Replies

Mad Dawg, you took this too personally, and sound as passionate as some Protest-ants.

>>an approach which arises when the community exalts itself, and effectively operates too independently of the Scriptures, and more autocratically, like the empire it was founded in.<<

>Catholic church was infected with imperial lust because it became legal to be Christian.

I did not imply that at all, and in fact i think that was an answered prayer for many, and a test, and in a previous post i indicated my sympathy in articulating the problems of separation. However, while the growth of the papacy was a processes, its continued rule over those without, as well as its use of the sword of men to enforce adherence to spiritual doctrines, was unBiblical, and for whatever motive. The result was a type of a Caesario-Papacy, with Boniface VIII even claiming “It is I who am Caesar; the Sovereign Pontiff is the only King of the Romans”, as he rode thru the city, carrying sword, globe and sceptre. (”Rome and its story”, p. 241, by Welbore St. Clair Baddeley, Lina Duff Gordon) Live on CNN!

>I think the size and age of the Church and the diversity of her culture make it hard for anyone but especially for Protestants and other non-Catholics (am I religiously correct or what?) to understand her accurately.<

I was Catholic, and remained within it for approx 6 years, serving as a lector and CCD teacher, sincerely wanting to serve God, and sought life (and found some) in Charismatic groups, and understand even more now of her size and diversity, and culture (i was raised, and live in the midst of one of the most Catholic states). And i am not imagining Rome was built in a day, but the papacy and power and the carnal power it relied upon cannot be derived from Scripture and is contrary to it, and i have already explained somewhat what this relates to (Inquisitions, etc.) and can get into more details, and it does not simply apply to Rome.

>It is sometimes good for some clerics to have the trappings of power and high status.<

Not necessarily wrong, though i don’t think you are thinking of Billy Graham in the White house, but how it is used, for what purpose, is key.

>If they really want to wear gold lamé, well, it’s not to my taste, but I’m tolerant.<

I think Peter would sell it, or use it as an investment against the dollar. The Wailing Wall Street Journal.

>We are portrayed as somehow slavishly looking to our clergy for guidance in personal hygiene.<

That is a result of RC apologists denying the validity of obtaining any doctrinal certitude by us checking things out by the Scriptures, and asserting that only by the infallible magisterium can this be obtained. Yet among Catholics, who are portrayed as being unified, this reliance is little manifest, as my stats evidence thus you might wish they did look to Rome more. Where is the Inquisition when you need it? I also showed where Catholics can have some types and degrees of dissent.

>Do we KNOW when they rejected the “Shepherd of Hermas” or how Revelation made it into the canon?<

Whatever made the saints best sellers list and stayed up there the most? Basically. One can decree what they will, and if they discern what is copyrighted by God then all the better. But as what makes a classic is its staying power, apart from compulsion, and in a competitive market, so it was and is the inherent power of the inspired writings themselves, as manifest among them that love the manna from heaven, that resulted in their confirmed codification as Scripture. For most books there was little controversy, while the place of the Apocrypha was not settled among Catholics until Trent’s formal ratification of the list of Florence, and the Apocryphal books yet remain relatively obscure among most. (Thread is dying: need more controversy) As for other books, despite the popularity of Da vinci code conspiratorialists, and the availability of such books as that of Enoch (is it 40’ or 400’ giants?), since the invention of the printing press, and the Reformation and wider literacy, it is certain these fail to meet the standard of Scripture.

>And as to the “unanimous consensus of the Fathers,” or whatever the phrase is, it’s not like they missed that Tertullian went off the rails or that there was disagreement...there were differences of opinion early on, as in Acts<

True, but again, the point was, for a supreme agency to use unanimous, where general might be closer, is a stretch. Not being permitted to “interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to...the unanimous consent of the Fathers”, requires more than the facts might. But Manning basically would respond, be nor faithless, but believing in Rome.

The problem with reconciling UC with the facts became more problematic later one, and resulted in the theory of development of doctrine being more developed. Already too long now.