Posted on 07/29/2008 4:39:52 PM PDT by annalex
I'm sorry but that simply is not a true statement.
God is a God of love but He does not love nor can He tolerate sin. Consequently, as long as we are/were vessels of sin, God's wrath rightfully rested upon us. Christ went so far as to call some "sons of the devil". Not a very loving term of endearment in my mind. I'm not sure how you could say that in a loving way. Perhaps, "God loves you and have a wonderful plan for your lives, sons of the devil". Hmmmm...perhaps it sounds better in the Greek.
The question most people neglect is how do we move from being "sons of wrath" to "children of the light", "slaves to sin" to "slave of righteousness", "sons of the devil" to "sons of God". They mistakenly think that God somehow just tolerates us and He hopes for the best that we'll come to Him. Sorry but God leads us to repentance and instills faith in us.
Logically, the leadership of the Holy Ghost cannot be with all Christians at all times
I think it's rather presumptuous any of us should think that at any time we are being "led" by the Holy Spirit. God does lead us into His path for His righteousness sake. But I recall the story of Joshua:
Jos 5:14 He said, "No; rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the LORD." And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down, and said to him, "What has my lord to say to his servant?"
God is ontologically love; He cannot do anything but love.
God is charity (1 John 4:8)will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4)
However,
Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore, and do penance. (Apoc. 3:19)
His wrath is His love also.
The Holy Ghost lead and we pray that we are following just as Joshua
It is indeed presumptious for the Protestants to speak "Holy Ghost leads us" with one voice when if He did, surely a lesser cacophony would be heard from them on any other issue. We do, however, trust the Holy Scripture which promised such leadership to the Church in no uncertain terms.
the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you (John 14:26)I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Luke 22:32)
Harley said well why that isn't true in fact, and I add that it can't even be true within Catholicism, OR, that at best He loves some much more than others. If you saw a loved one in a life-threatening situation and you had the power to save that life with no risk to yourself, would you do it because he or she was a loved one? If you say "Yes", then would God do the same thing? NO, SAYS CATHOLICISM. :)
It goes back to the question that no Catholic can answer. What is the difference between a reprobate and a believer if God loves all equally and gives everyone an "equal chance"? If everything we have comes from God then how is this difference explained? Free will is no answer because if God just gives everyone free will and then steps aside to wait to see what happens, then He doesn't love anyone at all. Would you treat your own children anything like the Catholic God treats His (supposedly beloved) children? I wouldn't in a million years. :)
...... but the promise to lead to the truth is given the Apostles, and a more specific promise to St. Peter. If you think that is an unfair state of affairs, your problem is with the evangelists if not with Christ Himself.
I don't think it's unfair, I think it's unBiblical. Catholicism has God glorifying man at His own expense. That doesn't match the scriptures.
Logically, the leadership of the Holy Ghost cannot be with all Christians at all times, because they cannot all be right all the time.
No, that's not logical at all because no one, not even the elites of your Church are right about everything all the time. That is, unless you want to claim that your elites are right about everything all the time, in which case they do not grow in the Spirit. Is it true that your Pope or your Magisterium do not grow in faith because they already know everything and are right about everything? If not, then certainly the Holy Spirit can lead all believers simultaneously. There is a different plan for each of us. We continue to grow throughout our lives, at least us serfs do. :)
John 20 doesn't teach that anyone was a “proto-church.” Again, that is isogesis from your teachings and traditions.
And NO, not “all of us” are children of God. The “New Birth,” “Regeneration” is necessary to become a child of God. If “we all are” children of God, then nothing in the Bible means anything at all. There is a great Biblical distinction between those who are children of God and those who are not. And there are children of DARKNESS. And there are children of the DEVIL. NO, not “all” are children of God.
It is unhealthy.
If by "Church" you mean the papacy, then your statement is like saying the Soviet Union was good because it was a large, burdensome, overbearing, misguided, ill-conceived, foolish, totalitarian, destructive behemoth compared to the 50 states of the USA.
Bad metaphors make for poor defense.
What personality disorder?
What a weak analogy. The poster was referring to the longevity and consistency of the RCC, and you are comparing it to a mere 70 year old regime and suggesting that the 50 states have any kind of real diversity. You are comparing a human political construct to God, the Holy Spirit. But I bet it felt good to lay out those adjectives.
No personality disorder. Just more cluster-bomb keyboarding.
The fact is that the monasteries throughout history were the engine of industrial development, the genesis of hospitals ( they wiped out leprosy in Europe ) and of course, the repository of human knowlege....oh so much more. " How the Irish Saved Western Civilization" and Thomas E. Woods book, I can't recall the title, speak to the enormous contributions the monastic life has had in our society.
One would think that Idolophobes would appreciate the single minded devotion to Christ and and his neighbor in a communal setting, but hey.....if it is Catholic....it can't be good.
Good morning, LB. Yes, it takes emotional maturity to live in community. I was just interested to see what “they” would come up with, as the defining personality disorder of monks. :D
Good morning. " They " usually don't know what they are talking about, but yes, it would be amusing to hear about the disorder, but I doubt you will. Just a hit and run.
So a “believer” goes looking for monastics, and the secular world you claim to be changing is changed how?
Those accused of "heresy" usually freely confessed to their beliefs. But they refused to recant their beliefs, and would not change their beliefs to the non-biblical papist beliefs. They were then tortured, not to obtain a confession, which the inquisitors already had, but to obtain "repentance".
The Inquistion did not consider any offense capital; people guilty of heresy were executed by the state if the state had laws against it, and the Inquisition was just as likely to plead for clemency.
OK, I've heard this one before. GIVE ME A BREAK. When the kings and dukes carried out the death sentences, they were doing so as agents of the Roman pope. Prince Juan Carlos of Spain was accused by the inquisitors, on the grounds that he was too easy on the "heretics" in the Netherlands. The inquisitors gave him aa "indulgence" in the form of an easy death.
In another post(#759), you defend the "Crusade" against the Cathars (Albigensians). Clearly, Rome wanted the Cathars exterminated. Dead. What was their offense, other than "heresy?" What was the offense of the Waldenses, other than "heresy?" What was the offense of the Abysinians, other than "heresy?"
Quite obviously, Rome considers "heresy" to be a capital offense.
Certainly, abuses occurred, but these are the general rules.
Balderdash. The "abuses" were far too widespread and much too numerous to be exceptions.
It would seem that your knowledge of the inquisition is ... somewhat biased. You obviously have the internet - please, use the internet to research the inquisition as it actually was.
Why don't you try reading some books, written by real historians, instead of the Internet trash any crank who knows HTML can sling?
How about starting with "The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision" by Henry Kamen, and then "Inquisition," by Edward Peters.
You are asking me to engage in an extrascriptural speculation in the pattern of the lying fathers of the Reformation. I decline, since we have clear scripture on the divine love for all, quoted in 842, from which we can, God willing, all profit. The difference you speak of is likewise explained in the scripture:
31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
(Matthew 25)
[God] will render to every man according to his works. (Romans 2:6)
This should answer your questions.
Yes, you're correct, originally there were no such a thing as a “parish priest” in the early Christian churches. All you had were bishops and deacons. The Apostle Paul is very clear about this. He tells us explicitly what the office of the church were to be. When he called the Ephesian bishops together, as we see in Acts 20, he said some important things to them: “From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the ELDERS of the Church. When they arrived, he said to them: ’… I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole counsel of God. Guard yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you OVERSEERS. Be SHEPHERDS of the Church of God, which He bought with His own blood’.” (Acts 20:17, 27–28).
As anyone can see, and check up for themselves, Paul called them “Elders” (plural) of the “church” (singular). The term “Elders” in the Greek Paul wrote in is the term “presbuterous”, a plural noun which means “a mature or aged person”: this term cannot be translated as “priests”, for there is a definite Greek term for that position. The term “Overseers” (plural) is the Greek term “episkopous” (plural): this is the term commonly called “bishops”. The term “Shepherds” (plural) is the Greek term “poimainein” (plural): it is commonly called “pastors”. All these words have meanings pertinent for one to understand what Paul said.
We have a very similar expression used by the Apostle Peter: “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder … Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, …” (1 Peter 5:1–2). >p> Here we have Peter using the words “presbuterous—elder,” and the word “shepherds,” which Paul used in the plural also to describe the office of the “episkopos—overseer—bishop.” Both Peter and Paul are in complete agreement that the word “presbuterous—elder” describes the character of the one who is an “episkopous—overseer—bishop.” Here, then, are two instances in which the “elders” are commanded to do the work of an “overseer”.
“What about the priests of the church?” That this question is important is beyond question. The office of bishop was never spoken of or insinuated to be a priesthood cut off from the common members of the congregation. The elders who made up this office of the bishops were never spoken of nor called priests. The deacons of the Church were never called priests, nor were the evangelists or Apostles ever call priests. Who then, was a priest? Where did this idea come from?
Checking into the earliest writings of the first and early second century we find none of them speaking of “priests” being an office in the church. They only mention Bishops and Deacons, and most of the time strictly refer to leaders as “servants” of the church. However, later writings that mention offices in the church, of which in the late second and early third century are very few, and the translators of these writings interpolate the Greek term “presbuterous” with the term “priests” in our English language. It was only in the mid to late third century and later that this term was not meant just for “Elders” of the church but for a lower order, priests.
Many historical writers of the 11th century through today, of many religious persuasions, make comments on this change of usage. Lexicons also make us aware of the distinction of the terms being changed, letting us know the original meaning and application of the terms in the New Testament writings. This idea of reading modern usages, i.e., writings later than the second century, into the early writings, IMHO, is unsound and deceptive. Tradition, not withstanding, does not substantiate the idea of “priests” as distinct from “Bishops” when a church started another church in another location.
I find it amazing that the Apostle Paul’s warnings and the prediction to the Ephesian Bishops came true not long after the apostles were no longer on the scene: “Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears” (See Acts 20:30–31). History seems to record this very thing.
Opps…Sorry, I have just been yelled at by my wife to get off the computer because our out-of-state company has arrived early – they just pulled into the driveway. I will have to get back to you later on the rest of your response to my rather long post to annalex. Type at you later…
However, whatever you belief about the nature of the Church, what makes you think you are not in need of a confession and absolution?
not “all of us” are children of God.
Again, whatever your beliefs are, what makes you think you are not in need of a confession of sins?
Is is a combination of celibacy, devotion, and communal living that the Gospel clearly advises us all to consider:
8 ...I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I32 ... He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. 33 But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. 34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment.
(1 Cor. 7)
every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.
(Matthew 19:29)
Pray without ceasing. (1 Tess. 5:17)
all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. (Acts 2:44)
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.