Stop whatever you're doing and go right now to read Michael Brendan Dougherty's story of John the Anonymous Christian.
(What is an Anonymous Christian? Glad you asked.)
When you've finished reading Mike's amazing piece, reflect on it in light of the following e-mail I received today from a reader of this blog. She's a white Christian woman who does volunteer work among poor black kids in the inner city. And she's calling b.s. on me and many others:
The problem I see with any/all blog discussions about "community" it that it results in a big pile of nothing. When reality strikes and it becomes clear what is actually required from us to serve God and Others, most people, if nearly all, will turn away.It's too high a price - especially when, the excuses and righteous-sounding justifications are readily available to us in such abundance.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"The "church" (Catholic) as an organization is obviously formed long after, and to this day carries many artifacts of the Roman religions it was mixed with."
During my time as an inquirer into the Orthodox church I struggled to break free from 12 years of Catholic school teaching. A revelation to me was the original meaning of the word "catholic" as it appears in the Creed. That word is a derivative of the Greek word "akatalektos", wich means: whole, not incomplete. It means that the followers of Jesus posses all of the information needed for them to work out their salvation. It never meant "universal" in an geographical or politcal sense. There are many other Greek words which would be a better translation for that understanding. The need for a word meaning "universal - geographically" was imposed by the Roman pontiff.
"Every man a Pope".-- Martin Luther
Ok, maybe not literally. But I think that's what he meant by Sola Scriptura, which is exactly what you advocate. Tradition be damned...
Maybe people should actually read Luther, on occasion, rather than purely guessing at what he thought based on some slogan which they haven't bothered to investigate. Luther objects to the Pope and to any who would operate in a similar fashion (i.e., claiming to interpret scripture for themselves) on the same basis: understanding and therefore interpretation belong to the Holy Spirit, given through the external Word. So God interprets God to us.
*From 393 AD to the Protestant Reformation all Christians believed in the 46 book canon of the Old Testament. IIRC Luther and other Protestant reformers objected to the content of 7 books of the Old Testament and summarily threw them out. I call this the "Abridged Bible". We Catholics use the unabridged version.
Partially true at best. There was not uniformity even from 393 on (Western Christianity is not the sum total of Christianity), Hippo did not settle the issue definitively, and prior to Hippo other canon lists had been accepted by other councils. There wasn't a formally binding canon in Roman Catholicism until Trent.
Different reformers treated the so-called apocrypha differently--Luther merely took them as of somewhat secondary importance (and even in that, treated each book individually). They weren't "thrown" anywhere. For example, he writes in his preface to Judith, "Therefore this is a fine, good, holy, useful book, well worth reading by us Christians. For the words spoken by the persons in it should be understood as though they were uttered in the Holy Spirit by a spiritual, holy poet or prophet who, in presenting such persons in his play, preaches to us through them."
Amazing what a little reading of actual sources will tell you.
John C.:
Well, then obviously Pope Benedict knows his ancient Greek ...
Larry:
He must not understand what "whole" and "not incomplete" means. If he did he would immediately begin dopping all of the Roman innovations to Christian theology.
During my time as an inquirer into the Orthodox church I struggled to break free from 12 years of Catholic school teaching. A revelation to me was the original meaning of the word "catholic" as it appears in the Creed. That word is a derivative of the Greek word "akatalektos", wich means: whole, not incomplete. It means that the followers of Jesus posses all of the information needed for them to work out their salvation. It never meant "universal" in an geographical or politcal sense. There are many other Greek words which would be a better translation for that understanding. The need for a word meaning "universal - geographically" was imposed by the Roman pontiff. Posted by: John C | February 10, 2008 9:10 AM
akatalêktos ακαταληκτος means "incessant" or "not to be conquered" or "incomprehensible" (LSJ Lexicon, p. 48)
The BDAG Lexicon defines katholikos καθολικος as coming from kata holos κατα ολος and meaning "general, universal." κατα ολος can literally mean "according to the whole," which might equate with "complete," and I think this is how we see it being used by Ignatius, the first writer to use the term "catholic church." I.e., each bishop-centered Eucharistic assembly was a catholic/complete church in itself.
By the time of Nicea in 325 (Εις μιαν αγιαν καθολικην και αποστολικην εκκλησιαν - "[I believe] in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church") I'm not sure it still had this meaning, or only/primarily this meaning, but perhaps had or was taking on the meaning it now has of "universal." That is something I've haphazardly tried to find out.
There are many Evangelical Protestants who say they believe in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, but unless one believes what the Creed-writers meant by "Catholic Church" and "One baptism for the forgiveness of sins," I'm not sure they in fact do believe in the Creed, but instead believe in a redefined version of it.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.