despiet his scathing rebuke -- Rome is the most studied . . . How would it not be? It's the seat of the Church. Are writers going to spend all threir energy writing about the defunct church of jerusalem or the defunct church at antioch or the defunct church at alexandria? Are writers going to spend energy on the eastern othodox church that has little influence or power when you have a church that made kings and ruled the word for centuries and is still a power to be reconed with?
That's like comparing Rush to O'Reily -- O'Reily get some press but nothing like rush does.
St. John Chrysostom -- his remark is far more damning then saying theri is a grave respocibility for a bishop -- he is saying that the bishops have made a highway to hell for their followers -- not heretics not unbeleivers but the bishops those who are supposed to be sanctified.
He is saying that NOT all, but a great number -- it takes more than two or three to pave hell were themselves corrupt and their teaching by extension were corrupt and therefore their followers were corrupted.
If these sources all say to go back to the ancients to get past the corruption pray tell who's writings are they saying are uncorrupted?
Tertullian?
Justin Martyr?
Clement of Rome?
The field is not exactly full of candidates
Or would these men be talking about getting off the waywards traditions because they saw that were shifting sand and back to the rock of the Gospels and the Epistles?
You need to decide the answer -- what are all these guys talking about as the ancients and the place the church needed to return to?
Next question is there any evidence documentary wise to indicate that the chruch repented and returned to the God of their fathers like israel of old or are they like the catholic church today that this article rails against that are hijacking the religion because they can and the laity be damned?
Its tough stuff becasue we are talking about faith Ideals and what we were taught as children -- see but when we are asking the dems to see the light and examine where the party went -- it works best with people who lived through all that.
The hard nut DUers are all young children who have grown up since Clinton was first elected.
To these guys there was no change that's all ancient history.
Also it is not my intent to convert catholics to protestantism.
If you look up my name you will see that I am very hard on a lot of protestant practices and church leaders as well and I spend far more time on them than the catholics.
The truth is that you are no less a christian than them and I can and do base that on scripture.
The truth is that without the catholic church as things stand Jesus and the Apostles would have been in the harvard classics as ancient greek and hebrew legends.
There is a lot of water under the bridge that neither you and I can do anything with. We can't change it not Luther, No calvin not Pope gregory. Bad decissions were made bad doctrines were created and like government agencies once created they live on forever becaseu every scholar and teach quote them and then wants to rewrite them and put there own two cents in.
Thirty years ago I knew a bunch of catholic charimatics in White plains new york every week I met them in a building on chruch property and we prayed and read the bible together it was wonderful these people loved God from head to foot. Never in a year did we speak about any of the merits for or against any catholic doctrine.
I remember brother Phil with fond memories and some of the sisters there.
They spoke of sharing the light with others and how the church had grown cold. they spoke of renewal through prayer worship and reading the bible.
First off, please make some effort to type reasonably. I make plenty of typos, I'm sure, but I can barely read your letters because they are so overwhelmed by typos and spelling errors.
Where did you ever get the notion that the Catholic Church considered Bishops to be less vulnerable to hell? If anything they are the people most vulnerable in the world: Their sins have the gravest consequences, and they best know better than to sin!
>> He is saying that NOT all, but a great number -- it takes more than two or three to pave hell were themselves corrupt and their teaching by extension were corrupt and therefore their followers were corrupted. If these sources all say to go back to the ancients to get past the corruption pray tell who's writings are they saying are uncorrupted? <<
He is writing about false innovations which were being made in the 4th century. The consistency of the Catholic faith is its protection against heresy. he is saying that the bishops were promulgating false doctrine. But read what doctrines he is calling false, and which he is upholding: He upheld the Roman Catholic doctrine! And who re-established the RC doctrine: The Papacy!
>> Next question is there any evidence documentary wise to indicate that the chruch repented and returned to the God of their fathers like israel of old or are they like the catholic church today that this article rails against that are hijacking the religion because they can and the laity be damned? <<
Absolutely. St. John is one of the most legendary Catholic saints there are. There are many works on him, and you know what he wrote because the Church labored to keep it. Then again, there is also the bible, which is the source of all these doctrine; it guarantees that such corruption cannot befall the church. (of course, Protestants must pretend that for 1500 years, such corruption blotted out all historical record of true doctrine.)
>> Thirty years ago I knew a bunch of catholic charimatics in White plains new york every week I met them in a building on chruch property and we prayed and read the bible together it was wonderful these people loved God from head to foot. Never in a year did we speak about any of the merits for or against any catholic doctrine. <<
I'm glad to hear it, but it makes we wonder why you inserted such things into a Catholic discussion where it hardly fit the topic.