Posted on 02/15/2006 6:22:47 AM PST by NYer
so, you consider yourself a super-pope, completely infallible, eh? Not even the Papacy claims such
Wouldn't it be much simpler just to go to the Bible and see what it has to say about the matter. Or is the opinion of the Pope superior to that of God?
Nope, I'm just a dumb country boy who has the ability to read the Bible and do my best to obey it. That, of course, makes me far inferior to you since you have the Pope to read it for you and tell you what it means.
I also find it quite interesting that in the most successful nations with the most educated populace Catholism is in the minority while it in the majority in most third world countries. Could it be that God has blessed this nation which is majority Protestant. Just one of those crazy thoughts that come to my mind from time to time.
I never claimed to be inspired but the Apostles were. Why do you include them in your list of uninspired men?
You really need to get a grip on yourself. As for me I am sleepy and tired tired of suffering fools. You need to get a good nights sleep. I am sure that a mind of your high intellect needs all the rest it can get.
nope, I didn't include them -- YOU DID. You said all mortal men are uninspired, so all Apostles, Gospel writers, Scripture writers etc. are uninspired.
Thanks for your kind words.
Jesus Christ is the head of the Katholikos (Universasl) Church. Of that part, I am sure we agree. You will note that in the Bible, there are two usages of the word "Church" (ekklesia) -- the first refers to the universal Church; the second refers to the particular churches in each city. Each city would have their own bishop (episcopos). The bishop would then have priests (presbuteros) and deacons (diakonos) to assist him in his ministry. There are, historically, five major patriarchies in the universal Church (my Orthodox friends can feel free to help me here): Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Out of these patriarchies, Rome was given the honor of primacy. St. Peter, the original Patriarch of Rome, was given this authority by Christ, himself, in Matthew 16:19, when Jesus gave him the keys. The significance of the keys is fully explained in Isiah 22, btw. That is what I mean by the "universal" church, or the Church, for short. When you hear the words "Vicar of Christ," it has to do with the fact that the keys belong to the Bishop of Rome, as they were given to him by Christ, himself. It means his role is like one of "prime minister," not "king."
The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Unfortunately, the London Confession also states ... neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. You really should have printed out Art 4 of Chap 26, it's much more fun to review. ;)
Only the Orthodox come even close to agreeing with this doctrine, and if "that disagreement is slight", it has been been a major bone of contention in a 1000 year schism. Understanding - and disagreement.
Actually, the only bone of contention that I have seen with my well informed Orthodox brethren is how the duty is executed. Again, I'm sure they can feel free to comment, but I believe that their issue is that it should be more collegial and concilliar. I further believe that the only major theological difference exists in two areas: first (the issue that caused the split), the filoque, and second, the understanding of original sin (the issue of the Immaculate Conception is necessary under the west's comprehension of Original Sin; it is unnecessary under the Orthodox's view...but that disagreement is subordinate to the understanding of Original Sin). But as far as the Primacy of the See of Peter, there is no argument. The ecumenical councils have clearly and repeatedly affirmed this (with the second place of honor going to the Patriarch of Constantinople).
No problem with comprehension. But while Orthodox, Anglican, and Old Catholic groups agree (and claim apostolic succession themselves), none of the pre-reformation, other reformation, or post-reformation groups believes that apostolic succession is necessary or even desirable. Understanding - and disagreement.
And that is simply an area where the ecclesial groups formed following the Western Schism are simply in error. Not your fault, personally, as those groups have formed their own faulty theologies to justify their error, but it is an error nevertheless. But we can discuss that back and forth for years, so I would suggest that we agree to disagree on this one and move on.
I assume you are aware that there is disagreement on the meaning of 2 Pet 1:20. Understanding - and disagreement.
2 Pe 1:20 (RSV) - First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
I'm sorry, I don't see where there could possibly be any disagreement as to the meaning of that verse. It seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps you could explain this disagreement to me (seriously...I didn't realize that there was disagreement as to its meaning).
In regard to your quotes from 2nd Timothy, there is of course diagreement over to whom they apply.
Well, of course there is...Catholics have had that section thrown at them improperly by (could make a really nonconstructive comment here...but won't) for years. We could agree that it likely applies to Moonies and Scientologists, though, couldn't we?
Let me throw another couple of verses at you though, that are related (all rsv):
2Pe 3:15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
On a personal note, there is one thing you need to recognize: I had a horrible catechesis as a child and fell victim to a group of Navigators while living in a college dorm. As a result of this, I fell into the trap of being in various fundamentalist/evangelical groups for years. About 9 years ago, I was convicted by the Holy Spirit and had to come back home (when spending about a month in a hotel that was in the shadow of St. Anthony's basillica in Padova). As this conviction grew stronger, I began to study Catholic doctrine intensely...Bible in one hand, Catechism in the other. Because I knew that if the call of the Spirit to return was genuine, I would not be able to find any doctrine that was not, at least, rooted in scripture. And I certainly would find none that was offensive to scripture...if I actually studied the doctrine and actually studied the scripture, rather than studied other peoples' take on each. And, of course, when I actually understood the doctrine, I found that most of what I was deceived with first, by the Navigators, and secondly, by a host of various fundamentalist/evangelical groups, were based on rather transparent lies.
The point is that I've been where you are in my beliefs. I was sola scriptura, sola fide 100%.At one point in my life, I had a passion for 'saving' Catholics from the whore of Babylon (God forgive me). I was wrong.
Perhaps you should take your own advice. If you want the Truth the bible tells us where we can find it
1 Timothy 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
You claim the Bible is so straigntforward and understandable that to misunderstand it you must have the help of a Priest, Rabbi, or Preacher. When according to scripture the Church is the method ordained by God to preserve and teach the Truth. Your logic is backwards.
I will gladly match the authority and and wisdom of my God who inspired the scriptures and instructed me to study them against every Catholic scholar you can name for the past two thousand years.
Are you claiming Catholic scholars weren’t inspired by God to study the scriptures? So if I were to use a study guide to help me in my understanding of God’s worth I should consult the FR posts of tenn2005 and disregard Summa Theologia written by St. Thomas Aquinas?
Tenn -- you seem to imply that you alone among all persons that have lived or live now are inspired, no one else...
In the words of the late, great Fulton J. Sheen, There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church.
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.