|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/23/2010 7:53:01 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1470
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
WKISCHER WROTE:
quote:
Where in this quote from scripture does it say anything about whether or not Gentiles need to circumcised? It doesn’t. It is Peter’s testimony with which James is agreeing.
Good point.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/23/2010 7:58:13 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1470
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stormcrow
quote:
I'm not sure which instance you are referring to. if you are thinking of the Spanish Inquisition, here are a few facts:
I cited one example in the post I linked. Here it is again:
quote:
John Huss, a Bohemian preacher of reformation, was burned at the stake on July 6, 1415. Pope Martin V issued a bull on 17 March 1420 which proclaimed a crusade “for the destruction of the Wycliffites, Hussites and all other heretics in Bohemia".
The Crusades in the Middle East also spilled over into conquest of Eastern Orthodox Christians by Roman Catholics and attempted suppression of the Orthodox Church. The Waldenses were as well persecuted by the Catholic Church, but survive up to this day.
Anti-Protestantism originated in a reaction by the Catholic Church against the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Protestants were denounced as heretics and subject to persecution in those territories, such as Spain, Italy and the Netherlands, in which the Catholics were the dominant power. This movement was orchestrated by Popes and Princes as the Counter Reformation. This resulted in religious wars and eruptions of sectarian hatred such as the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572.
So again I'll ask: upon whose authority did these popes engage in murder and war again Protestant Reformers?
Hi Stormcrow. Sorry for the miscommunicaiton. A few points:
1)I don't know much about some of the events yuo relate . are you sure you have yuor facts right? Please double check them, and hopefully I wil have time to look one or more of them up.
2)there are sinners in all Christian groups. Nobody is claiming the Popes--even the very saintly ones--were not sinners
3) I know for a fact that protestant propaganda on these issues is sometimes false, even grossly inaccurate
4) you are blending allegations against the Popes with those against the cathoilcs.
5)if yuo haven't studies th good that the Popes and Catholics have done, are you really just?
6)the protestant reformation/Inquisition---have yuo read abuot it or not? Here is teh link:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant-inquisition-reformation.html
As even the anti-Catholic Rousseau said:
"The Reformation was intolerant from its cradle, and its authors were universal persecutors . . .
Here is Stoddard:
"What makes, however, Protestant persecutions specially revolting is the fact that they were absolutely inconsistent with the primary doctrine of Protestantism -- the right of private judgment in matters of religious belief! Nothing can be more illogical than at one moment to assert that one may interpret the Bible to suit himself, and at the next to torture and kill him for having done so!Nor should we ever forget that . . . the Protestants were the aggressors, the Catholics were the defenders. The Protestants were attempting to destroy the old, established Christian Church, which had existed 1500 years, and to replace it by something new, untried and revolutionary. The Catholics were upholding a Faith, hallowed by centuries of pious associations and sublime achievements; the Protestants, on the contrary, were fighting for a creed . . . which already was beginning to disintegrate into hostile sects, each of which, if it gained the upper hand, commenced to persecute the rest! . . . All religious persecution is bad; but in this case, of the two parties guilty of it, the Catholics certainly had the more defensible motives for their conduct.
At all events, the argument that the persecutions for heresy, perpetrated by the Catholics, constitute a reason why one should not enter the Catholic Church, has not a particle more force than a similar argument would have against one's entering the Protestant Church. In both there have been those deserving of blame in this respect, and what applies to one applies also to the other. "(Stoddard, 204-205, 209-210)
Here is Johannes Jannsen from his Janssen, Johannes, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumess, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 (orig. 1891):
"The Protestant theologian Meyfart . . . described the tortures which he had personally witnessed . . . 'The subtle Spaniard and the wily Italian have a horror of these bestialities and brutalities, and at Rome it is not customary to subject a murderer . . . an incestuous person, or an adulterer to torture for the space of more than an hour'; but in Germany . . . torture is kept up for a whole day, for a day and a night, for two days . . . even also for four days . . . after which it begins again . . . 'There are stories extant so horrible and revolting that no true man can hear of them without a shudder.'(Janssen, XVI, 516-518, 521)
"He gives also another typical instance of the treatment of Anabaptists:
At Augsburg, in the first half of the year 1528, about 170 Anabaptists of both sexes were either imprisoned or expelled by order of the new-religionist Town Council. Some were . . . burnt through the cheeks with hot irons; many were beheaded; some had their tongues cut out".
(Janssen, V, 160)
quote:
Anti-Protestantism originated in a reaction by the Catholic Church against the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Protestants were denounced as heretics and subject to persecution in those territories, such as Spain, Italy and the Netherlands, in which the Catholics were the dominant power. This movement was orchestrated by Popes and Princes as the Counter Reformation. This resulted in religious wars and eruptions of sectarian hatred such as the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572.
Okay, so please explain which Pope caused the St. Bartholomew's Day Masscre? Or are you saying that the attempt of the Biblical Church to refute heresy was itself wrong?
KELMAN WROTE:
quote:
Upon their own "infallible" authoritative decision that murder is perfectly acceptable when committed for the purposes of self interests.
Is this just more ihatred for the Biblical Church? Do you actually have a document that says this?
What about this?:
The Evangelical NIV Study Bible notes on Isaiah 22 on Is 22:15:
"[Is 22:15]...in charge of the palace. A position second only to the king..."; on verse 22: "...key to the house of David. The authority delegated to him by the king, who belongs to David's dynasty -- perhaps controlling entrance into the royal palace. Cf. the 'keys of the kingdom' given to Peter (Mt 16:19) ."
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 2/23/2010 2:01:28 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/23/2010 9:45:26 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 573
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
His testimony, in part. Paul and Barnabus also testified to God working among the Gentiles. That God showed his grace to the Gentiles was nothing new to the Apostles. The genealogy of Jesus even includes Gentiles. Peter’s vision, as recorded earlier in Acts, directly addresses the issue at hand. This is the testimony Peter gives.
quote:
Yes, James agreed with Peter's testimony based solely on the fact that his testimony agreed with Scripture...he says that right here in verse 14-15 "Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written," Again I ask: where does the passage James cited address the issue of Gentile circumcision? Peter was given an infallible truth by the Holy Spirit. This vision is in “agreement” with scripture in that it does not contradict scripture. This is an excellent example of how God chooses to reveal infallible truth to His Church. The fact that Gentiles need not be circumcised is not apparent in the text that James cites. James is simply confirming Peter’s testimony of the issue at hand. It is Peter’s testimony that settles the decision.
quote:
James' agreement had absolutely nothing to do with Peter having an authority above any other Apostle. It did, however, have to do with Peter's words agreeing with Scripture and the testimony of Paul and Barnbus. This account is another clear piece of biblical evidence that Peter held no authoritative primacy above any other Apostle. The text is pretty clear. The matter is disputed (Acts 15:7). Peter gives his testimony (v 7-11). The debate ends in silence(v 12). Then Paul and Barnabas give their testimony. And what happens after this? Peter, Paul, and Barnabas all give testimony, but who does James cite? Why does the debate end after Peter’s testimony? Why aren’t Paul and Barnabas’ testimonies detailed in the scriptures? Why does James cite only Peter’s testimony?
quote:
Hey, what's this?....an admission that RC wasn't "from the beginning"? If RC didn't make it up, who did? Pretty easy answer… it was by God’s design. Even Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley will testify to this as does St. Augustine and so many of the other pre-reformation church leaders.
quote:
But what about the reformers who base their doctrine on scripture alone? Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley all professed Mary’s perpetual virginity. Did sola-scriptura fail these fathers of the Reformation? This wasn’t a rhetorical question Kelman. Did sola-scriptura fail these leaders of the reformation? What about Calvin, held in such high esteem by both the Presbyterian and Reformed Church? Were these leaders of the Reformation in error? If they were in error on the perpetual virginity of Mary, where else might they have erred? In the Real Presence? In regenerative baptism? In double predestination? In perseverance of the saints? In congregationalism? In total depravity? Kind of makes sense now why protestants have to redefine what Pillar and Foundation of Truth “really means”.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/23/2010 12:55:46 PM
|
|
|
SouthBend
Posts: 276
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stormcrow
quote:
I'm not sure which instance you are referring to. if you are thinking of the Spanish Inquisition, here are a few facts:
I cited one example in the post I linked. Here it is again:
quote:
John Huss, a Bohemian preacher of reformation, was burned at the stake on July 6, 1415. Pope Martin V issued a bull on 17 March 1420 which proclaimed a crusade “for the destruction of the Wycliffites, Hussites and all other heretics in Bohemia".
The Crusades in the Middle East also spilled over into conquest of Eastern Orthodox Christians by Roman Catholics and attempted suppression of the Orthodox Church. The Waldenses were as well persecuted by the Catholic Church, but survive up to this day.
Anti-Protestantism originated in a reaction by the Catholic Church against the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Protestants were denounced as heretics and subject to persecution in those territories, such as Spain, Italy and the Netherlands, in which the Catholics were the dominant power. This movement was orchestrated by Popes and Princes as the Counter Reformation. This resulted in religious wars and eruptions of sectarian hatred such as the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572.
So again I'll ask: upon whose authority did these popes engage in murder and war again Protestant Reformers?
quote:
Unfortunately, I also feel that the traditions, rites, and rituals of the RCC present an unnecessary burden.
Storm,
Forgive me if you already answered this, but could you please elaborate on this previous statement?
I'm just curious because I often hear this but am not sure exactly what it entails specifically.
Peace
_____________________________
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 110 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/23/2010 1:06:48 PM
|
|
|
cornergas
Posts: 509
Joined: 7/28/2009
Status: offline
|
The Roman church is in denial, and trying to re-write history to cover up it's initiatives to murder all dissenters who would not bow to mother rome, and the popes. History is there, so to deny it, proves culpability by the vatican..the popes by these actions have proven to be barbaric and self serving, and not interested in following or spreading the true Gospel of Jesus. Just watch them, in the next few years, how history again will prove them to be the persecuting entity they were in earlier years..Mr Ratziner aka pope Benedict is already on record as strongly pushing the one world religion and stating that followers of the "roman catholic" church are the only true Christians..
Know the truth and it will set you free
Worship the Son of God-not the sun god
Remember the Sabbath to keep it Holy!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/23/2010 1:29:14 PM
|
|
|
SouthBend
Posts: 276
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cornergas
The Roman church is in denial, and trying to re-write history to cover up it's initiatives to murder all dissenters who would not bow to mother rome, and the popes. History is there, so to deny it, proves culpability by the vatican..the popes by these actions have proven to be barbaric and self serving, and not interested in following or spreading the true Gospel of Jesus. Just watch them, in the next few years, how history again will prove them to be the persecuting entity they were in earlier years..Mr Ratziner aka pope Benedict is already on record as strongly pushing the one world religion and stating that followers of the "roman catholic" church are the only true Christians..
Know the truth and it will set you free
Worship the Son of God-not the sun god
Remember the Sabbath to keep it Holy!
One minute your saying the Pope is pushing a one world religion then you state that he believes the Catholic Church is the only true church.
Why the contradiction? Or are you saying that the Pope is going to somehow force 6 billion people to become Roman Catholic?
Sorry but I'm having a hard time keeping up with this anti-catholic "stuff". It's all over the place and doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Could you clarify a bit?
Peace
_____________________________
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 110 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/23/2010 11:33:20 PM
|
|
|
Saved34
Posts: 867
Joined: 1/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Kind of makes sense now why protestants have to redefine what Pillar and Foundation of Truth “really means”. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth if it holds forth the truth. The Church was commissioned by our Lord to deliver the truth of the Gospel to fallen man. The Church so long as she defends this truth, so long as she presents the truth of the Gospel (according to scripture) she is the Pillar and grounds of the truth. Romish teachers present this as if she is the originator or author of truth. We are the Ambassadors for Christ to spread HIS truth, which makes us the pillar and ground of the truth. "IN CHRIST'S STEAD"
2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Popery is not presented in any part of Holy Scripture. It is an addition by tradition which is never ever presented clearly in any Gospel,Epistle ,or Old Testament book. Peter gave us no instructions of Popery, Paul not so much as hinted at it. It is extra biblical and not apart of the Gospel of Christ. Matters not that a thousand men of old held to a Pope, Paul said to not even trust himself nor any men with him ,or an Angel if they deviated from the pure Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
When God committed the oracles of the Old Testament to Israel you could say they were the Pillar and ground of the truth. They (like Rome) added their own traditions as equal to God's Holy word.
Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
_____________________________
2Ti 2:3 Join me in suffering like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.
2Ti 2:4 No one serving in the military gets mixed up in civilian matters, for his aim is to please his commanding officer.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/24/2010 2:10:13 AM
|
|
|
Stormcrow
Posts: 587
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Unfortunately, I also feel that the traditions, rites, and rituals of the RCC present an unnecessary burden.
Until Vatican II, the Mass was celebrated almost exclusively in Latin, hence no one could understand it unless one understood Latin.
Fortunately that burden was removed but the other big one remains namely the Liturgy itself, with all its formal rites, rituals, and rote memorization and repetition. It became completely devoid of any spirituality for me. I found it to be lifeless.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/24/2010 2:26:26 AM
|
|
|
Stormcrow
Posts: 587
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Roman church is in denial, and trying to re-write history to cover up it's initiatives to murder all dissenters who would not bow to mother rome, and the popes. History is there, so to deny it, proves culpability by the vatican..the popes by these actions have proven to be barbaric and self serving, and not interested in following or spreading the true Gospel of Jesus. Just watch them, in the next few years, how history again will prove them to be the persecuting entity they were in earlier years..Mr Ratziner aka pope Benedict is already on record as strongly pushing the one world religion and stating that followers of the "roman catholic" church are the only true Christians.
Wow, dude. Take a chill pill. There's no reason to impugn the motives or actions of current or recent popes because of the barbarity of previous ones.
The problem has always been one of "absolute power that corrupts absolutely." Any human put in the position of "absolute power" and told that he is "infallible" when presumed to be speaking by the "Spirit" (who decides that if the Pope is the final arbiter of whether he is speaking by the Spirit???) is begging for trouble.
Evaluate each man based on his own actions and not those of the men who preceded him.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/24/2010 3:08:55 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5352
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
His testimony, in part. Paul and Barnabus also testified to God working among the Gentiles.
That God showed his grace to the Gentiles was nothing new to the Apostles. Actually it was. Paul makes it clear in Eph 3:3,6 that he had revealed a "mystery", that which had been hidden - God would indeed show His grace to the Gentiles "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery;....That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:"
quote:
quote:
Yes, James agreed with Peter's testimony based solely on the fact that his testimony agreed with Scripture...he says that right here in verse 14-15 "Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,"
Again I ask: where does the passage James cited address the issue of Gentile circumcision? The question before them was circumcision and keeping the law of Moses.
James quotes from Amos 9:11 indicating that Peter's words agree with it - the breaking down of the wall between the Jew and the Gentile. Now, based upon this and the testimony of Paul and Barnabus, it was James' judgment "that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God"
quote:
It is Peter’s testimony that settles the decision. As in very obvious from the passages, Peter "decided" nothing.
quote:
Pretty easy answer… it was by God’s design. Hmm, a "design" God kept so extraordinarily hidden - so hidden that, in fact, it doesn't exist.
quote:
quote:
But what about the reformers who base their doctrine on scripture alone? Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley all professed Mary’s perpetual virginity. Did sola-scriptura fail these fathers of the Reformation?
This wasn’t a rhetorical question Kelman. Did sola-scriptura fail these leaders of the reformation?
Calvin, for one, didn't make perpetual virginity an article of faith as you guys do. Scripture doesn't determine the issue of Mary's perpetual virginity. So, nope, Sola Scripture didn't "fail" these men.
Calvin on Mat 1:25
"Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.” Source
Calvin’s point is to say that a necessary inference that Mary had other children cannot be made from the biblical texts of Mat13:55 and 1:25. Calvin’s main point is that the gospel writer didn't wish to record what happened afterwards to Mary. Calvin calls it “folly” at one point, when describing those who wish to make a text say more than it does. Those who would make a necessary inference where the Gospel writer has only made a possible inference engage in folly (according to Calvin).
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/24/2010 9:57:29 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1470
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
KELMAN WROTE:
quote:
Calvin’s point is to say that a necessary inference that Mary had other children cannot be made from the biblical texts of Mat13:55 and 1:25. Calvin’s main point is that the gospel writer didn't wish to record what happened afterwards to Mary. Calvin calls it “folly” at one point, when describing those who wish to make a text say more than it does. Those who would make a necessary inference where the Gospel writer has only made a possible inference engage in folly (according to Calvin).
Right. So I'm glad that's settled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that issue about the Papacy is partly a dispute about words: that many people feel an ingrained emotional reaction to the word "Pope", "Popery", "Papist" and the like.
That Mt 16:17-19 and Jn 21:15-17 and Lk 12:42, Lk 22:16-32teach the doctrine that
--the Church is built on all the Apostles (Eph 2:20), esp. Simon Rock, as protestant scholars show.
--that Peter is being made the chief Steward (Major Domo, Master of Palace,) after the O.T. pattern in Is 22:15, 19-23, as protestant scholars show.
D.A. Carson (Protestant Evangelical) --
"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." (Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1984], volume 8, page 368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18)
R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical) --
"The terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements [i.e. relative to laws not written down in the Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them] which are to be 'binding' on the people of God. In that case Peter's 'power of the keys' declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper... but that of the steward (as in Is. 22:22, generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of keys here), whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household." (R.T. France, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 54)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few things I've learned lately related to the Papacy:
1)the SPanish Inquisition was protested aganist by three Popes, which had imperfect control over it due to politics.
2)torture was used but only for 15 minutes, always with teh doctor present with the authority to stop the torture, which was never used twice on the same person.
3)Pope Pius 12th definitelyh saved tens of thousands--probably hundreds of thuosands--of Jews during WWII, yet he is still slandered.
4)The Papacy did not sanction the St. Bartholomew's day massacre
5)I'm still trying to learn abuot Pope Martin 5ths Crusade against the Hussites
6)the protestant Inquisition was horrible. In Germany alone 100,000 people were killed for witchcraft. And the reformers had no problem with inquisition, torture, or death penalties for heretics.
7)such abuses prove nothing against either Catholics and protestants, except that both are sinners.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 2/24/2010 12:18:53 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/24/2010 2:48:37 PM
|
|
|
SouthBend
Posts: 276
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stormcrow
quote:
Unfortunately, I also feel that the traditions, rites, and rituals of the RCC present an unnecessary burden.
Until Vatican II, the Mass was celebrated almost exclusively in Latin, hence no one could understand it unless one understood Latin.
Fortunately that burden was removed but the other big one remains namely the Liturgy itself, with all its formal rites, rituals, and rote memorization and repetition. It became completely devoid of any spirituality for me. I found it to be lifeless.
Hey, thanks for the answer, Storm.
I often hear that but I was never sure of the different perspectives. I myself find it quite beautiful and immensely spiritual.
I have also experienced Protestant services with no liturgy at all and have very much enjoyed the singing and praise and worship aspects.
Thanks for the input...
Peace
_____________________________
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 110 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/24/2010 3:04:40 PM
|
|
|
SouthBend
Posts: 276
Status: offline
|
quote:
The problem has always been one of "absolute power that corrupts absolutely." Any human put in the position of "absolute power" and told that he is "infallible" when presumed to be speaking by the "Spirit" (who decides that if the Pope is the final arbiter of whether he is speaking by the Spirit???) is begging for trouble.
The only question I would have regarding this statement is the authors of the NT, including Peter, were being guided by the Holy Spirit and thus "speaking infallibly" when writing their letters.
How could Peter be sure he was "infallible" when he wrote his epistles? Exacly when in scripture does it tell us that at some arbitrary point the Holy Spirit stopped guiding Peter and the other NT writers when speaking on matters of faith and morals?
Why was Peter "infallible" when he wrote letters and not "infallible" at later times when he was spreading the good news of the Gospel and building the Church?
Peace
_____________________________
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 110 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/25/2010 3:25:50 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 573
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
Actually it was. Paul makes it clear in Eph 3:3,6 that he had revealed a "mystery", that which had been hidden - God would indeed show His grace to the Gentiles "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery;....That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:" I agree that the full revelation of salvation to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ was not immediately known. What I meant in saying that God showing his grace to the Gentiles was nothing new to the Apostles was that historically, non-Jews were enabled to join in God's covenant family.
quote:
The question before them was circumcision and keeping the law of Moses.
James quotes from Amos 9:11 indicating that Peter's words agree with it - the breaking down of the wall between the Jew and the Gentile. Now, based upon this and the testimony of Paul and Barnabus, it was James' judgment "that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God" I realize what the question at hand was. My point is that under the OT, Gentiles converted into Judaism by circumcision and the ritual bath known as mikveh. It is not too difficult to see why the Judaizers believed Gentile Christians should be circumcised. The quote from Amos does not specifically address this, it merely shows that the revelation made to Peter is consistent with God's plan of salvation for Gentiles.
quote:
As in very obvious from the passages, Peter "decided" nothing. Peter spoke with authority. His testimony ended the debate. You never did answer why the details of only Peter's testimony are recorded. You never did answer why Paul and Barnabas' testimonies weren't. You never did answer why James refers only to Peter's testimony.
quote:
Hmm, a "design" God kept so extraordinarily hidden - so hidden that, in fact, it doesn't exist. That's just it. Mary's perpetual virginity was not hidden at all. The early church, including St. Augustine, testifies to this truth. So do Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley. It is only "hidden" from those who choose to reject over 1500 years of the teachings of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth and even the fathers of the reformation.
quote:
Calvin, for one, didn't make perpetual virginity an article of faith as you guys do. Scripture doesn't determine the issue of Mary's perpetual virginity. So, nope, Sola Scripture didn't "fail" these men. Mary's perpetual virginity being an "article of faith" has nothing to do with my question. Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Wesley all believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. If they didn't get this from scripture then where did they get it from?
From the Lutheran Book of Concord, "On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother's womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin."
Calvin from "Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke": Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned".
Would Calvin, basing his doctrine on sola-scriptura, call Protestants today who try to use the 'brothers' of Jesus as a refutation against Mary's perpetual virginity, "excessively ignorant"? Did sola-scriptura fail Calvin or Protestants who reject Mary's perpetual virginity?
Zwingli: "I firmly believe that [Mary], according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." Did sola-scriptura fail Zwingli or Protestants who reject Mary's perpetual virginity?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/25/2010 3:41:01 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 573
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
Fortunately that burden was removed but the other big one remains namely the Liturgy itself, with all its formal rites, rituals, and rote memorization and repetition. It became completely devoid of any spirituality for me. I found it to be lifeless.
I'm sorry you feel that way about Divine Liturgy. I posted on this earlier and showed how this liturgy traces back at least as far back as the second century church. I was at a Presbyterian service last October and noticed that even they (and Lutherans too) use some of the ancient prayers - the"rites, rituals, and rote memorization" - in their liturgy.
I find the ancient and sacred liturgy very much full of life. We open in prayer, read from the OT, the Psalms, the NT epistles, and the Gospels, receive a homily on the Word, profess our faith, offer petitions to the Lord, and then celebrate the Life, Death, and Resurrection in the Eucharist. The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world is truly present regardless of the quality of the sermon or the performance of the worship band.
We know for certain that where two or more are gathered in Jesus' name, he is present. If you found the Mass to be lifeless and devoid of spirit, perhaps you may have been mislead by emotion rather than biblical truth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/25/2010 4:53:49 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5352
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Actually it was. Paul makes it clear in Eph 3:3,6 that he had revealed a "mystery", that which had been hidden - God would indeed show His grace to the Gentiles "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery;....That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:"
I agree that the full revelation of salvation to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ was not immediately known. What I meant in saying that God showing his grace to the Gentiles was nothing new to the Apostles was that historically, non-Jews were enabled to join in God's covenant family. You know what's really interesting? All throughout Scripture God made it plain that Gentiles would be included in His salvation plan. And yet, the Jews never "saw" it. The words were there, they read them, but they never made any impression on them. Even to Paul, it was a "mystery" being revealed. What mystery?...it was all over the OT!
quote:
quote:
The question before them was circumcision and keeping the law of Moses.
James quotes from Amos 9:11 indicating that Peter's words agree with it - the breaking down of the wall between the Jew and the Gentile. Now, based upon this and the testimony of Paul and Barnabus, it was James' judgment "that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God"
I realize what the question at hand was. My point is that under the OT, Gentiles converted into Judaism by circumcision and the ritual bath known as mikveh. It is not too difficult to see why the Judaizers believed Gentile Christians should be circumcised. The quote from Amos does not specifically address this, it merely shows that the revelation made to Peter is consistent with God's plan of salvation for Gentiles. Okay, but neither does Peter specifically mention circumcision so I'm not sure what your point is.
quote:
quote:
As in very obvious from the passages, Peter "decided" nothing.
Peter spoke with authority. Oh, absolutely I agree Peter spoke with authority since he spoke the words God gave him.
quote:
His testimony ended the debate. Actually, it didn't. After Peter spoke we see the following in verse 12 : "Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them."
quote:
You never did answer why the details of only Peter's testimony are recorded. You never did answer why Paul and Barnabas' testimonies weren't. Maybe I didn't answer because I don't know what you're talking about since what you said contradicts the passage. No specifics are given in Acts 15 concerning Peter's vision and visit to Cornelius and neither are specifics given concerning all the miracles and wonders witnessed by Paul and Barnabus.
quote:
You never did answer why James refers only to Peter's testimony. It makes sense that he would since Peter explained that the Gentiles "should hear the word of the gospel, and believe". To which James declares that Peter's testimony agrees with Scripture.
quote:
quote:
Hmm, a "design" God kept so extraordinarily hidden - so hidden that, in fact, it doesn't exist.
That's just it. Mary's perpetual virginity was not hidden at all.
I agree it was not hidden. You cannot "hide" what does not exist in Scripture.
quote:
The early church, including St. Augustine, testifies to this truth. So do Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley. No, they "testify" to what they think would be "nice"...that's all.
quote:
It is only "hidden" from those who choose to reject over 1500 years of the teachings of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth and even the fathers of the reformation. Sorry, but tradition is not the "rule of faith" and the Reformers had no problem disagreeing with RC's inflated opinon of itself.
quote:
quote:
Calvin, for one, didn't make perpetual virginity an article of faith as you guys do. Scripture doesn't determine the issue of Mary's perpetual virginity. So, nope, Sola Scripture didn't "fail" these men.
Mary's perpetual virginity being an "article of faith" has nothing to do with my question. Well, it sure had "something" to do with my answer. RC makes it an article of faith, it is binding on your conscience. The Reformers accepted tradition on this matter because they believed it didn't disagree with Scripture, although, it could not be proved from Scripture either.
quote:
Calvin from "Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke": Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned". Calvin is simply saying that "brothers" was not conclusive either way...so, you've proved nothing.
quote:
Would Calvin, basing his doctrine on sola-scriptura, call Protestants today who try to use the 'brothers' of Jesus as a refutation against Mary's perpetual virginity, "excessively ignorant"? Probably he would since, again, he thought the word "brother" was not conclusive evidence that Mary had other children.
quote:
Did sola-scriptura fail Calvin or Protestants who reject Mary's perpetual virginity? Frankly, the only thing that has "failed" is your understanding of what Sola Scriptura teaches. Again, Calvin accepted tradition on this matter because, in his opinion, Scripture does not prove otherwise. When RC's doctrines are clearly rejected by Scripture - Calvin rejects those traditions.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/25/2010 5:44:06 AM
|
|
|
Stormcrow
Posts: 587
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why was Peter "infallible" when he wrote letters and not "infallible" at later times when he was spreading the good news of the Gospel and building the Church?
Main Entry: in·fal·li·ble
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)in-ˈfa-lə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin infallibilis, from Latin in- + Late Latin fallibilis fallible
Date: 15th century
1 : incapable of error : unerring <an infallible memory>
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain <an infallible remedy>
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals
— in·fal·li·bil·i·ty \-ˌfa-lə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun
— in·fal·li·bly \-ˈfa-lə-blē\ adverb
No human being is infallible. Ever. We are merely clay in the hands of the potter. It's through our weakness (fallibility) that His strength is made known. God is infallible. We are not. As noted before, God used a donkey to speak to Balaam. Does that make the donkey infallible? Of course not. It makes them a vessel and an imperfect one at that, just as we are.
But if donkeys can be infallible when speaking on God's behalf, why not elect donkeys to the papacy, too?
Again, I support the office of the papacy on the grounds that every church needs its leaders. What I don't accept is this extra-biblical doctrine of papal infallibility. If someone is made infallible merely for being used by God, then, by that logic, donkeys should be in the College of Cardinals!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/25/2010 8:00:09 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1470
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed) --
"The 'rock' is Peter himself, not his confession. Only on this interpretation does the pun make sense." (Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 341)
STORMCROW WROTE:
quote:
No human being is infallible. Ever.
This is not in the Bible. Also, I believe yuo said that even a donkey can be made infalliible in a particular moment. And I know that the writers of teh Scriptures were infallible while they were writing. Likewise,
"I will give you the keys of teh Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever yuo bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth"etc
REGARDING THE HUSSITES, I FOUND THIS FROM THE NON-CATHOLIC HISTORIAN WILL DURANT:
[ After Hus's execution in 1415, zealous Hussite armies:]
". . . passed up and down Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia . . . pillaging monasterles, massacring monks, and compelling the population to accept the Four Articles of Prague . . .
(Durant, 169)'
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant-inquisition-reformation.html
Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed) --
"The 'keys' are probably not to be understood as entrance keys, as if to suggest that Peter is authorized to admit or to refuse admission, but rather to the bundle of keys carried by the chief steward, for the opening of rooms and storechambers within the house -- symbols of responsibilities to be exercised within the house of God (cf. Mt 24:45, etc.). 'Bind' and 'loose" are technical terms of the rabbinic vocabulary, denoting the authoritative declaration that an action or course of conduct is permitted or forbidden by the Law of Moses." (Beare, page 355-356)
--I'm reading up on Hus and the Hussites as best I can. I find history so difficult but I have found so far:
1)neither the reformers or many Catholics believed in religious liberty or that torture was wrong or execution for heresy
2)the Hussites believed in a literal, Catholic interpretation of Jn 6:48-64.
3)I haven't figured out yet if the war against teh Hussites was a just one or not
4)in eitehr case, it doesn't really affect my position on the papacy. If I did, then based on the same principle that sinners disprove doctrine (cf. Mt 13:47), then I would have to reject teh reformation also, given the terrors of the Protestant Inquisition. In fact, even secular historians like Will Durant acknowledge that religious persecution was worse after the reformation than before
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant-inquisition-reformation.html
KELMAN WROTE:
quote:
Calvin is simply saying that "brothers" was not conclusive either way...
Exactly.
quote:
Okay, but neither does Peter specifically mention circumcision so I'm not sure what your point is.
I'll let Kirscher answer for himself. BUt my point would be that the regional Council's decision, which was sent to Antioch Syria and Cilicia, was not based on Scripture alone, but the authority of Simon Rock and James and "the apostles and presbyters" (Acts 15:6, 7; cf. Mt 16:19).
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 2/25/2010 1:58:25 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/26/2010 12:35:04 AM
|
|
|
Stormcrow
Posts: 587
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
I believe yuo said that even a donkey can be made infalliible in a particular moment.
You made that claim, not I. Please refer to the original posts regarding this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/26/2010 1:41:17 AM
|
|
|
SouthBend
Posts: 276
Status: offline
|
quote:
No human being is infallible. Ever. We are merely clay in the hands of the potter. It's through our weakness (fallibility) that His strength is made known. God is infallible. We are not. As noted before, God used a donkey to speak to Balaam. Does that make the donkey infallible? Of course not. It makes them a vessel and an imperfect one at that, just as we are.
No one is saying that Peter or any subsequent Pope was perfect. Of course human being's are "fallible". That is not the argument.
You are correct to say God is infallible. If you are Trinitarian then you would believe that Jesus and the Holy Spirit, being God, are also infallible.
So by simple logic, when Jesus Promises the disciples that he would bring all things to their remembrance through the power of the Holy Spirit, it imparts a charism of infallibility when it comes to things Christ taught them.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)
So when speaking on matters of faith and morals, these men were promised by Jesus that they would be protected from teaching error.
What else could this passage mean?
So yes, men are "fallible". But when being guided by the Holy Spirit, they are "infallible".
So this is a classic both/and scenario as opposed to either/or.
Peace
_____________________________
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 110 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/27/2010 11:38:08 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 573
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
Okay, but neither does Peter specifically mention circumcision so I'm not sure what your point is. The divine revelation God gave to Peter through his vision was related to the the Jewish Law of the OT which included circumcision. The OT practice of the Jewish people was that Gentile converts had to go through mikveh and circumcision because it was required by the Torah. Peter's vision showed that Gentiles were not subject to Jewish dietary laws and, by extension, were not required to be circumcised.
quote:
Oh, absolutely I agree Peter spoke with authority since he spoke the words God gave him. Yes, the office of the bishopric was and still is granted the charism of authority.
In response to my comment that Peter's testimony ended the debate, you said:
quote:
Actually, it didn't. After Peter spoke we see the following in verse 12 : "Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them."
The "discussion" was a heated debate (Acts 15:7). After Peter's testimony, the "multitude kept silence" - meaning the heated discussion was over.
quote:
No specifics are given in Acts 15 concerning Peter's vision and visit to Cornelius and neither are specifics given concerning all the miracles and wonders witnessed by Paul and Barnabus. Though it's not recorded in Acts 15, I find it nearly impossible to believe that either before or during the council meeting, Peter didn't share his vision with the rest of the brethren. His authoritative statement is directly related to his vision and directly related to the dispute: "Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" Peter's testimony directly addresses the debate and ends the discussion - Gentiles are not bound to Jewish Law. Paul and Barnabas' testimony doesn't directly address the issue.
I said: You never did answer why James refers only to Peter's testimony. To which you replied:
quote:
It makes sense that he would since Peter explained that the Gentiles "should hear the word of the gospel, and believe". To which James declares that Peter's testimony agrees with Scripture. This answers why James refers to Peter's testimony. It doesn't answer why he doesn't detail or cite Paul or Barnabas'. I'll answer it for you since you seem to want to dodge the question: The decision was based on Peter's testimony because of the divine revelation given to him. And aren't you the one who claimed that Paul corrected Peter's erroneous teaching(rather than his hypocritical behavior) on this matter? I wonder why this didn't come up at the church council meeting????? Since Peter was allegedly teaching incorrect doctrine, shouldn't James have consulted with Paul???? And yet he doesn't. The Apostles turn to their leader, Kepha - Rock, for the infallible truth received through a special grace granted to the man to whom King Jesus granted the keys of his kingdom.
To my comment that the early church, including St. Augustine, as well as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley all testify to the truth of Mary's perpetual virginity you said:
quote:
Sorry, but tradition is not the "rule of faith" and the Reformers had no problem disagreeing with RC's inflated opinon of itself. Tradition may not be the "rule of faith", but we know from the infallible scriptures that the church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. The reformers had no problem disagreeing with the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. And what did this lead to? Countless divisions in the Church by this self-proclaimed authority. Not only did they have no problem disagreeing with the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, they had no problem disagreeing with one another as well.
quote:
Reformers accepted tradition on this matter because they believed it didn't disagree with Scripture, although, it could not be proved from Scripture either. So let me make sure I understand you correctly. When the Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley agree that the Tabernacle of the Lord remained a virgin, you think that's perfectly fine. But when the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church make this claim, you emphatically disagree.
You justify Calvin's position because he "believed it didn't disagree with scripture". But Calvin claims that "Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned". "Excessive ignorance" of what?????? On one hand you justify Calvin's position and then on the other, you say:
quote:
Scripture makes plain that the Lord had brothers and sisters while never giving any support to the RC idea that these "brethren" were not the biological children of Mary and Joseph. The Greek has a perfectly good word for "cousin", it uses in Luke 1:36 "suggenes" which eliminates one RC theory of who these "brethren" were. They, of course, have other "theories". I'm really struggling with this one Kelman. Your personal interpretation of scripture seems to disagree with Calvin's. In fact, I think it might be fair to say that Calvin would describe your quote above as being "excessively ignorant". So if you can't trust Calvin's biblical understanding of Mary's perpetual virginity, which of his personal interpretations of scripture can you trust? Only those with which you personally agree?
quote:
When RC's doctrines are clearly rejected by Scripture - Calvin rejects those traditions. Let's clarify this statement. When RC's doctrines are clearly rejected by Calvin's personal interpretation of Scripture, with which you even at times disagree, he rejects the teachings of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/27/2010 2:43:21 PM
|
|
|
SamsonUSA
Posts: 2021
Joined: 10/5/2008
From: Laguna Beach. Presently an Arizona desert dweller
Status: offline
|
quote:
Let's clarify this statement. When RC's doctrines are clearly rejected by Calvin's personal interpretation of Scripture, with which you even at times disagree, he rejects the teachings of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
Nice try. When Calvin (or any other Christian) rejects RC teachings, they are rejecting just that - RC teachings.
The "Pillar and Foundation of Truth" is the universal church in which all Christians who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ belong, no matter which doctrinal proclivity they may adhere to.
To claim that the Pillar and Foundation of Truth is the RCC is yet another false RC teaching that I (and more importantly Scripture) flat out reject.
_____________________________
Ronald Reagan said, "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."
Similarly, I've noticed that everyone who preaches Limited Atonement are already saved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/27/2010 3:09:13 PM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 573
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
Samson - nice to have you back. Have you decided yet to share with us how you've found the Catholic Church to be a "secret club"? We have ecclesial authority in our Church all the way up to the Pope. If there is some "secrecy" going on, it should be brought to the attention of the person in your diocese who holds the Office of Bishopric. If it cannot be resolved, then it will be brought to the attention of the leader of the Catholic Church. I think we could use this as a real-life example of why we need an earthly leader of the universal church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/27/2010 3:23:08 PM
|
|
|
SamsonUSA
Posts: 2021
Joined: 10/5/2008
From: Laguna Beach. Presently an Arizona desert dweller
Status: offline
|
Good afternoon wkirscher,
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
Samson - nice to have you back. Have you decided yet to share with us how you've found the Catholic Church to be a "secret club"? We have ecclesial authority in our Church all the way up to the Pope. If there is some "secrecy" going on, it should be brought to the attention of the person in your diocese who holds the Office of Bishopric. If it cannot be resolved, then it will be brought to the attention of the leader of the Catholic Church. I think we could use this as a real-life example of why we need an earthly leader of the universal church.
I did not find the Catholic Church a secret club in the sense that I felt any of the rites that they were participating in were attempted by them to be done in secret.
What I meant to convey is that the feelings that I experienced while attending their service were similar to feelings that one may expect to experience in attending a meeting of a secret club in which one does not belong.
In other words I felt like an outsider looking in on an a gathering to which I did not belong, and where I did not belong, or hope to belong to based on what I was witnessing.
I hope this explanation brings more clarity to my earlier comment.
_____________________________
Ronald Reagan said, "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."
Similarly, I've noticed that everyone who preaches Limited Atonement are already saved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 2/27/2010 3:33:25 PM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 573
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SamsonUSA
Good afternoon wkirscher,
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
Samson - nice to have you back. Have you decided yet to share with us how you've found the Catholic Church to be a "secret club"? We have ecclesial authority in our Church all the way up to the Pope. If there is some "secrecy" going on, it svgggeohould be brought to the attention of the person in your diocese who holds the Office of Bishopric. If it cannot be resolved, then it will be brought to the attention of the leader of the Catholic Church. I think we could use this as a real-life example of why we need an earthly leader of the universal church.
I did not find the Catholic Church a secret club in the sense that I felt any of the rites that they were participating in were attempted by them to be done in secret.
What I meant to convey is that the feelings that I experienced while attending their service were similar to feelings that one may expect to experience in attending a meeting of a secret club in which one does not belong.
In other words I felt like an outsider looking in on an a gathering to which I did not belong, and where I did not belong, or hope to belong to based on what I was witnessing.
I hope this explanation brings more clarity to my earlier comment.
thanks for the clarification. So it looks like your assessment was based on "feelings" rather than any sort of objective truth.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
