|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/1/2009 8:59:56 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5094
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
Kelman –
quote:
The fact remains, RCs do not possess the ability to know if what their church teaches is correct or not. They are unable to interpret Scripture or to discern historical documents for themselves. Didn’t we go through all of this nonsense before? Of course, I agree it is nonsense for your church to declare that its adherents are unable to discern Scripture. And, that's its adherents must simply accept what their church declares without having the ability to actually judge because they are incapable of discernment with regard to either Scripture or the historical record.
quote:
quote:
Your community demands that its adherents check their senses at the door. Funny, I didn’t have to check anything at the door. Of course, you did. Your church demands that you do. You must check any ability to discern Scripture or historical records because you are unqualified to do otherwise. And, it is abundantly clear from most of the RC posts that they do precisely that.
< Message edited by kelman -- 11/1/2009 9:06:04 PM >
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/1/2009 9:06:16 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5094
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
Kelman – no response to post number 7108? Well, when a post is not addressed to me, I will often just pass it by.
quote:
Form the authors discernment of scripture we have the following quotes:
“THE officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints, are, some extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, which are ceased.”
So in this verse the sola-scriptura authors tell us that Christ has appointed officers for the “perfecting of the saints”. So why do we need these Christ appointed leaders? For the “perfecting of the saints”. The pope is a leader. Why do we need a pope? For the “perfecting of the saints”. Huh? It clearly says these have CEASED. Although, I'm not at all sure what they mean by "evangelists" have ceased. I imagine they're using a different definition that we would normally ascribe to the word.
quote:
“CHRIST hath instituted a government, and governors ecclesiastical in the church: to that purpose, the apostles did immediately receive the keys from the hand of Jesus Christ, and did use and exercise them in all the churches of the world upon all occasions. And Christ hath since continually furnished some in his church with gifts of government, and with commission to execute the same, when called thereunto.”
So according to the sola-scriptura authors, Christ gave his apostles keys to govern the church and has “continually furnished some in his church” to “execute the same”. Am I reading this wrong or does this sound like Apostolic Succession? Kelman, I seem to recall you very adamantly rejecting Apostolic Succession. Of course, I reject the unbiblical doctrine as do those whom you quote. They are not commenting on the unbiblical doctrine of "apostolic succession" simply on the fact that God provides leadership in His church - and He does. The first quote you used totally knocks your suppositions out of the water "apostles....ceased".
quote:
“Authoritative suspension from the Lord's table, of a person not yet cast out of the church, is agreeable to the scripture:”
The sola-scriptura authors agree that the “officers” have the authority to deny a believers participation at the Lord’s Table. Kelman – I believe you were chastising the CC for this very same biblical practice. Hmm, is there no RC who cares a whit about the truth? Again, for perhaps the third time, present where I said RC doesn't have the right to excommunicate or deny "participation"?
In fact, I've repeatedly asked why RC happily presents "holy communion" to an adherent whose hands are dripping with the blood of millions of aborted babies. Why do they, anyway?
quote:
“It is lawful, and agreeable to the word of God, that there be a subordination of congregational, classical, provincial, and national assemblies, for the government of the church.”
So the sola-scriptura authors are saying that it is agreeable with the word of God that there be a hierarchical form of church government. This sure sounds a lot like a “leader of leaders” type of government. Kind of like the biblical notion of a “Master of the Palace”. Nah, it's just you can't see past an ingrained biblically unsupported doctrine - papacy. It speaks of no "leader of leaders" here....you're just imagining one. All it says is that many "congregations" may be under one presbyterial jurisdiction.
"THE scripture doth hold out a presbytery in a church.[44]
A presbytery consisteth of ministers of the word, and such other publick officers as are agreeable to and warranted by the word of God to be church-governors, to join with the ministers in the government of the church.[45]
The scripture doth hold forth, that many particular congregations may be under one presbyterial government."
quote:
“Ordination is always to be continued in the church. Ordination is the solemn setting apart of a person to some publick church office. Every minister of the word is to be ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by those preaching presbyters to whom it doth belong.”
Sounds to me like the sola-scriptura authors are saying that there is some form of succession. One must be ordained by the imposition of hands by another presbyter. Sure sounds a lot like the practice of “semicha”. "Semicha" smatcha. Do you think Protestants ordain their ministers assuming they are "infallible apostles"?..."apostles....ceased".
quote:
quote:
“He that is to be ordained minister, must be duly qualified, both for life and ministerial abilities, according to the rules of the apostle. He is to be examined and approved by those by whom he is to be ordained.”
Am I crazy or does this sound like the sola-scriptura authors are talking about Apostolic Succession?
You don't really want me to hazard a guess for that first question, do you? :)
You are reading everything with your RC glasses....take them off for a minute. Do you seriously think that the following has anything in common with RC?
"3. In all which he being approved, he is to be sent to the church where he is to serve, there to preach three several days and to converse with the people, that they may have trial of his gifts for their edification, and may have time and occasion to enquire into, and the better to know, his life and conversation.
4. In the last of these three days appointed for the trial of his gifts in preaching, there shall be sent from the presbytery to the congregation a publick intimation in writing, which shall be publickly read before the people, and after affixed to the church-door, to signify that such a day a competent number of the members of that congregation, nominated by themselves, shall appear before the presbytery, to give their consent and approbation to such a man to be their minister; or otherwise, to put in, with all Christian discretion and meekness, what exceptions they have against him. And if, upon the day appointed, there be no just exception against him, but the people give their consent, then the presbytery shall proceed to ordination."
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/1/2009 9:07:15 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 599
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
It is interesting to note the rhetorical devices used by those who hate historic Christianity, which includes the Papacy. Rather than use syllogisms which would help people to think clearly, these self-appointed anti-Popes prefer to muddle their Satanic ways into other peoples' minds. Laraine Boettner used tactics similar to other pseudo-Christians. Here is one of his items from his Book Roman Catholicism:
"Item: "The Latin language, used in prayer and worship, imposed by [Pope] Gregory I [A.D.] 600."
"It is true that Latin was used in worship in the year 600. The Church spread from the Greek-speaking East to the Latin-speaking West (for example, to Rome) during apostolic times. One of Paul’s letters was written to the Christians in Rome. More than one of his letters was written from Rome. And there were Christians in Caesar’s household in Paul’s day (Phil. 4:22). Worship, not surprisingly, was undertaken in the vernacular language, which was Greek in much of the East and Latin in the West (though at the beginning, Greek was used even in the West because it was then the lingua franca of the Roman Empire).
"Latin was used in worship far earlier than 600. So what is Boettner trying to say here? Since Latin became the Catholic Church’s official language (and, in fact, it still is—all Vatican documents of any importance are issued in authoritative Latin versions), perhaps we are to conclude that there is some mystery about it? Well, there probably is, to people who do not read Latin, just as there is mystery in French to those who know only English. So what is Boettner trying to do with this "invention"? Perhaps he is attempting to heighten suspicion, even if it is directed at nothing in particular.
"One can make any adoption of an official language sound sinister. All one has to do is say the language was "imposed"—implying that it was opposed or forced upon people against their will, no matter how untrue this may be. Boettner is simply using a cheap rhetorical device."
For more of this article ["Catholic Inventions". Catholic Answers San Diego 2004:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Catholic_Inventions.asp
Pope Dionysius was one of the early Christian writers about and defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity, which developed over time in the heart of the historic Church (cf. Luke 2:51).
"Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate" (Pope Dionysius. Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).
"Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is b.asphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd" (ibid., 1–2).
"Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity. . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. ‘For,’ he says, ‘The Father and I are one,’ and ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me’" (ibid., 3).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Trinity.asp
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/1/2009 9:20:47 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 12:12:21 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 343
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
ManimalX –
quote:
The Bible knows of no "leader of ALL leaders" except for Jesus Christ.
I already addressed the errors of this statement in post #7115. Protestant man-made tradition knows of no leader of leaders. We’ve already shown from protestant documents, drafted on the tenets of sola-scriptura, that there is indeed biblical evidence for a hierarchical church government. It is the man-made protestant tradition that denies there is an “al-bayit” given the Keys of the Kingdom to lead God’s people while the King is battling the enemies of God’s people.
quote:
Thanks for that teaching on Sola Scriptura! I'm going to have to file that one away somewhere handy. Sola-scriptura is a protestant man-made doctrine. It wasn’t practiced by the Jewish people, it wasn’t practiced by the early church, and it is a teaching found nowhere in scripture. If you think this is what St. Ignatius meant, you really should read the rest of his letter.
quote:
Of course, Ignatius also says some rather foolish things in the same collection of quotes you provided, but in this one thing at least he was correct.
It’s the Protestant way …. If one agrees with one thing the great St. Ignatius says, he is correct. If one disagrees, then St. Ignatius is foolish.
quote:
Again, none of us have any problems with real, biblical church leadership. We have problems with the damaging Roman perversion of church leadership. Actually a great many protestants do have a problem with church leadership and God appointed authority. We talked about this a long time ago when a guy by the name of TurretinFan participated in this thread. He is of the Reformed Church and told all of us that “extreme congregationalism” is unbiblical. I happen to agree with him but, despite numerous requests, he never would tell us what the difference is between “extreme” and “not-so-extreme” congregationalism. And those in the thread who practice congregationalism (like the Baptists, the Evangelical “bible only” churches, and the “non-denominational” denominations) said nary a word to TurretinFan when he called their form of government unbiblical. I have some ideas as to why TurretinFan never specified the difference and why his accusations of protestant brethren practicing an unbiblical form of government went unchallenged. It’s actually very relevant to this thread because the logic will ultimately lead to the need for an earthly leader of the universal church. But I’m sure you and KJB are perfectly content with the fact that the Reformed Church believes your form of government (or lack thereof) is unbiblical. And I’m sure those of the Reformed Church in this thread are willing to overlook this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 1:31:23 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 343
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
Kelman – thank you for taking the time to respond to post #7108. Your comments have helped me to better understand the document. In this text …
““THE officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints, are, some extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, which are ceased.”
… the phrase “evangelist” threw me off because I cannot see why they would say the appointment of evangelists would cease. So I thought the phrase “which are ceased” applied only to the prophets. It appears that the “extraordinary” officers have ceased while the “ordinary” are perpetual. Perhaps by “evangelist”, the authors meant those that evangelized prior to the collection of the N.T. writings. I humbly admit that this document doesn’t show the Reformed Church believes in apostolic succession.
However you cannot rule out some sort of ordination by succession. I think this is where TurretinFan called congregationalism unbiblical.
From the sections titled “Touching the Doctrine of Ordination” and “Touching the Power of Ordination”, the authors use scripture to proclaim ….
“Ordination is always to be continued in the church.”
“Every minister of the word is to be ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by those preaching presbyters to whom it doth belong.”
“ORDINATION is the act of a presbytery.”
“It is very requisite, that no single congregation, that can conveniently associate, do assume to itself all and sole power in ordination:
1. Because there is no example in scripture that any single congregation, which might conveniently associate, did assume to itself all and sole power in ordination; neither is there any rule which may warrant such a practice.
2. Because there is in scripture example of an ordination in a presbytery over divers congregations; as in the church of Jerusalem, where were many congregations: these many congregations were under one presbytery, and this presbytery did ordain.
The preaching presbyters orderly associated, either in cities or neighbouring villages, are those to whom the imposition of hands doth appertain, for those congregations within their bounds respectively.”
I fully agree that “ordination is always to be continued in the church”. And I assume by “the church”, the authors mean “His Church”. The authors also very clearly state that no one can be ordained except by a presbytery. It is also clearly saying that no single congregation can assume it has the sole power in ordination.
These sound like some very strict guidelines for how one becomes a validly ordained “officer” of the Reformed Church. All of this comes from scripture and I have to say that I actually agree with this.
But here is my question for you Kelman…. Who comprised the original Presbytery? Was it Calvin or maybe Knox?
For Catholics, we believe it was Peter. We believe it began when Jesus Christ said “"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 1:32:39 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2573
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
We’ve already shown from protestant documents, drafted on the tenets of sola-scriptura, that there is indeed biblical evidence for a hierarchical church government.
Again, none of us have any problems with real, biblical church leadership. We have problems with the damaging, divisive, Roman perversion of church leadership.
Why do you keep trying to pretend that we don't believe in church government?
quote:
quote:
Thanks for that teaching on Sola Scriptura! I'm going to have to file that one away somewhere handy. Sola-scriptura is a protestant man-made doctrine.
Let me correct and finish that sentence for you: Sola Scriptura is a Protestant doctrine derived from the clear teachings of the Old and New Testaments, and is therefore a valid doctrine.
quote:
It wasn’t practiced by the Jewish people
Let me correct and finish that sentence for you: It wasn't practiced by ALL Jewish people, and the ones which elevated oral tradition above the written Scripture were severely chastised by Jesus Christ.
quote:
it wasn’t practiced by the early church
Correction time, again: Yes, it was, but unfortunately the bureaucrats, power-mongers, and legalists quickly strayed from it.
quote:
and it is a teaching found nowhere in scripture.
Right. Nowhere in Scripture except everywhere between Genesis and Revelation.
quote:
If you think this is what St. Ignatius meant, you really should read the rest of his letter.
I read the excerpts. From them, to me he seems a bit schizophrenic, properly teaching for all Christians to "be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles", but then erroneously claiming that bishops replace God and that lay-Christians ought to submit to bishops as if they were Jesus Christ.
Got news for you, Saint Nate: we submit unquestioningly to Jesus Christ because he is infallible and the Truth. We submit to "bishops" only when they are in submission to Jesus, and that can only be determined by their submission to Scripture.
quote:
quote:
Of course, Ignatius also says some rather foolish things in the same collection of quotes you provided, but in this one thing at least he was correct.
It’s the Protestant way …. If one agrees with one thing the great St. Ignatius says, he is correct.
Right, just like the Bereans did. If Ignatius' teaching bears the scrutiny of Scripture, we agree with him as he is correct and wise.
quote:
If one disagrees, then St. Ignatius is foolish.
Right, because we disagree based upon the standard of Scripture. So, if he deviates from Scripture, he is wrong and a fool.
quote:
quote:
Again, none of us have any problems with real, biblical church leadership. We have problems with the damaging Roman perversion of church leadership. Actually a great many protestants do have a problem with church leadership and God appointed authority.
I suspect you mean they have a problem with perverted Roman leadership and divisive Roman authority, but if they have a problem with leadership and authrity in general, well, then they are wrong and outside of the teaching of Scripture, aren't they?
quote:
It’s actually very relevant to this thread because the logic will ultimately lead to the need for an earthly leader of the universal church.
Nope. The "logic" leads to local congregations with their applicable leadership under submission to Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and Scripture.
quote:
But I’m sure you and KJB are perfectly content with the fact that the Reformed Church believes your form of government (or lack thereof) is unbiblical. And I’m sure those of the Reformed Church in this thread are willing to overlook this.
I told you I don't know the "Reformed" church teachings very well. So whatever you say.
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 1:54:47 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5094
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
quote:
The Bible knows of no "leader of ALL leaders" except for Jesus Christ.
I already addressed the errors of this statement in post #7115. You may have addressed it but you do not address it in harmony with God. God is clear that there is no "leader of ALL leaders" other than the Lord Jesus Christ.
Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.
1Tim 6:15 the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords.
quote:
Sola-scriptura is a protestant man-made doctrine. Man-made?...yes...by the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ - "it is written". Please refer us to the verse in which the Lord teaches using "it is tradition".
quote:
It wasn’t practiced by the Jewish people, Exactly, and for this reason the Lord Jesus Christ railed against the Pharisees - "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."
quote:
it wasn’t practiced by the early church, and it is a teaching found nowhere in scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ is our example and He taught by means of Sola Scriptura - "it is written". But, then again the Lord also taught that we are to pray only to God....you guys neither like or obey that teaching of His either.
As for the early church, of course, that is how they taught. When they spoke of tradition it was invariably the written Scripture to which they referred.
I edited out an unncecessarily harsh remark concerning RC and the Pharisees. I attribute the deliberately nasty words to having just read a particularly satanic post on this thread.
< Message edited by kelman -- 11/2/2009 2:33:24 AM >
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 2:29:10 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5094
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
However you cannot rule out some sort of ordination by succession. It is ordination but not by succession as it would be understood by RC.
quote:
I fully agree that “ordination is always to be continued in the church”. And I assume by “the church”, the authors mean “His Church”. The authors also very clearly state that no one can be ordained except by a presbytery. It is also clearly saying that no single congregation can assume it has the sole power in ordination. Yes, because many "congregations" may be under one presbyterial jurisdiction.
quote:
These sound like some very strict guidelines for how one becomes a validly ordained “officer” of the Reformed Church. All of this comes from scripture and I have to say that I actually agree with this. This must be one of "those" moments....shall we treasure it? :)
quote:
But here is my question for you Kelman…. Who comprised the original Presbytery? Was it Calvin or maybe Knox? Neither, those who wrote the WCF believed this form of church government was set forth by God in Scripture.
In the section entitled "of Classical Assemblies", it says "THE scripture doth hold out a presbytery in a church.[44] They use 1Tim 4:14; Acts 15:2,4,6 for their support.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 2:34:16 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 343
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
Again, none of us have any problems with real, biblical church leadership. We have problems with the damaging, divisive, Roman perversion of church leadership.
Why do you keep trying to pretend that we don't believe in church government? I don’t believe I ever said you don’t believe in church government. It is the type of church government that we’re talking about because that is pertinent to this thread. The key word you chose to ignore is “hierarchical”. The Reformed Church uses sola-scriptura to demonstrate what they call a Presbyterial government. Is this what you mean by a “perversion of church leadership”? Because according to you, Congregationalism is the biblical form of government.
quote:
Nope. The "logic" leads to local congregations with their applicable leadership under submission to Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and Scripture.
The Church in Antioch must not have followed this logic then because they sent Paul back to the Church in Jerusalem to work out some doctrinal issues. They held a council and infallibly settled the dispute and then sent Paul back to Antioch to give them the binding decision. Why didn’t the leaders of the local congregations in Antioch use your “logic” and instead sent Paul and Barnabas on a 500+ mile journey? And how many times did Paul and the other Apostles have to write letters and visit these local congregations if they were following your “logic”? Sorry ManimalX but there is no pre-reformation history of your “logic”. Congregationalism is a man made Protestant (and a subset thereof) tradition. Right Kelman?
quote:
I told you I don't know the "Reformed" church teachings very well. So whatever you say. The Reformed Church teachings are based on scripture. I’ve provided links to them a couple times now. The Reformed Church doesn’t follow your logic. Neither do many other Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 2:51:27 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 343
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
But here is my question for you Kelman…. Who comprised the original Presbytery? Was it Calvin or maybe Knox? Neither, those who wrote the WCF believed this form of church government was set forth by God in Scripture. Okay Kelman. Again, I agree (another moment!!!). But if this was the form of church government set forth by God in Scripture, then it must have been applicable since the foundation of the Church. If every officer must be ordained through a valid presbytery, then there must be a succession of valid presbyteries that trace all the way back to the Apostles and to Jesus. The document claims that no congregation can assume for itself the power of ordination. So if there is a break in this succession, then the ensuing presbytery cannot be valid. In order for any present day presbytery to be valid, it must trace all the way back to the original presbytery established by Jesus. This is what the CC and other Christians, who believe this to be a truth set forth by God in Scripture, call Apostolic Succession.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 4:12:50 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5094
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
quote:
quote:
But here is my question for you Kelman…. Who comprised the original Presbytery? Was it Calvin or maybe Knox? Neither, those who wrote the WCF believed this form of church government was set forth by God in Scripture. Okay Kelman. Again, I agree (another moment!!!). But if this was the form of church government set forth by God in Scripture, then it must have been applicable since the foundation of the Church. Yes, I believe that's what they're saying when they make the appeal to Scripture.
quote:
If every officer must be ordained through a valid presbytery, then there must be a succession of valid presbyteries that trace all the way back to the Apostles and to Jesus. Again, you're using the RC frame of reference. Scripture never describes an "apostolic succession". And, obviously we believe that the Reformation recovered the untainted teaching of the Apostles themselves.
As I understand it a presbytery consists of all the churches and ministers within its boundaries.
“The word “presbytery” comes from the Greek word “presbyteros,” which means “elder” (i.e., a church leader). A presbytery consists of a group of churches connected to one another within a geographical region. The pastors, elders and deacons, and people from all the local churches in a presbytery are united together by doctrine, Christian practice, and missionary endeavors. The Scriptures demonstrate this connection among the churches and their members. Scripture texts such as Acts 11:19-26, 15:1-29, 16:1-5, and 1 Timothy 4:14 demonstrate that the collective decisions by the elders were decisions that extended beyond a local congregation to all the churches in the surrounding region. In Acts 21:17-27 and Galatians 1:18-2:14, we see that the elders in a local church were responsible to the regional body of church elders. There are sixteen presbyteries in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church."
So, as you can see we have the Apostles ever with us through their inspired and inerrant teaching. And that is what we have in the NT.
quote:
The document claims that no congregation can assume for itself the power of ordination. So if there is a break in this succession, then the ensuing presbytery cannot be valid. There is no claim to succession. It is simply that ordination originates with the larger governing body not the individual church alone.
quote:
In order for any present day presbytery to be valid, it must trace all the way back to the original presbytery established by Jesus. You are attributing your own definition of "valid" onto the WCF. They do not view "valid" as you do.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 4:33:21 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5094
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
Congregationalism is a man made Protestant (and a subset thereof) tradition. Right Kelman? I believe that congregationalist churches are also in communion with a larger body. Can't say that I know much about them, though. However, I found the following which meshes the WCF and Johnathan Edwards with Congregationism.
"The Westminster Confession of 1646, the design for Presbyterian church government and an expression of Reformed faith and doctrine, was revised for church polity and discipline at the Cambridge Synod of 1648. Called the Cambridge Platform, it enabled a reconciliation between Presbyterians and Congregationalists and was highly venerated into the 19th century.
The Platform interpreted the church catholic as all those who are elected and called to salvation. A "militant visible church on earth" was understood to exist in particular congregations as "a company of saints by calling, united into one body, by a holy covenant for the public worship of God and the mutual edification of one another." Christ was head of the church; the congregation, independent of outside interference, had the right to choose its own officials. The office of the civil magistrate was subject to recognition by the church. Churches were to preserve communion with one another in mutual covenant with Christ. Such covenants stabilized churches establishing themselves under disparate leadership."
I didn't know that Jonathan Edwards was a Congregationist. The man's theology was brilliant so if he was good with Congregationism, I don't have a problem with it.
"Jonathan Edwards, foremost of American philosophers, was responsible for a far broader synthesis of science, philosophy, and religion in Congregational and Presbyterian theology and practice than had been present in "Old Light" Puritanism. He integrated with Reformed theology the worldview of Isaac Newton, John Locke's emphasis upon human experience, and Augustine's spiritual enlightenment, as well as Plato's idealism and the Neo-Platonic idea of emanation from the Divine Intellect to the soul. His ideas would cohere in his followers to give life to a "New England Theology." They would check the anti-intellectual tendencies of the revivalists and the decline of religious vitality during the Revolutionary period. They would give a theological framework to the recovery of intellectual leadership and a new morality in post-Revolutionary America. Edwards' writings inspired and informed the missionary movement of the 19th century as America expanded westward and looked once again to the lands across the sea. His influence rivaled Hooker's in developing the separation of church and state."
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 4:54:14 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2573
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
And, obviously we believe that the Reformation recovered the untainted teaching of the Apostles themselves.
As I understand it a presbytery consists of all the churches and ministers within its boundaries.
“The word “presbytery” comes from the Greek word “presbyteros,” which means “elder” (i.e., a church leader). A presbytery consists of a group of churches connected to one another within a geographical region. The pastors, elders and deacons, and people from all the local churches in a presbytery are united together by doctrine, Christian practice, and missionary endeavors. The Scriptures demonstrate this connection among the churches and their members. Scripture texts such as Acts 11:19-26, 15:1-29, 16:1-5, and 1 Timothy 4:14 demonstrate that the collective decisions by the elders were decisions that extended beyond a local congregation to all the churches in the surrounding region. In Acts 21:17-27 and Galatians 1:18-2:14, we see that the elders in a local church were responsible to the regional body of church elders. There are sixteen presbyteries in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church."
So, as you can see we have the Apostles ever with us through their inspired and inerrant teaching. And that is what we have in the NT.
If that is what the "Reformed" teaching is, then I agree because that is what the Bible teaches. Kelman just stated it much better than I did. When I wrote "local", I was merely trying to think of a way to communicate "not universal" in the sense of "having boundaries", as kelman noted.
quote:
"Jonathan Edwards, foremost of American philosophers, was responsible for a far broader synthesis of science, philosophy, and religion in Congregational and Presbyterian theology and practice than had been present in "Old Light" Puritanism. He integrated with Reformed theology the worldview of Isaac Newton, John Locke's emphasis upon human experience, and Augustine's spiritual enlightenment, as well as Plato's idealism and the Neo-Platonic idea of emanation from the Divine Intellect to the soul. His ideas would cohere in his followers to give life to a "New England Theology." They would check the anti-intellectual tendencies of the revivalists and the decline of religious vitality during the Revolutionary period. They would give a theological framework to the recovery of intellectual leadership and a new morality in post-Revolutionary America. Edwards' writings inspired and informed the missionary movement of the 19th century as America expanded westward and looked once again to the lands across the sea. His influence rivaled Hooker's in developing the separation of church and state."
I may disagree with some of Edwards ideas, but Ah! The beauty of being a "Protester"! The Body is always revitalized and set back on a correct course when it refuses to stagnate and when it refuses to suffer gangrenous limbs, taking care of infections before they spread through the whole body.
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 6:28:34 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
patricius79,
quote:
It is interesting to note the rhetorical devices used by those who hate historic Christianity, which includes the Papacy. Rather than use syllogisms which would help people to think clearly, these self-appointed anti-Popes prefer to muddle their Satanic ways into other peoples' minds. Laraine Boettner used tactics similar to other pseudo-Christians. Here is one of his items from his Book Roman Catholicism:
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? - 11/2/2009 7:15:42 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2573
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
patricius79,
quote:
It is interesting to note the rhetorical devices used by those who hate historic Christianity, which includes the Papacy. Rather than use syllogisms which would help people to think clearly, these self-appointed anti-Popes prefer to muddle their Satanic ways into other peoples' minds. Laraine Boettner used tactics similar to other pseudo-Christians. Here is one of his items from his Book Roman Catholicism:
KJB
I see your and raise you a 
Now we are not only destined to Hellfire, KJB, but we are Satanic! Do you notice how over the last few weeks, as we continue to hammer away at the bureaucratic shell of the Roman church, we have finally begun to see the true colors and divisive teachings of the Roman denomination of Christianity?
What?! You think that Mary had proper sex with her husband and had children? Damn you to Hell! 
What?! You think that Papacy is shaky doctrine? Damn you to Hell!
What?! You think communion elements don't ever change from the wheat bread and grape wine they are? Damn you to Hell!
What?! You think being dipped or sprinkled with water doesn't produce salvation? Damn you to Hell!
What?! You think oral tradition must submit to written Scripture? Damn you to Hell!
What?! You believe Jesus is the Son of God who shed His blood to atone for your sins? well, ummm ok, hem, haw, we guess that is a little something at least, hem, haw, well maybe we can burn the Devil out of you in purgatory 
I know I am forgetting a few reasons why I am damned to Hell, but I can't seem to remember them at the moment. Just to be safe:
What?! You can't remember all of the reasons the Roman church damns you to Hell?!? Damn you to Hell!
How about this for the official "Why do we need a Pope" thread syllogism:
1. The Roman denomination of Christianity claims that Papacy and Apostolic Succession is supported by the Bible.
2. The Bible knows nothing of Papacy or Apostolic Succession.
3. Therefore, Papacy and Apostolic Succession are unbiblical inventions by the Roman denomination of Christianity.
I still want an answer to my little syllogism I posted earlier in the Eucharist thread: http://forums.crosswalk.com/fb.aspx?m=4600830
1. Rome claims that the authority of oral tradition is equal to the authority of written Scripture
2. In order to claim that the authority of oral tradition is equal to the authority of written Scripture, Rome has to appeal to written Scripture
3. Therefore, Rome admits that written Scripture is the standard by which oral tradition must be judged and contradicts its own teaching
Patricius flat out admitted 1 & 2 are true, but then performed a Neo-like Matrix-bullet-time duck and dodge on #3!
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 7:28:33 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2573
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rawr.ben
You know, I got in trouble for making fun of the pope's hat, but some users continue to post this type of stuff.
Hey, did you ever see Pink Panther 2? The part where Clouseau and the "Dream Team" visit the Pope in the Vatican is hilarious and drives me to tears nearly every time I see it. If you want good Papal humor that is just funny and not disrespectful, go watch it.
CLOUSEAU (to the Pope): "I'm picking up on something... You are a very spiritual man, aren't you? It's part of my job to read people. I think I am quite good at it too!"
CLOUSEAU (to the Pope): "Now, Mr. Pope: do you happen to know, right now, the whereabouts of your hat? [pause] "Your long pointy hat?"
POPE: "No."
CLOUSEAU: "Then I am probably sitting on it. I though I felt a little *tweep!*"
CLOSEAU (finding the Pope's stolen ring): "Ah, the Pope's ring! His wife will be happy to have that back!"
quote:
Well, I'd talk more about it, but I have to go burn some Bibles and play with my Ouija board.
HAHAHA! 
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 7:36:22 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 599
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
“Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").”
For more of this article “Papal Infallibility.” Catholic Answres. San Diego 2004];
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
WKIRSCHER WROTE:
quote:
In order for any present day presbytery to be valid, it must trace all the way back to the original presbytery established by Jesus.
Yes. Even though O.T. Levitical line (passed on by blood and ordination)—the prefigurement of the historic Christian hierarchy, was never broken before the Fulfillment. Here is a summary of the Word of God on this issue:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 7:44:39 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2573
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
Sorry pat. No "supreme shepherd" or "teacher of all the faithful" in the Bible. Well, except of course for Jesus the Shepherd, and the Holy Spirit with Scripture as the teacher of all the faithful.
Have a great morning anyway!
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 7:46:52 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
ManimalX,
quote:
Now we are not only destined to Hellfire, KJB, but we are Satanic! Do you notice how over the last few weeks, as we continue to hammer away at the bureaucratic shell of the Roman church, we have finally begun to see the true colors and divisive teachings of the Roman denomination of Christianity?
I know, if you dont like the papacy it is concluded that you hate historic Christianity. Anti-popes like those muddle their Satanic ways into the minds of others.
The one thing I like about patricius79 is that he represents the historical Roman Catholic church to a "T" and that is great!
Some people would have done well in the inquisition as it takes a certain type of mentality and heart to do some of the things they did;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
A pope has already declared that there is no salvation apart from submission to popes and I dont think any popes have come right out and denounced that.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are
outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics,
cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for
the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives;
that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who
abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving
and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards;
and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even
if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and
unity of the Catholic Church.”7
Make no mistake on this.....rejection of the pope would place people in the same area as those that do not accept the Roman Catholic church and that would include pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics.
Flat out rejection of papal authority is flat out rejection of the leader of the Christian world as they suppose Jesus has set up. They suppose Jesus has set these guys up as His leader on earth and if you oppose anything this leader supports......you have basically opposed Jesus Christ Himself.
Therefore to them.......rejection of the pope is tantamount to rejection Jesus Christ Himself.
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? - 11/2/2009 11:15:36 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 343
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
Kelman and ManimalX –
I said, based on a scripture derived document of the Reformed Church …
quote:
If every officer must be ordained through a valid presbytery, then there must be a succession of valid presbyteries that trace all the way back to the Apostles and to Jesus. and to this you replied:
quote:
Again, you're using the RC frame of reference. Scripture never describes an "apostolic succession".
My conclusion is drawn directly from the document and cannot be logically refuted. This document is based solely on the author’s understanding of scripture. I said nothing of Apostolic Succession. The document clearly states that a valid presbytery cannot originate from a local congregation. A present-day valid presbytery must trace back to the Apostles or it is not a valid presbytery.
You said:
quote:
And, obviously we believe that the Reformation recovered the untainted teaching of the Apostles themselves. If this is what you believe, then you are in violation of the scripture based document. Your assertion assumes a break in a valid presbytery. In order to be restored, it must have been through a local congregation. So my question again to you Kelman is this …. Who were the original members of the valid present-day Presbytery? Was it the Apostles or was it maybe Calvin or Knox? Or was there a long period of time where a valid presbytery ceased to exist?
I appreciate the quote you provided that describes the origins of term “presbytery”. In the CC and other Christian groups it is called a “diocese”. The head “officer” is called a Bishop. The very first thing the Acts Church does is fills this office vacated by Judas’ death. (something like “of the bishoprick, let another take his office”.) I don’t have the scriptures handy but I know this was not some rash and foolish act like another poster in this thread has asserted.
quote:
There is no claim to succession. It is simply that ordination originates with the larger governing body not the individual church alone. I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. It contradicts the document itself. The present day Reformed Church presbytery had to originate from somewhere. And if you claim that something was “recovered” by the Reformation, then there must have been a very long gap (1500ish years!!!!!) in a valid presbytery. This contradicts the promises Jesus made to His Church.
quote:
I believe that congregationalist churches are also in communion with a larger body. Can't say that I know much about them, though. I don’t believe this is what congregationalism teaches and it most certainly doesn’t practice this. ManimalX even proclaimed that each individual congregation is it’s own authority and is only answerable to God and the Scriptures. ManimalX’s interpretation, along with Baptists, Independent Churches, “non-denominational” churches, etc., contradicts the Reformed Church’s bible based teachings. And what do you mean by “are also in communion with a larger body”? The early church, as we see recorded in scripture, gathered together to resolve doctrinal issues. The findings were authoritatively promulgated to other congregations. In this sense, there was true communion and it was because of the type of church government very similar to what the author’s of this document have discerned from scripture. If “congregationalism” was a biblical form of government, Paul and Barnabas wouldn’t have made the 500+ mile trek to and from Jerusalem. We do not see anything that comes even close to this in many Protestant churches today. When was the last time a congregationalist church gathered together with the Reformed Church, or any other church for that matter, in which they allegedly have “communion”?
quote:
I didn't know that Jonathan Edwards was a Congregationist. The man's theology was brilliant so if he was good with Congregationism, I don't have a problem with it. With all due respect Kelman, on one hand, you are proclaiming a Presbyterial form of government is biblical, and then on the other, saying that a Congregational form of government is biblical. These are mutually exclusive forms of government. The former has historical evidence tracing back to the Apostolic Church, the later does not. The later was a man-made invention of the Protestant reformation. Hold firm to your beliefs and that of the Reformed Church. As your Reformed Church brother TurretinFan posted long ago, "congregationalism is unbiblical".
ManimalX
quote:
If that is what the "Reformed" teaching is, then I agree because that is what the Bible teaches. Kelman just stated it much better than I did. When I wrote "local", I was merely trying to think of a way to communicate "not universal" in the sense of "having boundaries", as kelman noted. This is not all of the Reformed teaching. It is merely a statement that defines geographical boundaries. With all due respect to your opinion, a great number of independent churches do not practice this. I’ve been to many “bible only” churches and I have never heard of them agreeing or practicing the biblical notion that “elders in a local church were responsible to the regional body of church elders”. In fact, in two of the churches I attended, they split over doctrinal issues and didn’t even think of submitting themselves to some sort of regional authority. If you go to an “independent” or “non-denominational” church, you do not practice the form of government that the Reformed Church understands from scripture. I understand the desire to proclaim that you and Kelman are in biblical agreement, but it simply is not true.
quote:
The Body is always revitalized and set back on a correct course when it refuses to stagnate and when it refuses to suffer gangrenous limbs, taking care of infections before they spread through the whole body. Which is the “correct course”? Your understanding of independent congregations or the Reformed Church’s biblical teaching of a Presbyterial form of government. And tell me again when this “correct course” has compelled the leaders of your congregation to gather together with the leaders of another congregation to resolve doctrinal disputes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 8:44:55 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
rawr.ben,
Make no mistake that when the question is asked on why we need a pope, as far as Roman Catholic doctrine goes, it ultimately is for salvation.
Check out this site and look at what they make clear;
http://catholicism.org/a-brief-response-to-mark-sheas-article-can-non-catholics-be-saved.html
"Hence Pope Eugene IV included in his Bull Cantate Domino (below) a definition of who they are who are “outside the Church” and of the judgment awaiting them if they should die in that state."
Yes....there is a clear group of people that are "outside the Church" as they define "Church" and it includes all those that reject papal authority. People that reject papal authority are not in the "Church" because Roman Catholics believe that Jesus Christ left their popes in charge of the "Church" on earth.
If we reject the leader of the "Church" how can we claim to be in it? Rejection of the "Holy Father Pope" is tantamount to rejection of the leader of the Church and Jesus Christ.......since they assume it was Jesus Christ Himself that put these people in charge of His Church as leaders for Him.
Many of the Roman Catholics on this thread along with many you may meet in real life will tip toe and fence sit on this issue, and there are some of them that really do not know the real and true in-depth doctrines of the Roman Catholic church on this matter.
Many will sweet talk the doctrine to make it sound less severe than what it is and much of that has to do with the thought of getting people to see the doctrine as harmless so they will make their first baby steps into the Roman Catholic church. Many will sweet talk it because they themselves are ashamed of RC doctrines claiming people must be subject to the pope for salvation. They dont really want to walk away from the RCC......but they would hope that sweet talking with contradictions and doubletalk might make an absurd doctrine seem sane.
patricius79 is a pretty good example of a Roman Catholic that has a pretty good grasp of Roman Catholic doctrines. It does not mean the doctrines are good.......only that he has a good grasp. If patricius79 was on a site that allowed full blown no holds barred posting, I can imagine all sorts of doctrines would come out that would violate the TOS on this site and that is because he knows his RCC doctrine quite well. You will find that many in the RCC (even the clergy) are not very in depth with knowledge on their own doctrines.
Here is a little more from that site;
"Concerning the Bull Unam Sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII (1302), which contains the ex cathedra definition, “We declare, say, define and pronounce that it is necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff,”
That is a valid and accurate Roman Catholic doctrine because as far as I know......it has never been denounced by the Roman Catholic church. It says and means exactly what it means no matter how many interpretations and diversions Roman Catholics give you in rabbit trails.
If you and I oppose one solitary doctrine of the pope knowingly (pick and choose any Marian doctrine) it as if we have rejected the voice of Jesus Christ on earth. When patricius79 uses "pope", "church", and "Jesus" in his posts you can rest asured that they are almost always on an equal standing. To reject any of the three is equal to the rejection of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. When the pope speaks a doctrine it is as equal to these people as if Jesus Christ Himself stood up and spoke the doctrine.......even if you never read it anywhere else!
Here is a little more from that site;
"Any validly baptized person becomes a subject at their baptism to the authority of the Vicar of Christ, as the visible head of Christ’s Mystical Body. They may immediately throw off this implicit subjection as in the case of a validly baptized adult heretic, who formally rejects the pope."
And this;
"Lastly the question of “invincible ignorance” is raised several times. Pius IX was the first pope to use the term in an official papal decree, but he did not teach, as false translations of the pertinent encyclical, Quanta Conficiamur, have it, that anyone unbaptized could be “saved” who is invincibly ignorant of Christ; however he did write that such souls would not suffer everlasting “torments” (suppliciis) for not believing what had not been announced to them. Saint Thomas teaches the same, adding, however, that they would suffer torments for actual sins that they committed against the law of God written on their heart."
Put it this way, if you are aware that the pope teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin and you oppose the pope and his doctrine......how are you with “invincible ignorance”?
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Invincible_ignorance
The problem for the RCC on this claim is that we have not been given any evidence in many cases!
More from http://catholicism.org/a-brief-response-to-mark-sheas-article-can-non-catholics-be-saved.html
“The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding Faith or Morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals; and therefore such definitions are irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of consent of the Church.”
Irreformable: “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
Now, unless we have given up protesting on issues.....we are not in the Roman Catholic church and nor is the pope our teacher. We are rightly called by the Roman Catholic church "heretics" and heretics are not in the "church". The Council of Trent has made that very clear.
All I can tell all the Roman Catholics and Protestants of every kind is that I do not need a pope and I certainly do not need to turn to one for my salvation.
I would be more than willing to subject myself to the teachings of any pope for as long as my conscience compels me to believe that such a pope is acting and teaching according to Scripture.
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? - 11/2/2009 8:55:24 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 599
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
Jesus got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon….Jesus said to him, "Do not be afraid. From now on you will be catching men."
The early Church had unanimity about Peter’s Primacy, that the Church is built in some manner upon Simon Rock.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
The issue of the Papacy is connected to several other issues, including the Tradition of the Biblical Canon:
“"Well, the early Christians agreed on the 27 books," answers the missionary. "The Holy Spirit led them to this agreement."
"Sure the Holy Spirit did, but only over a pretty long period of time, and a study of early Christian history shows that there was a considerable disagreement among Christians until the issue of the canon was finally settled. Some early Christians said the book of Revelation didn’t belong in the canon. Others said Pope Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians (written circa A.D. 80) and The Shepherd, an early second-century allegory written by a Christian writer named Hermas did belong in the New Testament. How do you handle that?"”
For more of this article: “What’s Your Authority”. Catholic Answers San Diego 2004:]
http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp
To see how the doctrine of the Trinity came to us through the Papist Tradition:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/contents.htm
To see how the doctrine of the Biblical Canon came only through this same Papistic Catholic Tradition:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/church.htm
To see how the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is the constant teaching of Jesus Christ (cf. Eph 1:23):
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/success.htm
Everyone in Scripture received authority through the hands of an Apostle. (cf. 2 Tim 1:6; 2:2). Nobody in the N.T. was elected apart from the sanction of the Apostles or their appointed presbyters
As it was spoken by the first Pope, interpreting the Scriptures well beyond the literal sense:
“let his office another take”
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/2/2009 9:02:14 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 9:30:39 PM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6324
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
So you are saying the Pope receives his authority, the apostolic authority through the hands of an apostle.
Let's look at that. How is the pope elected. A pope dies. Another pope is needed. Is he not elected by the collegof cardinals.(sp) So the previous pope did not pass on this apostolic authority to the new pope. So the cardinals must be the ones that continually have the apostolic authority. THey would have to have in order to pass it on to the new pope. In order for the theory of apostolic succession to be true that authority would have to have been passed on from an apostle to a pope. Lets assume for a moment it was. Then that pope would have to pass it on to the next pope and on down the line. Since this obviously does not happen then the apostolic succession, if there ever was one, ended after the first pope.
You see one, the college of cardinals for example, cannot pass on something they themselves did not have.
_____________________________
At one time Jesus was my co-pilot. Things are much better now that He and I have changed seats.
<Me & my happyplate at Lobster Hut
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/2/2009 10:10:08 PM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2573
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
So you are saying the Pope receives his authority, the apostolic authority through the hands of an apostle.
Let's look at that. How is the pope elected. A pope dies. Another pope is needed. Is he not elected by the collegof cardinals.(sp) So the previous pope did not pass on this apostolic authority to the new pope. So the cardinals must be the ones that continually have the apostolic authority. THey would have to have in order to pass it on to the new pope. In order for the theory of apostolic succession to be true that authority would have to have been passed on from an apostle to a pope. Lets assume for a moment it was. Then that pope would have to pass it on to the next pope and on down the line. Since this obviously does not happen then the apostolic succession, if there ever was one, ended after the first pope.
You see one, the college of cardinals for example, cannot pass on something they themselves did not have.
Sam, how dare you use common sense and logic against the Roman church! 
Don't worry, patricius79 will be along soon with a fresh load of links from catholic.com and cin.org that show how magical Pope-power gets downloaded into the College of Cardinals so it can be uploaded into the new Pope or some other such convoluted nonsense.
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
 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
