The Rise of the Papacy

Ligonier Ministries ^ | David Wells

[narses]

More odd views of a poster who claims that Catholics are idolaters, that those who celebrate Easter and Christmas are pagans and that claims that the idea of church on Sunday is a man made tradition and apparently not either Christian or Biblical.

In fact this poster claims ALL organized religions are wrong and that even venerating a simple Cross is pagan. Given that this is the point of view from which he views the world, why should anyone pay attention to his odd, often incomplete and often misread cut-n-pastes?

Some quotes and links as CB now tries to say he didn't say what he said:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2708561/posts?page=29#29

Let the pagans have it. God doesn’t smile down on people who celebrate Easter.

All of the Lent and Easter abomination is pagan and God clearly condemned it in scripture.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-religion/2686288/replies?c=6

[NKP_Vet]

http://www.theonetruefaith.tv/index.php?nav=03

“Hello there, you’re tuned to The One True Faith - the show we say is the most disturbing hour on television, because we talk about where you are going to spend eternity . . . “

With these words, Michael Voris introduces each episode of the latest weapon in the new evangelization spoken of by Pope John-Paul II and re-iterated by Pope Benedict XVI. Using the medium of television - for too long a form of media dedicated to secular distractions at best and immoral ‘entertainment’ at worst - The One True Faith seeks to address many of the issues surrounding modern Catholicism in a manner which will ensure the message is heard loud and clear by the modern, TV-obsessed generation.

Addressing itself to the teaching of authentic Christianity, The One True Faith takes its name from the Roman Catholic Church - the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, and the only Church which can claim the fullness of Truth and to be founded personally by Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity and God-in-the-Flesh.

[CynicalBear]

Catholic Scholars on Christmas

http://www.cogwriter.com/news/church-history/catholic-scholars-on-christmas/

[Salvation]

For the non-Catholics:

You belive in Scripture, correct?

 

Then why don't you believe this?

 

John 21: (We'll be using the KJV today to keep things on even footing): "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

 

The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.

[verga]

If you expect to be taken seriously, you need to post from legitimate sources. I would rip my 9th graders a new one for citing such a blatantly ridiculous site.

[don-o]

blatantly ridiculous site.

That article might be useful for teaching the fallacy of reasoning from conclusions.

[don-o]

This is one of the main reasons the New Covenant was to be so much superior to the Old Covenant: They shall all be taught of God. No longer are we to be subservient to a mediatorial class.

Yes. But, is it valid to use this concept to deny a hierarchy of authority? Whence can come the unity for which our Lord prayed?

What do you do with the council in Acts 15? If believers were to be "all taught of God", then how could there have been disputes about the Gentiles?

It's one thing to opine in 2014 with the questions (or at least the positions)seemingly resolved, or at least clarified. It is another thing to try to think of the conditions in which the great controversies first arose; and then to look at what was done with them - how and why.

[CynicalBear]

So it,s not the information in the article you refute just that it came from a site that you don’t like that compiled it. How interesting.

[verga]

If the site posts information that is inaccurate like this one does, should I approve it but disapprove of the material?

As I have said a number of times it is virtually impossible to have an intelligent conversation with a prot.

[Springfield Reformer]

SR: This is one of the main reasons the New Covenant was to be so much superior to the Old Covenant: They shall all be taught of God. No longer are we to be subservient to a mediatorial class.

DO: Yes. But, is it valid to use this concept to deny a hierarchy of authority?

"Hierarchy" ("priest-rule" or "priest-primacy") is one of those interesting words where the etymology got left behind as the word through usage expanded in semantic range. But if I take your word in it's most generic meaning, that Christian congregations ought to be ordered under at least some form of leadership, Protestantism obviously recognizes that general principle and has no quarrel with you.  We have our presbyters (or "elders" if you prefer). We even have confessions. Westminster, Heidelberg, etc. But we do see "hierarchy" differently, and the well established Biblical concept that we are all taught of God does play into that difference. 

So while we do not reject authority per se, we do reject those forms of authority which are incompatible with the Scriptural paradigm. Jesus specifically teaches that the authority model for the church will not be like the strict top down structure of worldly systems, but would be a bottom up servant model, in recognition of the fact that in the body of Christ, unlike earthly hierarchies, only God can be the true head, because only God can exert direct authority on every individual member by His Spirit.  A highly structured authoritarian form of human hierarchy is at odds with this basic principle.

Notice for example something often overlooked  in that hotly contested debate over Matthew 16:18. The fight is always about whether Peter has supreme authority, but never about what sort of authority. But the text speaks to that question as well. When something is bound or loosed by an apostle, it "shall have been" already bound or loosed in Heaven, as the Greek tense here is future perfect passive.  So whatever comes from apostolic authority as such is not the imposition of apostolic will or opinion, but by providence we can know it reflects the mind of God Himself, and we expect the leading of God's Spirit in the hearts of believers to be consistent with how He has providentially already led His foundation layers, the Apostles.  And Protestants are already in agreement with this principle with respect to the apostles, who have had a unique role in establishing divine truth. See for example the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

And we have a record in Scripture of what they established as truth for the ecclesia of Christ. It is a photograph in words of that foundation laid for us. Some have tried to add to that record (Book of Mormon), and some have tried to subtract (Marcion, Higher Criticism, etc.).  Protestants generally view the introduction of later developed doctrines purportedly validated by an undocumented tradition as a means of both adding to and subtracting from the word of God. It is both because in the addition of new things such as transubstantiation or sacerdotal priests or prayers to saints it is necessary to subtract from the already given text, by diminishing the once for all nature of the atonement or questioning the closure of the sacerdotal priesthood by Christ or effectively denying the direct closeness of the parent-child relationship between God and every single one of His children. 

Not to go on too long then, it is simply not true that we as Protestants deny authority.  The entire reformation process was premised on trying to work within an existing albeit corrupt hierarchy, in recognition of that authority. But as it was composed of fallible humans, all such human authority has limits, and must be held accountable when it exceeds those limits. When even Peter got out of line, he was held accountable by Paul. As apostles they were peers. But one had slipped from the truth, and the other had not. So truth, NOT blind allegiance to raw, unquestionable, unchallengeable authority, but conformity to apostolic truth was the the means of holding Peter to account.

And likewise when the reformers challenged the unfaithfulness of the Roman magisterium, said magisterium would have better emulated their supposed head Peter by recognizing the ultimate authority of the apostolic record and righted those wrongs uncovered by their own blunt priests. Instead of repentance, they doubled down on their error, and what else can follow but schism? 1054 all over again.

Peace,

SR

[dsc]

“Yashua was saying that He being the Christ...who rose from the dead that that was the foundation of the church...It had nothing to do with building a building in Rome.”

“Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch.” (Wolfgang Pauli)

Not even wrong refers to any statement, argument or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined. As a more formal fallacy, it refers to the fine art of generating an ostensibly “correct” conclusion, but from premises known to be wrong or inapplicable.

The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don’t even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.

A correct argument or explanation is easy to spot; it may look like this:
2 + 2 = 4

A wrong argument has an incorrect conclusion, but is presented in such a way that we can evaluate it, like so:
2 + 2 = 6

The above two examples can be shown to be right and wrong; they at least make enough sense for us to spot where the error is. Something that is not even wrong is usually so far out of the ballpark or so far from reality that it is, quite simply, flabbergastingly irrelevant. For example:

2 + zebra ÷ glockenspiel = homeopathy works!

This is far more than just an argument leading to a wrong conclusion. The premises aren’t even related to the conclusion or are themselves completely nonsensical. In a way, a “not even wrong” argument is often an extreme non sequitur—such as by the homeopaths who claim that observations (later debunked as a measurement error by the scientists who made them in the first place) of neutrinos breaking the speed of light meant that all science was wrong and therefore homeopathy works. The premises, their arrangements, the conclusion, all are so divorced from facts and logic that even attempting to rationally engage with it gives it too much credit.
(Cribbed from RationalWiki)

[SkyDancer]

-> squirrel!

[CynicalBear]

The facts of history are not in dispute. Catholics have been shown over and over again that the writings of the apostles were considers scripture even during their lifetime. Peter called the writings of Paul scripture. Scripture shows in numerous places that the churches distributed copies of those letters. Catholics trying to take credit is laughable.

[verga]

Roamer_1 please refer to post 100 in a thread titled Mormons say that Jesus was married.

[verga]

Gosh darn it if the KJV was good enough for Jesus and Paul than it is good enough for you prots.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

” if the KJV was good enough for Jesus and Paul than it is good enough for you prots.”

If the Hebrew Scriptures were good enough for Jesus, guess we don’t need a New Testament... or an English translation!

[CynicalBear]

Is that some form of or attempt at obfuscation? That has no. Relationship to the subject of my post. Besides, I don’t restrict myself to the KJV but use others and also check with the Greek text.

[roamer_1]

Roamer_1 please refer to post 100 in a thread titled Mormons say that Jesus was married.

ref: FR:Mormons Say Jesus Was Married? #100

To what end?

[daniel1212]

No, 'solo' means alone.'Sola' means preeminent, above all others... the 'Sole rule of Faith' does not mean there can be no other rules, but that there can be no other rules that trump the 'sole rule'. All Protestant denominations have traditions too - The difference is that their traditions, together or respectively, cannot displace the clear Word.

Roamer_1 please refer to post 100 in a thread titled Mormons say that Jesus was married.

Thanks for the ping, but just what in post 100 contradicts what he said?

[verga]

None at all I guess, Thank you for your lack of consistency.