Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Looks like a rabbitt trail to me. Do you actually know what a spiritual gift is? Pauls actually lists them in one of his epistles. Do you really think scripture was talking about the gift of an office in some religious orgainization? I think not. Don't look like Paul is with you on this one.
Interesting question. Do you think I should? Do you understand the notions of substance and accidents?
If a communion host which contained poision was consecrated into the Body and Blood of Jesus, then the poision would still be there. The substance of it would change, but the accidents, the outward appearances would remain. Therefore, just as consecrated wine still tastes like wine and will give you a buzz if you drink enough of it, so would consecrated rat poision taste like rat poison and kill me just like regular rat poison.
That's if the consecration would be valid, which it probably wouldn't be. In which case I would not be eating the Body and Blood of Christ at all, but rather some poisoned bread.
This level of question is really below you, Reggie. I thought you understood better than that.
SD
But we're not called to go and do comfortable things. Did Jesus hang out in Nazareth for 33 years? Nope ... he went out to all the places where opposition was the rule.
Preaching to the choir does no good.
How can we know for certain? If he did, he didn't act like it. Or at least, he acted in a sense that his personal primacy was to be exercised only on an extraordinary basis. That is, he may have believed that to be the case, but acted and wrote in such a manner as to not draw attention to it. Personally, I don't believe he saw himself that way.
It's not too great a stretch to have thought that Rome would become an important place for the Church. After all, it was the capital of the empire. So I think the answer to your second question could very well be yes, he did realize that the church in Rome would become central, though I don't know about being the headquarters.
Could you ever end up with more than one Pope?
The first issue depends largely on the injury situation and draft order. The second is largely a salary cap issue.
Would that be classified as a ... (dare I say it?) ... work? ;o)
Dunno. But I have seen that word somewhere in the Bible.
Becky
But, but… If your main point was nothing needed outside teaching the scripture, why wouldn't proper teaching be limited to teaching how to memorize the Bible. And wouldn't Scofield and Larkin be extra-biblical, when did this dipensational tradition begin?
I'm not being critical of what you decide is your best understanding of your religious teaching. I am reiterating that it is a false distinction to claim to be different than those who follow the teaching of men and "tradition."
Lot's of stuff to disagree about as far as meaning, but "without tradition or teaching of men" is not something an organized church or theological system can exist.
Can anything good come from Bixby? ;o)
If Jesus wanted to set up a church centered in Rome, why did he choose to grow up in Galilee?
Becky
"Theoteko" means "God + bearer".[#5088] "Theotokos" means "God + usury" [#5110]
"Tokos" [#5110] is only used twice in the Scriptures, once in Matthew 25:27 and the other in Luke 19:23, both times translated "usury".
Look it up for yourself ---- spelling is all important
I suppose.
Could you ever end up with more than one Pope?
Never. There could be Popes and Anti-Popes, competing claims to the office. But only one would be the real Pope.
SD
Augustine
THE CITY OF GOD
Book 1 - Containing a General View of the Subjects Treated in Holy Scripture.
Chapter 18.-The Keys Given to the Church.
17. He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.
Of course, one could argue that Peter's successor is the representative of the church, having received greater authority....Cyprian disagrees.
Cyprian
On the Unity of the Church
4. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed nay sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; " yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.
Now as I was reading the commentary on this I was very, very interested and thought some comments from you all would be in order. This is obviously polemical commentary but brings up some quite valid and interesting points.
Launoi, the eminent Gallican, found but seventeen of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church (among whom he reckons "Fathers" down to the twelfth century) who understand St. Peter to be "the rock," and he cites forty of the contrary opinion. Yet of the "seventeen," most of them speak only rhetorically, and with justifiable freedom. I have often done the same myself, on the principle which the same apostle applies to all Christians: "Ye also as lively stones," etc. But it is quite noteworthy that the Council of Trent itself momentarily adopts the prevailing patristic and therefore the Catholic interpretation, speaking of the Nicene Creed:843 "In quo omnes qui fidem Christi profitentur necessario conveniunt, ac fundamentum firmum et unicum, contra quod portaeinferi nunquam praevalebunt (Matthew 16:18)." Thus, the faith of Peter is confessed the only foundation, in a direct exposition of the text so often quoted with another intent. In spite of all this, the Creed of Pius IV. was enjoined as soon as that council closed; and every member of the late Vatican Council was made to profess the same verbally before any other business was undertaken. Now, even this spurious creed forced them to swear concerning the Holy Scriptures," I will never take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." Obviously, according to this rule, there is no Catholic doctrine on the subject; much less any Catholic teaching to the effect that the modern bishops of Rome are "the rock," as really as St. Peter himself.
Now here is the part which will fascinate Havoc and perhaps suggest an area of concentration in regards to the Decretals.
This bit of commentary is specifically in regards to Cyprian's "On the Unity of the Church."
...to illustrate the bearings of this treatise upon the history of Christian unity, we need only refer to the manner in which the subject was treated as soon as the papacy was created by Nicholas I. Thus, he astounded the Greeks by his consummate audacity (a.d. 860) in the matter of the disputed succession in Constantinople. "It is our will," he says, "that Ignatius should appear before our envoys," etc. He declares it the rule of the Fathers, that, "without the consent of the Roman See and the Roman pontiff, nothing should be decided." Also, he affirms, "The Creator of all things has established the Princedom of the Divine Power, which He granted to His chosen apostles. He has firmly established it on the firm faith of the Prince of the Apostles,-that is to say, Peter,-to whom he pre-eminently granted the first See," etc. He was now speaking on the strength of the forged Decretals, to which he appeals, and which he succeeded in making law for the West. He thus created the lasting schism with the Easterns, who had never heard the like before his time.
Fire at will.
Of course, the RCC believes that the prophesies were fullfilled when the Church took over the Roman Empire. Some NCs believe that the RCC is that fourth empire (and the "whore of Babylon"). But everyone agrees that the empire spoken of is Rome. The early Christians were just trying to be part of the fulfillment of prophesy.
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.