Posted on 09/12/2007 1:56:57 PM PDT by NYer
>> The meaning of church for Protestants is perhaps best defined by the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:20. “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” That’s obviously not good enough for the Pope but it’s good enough for me. <<
It’s not an issue about being “not good enough”; it’s an issue of what is left out. If I said, “the meaning of marriage is perhaps best defined as ‘love one another, bear each others burdens, and share each other’s joys,’ that may sound all warm and fuzzy and lovely, but it’s the argument of every 1970’s anti-God zealot who slovenly corroded the institution of marriage.
Jesus’ words which you quote are beautiful, true, perfect, and essential, but they are not his definition of ‘Church.’ In fact, these are the only passages in which Jesus uses the word ‘Church’:
“Thou art Rock (Cephas), and apon this Rock (Cephas), I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”
and
“And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. “
Your definition makes not the slightest bit of sense in either usage. What we get from these usages is that the church is singular, built on Peter (or, the faith which Peter would embody), ultimately obliterating evil, authoritative, and judicial. “Church,” as you define it, is none of these things.
>> Peter was first Bishop of Antioch, long before he when to Rome. So therefore Antioch would be the See of Peter and all of Orthodoxy is part of it. <<
By that logic, John Paul II should be known as “Bishop of Gdansk.” Peter HAPPENED to be Bishop of Antioch, but even the ancient sees recognized Rome, not Antioch, as “first among equals.” (One thing many people forget is that bishops have their own authority, so Pope Benedict cannot simply “fire” Cardinal Mahoney, no matter how repugnant he is, short of trying him for apostasy.)
This Lutheran bishop would seem to personify all that is wrong with "state" churches". She was not called by any group of congregations nor even appointed by a church magisterium, rather by the Queen of Denmark. She answers neither to her flock nor to her pope, but to the Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs. To the bishop and her church, Scripture seems to have significance only as an ancient fable, much as the Iliad or the Odyssey.
My Driver’s License photo is so bad that I’ve joked that I couldn’t get busted for DUI: the cop would look at my license and figure, “Oh, he always looks like that.” But I don’t show it to the world. Google her. The person who posted it did NOT have to shop for an unflattering or ridiculous picture; that image is her chosen way of presenting herself to the world. In fact, of the three images of her on the web that have any detail, that one is certainly the most flattering.
It’s not that she’s born ugly. It’s not that she doesn’t care about appearance (she obviously does). It’s that she has made a fool of herself.
>> I’m not sure anyone was ever damned for her looks. <<
I’m not damning her for her looks!
You make a good point. Language, oftentimes, is the worst form of communication. In our frustration to communicate what we know in our minds and feel in our heart can result in misunderstandings. We should be more christian in our approach towards each other. Thank you for the reminder!
You have based these beliefs from institutions that Satan has had 2000 years in which to distort God’s Word.
Well here I will take issue. Matthew 16:18. If anything, it is the Reformation that has led to the creation of 33,000+ non-Catholic Churches. Scripture reveals that Christ established one Church - not many - and that Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.
In the last few posts we have RC and Orthodox arguing among themselves as to when fallible men determined doctrine and how those decisions pertained to them.
Catholics (note that there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church of which the Latin Church is just one) and Orthodox are very close and both trace their roots to the Apostles. There are a few doctrines that separate us and, like 'siblings', we often get into heated discussions here in the forum.
I feel better using scripture.
Because the Old and New Testament Scriptures are the divinely-revealed, written Word of God, Catholics and Orthodox venerate the Scriptures as they venerate the Lord's body. But Catholics and Orthodox do not believe that God has given us His divine Revelation in Christ exclusively through Scripture. Catholics and Orthodox also believe that God's Revelation comes to us through the Apostolic Tradition and teaching authority of the Church.
That Bible you love - it was the Catholic Church that determined the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible) at the end of the fourth century.
I was a RC many years ago. Was married in the Church because my ex-wife was Catholic from birth. She attended Catholic schools thru HS. We went to Church weekly until we split. That was 40 years ago.
At what age did you convert to the Catholic faith?
I know the scripture you use to say that Christ made Peter the first Pope. I, like others, have a hard time with that.
13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16
What is so hard to understand?
I believe that the Church is based on the fact the Jesus is the Son of God, The Messiah.
So do Catholics.
The meaning of church for Protestants is perhaps best defined by the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:20. “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” New King James Version (NKJV). That’s obviously not good enough for the Pope but it’s good enough for me.
By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6). The Bible says that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). It is through the teaching authority and Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2) of this Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,26; 16:13), that we know of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the manifold wisdom of God. (cf. Ephesians 3:10).
There are many times I think of this scripture; Matthew 7:21. I have done none of those things, where does that leave me?
Luke
Chapter 18
- 10
- "Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.
- 11
- The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector.
- 12
- I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.'
- 13
- But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'O God, be merciful to me a sinner.'
- 14
- I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
>> First I want to say how proud Jesus is of all of you for not showing any love for anyone who doesn’t walk lock step with your perception of who is and isn’t a Christian. <<
I did specifically praise NYer for expressing herself in a manner seemingly much more Christian than my feeble attempt.
>> You have based these beliefs from institutions that Satan has had 2000 years in which to distort God’s Word. <<
Who’s easier to mislead, an entire Tradition, or an individual?
>> In the next chapter John is taken to the Throne Room. I have read a lot of threads where you say Mary is with Jesus interceding for us. I read in one of the threads that they thought Mary spent her last days living with or near John. <<
Doesn’t MENTION Mary? Au contraire, he devotes an entire CHAPTER to Mary. She is not only in the throne room, she is crowned by a crown of twelve stars, the tribes of Israel!
>> We went to Church weekly until we split. That was 40 years ago. <<
That’s very sad that you split after 40 years of marriage.
>> One would think that if He truly wanted Apostolic procession or a Pope he would have praised the churches that had it and condemned the ones that didn’t. What do you all think? <<
Because the ones he mentions all WERE.
Revelation was not written as a denouement to a Bible that did not exist at the time. John sent his letter from exile on Patmos, and much of the imagery and symbology is not only prophetic, but coded testament of Nero's horrific persecution of Christians in Rome. The Asian Churches he addressed - if you refer to a map - are all on a very small geographical stretch in Asia Minor. These letters were addressed to these particular Churches because John, previous to his exile, lived among them - he knew their Bishops, and their respective foibles or merits. He was, in effect, correcting their misbehavior and praising their merits, because he knew these Churches intimately. This is why there is no address to Rome - or Corinth - or Alexandria - or anywhere else.
Additionally, because of the fierce persecution in Rome, John would have taken care not to "out" Peter as head of the Church at Rome. That's common sense. Nero was turning Christians into human torches to light the roadways. He wrote of the persecution in code because there was great danger of his letter being intercepted and further action taken by the Empire against the threat of "Chrestus". In battle, soldiers take care not to salute the commanding officer, for obvious reasons. John does the same.
Nice try. But, there is nothing in the church fathers praising Antioch for its unique ministry among sees. There is an abundance of such literature regarding Rome—for not only Peter, but also Paul.
The validitiy of apostolic succession is evidenced by the election of Matthias to take the "office" of Judas. If that's not proof of apostolic succession, what is? Additionally, all of these unified, catholic Churches had apostolic succession to begin with, so there were none to condemn for not having it.
Whose office did Paul take?
Pope Victor's defeat of the Quartodecimans in Asia is ample proof that Rome, as far back as 190 A.D. and earlier, had primacy over all other Churches. No one challenged his authority to go nuclear on the Asiatic churches and excommunicate them all for refusing to celebrate Easter with the Roman tradition. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, reluctantly accepted the decree from Rome and pleaded for leniency. But he never questioned Victor's authority in the matter. Eventually, the Quartodecimans faded away.
Additionally, since the Church was built on Peter, primacy could not have remained in Antioch after he left, because he was still alive. The Church he built at Rome, where he would die and be succeeded, enjoyed continuing primacy through his successors, and none of the Churches is Asia, Europe, or Africa, contested this. Any kind of illegitimate power grab in Rome would have met with insurrection across the Church.
To the contrary, the Churches regularly appealed to Rome to mediate their various problems, most notably evidenced in Clement's letter to Corinth, in which he apologized that due to the continuing persecution in Rome he hadn't intervened sooner. Since the Apostle John was still alive and living much closer to Corinth than Rome, why would they petition Clement unless Rome held primacy? If Clement was just another bishop, why didn't they approach a living apostle who lived much closer, and under less dire circumstances? If primacy rested with Antioch, why on earth didn't they appeal to Antioch?
The Church of Denmark claims to have maintained Apostolic Succession. It doesn’t seem to have had much influence in guiding the Bishop, Mrs. Peterson.
Paul was given office by Christ. He didn’t succeed anyone, per se. But Christ still demanded an intermediary to lay hands on Him - that being Ananias. Jesus could have restored Paul’s sight immediately, but the opening of his eyes was both a physical and spiritual healing, as well as his commission to be an apostle of the Lord. And this occured by the laying on of hands by Annias - the gesture of passing on the Holy Spirit which came to the Apostles. This line has not been broken in either the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. Every bishop in either case has received the laying on of hands from a an unbroken chain going back to the upper room on Pentecost Sunday.
This thread is actually fairly tame.
One can have intelligent discussion with AnAmericanMother and NYer. They are not part of the problem.
There are only a half dozen or so rabid Catholics who can be counted on to engage in name calling on a regular basis and who are incapable of engaging in rational theological debate, and one or two Orthodox. But I have also seen a few fiery Mormon and Church of Christ threads.
The religion mod, when he is around, does a good job of keeping things under control - the religion board used to be much worse.
But Ananias wasn't an apostle and wasn't a bishop. So what happens to apostolic succession?
But there is no record of either Christ nor the Apostles having laid hands upon Ananias. So the break occurred there, and Paul wouldn't have been able to ordain the Presbyters that he did.
Let's see. Your initial logic is such that, if the Bible doesn't say that Jesus typically ate breakfast, then Jesus never ate breakfast. My initial logic is such that, if the Lord Jesus Christ Himself sent Paul to Ananias to receive the laying on of hands, there's a PRETTY good chance Ananias was authorized to do so.
But then, that's all moot, because according to Orthodox tradition, Ananias WAS the bishop of Damascus, which he could not be if he had not had hands laid upon him by one of the Apostles. Thus, apostolic succession is not broken here. Additionally, the Orthodox also hold that Ananias was one of the "seventy" disciples sent out by Christ to evangelize in the Gospel of Luke.
Sorry Sofie but I'm not going to respect any church that makes a divorced mother a bishop. Now go away.
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.