Posted on 11/23/2003 3:39:24 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
The Dutch Reformed Church dates from 1642. As the religion of the colonial government, its membership reached about 400,000 before the end of Dutch rule in 1796. Under the British, Church of Scotland chaplains were present from 1830 and the Dutch and Scottish presbyterians united in 1882. Membership has since reduced to about five thousand through migration and reversion to Catholicism and to other faiths.(Presbyterian and Reformed Churches in Asia)
http://www.schoolofministry.ac.nz/reformed/asia.htm
Fairly obvious where those Reformed "adherents" came from, and their motivation for being Protestant (persecution and outlawing of Catholicism). There are today 1.4 million Catholics in Sri Lanka, despite the Dutch persecution.
You should never have brought up Dutch Protestant "mission" work in Asia.
(1). "Although the Catholic Churches diffused throughout the world are but one bridal chamber of Christ, yet the Holy Roman Church has been set before the rest by no conciliar decrees, but has obtained the primacy by the voice of our Lord and Savior in the gospel, (Mathew 16:18, etc.)"
(2). "For this will appear best and fittest, that the priests of the lord from all the provinces should report to the head, that is, to the See of Peter the apostle".
(3). "Bishop Gaudentius said: 'A rider, if you will agree, to this very holy decision has been made: When a bishop has been deposed by the judgement of the bishops living in neighboring places and has---let another bishops on no account be ordained in his stead--except the case shall have been determined by the judgment of the Bishop of Rome".
(4). "Ignatius Theophorus to the church on which the majesty of the most high Father and of Jesus Christ, His only Son, had his mercy; to the church beloved and enlightened by the faith and charity of Jesus Christ, our God, through the will of Him Who has willed all things tht exist--the Church in the place of the country of the Romans that holds the primacy. I salute you in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father".
(5). "We have, I think, dearest brother, disposed of all the questions which...you reported to the Roman Church as to the head of your body. No priest is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable provisions of the canons".
(6). "Away with jealously of the Roman preeminence, away with ambition! I speak to the successor of the fisherman and to the disciple of the cross. I follow no one as cheif save Christ, but I am joined in communion with your blessedness, that is, with the see of Peter. Upon that rock I know the Church is built"
The significance of the three times = Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Whore Babylon is the Great City Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8)
This is an illegitimate connection. Revelation 11 is not directly connected to the events of Revelation 17, so you are making a false equivalence between two cities called "the Great City" in completely different contexts.
In the midst of a lengthy passage describing Jerusalems extensive commerce, Edersheim reports: In these streets and lanes everything might be purchased: the production of Palestine, or imported from foreign lands nay, the rarest articles from the remotest parts. Exquisitely shaped, curiously designed and jewelled cups, rings, and other workmanship of precious metals; glass, silks, fine linen, woolen stuffs, purple, and costly hangings; essences, ointments, and perfumes, as precious as gold; articles of food and drink from foreign lands in short, what India, Persia, Arabia, Media, Egypt, Italy, Greece, and even the far-off lands of the Gentiles yielded, might be had in these bazaars. Ancient Jewish writings enable us to identify no fewer than 118 different articles of import from foreign lands, covering more than even modern luxury has devised.
Again, Jerusalem was a city of a around ten of thousand (the walls then were actually smaller than today, since the area of the Church of the Anastasis, where Christ was crucified and buried was outside the walls).
Cities like Rome, Smyrna, Ephesus, Pergamon, Antioch, Alexandria, Athens and Carthage were many hundreds of thousands. Luxuries were only available in Jerusalem (and the trade was hardly making anyone rich there) because they coudl be brought to the huge market represented by those major cities.
It was the city of Rome and its suffragans for which traders brought goods, not Jerusalem. I'll await your explanation of how the economics of the Jerusalem trade, and not the Roman trade were what made the traders rich.
Why, you've left out Attila the Hun!! How many times does a guy have to sack Rome to get a mention on your list? Of course, you have to leave out the Huns -- if we counted all the tribes who descended upon the carcass of the Western Empire, we'd end up with a lot more than ten in a hurry.
First, the Huns aren't German. Second, the Huns affected little of the Roman Empire and only for a short period. Third, there were ten major German tribal confederations that descended upon Rome.
No, Hermann -- the Ten Horns "have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast"; these being the ten Imperial provinces of Rome: Italy, Achaia, Asia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Germany. "And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire."
"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have not yet received a kingdom: but shall receive power as kings, one hour after the beast. These have one design: and their strength and power they shall deliver to the beast. ... And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: These shall hate the harlot and shall make her desolate and naked and shall eat her flesh and shall burn her with fire." (Revelation 17.12-13, 16)
The German tribes were of one mind, as shown by their collective invasion in AD 407. There were never ten imperial Roman provinces (there were many more), nor ten kings of these provinces, nor were they of one mind, nor did they hate either Rome or Jerusalem, nor did the provinces ever sack Rome or Jerusalem. I'd say the German tribes fit that far better. Example: "We...Lombards, Saxons, Franks, Lotharingians, Bajoarians, Sueni, Burgundians, have so much contempt [for Romans and their emperors] that when we become enraged with our enemies, we pronounce no other insult except Roman (nisi Romane), this alone, i.e., the name of the Romans (hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine) meaning: whatever is ignoble, avaricious, licentious, deceitful, and, indeed whatever is evil." (Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana 12. Migne, PL 136. 815) - Keep in mind that when that was written, the Roman Empire had destroyed the Vandals and Ostrogoths, and the Arabs had destroyed the Visigoths, which then totals ten kings and kingdoms of one mind who hate the harlot.
http://www.romanity.org/htm/frame_friesian_en.htm
Scroll down on that site and you can see the provincial divisions circa AD 116.
Two serves you won't answer:
"And the woman which thou sawest is the great city which hath kingdom over the kings of the earth." (Revelation 17.18)
Jerusalem never ruled the earth, Rome did. You can't address or refute this point. - ACE!
"And there came one of the seven angels who had the seven vials and spoke with me, saying: Come, I will shew thee the condemnation of the great harlot, who sitteth upon many waters: ... And he said to me: The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples and nations and tongues." (Revelation 17.1, 15)
Jerusalem did not sit upon many peoples, Rome did, not only being the confluence of all peoples, but also their dominator and even betimes their opressor (as the worthy Hermann the Cherusker would know). - ACE!
Game, set, match OP.
NO PRIMACY TO ROME!
Sigh. Maybe the third time you'll actually engage the question. I'm not holding my breath.
SD
Right. But the fact that a conversation is "last" to appear in the Gospels is all-important.
Or is that the other way around? Whatever.
SD
No, they just forbid the Irish to own land, arms, etc.; forced them from their ancestral lands; forbid the saying of Mass; and offered charity during the imposed starvation of the Famine only to those willing to denounce their Catholicism.
But Protestants never forced anyone to convert.
(Oh, I know. The English weren't really Protestants. The glory of the Church of One is having no history.)
SD
CANON VI.
LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
NO PRIMACY!
This is a canon concerning the ordinary government of the Church, which is not centered in Rome, but at the level of the Primatial Sees, which watch to keep order in each province. The right of appeal to Rome and her final doctrinal, moral, and disciplinary authority, the essence of her primacy, were understood by all and did not need re-annunciating. The Roman Law of Emperors Theodosius and Justinian explicitly recognize this, as does the common title of the Roman Pope as "Archbishop of the universal Church". This is why Bishop Hosius and two mere Priests, Vitus and Vitellus of Rome, presided over the Council of Nicea, despite their rank below the other Bishops present.
What you are spouting is the Spanish black legend - wicked evil Spain destroys the whole world, kills all the Jews with her Inquisition, tries to take over England but is punished by God, etc.
As Herman has explained it is stating that the "Metropolitan" has jurisdiction over the selection of lesser bishops in his territory. It says nothing about the Bishop of Rome and his primacy.
(A "Metropolitan" is a sort of uber-bishop who has authority over a certain region, involving other bishops in dioceses in his territory. For example, here in PA, the Archbishop of Philadephia is metropolitan over all of the other dioceses in Pennsylvania.)
SD
Whose side are you arguing?
SD
The decree you posted wasn't accepted by the Pope because it was schizmatic, detrimental to the Church, and was a selfish power grab due to jealousy of Rome's primacy. Follow-up Coucils and decrees made it clear that Rome held the primacy. And the Eastern church accepted this primacy, as my last post clearly demonstrates.
By the same token a "First Will" is more important than the "Last Will. Whatever.
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.