Posted on 12/30/2013 9:35:20 AM PST by RnMomof7
But the effort put into trying to support RC traditions with Scripture is so that we not do as noble Bereans did with such a heart as they, but rather than objectively examining the evidence to ascertain the veracity of official Rc teaching, we simply submit to it.
Of course, in practical application, as described in my above post, that still does not eliminate the problem of needing some interpretation.
eter had no more authority to hand down his Apostolic office and gifts than Judas did.
They will counter that Judas was succeeded, but which was to maintain the original number, rather than 11, but where are Rome's 12 apostles? And when did they ever elect a pope by the OT means of casting lots, which eliminates the political machinations that resulted in the mess Rome would like to forget, and the Holy Spirit's supposed preference for Italians.
And from Catholic scholarship you have much testimony contrary to the fantasy of a pope reigning supreme over the church from the 1st century.
As the reader will recall, I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,22,.
Then you have the messy business of "unbroken" succession.
The Western Schism was thus at an end, after nearly forty years of disastrous life; one pope (Gregory XII) had voluntarily abdicated; another (John XXIII) had been suspended and then deposed, but had submitted in canonical form; the third claimant (Benedict XIII) was cut off from the body of the Church, "a pope without a Church, a shepherd without a flock" (Hergenröther-Kirsch). It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter, there reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council.
Under the circumstances the usual form of papal election by the cardinals alone (see CONCLAVE) was impossible, if only for the strongly inimical feeling of the majority of the council, which held them responsible not only for the horrors of the schism, but also for many of the administrative abuses of the Roman Curia. — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm
This is standard Protestant rebuttal stuff that has been repudiated over 2000 years. Changing one’s name to Petrus, was itself a groundbreaking event. The Great Commission to go forth and teach was to teach ONE truth, not the scandal of 35,000 garden variety biblical interpretations from the mouths of Rev. Schuller, Joel Osteen, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Tammy Faye Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Moon, etc, and of course your corner-street FourSquare Church “Christian” pastor….. you get the flow.
This is why thousands of intellectuals from other faiths have abandoned Protestantism in droves as nothing more but a wasteland of doctrine and heresy. The renowned Oxford Movement founded by Henry Newman, a brilliant Anglican (now a Catholic Saint) and Fr. Richard Neuhaus, the foremost American Lutheran Scholar and professor all converted to Catholicism, not to mention the Chief Rabbi of Rome.
I kind of expected some Jews now and then to be Pope since the Jerusalem Church had many. Yes all those Italians as head honcho of the 'universal Roman church.'
The Great Commission is no secret:
Mark 16:
“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.(NKJV)
Matthew 28:
“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.(NKJV)
Luke 24:
“Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. 49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”(NKJV)
I do not see a "copyright" for one church to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Of course Paul clearly defined all of the above so no one would stray:
1 Corinthians 15:
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.(NKJV)
We get more personal fidelity on the message here:
Romans 10:
5 For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.” 6 But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) 7 or, “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”(NKJV)
I am sure you would not disagree with the Great Commission is alive and well being preached today. The question is does Rome have a monopoly on the Great Commission.
Pure conjecture and invective as no one here is a member of those assemblies or "churches." It is like an Evangelical claiming the Roman Church still collects indulgences for departed souls to get out of pergatory....You guys did stop that didn't you?
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Like I said in other posts, FR is infested with Catholic hating liberals. Don’t bother me anymore with your irrational garbage about the Catholic Church. Your hatred of all things Catholic runs so deep, normal conservation with you is not possible. Now go away and bother someone who gives a damn.
“I do not see a “copyright” for one church to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Of course Paul clearly defined all of the above so no one would stray:”
Wow!
Who is to correct Jim Jones? David Koresh? Billy Graham? and every other person who think they have the divine liberty given by the Christ to go crack open a page of the Bible (authorized by the Catholic Church: The Books sorted out for genuine Scripture in the Bible did not fall from the skies) and make an authentic interpretation right down to your corner street Four Square Church Pastor? The Lutherans and Anglicans now have as part of “their” Church teaching, female Bishops, Gay and Lesbian Bishops too…..”
I was referring to formal Church Beliefs not the practices of clerics and Popes at different times. Conduct is a judgment for God. David Koresh etc were expounding Scriptural Texts.
I have no doubt you sincerely think you have a case here, but all you are doing is being like Jim Jones and other elitist sola ecclesia cults with their version of infallible pope, while criticizing those who rely on examining the Scriptures as the supreme authority, because that results in different interpretations.
And indeed, if unity itself is your goal, not Scriptural Truth, then sola ecclesia is the way to go, and then objective examination of evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of church teachings is discourage. But which model, as said, results in competing churches, each assuredly asserting they are the one true one.
You do make arguments for Rome being the OTC, as if looking as Scripture, etc. is the means that we determine and have assurance of Truth, but before i begin refuting your arguments i need to know what the basis for your assurance of Truth really is, and if an infallible magisterium is necessary for that, and under what basis did the church begin, but thus far you have steadfastly refused to my answer my questions.
Here you invoke Rome as the one who authorized the Bible, and thus it seems you are arguing that an infallible magisterium is necessary to recognize and establish which writings are of God, and thus a canon, and without which these books would not have authority. And i would presume the you would hold that Rome is that infallible magisterium because the Catholic church historically is the instrument (NT) and steward of Scripture, and inheritor of promises.
Is this what you are arguing? If not, explain. Further refusal to answer these basic question indicates you only want to make assertions, not engage in meaningful exchange.
“You can’t handle the truth!”
I’ve asked you for proof of truth for weeks on all kinds of topics. You’ve delivered zilch.
Clearly you can’t handle the truth long enough to post it!
... Or can’t seem to find any! Got proof? Post it.
Orthodoxy in preaching is less important than fund raising and social justice. Pick what you want to worship
At heart,many worship the institution, not God.
Depending on the area, that may be true. Hear, in my church, most of the former Catholics fled because of the abuse in the local diocese. On family felt that if the wanted to protect their children, one of which was a victim, the had to go.
Jim Jones was a cult leader who told his followers to drink the koolaid and by doing so would have eternal life. He also claimed people had to be part of his cult to be saved. He claimed everything he said was straight from God. So did David Koresch. The four corners pastor preaching 1 Corinthians 15, not so. Billy Graham never told people what church to go to and he too had something in common with the four corners guy...They preached the Gospel the apostles preached word for word. They uphold the Written Word of God as their lamp to present to the lost The Light of the World, the Good Shepherd Jesus Christ.
Your comparisons are worlds apart and your tone is noted.
By your logic anyone who preaches the Gospel in the NT is therefore a Jones or Koresch?
If you did some research on your extremist examples you would find out that both made the claims that they were the new Israel and based their claims on the OT promises of Israel. I know of no prot or evangelical church which make such claims. There is however a very old church which ascribes to this sort of replacement theology. You may want to discuss it in your next caucus.
Wow to your post—honest assessment.
Love the tagline:)
Who would worship any of those three?
ME? What a joke.
I’m not the one who has to deal with child molesting priests who serve up communion and be in denial that their personal lives are of no account in their ability to properly perform the sacraments.
Catholics are FORCED into a position of defending pederast priests.
And that is the truth and I’m not the one who can’t handle it.
In my area, sadly, quite a few.
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.