RE: Why do we need a Pope? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Christian Doctrine



Message

Qtman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/4/2009 8:27:21 AM)

There are a lot of teachings of the RCC I do not agree with. There have been statements and actions endorsed by various popes that I do not agree with.

Maybe someone can refresh my memory. Which Pope was it that advocated the extermination of Jews?

Which Pope said the Jews were not God's people?

Which Pope said the Jews were filth and full of the deviil's feces?



Doghouse -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/4/2009 9:14:30 AM)

quote:

What a refreshing exchange of thoughts since last I visited.

Yes...somebody needs to open the door and spray some air-freshener in here...



wkirscher -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/4/2009 9:30:09 AM)

WildByNature –

quote:

Thank you, but one of the reasons I don't "hang out " in these Catholic threads is disparaging posts like this.

We’ve had a lot worse thrown at us than this from your opening post ….
quote:

…. but their definition of the "Word of God" is not the same as ours. Scriptures are the last thing they'll offer as proof, …

But that’s okay, you’re still welcome in this thread.

I’m sorry that you were offended by my personal story about my personal conversion to the Catholic Church. I wasn’t trying to say anything about you, only about me and the process of prayer, discernment, and scripture study I went through to get to where God has called me.

quote:

So, you believe you had a pastor who wasn't called by God?
No, I never said that. In fact, I see how God placed him in my life for a very distinct purpose. He was and still is a wonderful man. Too bad the elders of the unbiblical church model they followed drove him out of his ministry. He is now teaching at a local Christian school and our faithful God is still providing for his wonderful family of 8.

quote:

if you have finished it you must have read that there has been disunity in teachings, strife, and division in the Body of Christ since the time of the Apostles which is recorded in the Scriptures

Yep. And I noticed that the authoritative leaders of the church wrote epistles and visited the churches for this very reason. In fact, the bible even shows me how the Church in Antioch remained united with the Church in Jerusalem by calling the leaders together to hold a council to resolve a doctrinal dispute. I never saw any of that in the “bible only” churches I went to. Only division or decisions that what cannot be agreed upon must not be important to our salvation (like baptism). Maybe you can answer what no one else has been able to do in this thread …. When was the last time a “bible only” church called a council meeting like the one in Acts 15 to resolve doctrinal disputes and remain united?

quote:

I'm sure your welcome and proselytism are sincere.

The welcome is sincere. But I’m not proselytizing. This thread is directed as an attack against the Catholic Church and most people post in here to make disparaging remarks rather than engage in useful discussion. I’m merely defending what I believe.



Doghouse -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/4/2009 10:00:34 AM)

quote:

In post 7036 I linked the Vatican as the source for a few statements claiming that popes are "sweet Christ on earth". I also provided a few other sources showing that Roman Catholics really do not have an issue with this sort of title being attributed to their popes.

Since you linked the article...here's the quiz...

Who said that the Pope is "sweet Christ on earth"? Name the person.

In what context was this uttered? Were they talking about the office, or the man? Does it make a difference?

quote:

but cant you see where this type of language can cause a legitimate concern for many Christians?

...language isn't the problem...discernment and interpretation is...just like Scriptures...

quote:

Jesus Christ is a unique individual of such majesty and glory that to claim that any mere man is on par with Him as if any man has taken His place is frankly......strange.

Amen to the Jesus thing. Jesus authorized leadership of the Church (ANY Church...). This organization is laid out in Acts, among other places, and can be inferred and supported from the OT. These posts have been made here before. So, the authority to discern and define dogma has been delegated by Jesus to these leaders, and we are asked to follow them, as our resources are limited compared to the resources of a large body of believers (the best "discerner" of a group of 100 random people is not likely to be as gifted as the best discerner from a group of 100,000 random people). When we speak of "on par with Jesus", we are not talking about the walking-on-water, loaves-and-fishes part, but the authority to discern, defend and define faith.

Don't you believe that if Jesus wanted to remain here on earth, and lead us in person, He would be here right now? Do you think Jesus is incapable of pulling that off, if that was God's will?

If that were the case, there would be no "faith" - we would all be practicing "fact". The truth of the matter is that humans seemed to be hard-wired for faith, and faith can convert us. That's what this stuff is all about - conversion by participation in a relationship with our Creator.

Tell me I'm wrong here...

quote:

I find it harder to imagine that Roman Catholics would not find charity on this matter and simply claim that it would be unreasonable for them to expect Christians to look at a mere man......even if this man was set apart and above all men......and expect Christians to attribute the title "sweet Christ on earth" to him.

Somebody is the deputy of Christ on earth (or, if you are EO, a group of people are...) Somebody is authorized to identify heresy, defend the magisterium (any magisterium, not specifically the Catholic one), and spread the faith discerned as revealed by God to the faithful.

Some here argue that this person is "self" (it's up to me and only me to discern and define my faith), and some look to ecclesiastic authority or organization from which to take this instruction, assenting to the greater wisdom and resources available from that ecclesiastic body. That's the discussion here - in a nut shell. The authority to discern and define faith is an office acting as "Christ on earth" - in the absence of a Jesus with a larynx who can voice this instruction directly to us, someone is authorized to do this for the faithful. If it is "self", then "self' is acting as Jesus for "self", and operating under a perceived authority to discern and define faith by themselves, for themselves.

This is what the discussion is about - authority. Who is authorized to define the faith we follow? The argument of "Scripture" is debunked, because it is obvious that the Prosperity Gospel folks are reading "Scripture" differently than the Assembly of God folks, as an example. In each case, two different people believe they are authorized or deputized to define the characteristics and practices of their particular faith, and we wind up with two different faiths. I don't think this is what Scripture tells us to do or what Jesus had in mind. Its not what the Apostles did.

quote:

but this is just one more Roman Catholic belief that I cannot tolerate in my mind and heart. There is no way I can see that attribute without being reminded on the other Roman Catholic doctrine that says...."it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff."

Salvation is ultimately dependent on the just judgment of God, however, we have been left some instruction and guidance so that we are not flying blind in that pursuit. A practice of faith should be the normative path by which we participate in a relationship with God, said relationship through Jesus, fostered by the Holy Spirit, being the source and means of our salvation. So, we argue just what "participation" means in that sentence, and more specifically, who is authorized to define that participation in this thread. You might say the very same sentence as "it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of Scripture". This sentence you can agree to, correct?

My question then as a curious and interested catechuman is - who's reading? your's or Joyce Meyer's? To which you tell me, "well, that Joyce Meyers is full of beans. It's obvious from her hypocritical lifestyle that she doesn't have the answers". I might tend to agree with this, but I would then ask, then how do I know that you do have the right answers? To which you might throw "inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit".

That statement leaves me with a choice related to faith, not fact. Either I believe you are Spirit-inspired and choose to join your instruction, or I don't. Judging from the tenor of some of your previous posts (this one being a most notable exception in its civility), I am going to determine by the evidence that you might just be grasping at shadows, and move on.

The only thing missing is the realization and recognition of the authority that read that Scripture, and discerned practice from it, because that is what you are really submitting and assenting to, an interpretation of Scripture. Catholics state that they assent to the version discerned by the Roman Catholic Church and her resources, and voiced from the Chair of Peter. And your particular authority is...the Westminster Confession, a personal reading of a KJV, your 3rd grade Sunday School teacher...just who is the authority from whom you take your instruction? I didn't see Jesus on MSNBC last night with Ken Oberman ('cause you know this is where Jesus would hang if he showed up...except for the "choice" thing...oh, and the "homo" thing...well, alright, maybe he would hang on Fox...), so saying something like "Jesus" is not really valid within the context of this discussion. Jesus has given us no direct instruction on time travel or cloning, so...this has to be discerned by someone, said someone perhaps being you and yourself. In fact, Jesus has given us no words - only Apostles have given us His words. Its all about faith. Catholics answer to Jesus - by recognizing that Jesus deputized somebody to run a Church down here while He not here with a larynx to speak to us Himself.

Within this discussion its hard to nail down just what some believe here, because they won't commit to their "authority" or "deputy"; they only offer that they are compliant to "Scriptures". Well, so are the Penecostals in the Appalachians who drink strychnine and handle snakes. So - do you handle snakes? Why not? Somebody in Christendom does; shouldn't we all?

Could I follow a demonstrably corrupt Pope? No, I couldn't. Have I had to endure one yet in my lifetime (I am 47)? No, thankfully I haven't. If I was faced with one, what would I do? Hope that God and the Holy Spirit would correct that situation, one way or another.

quote:

But cant you understand why many others cannot and would not want to believe such a thing?

I believe that many non-Catholics view the Roman Church through the lens of things they heard way back in their early childhood, that they can't seem to shake. The reason I participate here is to cut through the bull, and try to lay it out for people to make up their own minds. I don't mind anyone disagreeing with what is taught by the Church.

I dislike people pasting up mythology (and in doing this, perpetuating it), and then evangelizing against that. That practice is called "erecting a strawman", and if it is done out of ignorance, it can be corrected with facts. If it is a repeat offense, then one can discern that some other, darker agenda is at work, and all of us can judge how we want to support that agenda accordingly, usually by the quality, depth and length of our posts in response.

I liked this post of yours- thanks for pointing me back to it. I skipped it the last time around because I was battling some other button-pusher on this thread. It was calm, cool and collected - genuinely inquisitive, with some well-thought questions. I have spent a fair amount of time on this (in between phone calls and what not here at work) because I believe that the tenor of it deserved a response. If I don't respond to everything, bear in mind that I am a busy man, and I don't often feel the need to go into detail about the fluff and shadows, if I believe that the hypothesis can be dismissed with a two sentence post.

Hopefully, you find this response more satisfactory than some previous ones...



Qtman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/4/2009 10:27:58 AM)

KGB,

I am one Protestant that really appreciates the tone of your last post. It was simply questions based on your perspective and understanding. THe response of Doghouse also seemed to be well thought out and genuine. THis is the type of discussion that will get us somewhere. Although in the end we may still disagree we can do so on friendly terms.

I am still waiting for response to post #7201. Anybody?



Qtman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/4/2009 2:51:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qtman

There are a lot of teachings of the RCC I do not agree with. There have been statements and actions endorsed by various popes that I do not agree with.

Maybe someone can refresh my memory. Which Pope was it that advocated the extermination of Jews?

Which Pope said the Jews were not God's people?

Which Pope said the Jews were filth and full of the devil's feces?


Since it appears no one is going to attempt to answer my questions I will elaborate.

It was the same one that called the Jewish people whores, sluts and mad dogs.

The same on that advocated the burning of the Jewish Synagogues and the burial of anything that did not burn.

The same one that said The Jews Prayer Books should be confiscated and destroyed.

The same one that said the Rabbis should be prevented from teaching.

The same one that said their Homes should be razed and their property seized.

The same on that said the Jews should be put into forced labor or expelled from the country.

The very one that said "we are at fault in not slaying them:.

Sounds like a speech from that wild-eyed mustache wearing tyrant we know as Adolph Hitler doesn't it. In fact Hitler did put forth much effort at accomplishing the very same thing during the Holocaust.

I hit the post button before I got through. Sorry.

These words however, predate the Holocaust by some 400 years. They are in fact the words of none other than the founder of the Protestant Reformation himself, Martin Luther.

Now why did I post all of this. Just to say when it comes to dispicable actions on past church leadership neither the Catholic's nor the Protestant's hands are what I would call clean.

Now I do not know a Protestant that would agree with what Luther wrote.

I am equally sure there are many Catholics that do not agree with some of the detestable actions and statements of some of the Popes down through History.

So it would be wise for both sides to engage in a profitable discussion and stop pointing sanctimonious fingers at each other.



patricius79 -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/4/2009 4:11:35 PM)

quote:

“ There is no historic record of the reformed position, or of even one “reformed” Christian between 100 and 1100 A.D (cf. Mt 5:14).

Because the Roman leadership hadn't yet completely perverted the Gospel, Scripture, or Christ's Church to the point of needing to be reformed.


So you agree that the Church in this period was the Church described by the Bible in Mt 5:14.

Now, if there was no need for doctrinal additions in the first millennium, neither was there in the next. In the first millennium we see a constant consensus and Logical development (cf. Lk 2:51-52) about each of the Catholic doctrines rejected by the reformers.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/contents.htm

quote:

Unfortunately, Rome continued for centuries to pervert the gospel and infect the church with doctrines of men and demons


You are entitled to your opinion.

quote:

so God sent faithful protesters


If they were faithful, then why did they add S.S. to the Bible, being discordant among themselves, and with each of the ECFs?
http://www.catholic.com/library/Fundamentalist_or_Catholic.asp

quote:

You mean the one where you AGAIN interpret reality through a topsy-turvy eisegetic Roman-influenced personal opinion filter that denies that the teachings of the Apostles are preserved in the New Testament?


The Catholic position is not eisegetical, though it does accept the both the literal and the mystic sense of the Word, as is practiced by the Apostles such as the first Pope, in Acts 1:20 and in 1 Pt 3:20-21.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0002fea1.asp

quote:

Do you guys read ANY of God's words without perverting them to fit into your denomination's mold?


I think that WKirscher reads the Scriptures sincerely and intelligently, to take one example. And I know this is my intention in regard to the Petrine verses in particular and the Word in general.

quote:

the ridiculous methods of Rome's unbiblical doctrine of "apostolic succession"….


I can see why the doctrine of Apostolic Succession would seem eisegetical and worse if--among other things--one has already assumed the idea of private judgment/ S.S., and taken the Canon apart from it’s historical Catholic context.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/canon.htm

This practice is similar to studying the O.T. without the Jewish background, and apart from the Jewish oral tradition which Christ upheld (Mt 23:1-3), despite the immoral “traditions” (Mt 15:1-9) of the elders.

quote:

Even in the NT, Philip is drawn by the Holy Spirit to the desert where he encounters the Ethiopian eunuch who was coming to Jerusalem to worship the true God. What happens? Philip explains the messianic prophecies of Isaiah, and then Christ as presented in the OT Scripture, (umm, the WRITTEN WORD *cough*sola scriptura*cough*) to the eunuch, baptized him, and got teleported away by God.


It hasn’t been shown, logically. that going by the Scriptures means going by them alone.

In fact, the Eunuch needed and even possessed some of the Scriptures. But he couldn’t understand them without the orally given Gospel (Cf. Acts 8:31), preserved through the official succession of Simon Rock and the Eleven.
http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

quote:

WITHOUT the need of stupid magical powers


Are you referring to the writing of the N.T. under the breath of the Holy Spirit, or the preaching of the Gospel through signs, wonders, and miracles?

quote:

Just more evidence that Scripture alone is the highest authority.


The Word is the highest authority. Has it been shown that the Scriptures alone are the Word? Did not the Eunuch need the help of Philip—someone taught by Simon Rock and the Eleven (cf. Acts 2:14, 42)--to know the Word?
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rule.htm



rawr.ben -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/4/2009 4:34:14 PM)

Where is the proof of a Roman church before 100AD?

What church did Jesus set up that was obviously changed by the RCC some time after 100AD?



KingJamesBond -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/4/2009 7:24:08 PM)

Doghouse,

quote:

Since you linked the article...here's the quiz...

Who said that the Pope is "sweet Christ on earth"? Name the person.

In what context was this uttered? Were they talking about the office, or the man? Does it make a difference?


It was not an article but rather links to four different places on the Vatican website and 2 different pro-Catholic sites showing that it is acceptable and that the Vatican supports it by placing it and using on their website, and Catherine of Siena is one out of many that have said it.

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."

quote:

If I don't respond to everything, bear in mind that I am a busy man, and I don't often feel the need to go into detail about the fluff and shadows, if I believe that the hypothesis can be dismissed with a two sentence post.


I hear you loud and clear on that!

KJB



KingJamesBond -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/4/2009 7:35:47 PM)

Qtman,

quote:

They are in fact the words of none other than the founder of the Protestant Reformation himself, Martin Luther.


Glad I dont need to have a Lutheran pope! LOL

Being serious though....I would say it is just as noble and good to oppose bad doctrine from Martin as it would be from a Roman Catholic pope.

It seems that in the end we are all going to have to be held for our individual actions and beliefs and be forgiven for many.

KJB



patricius79 -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/4/2009 8:53:48 PM)

BEN WROTE
quote:

Where is the proof of a Roman church before 100AD?


The Scriptures were written before 100 and teach Roman (i.e. Catholic) Church doctrines-such as baptismal regeneration (see Catholic Baptism thread) and the characteristics of the true Church:

1)infallible 1 Tim 3:15, Eph 1:23, Jn 16:13, Is 9:7
2)visible Mt 5:14, Mt 18:15-17, Is 2:2
3)hierarchical Lk 22:29-30, Mt 10:2, Acts 14:23, Acts 6:2-6
4)perpetual Dn 2:44, Lk 1:32-33, Jn 14:16.
5)one Jn 17:11, Eph 4:4, 1 Cor 12:13, Rom 12:4-5

The Papist Church--by which I mean the ancient Catholic Church--meets these criteria. The other ecclesial communities do not.

quote:

What church did Jesus set up that was obviously changed by the RCC some time after 100AD?


There is no documentary record of such a change. Neither is there a non-Catholic historical source of the N.T. Biblical Canon.

We have other good documents before 100 A.D. besides the Catholic Canon, and many valuable documents from the 100s and 200s. These well support the modern Catholic claims, along with all of the later documents.

Please see the third question in the Q and A at
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/early%20Church/page4



Qtman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/4/2009 9:47:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond

Qtman,

quote:

They are in fact the words of none other than the founder of the Protestant Reformation himself, Martin Luther.


Glad I dont need to have a Lutheran pope! LOL

Being serious though....I would say it is just as noble and good to oppose bad doctrine from Martin as it would be from a Roman Catholic pope.

It seems that in the end we are all going to have to be held for our individual actions and beliefs and be forgiven for many.

KJB


This I agree with 100%.



rawr.ben -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/4/2009 10:44:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: patricius79

BEN WROTE
quote:

Where is the proof of a Roman church before 100AD?


The Scriptures were written before 100 and teach Roman (i.e. Catholic) Church doctrines-such as baptismal regeneration (see Catholic Baptism thread) and the characteristics of the true Church:

1)infallible 1 Tim 3:15, Eph 1:23, Jn 16:13, Is 9:7
2)visible Mt 5:14, Mt 18:15-17, Is 2:2
3)hierarchical Lk 22:29-30, Mt 10:2, Acts 14:23, Acts 6:2-6
4)perpetual Dn 2:44, Lk 1:32-33, Jn 14:16.
5)one Jn 17:11, Eph 4:4, 1 Cor 12:13, Rom 12:4-5

The Papist Church--by which I mean the ancient Catholic Church--meets these criteria. The other ecclesial communities do not.

quote:

What church did Jesus set up that was obviously changed by the RCC some time after 100AD?


There is no documentary record of such a change. Neither is there a non-Catholic historical source of the N.T. Biblical Canon.

We have other good documents before 100 A.D. besides the Catholic Canon, and many valuable documents from the 100s and 200s. These well support the modern Catholic claims, along with all of the later documents.

Please see the third question in the Q and A at
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/early%20Church/page4


What is fun is that MY church's history predated RCC by thousands of years, and my tradition comes from some of the BIble writer's themselves (who, you know, spoke with God on a mountain).



kelman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/5/2009 5:08:51 AM)

quote:

If it is "self", then "self' is acting as Jesus for "self", and operating under a perceived authority to discern and define faith by themselves, for themselves.

the process of prayer, discernment, and scripture study
None of which is true in RC. They use their private judgment to give up the right to use their private judgment to discern or interpret Scripture.

Therefore, they can never know if what their church teaches is right or wrong. They have given up the right to discern for themselves and believe they also lack the ability to do so. They are left in the position of blind submission.

All of this is blatantly anti-biblical since God is clear that we are to discern and meditate upon His Word - not to meditate upon men's traditions or meditate upon a church.

RCs are forced to believe that which Scripture does not say - that the Holy Spirit will guide their church into all truth("infallibility"). Why must they believe this?....because RC tells them to....it's just that simple.

If they had the ability to discern, they would see that neither Scripture or history attests to this modern doctrine of "infallibility". But, they can't....because their church tells them they lack this God given ability of private judgment.

So, did RCs accurately use their original private judgment? How can they know?....unless, they believe themselves "infallible" also.

They say, "The church is infallible, because the Scriptures testify that she is so, and the Scriptures testify this because the church infallibly declares that such is their meaning"....can we say "round and round we go"?

And when we jump clear of the circular reasoning and use our private judgment, the answer is clear for all to see, "infalliblity" has nothing to do with God (or history) but only with men's traditions.



kelman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/5/2009 5:51:33 AM)

quote:

quote:

but I cannot fathom how one can look at these Scriptures, and then think that their pope can get away with stealing God's titles for Himself.

I can't either...thankfully these are just strawmen being erected for the purposes of blowing a lot of hot air into this discussion without much substance or objective, other than to perhaps irritate.
Notice the lack of anything substantive to justify a man claiming the name of God for himself....simply a lot of hot angry air.

Then again, who wouldn't be angry when asked questions about their faith community's doctrines and they lack anything substantive besides "that's what we're told to believe".

quote:

quote:

the truth is . . . to steal what God has assigned for Himself is blasphemy. There is no other word to describe it.

...and to continue to spread mis-information is bearing false witness. There is no other way to describe it...

Go ahead, crack open the Catechism and show me in where I am to refer to the Pope as "God". I'll wait on you while you search...
Sadly, had you ever "cracked open" something more substantive than the CC, you needn't have bothered to inquire. It is blasphemy to claim the name given to God - "HOLY FATHER". Not to mention "sweet Jesus".

quote:

Anyone who says 'Scripture" here is ignoring the reality that there are 10,000 different types of faith to follow from people claiming "Scripture" as authority.
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.

In any event, there is no "Protestant" church whose beliefs are as errant as that of RC's.



kelman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/5/2009 5:53:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond

rawr.ben,

quote:

No one has denied that God gives us leaders, teachers, etc. Just, some of deny the highly exalted teacher that doesn't have to adhere to Biblical standards, and can steal God's titles.

So, instead of just taking that opening line of Kelman's post and making a ran, perhaps you should address the actual beef of it.


Doghouse does not usually address the actual beef. [;)]

I never got a response on the post that I gave that provided actual links to the Vatican and clearly claimed that popes are as "sweet Christ on earth".

KJB
Usually we are just given the pleasure of an occasional appearance of caustic personal petty "soundbites"....

Why we ask is it okay for a man to claim the name given to God? Do we get a reasonable answer?....nope, just nothin'.



kelman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/5/2009 5:59:01 AM)

quote:

"How to win over our Muslim and Hindu neighbors to a relationship with Jesus".
Why do that?

RC has now declared that Muslims need not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

No problem with them considering Him simply a lesser prophet.

No doubt, the church fathers would turn over in their graves if they knew of this one!

"It is not so much a matter of the denial of the truth, but rather such an addition to the truth that eventually it becomes a departure from it."



Doghouse -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/5/2009 8:43:33 AM)

quote:

It seems that in the end we are all going to have to be held for our individual actions and beliefs and be forgiven for many.

Fair enough...the hope and desire is that God is merciful and just...the one in His Book seems to be...



Doghouse -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/5/2009 9:10:23 AM)

quote:

quote:

If I don't respond to everything, bear in mind that I am a busy man, and I don't often feel the need to go into detail about the fluff and shadows, if I believe that the hypothesis can be dismissed with a two sentence post.


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.

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, only to respond to something I judged to be absolutely preposterous, which was contained in a quote from you in a post from someone who was not being blocked by me.

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 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?

And as to "occasional appearance", there are apparently days when I have better things to do with my time then to be here and soak in the venom...

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....



wkirscher -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/5/2009 10:29:42 AM)

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. “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. 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”.

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. 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. 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. We have some protesters claiming baptism is symbolic and other protesters claiming it’s regenerative. 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. We have some protesters claiming a presbyterial form of church government, and others protesting against that and claiming congregational answering only to other local congregations, and other protesting against even that and saying they must answer only to God and the scriptures.

Protest against the brothers until you get things just the way you want it. Sounds like the Burger King faith system – “Have it your way!” This is not the unity Jesus prayed for in John 17. No wonder the Muslims are taking over. Instead of us being one so the world might know the Father sent Jesus, everyone sees our disunity.


Why do we need an earthly leader of the universal church? We don’t! “Have it your way!”



Doghouse -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/5/2009 1:27:56 PM)

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.

Bottom line for this type of tangent to the discussion is that Catholics (including Catherine of Sienna) don't worship anything but the Trinity. Within that worship, we obey the instruction provided by God through Jesus to the Apostles that asks us to do the things that we do - practice the Sacraments, celebrate the Mass once a week with our fellow faithful, and look to the Church as the authority to define and defend our faith in the changing times in which we live.

All the other corollaries forwarded in here are just blah...blah...blah...blah...blah.

I respect the people who have come here to disagree with one practice or another - my objective then is to understand that disagreement and discuss it, and attempt to shed some light on it from my perspective. There are many here who don't understand how a person could possibly be in communion with Rome.

From my perspective, I don't see how people can possibly reject that communion.

This makes for civil discussion about the why's and how's. There is more efficiency to that dialog if we don't have to chase mythology with every other post in here.



Doghouse -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/5/2009 1:37:55 PM)

quote:

What is fun is that MY church's history predated RCC by thousands of years, and my tradition comes from some of the Bible writer's themselves (who, you know, spoke with God on a mountain).


I enjoy some of the Jewish traditions that my Church celebrates during the liturgical year, especially during Lent (the Seder supper is always a good time of fellowship...). I don't know much about the significance and background of some of these celebrations.

I believe that when you scratch the top layer of a Christian, you should find a Jew underneath.

And I recognize that your faith has kept more of these traditions intact than mine has. I would concede that I think these activities are good to exercise the spiritual side of people, while noting that they are not required, but can be edifying. This is the model from which both Liturgical and Sacramental practice are derived.

So...there...take that...



rawr.ben -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/5/2009 4:21:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doghouse

quote:

What is fun is that MY church's history predated RCC by thousands of years, and my tradition comes from some of the Bible writer's themselves (who, you know, spoke with God on a mountain).


I enjoy some of the Jewish traditions that my Church celebrates during the liturgical year, especially during Lent (the Seder supper is always a good time of fellowship...). I don't know much about the significance and background of some of these celebrations.

I believe that when you scratch the top layer of a Christian, you should find a Jew underneath.

And I recognize that your faith has kept more of these traditions intact than mine has. I would concede that I think these activities are good to exercise the spiritual side of people, while noting that they are not required, but can be edifying. This is the model from which both Liturgical and Sacramental practice are derived.

So...there...take that...


But, beyond just understanding the traditions, practices, etc, what I have learned from my experiences is to read Scripture within the context of how it was written, to better understand and appreciate the culture, the history, the language, the geography, etc, of the writers and the audience of the Biblical times.

It was like I was trying to read my Bible for years, and all of a sudden someone came along and was like, "What? You've been trying to read the Bible without the alphabet?"

Suddenly, things fell into place, things made sense, I saw the congruency of God's Word, I saw how His entire plan fell together.

I took on a whole new sense of systematic theology. Pieces fit like a puzzle.

Unfortunately, I am still new, and have a long ways to go.

I don't have all the right words to speak when I am in threads like this, but I just wish I could shout everything I believe.



KingJamesBond -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/5/2009 7:27:43 PM)

Doghouse,

quote:

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.

Bottom line for this type of tangent to the discussion is that Catholics (including Catherine of Sienna) don't worship anything but the Trinity. Within that worship, we obey the instruction provided by God through Jesus to the Apostles that asks us to do the things that we do - practice the Sacraments, celebrate the Mass once a week with our fellow faithful, and look to the Church as the authority to define and defend our faith in the changing times in which we live.

All the other corollaries forwarded in here are just blah...blah...blah...blah...blah.

I respect the people who have come here to disagree with one practice or another - my objective then is to understand that disagreement and discuss it, and attempt to shed some light on it from my perspective. There are many here who don't understand how a person could possibly be in communion with Rome.

From my perspective, I don't see how people can possibly reject that communion.

This makes for civil discussion about the why's and how's. There is more efficiency to that dialog if we don't have to chase mythology with every other post in here.


You probably should have left it at a two sentence post.

It would have been just as, what is that term you used?............"blah".

KJB



patricius79 -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/5/2009 9:30:11 PM)

DOGHOUSE WROTE:
quote:

My claim[about St. Catherines reference to her Pope as our "dear Christ on earth"] 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.


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.



Page: <<   < prev  287 288 [289] 290 291   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI