Posted on 06/27/2009 10:33:55 PM PDT by bdeaner
But you didn’t say “live in Rome,” you said “I’ve never been to Italy.”
Careful. Petronski might call that “vulgar” if he were passing through Italy.
“Disagreeing with your own personal interpretation of Scripture is not lying about the Bible. You don’t have that kind of power. “
Its not my interpretation. The word Catholic are not there. The Catholic church did not exist when Jesus died for our sins. Only the Church did, the church is comprised of the bodies of the believers. It does not mean a gilded monolithic building where people go to pay a christ/priest to forgive their sins.
bdeaner, you know I appreciate your post.
However, I think this is a bit of a jump:
“They had the authority that was the hierarchical structure of the Church in which Peter, as See of Rome, was the leading authority — an authority giving to him by Christ.”
During those years, we see in Acts and the Epistles NO hierarchical structure, with Peter as the leading authority. In fact, Paul refers to Peter (and James & John) as “those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential” and “who seemed to be pillars”.
From this I deduce that from the beginning of the Church, there were many who gave extra weight to the teachings of James, Peter & John. After all, they couldn’t seem to be pillars without folks who believed they were in fact pillars.
However, I also deduce that Paul, writing under Divine Guidance, denies that their teachings were any more important than Scripture (as it existed then - the Old Testament). If “Peter, as See of Rome, was the leading authority — an authority giving to him by Christ”, then Paul could not have described him as someone “who seemed to be pillars”. For if what you said was true, then Paul would have acknowledged either Peter as A pillar, or as THE Pillar.
I believe - and remember, I’m an aging EWO, not a church scholar - that most Baptists think Apostles were responsible for providing guidance until Scripture was complete, and after that time, the role of apostle disappeared.
So what?
You do realize that to live in Rome one must first go to Italy, right?
cool graphic
Neither is the word Trinity. Do you reject the Trinity?
It does not mean a gilded monolithic building where people go to pay a christ/priest to forgive their sins.
Of course not. Christ founded the Catholic Church, not the thing you described.
driftdiver:
It seems if you stay on this Relgion forum long enough, you will continually see the same issues being debated with the same folks over and over again. I have long stopped getting into arguments with you people so I will just cite a link which describes “Eparchy’s” in the United States, which is the Eastern term for Diocese. Notice what these Churches are called, Maronite Catholic Church, Byzantine Catholic Church, etc, and all of them are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and thus they are fully Catholic but yet not Latin/Roman Rite Catholics.
http://www.byzcath.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=287&Itemid=93
Here are 2 additional links that explains the different Eastern Catholic Churches and how they are fully Catholic, yet retain Liturgical and devotional traditions different from what is associated with Catholicism in the United States, which primarily is Roman/Latin Rite.
http://maryourmother.net/Eastern.html
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/rites.htm
Pax et bonum
It was His promise when He named Simon as Peter, the first pope, but it came into being at the Pentecost, in fulfillment of His promise.
As a Catholic are you subject to the guidance, wisdom and discipline of Roman Catholics? By your own definition you would be.
So unless you are saying there are a multitude of Catholic sects then you are a Roman Catholic.
Are they all subject to the guidance and discipline of those in Rome?
No.
By your own definition you would be.
I'm sorry you're so confused.
So unless you are saying there are a multitude of Catholic sects then you are a Roman Catholic.
False dichotomy.
You've confirmed it's a pretty vapid method of discourse.
You left out the intelligence, appreciation of facts and logic, and interest in truth.
Not much fun, is it?
So you’re saying the Catholic priest at your church is NOT subject to the discipline from Rome. That if he decided to break with Church doctrine he would not be disciplined. Thats not true.
Have a blessed day, its obvious you aren’t honest and will not debate without parsing and deflecting.
Your failure indicates your mirror is broken.
“There is only ONE TRUE Church. “
Correct, that of Jesus. All else is a creation of man.
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.