|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/15/2008 10:28:11 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1445
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
This view certainly sets you up for some interesting issues. Like before the split what was the "Church"? Did the Orthodox Church start then as well? I would say you need to see Orthodox sources that actually support the authority of the Pope. Try this link for starters: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num12.htm (sorry the link tab doesn't seem to be working). The authority of the Roman bishop/pope is well established early in the Church.
Hmm. Most of that link basically says "Rome is a great church, props". Good for them.
We know for a fact that Ireneus is scripturally wrong in claiming that Paul founded the Roman church, and is most likely wrong when stating that Peter founded the Roman church.
Paul specifically says that he didn't found the Roman church in Romans 15:20 It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation. 21 Rather, as it is written: "Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand." 22 This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you. 23 But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to see you, 24 I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while.
Peter didn't make it to Rome until, at the earliest, 12 years after Christ's death, which is a rather long time for the Gospel to have made it to Rome, considering the number of Roman Jews at Pentecost.
And, none of that changes the fact that the East-West Schism happened in part because the Bishop of Rome had obviously not been established as "the boss" by 1054. If it was so obvious, surely the Orthodox would have had no problem with the Bishop of Rome's demand that they bow to his leadership.
We have to go back to the beginning. There is nothing indicating that Peter was the supreme leader of the early Christian church. There is nothing indicating that the other apostles gave Peter primacy over themselves. There is no evidence that Peter was considered the most theologically grounded or sound Apostle, quite the contrary when we have him first following James's ideas and then getting chewed out for it by Paul.
quote:
Thanks for the scripture quotes but whats your point? Or how do those speak against my point? Anyone can claim to be guided by the HS.
All Christians SHOULD claim to be, and fervently desire to be, guided by the Holy Spirit as they diligently study the Word. Which is what those verses say.
quote:
Oh, where is the "doctine only" section of the bible? Really, is not believing heresey and spreading it a sin? Doesn't that effect the community as a whole? The problem again that you fail to address or recognize is that the protestant system has no way of enforcing this between fellow believers in different denoms.
Heresy has been a problem since scriptural times, see the sorceror Simon. We must always be on our guard. That's why Protestants believe we have to check everything against Scripture (like Scripture says to do).
Given that historically the RCC has been pretty awful at avoiding heresy even when it was at the height of its power (papal dispensations anyone?) you kind of seem to be having a speck vs. board issue there. Again, Protestantism exists only because the RCC became unbearably corrupt.
quote:
So there is a chance they weren't even written by an apostle then? I though authorship was important to verfying the books devoid of the authority of church authority? House of sand..... ALERT: this is not an attack on the bible, only on the ability of protestants to logically established their foundational and unique views of salvation history.
The four gospels are internally and cross-cohesive, so there is no indication that any of them are incorrect in their retelling of the events of the life of Jesus (which is the same metric one would generally use when determining the validity of any historical document). The gospels were furthermore written close enough to the events they portray to be cross-checked by witnesses. And, the gospels are consistent with the letters of Apostles that WERE signed. We know for a fact that the Gospels were not written by the twelve disciples (Luke was not one of the 12, for instance. Neither was the Mark considered most likely to have written Mark.).
_____________________________
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? - 7/15/2008 11:14:04 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1445
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
First of all, "RCC" is a non sequitor in this context. The Roman Rite is just one of many rites within what is called "The Catholic Church". The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.
Catholic is an adjective. It's from the Greek word meaning "regarding the whole", or, perhaps more clearly, "universal". It conveys the concept that everyone who believes in Christ is part of that universal church, whether Jew or Gentile, slave or free (as Paul said). As such, Protestant believers in Christ are just as much part of the "universal" (Catholic) church as Roman Catholic believers are. The fact that Protestants reject the Roman Rites is inconsequential (to us anyway, it seems to have an unfortunate tendency to bunch RCC knickers).
quote:
Second of all, what defines the Catholic Church is that it is the Body of Christ, established by Christ. The pope no more defines the Church than Peter defines the apoostles.
The Body of Christ is the body of believers in Christ. Not all Catholics are believers. Neither are all Protestants, for that matter. But, the RCC is defined by requirement of bowing to the leadership of the Pope (as opposed to the Orthodox).
quote:
Lastly, the pope did not set himself up as "boss", Jesus did. There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) ; sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28 ) . On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and, as I said, Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48 ) .
A few corrections there. The risen Christ first appeared to the women who went to the tomb, not to Peter, according to most gospels. In Mark, Jesus appears to the women, then appears to two other disciples walking down a road before He appears to all 11 during a meal (who didn't believe the two men he appeared to first, which Jesus rebukes them for). In Matthew, Jesus appears to the women, then all 11. In Luke, Peter went and saw the tomb after the women got back, but didn't see Jesus ("he went away, wondering to himself what had happened." Luke 24:12) Jesus then appears to the two men on the road (Cleopas and an unnamed person), then appears to Simon, then to the 11. In John, John and Peter run to the tomb and see the gravesclothes, but they do not see Jesus, who appears to Mary Magdalene while she's standing outside the tomb crying. Then He appears to all 11 disciples that evening.
An angel wasn't sent to tell Peter, the angel told Mary Magdalene to go tell the disciples, AND Peter, because Peter wasn't with the disciples.
All the apostles got the binding and loosing authority in Matthew 18:18. It was John to whom Jesus turned over the care of his own mother (who is a much bigger deal to you guys than to us). It was Paul who had to straighten Peter out because he was treating the Gentile believers poorly (Galatians 2:11-14).
Did Peter get a lot of kudos from Jesus? Well, sure, but it was kind of necessary to balance out the number of times Jesus had to rebuke Peter. If you want to pick out random single verses that Jesus said to Peter and establish Peter's entire standing from that, why not pick Matthew 16:23, where Jesus literally calls Peter "Satan" and says he's an offense to Him? Why not pick the part where Peter denies Jesus 3 times? Why not when Jesus rebuked Peter for slicing off the ear of the High Priest's servant? Peter wasn't even with the Disciples when Jesus rose from the dead, because he was so very ashamed of his actions. He was capable of great insight at some times, at other times he was a real bonehead.
Jesus had to build Peter up a great deal, because Peter had fallen so far. That's why Jesus asks Peter if Peter loves Him 3 times, and tells Peter to feed His sheep 3 times... it's the atonement for, and reversal of, Peter's three-time betrayal.
_____________________________
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? - 7/15/2008 9:24:59 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
....Jesus had to build Peter up a great deal, because Peter had fallen so far. That's why Jesus asks Peter if Peter loves Him 3 times, and tells Peter to feed His sheep 3 times... it's the atonement for, and reversal of, Peter's three-time betrayal.
I disagree, However, if that is a meaning of the scripture, I'm sure you know scriptures can mean more than one thibg on different levels. Therefor it could mena what you say and ALSO be the command for Peter to pastor the flock. After all, the command "feed my sheep" is pretty cut and dry.
quote:
the RCC is defined by requirement of bowing to the leadership of the Pope
Oh man. I see I'm dealing with someone who prefers propoganda over fact. I don't bow to anyone, and the "RCC" is defined by the fact that it teaches the fullness of truth.
If you wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, you need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church you seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.
His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).
Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.
The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8, CCC 823–829)
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).
But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).
The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10, CCC 830–856)
Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20).
For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).
Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.
The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865)
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).
These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself. Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.
< Message edited by TheCatholicCrusader -- 7/15/2008 9:36:34 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/15/2008 9:31:44 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 544
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Hi Zhi,
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
There are many verses about baptism, repentance, faith, resurrection of the dead, laying on of hands, and eternal judgement. None of those, however, are the current discussion. I believe there's one-stop threads for most of those, and I would prefer not to get modded at.
Actually, I think it's quite on topic to discuss the need for an authority to determine how, who, what, and where these "basic teachings" are to be accomplished. I really don't see the need to be afraid of being "modded at."
I'm not looking for a discussion about any of the Sacraments mentioned. I would like to hear how you support your assertion that the bible is an instruction manual in light of Heb. 6:1-3 considering all the disagreement regarding what Scripture calls "basic teaching" among non-Catholic Christian denominations. Fair question, IMHO. And on topic, too!
Appreciate your considered response, in advance.
Pax Christi,
gatolover
< Message edited by gatolover -- 7/15/2008 9:38:13 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/15/2008 10:06:33 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1445
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
I disagree, However, if that is a meaning of the scripture, I'm sure you know scriptures can mean more than one thibg on different levels. Therefor it could mena what you say and ALSO be the command for Peter to pastor the flock. After all, the command "feed my sheep" is pretty cut and dry.
I have no problem with Peter being "a" pastor of the flock. To claim that he is the one and only pastor of the flock is stretching it. A sheep cannot correct its shepherd, like Paul had to correct Peter.
quote:
the RCC is defined by requirement of bowing to the leadership of the Pope
Oh man. I see I'm dealing with someone who prefers propoganda over fact. I don't bow to anyone, and the "RCC" is defined by the fact that it teaches the fullness of truth.
Hmm. So if you had an audience with the Pope, you wouldn't bow to him?
quote:
If you wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, you need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church you seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.
This could be interesting.
Okay, well, if you're using the RCC as the definition of "the" church, then it's not "one", as the RCC has admitted that the Orthodox church is okay with them, they've ordained Anglicans, and even Protestants have been acceded to as being able to be believers. So, not "one". Maybe "three", if you're lucky.
quote:
His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).
Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.
Never changed any doctrine?
I don't even have to look anything up to remind you that part of the reason for the East-West Schism was the proto-RCC deciding to change the Nicene Creed. Don't get much more basic on doctrine than that.
quote:
The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8, CCC 823–829)
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).
But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).
"My church is holy because it is" is not really a compelling argument I'm afraid. When I look at your leadership over the centuries, and see how many have bought the office, corrupted the office, politicized the office, and acted in a completely depraved manner in the office, I've frankly seen pagans more moral than some of your Popes.
Matthew 7:21-23 does not say anything about whether or not the people mentioned should be considered part of the church.
quote:
The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10, CCC 830–856)
Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20).
For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).
The RCC has only been around since 1054, so, I'll give you a thousand years.
quote:
Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
So is every congregation I'm aware of.
quote:
The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.
The word "catholic" is an adjective. It means "universal". It's used to distinguish the universal church from, say, "that church down on First and Broadway in Chicago".
quote:
The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865)
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).
So is Eastern Orthodox. Why should you pick RCC over EO?
quote:
These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself. Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.
Well, pretty much everybody believes the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
Everybody also believes in the forgiveness of sins through a priest... the difference is that Protestants take the Bible seriously when it says in Hebrews 4:14 "Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. 16 Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. " We confess to Jesus, our High Priest.
Purgatory has an entire one-stop for it. Protestants take seriously Paul's confidence in saying, in 2 Corinthians 5:8 "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." It doesn't say "present with the Lord after you spend a little time paying for your indescretions".
Mary's role... has become more "special" every time you get a new Pope.
As for apostolic succession... we believe the succession is in the message and faith that the apostles passed down to us through the generation, so the fact that the RCC has been stingy in their willingness to give people super-special ordinations is relatively inconsequential 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? - 7/15/2008 10:09:33 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1445
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
Actually, I think it's quite on topic to discuss the need for an authority to determine how, who, what, and where these "basic teachings" are to be accomplished. I really don't see the need to be afraid of being "modded at."
I'm not looking for a discussion about any of the Sacraments mentioned. I would like to hear how you support your assertion that the bible is an instruction manual in light of Heb. 6:1-3 considering all the disagreement regarding what Scripture calls "basic teaching" among non-Catholic Christian denominations. Fair question, IMHO. And on topic, too!
Appreciate your considered response, in advance.
I believe the specifics listed as "basic teaching" in the passage you reference are in the Scripture. If you want to see the specifics of where in the scripture, you should reference the related one-stops.
If you don't think that the Bible is instruction (as it says it is, in 2 Timothy 3) regarding Christian life both individually and collectively, what would you call it, exactly?
I've been reading Paul's letters. Most of them are long sets of instructions to churches regarding how they should be behaving themselves.
_____________________________
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? - 7/16/2008 2:52:32 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
It would be nice if you were to address your denomination as RC
and The Church established by Jesus as The Church. When you read my post and see "Church", you should think "your Church", "Kelman's Church", "Zhi's Church" to put that in the correct context. Then you are a rare RC, indeed. Generally, though, when a member of the RC uses "Church" it is always in reference to their particular church. So those of other churches are forced to make a distinction.
quote:
When I am speaking specifically of the Roman Catholic Church, I try to spell it out that way. The only problem is when I use "Church" alone, and yet am talking about 7 sacraments, I believe that these Sacraments are clearly instructed for the Church (your Church, Kelman's Church, Zhi's Church) by the deposit of faith, and I wonder to myself why some Churches have abandoned the Sacraments. There are no scriptural instructions for what some consider sacraments other than for water baptism and the Lord's Supper.
quote:
How is marriage not Sacramental? This one absolutely just blows me away. Maybe my marriage is better than most, but c'mon people.... God has established marriage and it makes no difference whether one is a Christian or not. God established it for all humankind. Is it considered a "sacrament" for a Pagan, an Atheist, etc.?
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/16/2008 2:55:07 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texasweet
Wasn't Christ the primary revelation and yet while here never seemed to mention that all interaction would stop and all we would have is some letters to go with? This is precisely why it is said that RC distains or despises Scripture. Your attitude toward Holy Scripture is that it is just "some letters". You actually don't seem to understand it is the very words of the Creator given to man.
God still interacts with man; but, this interaction is of a spiritual nature not the physical temporal nature favored by RC.
quote:
When you say the Holy Spirit has guided you to understand some passage, isn't that insight now a "revelation"? Insight is just that "insight". It is an understanding of what has been written. And, yes, if anyone comes to truth it is because of the work of the Holy Spirit.
This, though, is simply that of "illumination" when understanding comes; but, never ever additional revelation. That supposes something new being written or conveyed in some manner; and, God has declared all new revelation has ceased once the Book of Revelation was completed.
quote:
quote:
That's where you guys keep making your mistake. You've got it backwards....the church came from the Bible....the church is a result of the Gospel....the Gospel is the Bible. The gospel is the bible?? Soooo, does that include all of Paul letters and the book of revelations? If so there was no complete bible when the Church was in full swing after pentecost. Did the apostles have some kind of divine advanced copy to take around and make everyone read...of course after said apostle taught them how to read. I don't even think the most ardent prot apologists would even think about using this type of twisted reasoning.
The only thing twisted is your idea that your church created the Bible which, of course, is simply absurd on the face of it.
First, your church didn't exist.
Second, Scripture is simply the Gospel written down and the church stems from this Gospel without which there would be no church.
The Gospel is the Lord's message to the world. This message was delivered first by our Lord Himself; in fact, it formed the theme of His sermons, and then it formed the subject-matter of the preaching of the Apostles. The Apostles preached the Gospel. Therefore, the Gospel existed before the church, in fact, it was the formal cause of the church.
Very odd, btw, that you can't see the Gospel throughout ALL of Scripture.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/16/2008 2:59:25 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
Therefor it could mena what you say and ALSO be the command for Peter to pastor the flock. After all, the command "feed my sheep" is pretty cut and dry. And it is a command given to ALL who pastor churches...see 1Peter 5:2.
quote:
Oh man. I see I'm dealing with someone who prefers propoganda over fact. I don't bow to anyone,... It's hardly propaganda when one states absolute truth is it? Of course, you bow to the pope - both physically AND spiritually.
quote:
...and the "RCC" is defined by the fact that it teaches the fullness of truth. Rather, it is defined by the fact that it teaches its own personal traditions. Lot's of other religions have added to Scripture and then declare they have the "fullness of truth".
quote:
The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). You forgot to add RC in your list because Christ most certainly did not establish that church. Jesus established a church which would preach HIS Gospel and any church that does so is the church He established. And, any church that does not - is not.
quote:
The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church. The ONLY Bride of Christ is the true believer - not members of specific denominations. That's the problem with you guys, or one of them anyway, you're just clueless as to what a church is, likewise what the Bride of Christ is.
quote:
His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). You do realize this sentence knocks your church right out of the running for even being included in the church which Christ established?
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
It is precisely the type of church RC has become to which Paul refers to...you have added to and changed Christ's doctrines so much so they no longer even resemble His doctrines.
If the faith was "once" delivered(Jude 3), why does RC keep adding to that faith?
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/16/2008 8:10:49 AM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). You do realize this sentence knocks your church right out of the running for even being included in the church which Christ established?
No, but your answer proves that you know neither what the Chutrch teaches nor what the early Church believed
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/16/2008 4:26:02 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1445
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
Well, fortunately the Apostles wrote down what the early church believed (or at least what they were supposed to be believing, when they needed a little straightening-out). When I compare that against current RCC practice, there's some pretty serious discrepancies.
_____________________________
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? - 7/16/2008 4:49:31 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2390
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.
 What?
The Catholic Crusader,
your 2 sentences here essentially mean that Jesus is a polygamist. Or more precisely, sort of a cheating husband, he is married to a 1) Bride (CC ) and 2) a bunch of girldfriends (separated brethren, non catholic believers)
I am sure you realise how insulting your belief and it's logical consequence is to God and to us, non-CCs.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/16/2008 5:40:15 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Well, fortunately the Apostles wrote down what the early church believed (or at least what they were supposed to be believing, when they needed a little straightening-out). When I compare that against current RCC practice, there's some pretty serious discrepancies.
Really? Did they write down that there should be a New Testament? No. Did they write the word "Trinity"? No. Did they teach Sola Scriptura, thus abandoning their own authority to teach? No.
By the early Church, I mean the fist 4 centuries of the Church, which was thouroughly Catholic in its beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/16/2008 5:42:33 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
I shall repeat a previous post which was overlooked:
Much has been said about the Pope. I'm sure we all know the scripture most Christians argue over by heart by now:
"...Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
May I be allowed to make clear what the Pope actually is. Many people have mistaken ideas about what the Pope is, which is why they don't see the office in scripture.
Simply, the Pope is the fulfillment of the office of Prime Minister that existed in the Kindoms of David and his successors (as many things in the NT are fulfillments of their OT "types".)
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy Robe, and I will strengthen him with thy Sash, and will give thy Power (authority) into his hand; and he shall be as a FATHER (the word 'Pope' means 'Father') to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And I will lay the Key of the House of David (the symbol of primacy) upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a Sure Place(the Papal Office), and he shall be for a Throne of glory to the house of his Father. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his Fathers house, diverse kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music." (Isaiah 22:20-24)
In the Davidic Kingdoms, there was the office of Prime Minister (who actually wore a key on his robe as a symbol of office). This position is what is referred to in the abouve text and in other historical documents.
So now let's fast-forward to the New Testament: JESUS is the King, the "son of David", in the line of David. These Jewish men, steeped in there Jewish culture, knew EXACTLY what it meant when Jesus gave Peter the keys. Peter was to be the Prime Minister of Christ's Kingdom, the "Keeper of the Keys".
So this is what the Pope is: Prime Minister of the King's Kingdom. Also, the Pope has a pastoral role, which is established in John 21: 15-17, when Christ told Peter: "feed my lambs.. ..feed my sheep.. ..tend my sheep."
This is the Pope: Prime Minister of Christs Kingdom, and Pastor of the flock. With that in mind, the Papacy is ALL THROUGH the scriptures. Now, throw into that mix the fact there is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) ; sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28 ) . On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and, as I said, Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48 ) .
So, as Cyprian of Carthage said in 251 A.D. (almost a hundred years before Constatine):
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" - The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/16/2008 5:51:06 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1445
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
Really? Did they write down that there should be a New Testament? No.
Well, they wrote the New Testament, so by extension, yes.
quote:
Did they write the word "Trinity"? No.
There's plenty of Scriptural support for the concept of the Trinity. The fact that they didn't use the word "trinity" is not terribly troubling. Mostly because the NT wasn't written in English anyway.
quote:
Did they teach Sola Scriptura, thus abandoning their own authority to teach? No.
They commended the Bereans for searching the scripture to check if what they said was true.
quote:
By the early Church, I mean the fist 4 centuries of the Church, which was thouroughly Catholic in its beliefs.
Certainly not Roman Catholic. Which begs the question again, why RCC and not EO?
There were plenty of early heresies. I just read about one last night in Acts (Simon Magus)... so early it made the New Testament! There was also Gnosticism (big one), Arianism (not the nazi kind), Manichaeism, Donatism, Pelagianism, and a host of lesser ones. And, your cutoff barely misses the Coptic schism.
_____________________________
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? - 7/16/2008 6:05:59 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1445
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
Ugh. Don't keep copy-pasting your own posts. Especially when they've already been addressed.
_____________________________
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? - 7/16/2008 6:16:40 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2390
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.
What?
The Catholic Crusader,
your 2 sentences here essentially mean that Jesus is a polygamist. Or more precisely, sort of a cheating husband....
He is not the cheater: His followers are
A person who is married to a Bride and Someone Else as well is a polygamist.
I appreciate your criticism of RC, but i wouldnt be going as far as calling catholics cheaters.
I just believe them to be confused about some issues, but nevertheless there are true believers among them! I personally know some.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/16/2008 7:30:50 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
quote:
Really? Did they write down that there should be a New Testament? No.
Well, they wrote the New Testament, so by extension, yes....
No. Paul and the rest NEVER thought their letters to certain communities would be considered sacred scripture equal to (or surpassing) their scriptures. The post-apostolic Church decided that.
quote:
They commended the Bereans for searching the scripture to check if what they said was true
LOL. That old canard. Well, thats one group. What about the Coronthians, or the Romans, or the Thessolnians?
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
