American Idol-atry
"What, me worship? I venerate."
Posted on 07/23/2019 9:37:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You continue to prove my point.
Continuing to prove a long standing observation that it is usually, though not always, the Roman Catholic who first resorts to the personal attack and/or profanity when the argument is against them.
Keep up the good work.
“So you admit they all believe your pope is not the leader of the Church on Earth?”
I didn’t say anything remotely close to that.
Enjoy your reading comprehension failure. That’s what a public education gets you these days.
Exactly because the Orthodox are not in submission to the pope nor do they recognize his claim of supremacy.
This was the reason for the Great Schism in Catholicism back in 1059 AD.
So Roman Catholicism considers them in schism but when it comes to the numbers game, they are included as being i*in communion*.
Ironically, they allow in themselves differences in doctrine which they condemn as being a flaw and fault and weakness of Protestantism.
They are very big on allowing for themselves what they condemn in others.
These differences are so important that there has been no reconciliation in nearly a thousand years after the split. The Eastern Orthodox differ with Roman Catholicism on these issues:
The Holy Spirit (the filioque)
In EO - The third person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father alone as in the original Nicene Creed. The Father sends the Spirit at the intercession of the Son. The Son is therefore an agent only in the procession of the Spirit.
In RC - 'When the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He is not separated from the Father, He is not separated from the Son'.
Mary - Assumption and Immaculate conception of
EO - The Assumption is accepted and it is agreed that Mary experienced physical death, but the Immaculate conception is rejected. Orthodox belief is that the guilt of original sin is not transmitted from one generation to the next, thus obviating the need for Mary to be sinless.
RC - Both are dogmas of the church. The church has not as yet decided whether Mary actually experienced Physical death. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary, was at conception 'preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin' and should not be confused with the virgin birth.
Pope - Authority of
EO - As the Bishop of Rome, he has a primacy of honour when Orthodox, not of jurisdiction. At present, his primacy is not effective as the papacy needs to be reformed in accordance with Orthodoxy. His authority is thus no greater or lesser than any of his fellow Bishops in the church.
RC - The Pope is the 'Vicar of Christ' i.e. the visible head of the church on earth and spiritual successor of St. Peter. He has supreme authority (including that over church councils) within Christendom (The Power of the keys).
Pope - Infallibility of
EO - Papal Infallibility is rejected. The Holy Spirit acts to guide the church into truth through (for example) ecumenical councils. This Orthodoxy recognises the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787) as being infallible.
RC - The Pope is infallible when, through the Holy Spirit, he defines a doctrine on faith and morals that is to be held by the whole church. This is a dogma and is therefore a required belief within Catholicism.
Purgatory
EO - An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.
RC - A place of cleansing and preparation for heaven. Also a place where the punishment due to unremitted venial sins may be expiated.
I'd say these were the "biggies", but other differences also exist. These are explained here.
Brandmüller: Celibacy Is Of "Apostolic Tradition", "God’s Revelation"
Which apostles?
Peter, who was married?
Or Paul who gave these instructions about the qualifications for leadership in the church?
We all know that in early Catholicism priests were allowed to be married. That is until the *church* (and I use the term loosely) realized it was losing too much money to the priest's family's inheriting their property.
1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
1 Timothy 3:1-13 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Titus 1:5-16 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
I wonder why nobody ever answers these questions when I ask them.........
So, do they see the Catholic pope as the Leader of the Church on Earth?
I don’t know what you are thinking, Peter was the “Chief” Apostle and all the other Apostles deferred to him. That is all I meant.
there was no such thing as Pope and I thought I made that clear but there was a leader, that is all the Pope is, the chief apostle. Unfortunately there are no longer 12 apostles, while we have Cardinals we have many more than 12. If the Catholic Church were to reorganize and someone could with authority call and ordain 12 men to be apostles and call one of them to be the leader it would make a lot more sense when we read The Bible.
I do hope you are able to get off the floor after you stop rolling and laughing.
Paul did not defer to him.
James did not defer to him.
“So, do they see the Catholic pope as the Leader of the Church on Earth?”
All did at one time. Some have at some times since. All recognize that the Church is not whole without him - which in itself implies they know how important he is.
Of course not. Tradition is not a compilation of individual works, each of which are considered equal to Scripture. That would just be a second canon. Tradition is not any individual work or author, but the common and universal teachings and practices of the Church
When referring to a particular work of the Church Fathers, it is not to say that that particular work is infallible or equal to Scripture. Rather, it is used as evidence of what the Church as a whole taught and believed. To give an example: when reference is made to St. Justin Martyr's First Apology concerning the early church belief in change of the bread and wine into the actual Body and Blood of Jesus, it is not claimed that this work is in itself inspired or equal to Scripture. Rather, it is just to show what the early church taught. And since the Bible itself shows that the Church teaches with the authority of the Holy Spirit, likewise the common and universal teachings of the Church also posses this authority.
It really amazes me that Protestants spend so much time condemning Catholic use of Tradition when they do not recognize their own dependence upon it. In the first place we have the question of the canon. When Protestants claim an acceptance of a definitive canon based on "what early Christians believed," they are using Tradition. The Bible does not produce its own canon. This must be provided outside of the Bible itself. Thus "sola Scriptura" is self-defeating. Additionally, while Protestant claim sola Scriptura in their interpretation of the Bible, in reality they are dependent on one or another of the various Protestant schools of interpretation: Luther, Calvin, etc. Protestants are just as bound by Tradition (Reformation Tradition rather than Apostolic Tradition) as are the Catholics. They just do not recognize or admit it.
And that is the error....the whole Church did not teach or believe a great deal of what Roman Catholics claim. That is evidenced from reading the various statements of the ECFs.
Rome has indeed elevated those works to the status of infallibility however.
To give an example: when reference is made to St. Justin Martyr's First Apology concerning the early church belief in change of the bread and wine into the actual Body and Blood of Jesus,...
Not when read in context it does not nor is it "universally" believed among all the ECFs.
And since the Bible itself shows that the Church teaches with the authority of the Holy Spirit, likewise the common and universal teachings of the Church also posses this authority.
No...Scripture says the individual is led by the Spirit...not an organization.
One of your fellow Roman Catholics claims the Cardinals who elected the pope was not guided by the Spirit. Do you hold to that position?
I continue to be amazed at the seeming dismissal of the very book Roman Catholics claim they gave the world.
I will ask you again, but this time regarding the ECFs, how can you, as a lay Roman Catholic even begin to understand these writings unless Rome tells you what they mean?
It's basically the same question I asked you earlier about how can you read Scripture and begin to understand it unless Rome tells you what it means....and that will only involve a handful of verses.
No, the writings of the early Church Fathers show that they were clearly Catholic and would not have recognized Protestantism.
Not when read in context it does not nor is it "universally" believed among all the ECFs.
The context of St. Justin's Apology is clear and coincides with Catholic teaching. Nor can you show any denial of this teaching by the early church. It would seem that your use of "context" is an unfounded assumption of Protestant teaching in the early church. This is not context, but iesegesis.
No...Scripture says the individual is led by the Spirit...not an organization.
I refer you to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts: "It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us . . ."
One of your fellow Roman Catholics claims the Cardinals who elected the pope was not guided by the Spirit. Do you hold to that position?
It is not the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Cardinals are infallibly lead by the Holy Spirit in the election of popes.
I will ask you again, but this time regarding the ECFs, how can you, as a lay Roman Catholic even begin to understand these writings unless Rome tells you what they mean?
It's basically the same question I asked you earlier about how can you read Scripture and begin to understand it unless Rome tells you what it means....and that will only involve a handful of verses.
What nonsense! Accepting the authority of Church teaching does not mean that one must put aside one's own reasoning. How often do you refer to another verse in the Bible to help you understand it? It is the same with our use of Tradition. Just as I would rely on other verses in the Bible to help understand a passage, I accept Church teaching in aiding my understanding of the Bible. This does not mean, as you have implied, that I must wait for a church definition of each and every verse before I can know what it means.
They would not have recognized the Roman Catholic Mary.
They would not recognize the apparitions claiming to be Mary and promising avoidance of the hell-fire by wearing a piece of cloth or being "devoted" to it.
They would not recognize the papacy and all of the ostentatious outfits and processions of Rome.
There are plenty more examples but these suffice to illustrate my point that Roman Catholicism was not practiced in the early church.
I refer you to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts: "It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us . . ."
Yes....the Spirit leading individuals....just as noted.
>> It's basically the same question I asked you earlier about how can you read Scripture and begin to understand it unless Rome tells you what it means....and that will only involve a handful of verses.<<
What nonsense! Accepting the authority of Church teaching does not mean that one must put aside one's own reasoning.
Yet that is the sense I have gathered from your fellow Roman Catholics on these issues....that you can only go with what "mother church" has ruled upon.
How often do you refer to another verse in the Bible to help you understand it?
Yes...in Bible study that is part of exegesis.
It is the same with our use of Tradition. Just as I would rely on other verses in the Bible to help understand a passage, I accept Church teaching in aiding my understanding of the Bible. This does not mean, as you have implied, that I must wait for a church definition of each and every verse before I can know what it means.
Yet your problem arises from the many contradictory writings of the fallible ECFs.
Which one(s) are the one(s) you're supposed to lean upon?
How do you personally know....unless your denomination tells you?
Roman Catholics have long accused us Christians of YOPIOS....there was even one of your members who used to post a cereal box with that as the title.
Yet here you admit to doing the very thing Roman Catholics condemn us for. Do you see the irony on this?
I'll post more of a reply on Justin later tonight.
The Mary of the NT would not have approved.
There you go and show your misunderstanding of the relationship of Tradition to the early Church Fathers. It is the Church that is infallible, not the individual Fathers. Yes, individual Fathers can disagree with one another, but when seeking what the early church believed, the rule is to look for the consensus of the Fathers.
That’s the problem. There is no unanimous consent unless unanimous consent is redefined.
Yes....the Spirit leading individuals....just as noted.
No, it was not just individuals but the gathered apostles and presbyters, i.e. the pastors in council teaching in the name of the Church. That same Holy Spirit remains with the Church, just as our Lord promised.
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.