Debaters: Let's have It Out !

by Amazing 124 Replies latest jw friends

  • Sad emo
    Sad emo

    I have a big problem with the RC churches sole claim to apostolic succession - the church started out with 5 patriarchs, all of whom had apostolic beginnings - and, although some staunch RC's might object, Rome wasn't really that much to the fore in doctrinal decision making - much of the doctrine came from Alexandria and Antioch, Rome, as a key administrative centre was the focal point of disseminating the Gospel to the world. The question of the Roman patriarch deciding that he was above all the other patriarchs only came through political and territorial arguments later on.

    Couple this with the claim of Peter's superiority over the other's being based largely upon a couple of verses of scripture whose integrity and original inclusion are questioned by many scholars - the verses saying 'You are Peter and on this rock etc' are believed to be a later addition.

    I think even Peter himself would be deeply embarrassed, possibly angered by the prominence placed upon him over history.

    "On Christ, the solid rock I stand - all other ground is sinking sand."

    emo - unofficially protestant reformed zen orthodox

    officially Angelican (I like that!)

    genuinely Christian

  • Junction-Guy
    Junction-Guy

    I only have one question for this thread, and it is for Amazing. You mentioned your Son and Daughter in law ligthing a unity candle at their Kingdom Hall wedding. I have never seen this before at a JW wedding, and assumed it would be pagan by JW standards. Is this something that is really allowed, or were they just "lucky" that the elders didnt ban it?

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hi Lovelylil,

    There are so many posts to choose from that I have a hard time knowing where to start. I started with yours just because you raise what leads to the core of the issues.

    The church is the "body of believers". It is comprised of those who have been saved and redeemed by the true living God based upon the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus upon the cross. Another term for body of believers is "body of Christ" . So all those "in Christ" make up the church. Inclusion into the body of Christ or the true Church is not by membership in ANY denomination. It is not recieved by any rituals or by ceremony, or by natural birth. It is recieved by faith (Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8). The invisible Church is the church made up of all true believers who have been born again by the spirit of God.

    I like the principle of your definition ... except I am having a hard time finding the word "invisible" in the Bible. The RCC fundamentally accepts your definition, except they too, I suspect, would have a hard time with the word 'invisible.'

    The word church comes from the Greek "ekklesia" which means "assembly" or "gathering". But the church is more than a meeting place. And more than a place for believers to gather who profess faith in God or a place to attend weekly services. The Church is the "living temple" of the true God. It is not the building, meeting place, an organization or a denomination. The Church IS the totality of all true believers regardless of denominational affiliation. The entire body of believers IS the church and as such, it is the dwelling place of the Holy and Infinite God. The church is a mystery to some but understood by true believers.

    Excellent, you have perfectly described the Catholic Church ... and this definition can describe Protestants.

    The church came into its existance at Pentecost and was purchased by God with his own blood (Acts 20:28) and Jesus is the head of the Church (Ephesians 1:22,23). The church is the dwelling place of God (Ephesians 2:22). If you are "in Christ" and have God living in you (Holy Spirit), you are IN the Church as much as you ARE the church.

    Excellent! Agreed.

    All the denominations that were put into place well after Pentecost by men have done nothing to unite the body of Christ and have in fact divided the body into sects, with each one following another leader.

    So, when did this commence? With the schism in 1054 AD? Or in the 16th century with the followers of Luther? Prior to this there was no sect or denomination, there was just one Church affiliation, one body, containing all the things you describe in the preceding paragraph.

    Just because the Apostles laid some foundation stones for those in the true faith did not mean they anticipated the creation of the monsters we see today in religious organizations complete with a detailed hierarchy and filled with rules, doctrines, traditions, and other commands of men for the church to follow.

    Monsters? I see the body of Christ.

    Heirarchy? The Apostle Paul laid out the heirarchy up to Bishop. That is all the Orthodox and Roman Catholic have. Such heirarchy is Biblical.

    Rules, doctrines and traditions? Galations 5:23 give a sample of the rules, doctrines, and commands for the Church. The Bible speaks of Apostolic tradition.

    Commands of men? What commands of men do you speak?

    Anyone saying that Christ gave them authority over his body to do such a thing is just deceiving themselves.

    Given what the Bible teaches, then are you saying that the Apostle Paul and the other Apostles and Bible writers were deceiving themselves. Perhaps some detail is warranted. As you have defined the Church and its structure, your above sentence does not make sense.

    The church has been in existance since Pentacost and will continue on until the Lord arrives to gather it.

    The Bible never speaks of the Church being gathered before the weeds. (Yes, I know you didn't say that, but I am making the point for JWs who are focused on gathering the wheat, but who failed to gather the weeds first.) It speaks of Christ and the angels harvesting the weeds into bundles to be burned and then what is left is the wheat to be gathered into one place. The RCC and Protestants and Orthodox have always understood that the wheat and weeds are growing up together in the Church. Your sentence infers to JWs and some ex-JWs a scenario that comes out of the playbook of Free Bible Students, the Watchtower, Mormons, and other groups that want to believe that they are the gathering place of the wheat class. The Bible teaches at Matthew 13:30: "Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye togetherfirst the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." So, how do we understand this illustration? The tares or weeds are first gathered into bundles for burning. The wheat is left to be gathered into Christ's barn (the church?). To help us in context, Jesus then spoke of the same exact Kingdom of Heaven in the very next verses 31 and 32: " Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof."
    Could it be that the greatest tree is the Church, and all the denominations are her branches? Catholic and Orthodox being the trunk, and Protestants being the smaller branches? But, like the field of wheat, the weeds are allowed to grow and lodge in the tree until the harvest.

    And this will be done under the noses of those who claim they ARE the true church but cannot grasp the spiritual understanding of what the church really is.

    What support do you have for this claim? Who is it that cannot grasp what the CHurch really is?

    Thanks Jim for this thread to discuss this issue.

    You're welcome ... and I hope that it proves productive.

    For those used to the church systems, protestant, catholic, baptist, etc. it will be hard to grasp this concept for they have always been taught to look for an "outward" proof of the church (such as a building, denomination, etc.).

    You are mistaken. No self-respecting Protestant would ever look to a church system for an outward proof of the Church or the "truth." These are foreign concepts to them. The basis for their existence is that they reject any church system as being the Chuch. After my JW years, I spent years with the Baptists, Assembly of God, Presbyterian, Christian Reform, and others. They one and all consider each other brothers and sisters in Christ. The reason for their existence is emphasis on certain Christian teachings. Roman Catholic accept that there are Christians in all places and denominations. Catholics recognize that the Church is scattered.

    The real issue is whether or not there is Apostolic authority passed down through succession, or merely claimed by those who want to claim it, or that there is no such thing as Apostolic authority. Historical fact shows us that for the first 1,500-years the Church only understood that they has Apostolic authority. Such a thing you described as the "invisible" church, or the Protestant concept just did not exist.

    This begs the question: Was Christ with the Church and did the Holy Spirit guide the Church as promised, or did God let the Church become totally apostate with the first disciples, and only a small remnant of true Chrustians functioned all these centuries? Of course we can see the implications. Groups like the Watchtower, Mormons, Adventists, etc. love to think of the Church in the latter way. They need it to justify their systems. Independent Christians, mostly of a Protestant style ilk also need the latter view to a degree because they reject successive Apostolic authority. Whereas Rome and Constantinople, the two great historic Churches believe that while apoastasy did infect the Church, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit protected the Church, and that Apostolic Succession is intact to this very day.

    Which view is correct? That is the final question.

    Or a place they must go to in order to be taught about God. In contrast to the fact that Jesus himself said "the time is coming, when we will worship in spirit and truth" and Paul who stated "God does not dwell in man-made temples". The truth is God is within all true believers because we have been indwelled with his Holy Spirt.

    Your application is obviously meant toward Christian Churches, and primarily at Catholic and Orthodox. But, the context of Paul's words was aimed at Israel and its religious system. The rest of your comments are clearly as much Catholic as they are Protestant. To a Catholic, the House of God is the Church, which is the Body of Christ, which is the gathering of believers who have the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that whever two or more gather in my name, there I will also be. So, when Catholic gather, whether at home or in the Chruch, Christ is there. I likewise believe that this applies to Protestant Christians.

    And it is that Spirit that teaches the church, not any man or organization.

    This is where I can ask, how does the Holy Spirit teach believers? Does he teach us individually to the exclusion of others in the body? Or does he use all means, such as other members of the Body of Christ to teach us, which would include those with Apostolic authority?

    If you read John 14 again, you find where Jesus taught them that the Holy Spirit would comfort and teach them and bring back to their minds all the things he taught them ... however ... the context was not specifically stated to all Christians, though one might make that inference. The context started in John 13, because teh event was the Last Supper! Jesus was speaking only to him Apostles when he made that promise, and not to the general gathering of the disciples. It is the Apostle Paul that wrote to the Hebrew Christians to get them to think beyond Judaism and how the Holy Spirit was teaching them. But how was the Holy Spirit teaching the Hebrew Christians to which Paul applied the verses from Jeremiah 31? They were being directly taught by an Apostle, namely Paul.

    While the Apostles and older men have helped in setting some ground rules, we must continue learning by yielding to the Spirit of God that dwells inside of us. Again, the body of believers IS the temple of God or the Church. Peace, Lilly

    The Apostles had far more to do with establishing the Church than setting some few ground rules. The Apostle Paul, for example, set the basis for how congregations would operate. When the Church had a dispute, the Apostles and Priests (Presbyters) met in Jerusalem to solve the problem. They did not leave it to each individual to wait on the Holy Spirit to lead each one independently. Rather, they wrote a collective letter saying in Acts 15, "The Holy Spirit and we ourselves ..." and thus the Apostles included themselves in what we being decided and taught to the Church.

    Last but not least: The Church is a Body, thus nbot all are the eye, nor are all the feet. The whole body is joined together for a purpose. Some are Apostels, some are Prophets, some are Evangelizers, some are Teachers, some are Shepherds or Pastors, and so on. This clearly and Biblically establishes various offices and in order for there to exist offices, there must be an authority to appoint those offices. Hence, the Apostle Paul appointed Priests (Presbyters, Elders) in city after city. The Apostle Peter personally groomed and appointed St. Ignatius to be Bishop (Overseer, Epsikopoi) of Antiioch, and so on. There were women and men who were Deacons who were charged with responsibility in the Church. There were a variety of ministries as there are in Churches today. Tyhe RCC is filled with all kinds of ministries. Just look at Mother Teresa as a recent example, and the Order of Sisters she founded to serve the poor in India. There was from the very beginning both the Church as a body of believers indwelled by the Holy Spirit, and there was a Church with authority to appoint people to offices. It was all united and of one faith. This continued fairly well, albeit a level of apostasy and heresy that was fought off for centuries, but continued nonetheless.

    I see both: Both the so-named "invisible" Church that is everywhere ... which is quite visible because it is made up od human beings who have the Holy Spirit ... and I see the Church functioning as a body, with all its parts joined together to carry out God's will, and I see a large tree of Christianity with many smaller branches, and the large supporting tree trunk called the Catholic Church which connects all the others to the roots grounded in the same faith.

    Pax Vobiscum

    Jim Whitney

  • Terry
    Terry

    You can't start a debate about what color Santa Claus's underwear is without FIRST establishing whether or not Santa exists. Then, you have to establish a valid means of obtaining information about Santa.

    Same here.

    No religious debate is valid without rooting out the PREsuppositions that creep in from the getgo.

    You cannot merely ASSUME:

    1.There are supernatural entities.

    2.There is a supreme, conscious supernatural leader who is benign and wishes to communicate with humans.

    3.There is a document (or documents) that conveys the desires of this supreme being.

    4.That any existing document(s) are correctly translated and interpreted.

    All this must be established FIRST.

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    emo,

    I am glad you brought that point up about Peter. Here is the verse the RC points to in thier claim that Peter alone is the foundation for the church:

    Matthew 16:

    13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

    17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 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 it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

    Jesus mentioning Peters name is significant here: Because Peter is Petros which means "detached stone", but the word "Rock" he used is Petra meaning "bedrock". Here Jesus is saying you Petros will build my church upon the larger Rock (Bedrock) which is the Christ. Peter had just acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus than tells him on THIS "Rock" (Christ) the church will be built. But Peter (petros) will help to lay a foundation upon the chief rock, (Christ), he is just not the Rock that supports the church, Jesus is. (Jesus is also called the "Chief Cornerstone")

    Like emo said, the RC uses the one verse above to support thier views, lets look at more texts that clear up who is THE Rock and who laid the foundation upon it.

    Ephesians 2:19,20

    19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.

    The foundation on the Rock of Christ was built by all the Apostles and prophets and not just Peter. But again, Christ is the Chief Stone or Bed Rock. The others are the foundation stones. Think about building a home. You must have something other than dirt to build your foundation upon. My home's foundation is build upon bedrock. The foundation is laid over the bedrock. This scripture is saying the same thing.

    The following texts show Jesus, not Peter is the is the Rock:

    Matthew 7:24

    Jesus says: "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock

    Remember those who did not build on this rock, built there home on sand?

    Romans 9:33
    As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

    Peter himself identifies that rock or "stone" that the church is built on as being Jesus. 1 Peter 2;

    4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
    "See, I lay a stone in Zion,
    a chosen and precious cornerstone,
    and the one who trusts in him
    will never be put to shame." 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
    "The stone the builders rejected
    has become the capstone, 8 and,
    "A stone that causes men to stumble
    and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

    About the keys:

    Many believe the keys of the kingdom was given to the Church itself while some say by the verse in Matthew 16, the keys were given to Peter alone. Those who believe Peter alone recieved the keys also believe he already used these "keys". They believe Peter used these keys at Pentacost when he announced that the door of the kingdom was unlocked for Jews and Proselytes and later when he announced the door was unlocked to Gentiles. (see Acts 2, Acts 10)

    Matthew 16 also states that the gates of hades will never prevail against the church. And that whatever the church binds on earth will be bound in heaven. This does not mean only Peter could bind things in earth and heaven but the church. Matthew 18:15-19, clearly shows it is the church that collectively will pronounce innocent or guilt in matters and that pronouncement on earth will be bound in heaven. Since Peter did not have this sole ability, he could not have passed it along to others in a "apostolic sucession".

    Also, unlike the RC Church teaches, the church could announce guilt or innocence but not determine it, nor did they execute judgement against someone. Only God executes the judgement.

    Peace, Lilly

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    Jim,

    I replied to emo and then saw your comments. Please see what I told him about the church and the apostles.

    What I meant by invisible church is that being in the church does not mean you have to be "in" a church building. The spirit is in all true believers and we are "the church".

    I agree that the Apostles, as well as the prophets built a foundation for the Christian church. But they built it, upon the rock mass of Jesus Christ himself and not on any one of the Apostles. I have no problem with Apostolic tradition and teachings. And the majority of Christian churches will also be in agreement with this, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, or even the little house church I attend, which is also based upon the teachings of the Apostles. But we are to be loyal to Christ first, and we should not treat the Apostles as if they are above him. By the RC Church for instance claiming they are built on Peter - this would be exalting Peter above Christ. The church which is the body of believers everywhere is built upon the Rock Mass of Christ and the foundation of the prophets and Apostles.

    I think the main problem I have is that the Church Systems try to say who is/is not in the body of Christ. They will say you are only in the body if you belong to their church system. And this is not the way the Christian church is supposed to operate. All believers are all "in Christ" and are Christians, we do not need to be divided into different denominations. The denominations also set up their own traditions and doctrines unique to them that were not directly handed down by the Apostles. That is why it is important to check all things to God's word to see if it is true. However, I am not telling anyone not to belong to a particular denomination only that it is not neccesary to belong to Christ's church. Where two or three are gathered in his name, he is with them and they are a Church.

    The church has been growing since Pentecost and I agree with you Christ promised to always be with them thru the Holy Spirit. I reject the JW's and Bible Students claim that the entire Church went into an Apostacy for 1900 years and there were no true Christians on the earth. Like you said very well and used scriptures, the wheat and weeds (true and false Christians) grow up together, (in the body of Christ) until the Angels are sent to seperate them out during the Harvest. The problem with the cults is they claim the harvest has already been done and they are the only true Christians left. Like you said the wheat and weeds grow up in the SAME place, which is the body of Christ. Then the tares or weeds are removed from among the true wheat. This point you made is significant because the cults have it reversed. They are claiming they are the wheat and were removed from the weeds of false religion. However, it is the weeds that are removed from the wheat - the reverse, and the wheat are left standing. (great point, Jim)

    One more thing about Jesus words that we need to worship "in spirit and truth" and Paul saying "God does not dwell in man made temples", If you look at the context of both those verses, the point is that the "place" of worship does not matter. As a believer in Christ and having the spirit in me, I am in the living Church and I can feel free to worship in a house church, a Catholic one, a Protestant one, etc. and it does not matter. As long as I am worshiping in spirit and truth. The place is not the most important thing. Granted, most Christians do not elevate the Church building or system above Christ and recongnize that the Church is really the believers.

    I think we really agree on more than we disagree on. Peace, Lilly

  • *jeremiah*
    *jeremiah*

    Sorry, this is very long, yet, I think it's appropriate and very good. It's worth taking the time to read.

    Has Roman Catholicism Changed?

    Has Roman Catholicism Changed?
    An Overview of Recent Canon Law

    Thomas Schirrmacher[a] Antithesis , vol. 1, no. 2, 1990


    Some observers speak of significant reforms taking place within Roman Catholicism, but an evaluation of recent official pronouncements suggests another course.


    I. The Starting Point: Use of term "Tradition" in Scripture

    Before discussing the new Catholic Church Law, I wish briefly to make my own presuppositions clear. I intend to examine the teachings and organizational structure of any church according to the divine revelation found in Holy Scripture. This approach can be briefly applied to the notion of "tradition." The word "tradition" (Gr. paradosis; Lat. traditio), in the New Testament, may refer to the act of "passing on" (delivery); or it may point to the content thereof -- that which was passed on (delivered). Usually, it has to do with the transmission of teachings or instructions. The Biblical use of the term does not in itself imply a valuation: the tradition can be divine or human, true or false.

    A. Tradition in the OT

    The OT does not have a special word for "tradition." The activity itself however is described by many concepts. Genuine tradition grounded in acts or revelation of Jahwe ought to be passed on to the next generation. False tradition, based on man's wisdom, is attacked: "Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments,... [but rather] walk in my statues, and keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezek.20:18-19) Holding fast to the genuine "tradition" imparts life (Prov.4:13); it does not stifle (Prov.4:12).

    B. Tradition in the NT
    1. Divine or Sound Tradition

    In addition to using the term "tradition" in the sense of the substance delivered, the New Testament also uses the verb form "deliver," sometimes with the meaning "to surrender [something]." The passages may be divided between those pertaining to the positive transmissions, which are to be held fast, and those dealing with negative ones which are to be eschewed. Luke identifies the oral transmission of eyewitnesses as the source for his gospel account (Lk 1:2). Paul, too, expressly appeals to eyewitnesses to defend the transmitted account of the death and resurrection of Jesus which was consistent with Scripture (I Cor.15:3 ff). The Lord's Supper goes back to the divine transmission which was passed on by men (I Cor.11:23ff; cf.already v.2).

    Along with the transmission of historical events is the transmission of special instructions of the Apostles, of the gospel, or of the faith as such. The resolutions of the Jerusalem counsel were transmitted to the congregations as firmly established teachings "to keep" (Acts 16:4). In 2 Thess.2:15 and 3:6 the traditions are to be held firm, which were passed on "whether by word or our epistle" (2:15). II Pet. 2:21 speaks of holy commands "delivered unto them." Defection from these commands is equated to a defection from the very faith itself. Parallel to this, Jude 3 admonishes "...that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." In the NT, then, the positive sense of tradition as transmission encompasses the Scriptures (cf. 2 Tim.3:15 ff.), the gospel, and the faith as a whole as well as the particular historical accounts and instructions of the apostles, the latter being available to us only via the Scripture.

    2. Human or False Traditions in NT

    To the same extent that the NT portrays the gospel itself as tradition, it opposes other traditions which lay claim to divine authority. According to I Pet. 1:18, redemption is needed from precisely that vain manner of living "received by tradition[1] from your fathers"! This judgment applies to all human traditions: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men..." (Col.2:8)

    Amidst all the variety of evangelists and teachers, Paul does not want anything to go astray from that which is written (I Cor. 4:6), for that would lead to one puffing himself up against another, whereas that which was transmitted unites (4:6-7).

    Paul's dispute is especially with the Jewish traditions which are added to the Old Testament. Paul explicitly rejects these "traditions of the fathers" for which he himself was so zealous prior to his conversion to Christ (Gal.1:14). The polemic is found especially in the discussions between Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees. (The Sadducees, for the most part, rejected the oral tradition along with the Old Testament.) In Mt.15:1ff and Mk 7:1ff., traditions are set in sharp contrast to the command and Word of God. To the extent that tradition is observed, the Word of God is made void (Mk 7:13). In this connection Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13: "Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men..." (Mk.7:6-8)

    In the sermon on the mount, Jesus uses particular examples to distinguish the law from the traditions of the elders (Mt.5:17-6:18). He doesn't heighten the obligations of the law, but only reminds them of it: Cursing, lusting for a woman (10th commandment), divorce except in the case of unchastity, hatred of one's enemies, etc. is already declared abhorrent in the Old Testament. The Pharasaical traditions do not clarify the Bible, but stand in direct contradiction to the Word of God whenever they lay claim to divine authority (Mk. 7). Surely there will always be certain circumstances relative to the various cultures where innovation is appropriate -- the time of the worship service, seating arrangements, etc. But these may never bind the conscience of all men, unless they are based upon the Bible. Stumbling against such innovations does not mean one stumbles against the eternal and universal doctrine of God. All opinions regarding how a Christian should live, if they lay claim to divine validity, may be tested and questioned in terms of the Bible. This also applies to the new Roman Catholic Church Law, which is the subject of the following discourse.

    II. The Essence of Catholic Law

    Catholic law does not simply provide legal structuring of the church in the sense in which every organization in time subjects itself.

    A. Roman Catholic Church Law in General
    1. Claims to be "divine"

    The Catholic church law has a totally different character from that of protestants, even if the latter may be criticized in its own right. One dictionary defines church law as "law created by God and the church, for the church."[2]

    2. Reflects the essence of the church

    Because of its divine character, church law in the Roman church is not an arbitrary factor, but rather reflects the essence of the church; indeed, it determines the essence of the church. The German conference of Bishops explained it like this: "Jesus Christ himself established the fundamental form of this order. The church is of divine origin. Its life flows from the Word of God, the sacraments. The guarantor of its unity is the seat of Peter. Bishops lead their dioceses as followers of the apostles in unity with the Pope. Church law is thus the way of life of the church, the expression of her unity and the thing which defines how to care for souls."[3]

    This perspective remains valid even in recent times as the quote shows, and has not been weakened by all the alleged reforms of the Roman Catholic Church in the last decades. In his introduction to the new church law, the chairman of the German Canon Law Translation Commission, Winfried Aymans, writes:

    The church law grows, according to catholic understanding, out of the essence of the church itself. It is, according to the teaching of the second Vatican Counsel, the external side of a complex reality; it is at the same time the human expression of a manifold spiritual reality whose root is in God.[4]
    3. Mediates salvation

    Catholic church law, according to the Roman Catholic Church, goes back to God and the spiritual authority of the church. Thus, it has the character of mediating salvation. The above-cited lexicon says, "The salvation-mediating function of church law finds succinct expression in the old formula Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation), which in its original understanding referred to the visible, hierarchically constituted church. Its judicial ordinary[b] power plays a decisive role in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ."[5] Furthermore, "The church law is Holy Law on account of its divine origin and its function of mediating salvation; this was expressed in the early Christian terms for church law, for example jus divinum, sacrum, poli, coeli (divine, holy, heavenly justice)."[6]

    The jurisdiction of Catholic ecclesiastical law extends therefore far beyond the boundaries of the Catholic Church. Certain parts apply to all men, others to all baptized persons of whatever confession. "Catholic church law is the law of the church united under the Pope as her visible head, which understands itself as the church of Jesus Christ; therefore, her judicial order applies fundamentally to all baptized persons.... Though the claim with respect to non-Catholic Christians generally cannot be enforced, yet it still has practical significance whenever the legal relation to non-Catholic Christians (e.g. the legitimacy of a marriage) is brought before the Catholic forum."[7]

    B.The Distinction Between Divine and Human Justice in Church Law

    Since there is now a new version of the canon law, clearly not all aspects of it are immutable. In particular, a distinction must be made between divine and human law under the rubric of ecclesiastical law. "The purely ecclesiastical law, like all human law, may change in order to adapt to changing circumstances. The divine law is unchangeable, though it should not be thought of as a fixed quantity. Just as there is progress (doctrinal development) in the course of understanding and unifying the stuff of revelation, so the church also grows in its understanding of positive divine law -- for example, the teaching regarding the papal primacy. This applies above all to the natural divine law." [8] Herman Avenarius explains the distinction more precisely:

    Catholic canon law proceeds from the primacy of divine law (ius divinum). This is divided into two categories: the positive divine law (ius divinum positivum) as revealed in redemptive history, above all in the Scriptures; and natural law (ius naturale) based on God's natural revelation in the created order. The ius divinum is universal and valid at all times; it cannot be set aside by force, nor be altered. Under this category are included the 10 commandments, the ordinance of the sacraments... and the papal primacy.

    Human law stands in contrast to the ius divinum, and in turn can be divided into the categories civil law (ius civile) and church law (ius humanum ecclesiasticum); it is in its essence changeable. Legislative authority for ius humanum ecclesiasticum, which is only binding for baptized persons, lies in the Pope for the church as a whole, and in the Bishop at the level of the diocese." [9]

    In any new edition of the canon law, the divine law may only be reformulated, while the human law may be completely changed. Still, the former pronouncements continue to have meaning: "the old, cancelled law lives on as to substance in the CIC,[10] and continues to have significance for the ongoing interpretation of it." [11]

    One should bear in mind the history of this distinction. In the words of one Catholic canonist, "the distinction between ius divinum and ius humanum was not consciously recognized until the Reformation." [12]

    To the outsider, it may be difficult to distinguish between the divine and human law within the canon law. Even catholic professors of Canon Law have their disputes over this.[13] This is equally true, however, for the doctrines of the catholic church. An infallible dogma is derived from a particular teaching via a complicated ranking process. In the German edition of the most important teachings of the catholic church, the attempt was made to divide the teachings into those that are "infallible" or unchangeable, and those that may be revised. [14] This work recommends itself as a good complement to the study of canon law.

    We summarize the characteristics of catholic canon law in the words of Erwin Fahlenbusch, a teacher of church symbols:

    The Roman Catholic Church carries out its worship and its life in the world in disciplined fashion: its organization is judicially structured. The canon law (or Catholic church law) consists of the totality of all rules (law statements; "canon," measure, standard) governing action and institutions of the church.... The necessity for such a law is, for the Roman Catholic Church, not deduced merely from the fact of being a social corporation, and needing, like every other society, binding rules. Rather it sees its possession of discipline as given along with its constitution and mission. In other words, the discipline of the church is redemptive-historically conditioned and is logically and materially prior to the standards necessary for any societal organization. It includes the rules needed for organization and protection, but goes beyond this in that it is essentially related to the mediation of salvation. Canonical law distinguishes itself from every other jurisprudence just as the Church is distinguished from every other community. It is the reflection of the Roman Catholic Church's understanding of its own nature." [15]

    III. The New Catholic Canon Law of 1983

    A. Church Law as Papal Expression

    The church law derives its authority ultimately from the papal office of Peter, as is clear from the quotations above. Aymans writes in the context of presenting the gradual emergence of the new laws: "the work of reform, initiated and assisted by the counsel, and its result in the form of the now promulgated[16] Codex, were only issued forth by means of the authority of the Pope." [17] This state of affairs stands forth clearly in the title of the new canon law: "Code of canon law, promulgated by the authority of Pope John Paul II" (translated from CIC 1984).

    B. The Relevance of the Canon Law

    The new canon law of 1983 is a superb vehicle for ascertaining the current state of development of the Catholic Church. One who would engage in polemics with the Catholic church law will not need to answer the objection that he is attacking outdated Catholic positions or trying to drag peripheral issues to the center stage. The church law of 1983 is:

    • inspired by Vatican II, and claims to take up its reforms and put them into concrete form;
    • a century-long work in our own time, and has brought about a flood of new literature commenting on the changes and suggesting practical applications;
    • published by the authority of the current Pope;
    • like all canon law, tied up with the essence of the catholic church as well as its notion of salvation.

    The relevance of the new church law will be even better understood if we look at its historical development.

    C. Historical Background of the New Canon Law

    Church law always played a big role in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. For centuries, however, it was scattered through many documents, and parts of it were buried within other writings and often only derivable from current practices. In 1917, after many years of effort, the countless scattered laws and determinations were gathered together in the large work "Codex Iuris Canonici", and this remained in force almost without change or correction until 1983.

    On Jan.25, 1959, anticipating the second Vatican Counsel (1962-65), Pope John XXIII announced a revision of the church law, which was to incorporate especially the changes of the (then) upcoming second Vatican Counsel. Numerous commissioners worked on it after the counsel. Pope John Paul II, who took office in 1978, gave the project substantial impetus. On Jan. 25, 1983, after long preparation, John Paul II released the new Catholic Law -- in Catholic terminology he "promulgated" the new law -- setting November 27, 1983 as the date it would come into force. Was it just a coincidence that Martin Luther's 500th birthday, solemnly celebrated by many protestant churches, fell in the same month?

    The new catholic law applies to all Catholic Christians in the Latin church. Many of the determinations claim validity for all baptized persons; many others, to all Catholics. Many of the provisions, however, apply only to the Latin, or Roman, Catholics, that is, not to the (mostly very small) orthodox churches that are attached to the Roman Catholic church. The original intention of creating a church law applicable equally to all non-Latin churches within the fold of the Catholic Church failed. So to some extent, other provisions apply to these churches, mostly of orthodox heritage. In terms of numbers, however, these churches are insignificant.

    D. Differences Between the Ecclesiastical Laws of 1917 and 1983

    Both in structure and contents there are many differences between the laws as published in 1917 and 1983.

    Where the church law of 1917 was strongly modeled after the juridical structure of Roman law (personae/res/actiones, i.e. persons/things/actions) the new law is oriented more toward personal questions in accordance with Vatican II. After a long introduction, Book I starts with "General Norms." Book II follows with "The People of God." It is considerably more detailed than the first book and contains rights and duties of laymen and the important section on the clerics. It is here that the Roman Catholic ecclesiology (=theory of the church) is unfolded. In contrast, Book III on the "The Teaching Office of the Church" is very short! It is striking that this section also takes up the rules for Catholic schools and universities. The detailed book IV, "Office of Sanctifying in the Church", comprises, significantly, the entire sacramental ordinances. The other sections are V. "The Temporal Goods of the Church", VI. "Sanctions in the Church", VII. "Processes"; these three describe the entire judicial structure of the church along with its court system.

    E. General Remarks on the New Church Law

    With the new church law, the Catholic Church reveals itself once again as a religion of law. Luther rightly spoke of the "Law of the Pope". The Mosaic law of the Old Testament had a divine origin that the new church law unjustly lays claim to. [c] It distinguishes itself from the Catholic law in that it is short, comprehensive, and simple; for the most part it is expressed in principles and case examples which can then be applied to concrete situations. The Catholic church law is quite different. The 1,752 Canons along with subparagraphs treat everything from the church's right to exist to processing costs, from the Catholic university to confirmation certificates, excommunication to the sale of relics. In all of this nothing is left to chance; the terms are all precisely defined.

    Two examples will show the extent of attention to detail.[d]

    The Bishop is instructed as follows: "Except for a serious and urgent reason he is not to be absent from his diocese on Christmas, during Holy Week, on Easter, Pentecost, or Corpus Christi." (Can 395.3)

    The definition of an illegitimate child goes: "Children are presumed to be legitimate if they are born at least 180 days after the celebration of the marriage or within 300 days from the date when conjugal life was terminated" (Can 1138.2).

    F. Motion Toward the Bible?

    One hears promises of a departure in the direction of the Bible in the new law. Many passages do in fact have a new, evangelical ring to them. One reads of "justification by faith" (Apost. Const.15[e]), "rebirth in Christ" (Can 208) and much more. But appearances are deceptive. The words are there, but they mean something quite different. A few examples may show this.

    The Bishops work together in a "collegial spirit", (Apost.Const.7,13,20) but their word has no further significance apart from approval by the Pope (ibid.,esp.13, 20). Ecumenicity is advocated (Apost.Const.22; Can 256.2; 383.3; 755.1), but attaches the condition "as this is understood by the church" (Can 383.3). They speak of "continual sanctification," (Can 210) but they mean thereby that the sanctification of believers takes place through the partaking of the sacrament (cf. Book IV "The Office of Sanctifying in the Church" on the sacraments; Can 834; 1253; & esp. 835.1). From modern missiology, they get that the laity participates in the apostolate (Can 225.1), but at the same time strengthen the sacramental precedence of the clerics. They say the "gospel" ought to be proclaimed to all peoples (Can 211; 747.1; 757; 781ff.) but understand this entirely sacramentally and add "in regard to the whole church, the task of proclaiming the gospel is principally entrusted to the Pope and college of Bishops" (Can 756.1). The task can then be delegated to the priests (Can 757).

    G. Advancements in the New Church Law?

    The new church law certainly contains a series of "advancements." However, they do not move in the direction of a loosening of catholic teaching in favor of a return to the Biblical foundation, but instead add yet more to the same system which has been growing through the centuries.

    1.The Development of the papacy

    The best example of this advancement is the position of the papacy. In the course of the centuries, the papacy was enlarged ever further. The relation of the Pope to the assembly of Bishops, the counsel, was always an essential point of contention. Finally, the changes reached the point that only the Pope could call a counsel to meet -- yet the counsel in meeting still could infallibly decide doctrinal issues and stood with equal rights vis-a-vis the Pope. After this, the next step could be taken in the 19th century: in 1870, declarations "ex cathedra" of the Pope were declared to be infallible. The Pope pushed this dogma through the counsel, using methods that were not always transparent, as catholic historian August Bernhard Hasler showed.[18]

    Nevertheless, this doctrine remained largely theoretical after the initial test of strength, either because the Pope and counsel were united on the current questions, or as the case may be, no ex cathedra decisions were needed. Only after 80 years could the papacy seize hold of the next step: the application of the dogma of papal infallibility. The Pope, without a counsel meeting and without being able to refer to the slightest precedent in known church tradition, declared the dogma of the ascension of Mary.

    After this "step of progress" in the empowerment of the Pope, the next step could be prepared: the juridical disempowerment of the counsel. For until now the counsel had equal rights with the Pope and could itself make infallible decisions.

    2. The Disempowering of the Counsel by the Papacy

    This disempowering of the counsels was silently and secretly completed by the new Catholic church law (esp. Can 749.2).

    In this matter the beautiful word "collegiality" must not delude, as already remarked above. The tension is evident in Can 333.2, which develops the unlimited power of the Pope over the church as described in Can 333.1. "The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office of the supreme pastor of the church is always united with the other Bishops and with the universal church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function."

    The Pope, according to this paragraph, works "collegially" only as long as he desires to do so. An appeal to a counsel against the Pope is forbidden (Can 1372). The counsel "together with its head, and never without its head, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal church" (Can 336). Thus, decrees of the counsel are only valid with the agreement of the Pope (Can 341.1)!

    THE EXPANSION OF PAPAL POWER IN MODERN TIMES

    • Papal Dogma 1870: Pope is infallible like the counsel
    • Dogma on Mary 1950: Pope is infallible without the counsel
    • Church Law of 1983: Pope is lord over counsel
    3. Church Law as New Papal Law?

    The whole church law appeals to the authority of the Pope (Apost.Const. 13,30). Again and again his supreme authority is established. He is the highest judge, who himself cannot be brought before the court (Can 1404-1405); without him, no counsel can reach decisions or even meet (Can 336-341); he is infallible in his doctrinal decisions (Can 749.1; cf.2). Can 331 says,

    The Bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the church, which he can always freely exercise.

    To be sure, the title "Vicar of Christ" was used before, but is now for the first time anchored in church law. Canons 330-336 very much strengthen the papal office, it being up to him "to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function." The talk about the college of Bishops is only a formality, since both counsel and synod are disenfranchised.

    The authority of the Pope, which could scarcely increase any further, is further documented in other quotes:

    There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff. (Can 333.3)

    The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge of the entire Catholic world; he tries cases either personally or through the ordinary tribunals...(Can 1442)

    The students are to be so formed that, imbued with the love for the Church of Christ, they are devoted with a humble and filial love to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and are attached to their own Bishop as his trustworthy co-workers... (Can 245.2)

    Clerics are bound by a special obligation to show reverence and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and to their own ordinary (Can 273).

    As regards the universal Church the duty of proclaiming the gospel has been especially entrusted to the Roman Pontiff and to the college of Bishops (Can 756.1).

    Generally, one gets the impression that the new church law is in reality a papal law. In all important chapters the absolute precedence of the Pope is stressed before anything else, whether the subject matter is the care of souls, evangelization, the property of the church, judgments, or legislation of the church. All the functions of the church are actually only carried out as commissioned by and in representation of the Pope, and from this derive their authority. (Can 204.2 leadership of the people of God; 377.1-3 appointment of Bishops; 782.1 direction of missions; 1256 authority over all goods; 1273 administration of ecclesiastical goods; etc.)

    4. Catholic Criticism of the New Papal Rights

    Criticism from the pens of learned Catholics also shows how much the new Catholic church law is a further expansion of papal preeminence. The paper "Diakonia" dedicated an issue (May 1986) to the theme "The Bishop." The Catholic canonist Knut Walf concluded that the post-conciliar development did not deliver what the council had promised with the term collegiality. He writes:

    The new "Codex Iuris Canonici" of 1983 may present an invincible obstacle in the way of reducing tensions between the Primate and Episcopacy in the foreseeable future. It cannot too often be repeated: the new Codex does not breathe the spirit of collegiality in its legal, constitutional sections. Rather, it petrifies the papal standing of primacy in a way that is foreign even to the 1917 codex.[19]

    As examples, Walf cites the following:

    • the "shift in accent to the greater position of power of the Pope" in Can 331, "in which this power of the Pope in the church, but especially also within the college of Bishops, is newly defined in a way that cannot be exceeded, in contrast to which Walf refers to the "modest formulation of the earlier codex."
    • the arrogation of the title "Vicar of Christ" in Can 333
    • taking over the title used in the Roman Empire for the emperor, "principatus" in Can 333.1 and the implied enlargement from juridical power over the entire church to "ordinary" power, which stretches out over "all particular churches and all groupings of churches" (Can 333.1).
    • the relativising of the ecumenical councils. According to Walf, "the council is systematically and by law pinned into a dead corner." While the old church law handled Pope and council, each with equal rights, in their own sections, in the new church law the differences are erased. The counsel is constituted in the section on the Pope, and the collegiality of the Bishops may be brought to order by mail and by other previously unheard-of methods, always under the leadership of the Pope.

    Similar criticism of the new preeminence of the Pope with respect to the council has been published by numerous other catholic authors. The international "Concilium Foundation" devoted an entire issue of its journal "Concilium", which appears in seven languages, to the meaning of the ecumenical counsel. [20] The Italian canonist Giorgio Feliciani[21] criticizes in his contribution the commission which prepared the determinations on the college of Bishops on the grounds that the central role of the counsel was abandoned without offering any justification. American professor of Theology, Joseph Komochak,[22] showed that the new church law distorted the determinations of Second Vatican in favor of a new papal rule. He fears that the Bishops will, in the end, be relegated to "yes-men" for the Pope, no longer having any of their own authority.

    Further criticisms include the Pope's string of new titles ("Vicar of Christ") while, at the same time, a list of similar titles for the counsel easily fall by the wayside. [23]

    But the Foundation sees in all this a development that has been underway for a longer time, a development leading to a "neutralization of the ecumenical counsel." The counsel "is no longer defined as its own legal institution independent of the primate. On the contrary, there is now the danger that the counsel will be absorbed by the papal primate." [24]

    Naturally, I do not intend to save the ecumenical counsel. All this is only to make clear the following:

    If there is any sort of "progress" in the new new catholic church law, then it is "progress" in a very definite direction. No progress is to be discovered in the direction of opening up the simple Biblical truths nor toward evangelical teaching. Instead, we find a further expansion of papal power; an expansion that is falling upon sharp criticism even within the catholic church and which is seen as a break with catholic tradition.

    H. Examples of the Retention of Catholic Teachings in the New Church Law

    Several further examples should show that the Catholic Church in its new Church Law has kept practically all the teachings and practices which protestants criticize[25] and which cannot be reconciled to the Bible; indeed to an extent the church has sharpened them. A refutation of the specific teachings from a Biblical perspective is omitted here, since this is already done in the worthy books by Uhlmann[26] and Buhne[27] as well as other writings.

    1. Veneration of Mary and the Saints

    The salvation of souls is under the protection of Mary (Apost.Const. 31). Seminarians are to foster especially "devotion to Blessed Virgin Mary", the rosary and other exercises (Can 246.3), which are a means for their sanctification (Can 276.5). The people of God should "cultivate a special devotion to the Virgin Mother of God, model and protector of all consecrated life, including the Marian rosary" (Can 663.4). Relics are to be found in every fixed altar in all churches (Can 1237.2), holy images, even if in "moderate number," are to be set up (Can 1188), and should furthermore be venerated as a means of sanctification (Can 1186-1190; cf also can 663.4).

    2. Baptismal Regeneration

    Baptismal regeneration is firmly anchored by law. Through baptism men are born again and come into the church (Can 11, 96, 11, 112, 204, 205, 217, 787.2; 849ff). "Baptism, the gate to the sacraments, necessary for salvation in fact or at least in intention, by which men and women are freed from their sins, are reborn as children of God and, configured to Christ by an indelible character..." (Can 849).

    3. Through Confirmation the Holy Ghost is Received

    Receiving the Holy Spirit by means of confirmation remains intact: "The sacrament of confirmation impresses a character and by it the baptized, continuing on the path of Christian initiation, are enriched by the gift of the Holy Spirit and bound more perfectly to the Church..." (Can 879).

    4. The Eucharist

    Moreover, the Eucharist is the central point in the congregation of the faithful (Can 528.2) and is a literal sacrifice (Can 897, 904). The faithful should venerate the eucharistic element "worshiping it with supreme adoration" (Can 898). The Eucharist may never be celebrated with other churches (Can 908). Priests must celebrate it daily (Can 276.2; 719.2).

    5. Excommunication and Schism

    Even if "excommunication as punishment" is restricted to fewer cases than in 1917, they are still heavy-handed enough. Exercising physical force against the Pope (Can 1370) leads to automatic excommunication as does abortion (Can 1398), but especially "offenses against religion and the unity of the church" (Book VI, Part II, Title I). Under this rubric is included the "apostate", i.e. one who has totally repudiated the catholic faith as a whole (Can 1364, 751, 194.1, 694.1); the "heretic," who obstinately doubts certain catholic truths (Can 751, 1364); and the "schismatic" (Can 751, 1364). "Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or to communion with the members of the church subject to him" (Can 751). To be counted as a schismatic it suffices, therefore, to fail to subordinate oneself to the Pope. Whoever, in addition doubts, Catholic teachings is at the same time a heretic and will easily become an apostate, one who has fallen. So that the notion of "separated brothers" (Can 825.2) as well as other expressions in referring to other Christian churches does not really indicate a change at all.[f]

    6. Marriage Issues

    The rules regarding the invalidity and annulment of marriages are shocking. A marriage with an unbaptized person is plain and simple invalid (Can 1086); the same for impotence (Can 1084). An unconsummated marriage can be annulled by the Pope (Can 1142). Can 1143-1150, especially 1146 deals with the possibility of divorce from an unbaptized partner. A marriage with an unbaptized person who cannot live out the marriage due to imprisonment or persecution can be annulled even if the partner has in the meantime become baptized (Can 1149).

    There is such a thing as a secret marriage (Can 1130-1133). The definition of legitimate children already cited above then presumably leaves it to guesswork whether children "born at least 180 days after the celebration of the marriage or within 300 days from the date when conjugal life was terminated" should count as legitimate!?

    7. Indulgences and Penance

    The subject of indulgences has an entire chapter dedicated to it. (Book IV, chapter IV; Can 992-997). "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment for sin the guilt of which is already forgiven, which a properly disposed member of the Christian faithful obtains under certain and definite conditions with the help of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies authoritatively the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints" (Can 992).

    It is clear that the subject of indulgences again divides the spirits. While the Bible only knows one single forgiveness in Jesus Christ, which cancels guilt and satisfies the sentence of eternal punishment, the Catholic Church distinguishes between the cancelling of sin through absolution after the confessional, and the remission of punishment achieved through satisfactions, indulgences, and time in purgatory. With this, the finished redemptive work of Jesus Christ is placed in question, in that it is only half-accepted. The atonement of the cross and the prayer for forgiveness does not, for the Catholic Church, also bring about the remission of punishment! Reconciliation is also tied to confession in the confessional (Can 964.2). The sacrament of penance is moreover the only way to forgiveness. "Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary way by which the faithful person who is aware of serious sin is reconciled with God and with the Church." (Can 960). Sin is directed not just to God, but against the church as well (Can 959,960). But this is arrogance!

    I. Conclusion

    One need merely read the new Catholic Church Law to realize where it has defected from the Bible. In the last pages only sections from the new church law have been presented, nothing from other writings. The Catholic Church is cast as always it has been; the writings are only friendlier and more collegial. To know the new catholic church law is enough to know that there is no possibility for ecumenical fellowship for any believer in the Biblical sense of that word. How many people who think they may remain in the Catholic Church haven't long since earned excommunication according to the canon? The protestant state Bishop Eduard Lohse should have read the church law carefully before recognizing the title of Pope and addressing the same as "brother in Christ."

    The new catholic church law can therefore be a good help in discussions between Catholics and non-Catholics, to show that in its kernel the Catholic church has not changed. Having reviewed the arguments for the relevance of the church law in section III, one need only examine a copy of the church law in order to become convinced of the state of things in terms of black and white.

    Particularly the paragraph on indulgences (Can 992) with its teaching that forgiveness through Christ does not provide redemption from retributive punishment, along with the paragraphs on the Pope (Can 331,333) would provide an outstanding springboard for presenting the Biblical gospel.

    IV. Important Sections of the New Church Law.

    The following list indicates the more important paragraphs of the new canon law with an abbreviated indication of contents. The most important issues are marked with an asterisk; naturally there is some subjectivity here. The list is designed to be a help for self-study. It can also help to prepare for conversations with Catholics. I suggest marking the key places in a copy of the canon law and also taking a copy of the list along. One might begin with passages which prove that the Catholic conversational partner has long ago defected from the position represented by the church law. In other cases, the best approach may be to start with the subject of the growing power of the Pope. Passages dealing with salvation and the forgiveness of sins are especially good for setting forth, by way of contrast, the Biblical message, perhaps using the epistle to the Romans.

    204.1
    The faithful = those baptized
    204.2
    Pope governs the church
    210
    Sanctification
    *212.1
    Obedience to leaders as "representatives of Christ"
    *218
    Freedom of inquiry if respect for magisterium (not Bible) observed
    223.2
    Ecclesiastical authority regulates rights of faithful
    245.2
    Seminarians to be obediently devoted to Pope
    246.1
    Eucharist the center of life of the seminary
    246.3
    Devotion to Mary and rosary advocated
    *273
    Clerics obey Pope and Bishop
    276.3
    Clerics to fulfil liturgy of hours every day
    *276.5
    Devotion to Mary a means of sanctification
    277.1
    Celibacy
    *330
    Pope + Bishops = Peter + apostles
    *331
    Power of the Pope; Vicar of Christ
    *333.1
    Pope's ordinary power over all particular churches
    *333.2
    Pope leads church by himself or with Bishops
    334
    All offices carry out their tasks in name of Pope
    *336
    College of Bishops is never without Pope
    *341.1
    Decrees of ecumenical counsel only obligatory if approved by Pope
    337.1
    Bishops in place of the apostles
    400
    Bishops to venerate the tombs of Peter and Paul
    528.1
    Eucharist the center of the "assembly of faithful"
    *663.4
    Veneration of Mary and the rosary
    *749.1
    Infallibility of papal teaching office
    *749.2
    Ecumenical counsel only infallible in connection with Pope
    *750
    Scripture and tradition
    *751
    Heresy, apostasy, and schism
    *752
    Not heartfelt belief, but obedience
    825.1
    Publication of Bible only with papal approval
    825.1
    Publication of Bible only with "appropriate annotations"
    834.1
    Sanctification through holy liturgy
    847
    How to consecrate holy oils
    *849
    Baptism frees from sin
    *879
    Confirmation brings the gift of the Holy Spirit
    *897
    Eucharist contains Christ and is a sacrifice!
    *898
    Eucharist to be worshiped with supreme adoration
    *899.2
    Priests act "in the person of Christ"
    *901
    Mass for the dead
    *904
    The Eucharistic sacrifice is work of redemption
    932.2
    Sacrifice to be performed on a dedicated or blessed altar
    947-51
    Rules for accepting payments for masses
    *959
    Sacrament of penance
    *959
    Reconciliation with God and the Church
    *960
    Confession only way of reconciliation
    964
    Confession normally using confessional stall only
    978
    Father confessor is judge and healer
    981
    Acts of penance
    *992-6
    Indulgences
    *1084
    Marriage with non-baptized invalid!
    *1149
    Divorce possible if partner becomes imprisoned
    *1186
    Sanctification through veneration of Mary
    1187
    Veneration of saints
    1188
    Sacred images in moderation
    1190
    Relics
    1235-39
    Altars
    *1237.2
    Every fixed altar erected over relics
    1251
    Abstain from meat on Fridays
    1251
    Everyone to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday
    *1256
    Supreme authority of Pope with respect to ownership of all goods
    1264
    Payments for favors and administrations of sacraments
    *1273
    Pope the ruler of all church goods
    1365
    Forbidden participation in others' services
    1367
    Automatic excommunication for misuse of eucharistic elements
    1370
    Automatic excommunication for physical force against Pope
    *1371
    Penalty for teaching contrary to any doctrine condemned by Pope or ecumenical counsel
    *1372
    No appeal to ecumenical counsel or Bishops' college against Pope
    1388.1
    Automatic excommunication for breach of confessional privacy
    *1398
    Automatic excommunication for abortion
    *1404
    Pope can be judged by no court
    *1442
    Pope the highest judge
  • Golf
    Golf

    Jeremiah, which Pope are you referring to, the one gowned in white or the Black robe?

    Golf

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan

    Wow! Finally a thread I feel like getting involved in.

    I tend to be of the position that you cannot understand the 'church' without taking into account the human condition as revealed in scripture. Scripture states that "There is no one who seeks after God" (Romans 3:11) It is not by mans will that he comes to know God but instead it is by Gods will and grace we come to him (John 6:44).

    With mans selfish nature in mind it is easy to see how God would have wanted his chosen nation not to have a visible king and to sipmly rely upon him instead (1 Sam 8). It was in their weakness that they demanded such a visible sign of direction.

    The inward tendancy of men are the same. How many times have we read a Watchtower and heard the same argumentation used to assert their athority that can be read in many of the other denominations that depend upon such authority as a cornerstone to their theology? The same anti-types are used of the Kings, Moses, Elijah, Prophets, apostles, the list is endless. Eventually the most important grand revelation of such groups becomes their position in the divine plan.

    Of course when one sticks with a Christ centered model you are then no longer dependent upon one specific group to fullfill all the needs of the Church. I do not take the position of an 'invisible' Church per say. To find well balanced and humble Christians not consumed with authority is only a prayer away imo ;)

    In order to maintain the idea of a one denominational true body of Christ the WTS had to impose a lot of nonsense upon most of us here, so it's no suprise that most of us here who have become Christians post-JW would take the more liberal view of the Church. With that said I also feel there are some who go to far with this idea and still maintain the view of the WTS in a way that all denominations are full of corruption and wickedness with only a few people here and there that are 'true' Christians. Such a view can have a hold on the mind and keep you locked up, thinking that the only real Christians are people out there you cannot see untill God reveals it in flame of fire and Glory.

    The true Church is an organism, not an organization. It's not to be simply described, it's to be expieranced.

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    Drew,

    I loved your last line - the true church is an organism and not an organization. Agreed!

    I think my using the term "invisible" was not the right term or maybe I did not explain my thoughts very well. Sometimes my brain is slower than my fingers.

    I agree there are Christians in all the denominations. I was just trying to say they grow up in God's care without any real outward signs for people to notice because it is the spirit within them that determines whether they are true Christians or not. The idea that some put the church building or denomination itself up as the True Church rather than the people in the body of Christ, does not just come from the JW's. I have been to many different denominational churches in my life and while they believe it is the people who are in the body of Christ or the church, they also believe that their denomination is the only correct or right one, that was established by the Apostles. That is why I prefer house churches, and not the mega-denominational ones we have today. This is my personal preference.

    The Bible does say the wheat (true Christians) and weeds(false Chrisitans) grow up together until Christ comes with his Angels to sort them out. The ones who will be disignated as wheat make up the true Church, but we do not really know who they all are at this time. That is what I meant by them growing "invisibly" to others. Christ works with these ones through the Spirit and teaches them and helps them become molded to his image. He can do this whether they are in a denominational church or a home church, or anywhere some of his body join together for worship.

    Again, I am not against organized religions if the "denominations" understand that it is the people who are the Church and not the institution. Drew I think your last line said it quite well. Lilly

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit