Posted on 02/28/2013 6:52:42 AM PST by Gamecock
You mean you had a profound conversion relationship with Christ, and was an active member of an conservative evangelical church, and then switched to Rome? After being raised devout RC (with 2 uncles who were priests) but only being born again at about age 25 in real repentance toward God and faith in Christ to save me as a damned + destitute sinner, i sought to serve God by serving as a CCD teacher and lector, and never missed mass, and became part of a local RC charismatic meetings, looking for a few others who knew of the life i found, but which were very very rare.
And my reasons for leaving for an evangelical church then (6 years later) was not really doctrine, but Christian fellowship, and which was an answer to pray.
I'm off to bed and hope you have a blessed sleep and morning. Thanks for your courteous discussion.
You stayed up latter than me, and thank you also.
Then we need to go back to definitions. I already stated that "sola" not mean only Scripture can be used, as Westminster shows, "it belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith..," so that the individual is the church in determining doctrine - all by him/her self. Like an RC, he may interpret the Scriptures, but if part of a SS type church there are core essential teaching that he must not contradict, while having different degrees of liberty on other levels of teaching.
But as seen in Scripture, it means that even those who are the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, (Rm. 3:2; Mt. 23:2) having historical descent and being the inheritor of the promises of God. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6) Rm. 3:2; 9:4; Mt. 23:2) having historical descent and being the inheritor of Divine promises or God's presence and preservation, (Rm. 9:4; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6) are not assuredly infallible, that being a novel, teaching, which was not how truth was preserved.
And under the Roman model of an historical infallible magisterium as the steward of Divine revelation and supreme authority above Scripture, the validity of the church itself is disallowed.
And Jehovah's witnesses is sola scriptura or close to it. It is another example of sola scriptura not working
Not so, as akin to Rome, they effectively present themselves as infallible as God's mouthpiece, and like some RCs, have required unity at any cost.
Thus they do not operate under SS in which the magisterium may be wrong under Scripture being supreme, but present themselves as supreme, and effectively infallible. Likewise the LDS (ask Elsie).
It is another example of sola scriptura not working as proposed, but working to make entire different organizations teach the most heretical things, and to become a danger to both the souls and the bodies of good men.
Is someone arguing Rome and popes did not support it?
Ironically, you are appealing to Scripture, or your interpretation of Scripture, to define what "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" is and to disallow Scripture as the final authority on spiritual matters.
What exactly does "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" mean? And whose interpretation is it and how can we know that is valid?
And who's going to interpret the interpretation for us?
Only to and for someone who doesn't want Scripture to be the final authority.
From http://www.jimmyakin.org/2009/02/soups-reredux.html: One Pope out of 265 Popes condemns slavery as intrinsically evil in the ordinary magisterium and you call it Church Teaching without ever using your own brain to see if he might have overstepped in his late years... and you are prepared to throw God Himself and His estimation of slavery overboard. The Prots are not 100% wrong when they fault us for Pope worship. You just did it.
Your thoughts on torture and saving Pope Leo X's reputation from an obvious cruel belief is absolutely the same syndrome. I think you are important to the Church but you will spoil it if you think flattering Her when She really needs the opposite from you is the thing to do. Paul confronted Peter in Galatians and Peter grew....the Church now has no one with Paul's truthfulness.
The list of bulls against slavery occurred over a time span that included 44 Popes but only about 7 of them denounced slavery of sorts....one was against slavery in the Canaries but only of baptized natives....the next one by Paul III was against the enslavement of the Caribbean natives but not against that of blacks....another was against the trade, but not against the domestic slavery of blacks born to slave mothers and held by religious orders into the 19th century, with [the] Bishop [of] England who knew the Pope [was][ writing for domestic slavery after the bull and not being gainsaid by the Pope. The most complete one was finally at the end of the 19th century by a Pope...Leo XIII this time... who claimed that the Church was the great liberator from slavery, and he gave a papal list which left out the six Popes from 1452 til 1511 who literally turbocharged the slavery by Spain and Portugal that involved millions. And you can easily research the first words of that chain by going to Romanus Pontifex on line by Pope Nicholas V and go to the middle of the 4th paragraph. In the OT flattery was a sin. Why does no one say that anymore? Because Church speak is floating in it.
Why is them differing a problem? Why does it have to mean that it is unworkable?
What about Romans 14 where Paul recognized that there would be areas of dispute that were not important?
Unity of doctrine only means unity of doctrine. It doesn't mean that the doctrine is correct.
How utterly rude...in the same breath as continuing to attempt to substitute that treaty, under which explicit mention of slavery is not seen, to equal the extension of the practice in the New World, wasn't in understanding and implimentation ratified by that same treaty.
Go ahead, (somebody, anybody) go for a "it's not a pope's fault how his words are misused" defense, but I'll have to warn that doesn't fly, in regards to this treaty and the setting under which it arose, except for among the most ignorant of RC pom-pom waivers.
I haven't read the one treaty...?
Slavery had been previously approved by two consecutive popes Face it. Admit to it. But that might be painful, for it will lead to having to admit to yourself that I've been right in much, while you, not so much. Not near AS much. Or else you knew of and understood the interplay between the associated texts, but pretended to not know in order to deliberately throw others off the scent which has been left along the trail, in the historical record which you otherwise claim to know such much about.
I've been right in the context that slavery had been an intrical part of the build up of wealth seen still today as portion of the treasures in Vatican City, among the architechture & buildings, in the gold plated items...for if monies that payed for much of the various finery came by "donation" the wealth those donations was coming from, was the accumulation of wealth of kings, nobles and Empire which much utilized along the way subjugation, even total slavery of certain humans over other humans...in the interests of making a profit. By which we see the RC church in the past much wedded to the interests of kings and empire. Which is what I pretty much said in the first place, but you seemed to prefer the sidetrack distraction concerning one particular treaty (since I alluded to it) but even though alledgedly an expert yourself and should know better, you presented that treaty like it existed in a vacuum, then added insult at the same time.
That's a bit much.
Explicitly, then implicitly, the taking of slaves had been approved by Latin pontiffs. Why quibble over lesser details, but as an effort to distract others?
Do you deny that an RCC pope gave the explicit approval as I have just previously posted to you? Perhaps you might try denying it based on the fact I failed to capitalize the word "pope"??? That's about what you've got as counter-argument.
If you can't deny that slavery was approved (previous to the treaty you seem to want everyone to look at to the exclusion of other documents and history)...then my earlier point which you attempted to refute by way of saying as much as "I don't see slavery in this treaty" WHILE INSULTING ME AT THE SAME TIME still stands, and anyone stumbling along that cares to read can follow the conversation, do a little digging themselves perhaps, and see just how how wrong you are in overall context. That may be painful, but history is what it is. Not what we want it to be, or want others to not look at.
The dividing line in effect gave the Spanish permission to take slaves in the Americas not explicitly, but by implication. <> Is that too complcated to understand?
The Spanish did later take slaves of Caribbean and S. American natives, as the Portugese did in Brazil following the same model of charter originally granted to Henrique. There is linkage, found even in the name of the one work I previously cited. The charter, the ideas expressed, the rules as it were regarding slavery were carried forward, right into the one treaty your focus has remained upon.
The story as by-product and result as it unfolded in the New World towards native peoples there is heart wrenchingly sad. Even worse than for the African slaves whom stayed slaves in Africa, perhaps. It was so bad a RC bishop (Bishop Bartolomé de las Casas of Chiapas) was greatly moved by it. As consequence he recommended the Spanish take slaves from Africa instead, in hopes of relieving some of the agony the New World natives were subjected to, for they were suffering horribly, dying off as laborers (and hurting business when they did so, too). De la Casas eventually became an early opponent of slavery in most any form, but that's another story, one with a happier ending, but with the wider history of slavery carrying some mixed effects to this day.
Slaves introduced from Africa provided a labor source for the explotation of the New World, including providing miners. That much is elementary. Those monies realized from this explotative system went chiefly to kings and nobles and their appointees...with some of it ending up at the headquarters in Rome no doubt, helping to pay for some of the building, the stone cutting, the carvings, the variety of finery, even directly in the form of precisely some of the gold itself, it can scarcely be avoided being as gold is (still) among the most potent fungible commodities of them all.
How much of the gold circulating in Europe at the time various statues and buildings, carvings, gold encrusted thrones and the like came from Europe itself in comparison? How much came from African mines or from profits on the trans-Atlantic slave trade itself? How much from S. American mines? That sort of thing can be difficult to establish, yet significant increase of wealth among an assortment of Europeans, not limited to Spanish nobles and Portugese slavers (with some Venoese middlemen traders getting in on the action, along with a few Dutch gaining charter) due to their own involvement to greater and lesser degree with slavery as it was expanded, is not impossible to see.
The profits made from marketing of slaves in the New World was a source of wealth itself. The explotation of slaves in mines first in Africa, then later in the New World, along with sugar plantations and the like, were much a source of the increased wealth which could be included with monies from other sources all which you point to, it must be remembered (as you said) "donated".
What I'm getting at, is where the money that these kings and others gave to the church came from. Once again, it can be seen that church (in the guise of the RCC) and state (in the instance of kings and lesser nobles) had interelated overlapping interests. Giving to the church generously helped those otherwise in power, stay in power. Staying in power meant having powers over others.
Popes had signed off/awarded to others, lands (and peoples?) they did not themselves possess. The kings and nobles thanked the church for making them in some instances, extremely rich.
For others not so well studied in history as yourself; this link encapsultes some various information which taken all together can help lead to some broader outline or sketch over a longer time period.
As does sola ecclesia, as "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" is itself is interpreted differently by different churches, both as to what theological extent this is to taken and the meaning of each.
Even when restricting sola ecclesia to Catholicism, you have disagreements as to whether the "one Lord' means the Father sends the Spirit or He is sent by both the Father and the Son, and whether "one faith" means under an infallible pope having unhindered universal jurisdiction and power, as well as what most departed Catholics experience (re. purgatorial existence), as well as multiple others aspects of faith , both among RCs and Catholicism at large, including whether chrismation with anointed oil from the apostles is part of the baptismal rite to receive the Holy Spirit, and whether extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means baptized Prots need not repent from sola fide and convert to Catholicism to be saved, and whether baptism of desire is an infallible teaching. Etc.
And the idea of a real depth of unity in Rome to an extent superior to all other churches is simply imagination.
Then you have the problem of the aberrations that result from making the church supreme over Scripture enables, such as defining "one Lord" to mean he was once a man, etc.
However, in a more restricted sense of OLOFOB, individual groups under both models for unity can claim to hold to "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." A basic unity under Scripture as the supreme infallible standard is seen among many groups by common affirmation and contention for "one Lord" as meaning the Trinity, and salvation by faith alone appropriating justification, but not alone as not resulting in works of faith. And which results in having One Father in all, by the One Spirit.
As for one baptism, the Scriptures mention more than one, and the one baptism is can be understood as the commanded ordinance which confesses faith in the Lord Jesus, while the baptism of the one Spirit into the one body of Christ which happens at conversion, (1 Cor. 12:13) and the baptism with the Spirit (Acts 8:14-17; 10:43-46;15:7-9) falls under "the doctrine of baptisms," plural, listed among fundamental beliefs in Heb. 6:2.
Again, you cannot escape interpretation of either Scripture or the church on the personal level, or by individual church groups.
And while the ecclesiastical magisterium is to hand down authoritative judgments, yet its authority is not based upon a claim to perpetual assured infallibility, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, which is what was behind that of Acts 15 .
And while ideally there should be a central magisterium, rather a divided kingdom with an individual magisteriums, which Rome is only one of, but she has more than manifested that she is not worthy of her elitist claims, based upon the Scriptural standard for authority, upon which the church began in dissent from those who also claimed more for themselves than what is written.
Finally, the only unity that Scripture affirms is that which is of the Spirit, (Eph. 4:3) which most essentially is that which true born again believers realize among themselves, which is greater than their differences (and comprehensive unity has never been realized), which is based upon a shared Lord, faith and baptism, that of a shared evangelical conversion to the One Lord, by the one efficacious faith that is behind it, and the one baptism that results from it.
Unity of Christian doctrine is something that will never happen in the organized religion concept. Every one of them is speaking carnally and will never approach the true meaning of the “church” that started when Israel was set aside until the end times.
you wrote:
“But I did use facts, some from the very source you cited.”
No, what you did was ignore the facts that were posted - as if one set excluded another. I did not do that. I showed the poped used very old vestments - which you denied he did: “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!”
And yet it is not only plausible, but absolutely true.
“And, just to clarify, my comments are not exclusive to the current Pope. You have been shown to be inaccurate on a number of your own stated “facts”, were you bothered by them?”
I have not been shown to be inaccurate about anything in this thread nor was I inaccurate.
“I didn’t see an apology to Blue Dragon for your incorrect criticism of his remarks.”
Because there was nothing I said that was incorrect.
“Are you working to find just the right words?”
No. I almost always use the right words - and hence make few mistakes and therefore rarely need to apologize. I have nothing to apologize for in this thread.
“I do not claim to know everything, unlike certain people, but I do try to back up what I say with facts that can be researched.”
I do not claim to know everything. I do claim to know Church history better than anti-Catholics because that is simply the case.
“Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any online information about the budget of the Vatican so I cannot say for certain what the Pope’s clothing allowance is nor how much is allotted for travel nor his various servants’ salaries.”
And this would matter in itself how? Putting aside your inability to find such information - because it might not be your fault - what would those allowances mean? You’re not Catholic. Why do you care? Church members donate money to support the Church. What business is it of yours? To me, that’s like an American in 2013 complaining about what it costs to support the British royal family. Why would we care? I could see if it was 1776, but it’s 2013. It has nothing to do with you.
“All I can do, like most outside people, is voice my own observations of what is observable.”
And for what reason? And didn’t you just admit you know NOTHING about this but you’re going to make statements based upon your OBSERVATIONS which you just admitted is based on a complete lack of actual knowledge? You don’t see the problem there?
“And that is a right I will guard no matter how much it displeases the OCD (obsessive compulsive defenders).”
Again, it isn’t about any right you have. John Kerry said Americans have the right to be stupid. Yes, we all have that right. Does that mean someone should be stupid?
you wrote:
“Well, it seems you didn’t bother to read it either. You already admitted, “The Treaty of Tordesillas in no way was intended to promote the slave trade. Does it even mention slavery? I just scanned the 4 main points of the treaty. In which one is slavery discussed? I might have missed it.”
I quickly went over it: “I just scanned the 4 main points of the treaty.”
I already knew that “The Treaty of Tordesillas in no way was intended to promote the slave trade.” That I have known for decades.
At this point, I am the only one in the thread who has probably ever scanned it, located it, or probably even knew its name!
you wrote:
“How utterly rude...in the same breath as continuing to attempt to substitute that treaty, under which explicit mention of slavery is not seen, to equal the extension of the practice in the New World, wasn’t in understanding and implimentation ratified by that same treaty.”
I was not the one who brought up the treaty. Unless you mean some other treaty - which you apparently have not named or do not know - you referred to the Treaty of Toredillas here: “An RC pope had written up where the dividing line between where those of either nation could collect slaves.”
So, time to put up or shut up: Name the treaty you were referring to or show where in the Treaty of Toredillas slavery is discussed as you claim.
And let’s not forget that you wrote: “Tourists pay money for the opportunity to line up just to gawk at all the “finery”.”
That is demonstrably false. Entrance into St. Peter’s is free.
You routinely make false assertions.
“I haven’t read the one treaty...?”
When you do, it would make more sense for you to post about it. Get back to me when you read the treaty.
Well, perhaps some case could be made for unity within ROME, but then there's the EO, Russian Orthodox, Ukrainian Catholic,....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_rites_and_churches
Last count, according to Catholic FReepers, is TWENTY-TWO different flavors of Catholicism.
Hardly *one faith*
Well, that's that then.
Very concise and succinct.
And spot on.
Dude...you need to seriously go back through this thread and refresh your memory on the chain of comments here. You INSISTED that: "no approval of slavery in the New World could ever be given or accepted by the Church", did you not? Then you were shown specific bulls promulgated by your own popes that gave express permission for doing exactly that in the New World! How can you say you have made no mistakes with a straight face?
This sidebar started after I suggested a few changes the Vatican could make with the naming of a new pope. They were based upon OBSERVED details. What I admitted I didn't know was how much money was spent on the lavish and regal finery the Vatican is known for - something I would guess even YOU would not be privy to. So what that some of what this current Pope might use occasionally is dated and not custom made for him? Does it mean NOTHING ever is? What I got in return was a reflexive scolding for daring to suggest the pope could be criticized for ANYTHING he does which is typical. Things snowballed from there and we got into the discussion of how the RCC acquired all its wealth which easily could be a hundred billion dollars or more. The part the RCC played in centuries past WRT slavery - something you adamantly denied - was proved conclusively and mattered a great deal to her material assets. Is any of this coming back to you yet?
Labeling others as stupid and ignorant is clearly the only defense you have besides diversion and quibbling over small insignificant points. Anyone reading this thread can see that for himself. It's NOT convincing.
You could be a MORMON!
MORMON
ATTITUDES OF SUPERIORITY
1. I’m Superior; I have a special gift of the holy Ghost -- you don’t!
2. I’m Superior; I have God’s true priesthood power -- you don’t! 3. I’m Superior; I can go in God’s secret Temple -- you can’t! 4. I’m Superior; I’ve been Endowed with special Gifts and Knowledge -- you’re just normal! 5. I’m Superior; I’ll have my family with me in heaven -- you’ll be with strangers! 6. I’m Superior; I’m becoming a God -- you aren’t! 7. I’m Superior; My women know their place as servants of man and yours don’t. 8. I’m Superior; YOUR creeds are wrong because they come from man - mine comes from God (you can find each one printed in our Scriptures). 9. I’m Superior; I don’t HAVE a creed - I’ve got 13 Articles of Faith. 10. I'm Superior; I have 4 "Bibles"-- the standard works (5 if you count the JST) -- you've only got one: in as far as it is translated correctly. 11. I’m Superior; I can lie with impunity about such things as church membership, church growth, church doctrine, church history, church influence, etc. — -- You can’t. 12. I’m Superior; I am right (everybody knows) when I say 'evangelical' Christians are lunatics -- -- You’re a hideous narrow-minded bigot, who is persecuting me by practicing discrimination by saying I'm not a Christian.
13. I'm Superior; I have a testimony about a prophet -- you don't. 14. I'm Superior; I have a Scripture-producing Amos 3:7 prophet -- you don't 15. I’m Superior; I have a Living Prophet who talks to god every day -- you have a dim-witted hireling of Satan who only talks to himself. 16. I'm Superior; I have my calling & election made sure -- you don't. 17. I’m Superior; I have magic underwear to protect me from the bogey man -- you don’t. 18. I’m Superior; I have secret clasps and grips to give the angel so I get admitted to the celestial kingdom -- you don’t ;so you can’t. 19. I'm Superior; I know secret handshake codes for afterlife entrances-- you don't. 20. I’m Superior; I will see Joseph Smith setting on the right hand of GOD, when I get to Mormon heaven, and he will recognize me and judge me favorably -- You’re on your own; when you get to wherever you’re going! 21. I’m Superior; I’m going to hie to Kolob -- you’re going to who knows where. 22. I’m Superior; I get to have a harem and act like a celestial stud for time and all eternity -- you don’t. 23. I’m Superior; I have sun stones, moon stones, sky stones, cloud stones, Saturn stones, and the evil eye of Osirus guarding my temple -- You have nothing but a stupid cross.
24. I’m Superior; My church has billions in assets stashed away -- yours has taken a stupid vow of poverty. 25. I'm Superior; Last - we have the power to keep a whole race out of our priesthood if we wanted to reinsert our 148-year legacy (we ARE still keeping an entire GENDER at bay!) 26. I'm superior; I have the "higher law" -- everyone else "lives under the "lesser law' because I say so...(over and over). Revision 46.5
Semi-Official creed of the EXclusive club of Freeper Flying Inmans.
All rights liable to be abused.
|
You wrote:
“Dude...you need to seriously go back through this thread and refresh your memory on the chain of comments here.”
No, actually I don’t. I made no inaccurate statements.
“You INSISTED that: “no approval of slavery in the New World could ever be given or accepted by the Church”, did you not?”
Yes, and that was accurate. Your problem is that you do not know when the Church is teaching and when it is not. A statement from the pope is not necessarily a doctrinal statement from the Church. Any pope who accepted slavery in South America did so in limited circumstances and in answer to a percieved need or issue rather than a general acceptance of the institution itself. That’s the difference.
“Then you were shown specific bulls promulgated by your own popes that gave express permission for doing exactly that in the New World! How can you say you have made no mistakes with a straight face?”
Because I didn’t. A papal bull is not in itself a proof of “approval of slavery in the New World ... given or accepted by the Church” on a doctrinal level. Again, what I said was absolutely correct. I made no inaccurate statement.
“So what that some of what this current Pope might use occasionally is dated and not custom made for him?”
The difference would be that that is the exact opposite of what you said. You made a claim - and that claim - as you admitted was based upon your complete lack of knowledge on the subject - and the claim was wrong.
“What I got in return was a reflexive scolding for daring to suggest the pope could be criticized for ANYTHING he does which is typical.”
That is NOT what you got. That is nothing but your spin in fact. There are legitimate reasons, grounded in genuine study, knowledge and understanding of the Church and the pope, to criticize the pope. Your criticism of his clothes had nothing to do with reality - as you yourself essentialy showed - by stating that the popes vestments were all new when many are actually quite old even sometimes centuries old. Your criticism was invalid. It made no sense. It was the criticism itself that was “reflexive” because it clearly was not grounded in any knowledge as you have since admitted several times now!
“The part the RCC played in centuries past WRT slavery - something you adamantly denied - was proved conclusively and mattered a great deal to her material assets. Is any of this coming back to you yet?”
No, because you are completely. I never denied that there were popes who were weak on slavery. I said, and you acknowledge I said it, “no approval of slavery in the New World could ever be given or accepted by the Church”. And it wasn’t. There is no MORAL or DOCTRINAL APPROVAL of slavery ever given by the Church for the New World expressed in a Church council’s canons or decrees, either of the two universal catechisms, an excathedra statement, or canon law as approving it as moral. You can find popes who were weak on slavery just as you can find popes weak all sorts of issues in history - especially when dealing with institutions which had existed for cebturies and were considered part of life around the world.
“Labeling others as stupid and ignorant is clearly the only defense you have besides diversion and quibbling over small insignificant points.”
No, my labels are accurate - as has been shown repeatedly in this thread.
“Anyone reading this thread can see that for himself. It’s NOT convincing.”
Actually, it is convincing. That’s why people are telling me in the freeper email they’re sending me.
No, I’m not Protestant enough to be a Mormon.
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.