Posted on 01/11/2011 12:47:22 PM PST by marshmallow
“You’re right, back in those days, the catholic church never imprisoned, tortured, or had any heretics burned.”
Well, feel free to quote where I wrote this.
You said, “Christ never murderered, ergo any Church who has killed people in their name cannot be his Church”.
But this is not what Christ taught. Christ taught that we are all sinners, and that simply ‘not murdering people’ isn’t good enough.
So I ask again. If we are all sinners how can we be His Church?
modern christianity, whether catholic, protestant or orthodox is doing pretty well in my estimation, all are legitimate paths to god. but please don’t try to pretend that the catholic church back then was a proper representative of christ,,
and most important ways the same is true for protestants of that era. There weren’t any catholics in salem running the show.
Ok,, so you believe that a church can be legitimate if it kills, deliberately, thoughtfully, because,,,, we are all sinners. ok,,, got it. Sorry, with that argument, a protestant is just fine. If they accept christ as their savior, and his sacrifice, they’ll be fine. Rejecting the catholic church of that era isn’t exactly a sin.
And sure..it was Aachen,,, and EVERYBODY ignored rome back then, and totally felt safe to diss the pope. Dream on, lol
I believe that the legitimacy of Christ’s church is based on Christ being the head.
“Rejecting the catholic church of that era isn’t exactly a sin.”
Rejecting Christ on the other hand.
“EVERYBODY ignored rome back then, and totally felt safe to diss the pope”
If the Pope were the supreme temporal authority, why did he crown Charlemagne as Emperor?
I’d love to hear what you teach your students about St Ignatius, his relationship to St John and his writing about the Gnostics not taking the Eucharist because they did not believe it to be the Body of Christ? I wonder if if your church tradition trumps an honest teaching of history?
I hope the author includes the Jesuit's tortures, lies and the threats of eternal damnation through excommunication to the superstitious peasants. That did help win back many territories.
The Pope crown a number of people as Emperor of various countries. The Roman Church viewed all of the various nations subservient to the Holy Roman Empire in which the Pope oversaw them.
Pope was the superior ecclesiastical authority of the west, but never temporal.
I suppose that was the purpose of the Vatican. Since the Pope planned on being around for a while he might as well live it up. This isn’t my idea of “superior ecclesiastical suthority” nor was it Christ’s.
Honestly, in my Church History courses, the students are introduced to St. Ignatius, to his relationship with John the Apostle, and to some of the issues that faced the Church during that era, Unfortunately, as this is a survey of Early & Medieval Church History on an Undergrad level that must be covered in a Semester, the issue you mention isn’t covered to any great extent in the class.
Now, what particular “tradition” of Church History do you suspect that I teach — apparently dishonestly? :-) And, may I inquire as to what Church Tradition you believe — obviously the Truth honestly arrived at and affirmed?
I suspect you teach the early Church did not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Of course, we know St. Ignatius and Justin Martyr wrote clearly on the subject. I am a member of the Catholic Church, which as you know teaches the whole Divine Revelation, received in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
If you don’t mind me asking, what denomination do you belong to?
Not according to Scripture...
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Mat 6:18
“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 foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15
I don’t “neatly” fit into any tradition exactly, but I consider myself from the Baptistic line of the Church.
Of course, the major difference we would have about the “Divine Revelation” is that I believe it is contained in the Sacred Scripture alone, and not within Church Tradition.
As to your question about Real Presence — I actually believe it was early that the Church began moving toward a concept of “Real Presence” in the Eucharist — perhaps as early as the early 2nd century (though I haven’t read specifically on that in a good while). I am not convinced, however, that “Real Presence” was either the Apostolic Doctrine, nor that which is revealed in Sacred Scripture...
Not that I was to engage in debate. I am just explaining my particular position because you asked. :-)
you are a gentleman, thanks for the response!!
And thank you, Sir.
Sure. But according to the Bible, they are #1. And only.
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.