|
|
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 3:15:11 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6747
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
If a thread about "why do we need a Pope" all boils down to some bad popes of the middle ages that Catholics admit happened, then it's a very weak argument indeed.
Actually it boils down to the truth of Scriopture and that there is no provision for a Pope; none, zero, zip nada.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 3:42:13 PM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: turretinfan
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2 quote:
a) This really doesn't look like an explanation of what you think it means to practice infallibility.
b) You seem a bit Calvin-crazy in this discussion. I'll give you a pass today, though, since it happens to be his 500th birthday today. I would presume that Calvin was ordained by Farel and other reformed elders in Switzerland. Farel himself was apparently ordained by who was ordained by Christoph von Utenheim, the bishop of Basel. Von Utenheim became bishop of Basel in 1502 which was during the reign of that most memorable of popes, Alexander VI. Alexander VI is typically as the 215th pope. So, to the extent that you accept that Alexander VI was a successor of Peter ... Sorry to make you go through all the history but I was refering to the unbroken line of apostolic succession. Sorry for the confusion. I assumed that you consider the 215th pope and his bishops to be part of that unbroken line. Then, I simply traced from that to Calvin. Perhaps there is some nuance to your question that I have still missed, because I'm not seeing how I didn't meet your request.
-TurretinFan
quote:
Calvin was ordained by Farel and other reformed elders in Switzerland
It is doesn't sound like Farel and "other reformed elders" were in full communion with Rome at the time of Calvins ordination.
The line of succession was broken before Calvin was ordained.
I think Wkirscher brings up a good point. If apostolic succession ended with the apostles (I'm not saying you personally believe this) why would Calvin have to be "ordained" to begin with?
Doesn't the act of "ordination" signify succession of some kind?
Peace
_____________________________
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 3:49:54 PM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
If a thread about "why do we need a Pope" all boils down to some bad popes of the middle ages that Catholics admit happened, then it's a very weak argument indeed.
Actually it boils down to the truth of Scriopture and that there is no provision for a Pope; none, zero, zip nada.
Thanks
RC
I respectfully see your point, although it is through the close study of scripture that the idea of the Papacy becomes quite clear.
Start with Matthew 16:18 and try not to read into the preconceived notion that Christ meant something other than what he said. (BTW, the Catholics on this thread have heard the Petra/Petros stuff way to many times)
Peace
_____________________________
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 3:51:54 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 597
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
If a thread about "why do we need a Pope" all boils down to some bad popes of the middle ages that Catholics admit happened, then it's a very weak argument indeed.
Actually it boils down to the truth of Scriopture and that there is no provision for a Pope; none, zero, zip nada.
Thanks
RC
Is that your infallible opinion, or just a fallible opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 5:27:55 PM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 343
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
Start with Matthew 16:18 and try not to read into the preconceived notion that Christ meant something other than what he said. (BTW, the Catholics on this thread have heard the Petra/Petros stuff way to many times)
Yea that one never sit with me too well when i heard it preached from the protestant pulpit prior to entering into the CC. This is one of those verses where a pastor has to tell his congregation what scripture "really means".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 6:05:27 PM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 4173
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
quote:
Start with Matthew 16:18 and try not to read into the preconceived notion that Christ meant something other than what he said. (BTW, the Catholics on this thread have heard the Petra/Petros stuff way to many times)
Yea that one never sit with me too well when i heard it preached from the protestant pulpit prior to entering into the CC. This is one of those verses where a pastor has to tell his congregation what scripture "really means".
Or the pope does.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 6:40:37 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Irish2,
quote:
Start with Matthew 16:18 and try not to read into the preconceived notion that Christ meant something other than what he said.
Good idea....and when Matt 16:18 is read and really understood, I would also suggest reading what Jesus said in Matt 16:23;
23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
If you think Jesus is calling Peter a rock it may be more in line with "stumbling block".
quote:
(BTW, the Catholics on this thread have heard the Petra/Petros stuff way to many times)
I am sure they have!
The pope is nothing but an everlasting and perpetual idol to some people.
Deuteronomy 32;
3 I will proclaim the name of the LORD.
Oh, praise the greatness of our God!
4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.
15 Jeshurun grew fat and kicked;
filled with food, he became heavy and sleek.
He abandoned the God who made him
and rejected the Rock his Savior.
16 They made him jealous with their foreign gods
and angered him with their detestable idols.
31 For their rock is not like our Rock,
as even our enemies concede.
The pope is not my rock and popes have many times been stumbling blocks.
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 7:32:29 PM
|
|
|
SamsonUSA
Posts: 2086
Joined: 10/5/2008
From: Laguna Beach. Presently an Arizona desert dweller
Status: offline
|
quote:
Start with Matthew 16:18 and try not to read into the preconceived notion that Christ meant something other than what he said. (BTW, the Catholics on this thread have heard the Petra/Petros stuff way to many times)
Philip asked the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:30 "Do you understand what you are reading?"
Jesus asked in Matthew 15:16 "Are you still lacking in understanding also?"
Until one is willing to allow the Holy Spirit to reveal to them what God's word is trying to convey without first having to make sure it aligns with the dogmatic teachings of ones church they can never hear the teaching of a passage "way too many times."
The beginning of wisdom is: Acquire wisdom; and with all of your acquiring, get understanding.Proverbs 4:7
_____________________________
If you can't be thankful for what you receive, be thankful for what you escape.
We are the objects of God's grace. Let Him be the object of our gratitude.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 7:35:50 PM
|
|
|
SamsonUSA
Posts: 2086
Joined: 10/5/2008
From: Laguna Beach. Presently an Arizona desert dweller
Status: offline
|
quote:
Good idea....and when Matt 16:18 is read and really understood, I would also suggest reading what Jesus said in Matt 16:23;
23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
If you think Jesus is calling Peter a rock it may be more in line with "stumbling block".
Great point KJB.
_____________________________
If you can't be thankful for what you receive, be thankful for what you escape.
We are the objects of God's grace. Let Him be the object of our gratitude.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 7:36:53 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
quote:
ORIGINAL: turretinfan
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2 quote:
a) This really doesn't look like an explanation of what you think it means to practice infallibility.
b) You seem a bit Calvin-crazy in this discussion. I'll give you a pass today, though, since it happens to be his 500th birthday today. I would presume that Calvin was ordained by Farel and other reformed elders in Switzerland. Farel himself was apparently ordained by who was ordained by Christoph von Utenheim, the bishop of Basel. Von Utenheim became bishop of Basel in 1502 which was during the reign of that most memorable of popes, Alexander VI. Alexander VI is typically as the 215th pope. So, to the extent that you accept that Alexander VI was a successor of Peter ... Sorry to make you go through all the history but I was refering to the unbroken line of apostolic succession. Sorry for the confusion. I assumed that you consider the 215th pope and his bishops to be part of that unbroken line. Then, I simply traced from that to Calvin. Perhaps there is some nuance to your question that I have still missed, because I'm not seeing how I didn't meet your request.
-TurretinFan
Sorry if I'm a bit slow to follow this. So does the Reformed Presbyterian church believe in apostolic succession? What about ordination? What constitutes a validly ordained pastor/elder?
I guess that depends on what you mean by "apostolic succession." They don't deny that elders/bishops have been ordained by prior ones down through the centuries. Thus, in fact, there is a sort of "chain of ordinations" that one could trace (in theory) from any Reformed elder to an apostle. Of course, careful records haven't been kept, so in practice it is quite difficult.
Hmm ... there's undoubtedly a more precise definition, but in general a validly ordained elder/bishop/pastor/minister/presbyter (and deacon - that office is also one that is ordained) is one who has been ordained by the elders. We tend to agree with Augustine that it is not necessary that the elders be true Christians, it's enough that they be professing Christians.
I could probably give you a much more detailed, precise answer if you like, but perhaps that's good enough for our conversation.
Now, if by "apostolic succession" you mean that the elders are somehow infallible, or that there is a monarchy of elders, or something like that - then no.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 7:41:57 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
It is doesn't sound like Farel and "other reformed elders" were in full communion with Rome at the time of Calvins ordination. That seems likely. We don't consider communion with Rome to a necessary predicate to valid ordination.
quote:
The line of succession was broken before Calvin was ordained. Only if you impose a requirement of communion with Rome. In which case, I assume, you will also claim that there is no line of succession in the Eastern Orthodox churches who broke communion with Rome long before some of the Swiss churches did.
quote:
I think Wkirscher brings up a good point. If apostolic succession ended with the apostles (I'm not saying you personally believe this) why would Calvin have to be "ordained" to begin with? I think that depends on what you mean by "apostolic succession." But Scriptures do teach that elders should be ordained, and that is what we do in the Reformed churches.
quote:
Doesn't the act of "ordination" signify succession of some kind? Of "some kind" to be sure - that was my point.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 10:10:36 PM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why do you focus so much on calling Peter and the pope a rock and acting as if they are infallible instead of focusing on where Jesus called him Satan?
So your saying that statement negates everything Jesus previously said about Peter? Why did Jesus allow Peter to remain an apostle? Why would Jesus implore Peter to feed and tend his sheep at the end of John's Gospel after he said Peter was Satan?
Jesus proclaimed he would use Peter to build his Church.
Not sure why this is so complicated for protestants. Dancing around this verse is all Catholics hear when this verse is discussed.
quote:
I am amazed that with a little chant and some magic from an RCC priest the pope does not turn into a real rock. I mean after all, Jesus did claim Peter was a rock...right?
Nice....
Peace
_____________________________
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 10:53:41 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Not sure why this is so complicated for protestants. Dancing around this verse is all Catholics hear when this verse is discussed.
Nice....
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/12/2009 12:17:22 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 343
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
You want to tell us what Matt 16:18 means as if Jesus turns Peter into some perpetual infallible rock that everybody should turn to for truth, and just a few sentences later Jesus Christ says to Peter; "get behind me Satan!".
Why do you focus so much on calling Peter and the pope a rock and acting as if they are infallible instead of focusing on where Jesus called him Satan?
Very simple explanations ....
First, this is the first time Jesus prophesied his Passion (16:21) so naturally it would not be welcomed or fully understood by the Apostles. Jesus is using language to show the influence Satan had on the reluctance of the apostles to accept Jesus' Passion. Or do you really think Peter temporarily turned into Satan?
Second, It is not under Peters own doing that he will fulfill his new commissioning but under the graces granted by the power of the Holy Spirit which will be fully realized after Pentecost. Peter will still even deny Jesus 3 times. But after Pentecost, the H.S. will alllow him to speak in tongues, the H.S. will work through him to convert 3000+, the H.S. will work through Peter to cure a lame man, the H.S. will work through Peter to cure Aeneas from paralysis, the Holy Spirit will work through Peter to bring Tabitha back to life, ....
The gifts granted to Peter or to the other Apostles, or to their successors, or to you and me is not our own doing but God working through his sinful people. All glory and honor is His, we are his vessels. Peter was imperfect, their successors were imperfect, the Pope is imperfect, you and I are imperfect ... but we are still vessels through which God carries out his will.
We can even apply this to our own lives. Have you ever doubted God's plan's for your life and cried out "this must not happen"? I know I have. Does this turn me into Satan and no longer make me elligible to carry out God's will? Or would it be more appropriate to say "Get out Satan! I rebuke you. I trust in God's plan even though I don't understand it. I will carry this cross!" (16:24)
< Message edited by wkirscher -- 7/12/2009 12:32:20 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/12/2009 12:23:08 AM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SamsonUSA
quote:
Good idea....and when Matt 16:18 is read and really understood, I would also suggest reading what Jesus said in Matt 16:23;
23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
If you think Jesus is calling Peter a rock it may be more in line with "stumbling block".
Great point KJB.
So what's the verdict, KJB?
Should Jesus have asked Peter to feed and tend his sheep after he realized, according to you, that Peter was such a major stumbling block?
I'm very interested in your thoughts on this.
Peace
_____________________________
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/12/2009 1:37:49 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 343
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
I guess that depends on what you mean by "apostolic succession." They don't deny that elders/bishops have been ordained by prior ones down through the centuries. Thus, in fact, there is a sort of "chain of ordinations" that one could trace (in theory) from any Reformed elder to an apostle. Of course, careful records haven't been kept, so in practice it is quite difficult.
I was not aware that Presbyterians believed in this. Is it held by all Presbyterians or just Reformed?
quote:
Hmm ... there's undoubtedly a more precise definition, but in general a validly ordained elder/bishop/pastor/minister/presbyter (and deacon - that office is also one that is ordained) is one who has been ordained by the elders. We tend to agree with Augustine that it is not necessary that the elders be true Christians, it's enough that they be professing Christians.
I could probably give you a much more detailed, precise answer if you like, but perhaps that's good enough for our conversation.
I'm not sure what you mean by "true" vis-a-is "professing" Christian. I have a co-worker who is a Presbyterian elder (EPC I believe) and I'm not sure he ordains pastors. I believe the elders are voted in and serve a limited term. So I don't see how an elder, voted into a temporary position, would have proper authority to ordain the pastor. Maybe I'm just confused. In Jewish practice of semicha, the ordination comes from the mentor who ordains the protoge after several years of discipleship (just like Rabbi Yeshua and the Apostles). In the Catholic Church, (at least in the diocese I'm in) the candidate goes through a period of discernment and then mentorship/seminary training lasts for about 7 years and then the bishop ordains the priest/deacons. So it's always a case of one already granted authority to pass on this authority via the laying on of hands. This practice ensures that the newly ordained are taught authoritatively by their predecessors who were taught authoritatively by their predecessors, who were taught ....
quote:
Now, if by "apostolic succession" you mean that the elders are somehow infallible, or that there is a monarchy of elders, or something like that - then no.
We do not believe apostolic succession grants infallibility either but it does grant authority. This is completely in line with what I posted earlier about "semicha" that began with Moses and Joshua.
And I hope by now this is clear to everyone reading this post that the Pope, the Bishop in Rome, is not infallible in the way many misunderstand. It is a charism granted under special conditions and is exercised (rarely) in communion with other Bishops and the teaching Magesterium of the Church. This charism doesn't mean he is sinless or that every word uttered from his mouth is infallible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/12/2009 3:02:23 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5092
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
quote:
Start with Matthew 16:18 and try not to read into the preconceived notion that Christ meant something other than what he said. (BTW, the Catholics on this thread have heard the Petra/Petros stuff way to many times)
Yea that one never sit with me too well when i heard it preached from the protestant pulpit prior to entering into the CC. This is one of those verses where a pastor has to tell his congregation what scripture "really means".
That pastor you always speak so disdainfully about was simple agreeing with many early church fathers.
Your priests are no different. They're always telling you what some verses "really mean".
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/12/2009 3:08:22 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5092
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
quote:
I can't believe this somehow ended with the apostles as some believe because one of the first things the apostles did in Acts was to replace the "office" of Judas. I think even the King James version uses the term "bishoprick"
It didn't end with the apostles as we well know. Neither Matthias nor Paul were of the original twelve (in fact Paul doesn't even meet the criteria of Acts 1:21f) and no one denies the authority of either of these leaders. Rejection of apostolic succession is contrary to scripture. Of course, it ended with the Apostles, Scripture is clear about that. When the Apostle James was martyred early on, no one was EVER appointed to "succeed" him. By this, God is clearly telling all who will believe Him that He never intended any such thing as "apostolic succession".
Paul didn't meet the criteria for apostleship?....surely, you jest. Read his Damascus journey. He witnessed the risen Christ....have your popes done so?
quote:
As I stated in a previous post, the practice is founded in the Jewish roots of our faith ("semicha" in Hebrew) beginning when God commanded Moses to "transfer some of his authority" to Joshua so that God's people would not be "like sheep with no shepherd". And the response, which you conveniently ignored was: "Christ choosing the Twelve doesn't give you authority for a papacy, succession or any of the rest of it. Besides, Christ's priesthood was non-transferable so it's all just a bunch of silliness to mine the OT searching for something anything to support century's later doctrinal developments."
quote:
How some "bible believing" Christians can't discern from scripture what even their Protestant brethren also believe and what has been practiced in the Church since Jesus' glorious ascension, is difficult to understand. Maybe some pastors/ministers are blinded to what they don't want to see.
Maybe because those "bible believing" Christians actually read and believe what they find and what they don't find in the Bible. And one thing they don't find is any evidence for the papacy.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/12/2009 7:56:12 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1175
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
And I hope by now this is clear to everyone reading this post that the Pope, the Bishop in Rome, is not infallible in the way many misunderstand. It is a charism granted under special conditions and is exercised (rarely) in communion with other Bishops and the teaching Magesterium of the Church. This charism doesn't mean he is sinless or that every word uttered from his mouth is infallible. ...I get tired of re-hashing this one too...
If Benedict XVI and I are having lunch together (...happens all the time...) and he says that the soup is too hot, I may disagree, and state that to me, the soup is just fine, and what in the world are you thinking?...that is because the Pope has no authority in the area of discerning the proper serving temperature of soups, other than what I may give him just trying to polite and respectful in the presence of an 85 year old man.
However, should the Pope lay down a statement regarding the definition and practice of Christian faith, then me being a Christian who recognizes the authority of the Church, and the fact that the Church has established the office of Pope under that authority to voice the teachings and instruction of the Church authoritatively, then I am obliged to heed that teaching and instruction, or leave. These are my choices, because the one who gave Church the authority is Jesus Himself, and to deny the authority of the Church is to deny the authority and instruction of Jesus. I believe that the need to recognize and assent to some authority other than self is required whether you are Catholic or not - if all that is required for authoritative discernment and practice is the individual, there would be no need for ministers, pastors, elders, congregations, etc. We could all just pick up Scriptures and what ever we came up with out of them would be just fine.
The problem I have with the non-Catholics here is that every individual person presumes individual authority to discern faith, "under the watchful guidance of the Holy Spirit". I note that some here seem to be better than others at that, and the disparity I see between the least capable individual and the most is the evidence I offer to suggest that the "individual discernment" model has some huge flaws and fissures in it.
Why do the Presbyterians disagree with the Methodists, and why do the Baptists disagree with other Baptists even within the same denomination? Clearly, a Protestant may believe or not believe anything that fancies them, and they may elect what they practice or don't under the authority of "self".
I believe this to be contrary to Scriptural instruction, as well as being a bit arrogant and being a model of practice that assures chaos, which is what I observe in the Protestant Church, relative to my own practiced version of faith.
So it continues to be clear to me that most non-Catholics here have no idea what "infallibility" and "ex-Cathedra" mean when it comes to instruction and practice within the Catholic Church.
Within the Catholic Church - "perfect" practice is fully defined and published. Individuals may falter in the degree to which they follow and practice these teachings, because we are frail sinful humans, but everyone can accept that the practice is what it is in accepting the authority of Church in the role to perfectly define these practices. With the non-Catholic Churches, i believe that an extra degree-of-freedom is interjected, because not only is there variance in the depth and fidelity of practice, but there is difference in the definition and standards of just what that practice is, and that the individual may formulate this practice as he pleases.
So where is the line between imperfect practice and imperfect definition of practice? If the individual has the freedom to reject those bits of instruction that they find unappealing, then is that flawed practice or flawed definition?
By defining "definition" as "infallible", the criticism or areas of improvement are turned to the fidelity and fullness of practice. If your definition of practice is fallible, then you have no hope of full fidelity with the instruction of Jesus, because you could be perfectly in step with a flawed practice.
Where does that leave you?
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/12/2009 8:45:55 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Irish2,
quote:
So what's the verdict, KJB?
Should Jesus have asked Peter to feed and tend his sheep after he realized, according to you, that Peter was such a major stumbling block?
I'm very interested in your thoughts on this.
Should I feed and tend the sheep?
What is the verdict? Are you your brothers keeper.......or is that title reserved for your pope?
'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
Maybe you should feed the sheep and let the pope be fed by his sheep.
I dont think he goes hungry......physically that is.
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/12/2009 9:06:19 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Doghouse,
quote:
If Benedict XVI and I are having lunch together (...happens all the time...) and he says that the soup is too hot, I may disagree, and state that to me, the soup is just fine, and what in the world are you thinking?...that is because the Pope has no authority in the area of discerning the proper serving temperature of soups, other than what I may give him just trying to polite and respectful in the presence of an 85 year old man.
And if I was to sit and have lunch and some 18 or 85 year old man tells me that it does me well to pray in front of an urn with the arm of a dead man in it.......I would lose my appetite.
quote:
However, should the Pope lay down a statement regarding the definition and practice of Christian faith, then me being a Christian who recognizes the authority of the Church, and the fact that the Church has established the office of Pope under that authority to voice the teachings and instruction of the Church authoritatively, then I am obliged to heed that teaching and instruction, or leave.
If God gave the pope such authority he best start using it properly.
quote:
These are my choices, because the one who gave Church the authority is Jesus Himself, and to deny the authority of the Church is to deny the authority and instruction of Jesus.
No.......to deny some whacky fruitcake that seems to think praying in front of a dead arm from some dead man does us all a bunch of good does not mean we deny Jesus Christ.
quote:
if all that is required for authoritative discernment and practice is the individual, there would be no need for ministers, pastors, elders, congregations, etc. We could all just pick up Scriptures and what ever we came up with out of them would be just fine.
Maybe once long ago the RCC should have not persecuted people for picking up Scripture and the truth would have been far ahead in the situation.
quote:
The problem I have with the non-Catholics here is that every individual person presumes individual authority to discern faith, "under the watchful guidance of the Holy Spirit". I note that some here seem to be better than others at that, and the disparity I see between the least capable individual and the most is the evidence I offer to suggest that the "individual discernment" model has some huge flaws and fissures in it.
Are non-Catholics the Church? Yes or no.
quote:
I believe this to be contrary to Scriptural instruction, as well as being a bit arrogant and being a model of practice that assures chaos, which is what I observe in the Protestant Church, relative to my own practiced version of faith.
Yeah right......like the latest division because of the Notre Dame fiasco?
quote:
Within the Catholic Church - "perfect" practice is fully defined and published. Individuals may falter in the degree to which they follow and practice these teachings, because we are frail sinful humans, but everyone can accept that the practice is what it is in accepting the authority of Church in the role to perfectly define these practices. With the non-Catholic Churches, i believe that an extra degree-of-freedom is interjected, because not only is there variance in the depth and fidelity of practice, but there is difference in the definition and standards of just what that practice is, and that the individual may formulate this practice as he pleases.
Like the practice of praying in front of an urn? Counting beads? Chanting? Buying relief from purgatory? Praying to dead people? Not believing man has free-will?
quote:
Where does that leave you?
It leaves me as a Christian that is cursed by the RCC with anathema.
Where does that leave you?
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/12/2009 9:21:29 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 343
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
quote:
Start with Matthew 16:18 and try not to read into the preconceived notion that Christ meant something other than what he said. (BTW, the Catholics on this thread have heard the Petra/Petros stuff way to many times)
Yea that one never sit with me too well when i heard it preached from the protestant pulpit prior to entering into the CC. This is one of those verses where a pastor has to tell his congregation what scripture "really means".
That pastor you always speak so disdainfully about was simple agreeing with many early church fathers.
Oh really? Which of the ECFs pull the Petros/Petra mumbo jumbo and call the Apostle Peter a little pebble?
quote:
Your priests are no different. They're always telling you what some verses "really mean".
Now I could have you mixed up with many of the other anti-Catholics in this forum but haven't you claimed that the Catholic Church abandoned the bible long ago? And I know that it is you who makes the claim that the CC has never officially interpreted any verses of scripture (despite me directing you to our 800+ page catechism with 2,000+ references to scripture passages). Priests and deacons don't get to decide what scripture "really means" like a pastor of an independent "bible only" church does. This is a job of the collective teaching magesterium of the church, the pillar and foundation of truth.
Here's my point: I've fellowshipped at many a different non-Catholic church (Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, "non-denominational"/"bible only", Messianic Jewish). The coverage of the entirety of scripture pales in comparison to what I see in the CC. If I go to worship service (a.k.a. Mass) every day, I hear nearly every bit of God's Word in the course of three years. Scripture is proclaimed - a reading from the O.T., singing of some psalms, a reading from the N.T. epistles, and ALWAYS a reading from the Gospel. After God has spoken through his written word, then the priest or deacon gives a homily on the readings. (This, b.t.w., is exactly how St. Justin Martyr described the Liturgy of the Word way back in 150 A.D.) The priest/deacon rarely, if ever, tells us what scripture "doesn't mean". In my "bible only" church, scripture was very rarely proclaimed. We sang for about a half hour, and then the pastor would start his sermon. When we heard scripture (almost always from Paul's epistles), it was very rarely a contiguous passage. We would hear verse snipets interspersed within his sermon while the congregation frantically flipped the pages of their bibles trying to keep up. So scripture was always proclaimed in small fragments and in the context of the point the pastor was trying to make. Now this was my experience for about a year and a half at this particular church and I experienced it at others as well.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/12/2009 9:32:24 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
wkirscher,
quote:
This is a job of the collective teaching magesterium of the church, the pillar and foundation of truth.
And...........are protestants that have faith in Jesus Christ in or out of the church?
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
 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
