|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/18/2008 10:21:15 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 1884
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I am not prepared to develop my own faith, and seek to rely on a pedigreed teacher, All due respect DH, but many of those pedigreed teachers are the reason RC has million dollars of legal bills and decreased revenue.
You are using the double standard -
Protestant teacher who wears Rolex and has a fancy car is to you a false teacher.Yet Popes and pastors that were sheer evil, guilty of much worse then just greed - those you dont consider fake teachers. 
Why? at least greed is not punishable offence, and John Paul 2 was giving protection and help to those who protected the child molesters for years? ( Bernard Law story and others)
Sorry, if you dont trust Benny Hinn( rightfully so) because he is a crook why would you believe a Pope that considers child molesting to be not that big of a deal?
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/18/2008 10:54:54 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1142
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
My opinion of this is that it is denial of an obvious fact. In a Protestant Church, the congregation "calls" the ministry, and not the Church. The "students" may hire and fire the "teacher". Which begs the question of what position the students are in to judge the teacher, etc. To me, the whole model of congregational Churches, without affiliation to a large multi-congregational body, and accountability to it - is severely flawed. Again, just an opinion, but the ability to pick up one's KJV and find a Church that interprets it the way I interpret it is an issue with many in Christendom who don't see it that way, i. e. anybody in communion with one of the ancient Churches.
No, God "calls" the ministry. The choosing of a pastor is a very serious thing in every church I have been in that has gone through it. We are instructed to pray and fast about it, and choose according to what we feel is God's leading. I have personally abstained from voting in pastor-choosing decisions because I did not feel I had clear enough instruction from God regarding which candidate was the correct one for that church.
Incidentally, many Protestant churches do have an affiliation to a large multi-congregational body, and accountability to it.
quote:
I think we have to draw a distinction between the message and the messenger. Otherwise, every denomination, sect and branch of Christianity is invalid. In my opinion, the message has been preserved within the Roman Catholic Church, and I see other denominations as inventive and innovative. Great if you're designing new cars and electronic gadgets, poor if you are trying to preserve the deposit of faith.
If "right" is claimed already, the only real estate left to grab, if you want to discriminate yourself or separate yourself, is a shade of "wrong".
It's funny.
You have no problem with claiming that the message must be connected to the messenger when it comes to the RCC (the rest of us are "wrong" because we don't choose your messenger). But when it comes to depraved popes, you want the message separated from the messenger. How convenient.
As for preserving the deposit of faith, your church even changed the Nicene Creed almost a thousand years after the fact. You changed the way you wanted the church heirarchy to work to give your pope more power a thousand years after the fact, schisming the church. Way to preserve the deposit, there.
quote:
From whom? What is their authority in the subject matter?
Several textbooks with help from one of my previous pastors, who is himself certified as a Greek professor.
quote:
This would be the exception in my neck of the woods, not the rule.
That's unfortunate. *shrug*
quote:
Here's the thing about Latin - if I set a Latin text in front of an educated (doctor, lawyer, Priest) native French speaker, English speaker, Spanish speaker, Japanese speaker, and Portuguese speaker, everyone of these educated people will get pretty much the same thing out of the identical text in front of them. There was a time when Latin was not only a "dead" language (meaning that someone reading it in the 15th century would get pretty much the same thing from it as a reader in the 21st century), but it was universal (anyone with a higher education could read it). So - that's the bit on Latin, for your information. Original documents written in the 10th century in Latin read the same way now as they did then - this can't be said about any other language in use. That's why it is widely used in both law and medicine; its not likely its meanings will change in the next 500 years. Catholics in the year 2108 will hear the same Latin Mass that I am hearing today, and I am hearing the same Latin Mass that Saint Thomas More heard, and maybe even that Saint Thomas Aquinas heard.
I'm aware of the history of Latin. That doesn't change the fact that it's not the original language of Jesus or any of the Bible, and that the majority of your parishioners do not understand it, which has been pretty much always the case.
Which, as far as I can tell, is something that the RCC has been quite intentional about, considering that they labelled translators heretics, such as Wycliffe, who they were so mad at that they actually exhumed his bones 12 years after his death and burned them (ew.)
It must not be all that important these days, though, as it just got restored last year after being gotten rid of by Pope Paul in 1969. Though from what I understand that Latin mass wasn't even that old, it had been established by a missal in 1962. Weren't several people excommunicated for using the traditional Latin mass?
quote:
Who was worshipping as you do in the year 1108? Who will be worshipping as you do in 2108?
I would say there's a difference between worshipping in spirit and in truth, and chanting words by rote that the majority of the congregation doesn't even understand. As such, I expect the true church was worshipping in spirit and in truth in 1108, and still will be in 2108. Unless you're insisting that language is of consequence to God Himself?
quote:
Any practices that were changed were just that - practices and not dogma. As to unscriptural - says who? My authority disagrees with your authority. So - who is your authority? Your own interpretations, your pastors, his instructor back at the seminary? By what means have you come to this conclusion, and how do you know that you are right and that the Catholic Church is wrong?
The problem is that your authority is tradition, and my authority is scripture itself. So, I've come to my conclusions from the original writings of the Apostles themselves, which your church tried to keep from me by persecuting anyone who tried to translate them (fortunately, they kept up their work anyway). I will take the original words over a 2 millenia old game of power and wealth driven "telephone" any day.
quote:
Is there not a degree of hubris in that position? Or is the hubris in my position for conceding that I am not prepared to develop my own faith, and seek to rely on a pedigreed teacher, who has demonstrated at least some level of success over the yeaars of leading a few people to what I observe to be a salvic faith?
I have pedigreed teachers too. My pedigreed teachers, however, do not insist that I buy them really fancy hats, kiss their rings, kneel before them, and consider them infallible. Who's really got a hubris problem there?
< Message edited by Zhi -- 6/18/2008 11:07:27 AM >
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/18/2008 7:07:14 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 916
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
With all respect, I see the last two posts as dragging a bunch of baggage into a discussion about the validity of instruction.
I do distinguish between the corporal institute of "Church" and the flesh-and-blood people that administer it. If the president of Ford Motors resigns in the disgrace of scandal, does this mean that the wheels fall off all the Ford cars on the road?
I don't for a minute condone or accept the safe conduct of criminals within the Church. And yes, there was an element of conflict related to whether or not the Church answers to local authorities or whether it is a sovereign. And I think the answer the Church finally understood was - in criminal matters, individuals are accountable to local communities for infractions offending the community, such as the molestation cases. Yes - the Church could have used (or heeded) some advice as to how to cope with the situation.
As far as venerating the offices occupied by some of these people - yes, we are talking folks that have devoted their lives to serving the faithful. I hear this from my Protestant friends, but its difficult to see how someone with 2 homes, a luxury car, 20 Armani suits, etc. is "sacrificing" much of anything. We're talking personal affects and property here, not something granted by the members of the Church for use.
quote:
You have no problem with claiming that the message must be connected to the messenger when it comes to the RCC I have no problem when the message comes from the Church - voiced authoritatively by the Pope. And there is a distinction. Obviously, I am having difficulty trying to make this point. I tried another tactic with the Ford example above. If I go to two different congregational Churches and hear a message of predestination in one, and a "name it and claim it" in another - with both claiming Scripture as their authority, there are only a limited number of conclusions I can draw. Either - somebody is mistaken, somebody is lying, or Scriptures are invalid due to ambiguity. Which option do I choose?
No wonder self-discernment seems to be a valid option...
quote:
Incidentally, many Protestant churches do have an affiliation to a large multi-congregational body, and accountability to it. True accountability comes from the ability to hire, fire and re-assign. So - if the home office is sending a congregation a pastor, rather than the local congregation interviewing and hiring one, then there is central authority and accountability. Which Churches, other then RCC and EO, are organized in this way? I am not aware of any - maybe some illumination is in order.
quote:
The problem is that your authority is tradition, and my authority is scripture itself. My view of this type of line is always going to be that Catholics place their faith in the instruction of the institution of Church, and others place their faith in the institution of self. Claiming to have Biblical truth because of a self-determination of meaning from a reading of an English Bible isn't going to sway me.
Sorry.
quote:
Yet Popes and pastors that were sheer evil, guilty of much worse then just greed - those you don't consider fake teachers. Sorry...the limit for this ride is one occupant at a time. You must be at least 52" tall to ride. Please keep your arms and feet inside the car at all times....
I am not dismissing the behavior of some of the Church leaders - I am remarking that the institution has survived in spite of the frail humans who, from time to time, have done an excellent job of attempting to destroy it. That being said, I believe that there may be something supernatural at work to make this happen, and judging by the fruits that I see of the better parts of the Church, I can't believe that this supernatural force is of some agent other than a force of good.
I believe this to be true of other congregations as well, outside of the RCC. We'll see if they stand the test of time (well, maybe not me, but my great-great-great-great-grandchildren). If the community of Islam continues to grow at the pace it is, and if the fundamentalist element of this faith continues to grab more and more people, we Christians may all be united again one day by the oppression of a greater common foe, which will be great enough to overcome the current repulsive forces between us, snarking about what, at the end of the day, are probably minor points, not major ones.
Then there are some congregations out there that I believe simply breed apostasy, and I determine this for myself from the fruits that they produce...
It should be enough that someone professes Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Someday - maybe that will be enough.
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/18/2008 10:38:24 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1142
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
I have no problem when the message comes from the Church - voiced authoritatively by the Pope. And there is a distinction. Obviously, I am having difficulty trying to make this point. I tried another tactic with the Ford example above. If I go to two different congregational Churches and hear a message of predestination in one, and a "name it and claim it" in another - with both claiming Scripture as their authority, there are only a limited number of conclusions I can draw. Either - somebody is mistaken, somebody is lying, or Scriptures are invalid due to ambiguity. Which option do I choose?
Well, I think it's pretty easy to find that "name it and claim it" is a lie, which you will hear from pretty much everyone who bothers reading Scripture. I think, though, that a Catholic of all people would understand the appearance of the occassional charlatan in shepherd's clothing.
I would note that there are Catholic congregations that have trouble with teaching what are supposed to be the precepts of the Catholic church as well.
quote:
No wonder self-discernment seems to be a valid option...
*sigh* for at least the fifth time, we're not one-man armies. We do use other resources, and we do have the Holy Spirit.
quote:
True accountability comes from the ability to hire, fire and re-assign. So - if the home office is sending a congregation a pastor, rather than the local congregation interviewing and hiring one, then there is central authority and accountability. Which Churches, other then RCC and EO, are organized in this way? I am not aware of any - maybe some illumination is in order.
Well, I believe United Methodist does, among others.
I'm not sure why you would think that getting some control over what pastor you want takes all authority and accountability away, though.
quote:
My view of this type of line is always going to be that Catholics place their faith in the instruction of the institution of Church, and others place their faith in the institution of self. Claiming to have Biblical truth because of a self-determination of meaning from a reading of an English Bible isn't going to sway me.
Sorry.
Well, of course it is, you're Catholic. I would take issue with claiming that Protestants put their faith in the institution of self, though... we're putting our faith in Christ. We see Christianity as a relationship with Him, not as an "institution". We place our faith in Him, not in an "institution". If you're going to insist that an institution is necessary for your faith, then you'd better make sure it's the right one.
Are you going to feel better when I'm better at Greek and can read the originals? Because I know plenty of people who do, and who agree with my interpretations.
I'm still finding it amusing, though, that a person whose church insists on doing things in Latin would have an issue with languages and interpretations needing to be clear.
I know these comments weren't to me, but I found them interesting.
quote:
Then there are some congregations out there that I believe simply breed apostasy, and I determine this for myself from the fruits that they produce...
Given the current pedophilia issues and the past depraved pope issues, don't you think this might be a bit of a speck vs board issue? Yes, there are certainly congregations that breed apostasy, but if you're going to start comparing fruits, the RCC has a few *cough* fruits of its own.
quote:
It should be enough that someone professes Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Someday - maybe that will be enough.
Perhaps there is hope for you after all. ;)
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/19/2008 12:10:25 AM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 428
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
this is one of the most vital moments in our debate here
O,
You are taking yourself a bit to seriously. I am well aware of the unbiblical and insufficient view protestants have about what is a true Church. Again you can't even define what a believer is to any amount of detail. For example if you and Zhi disagreed what "church" would you take it to in order to resolve it? The bible clearly demonstrates that the Church is the final "court of appeal" and you can't even execute that.
Heresy! By what authority can you declare anything heresy? We all have the HS guiding us right and we both read the same bible.
quote:
Areyou not concerned about doctrinal anarchy among catholics ?
This is just a smoke screen protestants hide behind. The doctrine is laid out by the Church and individual sinners have no bearing on whether or not there IS a list of doctrines to be believed.
Field report--your kidding right. I need to start throwing out random "facts" in order to score a point for my side. Most Catholics if they are not trying to convert you are probably not very well educated on Catholic doctrine in the first place. All those thing Luther did will still get you in trouble, I can assure you of that.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/19/2008 1:38:57 AM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 463
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Papa can refer to:
Look up Papa in
affectionate for father in Latin and various Romance languages
hence, Pope in various languages
also, Papar (Culdees), Irish monks
many languages (often unrelated) have words with labial consonants and open vowels as their word for "father" and "mother"; /papa/ is just one example. A discussion of this phenomenon can be found in the article Mama and papa.
some people also refer to their grandfathers as "papa".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa
Luke 2:1
The Birth of Jesus
1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.
the entire Roman world.
Matthew 22:19-21
19Show me the coin for the tax." And they brought him a denarius. 20And Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" 21They said, "Caesar’s." Then he said to them, "Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."
"Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."
John 19:15-17
15They cried out, "Away with him, away with him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." 16 So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.
"We have no king but Caesar."
http://www.bible-history.com/jerusalem/firstcenturyjerusalem_destruction_of_jerusalem_in_70_a_d_.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarea_Maritima
(((((Yes, Rome had the power to replace kings, but by subjecting themselves to Roman diplomatic control smart kings got protection from other powerful nations and OTHER client states. For without the permission of Rome, no client state could declare war against another. Also, a King who proved himself valuable to Rome could call on legions to help put down revolts and civil unrest.....
http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-003.html
John 19:15-17
15They cried out, "Away with him, away with him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." 16 So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.)))))
Then came Constantine,
PeterD
< Message edited by PeterD -- 6/19/2008 1:35:30 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/19/2008 2:58:56 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 1884
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
By what authority can you declare anything heresy?
By authority of the Bible. My definition of the Church is in the Bible and yours is not.
quote:
We all have the HS guiding us right and we both read the same bible. Where in the Bible does God call your catholic denomination "One and only true church"?
Scripture, please.
quote:
I am well aware of the unbiblical and insufficient view protestants have about what is a true Church.
that phrase is shocking, Ot. You realise that probably 95% at least of people here- owners and participants, etc. are PROTESTANTS. So we all are , according to you, not members of the true Church established by God? you got the nerve. Who are we then in your view ?
quote:
Most Catholics if they are not trying to convert you are probably not very well educated on catholic doctrine in the first place.
Yes. I admire your honesty. In my personal experience most catholics I met are not even christians,(by their own admission).
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/19/2008 3:08:21 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 1884
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
I believe this to be true of other congregations as well, outside of the RCC. We'll see if they stand the test of time (well, maybe not me, but my great-great-great-great-grandchildren). If the community of Islam continues to grow at the pace it is, and if the fundamentalist element of this faith continues to grab more and more people, we Christians may all be united again one day by the oppression of a greater common foe, which will be great enough to overcome the current repulsive forces between us, snarking about what, at the end of the day, are probably minor points, not major ones.
 Amen. Would be nice !and i really want to hope it wont involve radical islamists to achieve that....Well, i am here to learn the truth about RC from adherents so nobody can tell me i believe the lies and propaganda. I understand fully neither camp will persue the opposition to believe anything :))
Dog, i got a question for you in regards not just Pope but authority related q-n: How do you determine false teachers /doctrines ?
"Rolex/car/mansion" argument we passed already, we can lay that to rest. I promise not to bring up" greedy child molesters" as an argument, you, in return, get off the rolex horse.
What is the criteria or measuring stick to judge them?
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/19/2008 6:15:21 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 916
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
What is the criteria or measuring stick to judge them? It should be obvious that I put a lot of faith in pedigree, training and providence (prudent "management" and foresight). Why? Because I just believe it makes sense. I select my faith instructors the way I would if I was preparing for higher education in any other secular subject, like medicine or law.
I want my teacher to be very well trained, and having demonstrated that by completion of a rigorous course of study, which not only educated him/her, but tested, examined and scrutinized them, as well.
I want my teacher to be accredited by an institution that has been doing this for a while, has learned the ropes regarding how to do it, and has existed "multi-generationally", such that the accreditation is not the result of an individual personality, but adherence to a "corporate goal" or something that transcends the individual. And I want my teaching institution to have been around for a while and to have an established and verifiable (i. e. documented) history.
By default - that excludes many non-denominational, evangelical, mega- and other types of Churches, and puts me squarely in the Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic or EO Churches.
I don't accept the validity of the reformation, from either a motive, a method, or a results point of view. That pretty well leaves me with the ancient communions. If the reformation had been "Spirit guided", I honestly believe there would have been one single "denomination" that would have resulted, which would have long ago rendered Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faith practice "obsolete", and killed off these Churches. As it is, the RCC and EO are just as strong as ever.
I don't understand how following this rationale is not "Spirit-led". For some, "Spirit led" seems to have to mean warm-fuzzies, or hairs standing up on the back of the neck, or tinglies in the spine. I don't believe that - sometimes "Spirit-led" leads to places much more obvious than that, without so much "gut feel" or "intuition".
As for anyone else's yardstick - I don't know and I can't judge. Just sharing mine.
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 6/19/2008 6:22:01 PM >
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/19/2008 7:37:35 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1142
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
I don't accept the validity of the reformation, from either a motive, a method, or a results point of view. That pretty well leaves me with the ancient communions. If the reformation had been "Spirit guided", I honestly believe there would have been one single "denomination" that would have resulted, which would have long ago rendered Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faith practice "obsolete", and killed off these Churches. As it is, the RCC and EO are just as strong as ever.
Interesting.
The obvious counterpoint to that, though, is that the RCC split off from the Eastern Orthodox a thousand years ago, and yet both of those institutions remain. The RCC did not render the Eastern Orthodox faith practice "obsolete" in a thousand years, despite some rather violent efforts to do so (the RCC sacking Constantinople, for instance). Why would you expect the Protestant churches to do so in a mere 500 with rather less bloodshed?
I would posit that the denominational splits is more a matter of the nature of the Protestant church... namely that one of our major tenets is that we don't require a single oft-corrupt authority to tell everyone what to do (while jockeying for political power and wealth).
< Message edited by Zhi -- 6/19/2008 7:43:49 PM >
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/19/2008 8:10:32 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 428
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
By authority of the Bible. My definition of the Church is in the Bible and yours is not.
Scripture please.
quote:
Where in the Bible does God call your catholic denomination "One and only true church"?
Scripture, please.
First of all, the concept of denominations is not found in the bible. Second of all in Matt 16, Christ said He would build a Church and not multitudes of competing sects.
quote:
that phrase is shocking, Ot. You realise that probably 95% at least of people here- owners and participants, etc. are PROTESTANTS. So we all are , according to you, not members of the true Church established by God? you got the nerve. Who are we then in your view ?
Shocking? Really, you don't realize that Catholic doctrine is that there is one Church? I'm shocked your shocked. You are seperated brethren who have a basic belief in Christ but do not follow His doctrines completely as He intended.
quote:
Yes. I admire your honesty. In my personal experience most catholics I met are not even christians,(by their own admission).
A sad comment on modern american Catholic education.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/20/2008 7:01:11 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 916
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
The obvious counterpoint to that, though, is that the RCC split off from the Eastern Orthodox a thousand years ago, and yet both of those institutions remain. I would have to add the word "intact" after your sentence as an observation of facts.
quote:
that one of our major tenets is that we don't require a single oft-corrupt authority to tell everyone what to do Indeed...I have already suggested that the authority lies in a much smaller group of people, and maybe only in a group of one...
quote:
(while jockeying for political power and wealth). If want to generate wealth and line your pockets saving souls, you can't accomplish it in either the Roman Catholic or EO Churches. I can't point out to you to plenty of examples where this is being done, if you would like me to do so...
I'm not so sure where this whole "rich Pope, rich Cardinal" stuff comes from. These people live in digs generously provided by parishioners like me. They're not that great...really...
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/20/2008 11:04:43 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1142
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
I would have to add the word "intact" after your sentence as an observation of facts.
Well, that's kind of debatable, considering that the Protestant Reformation is, for the most part, a massive schism from RCC, which would indicate a lack of "intact-ness". But, that's hardly the point.
The point is that you insisted that the "right" church should have "won" in the past 500 years and the RCC and Orthodox churches should be gone.
You insist this despite the fact that the RCC and Orthodox schism was a thousand years ago, and neither of those split offs have "won" either, neither of those is gone, despite violent efforts by the RCC to force the contrary, which for the most part Protestants have not considered appropriate.
This would lead to three possible conclusions, namely:
1. There has of yet been insufficient time for the "right" church to win
2. There is not, as yet, any "right" church because all other churches have not been extinguished, or
3. "Winning" by extinguishing the other churches is not going to happen due to human nature and is therefore not an appropriate metric for "right".
quote:
Indeed...I have already suggested that the authority lies in a much smaller group of people, and maybe only in a group of one...
Well, obviously. Otherwise you wouldn't be RCC. Missing the point, though, I think.
quote:
(while jockeying for political power and wealth). If want to generate wealth and line your pockets saving souls, you can't accomplish it in either the Roman Catholic or EO Churches. I can't point out to you to plenty of examples where this is being done, if you would like me to do so...
Mmm, that's pretty much the case regardless... the question is, of course, whether or not your motivation is actually to save souls. If your motivation is to make money or gain power, then that's pretty easy with a religion. Ask L Ron Hubbard.
Do I really need to start giving examples of popes who bought the papacy or otherwise used it to increase the wealth and political power of the papacy (for their own indulgence, of course) again? Do I really need to bring up papal indulgences again?
quote:
I'm not so sure where this whole "rich Pope, rich Cardinal" stuff comes from. These people live in digs generously provided by parishioners like me. They're not that great...really...
Well, given the fact that the Pope's hat alone could probably easily pay off my mortgage...
There is no practical difference between owning very expensive, fancy things, and having full, lifetime, unequivocal use of very expensive, fancy things.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/20/2008 4:35:02 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 659
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Hi Doghouse how are you doing?
quote:
If the president of Ford Motors resigns in the disgrace of scandal, does this mean that the wheels fall off all the Ford cars on the road
I take it your not a Detroit Lions fan because those wheels have fallen off already.
Again as I heard this mornining on your network. Someone said Benedict was in the office of Peter. Which is kind a strange. Because Peter passed away over nineteen hundred years ago.
I have not heared or readed that Jesus the anoint one telling "Peter here's a desk you can sit behind and run things". You will never give up on that one verse. But will skip the rest of the stories. Or wait you could be like some protestants, who are going around and making up things to fit their stories.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/20/2008 6:18:49 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 916
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hi Doghouse how are you doing? I am great...how about you? I wish it would stop raining.
quote:
I take it your not a Detroit Lions fan because those wheels have fallen off already. Indeed. Actually - I am very, very blessed to be able to drive whatever I want to drive, and I drive a Ford Explorer. When it comes to cars, I buy American, because it is a major purchase that puts many Americans to work. I wish more people would buy American-only on automobiles. I know that there are some foreign-branded cars that are built in the US, but a goodly chunk of the sales price still winds up going overseas in the form of overhead expenses.
I believe that if a person is an executive of an American company, they should drive an American car and set an example. Look at Warren Buffett. Richest guy on the planet, and he drives a Lincoln.
Anyway - as for the rest of your post. There is an aspect of "Church" that is a corporate entity, without actually being a single person. This is what Jesus meant by "Body of Christ" in regard to "Church", and it is the same concept as when we speak of Ford making good cars or bad cars, or losing money. "Ford" is really an organization made up of thousands of people, but we speak of that entity in the singular, as in "Ford made the Pinto...". So, there is the same aspect of the word "Church".
Using This corporate body identity of the "Church" that we are calling the Roman Catholic Church, that entity or corporate body is a couple of thousand years old (or just shy of it). No single person within it is that old, but the institution, the corporate body, is that old.
Within that corporate organization is an office - also as old as the entity. It is the office of the Bishop of Rome. Ford Motors has an office of President, which is also as old as Ford Motor Company is. So, the office spans more years than a man's or woman's life and possible occupancy of the office.
Which leaves us with Benedict XVI being the current holder or occupier of the office of the Bishop of Rome, just as Alan Mulally is currently the occupier of the office of President of Ford Motor Company.
I believe that Scriptures do intend to establish This corporate body of "Church" and do intend it to be manged by people, and do intend those people to have successors in those offices. Both Jesus and God knew that people only live so long, and it would not be their intention that the corporate body would cease to function when the Apostles dies, because they promised that the Church would prevail and be around until Jesus returned. This requires that the Church turnover its leadership as people pass on.
So "Pope" is not only a person, but really is describing the occupier of the office of Pope as the Bishop of Rome. An office that has been around for a while now.
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/21/2008 12:51:55 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1142
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
Mmm. Couple of things wrong with that.
First off, the RCC is not 2000 years old. It's a little under a thousand in its current incarnation, since the whole "pope is the boss of everybody" thing didn't happen until around 1054 (causing the Great Schism). That's when the Roman Catholic church came into being both heirarchically and in name.
Second, if you want the pope to hold the "office" of Peter, we have to figure out what that means, really. For RCC, the specific claim is "direct apostolic succession". At that point, you have to prove direct apostolic succession. Given that the christianity, much less the spirit-filled apostolic succession, of many popes is seriously in question due to their deep and stunning depravity, I would contend that you have not demonstrated that direct and unbroken apostolic succession is a reality in the RCC.
And third, you need to prove that Jesus established the corporate entity of the "church body" as the RCC specifically, and not, say, the Orthodox church you split from. For that matter, you have to prove that Jesus wanted the "church body" to be a specific corporate entity in general, rather than meaning just "the body of believers", or all Christians regardless of what sign is over the door where they meet to worship.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/22/2008 2:39:20 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 916
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
First off, the RCC is not 2000 years old. It's a little under a thousand in its current incarnation, since the whole "pope is the boss of everybody" thing didn't happen until around 1054 (causing the Great Schism). That's when the Roman Catholic church came into being both heirarchically and in name. Which entirely misses the point that I was making about separating institution from the people making it up. Fine then, I will concede that the Catholic Church is only 800 years old, if you will concede that men and women don't live to be 700 years old...
quote:
Second, if you want the pope to hold the "office" of Peter, we have to figure out what that means, really. For RCC, the specific claim is "direct apostolic succession". At that point, you have to prove direct apostolic succession. Actually, I don't have to prove anything that is taken on faith. However, "Apostolic Succession" simply means that Apostles instructed followers and and ordained them, by the laying on of hands, with the Apostolic mission. And these followers instructed the next generation, and ordained them, and so on. There only two Churches that can claim succession, because Luther abandoned the Sacramental Ordination of ministry, and King Henry the VIII had no need for one.
quote:
...Given that the Christianity, much less the spirit-filled apostolic succession, of many popes is seriously in question due to their deep and stunning depravity,... Again, the disobedience of the teacher to the message does not in itself corrupt the message. In my opinion, the preceding quote is changing the equation to fit the answer desired, and not accepting the answer that the equation yields.
quote:
And third, you need to prove that Jesus established the corporate entity of the "church body" as the RCC specifically, and not, say, the Orthodox church you split from. For that matter, you have to prove that Jesus wanted the "church body" to be a specific corporate entity in general, rather than meaning just "the body of believers", or all Christians regardless of what sign is over the door where they meet to worship. Jesus intended "Church" to be an institution that would outlive the people making it up. Jesus knew that people would only live for so long - 80 years, maybe? Jesus did not intend for Scriptural instruction to end with the twelve original Apostles, and Scripture has to be interpreted in this context.
The tie to the RCC specifically is by historical providence. The fact of the matter is that there is a documented historically unbroken chain of Church leadership back to the 1st century within the RCC, as well as ties to the order of worship, the preparation of catechumens coming into the Church, and the administration of the Sacraments. Again, the EO have this providence as well. It is an established fact that if you follow the trail from the early Church, from Polycarp, from Ignacius, from Jerome, from Origen - this line leads you to the Roman Catholic Church.
I think Paul instructs us that there is to be a single Body of Christ, and I'm pretty sure that he would have expected that Body to be unified by instruction and practice. And he got his instruction from Jesus, yes?
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/22/2008 5:30:52 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1142
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Which entirely misses the point that I was making about separating institution from the people making it up. Fine then, I will concede that the Catholic Church is only 800 years old, if you will concede that men and women don't live to be 700 years old...
Nor do they live to be 500 years old, but that's how long the Protestant Reformation has been around.
Some things improve with age, some things do not.
quote:
Actually, I don't have to prove anything that is taken on faith. However, "Apostolic Succession" simply means that Apostles instructed followers and and ordained them, by the laying on of hands, with the Apostolic mission. And these followers instructed the next generation, and ordained them, and so on. There only two Churches that can claim succession, because Luther abandoned the Sacramental Ordination of ministry, and King Henry the VIII had no need for one.
But the corrupt popes obviously did not follow the apostolic mission, or the instructions, of their predecessors. That begs the question of whether they would then be capable of passing on the instruction and mission, when they themselves were apparently never properly indoctrinated in it.
quote:
Again, the disobedience of the teacher to the message does not in itself corrupt the message. In my opinion, the preceding quote is changing the equation to fit the answer desired, and not accepting the answer that the equation yields.
Circular reasoning. How do you know the disobedient teacher did not corrupt the message? Because the disobedient teachers said so? Your church has reformed itself before due to their message being corrupted by various practices. Who's to say they did enough reforming? It would be best to go back to the original message and check everything instead of relying on "well, that's just how we do it now".
quote:
Jesus intended "Church" to be an institution that would outlive the people making it up. Jesus knew that people would only live for so long - 80 years, maybe? Jesus did not intend for Scriptural instruction to end with the twelve original Apostles, and Scripture has to be interpreted in this context.
Jesus intended His Church to outlast a single person's lifetime, yes, but that does not mean it has to be a specific institution to do so. As for scriptural instruction, scripture was canonized a very long time ago. Instruction was not meant to end, but that doesn't mean you get to add on to scripture willy nilly. What is there, is there. What is not there, must not contradict what is there or it is invalid.
quote:
The tie to the RCC specifically is by historical providence. The fact of the matter is that there is a documented historically unbroken chain of Church leadership back to the 1st century within the RCC, as well as ties to the order of worship, the preparation of catechumens coming into the Church, and the administration of the Sacraments. Again, the EO have this providence as well. It is an established fact that if you follow the trail from the early Church, from Polycarp, from Ignacius, from Jerome, from Origen - this line leads you to the Roman Catholic Church.
And as you say yourself, it also leads to the EO. So, already, there's a split in "unification" in your definition, isn't there? As such, who's to say the RCC is right and the EO is wrong? That, of course, opens a whole can of worms. Not even getting into whether or not the word "unbroken" can be applied to some of those leaders (and at times, to the up to 4 leaders who all claimed to be the current leader simultaneously).
quote:
I think Paul instructs us that there is to be a single Body of Christ, and I'm pretty sure that he would have expected that Body to be unified by instruction and practice. And he got his instruction from Jesus, yes?
Hmm. Depends on the lengths you're willing to go to be "unified". Even in Paul's time, churches differed in practice and instruction, as is evident in Paul's letters. Some of it Paul corrected. Some did not. The unification comes in the things that matter... Love of Christ, saving faith in Him, obedience to God. Other things, like what language you speak in services, what kind of music you use, what it says over your door, are relatively inconsequential as long as you have the important things correct.
And, on the Pope issue, there is certainly nothing in the scripture that ever suggested that all the churches must be under the authority of any mere man. Quite the contrary. Paul even points out, in the Paul vs Apollos discipleship quarrel in 1 Corinthians, that the only authority who matters is Jesus Christ himself. Paul did not say "you all need to follow Peter" or "you all need to follow me", he said it does not matter as long as we all follow Christ. The whole "we must have one living human guy in authority over all the church" didn't show up until 1054, and there was a massive schism as a result of it.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/23/2008 7:15:56 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3704
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Precisely, we are guided by Holy Spirit. You are,otoh, seem to be suggesting we should listen to fallible humans, and let Men, like popes, etc. guide us. If you are guided by the HS aren't we as well? Why would you need the guidance of the Holy Spirit? After all, you think you have the vicar of Jesus Christ Himself explaining the Bible. Besides, one of the ways in which RC approaches Scripture is assuming it has all the answers and is, in fact, infallible. Why would the Holy Spirit illuminate anyone with such an unscriptural arrogant attitude?
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."
quote:
Wouldn't you listen to Paul or any other apostle or would tell them to hit the road and read the OT? We ARE listening to God through the words of His penman Paul as he explains that we are "to search scripture to see if these things be true".
quote:
Doesn't the bible say the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth? Only insofar as the church holds the true deposit of faith - the written Word of God. And, of course, that would presuppose it faithfully proclaimed that truth. But, when a church no longer presents the true Gospel of Jesus Christ - it is no longer a "candlestick".
quote:
If God commissioned the apostles to only write a book, then why are there so few of them published and where in the bible does Jesus tell them to write anything?
Are you seriously asking why there are so FEW Bibles published? The Bible is the best-selling book of the year, every year. Calculating how many Bibles are sold in the U.S. is a virtually impossible task, but a conservative estimate is that in 2005 Americans purchased some twenty-five million Bibles...and, that is in the U.S. alone...."few" indeed.
When Peter was nearing the end of his life, he tells us he would WRITE down the truth so we might have a true record of it. I guess he forgot to inform us about the "infallible decendants" that were sure to come along!
Since God is the Author of the only thing He ever declared to be INSPIRED, we can rest assured it is precisely that; and, therefore authorized by God to be written.
Imagine a Christian actually questioning such a thing!
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
