RE: Protestant vs. Catholic

KephaMeansRock · Post by **KephaMeansRock** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:22 am

This is aphisherofmen,

What happened to the protestant v. Catholic debate forum that was going on here?

I just worked last night for over an hour on a post, and now it's gone, and my account is deleted!!!

Did we break a rule'? We were on topic and being respectful....

Anybody? HELP?!

samuelbb7 · Post by **samuelbb7** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:00 pm

KephaMeansRock

I disagree...Baptism was NORMATIVELY done via immersion, but this was not mandated, and the NT and ECFs show that non-immersive baptisms were viewed as valid from the beginning...

Then we disagree. By the way where in the Bible is baptism compared to circumcision.

No, it's not. When they say "entire households" and then compare this to circumcision which applied to the "entire household", then we have no reason to believe that infants were excluded.

When you do that it would work. But I do not believe that Baptism and circumcision are comparable. I know it is a doctrine taught by more then just the RCC. That does not mean I accept it.

I refuse to believe they can be wrong for the same reason I refuse to admit that St. Mark penned error in his eponymous Gospel, nor Luke nor Matthew nor John, nor St. Paul nor St. Peter, nor Jude, nor James....

The popes - i.e. the bad ones - have never sought to teach error...often they never sought to teach a thing. I'm not saying that bad popes aren't a scandal - they most certainly ARE. That is something I myself had to come to terms with when I converted to Catholicism. But I don't think that it is the end-all that you think...

As far as I know Matthew, Mark, Luke none of the writers of the Bible bought their positions to get rich. The teaching that evil men can represent and stand for GOD is an error.

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Yet the popes say you can be both and did as if you can and proclaimed as you can. So which is correct?

I'm willing to admit that some popes may be in hell. No news flash there. Being pope doesn't prevent them from sinning, even gravely. That bad men have occupied the office does not negate the office...

It negates anything the men did. Since you cannot say a servent is of both GOD and man. They cannot do both. They either are following GOD are not. So that would break the chain of apostolic succesion much less that historians had to go back and figure out which was the true pope and which was the antipopes.

Israel had many wicked kings, and the office was never revoked until God himself took it away from Zedekiah through the Babylonian conquerers...

Just as the RCC was replaced by Protestants and for the same reason.

And when two bodies of believers conflict in an "essential" truth, what then? To whom do you appeal?

You must pray to GOD and ask him to show you which is correct. For I will stand before GOD and answer him for my choices. I will stand their. Not anyone else. My life is on the line.

NKJV - Isa 8:20 - To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

None of this contradicts what I am saying. Scripture holds a certain PRIMACY in teaching - but the interpretation of scripture is ultimately subservient to the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of the truth, the same one founded by Christ on the apostles and visible in every century from the 1st to the 21st...

But the RCC makes scripture subservient to Tradition. For instance that wicked men can stand for GOD and are kept from error is a human tradition. So where the bible says that is wrong is not followed.

The Bible tells me JESUS was not just a man. So we both follow that. The Bible does not mention Pope and does not say tradition is of greater trustworthiness then scripture.

Here, of course, we see that being ordained is no guarantee against apostasy...
But you had demeaned these men. When in fact one was a highly respected scholar. Erasmus agreed with Luther on his points. But was forced to keep them quiet for fear of death. Many of the points Luther brought up were in fact acted upon by the leaders even though they continued to try to murder Luther. If they had truly repented they would not try to murder the man they knew was telling them the truth.

And? Attacking the character of an admittedly bad pope (though you've not named him) does not reflect upon the office of the successor of Peter, who carries the keys to the kingdom (Matt 16:16-18)

Would you like me to list some bad popes and what they did? It breaks the succesion claimed by the RCC.

No. It most definitely is not "okay" with me, but I understand the difference between the office and the office holder. Judas' office didn't go away because he sinned most grieviously against Christ. Neither did the office of the holder of the Key of the Kingdom go away merely because the office holder himself went astray (Isaiah 22:20ff)

Judas did not stay in office. He dies. He did not say he could stay in office and continue to steal. You cannot serve GOD and Mammon. That is not allowed.

Okay I should have said read the word of GOD. But even you are telling me that tradition tells us what to believe.

Only in as much as there were new leaders.

You do realize that there was no "bible" except the OT scriptures for the first generation, and no canonized set of scriptures until the end of the FOURTH CENTURY, right? They HAD to rely on the Church, which PRECEDED the NT scriptures and explained what the OT scriptures pointed to.

The Apostles explained the Scriptures. When leaders were good Christians that is not a problem. But men such as Pope Callixtus 3 or Aklexander 6th are not to be accepted as Vicars of CHRIST. The Scripture canon was a recgnition of what all the ECF had already taught.

If you wish I can look up a number of Middle ages Catholic scholars who argued that JESUS was too holy to approach directly. It was a common doctrine then.

The church NEVER TAUGHT THAT YOU MUST PRAY TO THE SAINTS IN STEAD OF CHRIST! I cannot make that clearer - and on the off chance that they did, then they were contradicting the church's teachings on this matter.

Yes the Church did. Yes they did correct the problem. True they were contradicting earlier church teachings. You see the Church often did contradict itself.

No, that is a misunderstanding of:

1) Confession
2) Penance
3) Purgatory
4) Indulgences.

Agreed. But it was taught and accepted.

Confession was provided by Christ in John 20:19ff, when he breathed on his 11 remaining apostles and gave them the spirit and the "ministry of reconciliation" (as st. paul called it) saying "whose sins you forgive are forgiven, and whose sins you retain are retained".

I agree we should confess our sins to GOD. We do not need or have to do so to priests. Which is what the RCC taught.

Penance is us working to better ourselves and to increase our contrition for sin.

For us to repent and work to better our self is good. To think that it just means saying some words is wrong.

Purgatory is what Paul explains to us, that when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.

Nope. The words as though by fire. Does not mean literal fire. Even many popes today have started changing that point. We are to afflict our souls and GOD will divide what we did.

Moreover the Church has NEVER stated that there even IS time in purgatory, so cutting back "time" spent there is silly.

Middle ages History the time of Luther. Would you like some resources about the teaching of the Middle ages church.

Finally Indulgences are probably the most misunderstood pieces of Catholic Theology precisely because of the uproar and din these past 500 years. They reduce some of OUR "duration" or "time" or "experience" in purgatory, because the whole point of purgatory is to cleanse our souls of the attachment to sin which they retain until the day we die. Some will need more cleansing, others less - this may be a matter of time, but it may also be a matter of subjective time (i.e. the harder cases will seem to take longer or be more intense)...

This statement contradicts your statement above. This statement agrees with what I was saying which just before you stated was not true.

The church's teaching on purgatory is pretty small, but it is very clear that it is a real place.

Yes the RCC does teach that. I just do not read it in the Bible.

That's why St. Paul prayed for his deceased friend Onesiphorus in (2 tim 1:16-18

)
Point of information Onesiphorus was alive.

Stop leveling general, sweeping accusations...anyone can do that...give me particular instances.

Okay. I am just having trouble with so large posts. Give me one or two points.

There was never a "crusade" against protestants. The pope did at one time become the ruler of some lands, and as the ruler of the lands fought to protect his people. I'm not saying this was right or wrong. I don't care about the individual sins of individual popes, but only their teachings and whether or not they were right or wrong (and how we can even know that).

Then the PBS special on the inquestion was wrong. Unless you say that Cathars do not qualify as protestants. Protestants were systematically hunted down and killed. See Foxes’ book of Martyrs.

They changed. St. Paul warned Timothy not to lay hands too hastily (1 tim 5:22) precisely BECAUSE a real change is effected even if they're not worthy of the office.

But these men were laid hands on by those they paid to lay hands on them. They were given the office for money. Not by true followers of GOD.

First off, the church never "Fell". It's still there, thriving, growing, teaching, as she's always done. She is still the largest church in the world (though a minority amidst the world).

That is your belief. The pope was taken prisoner and died in prison. The church fall was spiritual from truth to error. Such as wicked men are representatives of GOD.

Second, how did the "protestants" assume it's position? Which ones? They teach conflicting doctrines, so do they all take the lead?

LuteHrians started. To me the true central church is the Seventh day Adventist church.

The title of "pope" matters not. It's Italian for "papa".

Right and the early church spoke greek and Latin.

What matters is whether or not the SUCCESSOR OF PETER, who's office settled in Rome, has a primacy or not.

It does not.

Ignatius who was antisemtic.

This is nothing new, and it came WELL before the Great Schism of 1054...
And the Great schism Orthodox rejected the teaching of the Pope of rome being heir to Peter. Since it is not directly stated until 325 A.D. Even at that time many Bishops argued against this doctrine that the Bishop of rome was giving to himself.

Obviously you've never read the Council of Trent, which EMPHATICALLY affirmed salvation by grace.

Yes and the RCC later rejected it when Luther taught it and called it a heresy.

Sometimes. So what? We're paying them homage, for they are great imitators of Christ. If I kiss a picture of my wife, am I committing adultery? NO!

That is giving adoration to the saints. Also you are kissing a portrait of your wife. Not of her sister, mother or a women walking down the street.

Three words are used. "Latria" refers to worship. Dulia refers to reverence and respect. Hyperdulia refers to a greater sense of dulia. But neither dulia nor hyperdulia are latria.

I will not take the time to check now. But sounds right.

WORSHIP is reserved to God Alone, who knows all of our prayers even before we ask. We can however still ask of him, and ask with others in the Body, be they alive with us or "absent from the body and present with Christ".

When you bow down in adoration before a dead person that is worship.

Translated? Assumed you mean? This is a much older belief than you may think. The church only formally defines things when they are being doubted on a wide scale...

True it is older then when it was stated. But not that much older.

God may permit it to teach a lesson. Samuel curses Saul for doing this...I doubt a Demon would do that...
Why. Demons are in the cursing business not followers of GOD.

If that is your language, fine. That is all we do with the Saints in heaven.

Then why kneel down to them. Why light candles to them. Why give them homage as a greater?

I prayed of you to pray for me...to pray means to ask.

As you pointed out there are different words.

We kneel because we are in prayer to god, and we invoke the heavenly hosts to pray with us as we pray. We may look at a statue for inspiration, as a soldier might look at a picture of his wife, or even kiss it because he loves his wife - but he has not thereby committed adultery.

But these are not pictures of GOD. But of men and women. They are not looking to JESUS but to others. Like kissing a picture of a different women.

If I loved you so greatly, and you were so holy, I might greet you with a kiss (though in American culture that's less permissible than in other western cultures...)

No problem. I am alive and you would not get on your knees and tell me your problems in detail and then not talk to GOD for you no longer need to since you told me.

Mary is NOT a goddess. She is a creature, though a most blessed creature. She is the Ark of the New Covenant, for she bore Christ, the bread from heaven, the word made flesh, the fulfillment of the law, who is the high priest who rules with the rod! The old Ark carried the manna from heaven, the law on the tablets, and the rod of Aaron, the high priest, which had budded.

Agreed JESUS is our High Priest and we go to GOD directly through him.

If anyone does worship her, then they sin grievously...

Agreed. They do. Talk to some in the Marion movement who are working to make Mary officially equal to JESUS. John Paul did not tell them to quit.

KephaMeansRock · Post by **KephaMeansRock** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:49 pm

Then we disagree. By the way where in the Bible is baptism compared to circumcision.

Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

As far as I know Matthew, Mark, Luke none of the writers of the Bible bought their positions to get rich. The teaching that evil men can represent and stand for GOD is an error.

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Yet the popes say you can be both and did as if you can and proclaimed as you can. So which is correct?

There is a catagorical difference between them serving God willfully, and them being used by God through his providential grace regardless of their sins. God used Nebuchadnezzar, he used Pharoah, and he even used Caiaphas in Luke 3:2, to prophecy about Christ, even though Caiaphas was plotting to kill Christ.

Caiaphas was a scheming politician, and he thought he came up with a real good plan. In John 11, he came up with the idea to get rid of Jesus. The leaders were afraid that Jesus was going to stir up the people. In verse 48, they reasoned, "If we let Him thus alone, all men will believe on Him; and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation." They were afraid to lose their political positions. So, Caiaphas says to them, "...consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not" (v. 50). He is saying, "It's better for us to kill Jesus than to let Him start a revolution so that we lose the whole nation." He thought he was sharp. Verse 51 says, "And this spoke he not of himself; but, being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation." Caiaphas was high priest, so God just spoke a prophecy through his mouth. Caiaphas didn't even know what he was saying. He thought he had a great plot to kill Jesus in order to stop a Roman persecution, but in effect he was predicting the death of Jesus Christ on behalf of the nation. What Caiaphas thought was a clever, evil plot, God intended as a prophecy of the death of Jesus Christ in behalf of men.

God can use wicked men in high offices without invalidating the office. Caiaphas WAS the high priest.

This utterly refutes your position, though I do understand where you're coming from. I'd rather all priests and popes be perfect saints, but that's just unrealistic in this life.

It negates anything the men did. Since you cannot say a servent is of both GOD and man. They cannot do both. They either are following GOD are not. So that would break the chain of apostolic succesion much less that historians had to go back and figure out which was the true pope and which was the antipopes.

Again, this is founded upon a faulty premise, as shown above. You're confusing what it means to "serve God" and to "be used by God", even though the latter could still be called "serving God"

Just as the RCC was replaced by Protestants and for the same reason.

Which protestants? They all teach contradicting doctrines, and all of them teach doctrines unheard of in the 1st century. Moral truth doesn't change. Doctrinal truth doesn't change.

You must pray to GOD and ask him to show you which is correct. For I will stand before GOD and answer him for my choices. I will stand their. Not anyone else. My life is on the line.

And when two or three do this, and still come to mutually incongruous doctrines, what then? Is God a God of confusion? Is the Spirit a Spirit of contradiction?

But the RCC makes scripture subservient to Tradition. For instance that wicked men can stand for GOD and are kept from error is a human tradition. So where the bible says that is wrong is not followed.

Scripture IS subservient in a sense to Tradition, for the CANON OF SCRIPTURE IS A MATTER OF TRADITION. Scripture points to a Church which is the body that settles issues of interpretation (cf Matt 18:15-18), with authority to "bind" and "loose" and have it really be bound in heaven and earth and loosed in heaven and on earth (cf. matt 18:18).

The bible does NOT say that wicked men cannot be used by God. Heck, look at Jonah, look at King Saul! Look at the many wicked kings of Israel! Look at Caiaphas the High Priest.

No, friend, your position is the one utterly untenable by scripture.

The Bible tells me JESUS was not just a man. So we both follow that. The Bible does not mention Pope and does not say tradition is of greater trustworthiness then scripture.

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15)

Riddle me this: Without being circular, where does scripture say to even have a New Testament? And where does it tell you what books comprise it (or the OT, for that matter)? See also.

Here, of course, we see that being ordained is no guarantee against apostasy...
But you had demeaned these men. When in fact one was a highly respected scholar. Erasmus agreed with Luther on his points. But was forced to keep them quiet for fear of death. Many of the points Luther brought up were in fact acted upon by the leaders even though they continued to try to murder Luther. If they had truly repented they would not try to murder the man they knew was telling them the truth.

Erasmus didn't keep quite for fear; he remained in the Church because he knew who She was. He wanted reform of the abuses, not a complete "re-formation" of the church.

And if you think Luther was the servant of God, then the very fact of the Peasants revolt should convict him by you're own aforementioned test of godliness, for Luther was pretty wicked.

Would you like me to list some bad popes and what they did? It breaks the succesion claimed by the RCC.

I think it would be needless, given the above refutation of your point.

Judas did not stay in office. He dies. He did not say he could stay in office and continue to steal. You cannot serve GOD and Mammon. That is not allowed.

A) He DIED, that is when his office was vacated.
B) The OFFICE remained and was FILLED
C)And see what happens to wicked men who hold the key to the kingdom:

In Israel, the role of the Davidic King was to be away, fighting to advance and protect his kingdom. In his stead, the Davidic King left ministers who bore his authority. What they said carried the weight of the king. But as the Kingdom was large, he had many ministers, and so to one the King in the line of David gave the key to the kingdom, with a special, preeminent authority. This authority didn't leave the office when the bearer was wicked.

The LORD shall hurl you down headlong, mortal man! He shall grip you firmly And roll you up and toss you like a ball into an open land To perish there, you and the chariots you glory in, you disgrace to your master's house! I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station.

On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family." (Isaiah 22:17-23)

So when Christ, the Davidic king, says to Simon "I will give to you the keys to the kingdom" and "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" we see very EXPLICITLY the office of the pope being founded.

The Apostles explained the Scriptures.

YES! The OT scriptures, and they explained them because THEY WERE THE MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH WHO COULD AUTHORITATIVELY DO SO!

If you wish I can look up a number of Middle ages Catholic scholars who argued that JESUS was too holy to approach directly. It was a common doctrine then.

I have my degree in History, with an emphasis in Medieval History, and I've never encountered it. I'm not omniscient, but I have my doubts...

Yes the Church did. Yes they did correct the problem. True they were contradicting earlier church teachings. You see the Church often did contradict itself.

Show me where it was taught.

Agreed. But it was taught and accepted.

Professed by some does not mean that THE CHURCH taught it. The Church only ever teaches what the Church has decided upon through Council.

I agree we should confess our sins to GOD. We do not need or have to do so to priests. Which is what the RCC taught.

Then why say to his apostles "whose sins YOU forgive are forgiven, and whose sins YOU retain are retained" (John 20:20)

They cannot know what sins to retain or forgive without hearing them.

And 2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church.

Mark 2 - Jesus says "so that you may know that the SON OF MAN (emphasizing man, not God) has authority to forgive sins...rise, pick up your mat and go home".

In James 5:15-16, James speaks of the anointing of the sick, and notes that the actions of the priest (Presbuteroi, often translated 'elder') are what forgive sins! And in addressing these church leaders, James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,”

For us to repent and work to better our self is good. To think that it just means saying some words is wrong.

And the Catholic Church agrees 100%. TRUE CONTRITION is necessary!

Nope. The words as though by fire. Does not mean literal fire. Even many popes today have started changing that point. We are to afflict our souls and GOD will divide what we did.

Nobody said that it's literal fire, but that doesn't mean it doesn't represent a REAL PURIFICATION, and one that according to the text happens AFTER JUDGEMENT. That IS purgatory.

Middle ages History the time of Luther. Would you like some resources about the teaching of the Middle ages church.

Yes.

This statement contradicts your statement above. This statement agrees with what I was saying which just before you stated was not true.

No, it doesn't. I even put "time" in quotes to show that I was aware that you'd raise this objection. We don't have much revelation on purgatory, but we know that it is real, and that our prayers can help (hence, again, Paul praying for Onesiphorus).

Point of information Onesiphorus was alive.

Doubtful.

But if you can speak infallibly on this matter, let me know...

Unless you say that Cathars do not qualify as protestants. Protestants were systematically hunted down and killed. See Foxes’ book of Martyrs.

Technically they aren't. The Protestant reformation is kind of the litmus test for regarding denominations as protestant or not.

As it is, the Cathars threatened to overthrow civil society by disregarding things like contracts, and teaching gnostic bits and forbidding marriage and meat...

I doubt you'd want to claim them...and in a society in which religion and affairs of state were intimately intertwined, such actions were tantamount to insurrection or treason...it's very difficult to view such matters without the bias of the 20th or 21st century glasses through which we view all things.

But these men were laid hands on by those they paid to lay hands on them. They were given the office for money. Not by true followers of GOD.

Some bought their office in different ways, this is not a point I'm contending. But the some are, first off, the VAST AND OVERWHELMING FEW, and moreover, as shown above, the office isn't thereby invalidated.

That is your belief. The pope was taken prisoner and died in prison. The church fall was spiritual from truth to error. Such as wicked men are representatives of GOD.

Popes die all the time? The last 463 have all died...So what?

LuteHrians started. To me the true central church is the Seventh day Adventist church

Are every doctrine that the SDAs profess true and good and utterly in conformity with the will of God? By what do you judge?

Right and the early church spoke greek and Latin.

Greek, Latin, Aramiac and Hebrew, also Syrian and Coptic and Egyptian...so?

Ignatius who was antisemtic.

Evidence?

And the Great schism Orthodox rejected the teaching of the Pope of rome being heir to Peter. Since it is not directly stated until 325 A.D. Even at that time many Bishops argued against this doctrine that the Bishop of rome was giving to himself.

I love how everyone has a different date for when it was stated...the least the anti-papists could do is get together and decide WHEN the Catholic church first insisted on papal supremacy...

But yes, at the COUNCIL OF NICEA, where the overwhelming majority of bishops were from the Eastern part of the church, they put forth a canon calling the Bishop of Rome the Prince amongst all bishops...but this wasn't just invented then randomly - that just wouldn't fly. We can see evidence of this in the first century through the third, well before 325AD.

Yes and the RCC later rejected it when Luther taught it and called it a heresy.

If I had a dollar for every unsubstantiation "the church claimed this then switched it" quote you've given me, I could order the Pizza Hut Family Meal deal, with two orders of breadsticks and a 2-liter...BACK THIS UP OR DON'T SAY IT!

That is giving adoration to the saints.

So...you're saying that worship consists in physical posture?

Also you are kissing a portrait of your wife.

But it's not her. By your definition, I'm adoring her...

When we kiss a statue of a saint, it is because we LOVE THAT SAINT, and we have a great affection/affinity for them as our brother or sister in Christ. I for one love St. Benedict, and am an Oblate in his Monastic order (i.e. a Lay brother). If I kiss his statue, it is not because I worship him, or think he is god, or the giver of all good things.

Not of her sister, mother or a women walking down the street.

Well, Christ gave Mary into the care of "his beloved disciple", and the entire early church, THROUGH the reformers, all supported the notion of praying to the Saints and especially to Mary as our Mother in the faith. She is most blessed amongst women, and from that day forth all generations have called her blessed, as she herself prophesied...

But Mary isn't God. Period. The church has never, ever, EVER taught that. Period.

When you bow down in adoration before a dead person that is worship.

When I bowed before my wife to ask her hand in marriage, was I worshiping her?

When I visited the grave of my best friend, when I knelt there and prayed, did I worship him?

When I visited the Lincoln Memorial, and in a spirit of ecstasy shouted praise to the Lord upon my knees, was I worshiping Honest Abe?

When Israel looked to the serpent raised in the desert - the very one called a type of Christ - did they worship it? (not initially, at any rate).

Statues and relics are not bad - they are holy things meant to draw us closer to God; the BODY OF CHRIST draws us closer to CHRIST, not farther from him!

True it is older then when it was stated. But not that much older.

Mary's assumption can be traced to within the first 300 years of the church as a stated and professed belief...

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world." Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

The best proof though comes from the fact that the early Christians DID love relics greatly. They knew where the bodies of all the saints were buried, including Peter and Paul. They honored them...but the one grave they never claimed to have was that of Mary.

Then why kneel down to them. Why light candles to them. Why give them homage as a greater?

Because, being absent from they body they are present with Christ and ARE greater than we are CURRENTLY (though we are destined for similar greatness). If "the prayers of the righteous avails much", according to St. James, then they prayers of those in heaven most certainly are of value!

But these are not pictures of GOD. But of men and women. They are not looking to JESUS but to others. Like kissing a picture of a different women.

When I pray to God, must I make sure there are no pictures anywhere near? That seems a bit absurd!

But moreover, they are THE BODY OF CHRIST.

No problem. I am alive and you would not get on your knees and tell me your problems in detail and then not talk to GOD for you no longer need to since you told me.

And, for the last time, praying to the saints is NOT an end; NEVER HAS BEEN, NEVER WILL BE.

But if asking you to pray for me can help me, so can asking them...

Agreed JESUS is our High Priest and we go to GOD directly through him.

Then I should never ask you to pray for me? Because that's NOT going directly to Jesus...

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:55 pm

KMR wrote:Sure it was, why else are they called the ANABAPTISTS? It's where their very name derives from...

Sure, adult baptism has it's place in scripture, because at that time the vast majority of Christians were CONVERTS; but in a Christian society, it's different.

And in the NT we can clearly see that infants were baptized, for entire households were baptized (which would include children), and Paul even draws the analogy between circumcision and baptism: When circumcision was introduced, it was mostly adult males who underwent it because they all had to enter the covenant, but it also applied to their children; and as the covenant grew, more and more the adults were already circumcised and only children - males 8 days old - were in need. SO too with circumcision. In fact, in the early church, the debate over infant circumcision centers not over whether children should be baptized (unambiguously 'yes') but whether the customary 8 days was necessary.

Come now, KMR, surely you can do better than that! The English term 'Anabaptist' came from the pejorative German term 'Wiedertäufer', meaning 're-baptiser'. It was hardly a name they would have coined for themselves; the term itself was the product of a rather bigoted Catholic view of their theology (which I'm sad to see has not passed on with the era when we were burned at the stake).

'Anabaptist' is now used because it no longer has pejorative connotations, and people would recognise it over the terms Anabaptists used for themselves: 'brethren', 'Christian' and 'baptism-minded' (Taufsgesinnte). As it is, the most important points of Anabaptist theology had to do with the community of belief, not with points like baptism. Differences over baptism were just what caught the most attention.

As to the second statement and corresponding interpretation, I have to ask the questions which Michael Sattler and Menno Simons did almost five hundred years ago: what is Christian society? Is Christian society a political body? Does it correspond to the Church? What is its relationship to civil authority? You seem to think the answers to these questions are straightforward and unambiguous, but if my experience as a Christian has taught me anything, it's that rarely is an answer to such a question straightforward; even more rarely is it lacking in ambiguity. Jesus may have told us his yoke is easy and his burden light, but it doesn't follow that either should be taken lightly.

As such, if I were you I'd be careful when citing St. Paul's analogy of circumcision in Colossians. Circumcision was undertaken by Jewish communities as a symbol of their covenantal relationship with God through Abraham. The covenant to which Christians hold was decided to be qualitatively different than the one which bound together the Jewish community (see Acts 15). This covenant identified the primal nature of the Christian not on the basis of gender or on the basis of race or on the basis of social status, but rather on the basis of faith.

I think you must realise this, otherwise you wouldn't write something like:

KMR wrote:The law of God is not the Levitical code, and it is not binding upon Christians - most of whom are of Gentile Origin. The Law cannot save you.

Also, you may note that the baptisms taking place in Acts seem to place a certain emphasis on the fact that people first listened to the disciples of Jesus, and only afterwards chose to be baptised. Infants cannot listen, nor can they choose of their own volition to be baptised - if their primal nature within the Church is to be one predicated on faith, why should they be made a part of the Church before that primal nature can begin to manifest itself through the faculties of reason?

KMR wrote:The popes have never been wrong when speaking in their office. If you can show me where they have, I'll convert.

The number of statements made by popes ex cathedra would easily fit on a grocery list. But given that in 1854 Pius IX declared ex cathedra Mary's mother to be without sin at the time of Mary's conception, without knowing anything about the mother of Mary from Scripture, from archaeological evidence or from history, the idea of ex cathedra infallibility is something I'm going to have to pass on, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary as another of the RCC's eccentricities (that's a kind word).

But there is kind of a question-begging to the whole thing - the Immaculate Concepton of Mary can't be wrong, because it was made ex cathedra, et cetera ad nauseam.

KMR wrote:Democratic? Show me...

The church has always had leaders - bishops, priests and deacons - who took active roles in shepherding the flock.

Allow me to reiterate: I don't deny that the Church has bishops, priests and deacons.

Again, I don't deny that the Church has bishops, priests and deacons.

Once more, just to make sure it sinks in: I do not deny that the Church has bishops, priests and deacons.

Okay, now we're clear on that, let's get to the more interesting question. What are the roles of bishops, priests and deacons, and how might such community leaders prevent the early Church from being democratic?

In the early Church, it's fairly easy to guess what the roles of 'overseer' (episkopos) and 'elder' (presbuteros) and 'assistant' (diakonos) were from St. Paul's descriptions: they were leaders in their communities, they served their communities and if necessary spoke for them. They were not dictators and they were not tyrants. They heard and acted on the concerns of their communities.

Saying that the presence of bishops and priests and deacons who took active roles in shepherding their flocks negates my claim that the early Church was democratic is like saying the presence of a Prime Minister and MPs in the British parliament negates my claim that Britain's system of government is democratic.

KMR wrote:The vast majority of the Catholic church has always been pacifistic in the truest sense - i.e. MEEK. But true meekness isn't weakness, it's mediated anger; Jesus was being meek when he made a whip and drove out the money-changers.

"Anti-militarist tendencies" do not equate with a doctrinal position utterly upposed to action when necessary...

Pacifism is not weakness. Questions?

Also, I'd suggest that you read some Ignatius or Origen or Justin Martyr. Then read Mark Kurlansky's book Nonviolence: Twenty-Five Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea, and then go back and read Ignatius or Origen or Justin Martyr. In the age of empire and the glorification of Roman military might, you might realise just how radical these early pacifists were.

KMR wrote:The reformation was late on the scene, because only at the end of the 1400 did we have Guttenburg's Press, allowing for mass distribution of the scriptures, which in turn allowed each individual to read them and come to their own conclusions apart form the Church (an utterly un-biblical method).

Hm. I wish I could say this was a unique interpretation of the historical events of the Reformation, but I would be sadly, sadly wrong.

Even the most radical reformers knew the capacity of the individual to make errors. But they did realise, as St. Paul had earlier, that with the proper disciplines the community of belief can correct itself, and in recognition of this they practised a discipline of obedience to God and to the body of Jesus Christ, which is the community of belief.

(This is also an effective alternative to apostolic succession. The community is visible and largely continuous; it needs no tyrant to make it so.)

KMR wrote:That Zwingli and Luther could read and write show that they were smart fellows. Luther was, at least, a rather base fellow, however - most of his writings reference flatulence and fecal matter which utterly offended sensibilities 500 years ago...and he was rather hateful at times...

Um... 'rather'?

KMR wrote:No sir. It says "THEREFORE DO ALL THAT THEY TELL YOU..." and the reasoning for that is because of their place on "THE SEAT OF MOSES". The Jews were OBLIGED as Jews to listen to them...

Those passages, however, were not referencing the pharisees, but the former (matt 23:1-3) was because it explicitly cites them. They were, however, the old wine-skins, which the new wine was not poured into.

Um... what? Those both require some pretty brazen logical acrobatics. Firstly, you are forgetting that the scribes and the Pharisees were legal experts and reformers, and the 'seat of Moses' is a tributary title to their legal knowledge (Moses being the lawgiver to the Jews). Jesus was telling the crowds to listen to and obey the laws, but not to follow the example of the scribes and the Pharisees.

Secondly, Jesus says that the scribes and the Pharisees like to be called 'teacher', be greeted with respect in the streets and have the place of honour at the tables of their guests. Is it a complete change of subject when Jesus tells the people not to call anyone 'teacher' or 'father'?

KMR wrote:
MagusYanam wrote:Not to be glib, but don't the four Evangelists qualify?
Huh?

The four Evangelists - St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John. Jesus was addressing them when he said 'whoever hears you hears me'. To read the Gospel is to hear the words of Jesus, is it not?

KMR wrote:NOBODY has EVER stated that one MUST pray through intercessors. EVER. You can live your entire life as a Catholic and NEVER pray to the saints or to Mary and be just fine.

By 'specially-designated intercessor', I mean the idea that an elder (presbuteros) must mediate between me and God; that I cannot confess my sins directly to God and receive absolution directly from God. I reject that kind of spiritual aristocracy as without foundation, as St. Paul made quite clear there is no social distinction within the body of Christ - no slave nor free.

I can agree to the existence of a sainthood (you'll notice how I cite the Gospels) and I can agree that the mother of Jesus was a singular human being blessed with a very singular experience.

KMR wrote:He said to put it away, for HE HIMSELF was FREELY GIVING HIMSELF UP.

So, if you were married and had kids, and you came home to your children mutilated and being sexually assaulted, and your spouse dead, would you just say "oh, please stop" or would you try to stop them physically? These things happen in the real world, and they are UNJUST and IMMORAL, and using ACTION to stop them is NOT wrong, or else Jesus himself was wrong for driving out the money changers with a whip.

Firstly, please don't shout.

Secondly, I'm afraid you're wrong. Jesus said 'Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword'. Only after saying this did he go on to imply that he was giving himself up willingly.

Thirdly, don't think I've not come across the hypothetical-jackass scenario before in my discussions on pacifism. Personally, I do realise that such people are unjust and immoral, and yes, I would try to stop them physically because I would act on my emotions and instincts. But instinct is not a moral excuse, nor is emotion, especially in light of the consideration that this hypothetical attacker is also perhaps behaving according to some similar dark instinct or emotion to do violence.

I think that the people who are able to resist such jackasses without doing violence are far more admirable and worthy of emulation, Jesus being first among them. I also think that Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Mahatma Gandhi are worthy of being emulated. It is admirable to die in the name of one's faith especially if one does not kill.

It's also worth note that there is no indication in Scripture that Jesus inflicted bodily violence on anyone while he was in Jerusalem, and that the interpretation exists that the act of overturning tables and driving out the moneychangers was symbolic of his will that the temple should be open to all, not just those who could pay to make sacrifices.

KMR wrote:What about in the one I cited above?

Did you cite an instance above?

KMR wrote:Doctrine is never "more important" than "the needs of the people" - it is one of their needs. And no doctrine of the church works against the needs of the people.

Oh, really?

I must say it's a pleasure debating with you, Justin. Even if I don't agree with you about 40% of the time, that's all the more thinking I get to do. Thanks!

Catharsis · Post by **Catharsis** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:24 pm

Re: The Primacy of the Pope & the Filioque

The Eastern Patriarchs always recognized the Primacy given to the Church of Rome. An important historical reason why Rome received such authority was because the city was the capital of the Roman Empire - an empire which adopted Christianity as the official religion. The modern Catholic interpretation of the term Primacy, Authority or any other word one wishes to use, is in total contradiction as to how the early Church Fathers understood it. Important decisions were always made in a democratic manner, at councils of bishops or Ecumenical Councils.

Nevertheless, the Popes of Old Rome always held communion with the bishops of the East until the years 1009-1014, when, for the first time, the Frankish bishops seized the throne of Old Rome. Until the year 1009 the Popes of Rome and the Patriarchs of Constantinople were unified in a common struggle against the Frankish princes and bishops, already even at that time heretics. The Franks at the Synod of Frankfurt in 794 condemned the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod and the honorable veneration of the holy icons. Likewise in 809 the Franks introduced into the Symbol of the Faith the "Filioque"; namely, the doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit both from the Father and from the Son. At that time the Pope of Rome condemned this imposition (Pope Leo had the Creed, without the addition, inscribed on silver tablets, in both Latin and Greek). At the Synod of Constantinople presided over by Photios the Great, at which also representatives of the Pope of Rome participated, they condemned as many as had condemned the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod and as many as had added the Filioque to the Symbol of Faith. However, the Frankish Pope Sergius IV, in the year 1009, in his enthronement encyclical for the first time added the Filioque to the Symbol of Faith. Then Pope Benedict VIII introduced the Creed with the Filioque into the worship service of the Church, at which time the Pope was stricken out from the diptychs of the Orthodox Church.

In this manner the Church in Rome anathematized itself - by the Third Ecumenical Council - for adding to the Nicene-Constantinoplean Creed.

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:48 pm

Catharsis wrote:Nevertheless, the Popes of Old Rome always held communion with the bishops of the East until the years 1009-1014, when, for the first time, the Frankish bishops seized the throne of Old Rome. Until the year 1009 the Popes of Rome and the Patriarchs of Constantinople were unified in a common struggle against the Frankish princes and bishops, already even at that time heretics. The Franks at the Synod of Frankfurt in 794 condemned the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod and the honorable veneration of the holy icons. Likewise in 809 the Franks introduced into the Symbol of the Faith the "Filioque"; namely, the doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit both from the Father and from the Son. At that time the Pope of Rome condemned this imposition (Pope Leo had the Creed, without the addition, inscribed on silver tablets, in both Latin and Greek).

Hmm... I'm picking up on some Grecian disapproval of our barbarian Teutonic ways...

Still, metaphysics never was my favourite branch of philosophy - I've often suspected that a lot of it is just watching the wind blow. Though I admit that I'm often more attracted to the democratic traditions of the early church, despite the later developments away from that, I find a lot of the early debates over the substance of God to be kind of... silly. Maybe that's just my plebeian Frankish blood showing...

KephaMeansRock · Post by **KephaMeansRock** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:09 pm

Magus wrote:Come now, KMR, surely you can do better than that! The English term 'Anabaptist' came from the pejorative German term 'Wiedertäufer', meaning 're-baptiser'. It was hardly a name they would have coined for themselves; the term itself was the product of a rather bigoted Catholic view of their theology (which I'm sad to see has not passed on with the era when we were burned at the stake).

Hmm...that sounds at the least plausible...I'm willing to concede the point to a degree...

It seems sort of like "Roman" Catholic...it was coined by anti-papists as a pejorative against to papists...in truth the "Roman" Catholic Church is the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, in which there are other various eastern rites. In fact for that reason, I tend to shy away from "Roman" in describing the church, and just call it what they just called it in the 1st century... "Catholic".

Nevertheless Anabaptist is a term used today because it DOES reflect a doctrine of that denomination...and it also seems to have been coined by more than just the Catholics...Protestants didn't take kindly to them either...

'Anabaptist' is now used because it no longer has pejorative connotations, and people would recognise it over the terms Anabaptists used for themselves: 'brethren', 'Christian' and 'baptism-minded' (Taufsgesinnte)

...though I do have to laugh that they then call themselves "baptism-minded"....

As to the second statement and corresponding interpretation, I have to ask the questions which Michael Sattler and Menno Simons did almost five hundred years ago: what is Christian society? Is Christian society a political body? Does it correspond to the Church? What is its relationship to civil authority? You seem to think the answers to these questions are straightforward and unambiguous, but if my experience as a Christian has taught me anything, it's that rarely is an answer to such a question straightforward; even more rarely is it lacking in ambiguity. Jesus may have told us his yoke is easy and his burden light, but it doesn't follow that either should be taken lightly.

Christian Society is the Church, the body of Christ, which IS composed of all believers (even those not fully in communion with the ministers of Christ who are the successors of the apostles (i.e. the Bishops)), but which has a real hierarchical structure based upon the foundation laid by the apostles, and practiced in the 1st century and beyond.

As such, if I were you I'd be careful when citing St. Paul's analogy of circumcision in Colossians. Circumcision was undertaken by Jewish communities as a symbol of their covenantal relationship with God through Abraham. The covenant to which Christians hold was decided to be qualitatively different than the one which bound together the Jewish community (see Acts 15). This covenant identified the primal nature of the Christian not on the basis of gender or on the basis of race or on the basis of social status, but rather on the basis of faith.

All of the New Covenant is foreshadowed in the old - it is the reason for and explanation of the Old Covenants. Christian life is built upon faith, yes. BUT it is also built upon a sacramental life which can also impart real grace - and as circumcision brought one into the old covenant, so now does baptism bring one into the new - it is the normatively necessary entrypoint of grace into the Christian life (though God himself is the author of life and Grace, and when necessary can work around them (like the thief on Christ's Right)).

Also, you may note that the baptisms taking place in Acts seem to place a certain emphasis on the fact that people first listened to the disciples of Jesus, and only afterwards chose to be baptised. Infants cannot listen, nor can they choose of their own volition to be baptised - if their primal nature within the Church is to be one predicated on faith, why should they be made a part of the Church before that primal nature can begin to manifest itself through the faculties of reason?

The adults first listened, and then were baptized because in adults conversion cannot be forced. But when they believed, they entered the church and brought with them their entire family; this is why we see entire households (household does not exclude children) baptized.

Baptism isn't just a sign of belief - it imparts real grace. Baptism "now saves you" says Peter, for it is the appeal for a clean conscience that washes us. Who needs to be washed? Everyone, for the Psalmist himself declares that ALL of us are born into inequity. "Unless you are born of water and the spirit" said Christ, "you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven"...

The number of statements made by popes ex cathedra would easily fit on a grocery list. But given that in 1854 Pius IX declared ex cathedra Mary's mother to be without sin at the time of Mary's conception, without knowing anything about the mother of Mary from Scripture, from archaeological evidence or from history, the idea of ex cathedra infallibility is something I'm going to have to pass on, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary as another of the RCC's eccentricities (that's a kind word).

Careful, it was MARY, not Mary's mother...I'll assume that a typo...

And there are both biblical and historical reasons for positing this.

We could discuss this more if you like...but there are underlying assumptions that would need to be addressed before you'd be willing to admit the possibility of this...

What are the roles of bishops, priests and deacons, and how might such community leaders prevent the early Church from being democratic?

In the early Church, it's fairly easy to guess what the roles of 'overseer' (episkopos) and 'elder' (presbuteros) and 'assistant' (diakonos) were from St. Paul's descriptions: they were leaders in their communities, they served their communities and if necessary spoke for them. They were not dictators and they were not tyrants. They heard and acted on the concerns of their communities.

Saying that the presence of bishops and priests and deacons who took active roles in shepherding their flocks negates my claim that the early Church was democratic is like saying the presence of a Prime Minister and MPs in the British parliament negates my claim that Britain's system of government is democratic.

I suppose it depends upon what you mean by "democratic".

Matters of faith - of doctrine - were not just a matter of popular accord (though the deposit of the faith within the communities is what allowed them to hold to orthodox belief even in the face of heretical sects...they knew what had been taught)

Though there were times when bishops or priests were "pronounced" by the people - i.e. they were brought forth by popular accord to preside, and from thence hands were laid upon them.

I suppose I'd ask for clarification on what you mean by "democratic" and all it's ramifications...

Pacifism is not weakness. Questions?

Also, I'd suggest that you read some Ignatius or Origen or Justin Martyr. Then read Mark Kurlansky's book Nonviolence: Twenty-Five Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea, and then go back and read Ignatius or Origen or Justin Martyr. In the age of empire and the glorification of Roman military might, you might realise just how radical these early pacifists were.

MEEKNESS isn't weakness. And laying down one's own life (if you call that pacifism) is not either - it is the pinnacle of manliness...

I'm not knocking pacifism...but I do think that absolute pacifism can be less virtuous than taking action when it's necessary, when there is no other recorse.

You keep giving examples (Ignatius, Origen, Justin) of people who WILLINGLY LAID their lives down, which is their prerogative. They did so knowing that they loved the Lord their God and that he was giving them His grace. That is why Christ told Simon to lay down his sword - he was laying down his life! But there are others who aren't there spiritually, and it is our obligation to protect them...to care for the downtrodden, even if it means physically stopping their oppressors.

Again, i submit to you to you the incident above...you see a man torturing a child to death...do you do nothing? Do you subdue him? If you have no means to subdue him without risking his death, do you let him continue? It's an extreme example, but there are times when the decisions are that extreme.

Even the most radical reformers knew the capacity of the individual to make errors. But they did realise, as St. Paul had earlier, that with the proper disciplines the community of belief can correct itself, and in recognition of this they practiced a discipline of obedience to God and to the body of Jesus Christ, which is the community of belief.

St. Paul taught that not all are teachers, not all are apostles - but SOME are, and that we are to listen to those who will teach.

The community of believers can correct itself it it listens to those given with binding and loosing authority to protect the Church, which is "the pillar and foundation of the truth"...

Not everyone was an apostle, and the apostles didn't ordain everybody, and neither did they. There was a real succession through the laying on of hands from on generation to the next.

(This is also an effective alternative to apostolic succession. The community is visible and largely continuous; it needs no tyrant to make it so.)

Maybe, if it worked. But it doesn't. That is why there are so many competing denominations. The spirit cannot be guiding them all...

Um... what? Those both require some pretty brazen logical acrobatics. Firstly, you are forgetting that the scribes and the Pharisees were legal experts and reformers, and the 'seat of Moses' is a tributary title to their legal knowledge (Moses being the lawgiver to the Jews). Jesus was telling the crowds to listen to and obey the laws, but not to follow the example of the scribes and the Pharisees.

No. The Seat of Moses is the seats of Judgment he set up to guide Israel. They were OFFICES that held REAL AUTHORITY BINDING UPON THE PEOPLE, which is why Christ said the people could (and were EXPECTED to) listen to and obey them. Which is why he said "do all they tell you", because what they said was authoritative, but they were not to do as they did, because they did not practice what they preached, though they preached authoritatively.

The same principle governed Caiaphas' ability to prophecy based upon his OFFICE.

The four Evangelists - St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John. Jesus was addressing them when he said 'whoever hears you hears me'. To read the Gospel is to hear the words of Jesus, is it not?

I think that THIS is textual acrobatics. St. Mark and Luke we have no reason to believe were even there...

And moreover, Christ never said to write anything, but to "do this" and "preach this" and "baptize" etc. He gave commands for actions to direct his church.

Moreover, this says whoever HEARS you; to be a stickler, that directly implies listening to a message, not reading one.

Also, it is important to bear in mind not only what christ says, but TO WHOM he is speaking...the authorit to bind and loose was given only to his 12, and the keys only to 1 of them. The promise that "whoever hears you...whoever rejects you" was also given to THEM, not to everyone. And they in turn passed this on.

By 'specially-designated intercessor', I mean the idea that an elder (presbuteros) must mediate between me and God

Why else even have a presbuterate?

that I cannot confess my sins directly to God and receive absolution directly from God. I reject that kind of spiritual aristocracy as without foundation, as St. Paul made quite clear there is no social distinction within the body of Christ - no slave nor free.

You can be offended if you like, but that doesn't take away from what Christ Himself said. We ought, of course, daily to confess our sins to God - but to certain men a real ministry of reconciliation was given, along with the authority to "forgive" or "retain" sins...

They only do this, however, in virtue of the atoning death of Christ - they are his body applying this universal salvific act to the individual sinners...

There are no social distinctions, but "are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers" he asks rhetorically..."no", is the answer...but SOME ARE...

Why else would Paul warn against ordaining too quickly? Not all are to be ordained...

Why else give specifications for the qualities of those appointed to the presbuterate and episcopate?

Firstly, please don't shout.

I'm not shouting, I'm emphasizing my points, but sometimes I forget to use the bold feature because I post on some boards where it's not possible to bold

Secondly, I'm afraid you're wrong. Jesus said 'Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword'. Only after saying this did he go on to imply that he was giving himself up willingly.

it was all one action. He just put peter's sword down first because if he didn't, then worse might have happened. He stopped the violence, and then explained that he both was laying down his life, and that He of all people did not need defense. He said "put the sword down. Don't you think my Father would send a legion of Angels to fight for me if I asked Him?".

Jesus didn't WANT the help, for he was laying down his life in obedience, and he didn't need it because he had greater help were he only to ask. And notice even the heavenly hosts aren't pacifists. They fight when it is necessary.

Bear in mind, also, that this is coming from a former pacifist, which very pacifistic leanings. We must ALWAYS work for peace - but sometimes the only work which will promote peace is stopping abuse with physical force.

Thirdly, don't think I've not come across the hypothetical-jackass scenario before in my discussions on pacifism. Personally, I do realise that such people are unjust and immoral, and yes, I would try to stop them physically because I would act on my emotions and instincts. But instinct is not a moral excuse, nor is emotion, especially in light of the consideration that this hypothetical attacker is also perhaps behaving according to some similar dark instinct or emotion to do violence.

So if you were not acting on instinct, what then? Would you permit the action?

I think that the people who are able to resist such jackasses without doing violence are far more admirable and worthy of emulation, Jesus being first among them. I also think that Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Mahatma Gandhi are worthy of being emulated. It is admirable to die in the name of one's faith especially if one does not kill.

I'm not disageeing with any of this. Just war theory was developed precisely because if there are ANY other means available, they generally ought to be tried first. Action is always a last recourse, but it is a recourse...

It's also worth note that there is no indication in Scripture that Jesus inflicted bodily violence on anyone while he was in Jerusalem, and that the interpretation exists that the act of overturning tables and driving out the moneychangers was symbolic of his will that the temple should be open to all, not just those who could pay to make sacrifices.

He made a whip and "drove them out"...being the perfect God-man, he very well may have not struck them, but you better believe that they thought he might!

KMR wrote:Doctrine is never "more important" than "the needs of the people" - it is one of their needs. And no doctrine of the church works against the needs of the people.
Oh, really?

Yes. The Doctrine of Indulgences - as even that wikipedia article described - did not ever act against the needs of the people. Individuals might have abused the practice of indulgences, but it was never a TEACHING that "indulgences must be exchanged for alms" (which really isn't a bad thing per se, nonetheless)

Indulgences are one of the most misunderstood bits of Catholic history - Id be careful dragging them out unless you really know what they are.

I must say it's a pleasure debating with you, Justin. Even if I don't agree with you about 40% of the time, that's all the more thinking I get to do. Thanks! Very Happy

I'm glad you agree with me 60% of the time, and i'm enjoying our debate too!

Pax Christi,

-Justin

KephaMeansRock · Post by **KephaMeansRock** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:30 pm

Catharsis wrote:Re: The Primacy of the Pope & the Filioque

The Eastern Patriarchs always recognized the Primacy given to the Church of Rome. An important historical reason why Rome received such authority was because the city was the capital of the Roman Empire - an empire which adopted Christianity as the official religion. The modern Catholic interpretation of the term Primacy, Authority or any other word one wishes to use, is in total contradiction as to how the early Church Fathers understood it. Important decisions were always made in a democratic manner, at councils of bishops or Ecumenical Councils.

Nevertheless, the Popes of Old Rome always held communion with the bishops of the East until the years 1009-1014, when, for the first time, the Frankish bishops seized the throne of Old Rome. Until the year 1009 the Popes of Rome and the Patriarchs of Constantinople were unified in a common struggle against the Frankish princes and bishops, already even at that time heretics. The Franks at the Synod of Frankfurt in 794 condemned the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod and the honorable veneration of the holy icons. Likewise in 809 the Franks introduced into the Symbol of the Faith the "Filioque"; namely, the doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit both from the Father and from the Son. At that time the Pope of Rome condemned this imposition (Pope Leo had the Creed, without the addition, inscribed on silver tablets, in both Latin and Greek). At the Synod of Constantinople presided over by Photios the Great, at which also representatives of the Pope of Rome participated, they condemned as many as had condemned the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod and as many as had added the Filioque to the Symbol of Faith. However, the Frankish Pope Sergius IV, in the year 1009, in his enthronement encyclical for the first time added the Filioque to the Symbol of Faith. Then Pope Benedict VIII introduced the Creed with the Filioque into the worship service of the Church, at which time the Pope was stricken out from the diptychs of the Orthodox Church.

In this manner the Church in Rome anathematized itself - by the Third Ecumenical Council - for adding to the Nicene-Constantinoplean Creed.

You dont have to buy it, but you might like reading this.

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:45 pm

KephaMeansRock wrote:I do have to laugh that they then call themselves "baptism-minded"...

Yeah, it does kind of seem as though the sixteenth-century Anabaptists were being kind of 'in-your-face' about it, at any rate. Perhaps we did bear some of the responsibility for that particular misrepresentation. But anyway...

KephaMeansRock wrote:Christian Society is the Church, the body of Christ, which IS composed of all believers (even those not fully in communion with the ministers of Christ who are the successors of the apostles (i.e. the Bishops)), but which has a real hierarchical structure based upon the foundation laid by the apostles, and practiced in the 1st century and beyond.

Okay, now the discussion gets interesting.

Is knowing one's place in the 'real hierarchical structure' an integral part of what it means to be a member of the body of Christ? If so, where in Scripture is this imparted? I think it's still worth note that when Jesus spoke of hierarchy (either social or religious) it was usually in terms which were quite strongly critical.

KephaMeansRock wrote:All of the New Covenant is foreshadowed in the old - it is the reason for and explanation of the Old Covenants. Christian life is built upon faith, yes. BUT it is also built upon a sacramental life which can also impart real grace - and as circumcision brought one into the old covenant, so now does baptism bring one into the new - it is the normatively necessary entrypoint of grace into the Christian life (though God himself is the author of life and Grace, and when necessary can work around them (like the thief on Christ's Right)).

Baptism isn't just a sign of belief - it imparts real grace. Baptism "now saves you" says Peter, for it is the appeal for a clean conscience that washes us. Who needs to be washed? Everyone, for the Psalmist himself declares that ALL of us are born into inequity. "Unless you are born of water and the spirit" said Christ, "you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven"...

Firstly, some good old-fashioned philosophical nitpicking. What is meant by 'real grace'? Does that mean there's such a thing as 'unreal grace'? Care must be taken here: in Christian theology, 'grace' is not a concept around which adjectives are easily hedged.

Also, take a moment to figure what is meant by 'grace': the unmerited, sovereign and saving favour of God for his creatures. You rightly note that God is the author of this favour, but to say that there is some kind of requisite, some 'normatively necessary entry-point' for grace, is (logically speaking) to make it something merited: thus, whatever it is that is being imparted through the sacraments, it is not 'grace' as I understand it. Ergo, baptism must serve some other purpose.

As such, given the examples in Acts I think the context indicates, fairly strongly, that baptism is an expression of faith and a symbol of grace. Claiming that baptism is an entry-point for grace (thus, logically, a way to attain grace) is analogous to marrying to become a bachelor.

KephaMeansRock wrote:The adults first listened, and then were baptized because in adults conversion cannot be forced. But when they believed, they entered the church and brought with them their entire family; this is why we see entire households (household does not exclude children) baptized.

Yes, but just because something was common practise doesn't mean that it ought to be done in such a fashion.

KephaMeansRock wrote:Careful, it was MARY, not Mary's mother...I'll assume that a typo...

And there are both biblical and historical reasons for positing this.

We could discuss this more if you like...but there are underlying assumptions that would need to be addressed before you'd be willing to admit the possibility of this...

No, I'm pretty sure I read it properly. The statement made ex cathedra reads thus:

Pius IX wrote:The Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.

Note the phrasing 'in the first instance of her conception' and 'was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin'. It logically follows that somebody had to be doing the conceiving, and that Mary's parents somehow did not transmit original sin to her (if I'm remembering right, original sin is inherited in Catholic doctrine). That she was singularly privileged I don't question - but it seems that declaring Mary to be free of original sin is somewhat a needless, not to mention strange, pontification. If God could protect Jesus from original sin, what need would there be for Mary to be free of original sin? On the other hand, if God could not protect Jesus from original sin without the Immaculate Conception of Mary, why stop at Mary? For Mary to have been born without original sin, following the same logic, wouldn't her own parents have to have been born without original sin? Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the meaning of 'original sin', you end up on the one hand with a needless doctrine and on the other with a nonsensical infinite regression.

I am, however, open to a solution to this dilemma.

KephaMeansRock wrote:]I suppose it depends upon what you mean by "democratic".

Matters of faith - of doctrine - were not just a matter of popular accord (though the deposit of the faith within the communities is what allowed them to hold to orthodox belief even in the face of heretical sects...they knew what had been taught)

Though there were times when bishops or priests were "pronounced" by the people - i.e. they were brought forth by popular accord to preside, and from thence hands were laid upon them.

I suppose I'd ask for clarification on what you mean by "democratic" and all it's ramifications...

When I say 'democratic', I don't necessarily mean matters of doctrine, though doctrine does play a key role. The early Church doubtless considered doctrine to be important, but during the period of the early Church the survival of their communities was paramount. In the early days of the Church, the community as a whole would decide who would lead them and who would take up the positions of overseer and elder and assistant within the community. And they would be answerable to their communities - they would be charged with the spiritual and physical welfare of the people they served. As the Church grew in numbers and in political power and was given sanction in the Roman Empire under an altered form, it evolved away from this communitarian-democratic model and more toward a model that the political leaders of the Roman Empire could more easily control.

MEEKNESS isn't weakness. And laying down one's own life (if you call that pacifism) is not either - it is the pinnacle of manliness...

I'm not knocking pacifism...but I do think that absolute pacifism can be less virtuous than taking action when it's necessary, when there is no other recorse.

You keep giving examples (Ignatius, Origen, Justin) of people who WILLINGLY LAID their lives down, which is their prerogative. They did so knowing that they loved the Lord their God and that he was giving them His grace. That is why Christ told Simon to lay down his sword - he was laying down his life! But there are others who aren't there spiritually, and it is our obligation to protect them...to care for the downtrodden, even if it means physically stopping their oppressors.

Again, i submit to you to you the incident above...you see a man torturing a child to death...do you do nothing? Do you subdue him? If you have no means to subdue him without risking his death, do you let him continue? It's an extreme example, but there are times when the decisions are that extreme. [...]

So if you were not acting on instinct, what then? Would you permit the action?

Well, if you can bring yourself to calmly and rationally analyse such an extremely immoral situation without letting instinct or emotion guide you, I don't know whether I should congratulate your sangfroid or fear it. All I'm saying is that allowing instinct and emotion to rule one's actions can be dangerous, reprehensible and sinful. As it is, I would do all in my power to prevent such an immoral action from happening, but the best response would be one that awakens the conscience of the evildoer, Gandhi-style.

As it is, all I have for such instances is the teachings of Jesus in St. Matthew: 'resist not one who is evil', 'turn the other cheek', 'walk the other mile', 'pray for those who persecute you', etc.

KephaMeansRock wrote:St. Paul taught that not all are teachers, not all are apostles - but SOME are, and that we are to listen to those who will teach. [...]

Not everyone was an apostle, and the apostles didn't ordain everybody, and neither did they. There was a real succession through the laying on of hands from on generation to the next.

Of course there are different roles in any given community, to match the gifts given. There are gifts for teaching and for prophecy, and they should be entrusted accordingly. But, being a student at a college where addressing professors by their first names is SOP, I don't see how this necessitates hierarchy in its ecclesiastical counterpart.

KephaMeansRock wrote:Maybe, if it worked. But it doesn't. That is why there are so many competing denominations. The spirit cannot be guiding them all...

I beg to differ. Only someone with an extraordinarily misguided view of history and of human nature would claim that there can only be one theology for six billion different people and six-billion different life experiences. Of course there is an objective truth (I believe it can be found in Christ), but how it is approached is often a matter of perspective.

KephaMeansRock wrote:The Seat of Moses is the seats of Judgment he set up to guide Israel. They were OFFICES that held REAL AUTHORITY BINDING UPON THE PEOPLE, which is why Christ said the people could (and were EXPECTED to) listen to and obey them. Which is why he said "do all they tell you", because what they said was authoritative, but they were not to do as they did, because they did not practice what they preached, though they preached authoritatively.

The same principle governed Caiaphas' ability to prophecy based upon his OFFICE.

The Pharisees were reformers, members of a political party (the House of Shammai, specifically) who had an extensive knowledge of the law. The scribes had greater official standing. But from an historical viewpoint, it seems doubtful that when Jesus referred to the 'Seat of Moses', he was referring to a literal office rather than their knowledge of the Mosaic laws.

KephaMeansRock wrote:I think that THIS is textual acrobatics. St. Mark and Luke we have no reason to believe were even there...

And moreover, Christ never said to write anything, but to "do this" and "preach this" and "baptize" etc. He gave commands for actions to direct his church.

Moreover, this says whoever HEARS you; to be a stickler, that directly implies listening to a message, not reading one.

Also, it is important to bear in mind not only what christ says, but TO WHOM he is speaking...the authorit to bind and loose was given only to his 12, and the keys only to 1 of them. The promise that "whoever hears you...whoever rejects you" was also given to THEM, not to everyone. And they in turn passed this on.

Interesting. I still hold that your interpretation requires a rather peculiar extrascriptural hermeneutic, but I concede the point about the Evangelists (in the cases of St. Mark and St. Luke, that is, though who's to say one or two of the twelve didn't pass this authority on to them? After all, St. Mark was a follower of St. Peter and it has been put forward that St. Luke was one of the seventy-two mentioned in his Gospel).

KephaMeansRock wrote:You can be offended if you like, but that doesn't take away from what Christ Himself said. We ought, of course, daily to confess our sins to God - but to certain men a real ministry of reconciliation was given, along with the authority to "forgive" or "retain" sins...

They only do this, however, in virtue of the atoning death of Christ - they are his body applying this universal salvific act to the individual sinners...

There are no social distinctions, but "are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers" he asks rhetorically..."no", is the answer...but SOME ARE...

Why else would Paul warn against ordaining too quickly? Not all are to be ordained...

Why else give specifications for the qualities of those appointed to the presbuterate and episcopate?

Is it a normal function of the apostle, the prophet or the teacher to mediate directly between the common man and God? Jesus didn't seem to think so, during his ministry. Again, I don't see the roles of apostles, prophets or teachers as being part of some spiritual managerial class, which is more or less what the post-Constantine Catholic Church made them into.

KephaMeansRock wrote:It was all one action. He just put peter's sword down first because if he didn't, then worse might have happened. He stopped the violence, and then explained that he both was laying down his life, and that He of all people did not need defense. He said "put the sword down. Don't you think my Father would send a legion of Angels to fight for me if I asked Him?".

Jesus didn't WANT the help, for he was laying down his life in obedience, and he didn't need it because he had greater help were he only to ask. And notice even the heavenly hosts aren't pacifists. They fight when it is necessary.

Bear in mind, also, that this is coming from a former pacifist, which very pacifistic leanings. We must ALWAYS work for peace - but sometimes the only work which will promote peace is stopping abuse with physical force. [...]

I'm not disageeing with any of this. Just war theory was developed precisely because if there are ANY other means available, they generally ought to be tried first. Action is always a last recourse, but it is a recourse...

It may be a recourse, but when the only work which promotes peace is stopping injustice with physical force, it should read as failure and confessed along with every other sin, because Jesus preached, consistently, a message which did not condone violence against another. The early Christians understood this - that's why for the first three hundred years of its existence, the Christian Church was both pacifist and anti-militarist.

I'll get back to the rest of this later. Right now I gotta run.

KephaMeansRock · Post by **KephaMeansRock** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:02 am

Is knowing one's place in the 'real hierarchical structure' an integral part of what it means to be a member of the body of Christ? If so, where in Scripture is this imparted?

Sort of. The body of Christ DOES have a structure here on earth; there IS hierarchy and this church is not merely invisible.

I think it's still worth note that when Jesus spoke of hierarchy (either social or religious) it was usually in terms which were quite strongly critical.

I think it's worth noting that more often we in modern western "democratic, individualistic" society want this to be the case.

Yes he criticized the Pharisees of his day - but because they legitimately filled an office which God had given them intentionally - and they did so poorly and selfishly. Yet Christ DID give certain men authority.

Firstly, some good old-fashioned philosophical nitpicking. What is meant by 'real grace'? Does that mean there's such a thing as 'unreal grace'? Care must be taken here: in Christian theology, 'grace' is not a concept around which adjectives are easily hedged.

In the context of the quote, I could have just said "grace", but I wanted to emphasize that this wasn't just a symbol.

However, classically there has been a distinction drawn between Actual and Sanctifying grace.

Also, take a moment to figure what is meant by 'grace': the unmerited, sovereign and saving favour of God for his creatures. You rightly note that God is the author of this favour, but to say that there is some kind of requisite, some 'normatively necessary entry-point' for grace, is (logically speaking) to make it something merited: thus, whatever it is that is being imparted through the sacraments, it is not 'grace' as I understand it. Ergo, baptism must serve some other purpose.

First, what guarantee do you have that "as you understand it" is correct?

That said, the sacraments impart sanctifying grace and actual grace in different measures depending upon the sacrament and the receiver.

God is not LIMITED to the sacraments, but he has in fact given them that we might regularly and faithfully attend to his Grace. Grace is the very life of God dwelling in us. Sanctifying grace is his life indwelling within us; we retain it unless we reject it through a willful act (for his grace, his love, can be rejected).

Actual grace is grace given for a moment to help us 'act', to do the good in a given moment.

Primarily the former, but also the latter, are the kinds of grace inparted via the sacraments.

As such, given the examples in Acts I think the context indicates, fairly strongly, that baptism is an expression of faith and a symbol of grace. Claiming that baptism is an entry-point for grace (thus, logically, a way to attain grace) is analogous to marrying to become a bachelor.

No, it just shows that God is not himself limited to the sacraments, but that we cannot jsut "expect" him to always circumvent them either. God is just and merciful, and dose not seek to get us on technicalities. But the scriptures are abundantly clear that baptism does impart sanctifying grace.

Yes, but just because something was common practice doesn't mean that it ought to be done in such a fashion.

(As an aside, I'd be careful citing Hume...he's not your friend as a Christian, and though he follows empiricism to it's logical end, it's not a Christian end. He also denied things like "causality")

That said, the point is taken that many things in the bible are reported but not condoned, but the act of entire households being baptized does not seem to be in that category. Show me where scripture teaches against this point.

Moreover, in Acts 2:38 Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." The Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) That's their whole families.

In Acts 10, Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, and usually "an entire household" would include both children and infants. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.

In Acts 16:15 Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. Further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith.

15 verses later he does the same for a Jailor, baptizing his entire household.

In 1 cor 1, Paul baptized the household of Stephanus.

Just as entire households were circumcised to come into the old covenant, so too were entire households baptized now to bring them into the new covenant.

"Baptism now saves you" said Peter, and this is how the early church did (and that same church still does) operate.

And that one's sins are forgiven based upon the actions of others is also biblical.

In one of my favorite passages, Mark 2 the paralytics friends lower him through the roof. The text says "When he [Jesus] saw their faith he said to the man 'your sins are forgiven'". This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another's faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents' faith. So too Paul's words in 1 Cor 7 about marriages existing between a Christian and non-Christian. Paul says that children (and even the spouse) are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.

Note the phrasing 'in the first instance of her conception' and 'was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin'. It logically follows that somebody had to be doing the conceiving, and that Mary's parents somehow did not transmit original sin to her (if I'm remembering right, original sin is inherited in Catholic doctrine).

With the exception of Adam, Eve, Mary and Jesus, all have been born into original sin. Adam and Eve of course contracted it (original sin not being a sin per se, but a state of fallen human nature into which we're all born, disposing us to vice and sin). Jesus, the God-man didn't have it, most would agree to that (he's the spotless lamb). But neither did Mary have it.

She DOES rejoice in God her savior, because she WAS saved from this, but in a different way than the rest of us. Original sin is like a pit, and you can save a man two ways from that pit. You can pull him out when he falls in (which is what Christ was doing) or you can keep him from falling in (which he did with his mother, and which was taught and believed through the reformation in general, which is why it wasn't formally defined until then - there was no need!).

That she was singularly privileged I don't question - but it seems that declaring Mary to be free of original sin is somewhat a needless, not to mention strange, pontification.

It's not, given her role as the new eve, the ark of the new covenant, and the bearer of God incarnate. It DOES flow logically, if you wish to dig deeper.

If God could protect Jesus from original sin, what need would there be for Mary to be free of original sin?

Need? None. But it was fitting and good

On the other hand, if God could not protect Jesus from original sin without the Immaculate Conception of Mary, why stop at Mary? For Mary to have been born without original sin, following the same logic, wouldn't her own parents have to have been born without original sin?

Faulty premise. Jesus was without sin because he was God.

Mary was without sin because she was the ark of the new covenant, and the new Eve. She was, as the angel addressed her "kecharitomene", "one who has been filled perfectly with grace"; the angel calls her that (not this "hail, highly favored daughter" nonsense you sometimes see translated...the word "daughter" isn't even in the text!)

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the meaning of 'original sin', you end up on the one hand with a needless doctrine and on the other with a nonsensical infinite regression.

Again, original sin is a misnomer. It's not a sin, but a fallen nature as a result of sin, utterly irascible and vicious. Christ did not have this nature, nor did the mother who raised him - the one who was worth not only to loosen the strap of his sandal but to change his holy diapers!

When I say 'democratic', I don't necessarily mean matters of doctrine, though doctrine does play a key role. The early Church doubtless considered doctrine to be important, but during the period of the early Church the survival of their communities was paramount. In the early days of the Church, the community as a whole would decide who would lead them and who would take up the positions of overseer and elder and assistant within the community.

At times they would "appoint" their bishops, but it was always a biconditional assumption - the bishops would always still need to be ORDAINED before assuming office; and the same for priests though this happened less frequently I understand.

Heck, it even happened to the 7 deacons of Acts - the people elected them, but the apostles still had to ordain them through the imposition of hands.

And they would be answerable to their communities - they would be charged with the spiritual and physical welfare of the people they served. As the Church grew in numbers and in political power and was given sanction in the Roman Empire under an altered form, it evolved away from this communitarian-democratic model and more toward a model that the political leaders of the Roman Empire could more easily control.

I don't think that's quite right. What we see is rather that the Roman Empire sanctioned Christianity in the form that it was already in : bishops in each diocese (the divisions put in place by anti-Christian emperor Diocletian), assuming leadership as the nobility fled to the countryside ('pagans' in the strict sense of the word!), and they kept order. Constantine saw this an - his conversion aside as some doubt it - he revoked the condemnation for being Christian. It was Theodosius 2 generations and 13 emperors later who made it the official religion of state (which is why I get edgy when people make claims about 'Constantine' inventing Roman Catholicism...at least they could make more sense of their claim if they claimed "Theodosius invented it"!).

This was a double edged sword, but a gift of God.

Whereas with Israel, he gave them "cities they did not build" through conquest (but always showing that it wasn't based upon their strength), with his final and everlasting covenant, he gave the Church an entire nation they did not build, and they did so without violence.

Now, real concerns DO come into play in a Christian society - most notably that since it was now the Christian bishops who held power, the temptation came that some would seek bishoprics so as to have that power...

However, what this should demonstrate is that Catholic hierarchical structure was in place well before any of this transpired. Heck, Constantine gave multiple gifts to the Pope to win over his favor (of course, at this point there wasn't a patriarch of Constantinople).

Anyway, it IS fascinating history, but I think you're assuming a few too many things.

Well, if you can bring yourself to calmly and rationally analyse such an extremely immoral situation without letting instinct or emotion guide you, I don't know whether I should congratulate your sangfroid or fear it. All I'm saying is that allowing instinct and emotion to rule one's actions can be dangerous, reprehensible and sinful.

It can be, but the passions were given to us by God to motivate us in such important ways too.

As it is, I would do all in my power to prevent such an immoral action from happening, but the best response would be one that awakens the conscience of the evildoer, Gandhi-style.

And when you're cool headed to attempt 10 different ways to do this and it has no effect, then?

As it is, all I have for such instances is the teachings of Jesus in St. Matthew: 'resist not one who is evil', 'turn the other cheek', 'walk the other mile', 'pray for those who persecute you', etc.

I understand your sentiment for your own personal life, but consider this: Martyrdom is only for those who seek it. And the child mentioned above isn't about to be martyred, but tortured and abused for sick amusement. That's not what Christ was talking about.

We SHOULD be mindful that such a person - even so despicable - is still a creature with inherent dignity remaining and so all actions ultimately should seek his betterment if possible, but sometimes that's just not possible.

You can say "turn the other cheek" when it's your cheek, but you cannot force another to do that by turning your back.

Of course there are different roles in any given community, to match the gifts given. There are gifts for teaching and for prophecy, and they should be entrusted accordingly. But, being a student at a college where addressing professors by their first names is SOP, I don't see how this necessitates hierarchy in its ecclesiastical counterpart.

Que? Your professors are not subject to apostolic succession...

I beg to differ. Only someone with an extraordinarily misguided view of history and of human nature would claim that there can only be one theology for six billion different people and six-billion different life experiences. Of course there is an objective truth (I believe it can be found in Christ), but how it is approached is often a matter of perspective.

First off, ecumenism only works when you can agree on what "the essentials" are; but given that there is no list in scripture, you can still only get so far - unless you deny utterly the importance of doctrine per se.

Sorry, but only someone with an extraordinarily misguided view of scripture and the power of the holy spirit could doubt that Christianity is one is belief.

The Church is One:

"Father I pray that they may be one, even as you and I are one" (John 17:22-23)

"If there is any encouragement in Christ, any solace in love, any participation in the Spirit, any compassion and mercy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing." (Philippians 2:2)

"May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and one mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 15:5-6)

"I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:1-6)

Moreover, divisions and factions were never in the plan.

"If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.” (Mark 3.24)

"I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you." (1 Cor 11:18b-19)

"Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, ...and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:18-20)

"For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder." (2 Cor 12:20)

This is how the early church lived.

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters…It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures. For the Church has been planted as a garden (paradisus) in this world; therefore says the Spirit of God, 'Thou mayest freely eat from every tree of the garden,' that is, Eat ye from every Scripture of the Lord; but ye shall not eat with an uplifted mind, nor touch any heretical discord." Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies, 5:20 (A.D. 180).

You cannot deny that the first 1500 years of Christianity looked this way, even if there were some bad apples in there. You cannot deny that Israel had Kings, even if some were blasphemous. You cannot deny that the Pharisees had authority, even if some abused it. I see no reason to deny that the same authority has continued down to the present, and I see only madness, contradiction and confusion in denying it because of a man-made and unbiblical tradition like Sola Scriptura.

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it [the presbuteroi, or Priests]. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyraens, 8 (c. A.D. 108).

The Pharisees were reformers, members of a political party (the House of Shammai, specifically) who had an extensive knowledge of the law. The scribes had greater official standing. But from an historical viewpoint, it seems doubtful that when Jesus referred to the 'Seat of Moses', he was referring to a literal office rather than their knowledge of the Mosaic laws.

I have my doubts.

"It came about the next day that Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood about Moses from the morning until the evening. Now when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people, he said, "What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge and all the people stand about you from morning until evening?" Moses said to his father-in-law, "Because the people come to me to inquire of God. "When they have a dispute, it comes to me, and I judge between a man and his neighbor and make known the statutes of God and His laws."

Moses’ father-in-law said to him, "The thing that you are doing is not good. "You will surely wear out, both yourself and these people who are with you, for the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone. "Now listen to me: I will give you counsel, and God be with you. You be the people’s representative before God, and you bring the disputes to God, then teach them the statutes and the laws, and make known to them the way in which they are to walk and the work they are to do. "Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens. "Let them judge the people at all times; and let it be that every major dispute they will bring to you, but every minor dispute they themselves will judge. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. "If you do this thing and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all these people also will go to their place in peace."

So Moses listened to his father-in-law and did all that he had said. Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens. They judged the people at all times; the difficult dispute they would bring to Moses, but every minor dispute they themselves would judge. Then Moses bade his father-in-law farewell, and he went his way into his own land." (Exodus 18:13-27)

This practice continued, and those who occupied such an office had BINDING AUTHORITY because it was established by Moses himself.

That is why Jesus said "do whatsoever they tell you to do" and not just "you should be reading the Torah for yourselves and coming to your own conclusions.".

Is it a normal function of the apostle, the prophet or the teacher to mediate directly between the common man and God? Jesus didn't seem to think so, during his ministry. Again, I don't see the roles of apostles, prophets or teachers as being part of some spiritual managerial class, which is more or less what the post-Constantine Catholic Church made them into.

1) Constantine fallacy (above)
2) The roles certainly were there by 108 ad (Ignatius quote, above - go back and re-read it)
3) Why have apostles at all? The apostles DID act as intermediaries between Christ and the people quite often (even though they were often sinful!)

It may be a recourse, but when the only work which promotes peace is stopping injustice with physical force, it should read as failure and confessed along with every other sin, because Jesus preached, consistently, a message which did not condone violence against another. The early Christians understood this - that's why for the first three hundred years of its existence, the Christian Church was both pacifist and anti-militarist.

The Christian church was anti-militarist because it had not a military.

I find it interesting that you're willing to follow the early church in their anti-militarism but not in their belief in apostolic succession and such...

Jesus marveled when a Roman Centurion approached Him. The Centurion’s response to Jesus indicated his clear understanding of authority, as well as his faith in Jesus (Matthew 8:5-13).

Jesus did not denounce his career. Many Centurions mentioned in the New Testament are praised as Christians, God-fearers, and men of good character (Matthew 8:5-13; 27:54; Mark 15:39,44-45; Luke 7:2,6; 23:47; Acts 10:1,22; 21:32; 22:25-26; 23:17,23; 24:23; 27:1,6,11,31,43; 28:16).

The Matthew 8:5-13 bit is paradigmatic, becaues the centurion even states that "For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come here,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it.", and upon seeing this faith, Jesus marvels that in all of Israel such a faith he's never seen, and says that he will heal the man's servant. He never says "stop fighting", even for Caesar, who would eventually destroy the temple and persecute the Christians.

Now, a Christian IS obliged to follow his conscience and seek to do good in all things. A Christian IS prohibited from behaving wickedly or doing immoral acts, even if it is commanded of him.

...

I appreciate your follow through on this whole debate. It is getting very long and it takes real will to see it through. I will try to continue to respond promptly!

Pax Christi,

-Justin

samuelbb7 · Post by **samuelbb7** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:26 pm

Dear Mangus

You make some very good points.

Now kepha

I have decided that try to answer all points is not working for me. I have limited time and the posts seem to be getting so long that we are not settling anything. So this time I am answering just a couple of points.

And when two or three do this, and still come to mutually incongruous doctrines, what then? Is God a God of confusion? Is the Spirit a Spirit of contradiction?

No. One person is not truly listening to GOD but preferring their own way. They choose to not listen.

Scripture IS subservient in a sense to Tradition, for the CANON OF SCRIPTURE IS A MATTER OF TRADITION. Scripture points to a Church which is the body that settles issues of interpretation (cf Matt 18:15-18), with authority to "bind" and "loose" and have it really be bound in heaven and earth and loosed in heaven and on earth (cf. matt 18:18).

Let me compare this to saying that the United States President is over the constitution and can change it as he wishes. Since part of his job is to enforce the Constitution. The Bishops or Congress would go along for they have been bought off by the president by power and money. The Supreme Court has been eliminated. This is exactly what is the point of tradition coming over scripture. The pope and the bishops change the law of GOD as they see fit. Bringing in images to bow down and pray to. Not ask pray too. Not the same thing. The Bible must be adhered to. You have stated in effect that the Bible can be changed by the church. A position the Jews took which JESUS opposed. They also still teach the Bible is under tradition. The Talmud has the answers not the scripture. So the RCC has made the same exact mistake.

The bible does NOT say that wicked men cannot be used by God. Heck, look at Jonah, look at King Saul! Look at the many wicked kings of Israel! Look at Caiaphas the High Priest.

Why was Jonah wicked? He did not want to preach to his enemies? Not wicked. Yes Caiaphas was wicked. GOD did send a prophetic word through him. So in your teaching the Apostles should have still followed his wishes. Since he was the appointed leader they should have quit spreading the Gospel. For after all it is the office we serve. But the Apostles did not teach to serve the office. They taught to serve GOD.

No, friend, your position is the one utterly untenable by scripture.

You have not pointed out where the Scriptures I quoted are out of context or do not mean what they say.

2Cr 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

2Cr 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

2Cr 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

2Cr 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you,

2Cr 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

The doctrine is that the office can held by the basest of men and that man is still the Vicar of CHRIST. That is exactly the doctrine wicked men would establish.

As Catharsis points out they were equals. The church was democratic. In Revelation JESUS walks among the churches. He points out that some have accepted the doctrines of Satan. If they do not repent then they will be removed.

The Law of GOD is the final authority in all manners. By the way the thing on Luther was quotes taken out of context. Only a person unfamiliar with the rest of his writings would be taken in by the deception practiced there. Since the words are not set in context and so the person who compiled this knew he was creating lies. I will readily admit Luther was not perfect. But he was no Alexander the 6th. He said in the council of worms.

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.

I do stand with him here.

Now you asked for some examples of Bad popes. Here are a few.

Without a doubt, there was one Pope who was completely mad. In 896 Stephen VII set in motion the trial of his rival, the late Pope Formosus who had been dead for 9 months at the time. Formosus' corpse was dragged from its tomb and arrayed on a throne in the council chamber. The corpse, wrapped in a hair shirt, was provided with council, who wisely remained silent while Pope Stephen raved and screamed at it.

The crime of Formosus was that he had crowned emperor one of the numerous illegitimate heirs of Charlemagne after first having performed the same office for a candidate favored by Stephen. After Stephen's rant, the corpse was stripped of its clothes and its fingers were chopped off. It was then dragged through the palace and hurled from a balcony to a howling mob below who threw it into the Tiber. The body was later rescued by people sympathetic to Formosus and given a quiet burial. Stephen was strangled to death a few years later.

In 964, Pope Benedict V raped a young girl and absconded to Constantinople with the papal treasury only to reappear when the money ran out. Church historian Gerbert called Benedict "the most iniquitous of all the monsters of ungodliness." The pontiff was eventually slain by a jealous husband. His corpse, bearing a hundred dagger wounds, was dragged through the streets before being tossed into a cesspit.

In October 1032 the papal miter was purchased for the 11-year old Benedict IX. Upon reaching his 14th year, a chronicler wrote that Benedict had already surpassed in wantonness and profligacy all who had preceded him. He often had to leave Rome in a hurry.