Posted on 03/24/2008 3:36:37 PM PDT by annalex
Toooooo true.
And one particular nutty cult . . . will go gahgah in large numbers over . . .
purported Maryolatry visages . . . on tortilas . . . moldy stucco . . .
What will they do with increasingly overt Fatima type hoaxes staged by the prince and power of the air with his fallen angel cohorts?
You can lead a horse to water.......
The dispensation of Grace I believe was just a bit after the Crucifixion.
Just thinking out loud here.
Well, I hate to break it to you (and any lurkers who might be reading) but any believer who is baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a member of the Catholic Church, according to the Church's teaching. Bwahahahahaha.
Because of this, I don't see a distinction between the Catholic organization and the whole body of individual believers in Christ. And I really do believe that Jesus is present when two or three gather in His name, He is there. However, I think that the pride of men also gets in the way many times. How else can you explain the myriad of interpretations of Scripture? They can't all be right - Jesus is the immutable Truth of the Universe, and is constant. Truth is truth, and it does not change to fit people's conceptions.
I'm loving this debate - it's helping me focus my thoughts and you've given me some good questions to ponder and pray about!
Wow. That's good. May I steal it?
It does, thank you. But here, as well as the case of Ananias laying hands on Saul after the road to Damascus experience, is the lesser disciple[s] laying hands on the greater disciple[s] -- which runs counter to the whole doctrine of a hierarchy through apostolic succession.
I totally agree,in fact that's exactly what we've been telling the Catholics who insist we're wrong! Of course we know that 'catholic' means 'universal'- in other words, any baptized believer, regardless of whether they buy the whole Catholic package. For some reason, this seems to frost the hard-core Catholics when we 'rebellious' types claim their name. :)
As for the many interpretations of scripture, we agree here also. I feel that people have a tendency to read Scripture according to their personal bias or advantage- myself included. I guess it's part of being human and noodling through divine revelation. I just reject any outside voice that presumes an air of infallible superiority. I know that preachers, priests and popes are subject to the same limitations as I am, so I'm not going to filter my right to communicate with my Father through another man's sonship, no matter who he is. I'll gladly listen, after all we are to edify one another, and make my own judgment based on what I believe God has already told me. But I can't tell you how many times I've run across this 'top-down' hierarchical attitude from a preacher, as if I'm not a valid conduit of Christ's anointing, just because I don't make a living off of offerings from a congregation! (Yes, it really gets that ludicrous.) But when it comes to me teaching or edifying them, no no, I'm not good enough- it's all a one way street.
Meanwhile, I'm doing more of Christ's work through my business (feeding the poor, reaching out to the lost, etc.) than they are by sitting inside a church office all week writing a three point sermon.
I'd better stop now, it sounds like I'm ranting! lol
I disagree here, since (and I admit, my knowledge is weak here, so I may be wrong) Lucius of Cyrene was recognized as one of the Seventy Disciples, and thus one of the first Bishops of the Church. Thus, regardless of who Symeon or Manaen were, Lucius was a Bishop, and had the valid authority to confer Holy Orders.
Well, you just send them to their Catechism, specfically 1271:
Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."
That'll learn 'em ;-)
As for the many interpretations of scripture, we agree here also. I feel that people have a tendency to read Scripture according to their personal bias or advantage- myself included. I guess it's part of being human and noodling through divine revelation. I just reject any outside voice that presumes an air of infallible superiority. I know that preachers, priests and popes are subject to the same limitations as I am, so I'm not going to filter my right to communicate with my Father through another man's sonship, no matter who he is. I'll gladly listen, after all we are to edify one another, and make my own judgment based on what I believe God has already told me. But I can't tell you how many times I've run across this 'top-down' hierarchical attitude from a preacher, as if I'm not a valid conduit of Christ's anointing, just because I don't make a living off of offerings from a congregation! (Yes, it really gets that ludicrous.) But when it comes to me teaching or edifying them, no no, I'm not good enough- it's all a one way street.
You're right - that does sound like a rant. Hahahaha...but I think a justified one. You have some great arguments (with me at least) and its incredibly frustrating to be dismissed out of hand because you don't sit around all day pondering your navel.
I also agree with you on the fallibility of man - from Popes on down. However, I also believe that Scripture, as Truth, has a concrete, set meaning - and this is where self-interpretation scares me. Anyone can twist their logic and the words of the Bible to make it say just about anything. A frightening concept, when you look at things people have done in "the name of God" throughout history.
That said, I want to clarify the position of the Church (to the best of my knowledge). It seems that a lot of non-Catholics think we simply give up our own minds and hearts and follow the Church blindly around. I absolutely assure you that is not the case. The only times we are required to give our full assent to a teaching of the Church are, on matters of faith and morals, when:
1) EVERY Bishop in the world is teaching the exact same point (i.e., abortion is wrong);
2) When, in a Council, the College of Bishops makes a definitive teaching (i.e., the Hypostatic union of Christ); or
3) When the Pope speaks ex cathedra (which has happened, most believe, seven times in the last 2000 years - not all that common)
If I, as a faithful Catholic, had a disagreement with my Priest, a Bishop, it is my duty to go and discuss it with them. Now, this requires that I first educate myself and form my conscience. However, assuming I did that, I am completely within my rights to disagree with the Church, provided I was open to their perspective and actually willing to learn.
Just wondering...did you know these positions of the Church? I always wonder on these boards just how fully the "other side" understands us, and how well we explain ourselves.
Recognized by whom???
Anyway, Saul had just been chosen by the Lord. He was now the Apostle Paul. So since when do Bishops confer Holy Orders on Apostles??? I thought your church taught it the other way around, or am I wrong???
And you are absolutely right, Saul was chosen by the Lord. However, he was not called Paul until after this event in Acts 13. It is the same way men are "called" to the Priesthood today - they are "set aside" after they recieve Holy Orders, not merely upon hearing His call. And Bishops and Apostles are one and the same - they both have in them the full gifts of the Holy Spirit. For that matter, the Pope is technically a Bishop - now, he is the highest Bishop, but a Bishop nonetheless. Any man who has recieved the commission of a Bishop (as the Apostles had at Pentecost) can validly concecrate others as Priests or Bishops. Make sense?
I stole it and rephrased it a while back from Mme. de Puixieux, an 18th century feminist, like yourself (not 18th century though), so have at it.
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.