Posted on 06/15/2004 2:12:56 PM PDT by Fifthmark
The "Church" is the visible Body of Christ that professes "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism" and owes true obedience to the successor of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, who has been given the keys to Heaven and the power to bind and loose. The "churches" desribed in the Apocalypse are the assemblege of Christians in the localities listed that constitute part of the greater "Church." The different employments of the word "Church" can be seen in the following Catholic Encyclopedia article:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
The "Church" is the visible Body of Christ that professes "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism" and owes true obedience to the successor of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, who has been given the keys to Heaven and the power to bind and loose. The "churches" desribed in the Apocalypse are the assemblege of Christians in the localities listed that constitute part of the greater "Church." The different employments of the word "Church" can be seen in the following Catholic Encyclopedia article:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
John was taken in "SPIRIT" to the LORDS DAY. Now apparently the Catholic church in its claim to be the one and only, ignores what that "DAY" means, and Peter even tells us how long "that DAY is.
Paul tells us in ICorinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: (examples) and they are written for our admonition, (warning) upon whom the ends of the world (ages) come.
These ensamples (examples) that Paul is talking about is written in the OLD Testament, that which Christ repeatedly taught from. The admonition, (warning) is that what happened in the OLD would be replayed again giving the student an insight as to "signs" of the TIMES as is described in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 which is what is in what is commonly called the "Apocalypse".
Now those "7" churches described in Revelations apparently claim to be Christian and no where does it say they are to be under one flesh man, that claim is not WRITTEN. When Christ in taking his last breath upon that cross the very next event that is described was the "RENTING of the VEIL in the Holy of the Holies from TOP to BOTTOM", that place where prior to, only the "priest" could go. The "RENTING" of that veil ended the practice of it being necessary for "blood sacrifices" via a priest for forgiveness of ones sins. This is the "freedom" given to the individual that "IF" one believes they are given access to the Heavenly Father through Christ.
Christ saves not man or a church that is written. There is no instruction given to Peter to "reenact" what was required prior to the death of Christ, that was the means and method of maintaining control over the masses by installing a man over people.
Now you are free to choose what to believe and "WHOM" to follow, that is the "freedom" given by the Creator from the beginning. We were created to give HIM pleasure and this flesh ages is the "testing" time for all to choose.
Now some have gone through this flesh age never having been given the "truth" and that is the purpose for the "TIME" of THE LORD'S DAY.
ping
Your exegesis of the Apocalypse and Scripture in general is a little difficult to understand and underlies the problem with private interpretation, as unless you have a Divine Authority to assert the doctrines you are putting forth are true, then you have no assurance that your interpretation is infallible and represents the true Doctrine of Christ.
"Remember above all that the Inquisition did not concern itself with the private opinions of the heretics, but solely with the public propagation of the heresy. The Inquisition did not commit any offense against the individual conscience, but acted solely against the exterior activities of the heretics."
Actually Fifth, the Tribunals did indeed concentrate on things such as Private diaries, as well as forcing those called before the Tribunal to recount all Books they had read, Lectures they had listened to, people they had been in contact with.
When one was called to the Casa Sancta, their life was laid bare, and the "Suspect" was forced to sign a full "confession" based on the findings of the Tribunal. Any attempt by the penitant to with hold information from the Inquisitors was grounds to relax them.
Objective reality is reality that exists independently of the observer. God's existence is objective and does not need the verification of the observer in order to be true. We can verify His existence and substantiate His reality through proofs, as St. Thomas Aquinas and many other theologians have done admirably. Here is St. Thomas on "Whether God exists?":
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm
If God does exist, then we are entirely dependent on Him and must recognize that dependence through honoring and worshipping Him. This honor and worship is the virtue of religion, which must be practiced in accordance to His Will, known to us through His Revelation. To know Revelation is to understand the truths He wishes us to possess and the moral virtues He calls us to practice. In the end, He will judge us according to our belief in Him and the practice of these moral virtues so that we might either merit eternal pleasure with Him, our greatest good, in Heaven or be separated from Him forever through eternal reprobation.
Would you claim that your personal interpretation is infallible, y/n?
Would you claim that your personal interpretation is infallible, y/n?
NO. As it is written all have sinned and fall short. There is none in the flesh that fits that claim as "infallible". Placing any "flesh man" as being "infallible" makes that man same status as the "Heavenly Father" and that is in outright opposition to what is written. NOT even Peter is presented as "infallible".
The author's contention was that notorious public heretics, not those with privately dissenting views, were the subjects of the Inquisition. If the former had their "lives laid bare," it was with the intent of determining the origins of their heresies and to prevent the ideas from further public dissemination.
Fine. Then I am free to reject your interpretation as nonsense and cling to what Tradition and Scripture show to be the true Doctrine of Christ.
That is exactly correct YOU are "FREE" as am I "FREE" just as Paul described "freedom & liberty", what we were given by the death and resurrection of Christ.
No longer are we bound to "man" any longer under any religion they devise.
I'm not confusing the present with history. I'm judging history against an organization's claim to have absolute and unchanging standards.
So then it's your contention that such probing of a person is acceptable?
Granted, I'm not one that subscribes to the idea that the Inquisitors were Monsters, many were devoutly religious men who looked at what they were doing as noble and honorable.
However, that being said, while the Inquisitors were prohibited from causing permanent physical damage to get a penitant to confess their heresy, including time limits on torments, many instances of "crossing the line" did occur.
Also, let's not forget that one option an Inquisitor had was to simply turn a penitant over to the Secular Authorities, who, in an effort not to offend the Office of the Inquisition would almost certainly brutally torture and execute those in their charge.
Face it, the very act of relaxing an unrepentant Heretic directly violates the very notion of Free Will.
As for the idea that the general populous happily went along with the Inquisition, let's face facts, simply failing to attend an auto was enough to have a person brought before a Tribunal under a charge of suspision of Heresy.
Or worse, even questioning the Inquisition itself, in any manner, was considered a crime.
If your "liberty" opposes God's Will and contradicts the Doctrine of Christ, then it is not true liberty, but enslavement to the devil. "He that is not with Me, is against Me." This is why you must seek the truth, not merely the fallible rationalism that marks Sola Scriptura. The truth is that Christ Himself built a Church and that all are called to belong to it for salvation. If it weren't for a Church that continues the teaching office of the Apostles, then how on earth do you oppose errors concerning Christ's Doctrine? Through your personal exegesis of Scripture?
The right exists for authorities to punish criminals, whether in the ecclesiatical or secular realm. After the destuction of Christendom, the idea of temporal punishment for spiritual crimes became less common and is therefore viewed in modern times as barbaric, whereas the Inquisition saw it as an act of mercy to effect repentance when all other means had failed. The death of the soul through heresy (understanding the effects of mortal sin) is infinitely worse than the death of the body. "For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?"
"The right exists for authorities to punish criminals, whether in the ecclesiatical or secular realm."
But when the bar of what quantifies a "criminal" is lowered to such a point that only a saint could get under it, the notion becomes intolerable.
While I believe that God exists...Aquinas' and others views, are still theories, they do not verify the existence of God.
I do not agree that we must recognise our dependence of Him through religious worship.
If some people on this site can justify the Inquisition, will the Holocaust be far behind?
Just the outright advocacy for a total Catholic theocracy in some of the posts is enough to make one's stomach turn.
And some keep wondering why the Right has such a tough time convincing people...
This needs no modification. It clearly speaks for itself.
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.