Posted on 03/06/2003 12:40:07 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Not supposedly. Correlate Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19 and Revelation 3:7.
...needs to either be prepared to back up his statements on this war with Scripture or stay silent.
He would be so obligated if he was a "Bible only" Christian, but he's not. Nevertheless, the Just War doctrine is derived from Biblical principles as is the doctrine regarding Jesus' two natures, although neither doctrine is explicitly mentioned in the Bible. (Then again, your doctrine of "the Bible alone" isn't mentioned in the Bible either.)
Both doctrines are the result of the Church's reflection on Oral Tradition, Written Tradition (Scripture), previous Church teachings (the Magisterium), and a result of the Holy Spirit guiding the apostolic successors (and hence the Church) into all truth. Church teaching rests on Oral Tradition, Written Tradition and the Magisterium, not the Bible alone. This must be so even under your rubric since the Bible calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Tim 3:15)
The relatively recent tradition of "the Bible alone" was made famous by Luther and made possible by the invention of the printing press.
Someone should tell this guy that this Gulf was opened by the freak Suicidal Islamic followers that are on a JIHAD against every society that doesn't follow "their interpretation" of Islam. Gulf? We're in the Gulf alright and about to close that so-called 'gulf' just a bit tighter too.Question: How are we as American citizens, supposed to tell the difference between A Muslim that wants to Kill us and The average Muslim? Anyone have any tips? I didn't think so. Those Airport Security pictures of the guys who flew the planes on 9/11, sure looked harmless to me.
And I don't understand that part because they could care less what the Pope or the Church has to say.
Might as well start another Crusade.
Yes, we all use the same bible, but unfortunately we all now have different interpretations, we're not on the same page. What is good for one is not good for another.
What we need, in my humble opinion, is one leader. I, should say we since you are catholic, are fortunate enough to have that in the Catholic Church, in the person of the Pope.
No, the Pope is not our president. I would guess that this country could not tolerate a "truly" catholic president. But the Pope is the leader of Christendom, like it or not,and he has a responsibility to his duty.
And I, being Catholic, owe my allegiance to the Pope.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe in the simple Word of God and that each and every word in it is the infallible Word of the Living God. I don't believe that Jesus has more than one nature- He has the nature of God, Who, after all, He is. I don't believe in the supposition that presumes that the Bible itself is lacking in truth and requires a lot of extraneous explanations and extra-Biblical writings to fill in the supposed "gaps in truth" in the Holy Word of God. I also don't believe that the "Church" as Paul describes it refers to the Roman Catholic Church. I believe the "Church" is the body of believers who have accepted Christ as the one and only atonement and sacrifice for their sins, and do not believe that their salvation derives from what church they belong to. Denominations, after all, are something created by man, not God.
God has fulfilled His absolute truth in the Bible and the Bible alone. I will stake my eternal security on what God in His wisdom has decided to reveal to us in His Word and His Word alone. I need nothing else.
Might as well start another Crusade. It's about G.D. time somebody said that out loud too!Everyone forgets the purpose of the crusades.They were created against MUSLIM AGGRESSION! Here for the uninitiated or go here and read both parts.They're very long but damn worth it. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm
From 1990:
"The struggle between these rival systems has now lasted for some fourteen centuries. It began with the advent of Islam, in the seventh century, and has continued virtually to the present day. It has consisted of a long series of attacks and counterattacks, jihads and crusades, conquests and reconquests.
For the first thousand years Islam was advancing, Christendom in retreat and under threat. The new faith conquered the old Christian lands of the Levant and North Africa, and invaded Europe, ruling for a while in Sicily, Spain, Portugal, and even parts of France. The attempt by the Crusaders to recover the lost lands of Christendom in the east was held and thrown back, and even the Muslims' loss of southwestern Europe to the Reconquista was amply compensated by the Islamic advance into southeastern Europe, which twice reached as far as Vienna.
For the past three hundred years, since the failure of the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683 and the rise of the European colonial empires in Asia and Africa, Islam has been on the defensive, and the Christian and post-Christian civilization of Europe and her daughters has brought the whole world, including Islam, within its orbit".
Which I personally think is inevitable.
Answer: they all do, as even do the Catholics in their original (non-Apocrypha) Bible. As you yourself have pointed out, it's not the Bible that's in question, disputes about minor textual variations aside. It's how it's read that is.
If by Protestantism he means entities like the mainline churches today, he has a point. But if the Catholic church was like the old time Protestants and their intellectual progeny today (e.g. Southern Baptists, Missouri Lutherans, any number of independent conservative fundamentalist congregations), it would have a much stiffer backbone.
I think there are people in every denomination who are fervent and those who are not. For instance, I work with a guy who says he's a Southern Baptist in good standing, yet he is a notorious womanizer who often talks of his escapades. He said in briefing one day "hey, I'm a Southern Baptist, we believe in young chics and fried chicken." Says all he has to do is tell God he's sorry and that's the end of it.
And he's serious. I think we all know better than that.
Maybe the Vatican wants to keep up with the National Council of Churches.
I hope you read both parts and very glad for you if you did. I re-read it every 90 days or so, using different colored highlighters for points I missed before. I came across it shortly after 9/11 and have since printed copies at my work and easily given ( including EMail) entire copies to over 50 people and swayed their opinion and they have seen the light. The disinformation/total lack of comprehension regarding the history of "The Crusades" is particularly offensive, after you read it, isn't it? Had George W. NOT allowed the media to abuse him for using that word,(which in all honesty he was correct to use---it just wouldn't be possible for a Crusade in 2001 like it was 800-1100 years ago) every Muslim on earth might be dead right now, almost 2 years later, without a doubt,and we couldn't have that could we.(Imagine That )(Our DSL line was out all day today.I'm going home,thanks for reading my link and please remember to pass it on, if you ever find time.)
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.