It just doesn't take me very long to do it!
Posted on 02/28/2013 6:52:42 AM PST by Gamecock
Why?
Romans 16:5
Greet also the church that meets at their house.
You may wish to do a word search on TRADITION to counter #63.
It just doesn't take me very long to do it!
What I want to know is this:
Just WHO has the power to the the POPE that he couldn't have his beloved pet cat with him in that modest apartment?
Management. It’s in the lease.
I was, and which was impossible without a strong unity in many core beliefs, and in thus the last century was more pronounced in reaction to liberalism, which Rome also examples (Jonah and the fish,Joshua's long day, being fables, plus the social gospel and Maxism, etc.)
If, however, we look at the whole of sola scriptura doctrine churches we have more lack of unity on soteriology and Christology. I want to stress, again, my point here is not to argue one of these doctrines against the other, but to say that sola scriptura in practice fails to result in one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
The difference is a matter of degrees, and the comparison is not between one church and many others, but btwn churches in which the church is supreme as possessing assured veracity, versus those in which the Scriptures are supreme as the assured wholly inspired Word of God.
Under both models you have sects and divisions, and other effects, and which fails to result in one Lord, one faith one baptism - which itself is a matter of interpretation - the difference being a matter of degrees. The unity of Rome is not necessarily greater than another denomination of the body of Christ, which Rome effectively is, each having their own magisterium. Thus the real issue is the basis for Rome's claim to uniquely being the One True Church (OTC).
And thus my questions as regards the premise behind that the typical RC argument for her claims that i am asking if you affirm, or what is your basis for your full assurance.
You must know that this not what i was referring to, but that of the church defining itself as infallible and thus irreprovable, and the logic behind it, and to which my questions pertain.
As for the "autocratic rule," the same objection applies when each individual is their own Church, interpreter, theologian, etc., If that is the objection, it is not avoided outside the Church, to wit: [Each individual] is effectively answerable to no one and irreprovable…
You also should know that sola scriptura as historically understood does not render man unanswerable or irreprovable, and to be so one must claim supremacy over scripture. SS is contrary to that, as it disallows any man from from claiming assured infallibility, and as Westminster taught, it affirms the place of the ecclesiastical magisterium:
I. For the better government and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils.
II. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers and other fit persons to consult and advise with about matters of religion; so, if magistrates be open enemies of the Church, the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assemblies.
III. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word. http://www.creeds.net/Westminster/c31.htm
However, these are not held as being assuredly infallible outside Scripture, although they may teach infallible truths, as Scripture alone is held as being the assured word of God.
Those who claim assured infallibility in interpreting Scripture are engaging in Sola Individualitica, unless they are God. Yet Christ established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
It is true that one may claim that their interpretation of Scripture is true despite correction by others, rightly (which is how the church began) or wrongly, but likewise a Catholic can claim the same as regards their interpretation of Rome, even as to which magisterial level a teaching belongs to, as well as what Scripture text mean, within the parameters of Rome as they understand them.
The issue is what is the assured word of God, and thus the supreme authority, Scripture or Rome, as both require some interpretation. And the perspicuity of Rome is such that she can or can appear to change regarding many things, after centuries of souls believing differently. .
Rome also treats many notorious examples of deviant belief and practice as members in life and in death (Ted Kennedy for one).
Truth is established due to Scriptural substantiation, and which is why souls had assurance that me of God such as Joshua were such, and that the Itinerant Preacher from Galilee, whose authority was rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses, was God manifest in the flesh.
And while God did ordain the magisterium, yet the Lord often raised up men from outside the magisterium to correct it, and to preserve faith among a relative remnant. "And by a prophet the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved."
And thus the church began in dissent, and as needed, thus God raises up voices in the wilderness to speak truth to power, and thus it continues.
We have a problem in America with being 'ruled', some one else telling us what is good or true; heck, telling us anything.
This is true, but your solution is a government which declares it cannot be wrong.
We wish to be self-sufficient individuals on our own - down with the King!
Having a king was not God's plan, but as under prophets, whose office is not maintained thru formal historical decent but upon manifest anointing of God.
This is a good thing when it comes to government, not so good when it comes to religion; we can easily end up with subjectivism and relativism
What can happen or does sometimes occur under a basis for truth does not negate it as the basis. The first 3 miracles of Moses were duplicated by the devil, as happen s today, but the solution is not to disallow miracles, but to overcome evil with good, as Moses and the apostles did.
The issue here is not that the whether the magisterium is not needed, but whether it is autocratically supreme, so that assurance of truth is not based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power - which Rome's teaching are not dependent upon - but upon its own assured veracity in which it cannot be wrong when speaking according to her scope and subject-based formula.
The church did not begin under that premise, and in fact it began in dissent form those who presumed as much, and instead those who sat in Moses' seat were reproved by Scripture for teaching as doctrines mere tradition of the elders, (Mk. 7:3-16) while the Lord established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
"For the kingdom of God is not in word [self-declaration], but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:20) This is the contest, and as this means competition, with the church having to continually manifest that it is of the living God, and which the historical preaching of the evangelical gospel has, whether is be Wesley or Whitefield, Spurgeon or Sunday, M'Cheyne or Moody (and despite differences on predestination, which exists in Rome as well), in contrast to an institutionalized gospel of either Catholicism or parts of Protestantism.
I believe it is spelled Westminster as in Westminster Confession of Faith, which didn't conclude with the words: "But we could be wrong."
:)
All Confessions, Principles of Faith, etc. are proclaimed "infallibly."
And thus another question you may ignore. Can you provide a list of all infallible teachings?
1309–1417 The Great Schism
To quote the site: "Part of the European History For Dummies Cheat Sheet"
When playing Whack-a-Mole, I usually lose interest around the third mole.
:)
Thanks for your reply.
>>Go to mass.
>>Why?
This was in answer to a question, the question it was in answer to answers your question as far as the context of the question and the answer.
As for your verse, it concerns where - rather than why - and mass, the liturgy including the Holy Eucharist, was also held in homes in catacombs and elsewhere including ships and battlefields and prison camps.
If you are interested in other descriptions during the very early Chuch, you might look up the First Apology of St. Justin the Martyr.
And I don't think YOU have thought this through. Those elaborate hoopla and regalia clothing and headgear aren't the threadbare and worn stuff from centuries ago, are they? Perhaps a few crowns and scepters, but the robes and shoes? Not plausible! You are fine with your guy continuing to use the "traditional" clothing from back when the Papacy WAS viewed as possessing spiritual AND temporal power and unmatched by kings and princes? Fine, good, like I said, keep sending in your mites! I STILL have a right to my own opinion, don't I. That's not something I can be tortured over anymore, right?
The pope’s apartment is very modest - it just happens to be in a palatial complex. I want him to stay there. Also, I can’t think of a more modest vehicle than the popemobile. No frills at all. That right there shows your ignorance. He flies Alitalia - a commercial jet that is chartered for him when he makes a trip. He has no private jet.
No "frills"? Don't make me laugh! So your guy flies a "commercial jet" that is chartered? Gee, I wonder how much that costs to rent a big jet for yourself and your entourage to take you anywhere in the world you need to go any time you need it outfitted according to your own personal style?
Your view seems to be merely grounded in bigotry.
And yours seems to be grounded in an extremely sensitive bias - the kind that allows not a wit of negativity about the Catholic Church no matter what the subject. My comments had to do with the "appearance" of excess within the Vatican. I tend to think it is much more than mere appearance. One thing I, as well as most people, admire about Billy Graham is that during his ministry he was not known for living in mansions or wearing flashy clothes and extravagant jewelry. He didn't drive big, expensive cars and he was known to have simple tastes. He was NOT in it for what he could get out of it and, in retirement, he still lives modestly. If you ask most people what they think about the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church, one of the first things they mention is its vast wealth and holdings. Billy Graham, on the other hand, is known for conducting his soul-winning crusades all over the world. Now which way do you imagine Jesus, or Peter, would prefer his representative to be known by? That's really all I'm trying to say here. You can prefer to view that as "hateful" or biased or "bigotry", but it's not any of those things. Sometimes, a little taste of honesty helps. Your church wants to make a fresh start with a new, younger Pope. Addressing what the world sees as extravagant excess is sure a start!
There was no great schism lasting from 1309 to 1377. No schism started in 1309 either. You’re only as bright as the source you use when you rely on “Key Dates in History for Dummies:”
Since that level of “scholarship” seems to be all you can muster please see Medieval History for Dummies. In it you will see that the great schism of the west began in 1378 and not in 1309. What began in 1309 was the Avignon Papacy.
If you want some scholarship that’s a bit more serious:
Encyclopedia Britaninca: defining “Western Schism” it says: “In the history of the Roman Catholic church, the period from 1378 to 1417...”
Louis Salembier, in his book, The Great Schism of the West, says, on page 62 that the schism began in 1378.
George Jefferis Jordan, in his 1972 book, The Inner History of the Great Schism of the West says the schism began in 1378 (pages 20-25)
Under the subject heading of “The Schism of 1378,” Paul D. L. Avis wrote: “The conciliar thinking that was latent in mediaeval theology and canon law was given its opportunity by the challenge thrown up by the Great Schism of the West in 1378>” See his book: Beyond the Reformation?: Authority, Primacy and Unity in the Conciliar Tradition, (published 2006) page 71.
“Culturaly speaking, the Great Schism in the West from 1378 to 1417...” Michael Mitterauer, Why Europe?: The Medieval Origins of Its Special Path, (published in English in 2010) page 145.
“...transferred the papacy back to Rome in 1378. French bishops rejected the move and elected rival popes. This sparked the Western Schism sometimes called the Great Schism...” Encyclopedia of Catholicism, By Frank K. Flinn, page 80.
“The Great Schism of the West began in 1378.” Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (page 101).
Clearly the title of the following book tells you when the schism began: Joëlle Rollo-Koster, Thomas M. Izbicki, A Companion to the Great Western Schism (1378-1417). It was published in 2009.
Edward Gibbon in his classic work, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 6 says the Great Schism began in 1378 (page 398 of the New York Harper edition from 1826).
“...called the Great Schism, which began in 1378 and did not conclude until 1417.” Eugene F. Bales, Philosophy in the West: Men, Women, Religion, Science (page 246) published in 2008.
“...who strove to heal the Great Schism in the West (1378-1417).” Richard P. McBrien, Harold William Attridge, The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism (1995) page 559.
“Great Schism (1378-1417)” Nathan P. Feldmeth, Pocket Dictionary of Church History, (2008), page 68.
“The Great Western, 1378- 1417” LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SUBJECT HEADING !!! http://books.google.com/books?id=jjsoAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA5197&dq=schism+of+the+west&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HH41UeecLaaB2gWE0YCACg&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCTgo#v=onepage&q=schism%20of%20the%20west&f=false
“The “Great Schism” of the West (1378-1417) radically changed the rules of the game, as far as the West was concerned.” John Meyendorff, Rome, Constantinople, Moscow: Historical and Theological Studies, (page 94).
“In the great schism of the west, as it is called (1378,)...” Blackwood’s Magazine, Volume 6, (1823), page 483.
“The papal court had hardly returned from Avignon to Rome (1377) than there began the Great Schism of the West. Thereafter for nearly forty years there were two — or even three — ‘popes’,” The Council of Florence (Cambridge University Press, 1959), (page 16).
“In the middle ages, the major schisms were that between east and west, which began in 1054, and that within the western (Roman) church from 1378-1417, when there were two Popes and then three.” Don S. Armentrout, Robert Boak Slocum , An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church: A User-Friendly Reference... (page 469).
are you starting to see the picture HarleyD? So far you have Horton (who is a moron) and “Key Dates in History for Dummies” which actually contradicts the book, Medieval History for Dummies. Nice. You don’t have anything in other words.
As expected you simply dig your hole deeper. Your ignorance of the subject is simply not helping you.
“And I don’t think YOU have thought this through. Those elaborate hoopla and regalia clothing and headgear aren’t the threadbare and worn stuff from centuries ago, are they?”
Centuries old, yes. Threadbare, no. The Vatican properly maintains the vestments. “On Good Friday he donned a “fiddleback” vestment dating to the Counter-Reformation era of the 16th century, and he has used a tall gilded papal throne not seen in years.” http://www.chron.com/life/article/Pope-Benedict-XVI-s-threads-of-history-1567238.php
If you weren’t ignorant you would have known about this.
“Perhaps a few crowns and scepters, but the robes and shoes? Not plausible!”
Except you’re wrong and I’m right. And the shoes are probably given to him for little or nothing by the way. And it isn’t like Benedict doesn’t give away shoes to the poor: “Three of Wilson’s four boys were among 100 or so recipients of expensive brand-name Italian shoes as a gift from Pope Benedict XVI.” http://catholic.net/index.php?size=menos&id=2306&option=dedestaca
“You are fine with your guy continuing to use the “traditional” clothing from back when the Papacy WAS viewed as possessing spiritual AND temporal power and unmatched by kings and princes? Fine, good, like I said, keep sending in your mites! I STILL have a right to my own opinion, don’t I. That’s not something I can be tortured over anymore, right?”
No, you clearly can be tortured over your opinion - just not by me nor would I be interested in doing so. But why have an opinion based on ignorance when you could simply avoid the ignorance instead.
“No “frills”? Don’t make me laugh! So your guy flies a “commercial jet” that is chartered? Gee, I wonder how much that costs to rent a big jet for yourself and your entourage to take you anywhere in the world you need to go any time you need it outfitted according to your own personal style?”
It costs nothing. The plane is provided for free by the airline. You really seem to have no idea about anything about the pope.
“And yours seems to be grounded in an extremely sensitive bias - the kind that allows not a wit of negativity about the Catholic Church no matter what the subject.”
No. I am simply right and you are simply wrong. You make one error after the other. And I don’t think you care about getting things right either. That’s not sensitivity on my part. That’s ignorance on yours.
“If you ask most people what they think about the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church, one of the first things they mention is its vast wealth and holdings.”
Actually no it isn’t - unless you’re talking to people who are bigots and obsess on those issues. I just spoke to 15 people tonight about the Vatican, for instance. None of them mentioned “its vast wealth and holdings.” Neither did any of the 29 people I talked to about the Vatican last week either. They talked about the beauty of it. But none of them talked about “its vast wealth and holdings.”
“Billy Graham, on the other hand, is known for conducting his soul-winning crusades all over the world. Now which way do you imagine Jesus, or Peter, would prefer his representative to be known by?”
Jesus and Peter would prefer the Church they sent. They never sent Billy Graham. He’s a good man, but he was not sent by Christ or St. Peter.
“That’s really all I’m trying to say here. You can prefer to view that as “hateful” or biased or “bigotry”, but it’s not any of those things.”
Yeah, actually it is - because you can’t even get the facts straight. And I see nothing in your posts that suggest you actually CARE about the facts.
“Sometimes, a little taste of honesty helps. Your church wants to make a fresh start with a new, younger Pope.”
According to whom? First of all, any man elected will be younger than Ratzinger because all the Cardinals are under 81 years of age. Second, do not assume that there will be a “fresh start”. Oh, there might be, but there’s also plenty of reason to believe a protege of John Paul II and Benedict will follow them into office. They chose all the current cardinals after all.
“Addressing what the world sees as extravagant excess is sure a start!”
The world does not see it as “extravagant excess” - but bigots do.
Declaring one's self the winner, is usually sign they have lost the debate.
You've "wacked" nothing, overall. The other poster points clearly to the errors incorporated in the RC aplogetic.
I can clearly see that only by ingnoring certain items (quite a list, actually) one can pretend to have solidly whacked them.
This is a sola freeptura site. Each person can determine when a mole is whacked according to their own interpretation. :)
Well, since you actually whacked nothing by me, and avoided getting whacked by your silence, your retreat is wise.
Well, can’t help that when it sola freeptura.
The two moles I was focusing on were that sola scriptura is unscriptural and unworkable.
I feel those points were sufficiently made; your mileage may vary...
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.