|
|
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/5/2009 9:51:03 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think this is correct in reference to Catherine and all of the saints. As I recall St. John of the Cross, for example, was openly submissive to the Papacy in his written works, since he believed the Pope held the Office as Jesus Christ's Vicar. But these works never discuss the Papacy as being God or even talk very much about the Papacy in his spiritual writings. This of course indicates that John was not worshipping the Pope. Likewise with St. Catherine, one would be hard-pressed to find this alleged Pope worship as a theme in her writings.
St. Catherine and St. Francis--both of whom have been accused of Pope worship--were very busy actually taking care of people. As I recall, St. Catherine nursed sick people such as lepers.
Took care of lepers while worshipping the pope.
If Roman Catholics did not worship the pope they would be able to let him go........but they are not able to let him go.
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? - 11/6/2009 5:40:11 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5092
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Usually we are just given the pleasure of an occasional appearance of caustic personal petty "soundbites"....
...I respond to posts as I deem they merit a response...just like everybody else here, including you.
Actually, your posts do generally resemble "soundbites". Of course, reply to whomever you wish...or don't. Although, people are left to wonder, if they care at all, to whom you are actually responding since your posts go unaddressed. Makes for confusion and naturally is quite rude not to mention very bad "forum" form....but, you know this.
quote:
That tactic explains why you have spent most of your existence in the time I have been here under my "blocked" option...it is only recently that I removed the block, ... It appears you have an unusual, dare I say, interpretation of "recently". Besides, when has the truth become a tactic?
quote:
As far as caustic...well...I am satisfied that the determination of the character of my posts resides in the fair judgment of all the posters and readers here, and not just to your standards...my responses are only as caustic as the acridity of the post to which the response is directed. I see...."do unto others" is the new Christian motto. Actually, if any RC would ever indulged in "fair judgment" they might see the self-deception of their proclaimed superiority, the arrogance, the pomposity, the deliberate disparagement of anything that is not RC. Although, in order to have an ally, RCs generally won't disparage the "defective" EOC.
quote:
I am actually flattered at this designation, leveled from the "King of Caustic"...does that make me a Duke or Lord or something? Do land grants come with that title? LOL....I only wish I had the verbal ability to be "King of Caustic"...nope, that title belongs singularly at your feet.
quote:
If you don't like what I have to say, then don't respond to my posts. Or, better yet, block me. Why should I block? This way, if I should ever forget RC arrogance....I'm immediately reminded.
quote:
quote:
If you don't like what I have to say, then don't respond to my posts. Or, better yet, block me. Its that little button between the "Addr." and the "Bookmark" in the space under the avatar and username, that should say "Excommunicate".
You may as well, as I am now blocking you.... What?...a hit and run post?...none too brave. Oh, well I suffer no loss.
What's that old song? "got along without 'cha before....gonna get along...." lol
< Message edited by kelman -- 11/6/2009 5:46:18 AM >
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/6/2009 5:47:50 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5092
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
quote:
Apparently, you're ignorant of the fact that most non-RC churches do not practice Sola Scriptura. Those who actually do are in remarkable agreement.
Kelman I can’t believe you are actually saying this. “Sola-Scriptura” participants in this thread believe that infants should not be baptized. Since water baptism is not essential for salvation, there is really no problem. You think it's a problem because you've been taught that RC priests can stand in the place of God.....they can't.
quote:
“Sola-Scriptura” participants in this thread believe that your form of church government is wrong and that we all should practice a congregational form of government. As I've said before, the type of church government is also not of overwhelming importance. It has nothing to do with salvation. Why we even believe RCs can be saved in a completely unbiblical form of church government :)
quote:
Is this the type of “remarkable agreement” you are talking about? It’s not remarkable agreement. It’s sweeping differences under the rug and labeling them “unimportant because it doesn’t affect my salvation”. No, it's not be "labeled" unimportant - it is unimportant as it pertains to salvation.
quote:
I was driving home from work last night and thinking of all the division in Christianity and why Jesus left His Church with authoritative leadership. The problem is the Lord Jesus Christ left us His Holy Word in which He made it clear that there would be no "universal" authoritative leadership. This is simply the RC code word for "infallibility" which, of course, is one thing the Lord did not leave us with.
quote:
Since the “reformation”, protesters continue to protest until they get their faith just the way they want it. Look at the Lutherans, the original protesters. How many different times have Lutherans protested against Lutherans and formed different protesting churches? Originally, one major branch of protesters claimed it is wrong to allow homosexuals to serve as pastors and just this year, another branch of protesters claiming it’s okay. And we can praise and thank God for the grace He has given us so that we may flee those who teach unscripturally.
quote:
At one time, all protesters believed artificial birth control was immoral and against God’s word. Now all of the protesters have protested against their preceding protesters and now claim it’s okay. No, actually you are wrong. There still some "protesters" who believe that God is the Creator and the decision maker for our families. Besides, surely you've heard of the Duggars? Are you asserting that most of the adherents of your faith do not indulge in birth control?....I certainly hope not!
quote:
We have some protesters claiming baptism is symbolic and other protesters claiming it’s regenerative. Entirely possible that you know more than I do on the subject but I doubt there are too many who believe baptism is regenerative. To be regenerated is to be made eternally alive in Christ. And obviously, most water baptized babies do not grow up to live the life of a child of God.
quote:
We have some protesters claiming a symbolic only presence at the Lord’s Supper, other protesters claiming a spiritual only presence, and still others proclaiming a physical presence. So?... each of the above positions were taught by the early church fathers.
quote:
Protest against the brothers until you get things just the way you want it. Why should there not be diversity? Are we all not thinking individuals? Read what Cardinal Newman had to say: "In fact, when the intellect is cultivated," it is as certain that it will develop into a thousand various shapes as that infinite hues and tints and shades of colour will be reflected from the earth's surface when the sunlight touches it ; and in the matters of religion the more, by reason of the extreme subtlety and abstruseness of the mental action by which they are determined."
This is human nature - man as God created him. Men who think all alike spontaneously in religious subjects are nowhere to be found. Verbal doctrinal unity in the RC can be found, real unity never. In fact, real doctrinal unity is an impossibility. God will not have it. God has created the universe and man on the lines of variety, not of uniformity.
RCs have a desire to know everything certainly that everything is in uniformity..who's in heaven, how long in purgatory, how many masses for their release, etc. Your church can tell you all sorts of curious things and claim to unravel all the mysteries of Christendom. And, yet, still your great RC theologians will disagree and most of its members don't believe much of anything.
Is that intellectual peace you have arrived at by rational means of inquiry and natural evolution? Isn't it reached rather by a sheeplike acquiescence to authority about a thing for which there cannot be authority at all?
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/6/2009 5:53:21 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5092
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
quote:
I think this is correct in reference to Catherine and all of the saints. As I recall St. John of the Cross, for example, was openly submissive to the Papacy in his written works, since he believed the Pope held the Office as Jesus Christ's Vicar. But these works never discuss the Papacy as being God or even talk very much about the Papacy in his spiritual writings. This of course indicates that John was not worshipping the Pope. Likewise with St. Catherine, one would be hard-pressed to find this alleged Pope worship as a theme in her writings.
St. Catherine and St. Francis--both of whom have been accused of Pope worship--were very busy actually taking care of people. As I recall, St. Catherine nursed sick people such as lepers.
Took care of lepers while worshipping the pope.
If Roman Catholics did not worship the pope they would be able to let him go........but they are not able to let him go.
KJB
By virtue of good works...well, atheists perform good works too. But, that's the Roman way...be a "good" RC believe and do everything we command and presto....you'll go to heaven with all the other RCs.
Unfortunately, according to its papal "bulls", heaven is closed to all who don't bow the knee to Rome. And since the popes are "infallible", these "bulls" are still correct and in effect regardless of how many popes afterwards issue total contradictory "bulls".
Tell me, KJB, have you ever heard anything more absurd?....I know, it's a rhetorical question :)
quote:
quote:
It was being said about the person as this shows; of Saint Catherine of Siena towards the one whom she called "sweet Christ on earth."
My claim is that this is directed at the office. How do I know? because it wouldn't have mattered who sat in the Chair of Peter at the time, she would have said the same thing. So - she is equating the authority of the Chair of Peter with the authority of Jesus, and I do extrapolate that this is really about authority, and not about worship or any other such nonsense. How silly. Make a personal judgment that Catherine is just worshipping the "chair"....iow, she would worship whomever supposedly "sat" in it, whomever she erroneously thought had "authority".
The whole business is unbiblical and historically in error. The bishops believed that they ALL sait in the "chair of Peter"....not just Rome's pope.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/6/2009 6:27:12 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2564
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
Protest against the brothers until you get things just the way you want it. Why should there not be diversity? Are we all not thinking individuals? Read what Cardinal Newman had to say: "In fact, when the intellect is cultivated," it is as certain that it will develop into a thousand various shapes as that infinite hues and tints and shades of colour will be reflected from the earth's surface when the sunlight touches it ; and in the matters of religion the more, by reason of the extreme subtlety and abstruseness of the mental action by which they are determined."
This is human nature - man as God created him. Men who think all alike spontaneously in religious subjects are nowhere to be found. Verbal doctrinal unity in the RC can be found, real unity never. In fact, real doctrinal unity is an impossibility. God will not have it. God has created the universe and man on the lines of variety, not of uniformity.
RCs have a desire to know everything certainly that everything is in uniformity..who's in heaven, how long in purgatory, how many masses for their release, etc. Your church can tell you all sorts of curious things and claim to unravel all the mysteries of Christendom. And, yet, still your great RC theologians will disagree and most of its members don't believe much of anything.
Is that intellectual peace you have arrived at by rational means of inquiry and natural evolution? Isn't it reached rather by a sheeplike acquiescence to authority about a thing for which there cannot be authority at all?
I have obviously bowed out of these threads for a while (for the sake of some time intensive Greek, Hebrew, and Systematic Theo classes), but this post was particularly well done.
There is certainly a vital difference between "uniformity", a homogenized herd of boorish lemming zombies which is what the Romans think is needed, and "unity", which is what we already have as the body of Christ: we are unified in our declaration of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and acceptance of the gift He gave us in His shed blood.
You, KJB, Ben, and WBN are all doing a good job with the constant illumination of bad Roman doctrine.
_____________________________
"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? - 11/6/2009 9:30:04 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 598
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
WKIRSCHER WROTE:
quote:
Protest against the brothers until you get things just the way you want it.
Right. Biblically, there is no basis for doctrinal diversity. Cf. 1 Cor 1:10. None of the Christians in the Bible had doctrinal disagreement like the reformers.
“I pray that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind, and in the same purpose.”
MANIMAL WROTE:
quote:
This is human nature….In fact, real doctrinal unity is an impossibility. God will not have it. God has created the universe and man on the lines of variety, not of uniformity.
Where does the Bible say that?: especially the part about "doctrinal unity is an impossibility?
I think there is no conflict between personal/subjective variety and doctrinal unity. As Scripture says,
”complete my joy by being of the same mind….thinking on thing”
And as Chesterton said of the orthodox,
“Saints are even more various than murderers.”
quote:
Isn't it reached [in the R.C.] rather by a sheeplike acquiescence to authority about a thing for which there cannot be authority at all?
There is no doctrinal authority? So we don't know which books are inerrant?
quote:
… "unity", which is what we already have as the body of Christ: we are unified in our declaration of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and acceptance of the gift He gave us in His shed blood.
I thought you said doctrinal unity is impossible.
_____________________________________________________________
"The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter . . ." (Matt. 10:1-2).
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/6/2009 9:04:39 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/6/2009 1:05:40 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1175
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: online
|
quote:
and "unity", which is what we already have as the body of Christ: we are unified in our declaration of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and acceptance of the gift He gave us in His shed blood.
To clarify your claim then, Roman Catholics are in unity with you, as Roman Catholics do indeed declare that Jesus is Lord, and are accepting His gift of salvation...
...I suppose that's comforting to know...
quote:
You, KJB, Ben, and WBN are all doing a good job with the constant illumination of bad Roman doctrine.
...as measured to what authority, or by what standard? And remember, "Scriptures" is not the answer, because of the snake-handlers in the Appalachians who also claim Scripture as their authority.
This sounds like a personal editorial. The Roman Catholic Church, which has been in existence a lot longer than you, Ben, WBN, or KJB would not agree with a characterization of its doctrine being "bad" and would challenge the "correctness" or "completeness" of what is being touted here as "good" doctrine by some.
So - do I follow your judgment of what constitutes "good" doctrine", or the Roman Catholic Church's judgment of what constitutes "good' doctrine? Bearing in mind that this determination is from two different authorities using the same reference (namely - the personal witness of the Apostles soaking up Jesus's earthly ministry).
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/6/2009 7:22:51 PM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 342
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
Protest against the brothers until you get things just the way you want it. Why should there not be diversity? Are we all not thinking individuals? Read what Cardinal Newman had to say: "In fact, when the intellect is cultivated," it is as certain that it will develop into a thousand various shapes as that infinite hues and tints and shades of colour will be reflected from the earth's surface when the sunlight touches it ; and in the matters of religion the more, by reason of the extreme subtlety and abstruseness of the mental action by which they are determined."
This is human nature - man as God created him. Men who think all alike spontaneously in religious subjects are nowhere to be found. Verbal doctrinal unity in the RC can be found, real unity never. In fact, real doctrinal unity is an impossibility. God will not have it. God has created the universe and man on the lines of variety, not of uniformity.
RCs have a desire to know everything certainly that everything is in uniformity..who's in heaven, how long in purgatory, how many masses for their release, etc. Your church can tell you all sorts of curious things and claim to unravel all the mysteries of Christendom. And, yet, still your great RC theologians will disagree and most of its members don't believe much of anything.
Is that intellectual peace you have arrived at by rational means of inquiry and natural evolution? Isn't it reached rather by a sheeplike acquiescence to authority about a thing for which there cannot be authority at all?
I have obviously bowed out of these threads for a while (for the sake of some time intensive Greek, Hebrew, and Systematic Theo classes), but this post was particularly well done.
There is certainly a vital difference between "uniformity", a homogenized herd of boorish lemming zombies which is what the Romans think is needed, and "unity", which is what we already have as the body of Christ: we are unified in our declaration of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and acceptance of the gift He gave us in His shed blood.
You, KJB, Ben, and WBN are all doing a good job with the constant illumination of bad Roman doctrine.
ManimalX - Though I can't say I agree with your post, I do hope your classes in Styematic Theology are going well. May I ask where you are taking them? Maybe you could apply some of this theology to the comments you made about the Ethiopian Eunuch. The questions I have are in post #7180.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/6/2009 11:45:56 PM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2564
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: patricius79
MANIMAL WROTE:
quote:
This is human nature….In fact, real doctrinal unity is an impossibility. God will not have it. God has created the universe and man on the lines of variety, not of uniformity.
Kelman wrote that, not me.
quote:
I thought you said doctrinal unity is impossible.
Again, mistaking me for someone else, sorry. I said "uniformity" is not possible, nor is it desirable. "Unity" is something else, as we can be "unified" in the essential and still have disagreements over the non. The two positions aren't mutually exclusive.
_____________________________
"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? - 11/7/2009 12:11:53 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2564
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
and "unity", which is what we already have as the body of Christ: we are unified in our declaration of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and acceptance of the gift He gave us in His shed blood.
To clarify your claim then, Roman Catholics are in unity with you, as Roman Catholics do indeed declare that Jesus is Lord, and are accepting His gift of salvation...
...I suppose that's comforting to know...
Absolutely there are Roman Christians who are in unity with me! Did you forget that it is YOUR denomination, not mine, that is trying to divide us up and claim that we are damned to Hell for not believing this or that pet Roman doctrine?!?
My "side" isn't the one trying to claim that in order to be saved you have to agree with us on all matters!
quote:
quote:
You, KJB, Ben, and WBN are all doing a good job with the constant illumination of bad Roman doctrine.
...as measured to what authority, or by what standard? And remember, "Scriptures" is not the answer, because of the snake-handlers in the Appalachians who also claim Scripture as their authority.
Scripture is ALWAYS the final answer, coupled with the Holy Spirit in the hands of an individual, just as God intended it. Snake handlers can claim Scripture as authority for their bad doctrine, but a simple examination reveals it isn't there.
quote:
This sounds like a personal editorial. The Roman Catholic Church, which has been in existence a lot longer than you, Ben, WBN, or KJB would not agree with a characterization of its doctrine being "bad" and would challenge the "correctness" or "completeness" of what is being touted here as "good" doctrine by some.
And we would welcome the challenge! We would open the pages of Scripture together and everyone would be edified.
What we DON'T do is deny that they even have the RIGHT to open Scripture on their own in the first place! What we DON'T do is pretend that they are damned to Hell because they disagree with us.
quote:
So - do I follow your judgment of what constitutes "good" doctrine", or the Roman Catholic Church's judgment of what constitutes "good' doctrine? Bearing in mind that this determination is from two different authorities using the same reference (namely - the personal witness of the Apostles soaking up Jesus's earthly ministry).
Do you see what the Roman bureaucracy has done to your thinking?!?! The only choices you seem to think you can present are, "Do I follow you or do I follow someone else?" How about you do what God INTENDED you to do and follow Scripture and the Holy Spirit in your own life! Make a decision for yourself instead of letting others tell you what to think! Go ahead and take advice from me, and take advice from old Roman teachers, and take advice from your priest. That's all cool and actually biblical! But just don't buy into the falsehood that just because someone thought a certain way thousands of years ago, that all Christians of al time have to do it that way as well.
Could you end up being wrong? Sure! But that is why God didn't design Christians to be "Lone Rangers", but rather to be an individual part of a corporate Body. On the individual level, you have to make faith decisions on your own, but on a corporate level "iron sharpens iron" and we strive together with God's Word regarding those individual faith decisions.
It really is a beautiful thing!
_____________________________
"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? - 11/7/2009 12:32:00 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2564
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
ManimalX - Though I can't say I agree with your post, I do hope your classes in Styematic Theology are going well. May I ask where you are taking them? Maybe you could apply some of this theology to the comments you made about the Ethiopian Eunuch. The questions I have are in post #7180.
Currently I am taking RELS 201 from Regent University of Virginia as part of the requirements for my degree from them. They use Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. I should note that I have had previous Systematic Theo experience, and as such a lot of this is kind of a review. I should also note that Regent is known as a law school and university with a Christ-centered mindset, but is not a "Seminary".
As for the Ethiopian Church, I was simply stating what I understood of it from Scripture (that Philip explained the gospel message in Scripture, baptized the eunuch, and then was taken away) and with what I have picked up here and there regarding the historical Ethiopian Orthodox church who trace their origin to Philip and the eunuch/"royal official".
Based upon Scripture and verified by history, the church of Christ was brought to Ethiopia by the royal official after having Scripture taught to him by an Apostle. That church thrived without Pope Peter Pebble's (sorry, I just think it is a clever name) intervention and without Rome's "approval". In fact, they have their own "Papacy", the Pope of Alexandria.
If I am mistaken in my history, please direct me to a credible source and I will correct my thinking immediately.
_____________________________
"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? - 11/7/2009 8:35:16 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6324
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
A brief history lesson for those interested.
In the beginning of the Christian Church the Apostles were the Bishops of the churches. Notice that Churches is plural. History records their were many churches through out the land. Each of these Churches, although connected through the Apostles, pretty much operated independently of each other. I have to believe their core beliefs were the same because they were taught by the apostles.
Yes there was a Church established in Rome and that Church had a Bishop.
The Church remained that way from the time of the Apostles until around 314 AD. That is they all operated as independent bodies.
There was also mass persecution of the Christians through out Rome.
In 311 AD., I think the date is right, Constantine I issued the Edict that forbid the persecution of the Christians. It became known as the Edict of Tolerance. Three years later, in 314 AD Constantine I issued a decree that all of the churches would be joined together to create one State Religion for Rome. This is what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church. This church was centered in Rome. Even after Constantine move the capital of the Roman Empire the Church Headquarters, for lack of a better term, stayed in Rome and the Bishop of Rome gain much more recognition in the secular world. Everything from then to now has built on that. History records that the Roman Catholic Church was not the original Church but was established in 314. Now I am not saying this is a bad thing. My Church was not established for over 1000 years later during the Protestant Reformation. I am merely pointing out what history says.
_____________________________
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? - 11/7/2009 9:07:59 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 598
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
[Catherine of Sienna]Took care of lepers while worshipping the pope.
The Bible says we should see others as Jesus Christ. I guess you think that means worshipping them. I see my wife as my "sweet Christ on earth". I know of people who call homeless people “Jesus.” Maybe Jack Chick or someone with a long-tutored prejudice against Catholicity would say that I worship my wife, or that Christians worship homeless people.
St. Catherine may have felt bad for the Pope in question, or she may have felt affection. (One of the Popes in that time needed a lot of counsel from her, as I recall, and from St. Bridget) Truly, a Pope failing in his duty is "the least of Christ’s people", since the weight of his office multiplies his sin and his prospects for punishment. (The fact that the Popes have always been considered--by Catholics--as subject to judgment shows that Catholics don't worship the Pope, but only the God he represents.
quote:
If Roman Catholics did not worship the pope they would be able to let him go........but they are not able to let him go.
As I see it, there is no historical basis for separating the Papacy from the Biblical Church. For the same reason that I won’t let one book of the Catholic Canon go, neither will I let the authority of the Papacy go.
As WILDBYNATURE recently observed, the Bible is not actually God. So do Christians idolatrize the Bible, since they call this Book by the name of God? I think the veneration that Catholics and protestants give the Bible is very similar to that which Catholics give to the authority of the Papacy and to the Saints.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/7/2009 9:18:00 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/7/2009 9:30:02 AM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
ManimalX - Though I can't say I agree with your post, I do hope your classes in Styematic Theology are going well. May I ask where you are taking them? Maybe you could apply some of this theology to the comments you made about the Ethiopian Eunuch. The questions I have are in post #7180.
Currently I am taking RELS 201 from Regent University of Virginia as part of the requirements for my degree from them. They use Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. I should note that I have had previous Systematic Theo experience, and as such a lot of this is kind of a review. I should also note that Regent is known as a law school and university with a Christ-centered mindset, but is not a "Seminary".
As for the Ethiopian Church, I was simply stating what I understood of it from Scripture (that Philip explained the gospel message in Scripture, baptized the eunuch, and then was taken away) and with what I have picked up here and there regarding the historical Ethiopian Orthodox church who trace their origin to Philip and the eunuch/"royal official".
Based upon Scripture and verified by history, the church of Christ was brought to Ethiopia by the royal official after having Scripture taught to him by an Apostle. That church thrived without Pope Peter Pebble's (sorry, I just think it is a clever name) intervention and without Rome's "approval". In fact, they have their own "Papacy", the Pope of Alexandria.
If I am mistaken in my history, please direct me to a credible source and I will correct my thinking immediately.
ManimalX,
So let me see if I can understand what you are saying here. The church of Christ was brought to Ethiopia by the royal official after having Scripture taught to him by an Apostle. You also state that there was no influence from Rome whatsoever. The church thrived without “Pope Peter Pebble's” intervention and without Rome's "approval". You also draw these conclusions from scripture and verifiable history. Again, these are your words and your understanding.
Now since the church spread to Ethiopia under the direction of those taught directly by an apostle and had no influence from the “Roman Church” it seems very curious that their doctrine would be very “Catholic”. A quick glance at the doctrines of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church through out history reveals beliefs in infant baptism, the mass, seven sacraments and baptismal regeneration just to name a few.
Now remember, this Church was founded under the guidance of an apostle. The Ethiopian eunuch was taught by Philip. You stated that history verifies these facts.
So with no influence from “Roman Popes” or Constantine and operating completely independent of other Churches, in a completely isolated region of the world, how did their doctrine end up so Catholic?
I think we all know the answer to these questions already but I though you might want to take a crack at it.
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? - 11/7/2009 9:37:57 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6324
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
Irish2,
For one thing there was two Phillips mentioned in the Bible around that time. One was of course an apostle. THe other was not. There is strong evidence in the Bible the Ethiopian was taught by the latter and not the apostle. If this is true what effect would it have on your conclusion.
_____________________________
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? - 11/7/2009 9:41:13 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6324
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
Oh! and I need to add every one that taught the Gospel in those days . would have been influenced by either Jesus Himself or one of the apostles. So I will agree that regardless of which Phillip was speaking to the Enuch they would have been influenced by the apostles. But the Apostles not Rome. Because as I mentioned in an earlier post at the time Rome was not the center of the Church. The Church was spread out and the various Churches operated independently of each other. The main common thread was the Apostles.
_____________________________
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? - 11/7/2009 9:57:02 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 342
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
ManimalX - Though I can't say I agree with your post, I do hope your classes in Styematic Theology are going well. May I ask where you are taking them? Maybe you could apply some of this theology to the comments you made about the Ethiopian Eunuch. The questions I have are in post #7180.
Currently I am taking RELS 201 from Regent University of Virginia as part of the requirements for my degree from them. They use Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. I should note that I have had previous Systematic Theo experience, and as such a lot of this is kind of a review. I should also note that Regent is known as a law school and university with a Christ-centered mindset, but is not a "Seminary".
As for the Ethiopian Church, I was simply stating what I understood of it from Scripture (that Philip explained the gospel message in Scripture, baptized the eunuch, and then was taken away) and with what I have picked up here and there regarding the historical Ethiopian Orthodox church who trace their origin to Philip and the eunuch/"royal official".
Based upon Scripture and verified by history, the church of Christ was brought to Ethiopia by the royal official after having Scripture taught to him by an Apostle. That church thrived without Pope Peter Pebble's (sorry, I just think it is a clever name) intervention and without Rome's "approval". In fact, they have their own "Papacy", the Pope of Alexandria.
If I am mistaken in my history, please direct me to a credible source and I will correct my thinking immediately.
ManimalX,
So let me see if I can understand what you are saying here. The church of Christ was brought to Ethiopia by the royal official after having Scripture taught to him by an Apostle. You also state that there was no influence from Rome whatsoever. The church thrived without “Pope Peter Pebble's” intervention and without Rome's "approval". You also draw these conclusions from scripture and verifiable history. Again, these are your words and your understanding.
Now since the church spread to Ethiopia under the direction of those taught directly by an apostle and had no influence from the “Roman Church” it seems very curious that their doctrine would be very “Catholic”. A quick glance at the doctrines of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church through out history reveals beliefs in infant baptism, the mass, seven sacraments and baptismal regeneration just to name a few.
Now remember, this Church was founded under the guidance of an apostle. The Ethiopian eunuch was taught by Philip. You stated that history verifies these facts.
So with no influence from “Roman Popes” or Constantine and operating completely independent of other Churches, in a completely isolated region of the world, how did their doctrine end up so Catholic?
I think we all know the answer to these questions already but I though you might want to take a crack at it.
Peace
Don't forget the canon of scripture they use too!!! Their canon looks suspiciously familiar to the one the Catholic's "added to". I'm still waiting for someone to produce evidence from a church council that agrees with the Protestant canon.
Anyhow, ManimalX, we see no evidence whatsoever from scripture that the Ethiopian Eunuch brought the Gospel to Ethiopia. How convenient it must be for a "systematic theologian" to pick and choose when it is appropriate and when it is not appropriate to turn to extra-biblical evidence. Have it your way! If we apply the same methodology you have applied to the Ethiopian Church to the rest of the early church, you end up with a pre-Constantine church that looks very Catholic (or EO if you prefer).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/7/2009 9:58:12 AM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
Irish2,
For one thing there was two Phillips mentioned in the Bible around that time. One was of course an apostle. THe other was not. There is strong evidence in the Bible the Ethiopian was taught by the latter and not the apostle. If this is true what effect would it have on your conclusion.
Qt,
I understand what you are saying. The only point I was trying to make was that ManimalX is saying to much when he links the Ethiopian Orthodox Church to the apostle Philip. If the “royal official” took what he learned from the apostle Philip to Africa and the Ethiopian Church was later birthed then the ‘Catholic doctrine” is a big problem. He stated the church “flourished” without influence of the Roman Catholic Church. If he is correct then the Catholic doctrine originated from the apostle Philip.
Could you elaborate on the differences between the two Philips you mentioned? (I never heard that before) I’m always open to learn new things.
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? - 11/7/2009 10:12:56 AM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
Don't forget the canon of scripture they use too!!! Their canon looks suspiciously familiar to the one the Catholic's "added to". I'm still waiting for someone to produce evidence from a church council that agrees with the Protestant canon.
Anyhow, ManimalX, we see no evidence whatsoever from scripture that the Ethiopian Eunuch brought the Gospel to Ethiopia. How convenient it must be for a "systematic theologian" to pick and choose when it is appropriate and when it is not appropriate to turn to extra-biblical evidence. Have it your way! If we apply the same methodology you have applied to the Ethiopian Church to the rest of the early church, you end up with a pre-Constantine church that looks very Catholic (or EO if you prefer).
Wkirscher,
Amen
What a great witness to Apostolic succession!
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? - 11/7/2009 10:24:42 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6324
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
Irish2,
For one thing there was two Phillips mentioned in the Bible around that time. One was of course an apostle. THe other was not. There is strong evidence in the Bible the Ethiopian was taught by the latter and not the apostle. If this is true what effect would it have on your conclusion.
Qt,
I understand what you are saying. The only point I was trying to make was that ManimalX is saying to much when he links the Ethiopian Orthodox Church to the apostle Philip. If the “royal official” took what he learned from the apostle Philip to Africa and the Ethiopian Church was later birthed then the ‘Catholic doctrine” is a big problem. He stated the church “flourished” without influence of the Roman Catholic Church. If he is correct then the Catholic doctrine originated from the apostle Philip.
Could you elaborate on the differences between the two Philips you mentioned? (I never heard that before) I’m always open to learn new things.
Peace
I would be gald to. First you have Phillip the Apostle. This Phillip was one of the original twelve. Most of what we know about him comes from the Book of John.
The second was Phillip the Evangelist. This phillip was one of the original seven men chosen to handle the temporal duties involved in the church. I guess what we would today call a Deacon. This Phillip is mentioned often on the Book of Acts. It is this Phillip that went to the Ethiopian and explained the Gospel. Or at least this is what is indicated.
_____________________________
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? - 11/7/2009 10:43:52 AM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
Irish2,
For one thing there was two Phillips mentioned in the Bible around that time. One was of course an apostle. THe other was not. There is strong evidence in the Bible the Ethiopian was taught by the latter and not the apostle. If this is true what effect would it have on your conclusion.
Thanks for the info. I really appreciate it.
Peace
Qt,
I understand what you are saying. The only point I was trying to make was that ManimalX is saying to much when he links the Ethiopian Orthodox Church to the apostle Philip. If the “royal official” took what he learned from the apostle Philip to Africa and the Ethiopian Church was later birthed then the ‘Catholic doctrine” is a big problem. He stated the church “flourished” without influence of the Roman Catholic Church. If he is correct then the Catholic doctrine originated from the apostle Philip.
Could you elaborate on the differences between the two Philips you mentioned? (I never heard that before) I’m always open to learn new things.
Peace
I would be gald to. First you have Phillip the Apostle. This Phillip was one of the original twelve. Most of what we know about him comes from the Book of John.
The second was Phillip the Evangelist. This phillip was one of the original seven men chosen to handle the temporal duties involved in the church. I guess what we would today call a Deacon. This Phillip is mentioned often on the Book of Acts. It is this Phillip that went to the Ethiopian and explained the Gospel. Or at least this is what is indicated.
_____________________________
"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? - 11/7/2009 11:11:06 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
ManimalX,
Nice posts!
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? - 11/7/2009 11:15:48 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 598
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
QTMAN WROTE:
quote:
In the beginning of the Christian Church the Apostles were the Bishops of the churches.
This is very true, and there were also other Bishops appointed by the Apostles or by those the Apostles had appointed.
quote:
Notice that Churches is plural. History records their were many churches through out the land.
Yes, and they were One Body in structure and belief. Cf. 1 Cor 12:12, Jn 17:11.
quote:
Each of these Churches, although connected through the Apostles, pretty much operated independently of each other.
I’m not sure what exactly you mean. Are the different parts of one Body independent of one another?
quote:
I have to believe their core beliefs were the same because they were taught by the apostles.
This is true. The documents indicate that the constant beliefs of the Catholic Church between 33 and 300 A.D. differ remarkably from the distinctive reformational doctrines, and correspond to the modern Catholic Catechism.
http://www.catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp
quote:
Yes there was a Church established in Rome and that Church had a Bishop.
Yes, and these Bishops of Rome were believed to have a superior authority and were sending letters and supplies to the Churches abroad.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
quote:
There was also mass persecution of the Christians through out Rome. Three years later, in 314 AD Constantine I issued a decree that all of the churches would be joined together to create one State Religion for Rome.
Could you post a link so we can see exactly what this letter says?
quote:
This church was centered in Rome. Even after Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire the Church Headquarters, for lack of a better term, stayed in Rome and the Bishop of Rome gain much more recognition in the secular world.
Why would this be the case if the primacy of the Roman Bishop was based primarily on political factors rather than spiritual ones having to do with the Church's belief in Peter’s Primacy and the Apostolic Succession?
http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
quote:
Everything from then to now has built on that. History records that the Roman Catholic Church was not the original Church but was established in 314.
Then why was there no substantial—but only a developmental (cf Mt 4:31-32)—change in the Church and her beliefs from before Constantine’s conversion to after his conversion?
Since there no essential change, why not see the change of Constantine as a providence which allowed the only Bride of Christ to further develop Bodily (Lk 2:52), and—because of the lessening persecution--deepen her conscious awareness (cf. Luke 2:19) on what She had always beleived?
(I refer for example to the Church's developing doctrines about the Trinity, the Biblical Canon, and about the primacy of the Roman Succession.)
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/7/2009 2:53:01 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/7/2009 2:58:13 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 598
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
MANIMALX WROTE:
quote:
I said "uniformity" is not possible, nor is it desirable.
I agree. In my experience, "Papists" differ greatly in personality and culture, and very many are not even of the Latin Rite.
For instance, on vacation I went to a Ukrainian Catholic Rite Church in North Dakota. All the beliefs were the same but the culture is different.
Actually there are more than 20 Rites in the Catholic Church. (The root ones are: Alexandrian Rite, the Roman Rite, the Antiochian Rite)
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/7/2009 6:46:14 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/7/2009 2:58:41 PM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2745
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: online
|
Are you trying to say that Constantine's impact on the church was positive?
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
 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
