|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/8/2008 10:26:27 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1443
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
If someone comprehends and understands the teaching of the Church, not some rumor-mill mythology of what the Church allegedly teaches, and if, in that knowledge, the person knows it is the ex-cathedra teaching of the Church, and refuses to abandon their own notions of faith and follow the authoritative teachings of the Church, then I would say that person is suffering from the sin of pride and vanity.
Hmm. So on the one hand you have a person trying to understand the Bible and the Christian faith as best as he/she can, trusting in Jesus. On the other hand you have a guy who lives in a palace, wearing princely robes and a very very big hat, sitting on a throne, expecting all those who come before him to bow, all those who claim allegiance to him to kneel and kiss his ring (and this is comparatively tame, given history), expecting everyone to accept whatever he says about Christianity and follow him.
Who's really displaying pride and vanity here?
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/9/2008 6:30:15 AM
|
|
|
dacs
Posts: 2
Joined: 9/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Hmm. So on the one hand you have a person trying to understand the Bible and the Christian faith as best as he/she can, trusting in Jesus.
If this is inclusive of the denial of the office of the papacy, then you are not trying to understand the Christian faith. That is trying to understand what you think of the Christian faith.
Early Christians had always have a place for the office of the papacy. For you to exclude this from your search is a blunder you could not afford.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
On the other hand you have a guy who lives in a palace, wearing princely robes and a very very big hat, sitting on a throne, expecting all those who come before him to bow, all those who claim allegiance to him to kneel and kiss his ring (and this is comparatively tame, given history), expecting everyone to accept whatever he says about Christianity and follow him.
The Japanese people bow their heads when introduce to someone as a sign of respect and acknowledgment. There is superiority or inferiority tag on that act. You, on the other hand, placed a negative connotation to the act accorded to the pope. It is you who have been having bad thoughts. Banish that from your mind as it would only poison you.
The respect accorded is a suitable ritual for the office of the papacy is much more than the person currently holding it. It is an office invested by the authority of Christ Himself. If you don't want to accord it due respect, you are disrespecting the one who promulgated it.
Princely robes ... You are not blind, are you? You can actually see that the popes wear very simple clothes in every day activities. In very formal occasions, they do dress up - as we do. Even ordinary people find excuse to dress up regally on some occasions.
Have you ever seen rulers of some African countries according to their culture. Some are quite elaborate. The pope, as with these rulers, is also the head of state of the Vatican City. What do you expect?
Expecting everyone to accept whatever he says ... 
Sorry but I just have to smile. If you are referring to the charism of infallibility of the pope when exercising his office, you are very much off the mark. He does not expect everyone to accept whatever he says, but - like the prophets of old - he need to say the truth. Whether anyone accepts it or not is never really the intent of telling the truth.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Who's really displaying pride and vanity here?
I am quite sure that the papacy is not about pride and vanity. Non serviam is uttered way before the creation of the first human. Pride was the cause and vanity led them to Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/9/2008 10:08:43 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5256
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
The answer to your question is no. Refusal to believe in Christ's atoning sacrifice leaves one outside the realm of Christianity. I don't think that, in any way, answers my question about whether it is a mortal sin to willfully reject what the pope dogmatically defines (ex cathedra) to be true. I believe that Catholics view those who reject the authority of the Church as either doing so willingly and with full knowledge, or because they have been taught errantly what the Church instructs.
Rejection on the former grounds is excommunicating one's self from the Church (full and accurate knowledge of what is being instructed by the Church, and rejection of it). The second instance is harder to answer. If someone has been errantly led astray, are they guilty, or the victim of circumstance?
That's why I say these things are best left to the just judgment of God. I don't believe that any individual Christian can answer whether or not a given action is a mortal sin for another person, because we can't see the heart of the other person. It's why questioning the state of one's soul is a violation of the terms of service of this website. You are asking me to render the same kind of judgement in answering your question.
So - I politely refuse to get dragged into that debate.
My question was whether it is a mortal sin to willfully reject what the pope dogmatically defines (ex cathedra) to be true. I wasn't asking you to pass judgment on any particular person. And it wouldn't be a violation of the ToS of this site for you to state your position in the abstract, as far as I know.
I do find it interesting, though, that you are so reticent to directly answer the question.
quote:
quote:
Really? It's fascinating how subjective that standard makes mortal sin. It still does not answer the question, though.
Can you answer it? Or is it an unanswerable question? Mortal sin is not at all subjective, but is the sovereign of God and the individual faithful. Only I can know whether or not I have committed mortal sin, and I cannot render this judgment on or for anyone else. So, the question is entirely answerable when dealing with my own personal sin, and impossible for me to answer regarding anyone else's choices and actions.
That one presume that judgment can be found in some "Betty Crocker" recipe of faith smacks of Judaism and salvation by the law, does it not?
I don't know. The pope did not seem to have any trouble excommunicating Luther and excommunications occur even today. It doesn't sound like you and the pope are on the same wavelength about this all being between the individual faithful and God.
quote:
quote:
Let's add the further stipulation that the person in question knows that the position of your church is that it is wrong to willfully reject papal dogmatic definitions. Nevertheless, the person willfully refuses to accept what the pope dogmatically defines (ex cathedra) to be true. Is it a mortal sin for that person? Or is there further subjective investigations that would need to be undertaken? Allow me to clarify your stipulations into something I can answer: If someone comprehends and understands the teaching of the Church, not some rumor-mill mythology of what the Church allegedly teaches, and if, in that knowledge, the person knows it is the ex-cathedra teaching of the Church, and refuses to abandon their own notions of faith and follow the authoritative teachings of the Church, then I would say that person is suffering from the sin of pride and vanity. Those are 2 of the seven deadlies, are they not? The rejector is certainly ex-communicating themselves from the Church and the Sacraments. This brings me back to defining a faith by rejecting the parts of it you don't like. That's not really the path to salvation now, is it? I think we already established that previously. I give the benefit of the doubt that there seems to be some pretty effective propaganda getting to people quite early on, who were not raised in the Roman Catholic Church, but certainly have a healthy hate of it. Then there is my personal pet peeve - Catholics raised in the Church who never learned, never participated and never scrutinized and questioned their understanding of what they thought they knew, left the Church, and are now "experts" because they attended CCD through the 3rd grade. They proselytize against the Church with their third grade understanding of it. Super-duper.
I get the sense that you are saying, "yes, it is a mortal sin," though you do not explicitly come out and say that.
Obviously, being opposed to something that the pope hasn't actually dogmatically defined (whether because of a third-grade understanding or whatever) is a bit different from being opposed to something that the pope has actually dogmatically defined.
Let me provide an example:
The immaculate conception of Mary. I don't want to debate this here (there is a separate one-stop thread for that debate, I think). Nevertheless, a person may know that this doctrine is the "ex cathedra" teaching of your church. Furthermore, one may reject it, as being contrary to Scripture.
It sounds like the result, in that situation, would be that the person rejecting this doctrine that certainly is not found in Scripture (whether or not it contradicts Scripture) would be guilty of a mortal sin, whereas if the pope had not issued a dogmatic definition in this regard, the person would be ok.
Let me provide another example:
The title "co-mediatrix." This has not been dogmatically defined "ex cathedra," but people are lobbying the pope to do so. Isn't it true that if the pope does, then people who subsequently reject this doctrine as contrary to Scripture would be guilty of mortal sin (assuming all those stipulations you mentioned above)? If so, then doesn't this show that these dogmatic definitions actually have the effect of creating categories of mortal sin that didn't exist before the papal definition?
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/9/2008 10:26:21 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1443
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
If this is inclusive of the denial of the office of the papacy, then you are not trying to understand the Christian faith. That is trying to understand what you think of the Christian faith.
Early Christians had always have a place for the office of the papacy. For you to exclude this from your search is a blunder you could not afford.
If you're talking about Peter, early Christians certainly respected him for his knowledge of Jesus' life and teachings. I have no problem with that, I similarly follow Peter's writings as recorded in the Holy Scriptures. They certainly did not consider him to be the ultimate, unarguable authority, however, as you can see in Paul's face-to-face reprimand of Peter for his indulgence of Christian Judaizers and their practices in relation to the Gentile believers.
If you're talking about the elder (and eventual bishop of the church at Rome), then sure, the holder of that office was respected as a church authority, but only in the context of whether or not he was following Scripture. This should be obvious, given the fact that early Popes, such as Honorius, were condemned as heretics by ecumenical council.
This remained true when the office of the Papacy demanded further control over the church, leading to the East-West Schism. There were good Popes. There were really, really bad Popes, like John XII who turned the Basilica di San Giovanni into a brothel.
So, am I denying the office of the papacy? Well, I do not deny Peter, though I don't see any indicator that Peter had any idea that he was "Pope". I do not deny that there is an office that members of the RCC have decided they will submit themselves to. That is their business. I do, however, consider it my responsibility, as stated in Scripture, to study the Scripture and make sure that the doctrine I submit myself to lines up with what is in the Scripture, with the help of the Holy Spirit. I am required by the Scripture to submit myself to God (Ephesians 5:24). I am required by Scripture, as a woman, to submit myself to my husband (Ephesians 5:22). I am required by Scripture to submit myself to the government inasmuch as I do not violate the law of God in doing so (Romans 13:1). I am required by Scripture to submit to those in leadership at my local congregation, as long as they are following the Scripture in their leadership (1 Co 16:16).
There is nothing in Scripture specifying that I must submit to the Pope in all things as a supreme authority. As many of the pope and his predecessor's teachings do not appear to be supported by Scripture, I cannot, in good conscience, decide to submit to the Pope.
quote:
The Japanese people bow their heads when introduce to someone as a sign of respect and acknowledgment. There is superiority or inferiority tag on that act. You, on the other hand, placed a negative connotation to the act accorded to the pope. It is you who have been having bad thoughts. Banish that from your mind as it would only poison you.
Is the Pope Japanese?
quote:
The respect accorded is a suitable ritual for the office of the papacy is much more than the person currently holding it. It is an office invested by the authority of Christ Himself. If you don't want to accord it due respect, you are disrespecting the one who promulgated it.
Is it really, though?
Let's take a look at the person you claim as the first Pope, and his reaction to someone bowing before him.
Acts 10:23 Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests. 24 The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself."
When did this change? When did this humility shown by Peter turn to the bowing and scraping of today? When did the Pope decide he was worthy of a level of honor that Peter was not?
quote:
Princely robes ... You are not blind, are you? You can actually see that the popes wear very simple clothes in every day activities. In very formal occasions, they do dress up - as we do. Even ordinary people find excuse to dress up regally on some occasions.
Have you ever seen rulers of some African countries according to their culture. Some are quite elaborate. The pope, as with these rulers, is also the head of state of the Vatican City. What do you expect?
I suppose I would expect someone who is supposed to be the servant-leader of a religious organization dedicated, among other things, to caring for the poor and widowed to not wear attire with a value capable of assuaging the plight of a small third-world country. Leading by example, if you would.
quote:
Expecting everyone to accept whatever he says ...
Sorry but I just have to smile. If you are referring to the charism of infallibility of the pope when exercising his office, you are very much off the mark. He does not expect everyone to accept whatever he says, but - like the prophets of old - he need to say the truth. Whether anyone accepts it or not is never really the intent of telling the truth.
Well, he says what he believes is the truth. Sadly, at some point, checking Scripture and seeing if it matches what's in there seems to have fallen by the wayside.
quote:
I am quite sure that the papacy is not about pride and vanity. Non serviam is uttered way before the creation of the first human. Pride was the cause and vanity led them to Hell.
I would agree that the papacy is not *supposed to be* about pride and vanity. I would, however, note that many of the trappings and expectations of the papacy were introduced during periods in which the papacy was purchased via bribes, was inhabited by very corrupt and depraved men, and was highly political. Given that, perhaps a little house-cleaning and Scriptural reflection upon expectations and actions is in order.
Edit: Meh. I can spell, really I can.
< Message edited by Zhi -- 9/9/2008 11:49:27 AM >
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/10/2008 5:35:20 AM
|
|
|
dacs
Posts: 2
Joined: 9/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
So, am I denying the office of the papacy? Well, I do not deny Peter, though I don't see any indicator that Peter had any idea that he was "Pope". I do not deny that there is an office that members of the RCC have decided they will submit themselves to. That is their business. I do, however, consider it my responsibility, as stated in Scripture, to study the Scripture and make sure that the doctrine I submit myself to lines up with what is in the Scripture, with the help of the Holy Spirit. I am required by the Scripture to submit myself to God (Ephesians 5:24). I am required by Scripture, as a woman, to submit myself to my husband (Ephesians 5:22). I am required by Scripture to submit myself to the government inasmuch as I do not violate the law of God in doing so (Romans 13:1). I am required by Scripture to submit to those in leadership at my local congregation, as long as they are following the Scripture in their leadership (1 Co 16:16).
St. Irenaeus, then, must be in error when he wrote:
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189])
St. Peter would have nothing to hand over to if he himself does not know that he is a bishop, a father, a papa, a pope.
This is further supported by Eusebius of Caesarea in saying:
"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9-10 [A.D. 312]).
Moreover, St. Cyprian of Carthage is in error then - scripturally, that is - when he wrote/uttered:
"If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251])
Is Peter Chrysologus then also in error scripturally when he wrote:
"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449])
I could quote many, many more but ...
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
There is nothing in Scripture specifying that I must submit to the Pope in all things as a supreme authority. As many of the pope and his predecessor's teachings do not appear to be supported by Scripture, I cannot, in good conscience, decide to submit to the Pope.
Firstly, where is it in Sacred Scriptures then that everything a Christian must believe must be specified within it?
Secondly, what teachings in the Catholic Church about faith and morals (for the salvation of man) that Catholics need to definitively assent to go against Sacred Scriptures?
May I ask that you answer both queries?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Is the Pope Japanese?
:D
You're joking, right? Are you sure you did not get the drift of my prior statement?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Is it really, though?
It is - but you don't want to believe it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Let's take a look at the person you claim as the first Pope, and his reaction to someone bowing before him.
Acts 10:23 Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests. 24 The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself."
When did this change? When did this humility shown by Peter turn to the bowing and scraping of today? When did the Pope decide he was worthy of a level of honor that Peter was not?
You could have done a better job. Try to see in what context did Cornelius give reverence to St. Peter. Remember that St. Peter heard Christ saying to give to Caesar what is of Caesar and to God what is to God.
Is it possible then that St. Peter understood that Cornelius is giving him reverence reserved to God?
There were kings in Israel. Have no Israelite ever bowed to his/her king? Where is that in Sacred Scripture?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
I suppose I would expect someone who is supposed to be the servant-leader of a religious organization dedicated, among other things, to caring for the poor and widowed to not wear attire with a value capable of assuaging the plight of a small third-world country. Leading by example, if you would.
Then, you should have faulted God when He instructed David and Solomon on the construction of the Temple. You should have faulted God or Solomon in outfit of the priests. Why don't you?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Well, he says what he believes is the truth. Sadly, at some point, checking Scripture and seeing if it matches what's in there seems to have fallen by the wayside.
:D
Be careful. You are actually assuming also that you are correct. Who give you the faculty to be infallible?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
I would agree that the papacy is not *supposed to be* about pride and vanity. I would, however, note that many of the trappings and expectations of the papacy were introduced during periods in which the papacy was purchased via bribes, was inhabited by very corrupt and depraved men, and was highly political.
Give the specific dates, please. Unless you point to specific time, this is still hearsay.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Given that, perhaps a little house-cleaning and Scriptural reflection upon expectations and actions is in order.
:D
Would you tell the same thing to evangelicals? Protestants are so fragmented that it is so unscriptural.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/10/2008 12:23:27 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1443
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
St. Irenaeus, then, must be in error when he wrote:
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189])
Actually, there is Scriptural evidence that Irenaeus was in error in this claim.
First off, Paul states quite clearly in Romans 15:20-24 that he wanted to go to Rome, but was hindered, specifically because it is not his job to "build upon another man's foundation". Paul did not found the church in Rome. It was already there, "another man" had founded it.
Was that man Peter? Probably not. According to "tradition", Peter was supposed to be the head of the church of Rome for 25 years, from 42 to 67 AD. Now, Paul wrote the book of Romans around 58 AD. He specifically salutes 27 people, but Peter is not listed. Why would Paul not salute Peter, if Peter were in Rome, and were, in fact, the head pastor (and had been for about 16 years at that point?) It's even more interesting to see that Paul says in Romans 1:11, "For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end that you may be established." So, Peter has been there 16 years (according to tradition) and he still hasn't managed to teach the church the things it needs to know? He hasn't gotten them straightened out spiritual-gift wise, though Paul thinks he can do so in a mere visit? That's not a very good reflection on Peter, were he there, is it.
So, Paul manages to get to Rome (well, mostly he's dragged there under arrest). He writes several letters, including 2 Timothy, while under house arrest. He mentions that Luke is with him, but somehow Peter again isn't mentioned.
So either Paul has some sort of vendetta against Peter, or Peter is not in Rome when tradition claims he is.
The rest of your references are based on Irenaeus's statements, so...
quote:
St. Peter would have nothing to hand over to if he himself does not know that he is a bishop, a father, a papa, a pope.
Peter laid hands on a whole bunch of people. Purposes in doing so varied.
"Papa" started to be used around the third century. Peter had already been dead for quite a while at that point.
But, let's look at what Peter says his rank is.
1 Peter 5:1 Therefore, as a fellow elder, a witness of the Messiah's sufferings, and one who shares in the glory to be revealed, I appeal to the elders among you:
Peter is talking to the elders of the church of Asia Minor. He claims his own position as fellow elder... equal to them in position. Not a bishop, not a papa, not a superior, but a fellow elder.
quote:
Firstly, where is it in Sacred Scriptures then that everything a Christian must believe must be specified within it?
2 Tim 3:1616 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Scripture THOROUGHLY equips us, for EVERY good work. Sounds pretty comprehensive to me.
Follow a little logic with me here, if you would.
1. God inspires Scripture directly.
2. Therefore God decides what's in Scripture, and what is not.
3. Therefore if God wants us to specifically do or believe anything, then He would certainly make sure it's in there.
4. Therefore if God wanted us to submit to the Pope, surely He would have listed Peter and his "apostolic lineage" in the long list of "people and institutions you need to submit to".
quote:
Secondly, what teachings in the Catholic Church about faith and morals (for the salvation of man) that Catholics need to definitively assent to go against Sacred Scriptures?
Well, Mary's place in bringing people to salvation (and heaven) would be one, including things like her "brown scapular". (PLEASE let's not pull this thread off topic, there's a one stop on this, you asked for an example, I gave one, if you want to discuss that example, let's use the other thread.)
quote:
You could have done a better job. Try to see in what context did Cornelius give reverence to St. Peter. Remember that St. Peter heard Christ saying to give to Caesar what is of Caesar and to God what is to God.
Is it possible then that St. Peter understood that Cornelius is giving him reverence reserved to God?
No, *you* look at the context. Cornelius is described as "devout and God-fearing", and that he "prayed to God regularly" (Acts 10:1). When Peter gets there, Cornelius tells Peter "Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything that the Lord has commanded you to tell us." In other words, he was already a believer in the God of Israel, not a pagan. He knew that he was talking to Peter while in the presence of God (and that Peter was, of course, NOT God), and he would KNOW BETTER than to give reverence reserved to God to Peter.
quote:
There were kings in Israel. Have no Israelite ever bowed to his/her king? Where is that in Sacred Scripture?
We have one King. The Pope is not Him.
quote:
Then, you should have faulted God when He instructed David and Solomon on the construction of the Temple. You should have faulted God or Solomon in outfit of the priests. Why don't you?
Well, first off, David and Solomon weren't religious leaders. Second, most of the priest's garments were linen. Third, you claim that the Pope is in the apostolic succession, not the Levite succession. Fourth, the Pope's garments are completely incorrect if you think he should be dressing like the Jewish priests.
quote:
Be careful. You are actually assuming also that you are correct. Who give you the faculty to be infallible?
When I ask many Catholics "where is that in Scripture" and they say it doesn't have to be, it's in the Magisterium, then I balk at that.
quote:
Give the specific dates, please. Unless you point to specific time, this is still hearsay.
Okay, let's see here.
Alexander VI bought the papacy for 4 mule loads of silver. He is, of course, not the only Pope to have bought or sold the papacy, there were quite a few.
Boniface VIII was the Pope who decided everyone had to submit to the Pope for salvation, in his "Unam Sanctum" proclamation. Prior to 1300, this was not the case.
John XXII sold pretty much anything he could think of for a price... absolution from sin, eternal salvation, etc. He introduced Cum inter nonnullos in 1323, which basically stated that Christ and His apostles were men of great wealth, and anyone who denied this was a heretic who deserved death. He burned a whole bunch of Franciscans at the stake due to their vows of poverty.
This is only a few examples, as I'm low on time (need to get baby ready for her daily "play outside" time, then get her lunch and put her down for a nap so I can get some actual work done.)
quote:
Would you tell the same thing to evangelicals? Protestants are so fragmented that it is so unscriptural.
I've already explained that Protestants are not nearly as fragmented as a Catholic thinks they are. But, yes, I think Protestants constantly checking their doctrine and practice against Scripture, prayerfully, is both our individual and collective duty. So naturally I would give that exhortation to Protestants as well.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/10/2008 6:49:27 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5256
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dacs
St. Irenaeus, then, must be in error when he wrote:
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189])
Yes, he may well have been in error. It wouldn't even be all that surprising if Irenaeus got an historical fact wrong. People make mistakes ... and legends arise over time.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/10/2008 7:15:28 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 889
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
He introduced Cum inter nonnullos in 1323, which basically stated that Christ and His apostles were men of great wealth, and anyone who denied This was a heretic who deserved death. He burned a whole bunch of Franciscans at the stake due to their vows of poverty.
I am not so sure that the words of Cum Inter Nonnullos would support your assertion underlined above. What it asserts, I believe is not that Christ and the Apostles were men of great wealth, but that they were not necessarily of the destitute poor, nor were they denied the rights to own and possess anything by the nature of them being Apostles or Christ. Surely we accept that Jesus owned sandals and a tunic, and maybe a cup.
A question I would pose is - when we hear of the last supper, who supplied the meal, and the utensils? Even the travelling ministers of the early church would have had a few possessions necessary to serve that task - a bedroll if nothing else.
The Fratacelli (it wasn't the Franciscans as a whole, but a subset within them) asserted that the Apostles were denied of any possessions. This was the source of a lot of squabbling and division, as the Frattacelli rejected the Church on this issue. Pope John XXII put his foot down. History does not judge what was done very kindly, I suppose.
As far as friars burned at the stake - there was a lot of that going on by everybody back in the 14th century. I didn't find any specific cites on the articles I reviewed - I guess I'll just take your word for it.
Are we to judge the Church today by the actions of 700 years ago? If so - all major denominations are suspect.
Christians seem to have a history of violence against those who disagree with them.
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/10/2008 7:18:48 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1443
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
DH, the question involved when I thought the RCC started changing its practices for the worst, specifically as it applies to expected treatment of, activity of, and position of, the Pope. As such, a Pope deciding that building wealth was a huge priority for the office to the extent of developing a new doctrine, selling basically everything he considered to be in his "power", and burning people who disagreed with the idea at the stake seems to be a rather striking example, wouldn't you say?
As for the Last Supper question, I'm not sure how it applies to the topic, but I always assumed it was provided by the people who provided the upper room itself. Unless you think that all the requisite "stuff" was sent with Peter and John when Jesus sent them ahead to make preparations. *shrug*
< Message edited by Zhi -- 9/10/2008 7:25:08 PM >
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/10/2008 7:25:19 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 889
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Please give the specific date when Linus became bishop of Rome ... 64 or 67 to 76 or 79 A. D. - time in office was 12 years, and the beginning corresponded with the deaths of Peter and Paul, the date of which cannot be absolutely nailed down.
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/12/2008 2:42:16 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 889
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
In view of that fact, I wonder whether dacs is willing to withdraw his previous argument: I don't see why he should. His reference is to an accusation that was hurled, without defining the grounds or pointing to a source. He was seeking the grounds.
The date of the start of the Papacy of Linus is a different matter...
More people should realize that to do what some are comfortable doing here is to be comfortable with libel, in my most humble opinion. You can't just make accusations, without noting a source or defining a more specific instance about which a discussion can be had.
I think Martin Luther invented the mechanism of splintering and fracturing Christianity into thousands upon thousands of sects and divided groups. I cite as my case for this accusation the fact that Martin Luther posted his theses, rejected the Church, and in the aftermath of that action, we have thousands upon thousands of of sects and divided groups within Christianity.
You don't get that kind of statement here. You get "The Pope bathes in a pink shower cap", and that's it. No citing of source, no development of the hypothesis. It s just thrown on the table. "I heard it from my Pastor", "I heard from my Sunday School teacher", "I heard it from my brother's wife's first cousin, who's uncle was a Catholic..."
I am not sure why we Catholics bother with the time to refute some of this stuff. All we do is dignify the accusations, which are not worthy of any...
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/12/2008 3:00:58 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1443
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
Well, I'm trying to address the difference between what happens in Scripture, and what the Pope says all Christians should do (including having a Pope in general).
So, at some point, by necessity, we went from Peter, who was okay with Paul getting in his face over his bad doctrine, to infallible Popes who aren't to be disagreed with.
At some point we went from Peter refusing to be bowed to, to the Pope insisting on it and adding a ring-kiss in there.
At some point we went from Peter calling himself an equal to elders in Asia Minor who had never even met Christ, to the Pope insisting that he must be the ultimate authority.
The exact date it happens is relatively inconsequential, though you can narrow it down somewhat looking at Papal writings. But really, you just have to compare then, and now, and the differences are quite obvious.
< Message edited by Zhi -- 9/12/2008 3:09:35 PM >
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/12/2008 3:01:35 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2404
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
Sorry to hear we are not in communion, and naturally i do not agree with CC views to ever be in one. I am sorry too. I would challenge that perhaps if you knew more about what the Church actually instructs...I don't know.
quote:
Oh well, we can still be brothers/sisters. If I didn't believe and accept this, my time here would be a total waste, wouldn't it? Of course, I am your brother (the one the family is embarrassed about, and only talks about around the holidays...with a glass of eggnog in their hands...) 
I greatly appreciate your kindness dear Dog, and surely enjoy reading the debates.
My definition of the Church is different then yours, but i respect and am grateful for your desire to present the correct info about the catholicism here.
Originally, after converting to Chirstianity i knew so very little of CC and thought RC was a joke, may i confess.(My fault, it was in ignorance) I thought RC was not much better then "Benny Hinn and Co" but much more evil and sinister. Now i see that there are many wonderful Christians among Catholics, some are incredibly mature and truly Christ-like. I am honored to have them as brethren.Again, appreciate the contributions from good, polite and kind catholics.
I havent had a chance to try "eggnogg" drink yet, but if it is anything like stuff my family drinks for Purim, after the third glass nobody cares about embarrassing family members.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/12/2008 3:25:47 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 889
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
after the third glass nobody cares about embarrassing family members. ...it sounds like you have the had the equivalent holiday beverage in your part of the world...
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/12/2008 3:45:52 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 889
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
So, at some point, by necessity, we went from Peter, who was okay with Paul getting in his face over his bad doctrine, to infallible Popes who aren't to be disagreed with.
At some point we went from Peter refusing to be bowed to, to the Pope insisting on it and adding a ring-kiss in there.
At some point we went from Peter calling himself an equal to elders in Asia Minor who had never even met Christ, to the Pope insisting that he must be the ultimate authority.
The exact date it happens is relatively inconsequential, though you can narrow it down somewhat looking at Papal writings. But really, you just have to compare then, and now, and the differences are quite obvious.
A couple of points then:
• The Pope is the servant of the Church. And the CHurch has the authority. When show my respect to the Pope, I am showing it to the office, not the man. The former Joseph Ratzinger I am sure is a nice guy, but respect is shown for the office and for the authority of the Church. If Pope Benedict and I are lunching at the Vatican, and the Pope believes that there is not enough ham in the Tramezzini, I may disagree and hold the opinion that the balance of the ham to the cheeses is just right.
However, if the Pope says that I am supposed to go to Mass on Holy Days, he is not rendering a lay opinion as to the amount of ham in the Tramezzini - he is voicing the instruction of the Church, from the office that houses that voice, with the authoirty of the Church behind it.
The difference with the "bowing to Peter" bit is that the guy was bowing to Peter, maybe out of a sense of duty (he didn't want to, but thought Peter expected it). Somehow, recognizing the authority of the Church voluntarily is something that I see differently than your example - call me delusional, if you like.
• The Pope is a head of state. Have you ever had an audience with the Queen of England. Do you suppose that it is optional as to how you behave around the Queen? Or, is there a protocol and a standard of conduct when in a formal audience? We Americans, in my humble opinion, are ... well ... "hillbillies" when it comes to respecting and observing Eurpeon traditions of decorum and behavior, which is whare some of this stuff comes from (not to insult anyone who proudly considers themselves a hillbilly - I had to pick on some poor group...)
• Have you ever heard the Hallelujah chorus at a concert, and everybody stood. Why is this? Googling the subject will reveal to you that a head of state (George the II, I believe...) once stood during its playing, as a gesture of his fidelity to God. The tradition has stuck, even though Handel wrote it (and Handel was just a man...). Before you accuse me that I am calling the Pope a god, for Catholics the office of the Pope is the head of the institution God left we Catholics for participating in relationship with God in the company of a billion other Catholics. So honoring that office is to honor that institution, and is to worship God for leaving us with it.
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/12/2008 4:25:50 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1443
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
• The Pope is the servant of the Church. And the CHurch has the authority. When show my respect to the Pope, I am showing it to the office, not the man. The former Joseph Ratzinger I am sure is a nice guy, but respect is shown for the office and for the authority of the Church. If Pope Benedict and I are lunching at the Vatican, and the Pope believes that there is not enough ham in the Tramezzini, I may disagree and hold the opinion that the balance of the ham to the cheeses is just right.
The Pope is *a* servant of *a* church. The authority of the RCC over all other churches is very much in question, and in fact is the crux of this debate, is it not? No one would contest that the RC choose to have the Pope as their authority, but that does not mean the rest of us must likewise accept that authority. The only clear authority in Scripture is the authority of Christ Himself, which is the authority to whom all Christians must, by definition, submit.
quote:
However, if the Pope says that I am supposed to go to Mass on Holy Days, he is not rendering a lay opinion as to the amount of ham in the Tramezzini - he is voicing the instruction of the Church, from the office that houses that voice, with the authoirty of the Church behind it.
Again, I don't think anyone has a problem with the Pope having authority over scheduling for people who have decided to submit to his authority. As such, this is really no different from me submitting to our church's pastor when he decides that Thursday night is when the worship team practices.
quote:
The difference with the "bowing to Peter" bit is that the guy was bowing to Peter, maybe out of a sense of duty (he didn't want to, but thought Peter expected it). Somehow, recognizing the authority of the Church voluntarily is something that I see differently than your example - call me delusional, if you like.
Obviously Cornelius accepted the authority of Peter voluntarily. His speech (which Peter does not disagree with) clearly indicates this fact. Plus, God sent an angel stating that Peter had the authority to bring a message to Cornelius. I suppose you can question Cornelius's motivations if you would like, but there is no indication whatsoever in Scripture of what you're asserting.
quote:
• The Pope is a head of state. Have you ever had an audience with the Queen of England. Do you suppose that it is optional as to how you behave around the Queen? Or, is there a protocol and a standard of conduct when in a formal audience? We Americans, in my humble opinion, are ... well ... "hillbillies" when it comes to respecting and observing Eurpeon traditions of decorum and behavior, which is whare some of this stuff comes from (not to insult anyone who proudly considers themselves a hillbilly - I had to pick on some poor group...)
The Queen of England does not claim to also be the spiritual head of the entire planet, last I checked. Nor is the Queen of England supposed to be bound by Scriptural precedent. Shouldn't Scriptural decorum take precedence over European decorum when it comes to interaction with the supposed heir of Peter?
Interestingly, this is precisely the sort of thing I was talking about when pointing out the way the RCC has changed and compromised over the centuries.
quote:
• Have you ever heard the Hallelujah chorus at a concert, and everybody stood. Why is this? Googling the subject will reveal to you that a head of state (George the II, I believe...) once stood during its playing, as a gesture of his fidelity to God. The tradition has stuck, even though Handel wrote it (and Handel was just a man...). Before you accuse me that I am calling the Pope a god, for Catholics the office of the Pope is the head of the institution God left we Catholics for participating in relationship with God in the company of a billion other Catholics. So honoring that office is to honor that institution, and is to worship God for leaving us with it.
I've never seen that done. *shrug*
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 9/13/2008 8:22:59 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 889
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
No one would contest that the RC choose to have the Pope as their authority, but that does not mean the rest of us must likewise accept that authority. Indeed - since the reformation, there is a selection and plethora of authorities regarding faith instruction...and as you have clearly and correctly identified, there is (and always has been) the option to place one's self outside the authority of and communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
quote:
The only clear authority in Scripture is the authority of Christ Himself, which is the authority to whom all Christians must, by definition, submit. "...Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven..." - who were these words addressed to? Obviously, there was some delegation of the authority that you are speaking of.
Why would an omnipotent God delegate authority? If something needed to be bound or loosed, why does God need the Apostles, the Church, or anyone else to do this? Doesn't God want the faithful to govern and administer w | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
