Posted on 02/07/2005 9:05:30 AM PST by skellmeyer
If Christ is not king here and now, then what's the point of being alive? This is absurd. Are you saying the Cross was no victory until the Second Coming? That it's just an empty thing until then? If so, you aren't a Christian. I don't know what you are, but it ain't Christian.
So check out www.bridgroompress.com/sc/index.htm. I can't present the entire Scriptural argument in this space. It's rather large. You can read it for free there, along with many other Scriptural proofs.
Complain about it at confession.
You are exactly correct.
This argument that takes place among our readers about whether the Pope is the head of the Christian church, is a straw man.
The issue if Islam and its relationship to various other religious groups.
Oh-the-way, maybe some Protestants do not get the general concept - that is, asking this question to those outside of the many Christian faiths, the question of who is the head of Christianity on earth, most would answer the Pope. It's a matter of visibility and of authority. It does not matter whether individual Christians actually follow the Pope or the Catholic church. It's a matter of public perception.
2) The Church is Christianity;
3) Therefore the Pope is head of all Christians.
While this is flawed reasoning (premise 2 is only partially correct) you'll never get the Catholics to admit it.
I wish you guys could speak English. Disagreeing with the truth value of a premise is a completely separate matter from whether or not the logical chain is valid or flawed. This chain displays a major premise, a minor premise and the conclusion follows directly from the major and the minor. In fact, this isn't "flawed reasoning," it is logically impeccable.
Now, you might quarrel with the truth values of the premises, but that is an issue completely separate from the validity of the logical reasoning displayed. The reasoning above is not flawed, it is perfect, as even a glance at any textbook on logic will easily corroborate.
As for who asserts it, that would be God's Word, Holy Scripture, as the website http://bridegroompress.com/sc/index.htm demonstrates. But, since you guys don't read English and you confuse validity with premise values, this is all over your heads.
Why don't you stop bickering about the Pope, and get back to the substance of the article?
Your analogy does not work. People can accept the Pope as the head of the RCC and admit that he is the legitimate head of that denomination. However, at the same time, they can also belong to a denomination that does not accept the Pope as its head. Orthodoxy, for example.
Similarly, people can recognize that GWB is the legitimate President of the USA while, at the same time, living in a country that does not recognize him as their head of state. The United Kingdom, for example.
Paul called himself a sinner but wrote inerrant Scripture. So did all the prophets and the apostles.
Infallibility is not impeccability. Infallibility means you'll never teach error. Impeccability means you'll never sin. I can be the biggest sinner in the world and still teach infallibly. The existence of Scripture proves that. In fact, any sin I commit is WORSE precisely because I KNOW the truth.
I don't know why you guys have such a tough time with this. All the prophets and apostles were in exactly the same position as the Pope, and you accept all the writings of the prophets and apostles. It's not like there isn't tons of precedence for this concept.
That's exactly what Lee said about Lincoln in the mid-1800's.
The difference is that if Barbara Streisand commits treason against the USA, she can be punished for it, no matter what her belief as to the legitimacy of GWB.
The Pope has no corresponding power over Southern Baptists.
Dude, I would LOVE that. Unfortunately, these people get stuck at a red light and seem unable to move forward.
Sure he does. He just doesn't exercise it. For which you should thank your lucky stars.
Actually, I'm not a dude.:)
Your analogy would hold if the CSA had claimed to be the legitimate government of the USA. However, the CSA never did any such thing and it acknowledged, at all times, that the government of the USA at the time was the legitimate government of the non-CSA States.
Going back to your President example, the Pope claiming to be the head of Orthodoxy would be like GWB claiming to be the Prime Minister of Australia.
There is nothing that the Pope can do to make the Orthodox accept him as the head of their denomination. There is nothing he can do to punish them, either.
I'd be curious to hear what type of power you think the Pope has to make Southern Baptists and the Orthodox change their ways.
Dude-ette... :)
You've got it backwards, of course. The Pope holds Peter's authority and office. You split off from the Catholic Church, not vice versa. Thus, in the analogy, Lincoln is like the Pope and Lee is like the orthodox patriarchs or Luther or pick your favorite schismatic.
None of the ancient sees established by the apostles survive unbroken to this day except for Rome, the ancient see of Peter. All the patriarchates are beneath Rome in terms of authority as any perusal of the first three hundred years of Church history easily shows.
You can claim what you like about Constantinople, but there is absolutely no theological reason to believe that Constantinople has any claim for authority that competes with Rome's. The closest you can get is to say that a Roman Emperor had his capitol city there for a time - that's not theology, that's just interesting cultural data.
I verily believe in following Augustine's example. Fornication and libation in excess, add gluttony. Then advise against it, the spirit is willing and the flesh is weak. Hypocrisy canonized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.