RSS .92
Atom .03
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.
Those who are up in arms of the proclamation by the Apostles that the only true faith in the world is that which they taught shouldn't even bother getting upset. Just chalk it up to old men trying to get a little attention.
For John to even suggest in his second letter that those of us who reject the Apostles' claims about Jesus coming in the "flesh" shows that he is wholly ignorant of the Scriptures that I have known all my life.
Sorry, let me take that back. I've really only known the Bible for the last 13 of my 38 years. That's because those first 25 years were spent as a die-hard Christian.
That's right, I was born and raised in the Christian Church. One of the first meetings to build the church I was raised in -- the 3rd community church in Corinth -- took place in my grandparents' living room. Many of my Saturdays and Sundays were spent assisting at the liturgies, as the Christian youth organization leader, dedicated student of the Apostles' writings, and constantly "breaking bread."
And the reality is that we were never really encouraged to study the Scriptures. Luke even recorded that Philip explained the Scriptures to people, because they couldn't otherwise understand what they read. The standard practice was for all of us to read the same letters the Apostles wrote passed out by the church, recite the readings from the Torah, and hear a normally bland homily.
That isn't always the case at some Christian churches. Paul's disciples will surely have your soul jumping with their strong sermons and willingness to engage the community to get involved in direct action. You'll even stay up past midnight, and those who injure themselves due to tiredness will be healed.
Yet as I reflect on my years as a Christian, it pretty much was a wasted experience, as there was more identification with the church, and not with Christ.
And that's why the Apostles are meaningless, along with their decision to re-state the oneness of the "Body of Christ". Last year, Paul released a document to the Corinthians correcting interpretations of the First Jerusalem Council, which some say modernized the church, allowing Gentiles in. But for hardliners like Paul, the liberals went too far in some of their declarations.
But what ticked folks off was Paul's assertion in the 10-page follow-up document released this week that the only Apostles that can call themselves true Apostles are ones that can trace their teachings back to Jesus Christ. He even calls the rest "false apostles" and "deceitful workers."
Peter has backed this up, calling teachings other than theirs "damnable heresies."
This is nothing but a naked attempt by Peter and Paul to "own" Jesus by virtue of the Christian Church considering the Apostles to have been given authority to teach by Jesus. He refuses to acknowledge the reality that Jesus didn't consider a truth to be most important. What was? Love your neighbour. Love God. With all your heart, mind, and soul.
It doesn't matter what the Apostles have to say, or for that matter, any other religious leader. All who follow Jesus - Gnostics, Judaisers, Nicolaitans - believe in Jesus Christ and what He had to say, not what a man of God has to say. This is not an attempt to completely dismiss religious leaders, but is further evidence of what happens when ego is more important than the work of Christ.
Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Nowhere does it say that Peter, Paul or anyone else can supplant Jesus as the leader of the church.
It is these kinds of missives by the Apostles that do nothing to support or build the community of faith. All it does is divide.
Non-Apostolic leaders: Don't buy into the foolishness. Let the Apostles keep running off at the mouth and making pointless declarations. If you keep bringing good news to the poor, setting the captives free and assisting those who seek to know Jesus, then you'll make more headway in doing the work of Jesus than any 10-page document will.
For John to even suggest in his second letter that those of us who reject the Apostles' claims about Jesus coming in the "flesh" shows that he is wholly ignorant of the Scriptures that I have known all my life.
Sorry, let me take that back. I've really only known the Bible for the last 13 of my 38 years. That's because those first 25 years were spent as a die-hard Christian.
That's right, I was born and raised in the Christian Church. One of the first meetings to build the church I was raised in -- the 3rd community church in Corinth -- took place in my grandparents' living room. Many of my Saturdays and Sundays were spent assisting at the liturgies, as the Christian youth organization leader, dedicated student of the Apostles' writings, and constantly "breaking bread."
And the reality is that we were never really encouraged to study the Scriptures. Luke even recorded that Philip explained the Scriptures to people, because they couldn't otherwise understand what they read. The standard practice was for all of us to read the same letters the Apostles wrote passed out by the church, recite the readings from the Torah, and hear a normally bland homily.
That isn't always the case at some Christian churches. Paul's disciples will surely have your soul jumping with their strong sermons and willingness to engage the community to get involved in direct action. You'll even stay up past midnight, and those who injure themselves due to tiredness will be healed.
Yet as I reflect on my years as a Christian, it pretty much was a wasted experience, as there was more identification with the church, and not with Christ.
And that's why the Apostles are meaningless, along with their decision to re-state the oneness of the "Body of Christ". Last year, Paul released a document to the Corinthians correcting interpretations of the First Jerusalem Council, which some say modernized the church, allowing Gentiles in. But for hardliners like Paul, the liberals went too far in some of their declarations.
But what ticked folks off was Paul's assertion in the 10-page follow-up document released this week that the only Apostles that can call themselves true Apostles are ones that can trace their teachings back to Jesus Christ. He even calls the rest "false apostles" and "deceitful workers."
Peter has backed this up, calling teachings other than theirs "damnable heresies."
This is nothing but a naked attempt by Peter and Paul to "own" Jesus by virtue of the Christian Church considering the Apostles to have been given authority to teach by Jesus. He refuses to acknowledge the reality that Jesus didn't consider a truth to be most important. What was? Love your neighbour. Love God. With all your heart, mind, and soul.
It doesn't matter what the Apostles have to say, or for that matter, any other religious leader. All who follow Jesus - Gnostics, Judaisers, Nicolaitans - believe in Jesus Christ and what He had to say, not what a man of God has to say. This is not an attempt to completely dismiss religious leaders, but is further evidence of what happens when ego is more important than the work of Christ.
Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Nowhere does it say that Peter, Paul or anyone else can supplant Jesus as the leader of the church.
It is these kinds of missives by the Apostles that do nothing to support or build the community of faith. All it does is divide.
Non-Apostolic leaders: Don't buy into the foolishness. Let the Apostles keep running off at the mouth and making pointless declarations. If you keep bringing good news to the poor, setting the captives free and assisting those who seek to know Jesus, then you'll make more headway in doing the work of Jesus than any 10-page document will.
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.
on July 15, 2007, 12:23 am
Reply to this comment
on July 15, 2007, 12:49 am
If the Apostles stood up for their teachings, and didn't consider those who didn't share their teachings to be part of the same Church, and if they were indeed the one true faith once delivered, then those rejecting the Apostles' teaching were simply not that true faith.
That then begs the question - if the original faith survived until today, where is it, and does it make the same claim? Or has it rejected the way the Apostles saw the matter, and accepted all different denominations as equally authentic Apostolic Churches? If the latter, then it has betrayed its roots and the Apostles Jesus left as the leaders back then.
The CDF statement isn't about whether our separated brethren are true or valid Christians - they are. We know they are, they know they are, God knows they are.
The statement IS about the relationship of the multitude of denominations we have today to the original Apostolic Church. Were the Apostles here today, they would make the same claim. If their Church then is the Methodist church today, then they'd be making that claim for the Methodists. If they were Baptist, it would be the Baptists.
Most Protestant denominations don't - and cannot - make such a claim. No denomination that isn't a continuation of the first 500 years of Christianity can. But the Apostles' Church could, and did. To find the continuation of their Church - the biblical one - we need to find where their claim (and their other teachings and practices) is still maintained.
Reply to this comment