| Anybody going to the Rutgers game this Saturday?
|
| |
| But still interesting.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html?iref=newssearch
If you can't link to it for some reason, the basic idea of the article is about this document that the Vatican put out recently. If you're really interested, you can look for the document on the Vatican website. I read it a couple weeks ago, so my memory is a little fuzzy, but at one point of the document, it asserts that non-Catholic churches are not true churches, in the eyes of the Catholic church.
....
Duh.
Well, no, not really. But, wouldn't you think that non-Catholic Christians aren't part of the Catholic church for a reason? This article by CNN and the Vatican's paper made me curious about the Roman Catholic faith. I did a little investigation of my own (probably not a very extensive one).
Apparently, since I am part of a non-Catholic church, my church has defects in it because it does not recognize the primacy of the pope and apostolic succession.
The Catholic church asserts that Peter (or Saint Peter) was the leader of the Church (note the capital letter) after Jesus' time. They refer to Matthew 16:18 as their reasoning for Peter's authority. I do not know if this is the only evidence in the Bible, but after researching the verse in its original meaning, it seems rather weak.
The verse is as follow:
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome.
So, it seems what the Catholics are trying to say is that through this verse, Jesus gives authority to Peter as the head of the church. Even if that were true, I don't really see how this implies that Peter's authority is passed on to a successor. (I did research this a bit, but not as thoroughly). Furthermore, this verse is only evident in Matthew. Not in the other gospels. I would imagine that if this was so important to the early church, it would have been mentioned in the other gospels or other books of the New Testament.
I think (and probably many others) that what Jesus was referring to (the rock) was Peter's confession that Jesus was Christ, the Son of the living God (see Matthew 16:16-17).
Anyway, after re-reading the Vatican's paper, I found this in it:
“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe
they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in
the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from
using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness
of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[12].
So, I suffer from a defect but am not deprived of salvation. Does this seem to miss the big picture? I don't know, what do you think?
**For those who want the link to the Vatican's paper, here's the link: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html **
|
| |
| I tried to update twice already and this is my third attempt. Failed before because Xanga's website wasn't working after I typed everything out and wouldn't let me post and second time, the power went out.
On this third attempt, I will make it short and simple.
Move out of Pittsburgh. Will miss it although it started out tough getting used to. Moved to Philadelphia (Bensalem). Have the week off before starting new job on July 2. Come visit. The End.
|
| |
| Where should we live next year? Any suggestions on safe, affordable places to rent that are relatively close to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia?
|
| |
