Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
IQ,
You beat me to it. I was just about to ask the same question.
I have noted many times hereon and at least once in this thread . . .
any group of people worshipping together as a church . . . that exists for about a year and a half or longer . . . begins to get fossilized, calcified, traditional, rigid, CUSTOM BOUND and resistent to hearing and obeying God's Voice, HIS SPIRIT
unless the leadership is wise enough to insure otherwise AND DETERMINED in practical effective ways to make it so. That usually takes enormous humility and enormous diligence with lots of input from all levels of the group and from occasional outside observers AS WELL AS PRAYER AND FASTING on occasion about those very tendencies and issues.
Human critters like CONTROL.
ESPECIALLY IN RELIGION. Was evident throughout all Scripture.
Groups are wonderful tools for control freaks.
Individuals AND GROUPS LOVE PREDICTABILITY, consistency, sameness. Helps individuals feel SAFE.
God died that we might have RESTORED DAILY INTIMATE DIALOGUE WITH HIM--A RESTORED WALK IN THE GARDEN IN THE COOL OF THE EVE sort of thing. Christ's Blood was an awful price for such RESTORED DIALOGUE, RELATIONSHIP.
But humans are persistently insistent--you talk to God, Moses/Bossman. We are afraid. We don't want to get that close to God.
So, we'll set up this organization here to do the RELIGIOUS thing for us and pretend that's relating rightly to God. But since we were made to worship something and worshipping CLOSE TO GOD is tooooo scary, we'll end up worshipping the organization as God--maybe not overtly but in practice, in our actions . . . and in our defenses of it. Much easier than doing what God says to us Day by Day.
Shoot HE EXPECTS ME TO GROW IN GRACE, IN LOVE, IN WALKING IN HIS SPIRIT! THAT'S SCARY! Thanks, anyway, Moses, You do it, bossman. I'll just continue to go through all these organizational hoop jumping exercises on occasion and then I'll imagine that THAT makes me righteous and I'll feel safe and comfortable. And God won't bother me that much about changing because I won't be close enough to hear Him. But I'll pretend the organization covers all that for me with The Big Man.
PING.
Basically, humans typically & chronically refuse to walk daily in intimate relationship with God because that's too scary. He expects "too much." He expects us to grow daily. TO COOPERATE WITH HIM CHANGING US FROM THE INSIDE OUT.
It's much safer humans delude themselves into thinking--to hide in an INSTITUTION/ORGANIZATION and pretend that the organization covers all the necessary God stuff.
Doing that long enough, and the insitution becomes the object of adoration, worship, smugness, pride, ego, emotion . . . worshipped.
Quix: The history of the human Roman organization is full of blazing brazen examples to the opposite.
A8: Name one example in the history of the Catholic Church of orthodoxy being determined by the laity instead of the bishops.
Quix: I don't recall my fingers stuttering. I don't recall mentioning the laity. That was not my point. The point I was responding to was that the Bishops--AND PARTICULARLY THE !!!LEADING, TOP, [POLITICALLY SUCCESSFUL] ROMAN!!! BISHOP et al decided orthodoxy flawlessly . . . particularly compared to the 20,000 Protestant idiot groups. WHEN that clearly has not been the case at many times in the Roman group's history. I think the points below reiterated will affirm that.
A8: If your point was that the bishops and the pope "decided orthodoxy flawlessly", then you and agree. (I suspect that you intended to include a "not".) My original point was that orthodoxy is determined by the bishops, not the laity. So your objection seemed to suggest that you think that the laity should get to determine for the Church what is or is not orthodoxy.
Quix: Methinks that the folks on the racks during the Inquisition would beg to differ.
A8: A person "begging to differ" does not refute the point in question. Yes, the Pope has the highest authority (under Christ) in the Catholic Church. But, that does not mean that the Pope has absolute or unqualified authority. Abuses of authority are not indications of the extent or range of authority.
Quix: AND, HE TOOK THEM OUT OR REMOVED THE ANOINTING from every remotely long line of them sooner or later
A8: And how do you know this? This is the sort of deism we see in Mormonism.
Quix: I'm not talking about SECULAR POLITICAL authorities.
A8: Your mentioning of Hitler is what suggested to me that you *were* also talking about secular political authorities.
Quix: The Pope and Cardinals have been plenty abusive 100's of times
A8: Catholics agree. Perhaps this can be a point of common ground. We agree that Catholic leaders have abused their authority. But Catholics believe that when a Catholic leader abuses his authority, this does not eliminate or nullify his God-given authority through ordination. That is what become clear through the Donatist controvesy. And we can thank St. Augustine for helping to clear this up. We don't have to worry whether our baptism was invalid due to some secret and serious sin in the life of the one who administered our baptism. And the same is true of all the sacraments. The gifts and calling are irrevocable. If we fall away from the faith, we do not have to be re-baptized when we return. Why? Because baptism (like confirmation and ordination) leaves an indelible character in the soul.
A8: Please name one 'flipflop' in Catholic *dogma*. Just one.
Quix: I think eggregious indulgences would be one. Papal philandering outside of marriage could be construed as another. ... There were variouis pollitical land grabs at various points in history that were not at all Christ-like--or even remotely moral.
None of those are Catholic dogma.
-A8
This claim commits the fallacy of begging the question.
-A8
Jesus summarizes the 10 Commandments into two. The Law of God is 100% moral.
How is praying for the excommunicated person and trying to persuade him to seek reconciliation with the Church a case of failing to follow 1 Tim 5:19?
What part of 1 Tim 5:19 says anything about reconciliation with a Church? Reading further, my argument is even more reinforced by the Apostle:
1Ti 5:24 The sins of some men are quite evident, going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after. 1Ti 5:25 Likewise also, deeds that are good are quite evident, and those which are otherwise cannot be concealed.
Why can't you simply get together with your Catholic brethren and accuse a Priest, Bishop, Cardinal, or Pope of committing evident sins?
The Church was founded by Christ on Peter the rock (Matt 16:18). So, I think you are misinterpreting the passages to which you are referring. The Twelve Apostles are the foundation stones of the Church (see Revelation 21:14).
The Church was founded on the Holy Spirit, not the man Peter. Did you miss this verse?
1Pe 5:1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,
What of the account of Mat 21:23-17? How did the people recognize John the Baptist as a prophet? How does one recognize Godliness? It certainly is not the church in this instance? Paul writes that the laity can accuse the clergy, to be careful when laying on of hands, etc. There had to be a clear standard for God to deal with us. Men are all sinful.
Rom 3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; Rom 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
Lev 24:22 'There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God.'"
LOLOL. Amen! Saints chuckling all the way to heaven. 8~)
Are F A Sullivan's writings Nihil Obstated and/or Imprimatured or not? Yes or No?
You are welcome to *substantiate* your claim.
I'll substantiate mine. Here is one example from St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage:
"For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces; that for the proper celebration of ordinations all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained. And the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who have most fully known the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as respects his habitual conduct. And this also, we see, was done by you in the ordination of our colleague Sabinus; so that, by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood, and by the sentence of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, and who had written letters to you concerning him, the episcopate was conferred upon him, and hands were imposed on him in the place of Basilides."
-A8
Now I'm confused, are you a foggie or a fogie
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. (Gal 3) and again:"Pray for the excommunicated person and attempt to persuade them to seek reconciliation with the Church." (Adiaireton8); "
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 15 But if you bite and devour one another take heed that you are not consumed by one another. (Gal 3)
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. ("Matthew 18:15-20)Here we see the Church as the proper authority to which individuals may appeal where differences arise.
I have been reading about the early years of Christianity and one of the things that is so clearly a myth is this idea that Rome had authority and control. Prior to the emergence of Rome as the preeminent power Christianity was congregational in structure and religious services were very different.
- = - = -
YUP.
I think maybe it was Jr High or some such when even just a cursory reading of history made that abundantly clear.
***..... with elders determined from the community by their "walk".***
Um, that makes it, by definition Presbyterian....
An amazing statement!!!!!! And this shows how rhetoricians deal with facts and the absence of them. They can claim anything to be true, no matter how ridiculous, as long as there is no one around to contradict them.
There is no credible place outside of Scripture that shows that Peter's Roman Bishopric was 25 years either. That's the point. Where is your first century proof? Your 2nd century proof? 3rd century? Jerome's and Eusebius's pontifications of such in the 4th century provide no evidence for their claim? If church people are to trust them them, they need to know who they trusted for their outrageous claim. Scripture together with the absence of any credible evidence for Eusebius's and Jerome's claims are witnesses against them.
So we are the traditional church?
Do you follow the Old Testament dietary laws? (No pork, shrimp, clams, oysters, lobster, etc.) (Leviticus 11)
KUSA: What exactly can Catholic laity do to affect the excommunication of a member of the clergy?
A8: Pray for the excommunicated person and attempt to persuade them to seek reconciliation with the Church.
KUSA: Why can't you do what the Bible says? 1Ti 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
A8: How is praying for the excommunicated person and trying to persuade him to seek reconciliation with the Church a case of failing to follow 1 Tim 5:19?
KSUA: What part of 1 Tim 5:19 says anything about reconciliation with a Church?
A8: You are the one who brought in 1 Tim 5:19 in response to my answer to your original question at the beginning of this dialogue.
Why can't you simply get together with your Catholic brethren and accuse a Priest, Bishop, Cardinal, or Pope of committing evident sins?
You can. Why do you think you can't?
The Church was founded on the Holy Spirit, not the man Peter. Did you miss this verse? 1Pe 5:1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed.
Why do you think that 1 Peter 5:1 nullifies Matt 16:18? Peter is indeed a fellow elder (and a fellow Apostle), but he also has a unique authority as shown more specifically in Matt 16:18, both as the rock on which the Church is built, and as the possessor of the keys.
What of the account of Mat 21:23-17? How did the people recognize John the Baptist as a prophet?
It is a moot point because the Old Covenant context and the New Covenant context are distinct. Now we have a Magesterium gifted with the "charism of truth" (to quote from Irenaeus). If we assume that that we must on our own as individuals (apart from the Magesterium) figure out who is 'anointed' or 'divinely inspired', we are loading a false claim into our methodology, namely, the false claim that "there is no Magesterium graced with the charism of truth".
Paul writes that the laity can accuse the clergy, to be careful when laying on of hands, etc. There had to be a clear standard for God to deal with us. Men are all sinful.
Catholicism believes and teaches all of this. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
-A8
That is an ad hominem.
They can claim anything to be true, no matter how ridiculous, as long as there is no one around to contradict them.
This too is an ad hominem.
If church people are to trust them them, they need to know who they trusted for their outrageous claim.
That wouldn't be trust. As St. Augustine says, "For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." We do not demand from the Apostles the time and date that Jesus told them the things they teach in His name. We believe and trust their testimony of Christ. And we believe and trust the testimony and authority of those in sacramental succession from them.
Scripture together with the absence of any credible evidence for Eusebius's and Jerome's claims are witnesses against them.
No place in Scripture is there anything that shows that Peter's Roman bishopric was not 25 years. And absence of additional evidence is not a witness against them; that's the fallacy of the argument from silence.
-A8
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.