Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 2:57:19 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1063
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
I would also very much hesitate to jump on an airplane flown by someone who refuses to read the manual, and when something in the manual is pointed out, claims that the manual is wrong because "this is the way he's always done it".
Those adhering to sola scriptura do not refuse to read or listen to other material regarding the scripture if we're having trouble with interpretation of it. We merely refuse to hold tradition as a higher authority than scripture. Scripture is the highest authority, and as my pastor often says, "Read the scripture yourself, and if something I'm saying contradicts the scripture, then the scripture should be your authority, and you can call me on it."
You make it sound like we're locking ourselves in a room with a Bible every Sunday. Your pointing out of the diversity in denominations should show you that's not true, if anything else.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 3:39:36 PM
|
|
|
Catholicandloveit
Posts: 672
Joined: 1/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
More on that later. I am waiting to see how Benedict deals with the American Church - which provides enormous fincial support, while enjoying a degree of latitude not enjoyed anywhere else in the world. I am wondering if the hammer is going to fall. My bet is - no.
Hey Doghouse - We don't have cable right now so I am really limited in the coverage I get to see. I don't think the hammer will fall, I do hope their are some (I really hope mine) Bishops taking notes of his masses.
Mary
< Message edited by Catholicandloveit -- 4/15/2008 4:19:41 PM >
_____________________________
Eternal God, in whom mercy is endless, look kindly upon us and increase Your mercy in us, that in difficult moments we might not despair nor become despondent, but with great confidence submit ourselves to Your holy will, which is Love and Mercy itself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 4:09:21 PM
|
|
|
Catholicandloveit
Posts: 672
Joined: 1/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
It simply has to be right because "Mom-n-Dad believed it". Nobody would even think about the fact that 'Mom-n-Dad' never thought to question it, nor their parents, grandparents, and on, and on... Where there is no spiritual discernment (instituted by teaching) there is no need to move forward... Hence the 'Lemming Factor'. Yet they'll defend the pope as their infallible leader, even though they have no clue how far from the teachings of Christ and His apostles that this 'leadership' has moved.
I am guessing that they don't see it as being lead away from Christs teaching.  I know I disagree with you 100% on this point.
But I do agree with you 100% that lots people Catholics and Non-Catholics alike follow a faith blindly because its what they always known. At some point we all have to move from a childs faith (based mostly on the adults around us) to an Adult faith with an understanding of the whys, whats, and hows behind it.
Mary
< Message edited by Catholicandloveit -- 4/15/2008 4:18:03 PM >
_____________________________
Eternal God, in whom mercy is endless, look kindly upon us and increase Your mercy in us, that in difficult moments we might not despair nor become despondent, but with great confidence submit ourselves to Your holy will, which is Love and Mercy itself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 4:28:48 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1144
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
I would also very much hesitate to jump on an airplane flown by someone who refuses to read the manual, and when something in the manual is pointed out, claims that the manual is wrong because "this is the way he's always done it". If someone picks up the flight manual, and discerns that 5 degrees of flap are required for a headwind of 15 knots for rotation at 4800' of rollout at 80% service load, 80 °F ambient, 2,500 feet GL - who are you or I to point a finger and disagree?
That is - unless you have been to school and been properly instructed as pilot, and have taken the required courses and prepared yourself in such a way to know that actually 8 degrees of flap is required in this situtation.
How is it any different to know and discern the finer points of Christian instruction? Many cite "the Holy Spirit". Well, maybe the "workings of the Spirit" are seen in people who are led to a dedicated, consecrated life of religious service, and are gifted to complete a Doctorate in Theology from Notre Dame or Boston College.
And it is in these gifted and qualified people we should place our trust, and not in Richard Roberts, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyers, Benny Hinn...
Kelman is right - this becomes a matter of personal judgment. I am just laying out my case for the masses here. Judge for yourself.
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 4/15/2008 4:34:56 PM >
_____________________________
I, then, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 4:29:39 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 774
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
doghouse,
Not to be rude;quote:
But somehow - when it comes to faith - everybody is the pilot. Regardless of the amount of training, the amount of simulator hours, the tests taken, etc., anybody can hop behind the controls, fire up the plane - and fly.
We read in Excodus where God is talking to the children of Israel (Ex. 19:4-6) Notice these words "you will be for me a kingdom of priest and a holy nation." That it is everyone's responsabilty to govern their own life. We also get that same picture from the writer in Rev. 5: 10, where it is written " You have made them to be a kingdom and priest to serve our God and they will reign on the earth." Which again is saying that knowledge must be given to average joe through scriptures.
Which as I was a young lad. I had a friend,who was RCC at that time. Said that mass was spoken in latin for the most part. That 1% of the people weren't even allowed to have bibles. If he was telling me the truth. Then RCC has even till recent history had bad ideals in their head.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 4:44:06 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1063
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
I would also very much hesitate to jump on an airplane flown by someone who refuses to read the manual, and when something in the manual is pointed out, claims that the manual is wrong because "this is the way he's always done it". If someone picks up the flight manual, and discerns that 5 degrees of flap are required for a headwind of 15 knots for rotation at 4800' of rollout at 80% service load, 80 °F ambient, 2,500 feet GL - who are you or I to point a finger and disagree?
That is - unless you have been to school and been properly instructed as pilot, and have taken the required courses and prepared yourself in such a way to know that actually 8 degrees of flap is required in this situtation.
How is it any different to know and discern the finer points of Christian instruction? Many cite "the Holy Spirit". Well, maybe the "workings of the Spirit" are seen in people who are led to a dedicated, consecrated life of religious service, and are gifted to complete a Doctorate in Theology from Notre Dame or Boston College.
And it is in these gifted and qualified people we should place our trust, and not in Richard Roberts, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyers, Benny Hinn...
Kelman is right - this becomes a matter of personal judgment. I am just laying out my case for the masses here. Judge for yourself.
The problem with that is that the people you listed are pretty obviously in violation of the Scriptures as well. You can't take cult leaders who are abusing the scripture to get fame, power, and money (just as many of the Popes have done in the past, so it's hardly a Protestant-only phenomenon) and claim that they're an example of the problem with self-interpretation. If that's the case, then since your Popes have had some demonstrably serious interpretation problems as well, apparently no one can interpret the scriptures, tradition cannot have been reliably brought forward, and we are therefore all hopelessly lost.
If I have reason to suspect that a pilot is not paying any attention to his flight manual, then I would look in the flight manual for myself. If the flight manual says something entirely different (since those are just tables anyway, and I can handle tables just as anyone with an education above the 6th grade should be able to), then I would ask the pilot to explain to me why he's saying something other than what the tables are saying. If he shrugs it off with a "well, it's always been that way" and I know that he came from a long line of pilots being trained by pilots who often crashed their planes repeatedly if they even managed to get them off the ground, then I would get off that plane post haste.
Most Protestant pastors have also completed a Doctorate in Theology.
Most of your Popes throughout history did not.
So that's kind of a moot point.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 6:11:00 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 730
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
The RC appeals to empirical evidence to prove that some Scripture cannot be understood by some people. Too bad Christ NEVER said ANYTHING even remotely like this... And seeing as He is the ultimate authority on EVERYTHING, I'm sure He would have said this instead of commending folks for going to scripture and saying the Holy Ghost will teach us through scripture when necessary... But then again, the Roman Catholic Church knows so much better than Jesus Christ, so you'd better listen to the pope when he calls Jesus a liar...
< Message edited by Papa-san -- 4/15/2008 6:19:28 PM >
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 6:12:59 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 620
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
Which as I was a young lad. I had a friend,who was RCC at that time. Said that mass was spoken in latin for the most part. That 1% of the people weren't even allowed to have bibles. If he was telling me the truth. Then RCC has even till recent history had bad ideals in their head.
Which 1% of the people were forbidden to own bibles? I have never heard that one before.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 6:14:57 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 620
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
The RC appeals to empirical evidence to prove that some Scripture cannot be understood by some people. Too bad Christ NEVER said ANYTHING even remotely like this...
You are telling us that Christ said that we will all infallibly interpret scripture? That if one denomination baptizes infants and the other doesn't, it doesn't matter because we are both the sole judge of the meaning of scripture?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 6:16:25 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 730
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
No, I'm saying what Christ said: The Spirit will take care of it...
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 6:24:32 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 730
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
Rather interesting, I think.
But 'rehabilitate'? That's what Luther was trying to do with the RCC... They wanted his head for it... So, if Luther is once again accepted, wil RCC finally stop with all the corrupt practices? Wouldn't really be able to call it the RCC anymore, as almost everything about the way they practice would have to be flushed so they could start with the couple of things they actually do correctly...
I'm not seeing it... It's just words to help the apologists have some more empty ammo...
Rather curious as to how they will manage to spin the whole outrage at indulgences thing... Must be they just want to incorporate some more lies into their 'Tradition'...
However, the photos of the pope and entourage make me think of widened philacteries and seeking self glorification through their Pride...
< Message edited by Papa-san -- 4/15/2008 6:34:39 PM >
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 6:47:52 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1144
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
You make it sound like we're locking ourselves in a room with a Bible every Sunday That's exactly what it should sound like. The Churches outside the ancient communions are congregational - the authority (practical authority) stops with the pastor, or maybe the elders. So theologies may develop in isolation, and it is the case that the Fourth Baptist Church has no idea what the First Baptist Church is instructing.
So let's say there is a disagreement between you and your pastor. And you call him on it as requested. And he disagrees and states that your discernment is in error. Now, we are back to Kelman's Personal Judgment. You may vote with your feet, and leave, and go somewhere else or maybe even start your own congregation with your own discernment, pastorally leading a flock of like-minded followers.
Where is the Scriptural authority in this? It sounds to me like a great mechanism to further schism and divide the Body of Christ, and a great way to evolve and innovate Christian Theology - away from the Deposit of Faith. If this is Spirit-driven, don't you think the Spirit might have a vested interest in keeping everyone in the same playbook? The one Jesus placed in the Apostles? The one practiced by the early Chrisitians.
Back to the Ancient Communions - if you disagree, you leave. Not to start another Ancient Communion (as you would have abandoned Apostolic See and the Magisterium to do so...) but to be seperated. By your own choosing.
Jesus laid down a faith and deposited it with the Apostles, who passed it to their followers (Scripture was one such mechanism by which this faith, its definition, and its instruction was passed). There are two Churches that lay claim to this Apostolic See (both with excellent cases). And then there are a bunch of others who abandoned that, and re-invented faith 1500 years after the fact of the Deposit of Faith, using a "whatever" rendering of Scriptures to define and instruct their individual faiths (Presbyterians are not Lutherans, Methodists are not Anglicans, etc...)
And it is up to each of us to choose between those alternatives to help us formulate, practice and live our professed faiths. Choose with wisdom and grace; the stakes are pretty high.
By the way - if Scripture is the only authority, what is the validity of the Christianity practiced by followers of Christ between His resurrection and about 100 AD when Relvelations was beginning to circulate? Certianly there was an authority for Christianity, and it wasn't NT Scriptures as we know them, because these were not even completed until late in the first century (for the most part - the four Gospels, Acts and some of the Epistles). I suppose there is a thread open for that somewhere.
Are all these followers and martyrs in limbo somewhere, because they did not have the sole authority of Scriptures to light their path to God?
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 4/15/2008 6:58:17 PM >
_____________________________
I, then, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 7:10:44 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1063
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
That's exactly what it should sound like. The Churches outside the ancient communions are congregational - the authority (practical authority) stops with the pastor, or maybe the elders. So theologies may develop in isolation, and it is the case that the Fourth Baptist Church has no idea what the First Baptist Church is instructing.
Um, the numbering on churches (Baptist or otherwise) has to do with the chronological order of their founding in a community. Their denomination has nothing to do with the "First". Often these churches split out of the original churches due to size issues, not differences of opinions (the church we attended before our last move was one of those church splits due to size issues. We agreed with the parent church, but the parent church simply could not cope with the numbers anymore and seeded off our church for the size and geographical convenience of some of its members.) Most cities have multiple Catholic churches for the same reason.
quote:
So let's say there is a disagreement between you and your pastor. And you call him on it as requested. And he disagrees and states that your discernment is in error. Now, we are back to Kelman's Personal Judgment. You may vote with your feet, and leave, and go somewhere else or maybe even start your own congregation with your own discernment, pastorally leading a flock of like-minded followers.
We would discuss it and search the scripture until we reached an agreement, or at least a reasonable understanding of each others' positions. Unlike a priest, my pastor would never outright tell me that my discernment is wrong flat out, without first going over the scripture and scriptures related to it. This actually happened in my church as we decided to update our church bylaws... there was a veritable breeze from all the Bible-page-turning going on in there, and everyone came to an agreement on how things should be done according to scripture. No one left.
quote:
Where is the Scriptural authority in this? It sounds to me like a great mechanism to further schism and divide the Body of Christ, and a great way to evolve and innovate Christian Theology - away from the Deposit of Faith. If this is Spirit-driven, don't you think the Spirit might have a vested interest in keeping everyone in the same playbook? The one Jesus placed in the Apostles? The one practiced by the early Chrisitians.
Absolutely. That playbook is the Bible, especially the parts literally written by the Apostles. Again, denominations aren't really what you think. They're more organizational and stylistic than they are theological. Some people like hymns, some people like rock. *shrug*
quote:
Back to the Ancient Communions - if you disagree, you leave. Not to start another Ancient Communion (as you would have abandoned Apostolic See and the Magisterium to do so...) but to be seperated. By your own choosing.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Luther would never have started the reformation had the Catholic church of his time not been corrupt beyond belief. Even the Catholic church now considers many of the activities he had serious issues with wrong now.
quote:
Jesus laid down a faith and deposited it with the Apostles, who passed it to their followers (Scripture was one such mechanism by which this faith, its definition, and its instruction was passed). There are two Churches that lay claim to this Apostolic See (both with excellent cases). And then there are a bunch of others who abandoned that, and re-invented faith 1500 years after the fact of the Deposit of Faith, using a "whatever" rendering of Scriptures to define and instruct their individual faiths (Presbyterians are not Lutherans, Methodists are not Anglicans, etc...)
Again, they aren't really individual faiths. They're all based in trust on Jesus Christ. I've personally been a member of three seperate denominations within the past 10 years (because we moved, not because I disagreed and left) and their beliefs are basically identical... the difference has been entirely organizational.
quote:
And it is up to each of us to choose between those alternatives to help us formulate, practice and live our professed faiths. Choose with wisdom and grace; the stakes are pretty high.
That's why we must devote ourselves to prayer and the study of the scriptures.
quote:
By the way - if Scripture is the only authority, what is the validity of the Christianity practiced by followers of Christ between His resurrection and about 100 AD when Relvelations was beginning to circulate? Certianly there was an authority for Christianity, and it wasn't NT Scriptures as we know them, because these were not even completed until late in the first century (for the most part - the four Gospels, Acts and some of the Epistles). I suppose there is a thread open for that somewhere.
Actually a lot of heresies started right off the bat. I've been reading Paul's letters and most of his letters are spent in addressing those heresies and straightening them out. So, if you're counting on tradition to be working properly, it apparently didn't even work within the lifetimes of the apostles. Now, almost 2 millenia later, you expect them to have kept it right? Especially with some of the Popes I could point out as incredibly depraved and immoral people even by the world's standards?
quote:
Are all these followers and martyrs in limbo somewhere, because they did not have the sole authority of Scriptures to light their path to God?
They had the apostles, and the letters and gospels that later became the Scriptures. I trust the Scriptures because those are the actual writings of the original apostles, and because Scripture itself says it is trustworthy.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 7:12:50 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 679
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Hey, Papa-San,
Hope you and all are celebrating a blessed Easter Season with your families.
You quoted Doghouse:
quote:
The RC appeals to empirical evidence to prove that some Scripture cannot be understood by some people.
And responded:
quote:
Too bad Christ NEVER said ANYTHING even remotely like this... And seeing as He is the ultimate authority on EVERYTHING, I'm sure He would have said this instead of commending folks for going to scripture and saying the Holy Ghost will teach us through scripture when necessary...
I'd be interested to see where Christ Himself "commend[ed] folks for going to scripture and saying the Holy Ghost will teach us through scripture when necessary." C & V would be appreciated.
In fact, if you do actually believe Scripture is infallible, we find St. Peter [the Church's first Pope] writing in his Second Epistle:
"And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, JUST AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES." 2Pet. 3:15-16
It appears to me Scripture supports Doghouse's premise rather than yours.
Pax Christi,
gatolover
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 7:20:52 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1144
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
If I have reason to suspect that a pilot is not paying any attention to his flight manual, How would you have this doubt? A lack of faith in the authority (the FAA, Delta Airlines...)? So - a challenge to authority and perhaps even schism (taking another airline with another pilot in which you can place your trust...) is rooted in a lack of faith?
Makes sense to me.
If a Church leader is abusing his office (Benny Hinn or the Pope), it is the responsibility of those who suspect the abuse to point it out, and then to vote with their feet, if need be. Until such time that the abuse can be remedied. But do the actions of that abusive leader compromise God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit or faith?
In spite of all the history of less-than-savory leadership, these incidents have in no way comrpomised the faith instructed. Some have a problem with indulgences, for example, because of the history of abuse. And its true that the people running things could have been a little more sensitive to the appearance of impropriety (real or virtual...). But - the Church is responsible for the keys and may bind and loose what she so chooses. This authority was given her through the Apostles by Jesus. For those who cry "Scripture alone" - its right there in black and white. Jesus left those keys to somebody, and for some reason. Where are they if they are not in some Church somewhere? They weren't lost or left like some proverbial car keys or something. Did the Muslims steal the keys?
We all (her members and followers of her instruction) hope that she uses that authority responsibly. And the track record would suggest that the Church has been a valid way for people to receive instruction and live faith. More so than other alternatives out there.
Where are the keys today? Who possesses this authority? Your pastor? Your elder board? Does each individual believer possess his or her own little personal copy of the key?
If there were duplicates made of the keys. it renders the whole story and the use of that imagery invalid. Jesus is speaking of authority, and that authority was left in the Apostolic Church - the one the Apostles built by their teachings and with their followers. Who lays claim to being the Apostolic Church in this day and age? What claim does a Church started from a blank sheet of paper in the 16th century have on the Apostolic Authority? Who's claim is valid?
Decide for yourself, and go to that Church.
_____________________________
I, then, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 7:44:55 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1063
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
How would you have this doubt? A lack of faith in the authority (the FAA, Delta Airlines...)? So - a challenge to authority and perhaps even schism (taking another airline with another pilot in which you can place your trust...) is rooted in a lack of faith?
Makes sense to me.
We are not to have faith in people, we are to have faith in God.
quote:
If a Church leader is abusing his office (Benny Hinn or the Pope), it is the responsibility of those who suspect the abuse to point it out, and then to vote with their feet, if need be. Until such time that the abuse can be remedied. But do the actions of that abusive leader compromise God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit or faith?
*Peruses through the articles on the recent Catholic pedophilia scandals* You tell me. At least I can claim that Benny Hinn's views are not views that I personally ascribe to.
quote:
In spite of all the history of less-than-savory leadership, these incidents have in no way comrpomised the faith instructed. Some have a problem with indulgences, for example, because of the history of abuse. And its true that the people running things could have been a little more sensitive to the appearance of impropriety (real or virtual...). But - the Church is responsible for the keys and may bind and loose what she so chooses. This authority was given her through the Apostles by Jesus. For those who cry "Scripture alone" - its right there in black and white. Jesus left those keys to somebody, and for some reason. Where are they if they are not in some Church somewhere? They weren't lost or left like some proverbial car keys or something. Did the Muslims steal the keys?
So you're telling me that the Catholic church is allowed, by God, to do anything the Catholic church wants, because Jesus left keys with them. That doesn't scare you at all? You're okay with all the burning people at the stake and torture and sacking Jerusalem for political gains and bribery and debauchery and doing things for money because the Catholic church has the keys and anything they do is okay (with perhaps a caveat that they should try to be "sensitive")?
Yoiks.
quote:
We all (her members and followers of her instruction) hope that she uses that authority responsibly. And the track record would suggest that the Church has been a valid way for people to receive instruction and live faith. More so than other alternatives out there.
Has the Catholic church been a valid way for people to receive instruction and live by faith? Sure. More so than the current alternatives? I doubt it.
What do you do when she does not use that authority responsibly? It's happened a great deal in the past. It can certainly happen again. The pedophilia scandal is most certainly an example of irresponsible use of authority.
quote:
Where are the keys today? Who possesses this authority? Your pastor? Your elder board? Does each individual believer possess his or her own little personal copy of the key?
Hmm. Do you go up to rich Christians and yell "WHERE IS YOUR CAMEL?! I HAVE A NEEDLE!!" It's a metaphor.
But, you're basically insisting that the only copy of the "keys" was held, by, say, Pope Alexander VI, who had 7 illegitimate children as Cardinal (that he openly acknowledged), and an affair with a married woman as Pope. You're saying that the direct spiritual descendent and apostolic successor of Peter, holder of the apparently literal keys to the kingdom of heaven, was Pope John XII, who turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Latenero into a brothel and committed adultery, fornication, AND incest before he was deposed.
I somehow think Peter would be a tad disgusted, frankly.
quote:
If there were duplicates made of the keys. it renders the whole story and the use of that imagery invalid. Jesus is speaking of authority, and that authority was left in the Apostolic Church - the one the Apostles built by their teachings and with their followers. Who lays claim to being the Apostolic Church in this day and age? What claim does a Church started from a blank sheet of paper in the 16th century have on the Apostolic Authority? Who's claim is valid? Decide for yourself, and go to that Church.
It didn't start from a blank sheet of paper. It started from Scripture.
Plenty of churches claim to be apostolic, btw, though you might not agree with their assessment.
There have been several times in history when there were multiple Popes, for that matter. Who had the keys? At one point, there were 3 Popes and they got rid of all 3 of them and elected an entirely different Pope. So which of the 3 of the others had the keys at that time?
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 7:46:49 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1144
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Um, the numbering on churches (Baptist or otherwise) has to do with the chronological order of their founding in a community. So, would you concede to me that Protestant Church authority is for the most part congregational, and not more hierarchcal or centralized?
quote:
We would discuss it and search the scripture until we reached an agreement, or at least a reasonable understanding of each others' positions. So, your pastor is not authoritative in his teaching and instruction to you? Why do you go if you have all the answers?
quote:
That playbook is the Bible, especially the parts literally written by the Apostles. Except that there seem to be some variant readings of Scriptural instruction out there. So we can say for certain that some congregations possess heresy and some possess the truth. How do we decide? If the answer is "Scriptures", then we are back to persoanl judgment and personal authority of what we believe Scriptures to say, given our own personal gifts and limitations, rather than recognizing the signs of an authoritative voice, who can do this better for us than we ourselves can.
quote:
Luther would never have started the reformation had the Catholic church of his time not been corrupt beyond belief. Don't be so sure...the politics of the time in Germay makes for some fascinating reading.
quote:
Even the Catholic church now considers many of the activities he had serious issues with wrong now. The Catholic Chruch is erecting a statue of Galileo next year celebrating the 400th anniversary of the discovery of the telescope, so obviously the Church is able to deal with its own history...
quote:
Again, they aren't really individual faiths. They're all based in trust on Jesus Christ. Wht do they recognize as Sacramental? What do they require of the faithful? What do they teach on divorce, ministerial qualifications, orer of worship? I'll concede that every Christian on the planet has, as a foundation of faith, a trust in Jesus. Catholics think this trust is reflected in receiving the Sacraments, attending Mass and practicing charity, while noting that others seem to either not trust these teachings, or disagree that they were actually taught, or believe that although they were instructed, they were merely optional.
quote:
Actually a lot of heresies started right off the bat. And some remained faithful to the truth. We have to believe (anyone who accepts 27 NT Books believes this) that the truth won out and is what is given to us through the Magisterium - reflected in Scriptures.
quote:
and because Scripture itself says it is trustworthy. Me, saying that I am a watermelon, does not make me a watermelon. We accept Scriptures on some kind of authority, otherwise Scriptures are just ink on paper. I am challenging people's notion of that authority in this thread about the office which voices what I believe to be my authority. People seem to take this "Scriptural authoirty" thing for granted, without conceding the fact that somebody taught you that Scriptures were valid for defining your faith (your parents, your Sunday School teacher, your pastor...) My calin is that whoever you believed when they told you this - that's your authority.
_____________________________
I, then, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 7:48:09 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1144
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
At least I can claim that Benny Hinn's views are not views that I personally ascribe to. I can assure you that the views of a pedophile are not ones I subscribe to...
But thanks for that...
quote:
So you're telling me that the Catholic church is allowed, by God, to do anything the Catholic church wants, because Jesus left keys with them. That doesn't scare you at all? You're okay with all the burning people at the stake and torture and sacking Jerusalem for political gains and bribery and debauchery and doing things for money because the Catholic church has the keys and anything they do is okay (with perhaps a caveat that they should try to be "sensitive")? Have you read up on Calvin? On William of Orange? Do you think that the Catholics were the only ones doing this? Does this activity change the pillars of faith? Or simply reflect corrupt leaders running amok?
Whens the last time you saw a headline in the paper about the Catholics burning someone at the stake?
quote:
I somehow think Peter would be a tad disgusted, frankly. Deservedly so. Show me chapter and verse where the faith is rendered invalid by the abuses of the leadership in the 15th century? My point is - that through all of this - Catholics were not instructed dogma that was invalid or that effectively destroyed the Church. The extra-curricular activities of Church leaders makes them horrible leaders; it doesn't make Apostolic faith invalid.
Protestants are not immune to these scandals. It seems that there are just some people you can't trust with being put in charge. I would also point out that for every case of bad behavior, there came a period of internal re-examination and reform.
quote:
Who had the keys? At one point, there were 3 Popes and they got rid of all 3 of them and elected an entirely different Pope. So which of the 3 of the others had the keys at that time? Its of little concern to me - I was born in the early 1960's...
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 4/15/2008 8:04:04 PM >
_____________________________
I, then, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 8:00:05 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1063
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
So, would you concede to me that Protestant Church authority is for the most part congregational, and not more hierarchcal or centralized?
Depends on the denomination. Southern Baptists, for instance, are very heirarchical and centralized, Evangelical Free are very congregational.
quote:
So, your pastor is not authoritative in his teaching and instruction to you? Why do you go if you have all the answers?
He is, but there's a higher authority than our pastor. What would you do if your priest gave teaching or instruction that you knew the Pope didn't agree with? I've heard of it happening.
I go because there's fellowship there, and because I learn things, which I then flesh out the knowledge of through my own study of Scripture. So far, I haven't been in scriptural disagreement with anything the pastor has taught.
quote:
Except that there seem to be some variant readings of Scriptural instruction out there. So we can say for certain that some congregations possess heresy and some possess the truth. How do we decide? If the answer is "Scriptures", then we are back to persoanl judgment and personal authority of what we believe Scriptures to say, given our own personal gifts and limitations, rather than recognizing the signs of an authoritative voice, who can do this better for us than we ourselves can.
Heresy and personal preference are very different things. My congregation can have a different personal preference in, say, music, than the congregation down the street, but neither congregation believes the other congregation's musical preference is heresy, or anything close.
Things that are considered heresies are things that are easily pointed out to be wrong according to Scripture.
quote:
Don't be so sure...the politics of the time in Germay makes for some fascinating reading.
So you're all about, say, selling papal dispensations for money, then?
quote:
The Catholic Chruch is erecting a statue of Galileo next year celebrating the 400th anniversary of the discovery of the telescope, so obviously the Church is able to deal with its own history...
Exactly. They changed their mind, didn't they. They now think it was wrong.
quote:
Wht do they recognize as Sacramental? What do they require of the faithful? What do they teach on divorce, ministerial qualifications, orer of worship? I'll concede that every Christian on the planet has, as a foundation of faith, a trust in Jesus. Catholics think this trust is reflected in receiving the Sacraments, attending Mass and practicing charity, while noting that others seem to either not trust these teachings, or disagree that they were actually taught, or believe that although they were instructed, they were merely optional.
We also have Communion, Baptism, Marriage, etc. Ministerial qualifications depend on the denomination, as do views on divorce more or less. We attend church, we practice charity.
Surely you're not suggesting that every single Catholic attends Mass every single week, never gets divorced, and always practices charity? Because I can introduce you to a few...
quote:
We have to believe (anyone who accepts 27 NT Books believes this) that the truth won out and is what is given to us through the Magisterium - reflected in Scriptures.
We believe that the truth that won out IS the Scriptures.
quote:
Me, saying that I am a watermelon, does not make me a watermelon. We accept Scriptures on some kind of authority, otherwise Scriptures are just ink on paper. I am challenging people's notion of that authority in this thread about the office which voices what I believe to be my authority. People seem to take this "Scriptural authoirty" thing for granted, without conceding the fact that somebody taught you that Scriptures were valid for defining your faith (your parents, your Sunday School teacher, your pastor...) My calin is that whoever you believed when they told you this - that's your authority.
We accept Scripture's authority based on the fact that it was literally written by the apostles, the fact that it is the divinely inspired Word of God, God-breathed, preserved through time, as His message to us.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 8:06:27 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1063
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
I can assure you that the views of a pedophile are not ones I subscribe to...
But thanks for that...
But they are your church authorities.
quote:
Have you read up on Calvin? On William of Orange? Do you think that the Catholics were the only ones doing this? Does this activity change the pillars of faith? Or simply reflect corrupt leaders running amok?
Whens the last time you saw a headline in the paper about the Catholics burning someone at the stake?
Hey, I'm not the one claiming a pure unbroken apostolic succession throughout history. To me, it doesn't matter... to you, it MUST, because it is the BASIS of your reliance on tradition and your claim that your church is "the one". Me, I just say "here's my Bible, let me flip to what an actual apostle said."
quote:
Deservedly so. Show me chapter and verse where the faith is rendered invalid by the abuses of the leadership in the 15th century? My point is - that through all of this - Catholics were not instructed dogma that was invalid or that effectively destroyed the Church. The extra-curricular activities of Church leaders makes them horrible leaders; it doesn't make Apostolic faith invalid.
Protestants are not immune to these scandals. It seems that there are just some people you can't trust with being put in charge. I would also point out that for every case of bad behavior, there came a period of internal re-examination and reform.
Nope, because it was the faith of the apostles. Obviously it wasn't transferred to these people, so they were not part of an apostolic succession... which means that either apostolic succession happened through someone other than the Popes, or there wasn't any except in the actual faithful of any time, regardless of their actual position or title... which means that Luther is more likely to be an actual apostolic successor than, say, John XVII.
quote:
Who had the keys? At one point, there were 3 Popes and they got rid of all 3 of them and elected an entirely different Pope. So which of the 3 of the others had the keys at that time? Its of little concern to me - I was born in the early 1960's...
But you just told me that having the keys is the important thing, and that the Pope is the one who holds the keys, and there is only one set, and that my church can't possibly have any keys because your Pope has the only set. Are you rescinding that?
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 8:33:32 PM
|
|
|
kielbasa
Posts: 164
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Nope, because it was the faith of the apostles. Obviously it wasn't transferred to these people, so they were not part of an apostolic succession... which means that either apostolic succession happened through someone other than the Popes, or there wasn't any except in the actual faithful of any time, regardless of their actual position or title... which means that Luther is more likely to be an actual apostolic successor than, say, John XVII.
Are you sure you understand what "Apostolic Succession" means?
_____________________________
"This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 8:54:06 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1063
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
Sure. It's the claim that the line of bishops of a given church is historically traceable back to the original twelve apostles... the most important of which is Peter, as he was given primacy by Jesus over his fellow apostles which is now reflected by the papacy. I've been primarily dealing with the papacy because it's the most obvious and considered hierarchically highest by Roman Catholics, and because the line to Peter has been repeatedly stressed by those I'm discussing with.
Apostolic succession is currently claimed by the Assyrian Church of the East, Armenian Apostolic Church, Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Thomas Christians, Old Catholic, Polish National Catholic, Porvoo Communion Lutheran, and Anglican. "Apostolic Church" status is claimed by a slew of Protestant denominations on top of that, though they don't generally claim succession as well (some do).
Edit: Oops. Said "Roman Catholic" twice and forgot to list Porvoo Communion Lutheran.
< Message edited by Zhi -- 4/15/2008 9:34:59 PM >
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/15/2008 10:29:39 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 571
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Is Pope Benedict walking on water? Because of the faith he is displaying!
Matthew 14:22-33
Jesus Walks on the Water
22 Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. 23And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, 24but the boat by this time was a long way from the land, beaten by the waves, for the wind was against them. 25And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. 26But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, "It is a ghost!" and they cried out in fear. 27But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, "Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid."
28And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water." 29He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me." 31Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?" 32And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. 33And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
PeterD
|
|
|
|
 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
