with us, we shall begin to strive too. This is just a test whereby we may distinguish the men who have received the Spirit of God, from those who have not received it. Those who have received the Spirit in verity and truth are violent men. They have a violent anxiety to be saved, and they violently strive that they may enter in at the strait gate. Well they know that seeking to enter in is not enough, for many shall seek to enter in but shall not be able, and therefore do they strive with might and main.

A Sermon
(No. 252)
Delivered on Sabbath Morning, May 15th, 1859, by the
REV. C.H. SPURGEON
at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens.

Adventists are true Protestants in the sense that they protest whatever is Catholic.  Catholics believe that the mother of Jesus, Mary, had no other children apart from Jesus.  Some Adventists, therefore, make it an article of faith, a doctrine, that Mary did indeed have other children.

Nowhere does the Bible state that she had other children.  Nowhere does the Bible state that she had sex with Joseph - ever.

The Adventist Review has an article by Angel Manuel Rodriguez from the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference entitled Jesus' Family Ties, which asks the question Were the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the Bible sons of Joseph and Mary?

The answer is a well-balanced look at the facts, and says that this is, for Adventists, a historical issue, not a theological one.

The problem is that Adventists have turned it into a theological one in order to dispute Catholic teaching.  Catholicism influences Adventism more than one would think.

One important criticism of the article is that it states "we are told that Joseph knew Mary, that is to say, had sexual intercourse with her, after the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:25)."

Matt 1:25 reads as follows in the King James Version:

And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.

So the article is not accurate there - it is not reporting what the Bible tells us, but rather it is interpreting the Bible according to the author's own tradition.  The Bible does not tell us that Joseph had sex with Mary after Jesus' birth.  It says that he did not have sex with her before his birth.  The specific use of the term "until" here does not imply what most of us understand by the term "until" when we commonly use it in our everyday English speech.  I say "I will wait here until I get fetched" and imply that after I have been fetched, I will no longer be waiting there.

But we can also use the word "until" this way: "They won't repossess my car until I stop making payments."  Nothing tells us that they (the bank, etc.) will repossess the car after I stop making payments.  I could stop making payments because I have paid everything, and I own the car fully.

The Bible often uses the word "until" in the same way.

(Gen 24:19 KJV)  And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have done drinking.

After they are done drinking, obviously she would stop drawing water for them.

(Act 23:1 KJV)  And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

I doubt Paul intended doing otherwise after that day, so it's an open-ended until.  Nothing changed when the time specified by "until" ended.

(Jdg 4:24 KJV)  And the hand of the children of Israel prospered, and prevailed against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin king of Canaan.

Did they stop prevailing against him after they killed him?  To say no would be a strange answer.

The same goes for Mary.  "Until" doesn't necessarily mean that things changed after the specified time.

Another question worth thinking about: When Gabriel told Mary she would have a child, she knew she would shortly get married, and so the obvious conclusion would be that she would have a child after she got married.  So why her response?  She said "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" (Luke 1:34, KJV.)  It makes sense only if her intent was to not know man, now or ever.  If she had not yet known man, but would once she was married - and clearly marriage was the intent at the time - there would have been no such confusion.

In the Endtime Issues newsletter #156, Samuele Bacchiocchi says:

It almost seems that to be a loyal Adventist you must always find something wrong with the Pope.

He is quite right - that is how many Adventists feel and respond to the pope.  Anything Catholic, in fact.

He continues:

I do not share this view.

Sometimes.  Sometimes not.

There are times when I condemn the pope for actively promoting the idolatrous worship of Mary, but there are also times when I commend pope for addressing the socio-political issues of our time in a responsible way.

Since Catholics do not worship Mary, and since the Pope doesn't either, Bacchiocchi is quite out of line condemning him.  It would be like the Pope condemning Adventism for worshipping Ellen White.  [Icon of Ellen White]

And yes, he does, at times, "commend the pope for addressing the socio-political issues of our time in a responsible way" ... but he says that on such issues, Adventists and Catholics should not be united in their work towards that goal.

A good point on the 3 horns and the Ostrogoths that I never noticed before was brought to my attention in a recent e-mail:

Daniel would have been talking about the Jewish year of 360 days.  If we use the day/year principle for 1260 years,  (453,600 days) and divide that by 365.25 (Gregorian calendar) it equals 1242 Gregorian years.

Subtracting 1242 from the year 1798 we arrive at 556 AD.  That would seem to fit your 555 AD of the final defeat of the Ostrogoths.  The persecution may very well have started 1 year later???

A few problems with using this type of year:

• We don't know that Daniel was talking about a 360-day year.  They certainly knew the difference between the 360-day year and the solar year, and he could have been talking about either.
• The Jewish calendar had an extra month every few years in order to keep Passover at the same time every solar year.  The Islamic calendar doesn't have this, so Ramadan, for example, moves earlier and earlier as each solar year passes.  For the Jewish calendar, Passover stays at the same time, synchronised with the solar year.
• Therefore the concept of 1260 years (and the day/year principle in this case is very dubious) is unlikely referring to 1260 years of 360 days, because such a timeline was foreign to the Jews, whose calendar was synchronised with the solar year.

A few problems with the dating of 555 and the Ostrogoths:

• That would make the count of 1260 years inaccurate - the Bible should then have said 1261 years.
• The Ostrogoths were defeated by Justinian, who was neither Roman nor acting under the command of the pope.  (The Heruli were in fact overthrown by the enemies of the papacy.)  So this was not a papal overthrow of the Ostrogoths.
• The defeat of the Ostrogoths was of the same nature as the defeat of the Visigoths - so taking the Ostrogoths as a horn that was uprooted, but excluding the Visigoths, is arbitrary and therefore their defeat is meaningless in the context of Daniel 7.

Many other problems with the 3 horns interpretation can be found here.

In the 2nd century we see the development of Adoptionism, teaching that Jesus became God at the time of his baptism.

From Wikipedia's article on Theodotus of Byzantium:
Theodotus claimed that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit as a mortal man, and though later adopted by God upon baptism, was not himself God until after his resurrection.

From Wikipedia's article on Paul of Samosata:
Paul's teaching is a form of Monarchianism, which emphasized the oneness of God. Paul taught that Jesus was born a mere man, but that at his baptism he was infused with the divine Logos or word of God. Hence, Jesus was seen not as God-become-man but as man-become-God.

Also from Wikipedia's article on Paul of Samosata [quoting Paul of Samosata]:
"Having been anointed by the Holy Spirit he received the title of the anointed (i.e. Christos), suffering in accordance with his nature, working wonders in accordance with grace. For in fixity and resoluteness of character he likened himself to God; and having kept himself free from sin was united with God, and was empowered to grasp as it were the power and authority of wonders. By these he was shown to possess over and above the will, one and the same activity (with God), and won the title of Redeemer and Saviour of our race."

It was during the 300's AD that Nestorianism came about.  Apollinarius was one of the first to lay the groundwork for that idea.  At the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD Nestorius said, "I can never allow that a child of three months old was God."

From Wikipedia's article on the Council of Ephesus:
Nestorianism emphasized the human nature of Jesus at the expense of the divine. The Council denounced Patriarch Nestorius' teaching as erroneous. Nestorius taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus gave birth to a man, Jesus, not God, the Logos (The Word, Son of God). The Logos only dwelled in Christ, as in a Temple (Christ, therefore, was only Theophoros, Greek for the "Bearer of God".

The next three are quotes from Nestorius:

From Nestorius' letter to St Cyril:
Holy scripture, wherever it recalls the Lord's economy, speaks of the birth and suffering not of the godhead but of the humanity of Christ, so that the holy virgin is more accurately termed mother of Christ than mother of God. Hear these words that the gospels proclaim: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham." It is clear that God the Word was not the son of David. Listen to another witness if you will: "Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ. " Consider a further piece of evidence: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be with child of the holy Spirit." But who would ever consider that the godhead of the only begotten was a creature of the Spirit?

Also from Nestorius' letter to St Cyril:
(Hence also Christ calls himself the lord and son of David: " 'What do you think of the Christ ? Whose son is he ?' They said to him, 'The son of David.' Jesus answered and said to them, 'How is it then that David inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, "The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand"?'". He said this as being indeed son of David according to the flesh, but his Lord according to his godhead.) The body therefore is the temple of the deity of the Son, a temple which is united to it in a high and divine conjunction, so that the divine nature accepts what belongs to the body as its own. Such a confession is noble and worthy of the gospel traditions. But to use the expression "accept as its own" as a way of diminishing the properties of the conjoined flesh, birth, suffering and entombment, is a mark of those whose minds are led astray ...

Also from Nestorius' letter to St Cyril:
For it is necessary for such as are attracted by the name "propriety" to make God the Word share, because of this same propriety, in being fed on milk, in gradual growth, in terror at the time of his passion and in need of angelical assistance.

It is debated whether or not Nestorius actually taught Nestorianism, but whether or not he did, the concept of Nestorianism was rejected.

The outcome was that it was held that Mary gave birth to a person who was fully man and fully God, so in that sense she could be called the mother of God, because the person she was mother to was not separated from God the Son.  The next council clarified this more explicitly.  In no way did the originators of this definition believe that Mary was the source of any aspect of Christ's divinity, and the title was intended to describe the nature of Christ, not teach any sort of heretical notion of Mary existing before Abraham like Christ did, or being an originator of divinity.

From the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon:
Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.

A few relevant questions for those who claim that Mary was not the mother of God in the Incarnation:

1. Do you believe that Jesus was God?
2. Do you believe that Jesus was God during the period he was in Mary's uterus, e.g. when John the Baptist leapt in Elizabeth's uterus?
3. Do you believe that Mary was Jesus' mother?
4. What was Mary mother to, if Jesus was God at the time of her pregnancy?
5. If she was mother to Jesus as man, but not Jesus as God, you're rejecting what the vast majority of Christians - Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, have taught for centuries to be the biblical faith.

Jesus was God in Mary's uterus.  Mary was his mother.  She was not the mother of the Godhead.  She did not pre-exist Jesus.  But her son was God, and she was his mother - the mother of God incarnate.