Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
Benedict XVI bump.
What part of "don't pick at the scab" and "don't make it pesonal" did you miss?
oh dear, this thread is descending into one of those distressing threads that has me shaking my head.
1Ti 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
Catholics agree. But Catholics do not see this truth as incompatible with Heb 13:17. We recognize that our leaders are fallible, but we also recognize that God has appointed them, and that He wants us to obey them. The command to obey our leaders is not a blank check. Perhaps that is your worry (and it is an understandable and justified worry). But we have to fit both truths together, and neither reject Church authority nor turn into Catholic Borg [from Star Trek]. Protestantism has tended to reject Church authority altogether, as you can see clearly stated throughout this thread. On the other side, some Catholics have hushed up crimes and abuses because they failed to understand that our leaders are fallible.
The charism of truth provided in ordination is not an unqualified gift of infallibility; it is a *communal* gift, one that applies to the bishops as a whole (united throughout all time), and especially to the bishop of Rome speaking ex cathedra. Priests and bishops and even popes are, outside of those qualifications, fallible and flawed human persons.
We don't have to choose between deifying clergy and rejecting Church authority. That's a false dichotomy.
-A8
Does that only apply to me? I thought you posted that to Quix, also. You let his post 1275 stand. Is he allowed to post, but I am not allowed to reply? At least be consistent.
It is time to drop it, forgive and forget, get back to the issues.
I will repeat one point here that you made and I removed, you did not ask me to remove the original offensive post. I did that because it was toxic and would surely incite the reaction which, as it turns out, it did.
I was honestly trying to extend grace and calm the waters by noting, confessing that my notions of humor were obviously not everyone's.
And, by submitting to the higher standard of prefering to avoid offense with those who felt differently by acknowledging that others differed and I could accept that and go on.
Am sorry my clumsy efforts at extending grace and calming the waters failed to have such an effect.
Good night.
According to your interpretation they "say otherwise". But according to the Church's interpretation, they do not.
-A8
Your "picking at the scab" is noted.
However,I would be very interested in understanding how you would plausibly explain the fact that the New Testament mentions Peter 198 times as compared to the 90 times all of the other Apostles together were mentioned.
Many of the references to Peter in scripture are in the context of conversations or directions or explanations or responsibilities given by Jesus (the complete Word of God) to Peter. References found in Acts seem to testify to Peter's authority and leadership as well as his supernatural gifts.
Of course everything I say is my opinion, just as everything in your post is your opinion. Pointing out that what I say is my opinion does not show whether what I am saying is true or false. Claiming that it is "just my opinion" implies that what I am saying is not true. But merely asserting that what I am saying is not true does not show that what I am saying is not true. Some evidence or argumentation is needed.
Consider:
Satan is transformed into an angel of light, and his ministers into ministers of righteousness.
Catholics agree.
To achieve that level of deception, is there a line the devil will not cross when wanting to look 'Christian'?
Catholics agree.
Can you imagine Satan saying, "Oh, I would not lay claim to preserving the scriptures." ? Answer: He knows that God will not let his word pass away. So the devil, who can quote it cover to cover, is more than willing to cross that line. He's gotta look like an angel of light.
I don't fully understand what you are saying here.
Can you imagine Satan saying, "No, I would never set up my own lineage of church leaders, or even claim Peter and the other apostles as their predecessors, to further enhance my way as legitimate." ? To appear to be an angel of light, the line is crossed in hastily.
Ok, I think I understand what you are saying here. If I understand you corectly, you are saying that the Catholic Church could be a big deception fobbed on us [Catholics] by Satan, since Satan won't spare any effort to appear like an angel of light.
So, I think we can agree that there are (at least) two possibilities: (1) the Catholic Church is a big deception fobbed on us [Catholics] by Satan, or (2) Protestantism is a big deception fobbed on [Protestants] by Satan. Now comes the hard work of determining whether (1) or (2) (or something else) is the case.
Sure, some of Satan's efforts are easier to spot than others (such as the ones that claim to be the last prophet from God), but how to spot them? By the WORD OF GOD, of course.
According to whose interpretation? Yours? If you have followed this thread, you can see that appealing to Scripture does not resolve the disputes, because everyone has a different interpretation. And who gets to decide what even counts as "the WORD OF GOD"? You? What makes you special?
-A8
Reality has a habit of not fitting any tidy little boxes.
Feel free to provide an example of reality violating a rule of logic.
-A8
I sincerely hope that you will explain why you think that.
-A8
I think the humility Peter learned after his betrayal moved him far toward much more mature spirituality and God blessed him and his ministry accordingly.
The number of times Peter is mentioned is interesting. I've never heard of it as a criteria for Papal authority before.
Satan is mentioned a lot, too. I hope he's not in the running accordingly.
So, I think we can agree that there are (at least) two possibilities: (1) the Catholic Church is a big deception fobbed on us [Catholics] by Satan, or (2) Protestantism is a big deception fobbed on [Protestants] by Satan. Now comes the hard work of determining whether (1) or (2) (or something else) is the case.
= = = =
D) All of the above.
In that . . . satan uses ALL organizations made by man to raise up RELIGION--AGAINST
RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD; FELLOWSHIP; WALKING IN THE GARDEN; INTIMATE DIALOGUE PERSON TO PERSON WITH GOD.
He destroyed it in The Garden. He's been diligent to destroy it ever since.
Do the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation sound like letters to components of a big human oriented, organized, RELIGIOUS system? Hardly.
And, those letters are not very flattering. Yet, those churches started out wonderful with God's anointing to greater or lesser degree. Doesn't hinder God's rejection even slightly--He's concerned with where they are NOW in terms of SEEKING HIM AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS FIRST instead of their own agendas first, middle and last.
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.