Posted on 07/29/2008 4:39:52 PM PDT by annalex
But hey, who are we to stop rabid RC’s from talking as though God’s a liar or clueless.
INDEED TO THE MAX.
Another one for the RC Word file.
Thanks.
The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
The Roman Church has its authorities, and Bible Christians have our authorities. The writings of Ignatius of Antioch are not Biblicly authoritative.
Post something besides gibberish.
And the pope decides who is a validly baptized person? How in the world does he know who is "validly baptized"?
and further, can be saved like anoyne else through their works, often superior than ours.
Here we go with "salvation through works!" Not a single "evangelical" believes that!, that I know of, and I am one. And yes, most are often more superior than members of the Roman Church. :-)
However, since they lack sacramental priesthood, they lack the assurances of salvation that come from sacramental life, and their houses of assembly or organizational structures cannot properly be called churches.
Since when does the Pope's church (institution) have the authority to decide the leadership of other churches? [See that rather long history on the rise of the papacy that I just posted.] The papacy is being very pompous about this, isn't he? That's one of the reasons why most non-catholics pay no attention to his pompous meddling and pronouncements.
I've read it, and many others. The internal contradictions apparent in the many early writings prove that what is said is the viewpoint of any particular writer. None of them possitively state what all the churches were doing at any one time as concerns their practices and beliefs.
I have no overwhelming compulsion
to provide decoder rings for the willfully deaf and willfully blind.
LOL again! How about naming any "slander or fantasy" I may have posted?
Winning is only in your own mind, not mine. I do not post to have a "win" because of what I say. As for "intellectual" argument, that's for the readers to decide, not you personally, nor me. Winning is not an option for me, posting truth is.
Is this well documented?
I'm inclined to believe it because of everything else I've learned about the RCC.
So a document was laid before Charlemagne in Rome, professing to be his fathers gift or promise of territory to the papacy. This forgery assigned all Corsica, Venetia, Istrai, Luni, Moselica, Parma, Reggio, Mantua, and the Duchies of Spolito and Benevento, and the Exarchate of Ravenna to the Popes Temporal Power (see the Liber Pontificalis, book 2, page 193, Vignol Edition).
Just one example you provide of an organization more concerned with acquiring power and wealth than preaching The Gospel. Of course if it did preach The Gospel its members wouldn't be so easily controlled.
This is just a little reminder to all that the Papacy is a man-made institution that is very unscriptural and negates what Jesus told the Apostles to proclaim. It is not a part of the gospel of Christ by any interpretation of the Word of God.
However, because it is old and it is large it is given credibility by those that do not wish to seek answers for themselves. In my limited experience with witnessing to family members and other RC's if you can get them to read a Bible and then discuss it eyes often open.
Thank you for a very detailed post.
Thanks.
You're welcome. However, what I posted came from a booklet written back in the 70's by Ken Fortier Ministries. I understand that he has in mind to update it and give it much wider distribution - most likely, he says, free! That would be a change from normal, wouldn't it! His web site is www.kenfortier.com. Check it out.
To be more accurate, The range (50m to 500m), my opinion (150 to 250m), and my original statement (hundreds of millions) were not based upon Europe alone. That is a total, world-wide figure.
I had speculated that European deaths could reach AN hundred million below the radar due to the sheer volume of years involved... I do not support a number as high as 250m for Europe. For Europe alone, I would estimate numbers between 75m and 150m, with an hundred million being a good round number.
Additionally, you seem to want to blame the Church for every death in war.
I will cede the point in every war wherein the church had no part in it's beginning, backed no dog (both doesn't count either) in the fight, used no international or interstate influence for any side, and took no profit in land or gold. Help yourself to the bounty of that table.
You posted a long tract, with many claims; a response to which might require multiple times the length. I do not have the time to dig into each claim. However, a few broad points on some of the issues you raised:
Regarding, the alleged use of forgeries to build the papacy, it is untrue to say that the case for the primacy relies upon them for its basis. See http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9810fea3.asp.
Further, you are mistaken in saying that the Council of Sardica - which recognized appeals to Rome - was not received by the East. Rather, in fact, it was explicitly received by the East in the so-called Quintisext Council (in Trullo) in 692 AD; giving it, it the eyes of the Eastern Orthodox Church, ecumenical force. Nor is that the only proof of Eastern recognition of papal authority. For example, circa 518 AD, the Eastern bishops signed the “Formula of Hormisdas” which in part declares: “The first means of safety is to guard the rule of strict faith and to deviate in no way from those things that have been laid down by the Fathers. And indeed the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church’ [Matt., xvi, 18], cannot be disregarded; these things which were spoken are demonstrated by the results, for the Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See.” See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07470a.htm
In the case of Diotrephes (III John 9-10), it is not clear what this case, in your mind, has to do with the papacy. From what John says, he does not deny Diotrephes is the leader, but faults him instead for his bad leadership. A bad example of leadership does not disprove the case for a leader.
Further, to the cited papal claims to be “God on earth”, etc., there is OT precedent for use of the term “gods” applied to men in a restricted sense, as in having authority (e.g. as judges) from God himself - not in the sense of being divine. Scripture itself refers to the judges as “gods” (e.g. Psalm 82:6). As Peter received authority to bind and loose directly and personally from the Son of God himself, could not the same be said, in the restricted sense, of him (and his successors) as said of the OT judges? If not, why not? Regardless, it is clear from the context what sense the popes intended the word.
Please provide the citation for the alleged letter written by Augustine. It is surprising you cite him, as there any number of quotes in his works that show his high regard for the See of Rome. In fact, it is from Augustine’s pen that the paraphrase “Rome has spoken, the case is closed” is derived.
Regards.
The Roman Church has its authorities, and Bible Christians have our authorities. The writings of Ignatius of Antioch are not Biblicly authoritative.
So very, very true!
Is this well documented?
I'll try to find out and get back to you.
The exception proves the rule. I can just as easily point to the Catholic "Sunday child". It is disingenuous to apply such a motive to Protestants by and large, the vast majority of whom believe just as fiercely as any Catholic here, with as much discipline as any Catholic here.
Very, very few of the Protestants I know would support the statement, "One church is just as good as another". Maybe as a guest of a friend for a visit, but not as a matter of affiliation.
“Anyone can intepret; only a Catholic can explain.”
Complete and utter nonsense.
According to history, what was posted is correct. Those forgeries were definitely used to build up the case for the papacy. You will have to argue with the History Scholars on that.
Further, you are mistaken in saying that the Council of Sardica - which recognized appeals to Rome - was not received by the East.
Negative. At the time it was held the Eastern Church didn't accept it. That is history, without being rewritten by Rome at a later date and with new leadership in the Eastern and Western churches.
In the case of Diotrephes (III John 9-10), it is not clear what this case, in your mind, has to do with the papacy. From what John says, he does not deny Diotrephes is the leader, but faults him instead for his bad leadership. A bad example of leadership does not disprove the case for a leader.
It has Apostolic application towards all churches, regardless of their institutional standings. The Apostle John does not say nor indicate that Diotrephes was "the" leader, but simply one of them who "loved to be first." Read it without "blinders" on to understand the application.
Further, to the cited papal claims to be God on earth, etc., there is OT precedent for use of the term gods applied to men in a restricted sense, as in having authority (e.g. as judges) from God himself - not in the sense of being divine. Scripture itself refers to the judges as gods (e.g. Psalm 82:6). As Peter received authority to bind and loose directly and personally from the Son of God himself, could not the same be said, in the restricted sense, of him (and his successors) as said of the OT judges? If not, why not? Regardless, it is clear from the context what sense the popes intended the word.
Yep, make excuses for the papacy. That seems to be the normal thing apologist of the Roman Catholic church do for exercise. The context is already quite clear, and I believe they meant it literally!
Please provide the citation for the alleged letter written by Augustine.
I'll try to see if I can find it, it not, I'll check with the author.
Your original statement was about why Catholics leave the church. I pointed out that that is not always so.
Those are Protestants that you know, probably from your specific church. It is interchangeable to a great many Protestants.
The problem, dear friend, is the lack of a central authority figure. [excerpt]I think Christ makes a great central authority figure.
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.