|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 2:34:41 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 441
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
Sam, how dare you use common sense and logic against the Roman church! 
Don't worry, patricius79 will be along soon with a fresh load of links from catholic.com and cin.org that show how magical Pope-power gets downloaded into the College of Cardinals so it can be uploaded into the new Pope or some other such convoluted nonsense.
We used common sense and logic as we stepped through the bible based statements of the Reformed Church. But you never did respond to post number 7146. The bible based documents of the Reformed Church speak very loudly against a congregational form of government and in favor of a form of government that assumes some sort of succession. Instead of addressing #7146, you have chosen to provide a post like this.
< Message edited by wkirscher -- 11/3/2009 2:41:16 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 2:36:24 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 441
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
Qtman –
quote:
So you are saying the Pope receives his authority, the apostolic authority through the hands of an apostle.
Maybe this might be easier for you to accept if we use language similar to what the sola-scriptura based Reformed Church uses. The Reformed Church uses the bible to teach that all “officers” of “His Church” must be ordained through a valid Presbytery by the imposition of hands. In the CC we call some of these “officers” bishops. The Reformed Church also uses the bible to teach that a Presbytery just can’t form out of thin air. No local congregation can form a Presbytery on its own. “Officers” must be ordained by another “officer”. Using this logic, in order for an “officer” to be a true “officer” of “His Church”, he must have been ordained from another validly ordained “officer”. It doesn’t take a genius to see that in order for an “officer” to be a true “officer” of “His Church”, this line of succession must trace all the way back to the original “officers” of “His Church”. The CC believes these original “officers” to be the Apostles. Not Calvin or Knox or Luther or Zwingli or even some guy who just got a degree in theology from some on-line courses. This is what the CC and other Christians call Apostolic Succession. If you claim this is unbiblical, then you are claiming that the Reformed Church is unbiblical in its form of church government.
So just like the Reformed Church claims its officers receive their authority through Jesus Christ by the imposition of hands, so the CC teaches its bishops receive their authority in like manner. In other words, all bishops have Apostolic authority. Here are the words the bible based Reformed Church uses as defined at the Assembly at Edinburgh in 1645:
“CHRIST hath instituted a government, and governors ecclesiastical in the church: to that purpose, the apostles did immediately receive the keys from the hand of Jesus Christ, and did use and exercise them in all the churches of the world upon all occasions. And Christ hath since continually furnished some in his church with gifts of government, and with commission to execute the same, when called thereunto. ”
This bible based document describes this form of government and furthermore claims that Jesus continually furnished it. This means it never ceased to exist. All of this, mind you, is based on the bible.
Let me continue using the language of the Reformed Church…. The College of Cardinals is a collection of “officers” of “His Church”. When the lead “officer” dies, the other “officers” gather together to elect a new “lead officer”. This “lead officer” must already be a validly ordained “officer”. He already has this authority that “Christ hath since continually furnished”.
In the language of the Catholic Church, it goes something like this … The College of Cardinals is a collection of validly ordained bishops who have Jesus’ authority to govern his church. When the pope dies, the College of Cardinals gather together to elect a new pope. This new pope must already be a validly ordained bishop. He already has this authority that “Christ hath since continually furnished”.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 4:05:24 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2840
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
Sam, how dare you use common sense and logic against the Roman church!
Don't worry, patricius79 will be along soon with a fresh load of links from catholic.com and cin.org that show how magical Pope-power gets downloaded into the College of Cardinals so it can be uploaded into the new Pope or some other such convoluted nonsense.
We used common sense and logic as we stepped through the bible based statements of the Reformed Church. But you never did respond to post number 7146. The bible based documents of the Reformed Church speak very loudly against a congregational form of government and in favor of a form of government that assumes some sort of succession. Instead of addressing #7146, you have chosen to provide a post like this.
Post 7146? Common sense and logic? Are we looking at the same posts?!?
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?
Yeah, THAT was a post FULL of common sense and logic  All you did was try to fit the reality of the situation into a ridiculous Roman scenario! Do you guys read ANY of God's words without perverting them to fit into your denomination's mold?
So, now that your eye-rolling distraction has been dismissed, do you care to respond to Sam's apt observation regarding the ridiculous methods of Rome's unbiblical doctrine of "apostolic succession"?
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 4:35:02 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2840
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
Qtman –
quote:
So you are saying the Pope receives his authority, the apostolic authority through the hands of an apostle.
Maybe this might be easier for you to accept if we use language similar to what the sola-scriptura based Reformed Church uses. The Reformed Church uses the bible to teach that all “officers” of “His Church” must be ordained through a valid Presbytery by the imposition of hands. In the CC we call some of these “officers” bishops. The Reformed Church also uses the bible to teach that a Presbytery just can’t form out of thin air. No local congregation can form a Presbytery on its own. “Officers” must be ordained by another “officer”. Using this logic, in order for an “officer” to be a true “officer” of “His Church”, he must have been ordained from another validly ordained “officer”. It doesn’t take a genius to see that in order for an “officer” to be a true “officer” of “His Church”, this line of succession must trace all the way back to the original “officers” of “His Church”. The CC believes these original “officers” to be the Apostles. Not Calvin or Knox or Luther or Zwingli or even some guy who just got a degree in theology from some on-line courses. This is what the CC and other Christians call Apostolic Succession. If you claim this is unbiblical, then you are claiming that the Reformed Church is unbiblical in its form of church government.
So just like the Reformed Church claims its officers receive their authority through Jesus Christ by the imposition of hands, so the CC teaches its bishops receive their authority in like manner. In other words, all bishops have Apostolic authority. Here are the words the bible based Reformed Church uses as defined at the Assembly at Edinburgh in 1645:
“CHRIST hath instituted a government, and governors ecclesiastical in the church: to that purpose, the apostles did immediately receive the keys from the hand of Jesus Christ, and did use and exercise them in all the churches of the world upon all occasions. And Christ hath since continually furnished some in his church with gifts of government, and with commission to execute the same, when called thereunto. ”
This bible based document describes this form of government and furthermore claims that Jesus continually furnished it. This means it never ceased to exist. All of this, mind you, is based on the bible.
Let me continue using the language of the Reformed Church…. The College of Cardinals is a collection of “officers” of “His Church”. When the lead “officer” dies, the other “officers” gather together to elect a new “lead officer”. This “lead officer” must already be a validly ordained “officer”. He already has this authority that “Christ hath since continually furnished”.
In the language of the Catholic Church, it goes something like this … The College of Cardinals is a collection of validly ordained bishops who have Jesus’ authority to govern his church. When the pope dies, the College of Cardinals gather together to elect a new pope. This new pope must already be a validly ordained bishop. He already has this authority that “Christ hath since continually furnished”.
Oh, I see that you have already inadequately addressed Sam's apt observation of the ridiculousness of Roman succession.
Your assessment would be all good and well, except that there there has been a plethora of Christian churches started by real Christians who don't fit the Roman mold.
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.
Now, what happened to the Ethiopian eunuch? Answer: he had enough understanding of Jesus and His gospel from Scripture to go and start the church in Ethiopia.... WITHOUT the need of stupid magical powers passed on by unbiblical Popes or bishops and their laughable magical rituals.
Tell me, was Philip a Pope? Because if he wasn't, then your silly ideas fail.
Just more evidence that Scripture alone is the highest authority.
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 5:29:22 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5252
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
patricius79,
quote:
It is interesting to note the rhetorical devices used by those who hate historic Christianity, which includes the Papacy. Rather than use syllogisms which would help people to think clearly, these self-appointed anti-Popes prefer to muddle their Satanic ways into other peoples' minds. Laraine Boettner used tactics similar to other pseudo-Christians. Here is one of his items from his Book Roman Catholicism:
KJB
Yuck!....KJB, did you have to copy that obscenity?....I don't like even being that close to satanic ways....and besides, I just ate my breakfast....lol
quote:
I know, if you dont like the papacy it is concluded that you hate historic Christianity. Nah, that's just RC propaganda and, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Not exactly a surprise when writing about RC, is it?
In fact, the opposite is true. We follow the teachings of God as He directed penman to write infallibly. Another fact, God neglected to either explicity or implicity infallibly inspired the penman to write anything about popes...just the opposite.
Again no surprise, God says one thing, RC says just the opposite.
We also followed historic Christianity until the Roman bishops by virtue of geo-political situations were able to unscripturally wrest authority from all the other bishops. Then, by the grace of God, the true historic Christianity was restored to us.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 5:34:52 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5252
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
Kelman and ManimalX –
I said, based on a scripture derived document of the Reformed Church …
quote:
If every officer must be ordained through a valid presbytery, then there must be a succession of valid presbyteries that trace all the way back to the Apostles and to Jesus. and to this you replied:
quote:
Again, you're using the RC frame of reference. Scripture never describes an "apostolic succession".
My conclusion is drawn directly from the document and cannot be logically refuted. Actually, I believe your conclusion has been logically refuted. Obviously, though, not by RC's "logic".
quote:
This document is based solely on the author’s understanding of scripture. I said nothing of Apostolic Succession. The document clearly states that a valid presbytery cannot originate from a local congregation. Where does it say that? The presbytery is the governing body OF the local congregations.
quote:
A present-day valid presbytery must trace back to the Apostles or it is not a valid presbytery. You continue to misunderstand. There is no need to "trace back to the Apostles" in any way other than their apostolic writings - the Bible. In this way, they and the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ is always with us. Peter attested to this fact in his second letter.
quote:
You said:
quote:
And, obviously we believe that the Reformation recovered the untainted teaching of the Apostles themselves. If this is what you believe, then you are in violation of the scripture based document. Your assertion assumes a break in a valid presbytery. In order to be restored, it must have been through a local congregation. Nope, many congregations who joined together and formed a presbytery.
quote:
So my question again to you Kelman is this …. Who were the original members of the valid present-day Presbytery? Was it the Apostles or was it maybe Calvin or Knox? Or was there a long period of time where a valid presbytery ceased to exist? Since I don't accept your premise above, your question is moot.
quote:
I appreciate the quote you provided that describes the origins of term “presbytery”. In the CC and other Christian groups it is called a “diocese”. The head “officer” is called a Bishop. The very first thing the Acts Church does is fills this office vacated by Judas’ death. (something like “of the bishoprick, let another take his office”.)
I don’t have the scriptures handy but I know this was not some rash and foolish act like another poster in this thread has asserted. Well, as you know we've been through this before. The number 12 was a spiritual number, one which God wanted for the establishing of the new church. It is obvious that Judas' replacement was not to establish a precedent of some sort since we know that James (one of the 12) was martyred and was not replaced.
quote:
quote:
There is no claim to succession. It is simply that ordination originates with the larger governing body not the individual church alone. I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. It contradicts the document itself. The present day Reformed Church presbytery had to originate from somewhere. And if you claim that something was “recovered” by the Reformation, then there must have been a very long gap (1500ish years!!!!!) in a valid presbytery. This contradicts the promises Jesus made to His Church. It doesn't contradict any promises made by the Lord. The gates of hell shall never prevail against the true "church". In this instance, it can only be referring to the invisible church - that of all true believers. There have always been true believers even in the RC during those troubling times.
quote:
quote:
I believe that congregationalist churches are also in communion with a larger body. Can't say that I know much about them, though. I don’t believe this is what congregationalism teaches and it most certainly doesn’t practice this. ManimalX even proclaimed that each individual congregation is it’s own authority and is only answerable to God and the Scriptures. ManimalX’s interpretation, along with Baptists, Independent Churches, “non-denominational” churches, etc., contradicts the Reformed Church’s bible based teachings.
If a church is truly answerable to no one but itself, I believe that is not taught in Scripture. I think that type of governing body is responsible for some of the abominations which are on the scene...Hinn, for example. But, otoh, if the true Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is preached - it a valid Christian church. Obviously, there's a conflict in interpretation of those portions of Scripture. And why not?...we have infallible Scripture but we do not have infallible men.
quote:
quote:
I didn't know that Jonathan Edwards was a Congregationist. The man's theology was brilliant so if he was good with Congregationism, I don't have a problem with it. With all due respect Kelman, on one hand, you are proclaiming a Presbyterial form of government is biblical, and then on the other, saying that a Congregational form of government is biblical. These are mutually exclusive forms of government. No, I didn't say the Congregational type of church government was biblical. As far as I'm concerned the most important criteria is if the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is preached.
However, unlike RC, whose main concern is its form of government, I'm interested in the inspired Word of God - alone. And I am confident in saying that this is the position of ManimalX also.
quote:
If you go to an “independent” or “non-denominational” church, you do not practice the form of government that the Reformed Church understands from scripture. Obviously, a totally independent church is not practicing a presbytery form of church government. The Congregationalist form was established here in this country and it was organized around the local political situation. I think we can see how this might differ from the types of church government being founded in Europe. I's really very interesting to read about the establishment of America and how it related to the churches being formed here.
I'm sure I quoted this before and it indicates that the difference between the two forms of government was not enough to prevent a reconciliation: "The Westminster Confession of 1646, the design for Presbyterian church government and an expression of Reformed faith and doctrine, was revised for church polity and discipline at the Cambridge Synod of 1648. Called the Cambridge Platform, it enabled a reconciliation between Presbyterians and Congregationalists and was highly venerated into the 19th century."
quote:
I understand the desire to proclaim that you and Kelman are in biblical agreement, but it simply is not true. Again, you're main concern is RC and its form of government because it is through this you think you will attain salvation. We understand that a church cannot save. We understand what "church" is. What is important is belonging to that one true church of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the "invisible" church not limited to any particular brick and mortar church.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 5:42:38 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5252
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
Sorry pat. No "supreme shepherd" or "teacher of all the faithful" in the Bible. Well, except of course for Jesus the Shepherd, and the Holy Spirit with Scripture as the teacher of all the faithful.
Have a great morning anyway!
Again the Word of God is tossed into the dustbin. Why?....because God says that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only sovereign, the only potentate, the only leader of all leaders, the only supreme shepherd.
The following is what God actually says:
1Tim 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
instead, what does Rome say? "He enjoys the exclusive titles of: Pope, Sovereign Pontiff, Roman Pontiff, Holy Father, His Holiness, Vicar of Christ, Father of Christendom. ..."
Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
what does Rome say?...the pope is head of the church.
1Peter 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
instead, what does RC say? "O God, the Shepherd and Ruler of all Your faithful people, mercifully look upon Your servant [name of Pope], whom You have chosen as the chief Shepherd to ...
1Cor 2:12-13 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man' s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth...
Rome says not so, it is the pope who is the "teacher of the faithful".
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
Again, Rome says not so...our pope is the Holy Father. It take an arrogance of monumental proportion to call yourself by God's unique name...imagine not fearing the loss of your eternal soul for such blasphemy?
Who is the only "Vicar of Christ" on earth? God clearly tells us it is the Holy Spirit...but, of course, Rome continues to naysay God and declare it is their pope.
The above titles belong uniquely to the Lord Jesus Christ, however, Rome has wrested them from Him and ascribes them to popes. Nothing new of course, everything else that uniquely belongs to the Lord has been placed upon the crown of Mary...mediator, redeemer, sinlessness, etc. It appears, the Lord is now basically superfluous because even belief in Him is no longer necessary for salvation - according to RC.
With all this(and more) evidence of turning away from the uniquenss of the Lord Jesus Christ, no wonder there exists those who would question how RC can still be called Christian.
< Message edited by kelman -- 11/3/2009 5:51:34 AM >
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 7:13:13 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1191
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
So the previous pope did not pass on this apostolic authority to the new pope.
Yes, every Pope has been authorized by the laying of hands by a previous Pope in an unbroken chain of succession back to Peter. This happened back when the current Pope became a Bishop and was ordained as such by a previous Pope. Whoever that Pope was, he was ordained by the laying on of hands of a previous Pope, and so on in an unbroken chain all the way back to Peter.
There is probably some good on-line material about the whole process, as we just had a changing of the guard at the Vatican a few years ago in the Internet age. No doubt there are a bunch of blogs and wiki's out there if one was to do a search.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 7:16:28 AM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2515
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
I don't typically expect people to change their ideologies based upon discussions around here, 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 am sure someone will come along with some justifying nonsense about "tradition says this . . . "
But the truth is . . . to steal what God has assigned for Himself is blasphemy. There is no other word to describe it.
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 7:22:26 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1191
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
The following is what God actually says:
Please, then, turn for us to Scripture which speaks of stem cell research, or birth-control, or spending time arguing with other Christians on-line rather than helping the less fortunate...
I did an online search of the KJV for "stem cell research", "birth control", and "internet and computer use", and all the searches came back null...
Maybe this is why the Church needs the leadership of a temporal deputy - to provide a voice for what the Church discerns what is revealed to her by God regarding these topics that are the result of technological and social development since the time of Jesus's ministry here on earth.
Or...are we free to cobble together our own rules as we personally see fit from our own rendering of Scriptures?
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 7:24:21 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1191
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
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.
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...
The Pope is the office occupied by the person "left in charge" in the absence of a Jesus walking among us and speaking to us. By this definition, the pastor of an indepenedent Church is "Pope", unless everyone in that Church is allowed to develop doctrine and practice on their own (which is what I hear a lot of here...some awfully smart people here...), in which case "Pope" is "self".
Either you discern your own faith, or you follow one that has been developed for you. So, Pope is either "self", or the teaching authority that you follow. 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.
Boy howdy, that Holy Spirit sure has a great sense of humor, doesn't he (she)...?
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 11/3/2009 7:36:12 AM >
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 7:25:20 AM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2515
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
The following is what God actually says:
Please, then, turn for us to Scripture which speaks of stem cell research, or birth-control, or spending time arguing with other Christians on-line rather than helping the less fortunate...
I did an online search of the KJV for "stem cell research", "birth control", and "internet and computer use", and all the searches came back null...
Maybe this is why the Church needs the leadership of a temporal deputy - to provide a voice for what the Church discerns what is revealed to her by God regarding these topics that are the result of technological and social development since the time of Jesus's ministry here on earth.
Or...are we free to cobble together our own rules as we personally see fit from our own rendering of Scriptures?
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.
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 7:26:50 AM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2515
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
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.
What part of it is a strawman?
Did we invent the titles of "Chief Shepherd" for your pope, or did you?
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 7:39:25 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1191
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
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.
Either we submit to the authority of these leaders, or we don't. If we don't, then we are the authority. That's the choices here, and what the Catholics are trying to point out here for the last 7,000+ posts.
quote:
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.
I have formed an opinion that Kelman is not interested in discussion, only in bullying, belittling and irritating - in my humble opinion. If someone is screaming at me that stop signs are green, and I take the time to develop a lengthy post about the lineage of stop signs and why they have become red as they have developed over time, complete with authoritative references, and the response to that is "stop signs are green", then I can quickly draw the conclusion that discussion is not about the correction of perception or about the further development of an understanding of truth (most stop signs are, in fact, red), but is about some other objective or agenda which I am not prepared to support with discussions.
Frankly, all I've seen from some here is a bunch of raspberries and crankiness. The discussion is going nowhere, and has been dead on those tracks for a couple of thousand posts now. There's about 5 people participating in this discussion - and the objective is apparently to see how much we can belittle the other side.
Yeah...what a bunch of "Christians"...
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 7:43:41 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 5749
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
So the previous pope did not pass on this apostolic authority to the new pope.
Yes, every Pope has been authorized by the laying of hands by a previous Pope in an unbroken chain of succession back to Peter. This happened back when the current Pope became a Bishop and was ordained as such by a previous Pope. Whoever that Pope was, he was ordained by the laying on of hands of a previous Pope, and so on in an unbroken chain all the way back to Peter.
There is probably some good on-line material about the whole process, as we just had a changing of the guard at the Vatican a few years ago in the Internet age. No doubt there are a bunch of blogs and wiki's out there if one was to do a search.
So does the Pope ordain every bishop b the laying on of hands. Or only the ones he knows, by some unknown mystery, will become the next Pope. If the Pope ordains every Bishop then the Apostolic authority is passed on to every bishop and is not something that is particular to the pope.
_____________________________
Aufmerksamkeit: Es ist verboten, damit Qtman mit stummen Köpfen spricht.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 7:47:01 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1191
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Did we invent the titles of "Chief Shepherd" for your pope, or did you?
This Christmas, do I get a homily from Jesus about the prliferation of arms in the Middle East, or do I get that from the Pope, if I watch the Christmas Mass at the Vatican...?
Does the Baptist Chruch down the street get their sermon the following Sunday from Jesus appearing at the pulpit? Or, is there a minister standing there to deliver it?
Does the minister say the type of things he thinks Jesus might about where we are at today? Does he point the congregants in the direction of God, rather than some other direction? Is he the primary person steering the herd, or does he answer to some person who has authority over him in liturgical and ecclesiastical matters?
If he is the primary authoirty over that flock, then he is "Chief Shepherd", working for Jesus, who at this time is choosing not to be here among us in a human body. If he reports to an elder board or something, then perhaps they are "Chief SHepherd".
The Pope is "Chief Shepherd" for a billion Catholics who would love Jesus to deliver that Christmas Mass homily, but realize that Jesus has chosen another way to lead us, and has deputized someone to do that for Catholics.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 7:50:25 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3587
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
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
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 7:53:19 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3587
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Doghouse,
quote:
Either we submit to the authority of these leaders, or we don't. If we don't, then we are the authority. That's the choices here, and what the Catholics are trying to point out here for the last 7,000+ posts.
In the end we will each on our own be accountable for our own individual actions on who we do and do not submit to, and in that regard we are always the authority.
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 8:07:09 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 966
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
QTMAN WROTE:
quote:
So you are saying the Pope receives his authority, the apostolic authority through the hands of an apostle.
As the Spirit of the Church says,
“Jesus said to him… ‘I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.’”
and
“Do not neglect the gift of God which is in you through the imposition of my hands.”
Cf. 2 Tim 1:6, 1 Tim 4:14.
To see what historic Christians have always believed about Apostolic Succession:
http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
and the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the three grades:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/hlyord.htm
and the Papacy:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/papacy.htm
"[B]ut that great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the authority in faith and priesthood. Tell us therefore, tell us we beg of you, Peter, prince of the Apostles, tell us how the churches must believe in God."
St. John Cassian,Contra Nestorium,3:12(A.D. 430),in SPP,61
quote:
Let's look at that. How is the pope elected. A pope dies. Another pope is needed. Is he not elected by the college of cardinals.(sp) So the previous pope did not pass on this apostolic authority to the new pope.
Actually I think he did. These cardinals received their authority through the hands of the original Apostles, including Peter and His successors, the Bishops of Rome.
other words, the cardinals are given the authority to elect the next Pope by the Papacy itself, and primarily by God: Father, Son, and Spirit.
Here is a brief Q and A which answers some related questions, such as the issue of the Western Schism when multiple men claimed to be Popes:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/papal%20succession
The Scriptures abundantly testify that the one Church has authority (1 Tim 3:15), contains good and bad (Jn 6:70), is the fullness of Jesus Christ, the Infallible One (Eph 1:22-23), is perpetual (Lk 1:32-44), is hierarchical (Lk 22:29-30), and is very visible (cf. Mt 5:14, Is 2:2).
To see what this Papist Church has always taught about Baptism, see what is recently written in the Baptism thread. This constant fidelity to the Bible also suggests the validity of the Papacy.
“You were buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised through faith in the power of God”
MANIMAL WROTE:
quote:
Don't worry, patricius79 will be along soon with a fresh load of links from catholic.com and cin.org that show how magical Pope-power gets downloaded into the College of Cardinals so it can be uploaded into the new Pope or some other such convoluted nonsense.
(See above about the Pope-appointed Cardinals.) There is only one historical Church, and only one which reflects the Biblical description of the Church. 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).
All attacks on the Catholic faith and the Papacy are attacks on the Scriptural Canon, our Christian ancestors, and Jesus. As Scripture says,
“I will open my mouth in a parable, teaching what we have heard from our fathers.”
And
“forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.”
And again:,
“Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goad.”
May we all be little children through His name!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 8:49:56 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1191
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
In the end we will each on our own be accountable for our own individual actions on who we do and do not submit to, and in that regard we are always the authority.
...finally something on which we can both agree whole-heartedly...
quote:
Just trying to keep up with all of this is like trying to kiss a buzz saw.
...honorable mention in the "agreement" category...
If you're really fast and extremely committed, you could pull this feat off...much like posting in this thread...
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 11/3/2009 9:09:03 AM >
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 8:55:29 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1191
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Doghouse does not usually address the actual beef.
...thanks for this...
I have some posts in here that took over an hour to develop, only to be skipped over, ignored, or poo-pooed with "well, you're wrong...Scripture says..."
Obviously, we don't see eye to eye on "what Scripture says", otherwise there'd be no discussion at all...I am clear in what YOU think it says; I am trying to get YOU to embrace the possibility that YOU have fog on your lenses...
As you can see by my "Joined:" date and the number of posts I have, I have some options and obligations as to where I am able to spend my time. So - I do the best I can.
If that is interpreted as "cherry-picking", then so be it. There is plenty of low-hanging fruit in this discussion without having to drag the ladder out of the shed every time...
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 9:00:56 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1191
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
So does the Pope ordain every bishop b the laying on of hands.
...yes...
quote:
Or only the ones he knows, by some unknown mystery, will become the next Pope.
It is no mystery that the next Pope will be named from an ordained Bishop. So if a Pope has ordained every Bishop, then a Pope has ordained every possible occupant of the Chair of Peter (noting that some current Bishops were ordained by a previous Pope).
No mystery to it.
quote:
If the Pope ordains every Bishop then the Apostolic authority is passed on to every bishop and is not something that is particular to the pope.
This is a correct statement...Bishops may define teaching, practice and instruction that is particular to their locations and its customs, as long as it does not defy or contradict Rome. For example, My Diocese has stopped (temporarily) offering Eucharist in the species of the cup, given the realities of a potential flu epdemic. This was done by the Bishop - and it does not contradict any teaching about the Eucharist (Jesus is fully present in either species, so one only need receive either the cup or the host). It would be interesting to poll the other Catholics here, and see if this came from the USCCB (United States Council of Catholic Bishops), or if this is a diocesan practice.
Bishops are the "teaching" authority within the Church. And they have latitude to do this within the framework of the dogma and instruction dictated by the Church. The Pope is a Bishop as well, but he also is the single voice for all the Bishops, and for the Church.
Think about this for a minute - when I received the Sacrament of Confirmation, my Bishop laid hands upon me (sometimes the Priest does this under the delgated authority of the Bishop, but mine was the real deal...). If one subscribes to Apostolic Succession, then it is my belief that I can trace this action of the laying on of hands all the way back to Peter, i. e. I have been touched by one who was touched by one...who was touched by an Apostle, who was touched by Jesus. I think it's pretty cool, actually...
Every confirmed Catholic has had this same "laying on of hands" at their Confirmation.
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 11/3/2009 9:28:14 AM >
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 9:08:29 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 441
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
ManimalX -
quote:
Post 7146? Common sense and logic? Are we looking at the same posts?!?
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?
Yeah, THAT was a post FULL of common sense and logic All you did was try to fit the reality of the situation into a ridiculous Roman scenario! Do you guys read ANY of God's words without perverting them to fit into your denomination's mold?
So, now that your eye-rolling distraction has been dismissed, do you care to respond to Sam's apt observation regarding the ridiculous methods of Rome's unbiblical doctrine of "apostolic succession"?
We must be talking about the same post because I can see it struck some sort of nerve. First it was ignored and then, upon request, it was responded to with a lot of passion but not much reason or fact.
I agree with you that some of the teachings of the Apostles are preserved in the NT. Though it says nowherer in the NT that all of the teachings were. In fact, Paul even tells the early church to obey both the written and oral traditions. These, my friend, are “God’s words without perverting them”.
“Topsy-turvy eisegetic personal opinion” can best be shown by this quote:
quote:
If that is what the "Reformed" teaching is, then I agree because that is what the Bible teaches. Kelman just stated it much better than I did. When I wrote "local", I was merely trying to think of a way to communicate "not universal" in the sense of "having boundaries", as kelman noted.
To which I responded ….
quote:
This is not all of the Reformed teaching. It is merely a statement that defines geographical boundaries. With all due respect to your opinion, a great number of independent churches do not practice this. I’ve been to many “bible only” churches and I have never heard of them agreeing or practicing the biblical notion that “elders in a local church were responsible to the regional body of church elders”. In fact, in two of the churches I attended, they split over doctrinal issues and didn’t even think of submitting themselves to some sort of regional authority. If you go to an “independent” or “non-denominational” church, you do not practice the form of government that the Reformed Church understands from scripture. I understand the desire to proclaim that you and Kelman are in biblical agreement, but it simply is not true.
I completely get the fact that you want to agree with Kelman and are willing to stretch the meaning of one paragraph of the bible-based documents of the Reformed Church to make it seem so. But the reality is that both you and Kelman have a conflicting and contradictory understanding of what church government should be (though Kelman’s is more in line with scripture and with the preceding 1500 years of church history). This difference is to be expected because both of yours are founded on the traditions of men and on their personal interpretations of scripture. That’s why it’s so easy to trace their lineage back to a specific name – Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Luther, Wesley, ….. This difference was what I was hoping you’d address, but instead, you ignore it and post opinions rather than facts.
And then you said:
quote:
The Body is always revitalized and set back on a correct course when it refuses to stagnate and when it refuses to suffer gangrenous limbs, taking care of infections before they spread through the whole body. Again, opinions and no facts. My questions and request still stand:
quote:
Which is the “correct course”? Your understanding of independent congregations or the Reformed Church’s biblical teaching of a Presbyterial form of government. And tell me again when this “correct course” has compelled the leaders of your congregation to gather together with the leaders of another congregation to resolve doctrinal disputes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/3/2009 9:29:28 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1191
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Who is the only "Vicar of Christ" on earth? God clearly tells us it is the Holy Spirit...
This presumes a "subordination" that is not present in the Biblical description of the Trinity...
Vicars are authorized by the person for whom they are Vicar. They are a deputy, not the new sheriff...
An argument that Jesus deputized no one, but resigned and stepped aside for the "new" Jesus in the form of the Holy Spirit would be a more compelling argument. One would have to then explain the purpose of "Pentecost"...among other problems with this hypothesis.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
 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
