Posted on 08/07/2009 9:00:03 AM PDT by Teófilo
Ok, I back up off of the floor now.
Thanks for the laugh.
He didn’t need them for that!
You really believe He conferred that power only for their lifetime? Quite the waste I’d say. But then anti-Catholics have to have some warpped process to explain away the truth.
So just what did they bind and loose during their lifetimes that was so important?
“That is true, unless one considers Islam to be a (quasi-)Christian heresy.”
Well, I have no doubt at all that Mohammedanism is a sort of Christian (really Nestorian) heresy. I suspect I am missing your point. That Mohammedanism is a Christian heresy doesn’t have much if anything to do with the religious and secular phronemai of Eastern Christians in my experience.
Besides, if Christ meant for the Apostles to bind and loose on His behalf, but NOT pass that authority on to their successors, then that constraint should be in the New Testament somewhere. But it isn’t. Instead, we read how Apostle Paul ordained Timothy and Titus, and instructed them to ordain others, and Peter endeavored his “tabernacle” to survive through generations.
It teaches neither. It teaches that the God who created the Heavens and the Earth is to be glorified above all else, and that He is pleased most of all with people who simply believe Him.
As a gentile lover of the TaNaK,I find it to be full of comparisons between those who believed God and experienced the sweet freedom of a right relationship with their Creator, and those who didn't believe Him, and thus were consigned to legalistic confines that could not set free, but could only place boundaries on their behavior.
It hurts me when I see Christian organizations in the same light. There are those who preach faith in Christ, and thus freedom; and there are those who preach religiosity and practice ritual and impose rules 'n regs, resulting in toxic bondage.
But no Apostle gave authority to Paul; in fact, Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit when Ananais laid his hands on Paul; in fact, Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized.
We have no Apostolic "succession" for Paul's being given power and authority, yet you rely on that succession in justifying the passing of authority. In fact, the story of Paul (Acts 9) is very explicit that Jesus grants authority by the infilling of the Holy Spirit OUTSIDE the actions of the Apostles!
Jesus and the Holy Spirit gives each of us the power and authority; there is no apostolic succession of power and authority, for the story of Paul shows it to be from God, no need for man-to-man transfer.
I’m not seriously suggesting it, necessarily, but one could argue that your heretics merely got more out of hand. :-)
This is in regard to your pointing out that Orthodox are more influential among Eastern Christians.
It was, perhaps, a superfluous point.
But yet, 'my flesh is real food' is strictly literal...How are you at pedaling backwards???
But no Apostle gave authority to Paul
That is doubtful; St. Paul himself writes that he had sought, and obtained, apostolic rank from Sts Peter, James and John. However, Paul was also called by Christ much the same as the other Apostles. Either way, that does not take away from the fact that Paul ordained Titus and Timothy and told them to ordain others.
No one here said that nothing is literal.
***But no Apostle gave authority to Paul; in fact, Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit when Ananais laid his hands on Paul; in fact, Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized. ***
There is a difference between baptism and consecration. Paul was baptized by Ananais. Acts 13:
Chapter 13
1
1 Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Symeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who was a close friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2
While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
3
Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.
In order to become bishops, only another bishop can consecrate them.
*** Jesus and the Holy Spirit gives each of us the power and authority; there is no apostolic succession of power and authority, for the story of Paul shows it to be from God, no need for man-to-man transfer.***
Acts says that your interpretation is wrong.
“...one could argue that your heretics merely got more out of hand.”
Oh, for the first 900 odd years of The Church, that’s absolutely true; no doubt about it!
***I haven’t run across any, Kosta. When I am posting to the literalists and mention the verses about cutting off limbs and plucking out eyes if they cause people to sin, the backpedalling resembles that in the old Merrie Melodies Warner Brothers cartoons.
But yet, ‘my flesh is real food’ is strictly literal...How are you at pedaling backwards???***
The Host is real food; the wine is real food. Physically. Jesus’ Body and Blood is spiritual real food. No backpedalling. Only Scriptural and Church Father accuracy. We get it right in both realms. How are you doing?
***“...one could argue that your heretics merely got more out of hand.”
Oh, for the first 900 odd years of The Church, that’s absolutely true; no doubt about it!***
I’d rather that this does not devolve into a discussion of who had the better heretics...
***6. Orthodox Christians do not define “authority” in quite the same way the Catholic Church would define it in terms of powers, jurisdictions, prerogatives and their interrelationships.
I shall defer to my Orthodox brethren on this one.
It is not a legalistic authority for sure, although in practical terms, Church officials and the “dignity” they hold in the Church amounts to the same. The lower clergy are held to the vow of obedience. Let me just say that I have heard of and witnessed some rather uncharitable excesses of particular bishops.***
Fair enough. We still maintain equivalent hierarchical rules.
***11. There are Seven Sacraments in the Orthodox Church, but that’s more a matter of informal consensus based on the perfection of the number “seven” than on a formal dogmatic declaration. Various Orthodox authorities would also argue that the tonsure of a monk or the consecration of an Emperor or other Orthodox secular monarch is also a sacramental act.
It is true that the Seven are fixed in an artifical manner.***
However, many of the doctrines and traditions of the Church are arbitrary, based upon the best judgements of the hierarchs.
“I’d rather that this does not devolve into a discussion of who had the better heretics...”
We only held that distinction for 900 years or so. Since then you guys have far surpassed our simple, peasant-like efforts at apostacy! :)
***“I’d rather that this does not devolve into a discussion of who had the better heretics...”
We only held that distinction for 900 years or so. Since then you guys have far surpassed our simple, peasant-like efforts at apostacy! :)***
Snort.
I know that you’re going to lay the responsbility for the Reformation and all of its illegitimate offspring at our feet. But the quality and the specifics of the heresies of the Reformation came from the East, right? :)
Arggh. You’re sucking me into that who had the better heretics discussion...
“You’re sucking me into that who had the better heretics discussion...”
How about playing “Whose hierarchs have the better hats.” Of course, we’d win hands down....
So in Acts 9 until 13:3, we assume Paul did not have the power and authority of Jesus? His teachings in Acts 9 were in vain?
And where was the Apostle who commissioned Paul? They were at Antioch with prophets and teachers, not Apostles.
I'm sorry, I'm just trying to learn more about how the Roman Catholic Church fell away from the Orthodox Church, and how each is similar or different from Protestantism. I didn't realize that only Orthodox or Catholics could participate.
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.