Is unity among Christians possible outside of the RCC?

[Richard_Kastner]

Although you took out the scripture relating to the definition which defines the Catholic definition or confirms it as a relationship not a contract.
So Yes, I follow the Catholic Definition as defined in its Old Testament support from scripture.

Now we’re getting some where.

Where we differ apparently is you apply the definition of contract to the divine covenant.

I’m not applying anything to anything. I’m merely trying to show that the definition that the CC uses for covenant and the dictionary definition for contract are very similar.

COVENANT, BIBLICAL
In the Old Testament an agreement between God and Israel in which God promised protection to the Chosen People in return for exclusive loyalty.

con⋅tract

1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2. an agreement enforceable by law.
3. the written form of such an agreement.

Maybe this explanation may help us here. A biblical Covenant is a (Sacramental) Marriage, no one can get out of the Valid Marriage only by Death which seperates them. A contract does not define a Marriage from biblical standards set by God in the beginning and again confirmed by Jesus in the New Testament.

Gen. 21:22And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phichol the chief captain of his host spake unto Abraham, saying, God is with thee in all that thou doest:
23Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son’s son: but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned.
24And Abraham said, I will swear.
25And Abraham reproved Abimelech because of a well of water, which Abimelech’s servants had violently taken away.
26And Abimelech said, I wot not who hath done this thing; neither didst thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it, but to day.
27And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and both of them made a covenant.
28And Abraham set seven ewe lambs of the flock by themselves.
29And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What mean these seven ewe lambs which thou hast set by themselves?
30And he said, For these seven ewe lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that they may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well.
31Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them.
32Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.

Here in Gen. 21 is an example of a covenant between Abraham and Abimelech. I don’t think you would call this a “(Sacramental) Marriage” between these two men. What it is is a contract between Abraham and Abimelech, That Abimelech will acknowledge that it was Abraham that dug the well and his servants will not disturb his use of the well. This covenat (contract) was confirmed (bear witness) by seven ewe lambs Which was comparable to a handshake.

I hope we can come to an understanding here, or someone outside looking in may be able to help. Because I could never accept the definition of Contract = to a biblical Covenant.
What do you think constitutes a covenant? Now I can accept the terminology of a contract because of the exchange of goods only, because in the biblical covenant there is not an exchange of goods but of persons. Maybe understanding this concept can help you see my position.

Peace be with you

I don’t know where you got the idea that a contract always has to have an exchange of goods and in a biblical covenant you have to have an exchange of persons. As my example shows that is not the case. Altho ewe lambs were given. That is not the covenant. The covenant is the agreement between Abraham and Abimelech.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Now we’re getting some where.

I’m not applying anything to anything. I’m merely trying to show that the definition that the CC uses for covenant and the dictionary definition for contract are very similar.

COVENANT, BIBLICAL
In the Old Testament an agreement between God and Israel in which God promised protection to the Chosen People in return for exclusive loyalty.

con⋅tract

1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2. an agreement enforceable by law.
3. the written form of such an agreement.

Gabriel of 12;
The point to all this from my position is; Iam not in no way trying to show any similarities here between the Covenant from the divine and a contract between two parties. Thus far the defintion of the CC supports the biblical interpretation of the divine Covenant.

You have chosen to use a covenant between two parties from the bible not the covenants from the divine. I can show why this pact is not a contract per your definition or secular definition of contract does not apply.

It is not the well (Beer) that is of great importance to Ambimelech, but that Abraham swear to his God, that he will not deal falsely with him, his progeny and posterity of which Abraham swears an oath by invoking God’s name. From a contract definition the Lords name is never invoked or present.

The well becomes secondary here, although Abraham includes the well that were taken from him by force by Ambimelech’s men, of which Ambimelech was never made aware of the incident.

What this pact includes according to the covenant standards and not contractual bindings. One they both swear an oath, the lords name is invoked, then a life from Ambimelech’s progeny for the 7 (living) Ewe Lambs to confirm Abrahams residence and ownership of his comodity of water in the well. What should immediately call your attention to the covenant is the number 7. To seven oneself is to covenant oneself to the other party by means of relationship.

Rabbi Hirsch explains the seven of swearing;

The verb “shava” … is obviously derived from seven… it would mean nothing else but to subject oneself to the seventh, or more fully, to subordinate oneself with all of one’s material world to the Invisible Lord and Master, to surrender oneself to him with all of one’s physical existence… it would be literally… an act of “taking upon oneself” the Name of God, the placing of one’s self beneath the Name of God… total submission, UNDER OATH, to the authority of the Lord and master Who is invisible but nonetheless Is present everywhere… a genuine pledge of one’s whole physical being to the veracity of one’s word.

To seven oneself coming from the Hebrew word “Shava” translated to greek Sacramentum which means to swear an oath were we get the word Sacrament from that includes the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. The words have changed in language but the meaning has never changed.

To conclude; a biblical covenant includes swearing an oath by 7 oneself to the other, by invoking God’s name as witness, and exchange of persons, I am yours and you are mine.

That is why Abraham lived in peace in the land of the Philistines not because of a contract 7 lambs for water and a well, this covenant was ratified as such that the Philistines left Abraham alone because the covenant relationship was honored as one of Ambimelech’s own family. To make offense to Abraham was the same as making an offense to Ambimelech himself.

Had this pact not been covenanted (7) and only contracted, Abraham would of been at risk as he was before when Ambimelech’s men forced Abraham’s tribe away from their wells and residency. This covenant God allowed and honored so as the enemies of Abraham will not overtake him.

A covenant includes swearing an oath, sacrifice, a life, blessing and cursing, binding one to the other for life, or in Ambimelech’s covenant so long as they both lived. All biblical covenants and renewals include 7’s.

** What is more important in the divine covenants a liturgy followed which included the Word (or law) of God, a high priest or Patriarch, sacifice, blood, swearing an oath, but most of all the most important aspect of the biblical divine covenants is that God makes himself present (reveals himself) in the liturgy. **

Now when is God present at the signing of a contract? never. Any time the name of God is invoked especially in liturgy God makes himself present in Word and sign (or sacrament.) As God did in a cloud, Rock, fire, whisper, burning bush, today in the New Covenant God is present in the species of bread and wine fulfilling the old covenants liturgical sacrificial systems, and liturgical covenantal system not to mention fulfilled the law and the prophets. More on this later;

What is interesting is that Abrahams son Isaac meets Ambimelech again after Abrahams death in Gen.26. Again by the providence of God, Isaac is made safe by the King of the Philistines Ambimelech. Where the two make an agreement.

What makes the covenant valid is not the agreement between two parties, the validation comes in when God’s name is invoked and the swearing of an oath, not to what the two parties agreed too. Then follows blessings and cursings.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Gabriel of 12;
The point to all this from my position is; Iam not in no way trying to show any similarities here between the Covenant from the divine and a contract between two parties.

Ya, I know, but I am.

Thus far the defintion of the CC supports the biblical interpretation of the divine Covenant.

The biblical definition or your definition?

You have chosen to use a covenant between two parties from the bible not the covenants from the divine. I can show why this pact is not a contract per your definition or secular definition of contract does not apply.

While from our perspective the covenants between God and man are obviously more important than the covenants between men. The definition does not change because of the parties involved.

It is not the well (Beer) that is of great importance to Ambimelech, but that Abraham swear to his God, that he will not deal falsely with him, his progeny and posterity of which Abraham swears an oath by invoking God’s name.

You’re right. Abimelech knows that the God of Abraham is a very powerful God and I am sure he realized that Abraham had His ear. He is making sure here that Abraham does not invoke his God against him.

From a contract definition the Lords name is never invoked or present.

Who says so?

The well becomes secondary here, although Abraham includes the well that were taken from him by force by Ambimelech’s men, of which Ambimelech was never made aware of the incident.

Secondary to Abimelech. For Abraham its the only reason he is talking to Abimelech at all.

What this pact includes according to the covenant standards and not contractual bindings.

What’s the difference?

One they both swear an oath

Only Abraham swears an oath and the oath that Abraham swears is not the covenant between the two, but only that Abe will not invoke his God against Abim.

, the lords name is invoked, then a life from Ambimelech’s progeny for the 7 (living) Ewe Lambs to confirm Abrahams residence and ownership of his comodity of water in the well.

The Lord’s name is invoked, but where you get the idea that Abimelech trades one of his progeny for seven ewe lambs is beyond me.

What should immediately call your attention to the covenant is the number 7. To seven oneself is to covenant oneself to the other party by means of relationship.

Rabbi Hirsch explains the seven of swearing;

The verb “shava” … is obviously derived from seven… it would mean nothing else but to subject oneself to the seventh, or more fully, to subordinate oneself with all of one’s material world to the Invisible Lord and Master, to surrender oneself to him with all of one’s physical existence… it would be literally… an act of “taking upon oneself” the Name of God, the placing of one’s self beneath the Name of God… total submission, UNDER OATH, to the authority of the Lord and master Who is invisible but nonetheless Is present everywhere… a genuine pledge of one’s whole physical being to the veracity of one’s word.

To seven oneself coming from the Hebrew word “Shava” translated to greek Sacramentum which means to swear an oath were we get the word Sacrament from that includes the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. The words have changed in language but the meaning has never changed.

This sounds right. In that Beersheba means: “well of the sevenfold oath”

continued

 

[Richard_Kastner]

continuance

To conclude; a biblical covenant includes swearing an oath by 7 oneself to the other, by invoking God’s name as witness, and exchange of persons, I am yours and you are mine.

Where do you see an exchange of persons here.

That is why Abraham lived in peace in the land of the Philistines not because of a contract 7 lambs for water and a well, this covenant was ratified as such that the Philistines left Abraham alone because the covenant relationship was honored as one of Ambimelech’s own family. To make offense to Abraham was the same as making an offense to Ambimelech himself.

Are you saying that a contract made between the two would not have been honored?

Had this pact not been covenanted (7) and only contracted, Abraham would of been at risk as he was before when Ambimelech’s men forced Abraham’s tribe away from their wells and residency. This covenant God allowed and honored so as the enemies of Abraham will not overtake him.

As Rabbi Hirsh points out above what Abraham is doing is placing himself totally and completely under the authority of God, so that if there are any infractions on either side The guilty party would have to deal with God. This is all well and good, but how is the covenant here not a contract?

A covenant includes swearing an oath, sacrifice, a life, blessing and cursing, binding one to the other for life, or in Ambimelech’s covenant so long as they both lived. All biblical covenants and renewals include 7’s.

We can dispense with the word contract if you like however that still leaves us with the dilema of defining what a covenant is. You have said that you agree with th CC’s definition of covenant;
** In the Old Testament an agreement between God and Israel in which God promised protection to the Chosen People in return for exclusive loyalty. ** . Now you are saying that a covenant includes all these other things
**A covenant includes swearing an oath, sacrifice, a life, blessing and cursing, binding one to the other for life, ** Now i’m not saying that a covenant can’t have these things and a lot of biblical covenants do have them. Just that they are not nesessary for it to be a covenant. Here’s another example:
Gen 12:2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
4So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

The only thing necessary for this covenant to be valid was for Abraham to obey the Lord’s command In other words it was an **agreement ** between God and Abraham.

** What is more important in the divine covenants a liturgy followed which included the Word (or law) of God, a high priest or Patriarch, sacifice, blood, swearing an oath, but most of all the most important aspect of the biblical divine covenants is that God makes himself present (reveals himself) in the liturgy. **

What do you mean by liturgy?

**Now when is God present at the signing of a contract? **

God’s name was used when Abraham swore his oath in this covenat/contract. You have still failed to show how a covenant is not a contract.

Any time the name of God is invoked especially in liturgy God makes himself present in Word and sign (or sacrament.) As God did in a cloud, Rock, fire, whisper, burning bush, today in the New Covenant God is present in the species of bread and wine fulfilling the old covenants liturgical sacrificial systems, and liturgical covenantal system not to mention fulfilled the law and the prophets. More on this later;

So you are saying that every time someone uses the name of God in vain that God submits Himself to man’s disrespect.

What makes the covenant valid is not the agreement between two parties, the validation comes in when God’s name is invoked and the swearing of an oath, not to what the two parties agreed too. Then follows blessings and cursings.

Is not this a covenant:
Gen2:16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
This is a command of God to His new creation. Pretty one sided, but a covenant none the less.

 

[wwolverine]

Mathew 16:18 clearly describes what Jesus said, : On this Rock I will build the Chruch" note it does not say CHURCHES, but Church. The Catholic Church.

So why did these factions come into existance? And are these factions united? No, none of them are united. And they keep on growing, every now and than we find new factions creeping. Slight variation in something preached, immediately a new faction is born. Did Jesus want this?

Inspite of all ups and down that the Catholic Church faces, still the Church is united and if all these factions join back into the major Church ie the Catholic Church, than all Christians will be back on the track of what Jesus originally wanted.

Pray such a unity does come back into existance.

 

[Jon_Hus]

…The more conservative churches seem to be stuck and only interested in uniting on their own terms…

The same could and should be said of the Roman Catholic Church. And in fact they cannot back down on most of their dogma as the faithful catholic isn’t going to tolerate a change in doctrines of Mary even if the pope decrees it.

The whole “unity” thing is basically something catholics want. As for my understanding of Scriptures, a person is either trusting in Christ or he/she is not trusting in Christ. If that person is trusting in Christ, he/'she is a member of the church, is a child of God regardless of what church the person belongs to or attends on Sunday by whom that person was baptized. So I see no reason or purpose in union with the RCC or any other denomination for that matter for my claim to membership in the church is based on my faith not adhearence to any dogma or ritual.

 

[pipper]

The same could and should be said of the Roman Catholic Church. And in fact they cannot back down on most of their dogma as the faithful catholic isn’t going to tolerate a change in doctrines of Mary even if the pope decrees it.

The whole “unity” thing is basically something catholics want. As for my understanding of Scriptures, a person is either trusting in Christ or he/she is not trusting in Christ. If that person is trusting in Christ, he/'she is a member of the church, is a child of God regardless of what church the person belongs to or attends on Sunday by whom that person was baptized. So I see no reason or purpose in union with the RCC or any other denomination for that matter for my claim to membership in the church is based on my faith not adhearence to any dogma or ritual.

Mr Huss, I was addresing the subject of the original poster: unity amoung the many Protestant communities, that’s it.

I thought unity was thing desired amoung all Christians, not just Catholics who are just one part of Christianity.

You confuse me somewhat. Are you not a Lutheran? Lutherans with agree Catholics that the sacrament of baptism forgives sin and indeed makes a person a Christian.

And Lutherans have a liturgy, “ritual” that is nearly identical with the Catholic liturgy. I just do not understand your objections.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Dear Richard Kastner; upon reading your response; again confirms my doubts about protestants and non catholics not understanding or misinformed about the divine covenants and not living them out as per the divine covenant. Especially the New and everlasting covnenant established by Jesus Christ himself;

Case in point; you mention again another bad example of a divine covenant from Gen.12:2… You have isolated scripture from the whole of scripture here; Gen.12 is the calling of Abram. Abram proves his loyalty to God, who then cut’s the covenant with Abram until Gen.15 which introduces the liturgy, sacrifice, God’s presence made present, followed by blessings and cursing.

The promise of Abram as a father of many nations does not begin until Abram’s name is changed (consecrated to the Lord) to Abraham in Gen.17. Gen.12 just like your other example from Gen.21 does not equate a divine covenant.

Gen. 21:31 is where both Abamelech and Abraham swear an oath. Also Abamelech exchange of persons was protection for his progeny and prosterity from Abrahams God, so long as they covenanted each other making themselves kinsmen to one another, whereby they both are given protection one from God and the other from Abamelech’s army and citizens. The pact ends only by one or the others death, that is why Abrahams son Isaac had to make a new pact with Abamelech in Gen. 26, after Abrahams death.

The creation covenant also includes the 7 when God hallows the Seventh day while Adam and Eve are still in paradise. God makes the heavenly Covenant by commanding them not to eat of a certain tree in the middle of the garden, followed either by blessings or curses.

Then after the fall, result of the failed covenant takes affect then the rest is history, until Jesus and his Mother Mary the second Adam and the new Eve of whom Jesus dignifies with the title “Woman” from the gospels, comes to creations rescue and delivers humanity from eternal damnation. Just so long as the New and everlasting Covenant is being honored and practiced to the fullest, lest a greater damnation befalls humanity if the New Covenant is not being kept. This is the Church Jesus built 2000 years ago in his body which is the Catholic Church.

The 5 divine covenants before Jesus fulfills them are Creation covenant with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and David. These particular divine covenants are not contracts. So spare me the life long pact examples which are not contracts.

Another difference between a contract and a covenant is; a contract establishes a real time of termination, or at the completion of a service or exchange of goods. The divine covenant only ends when it is broken, and calls for a life and can only be fulfilled at the death of the testator. Which is why Jesus took on our humanity from Mary his mother and layed it to rest for all humanity.

Maybe if we stick to the 5 divine covenants between God and his people then maybe one can see the “Truth” of the New And Everlasting Covenant in Jesus Christ who fulfilled every letter of the law in all of the covenants.

The one thing I would pray you come to understand about Jesus fulfilling the law and the prophets is that God established specific “Perpetual” events or laws that are to continue in the new and everlasting covenant of Jesus Christ, which has been practiced by the Catholic Church validly these past 2000 years. I believe comparing what was to remain perpetual and what came to slowly disappear in the Divine covenants, is what I hope to call your attention too, if we can conclude that a divine covenant establishes a personal relationship between parties as becoming one with the other, a family.

Peace be with you

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Dear Richard Kastner; upon reading your response; again confirms my doubts about protestants and non catholics not understanding or misinformed about the divine covenants and not living them out as per the divine covenant. Especially the New and everlasting covnenant established by Jesus Christ himself;

Your use of the double negative here says something that I don’t think you meant to say. You say that you doubt that we do not understand when I think you meant to say you doubt that we do understand. Understand? Also your sweeping generalization About protestants or non Catholcs not understanding or being misinformed because of my individual statement, just is not logical. How can all protestants and non Catholics be misinformed or not understand because of my individual statement?

Case in point; you mention again another bad example of a divine covenant from Gen.12:2.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that this is not a covenant between God and Abram and if it is how is it a bad example? It’s the covenat that basically starts the Jewish nation.

You have isolated scripture from the whole of scripture here; Gen.12 is the calling of Abram. Abram proves his loyalty to God, who then cut’s the covenant with Abram until Gen.15 which introduces the liturgy, sacrifice, God’s presence made present, followed by blessings and cursing.

1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
4So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

You’re right I should have included v. 1. You see, God never forces anyone to do anything God tells Abram to leave his home and go to an unknown land. This is akin to the word if. If Abram would not have agreed to do what God wanted, there would have been no covenant, but He obeyed God and as a result God made him the father of the Jewish nation and He says that not only the Jews will be blessed, but in him all the families of the earth will be blessed. Well at this point we need to ask ourselves how are all the families of the earth to be blessed in Abram. The answer is the same reason that God had a chosen people in the first place and that is to provide a vehicle to bring the Messiah into the world. The blessing here talked about is Jesus Christ. The Savior of Mankind.

The promise of Abram as a father of many nations does not begin until Abram’s name is changed (consecrated to the Lord) to Abraham in Gen.17.

This statement is just not true. Gen.12:2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

Gen.12 just like your other example from Gen.21 does not equate a divine covenant.

While I never stated that my example from Gen 21 was a divine covenant. I just read this statement and have just now come to understand what you are saying, I think, but just to make sure I must ask you to verify what you are saying. Are you saying that Gen12:1-4 is not a covenant between God and Abram. Because if you are I’m not going to waste my time answering the rest of this post.

Gen. 21:31 is where both Abamelech and Abraham swear an oath. Also Abamelech exchange of persons was protection for his progeny and prosterity from Abrahams God, so long as they covenanted each other making themselves kinsmen to one another, whereby they both are given protection one from God and the other from Abamelech’s army and citizens. The pact ends only by one or the others death, that is why Abrahams son Isaac had to make a new pact with Abamelech in Gen. 26, after Abrahams death.

The creation covenant also includes the 7 when God hallows the Seventh day while Adam and Eve are still in paradise. God makes the heavenly Covenant by commanding them not to eat of a certain tree in the middle of the garden, followed either by blessings or curses.

Then after the fall, result of the failed covenant takes affect then the rest is history, until Jesus and his Mother Mary the second Adam and the new Eve of whom Jesus dignifies with the title “Woman” from the gospels, comes to creations rescue and delivers humanity from eternal damnation. Just so long as the New and everlasting Covenant is being honored and practiced to the fullest, lest a greater damnation befalls humanity if the New Covenant is not being kept. This is the Church Jesus built 2000 years ago in his body which is the Catholic Church.

The 5 divine covenants before Jesus fulfills them are Creation covenant with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and David. These particular divine covenants are not contracts. So spare me the life long pact examples which are not contracts.

Another difference between a contract and a covenant is; a contract establishes a real time of termination, or at the completion of a service or exchange of goods. The divine covenant only ends when it is broken, and calls for a life and can only be fulfilled at the death of the testator. Which is why Jesus took on our humanity from Mary his mother and layed it to rest for all humanity.

Maybe if we stick to the 5 divine covenants between God and his people then maybe one can see the “Truth” of the New And Everlasting Covenant in Jesus Christ who fulfilled every letter of the law in all of the covenants.

The one thing I would pray you come to understand about Jesus fulfilling the law and the prophets is that God established specific “Perpetual” events or laws that are to continue in the new and everlasting covenant of Jesus Christ, which has been practiced by the Catholic Church validly these past 2000 years. I believe comparing what was to remain perpetual and what came to slowly disappear in the Divine covenants, is what I hope to call your attention too, if we can conclude that a divine covenant establishes a personal relationship between parties as becoming one with the other, a family.

Peace be with you

 

[Contarini]

The whole “unity” thing is basically something catholics want.

If by “Catholics” you mean “orthodox Christians who care about the Faith as a whole and not some distorted, fragmented early modern version thereof” then sure.

As for my understanding of Scriptures, a person is either trusting in Christ or he/she is not trusting in Christ. If that person is trusting in Christ, he/'she is a member of the church, is a child of God regardless of what church the person belongs to or attends on Sunday by whom that person was baptized. So I see no reason or purpose in union with the RCC or any other denomination for that matter for my claim to membership in the church is based on my faith not adhearence to any dogma or ritual.

Well, your understanding is heretical. It is contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture and to the constant witness of the Church throughout history. For that matter, it’s contrary to the teaching of Reformers such as Calvin, who said explicitly that you cannot have God for your Father unless you have the *visible *Church for your mother.

Trusting in Christ as an individual does not make you a member of the Church, or even, in the fullest sense, a Christian. It just makes you a person with a personally chosen set of religious beliefs that happen to include Jesus.

You really want to trust in Christ, you have to be part of His Body. And that means that you are part of a community of Word and Sacrament.

Edwin