Loading ...Venezuela votes no on bishop-elect of Northern Michigan
flockwoodBoth the Bishop and the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Venezuela have voted to withhold consent to the election of the Rev. Kevin G. Thew Forrester as bishop-elect of Northern Michigan.
A very kind (and reliable) soul had given me a heads-up about this vote, but it’s my policy to always verify things directly with folks on the ground in the diocese itself. So I dropped an e-mail to the Right Rev. Orlando J. Guerrero and asked him if the report I had heard was true.
“Dear Frank, That’s accurate,” he responded in Spanish this morning (June 20, 2009). “After having read the information we were sent, we have voted ‘no.’ We have to struggle to contend for the catholic ‘Faith once delivered to the Saints.’ (Jude 1:3) Brotherly greetings, Reverendisimo + Orlando J. Guerrero, bishop of the Diocese of Venezuela.”
The updated tally of Standing Committees voting:
YES to the election of Thew Forrester: 30
NO to the election of Thew Forrester: 61
PENDING or unannounced: 20
Voting closes July 19.
Two dioceses (Southeast Florida and Ecuador Literal) say they haven’t voted yet because they never received the paperwork from New York or Northern Michigan. Wyoming’s standing committee was scheduled to meet yesterday and today.
June 21st, 2009 at 3:54 pm
We have to struggle to contend for the catholic ‘Faith once delivered to the Saints.’ (Jude 1:3)is MISQUOTED!! My Bible does not say “The Catholic” faith. When that verse was written it did not have in view a differet faith than what Paul, Peter, or John espoused, and they were not “Catholics” neither was Jude. Care to respond?
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:45 am
Dear Dale Herr…
“Catholic” simply means “universal” and refers in this context to the beliefs and practices of Christians across the world and through time.
For churches in the historic tradition, who trace their roots back to apostles and the early church, catholic (small “c”) is not a denomination but rather a designation for proper teaching and church unity.
For that reason, two of the ecumenical creeds emphasize that we (that is, all Christians who accept the creeds) believe in the holy catholic church. Now, of course, that does not mean the holy ROMAN catholic church: Romans Catholics see themselves as THE universal, true church while others (usually, anyway) see them as a branch or part of the universal church.
Now to respond to your final statement…. Jude, Paul, Peter and John were ALL CATHOLICS (and probably would have considered themselves catholics) because they believed they were part of one church, and anyone who was not part of that catholic (that is universal) church was a heretic!!!
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:42 am
Dale, to be technical, this bishop did not say that the word “catholic” was part of the quote; the quotation mark came in after the use of the word. I agree with UKLutheran, though I’m not sure that the biblical figures you and she mention, Jude, Paul, Peter, and John, would have ever thought of themselves as other than “Christian;” one supposes that since at that time they were the only Christians, they were “catholic,” but the first use of the term that we know of was by Ignatius of Antioch about 106 AD, in his Letter to the Smyrneans. By that point, probably 60 years or more after the time generally given for the crucifixion, there were apparently different factions in the church, and Ignatius was concerned that everyone’s doctrine be uniform.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Uk, please show me in the greek the word catholic where it refers to the apostles. As far a “Creeds” I dont need them I just use the scripture for my doctrine. I have a very hard time with ” Catholic” creeds including the sacrifice of the mass, granted it is what you pointed out as Roman Catholic, nevertheless when I hear catholic today I understand it to be the Roman version.
The corinthian church was, ‘I am of Paul, I am Of Apollos, I am of Cephas” It seemes to me this is where “Creeds” take us. If we study to show ourselves approved unto God searching the scriptures daily to see if these things be true, arguments and debates would cease, then would we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God. Caleb, I agree and I think to study scripture alone would satisfy Igatius
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:29 am
Dale,
I may be mistaken, but I don’t think the Greek word “Catholic” is ever used in the Bible… however, the letters of James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John and Jude (ironically, for this discussion) have been referred to as the “Catholic Epistles” because they appeared to be written to the whole (general or universal) church since ancient times. Now before you go disputing “tradition” remember that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ever actually appear as titles in the text either.
As to what you say about creeds… a cursory reading of Christian history would be all that is necessary to disprove your argument. Before Nicea in 325 there was raging debate through Christianity about the divinity of Christ and the nature of God. After Nicea, which produced the Nicean creed, there (slowly) emerged a consensus that we would consider “orthodox” Christianity: Jesus is fully God, and God is three-in-one (the Trinity).
Now before this, and even for decades after this, Christians read their Bibles and came up with all different sorts of teachings about God and Christ: Christ was “adopted” by God at Baptism (in part from reading Mark 1), that Jesus was a “creature” and had not existed for all time (in part from reading Col. 1:15). There were also dozens of other views that were discarded as the Church unified, in part through the creeds, its doctrine.
I do not want to discount the scriptures, nor the necessity of searching them. Frankly, I believe the creeds to be a true and faithful exposition of Scripture. However, it simply is not sensible to say that all we need to do is to “search the scriptures daily” to achieve doctrinal unity. Searching the scriptures have not lead Roman Catholics and Lutherans to agree on issues such as celibacy, church order, the number of sacraments, or even (according to my last theology professor) justification. However, Catholics and Lutherans do share the creeds as a fundamental basis for their theology… and so we do agree on the doctrine of the Trinity, etc.
Now, even churches that do not use the creeds really in fact get their theology from them. From Anabaptists to Zwinglians, from Roman Catholics to Calvinists, from Evangelicals to Greek Orthodox, the majority of World Christianity accepts the fundamental teachings of the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon. Even when they are never said in a particular church, the creeds are still the bedrock of Christian orthodoxy.
And so… I will point out that truly it is “the study of scripture alone” (that is, without context and in isolation from the wider Christian community) that leads to the fragmentation of Christianity. Both Southern Baptists and Church of Christ members read their Bibles… yet they can’t agree on baptism! Christians of all stripes read their Bibles, and that is in part why we have 1,000 different denominations!
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:58 am
UK, you sure got that right. It’s been my observation that many folks agree on some big points, that the scriptures are inerrant, sufficient, complete, consistent, and clear. Of course they don’t agree on what the scriptures actually mean!
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:44 am
I agree, too, UKLutheran, and would add this point. As you say, Christians of all faiths read their bibles. However, we must remember that the New Testament was a product of the early church. The books included in it were chosen by the early church leaders out of a large number of possibilities. But it is clear that the early church leaders never intended the Bible, even the New Testament, to entirely supersede church teachings and other church traditions. It was only after the Protestant Reformation that some Protestant groups placed the bible at the center of the universe, a place it had never traditionally occupied.
As one of my seminary professors noted, Jesus didn’t write a book, he formed a church. The church that he formed put together the book, and later members of the various branches of that church now argue over it.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
John wrote, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” John 1:1, 3,14 I guess in a nutshell that about takes care of the divinity of Christ. You guys are all right, but I have to disagree with you on a couple of things. Paul commended the Bereaians (Acts 17:11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. What scriptures? the Old Testament scriptures. What things? Those concerning Messiah the son of David. While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The Son] of David. Ps 110 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? Easy, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Notice, no creed and I just showed through the scriptures alone the Messiah was Immanuel God with us. Jose, Cant agree with you. There are only 2 things in the NT you need to be concerned with when it comes to understanding the Bible 1 the person of Christ, 2 what he did, his work. He was God in the flesh, we just showed that, He died for the sins of the world, but he redeems the elect. A key verse in the bible, found 4 times in scripture, once in the OT, 3 times in the NT ” The just shall live by faith” It is found in Habakkuk, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews. Now if you guys are willing, Tell me what it means in each of the NT books in which it appears. If you can do that, it might clear up a few problems you have. And I ask you, what if all Christians did the same thing?
June 24th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Dear Dale,
I don’t know if you have something against creeds or against Catholics, but this conversation is going no where. Simply put, the council of Nicea and the Nicean creed helped establish the Christian Orthodoxy (about the person and work of Christ) that you find so obvious in the Bible.
Somehow, however, that orthodoxy was not so obvious to the Arians, the Ebionites, the Monophysites, etc. All of whom also considered themselves Christians and also used the Bible to support their positions.
However, leaders of the whole church, guided I believe by the Holy Spirit, met at councils where the orthodox position prevailed. It was a long, complicated, occasionally bloody process, which was not as simply as people turning to a few passages and coming away with your interpretation. If it was that easy, why would Athanasius be forced into exile so many times and spend his whole life fighting for the very views you find so obvious?
And creeds, sir, do most certainly appear in the Bible!
1 Corinthians 15:3-10 for example… Paul “handed over/on to” the Corinthians what he had received from others, namely the creedal formation that follows. The Greek verb used, paradidomi, has a technical use for passing on important teachings. This is not the only time when Paul quotes early Christian hymns or proto-creeds in his letters. These proto-creeds and hymns are some of the earliest material in the NT, with this passage in 1st Corinthians being the earliest material proclaiming Christ’s resurrection!
Finally, as we run around, I’d just like to know what specific material in any of the creeds that you thing is wrong? Let’s se the Apostle’s Creed because it is shorter and used more frequently in the liturgy…. what here is not a true summary of what the Bible says about God?
The Apostles’ Creed
I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended to the dead.* On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Sir, If I find it “so obvious in the Bible”, where did they find it? I have nothing against the “Truth” and Jesus refering to the scriptures said ” they word is truth” All the creeds are already in the scriptures and that is what is most important. As Paul said, And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and [to] Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think [of men] above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. The verse you are quoting in I Cor 15, should be compared to Galatians 1:11-12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. I just dont understand someone who has theological training, and is so anti scripture in favor of the words of man, that were taken from the study of the scriptures. Where this dialoge should be going is to rejoice in the truth of God’s reveled word. If what I found so obvious, that some couldnt, could be due the the fact those men weren’t born again. For the natural man receives not the things of the spirit.
June 25th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Dale,
I do not consider myself “anti-scripture.” I don’t think it’s turning to the words of man over against the Bible to look at the history of the church and conclude that reading the Bible apart from the wider (“catholic”) church produces error and schisms. And I don’t think the Bible was ever meant to be read as a textbook or instruction manual: it is the inspired Word of God given to the people of God.
If revelation comes directly from God to the individual, then why do we have so many denominations? Wouldn’t these individuals simply believe the same things? Who is legitimately “born again”? What church teaches the pure doctrine?
Better yet: how did Christianity get from the Judean hills 2,000 years ago to American suburbs today?
That I think is the true theological disagreement here: I see the church as the body of Christ, and the community of Saints, and see myself in line with 2,000 years (more, actually) of history. I do not believe that anyone can just pick up a Bible and receive the whole truth on ones own: the Word of God is meant to be proclaimed in community. That’s not being anti-scriptural or favoring “man’s word,” especially if one believes (as I do) that the Holy Spirit has been very active in the history of the Church.
The issue I have with certain American theological perspectives is that they are divorced from the church catholic and from Christian history… as if Christianity could just be lifted from ancient Palestine and re-discovered in America whole cloth without any accounting for the 2,000 year gap in between. So, sir, if the ancient church and the writers of the creeds were not “born again” how did Christianity get to you, and what is your relationship to the wider Christian tradition (including the creeds)?
June 25th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
I will be more than happy to answer your questions as best I can. First I am not a trained theologian, but a born again believer of over 30 years studying the scriptures daily, having taught Bible studies and almost all the new testament books. I do not see how reading the Bible only will cause schisms. Didn’t Jesus say when the Holy spirit comes he will lead and guide you into all the truth, and didn’t he pray to the Father and say “thy word is truth” I have studied the Bible from cover to cover for over 30 years, here is what I understand; you must be born again or you will not see the kingdom of heaven. This happens when your dead spirit is quickened by the Holy Spirit, and you see your spiritual condition, as I did many years ago. Reading the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus said, “But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” I knew right then I was going to hell, so I confessed my sin to God, asked for forgiveness and he forgave me. I might add it was after that; I began to understand the Bible which I could not before. I know we are justified by faith apart from works according to the book of Romans, Galatians. I know from John, Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians God has chosen his own from the foundation of the world, not based on any good thing with in us, even faith foreseen, because according to Paul that is a gift Ephesians 2:8-9 If you study the old testament you will discover, the new is in the old contained, the old is in the new explained. Corporate & personal election is in the Old & new. And if you are a proponent of: God chose us based upon the fact he knew who would believe, then if that is the case there is no election because why would God need to choose someone who has already obeyed him by believing on Jesus which he commands men to do for eternal life; whosoever believes on him shall have eternal life, never mind the fact the faith is a gift from God according to Paul Eph 2:8-9 I know Jesus will return soon and the we are in the last days. The translation of the church could be at any time. So really Christianity got to me via the Holy Spirit as Jesus said, “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me” Why so many denominations you say, good question I have heard it before. My answers is; ‘I am of Luther, I am of Wesley, I am of Knox. People tend to follow men not Christ. I was a Methodist before I was born again. Then I had to leave because they were denying the virgin birth, Creation. The Bible teaches both they did not, they quit teaching the scriptures. Do you now see where I am coming from?