Very kind response and, as usual, delivered well. But, (there's that "but"), the difference between an "organization" and a gathering is enormous. Rome has created an "organization", even a country. Yet, the English word translated "church" is a fabricated word from the Scottish term "kirk" intended to distinguish it. A feature not found in the Scriptural word. That word is of course "ecclesia" or "assembly" and the Greek NT will occasionally used it precisely for a chaotic mob. Acts 19:32; 19:39; 19:41. It was a common word, but not for a formal organization. The assembly Jesus is building is being done by His Holy Spirit blowing wherever He wishes.
I have reread Acts 2 and 10 and cannot find papalism. I find no apostolic succession. Again, please point out exactly where a "pope" is set up and a new one is going to be appointed after the death of the last one.
Sacerdotalism does not appear at the so-called "Last Supper" (a name the publishers added to the top of the pages). If this is the way Rome constructs a doctrine it is little wonder they could manufacture so much.
Indulgences are making a comeback but there is no evidence anywhere in the Scripture that a man can grant another man forgiveness before God. The Jews recognized that one would have to be God to do so.
Confession in booths. Of course I believe in confession. Even confessing sin against one another TO one another. But, this is not the confession in booths going on in the RCC which holds that men can grant one another forgiveness for some kind of penalty paid, such as six Hail Mary's, five Our Fathers. Nowhere is such nonsense found in the Scriptures.
I apologize for the Prada shoes remark. I actually thought this was the case. In view the enormous amount of gold, silk, decor, pomp & circumstance granted this man, I still find the contrast between him and Jesus shocking, yet Jesus was God on Earth. It was the errant Pharisees who loved the center stage and the RCC just looks oddly similar.
My intention is not to beat up the RCC (although that is tempting because of the great errors I notice), but to call to those involved with it to look closely at the Text. The doctrines this organization promulgates are simply not there. Much more could be said, but I have to go.
Throughout the Old Testament God had always chosen a single man to guide His Church and He has guided and protected that person through public and private Revelation. This was true of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Solomon, David and the many judges, kings and prophets that followed. It would be true of His Church too.
In His revelation Jesus specifically discussed the three possible forms of Church governance; the Democratic form, the Oligarchical form, and the Theocratic form before revealing His choice.
In this dialog Jesus asks His Disciples; "Who do the people say that I am?" (Matt 16:16). This was the Democratic option. He got answers varying from Elijah, to John the Baptist, to "One of the Prophets", but no clear, unambiguous or truthful answer. He then asked His Apostles; "Who do you say that I am?" This was the oligarchical form. None responded. These two forms were unambiguously rejected.
Then Peter stepped forward and without consulting the others said; "You are the Christ, the son of the living God.". In response to this Jesus revealed the basis and governance of His Church when He said:
“Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:17-19)
• I understand this objection, but there are many layers within the dialog of Jesus. Before we consider syntax we must consider context. Jesus and the Apostles had the conversation in Matthew 16 in Caesarea Philippi. Located near the Golan Heights the city, previously known as Panis, was built above a huge rock wall also known as the rock of the Gods. At the base of this wall was a flooded cave that local superstitions believed was a passage to the under world. It was before this wall, with the temple to Pan (the Greek God of chaos and confusion, that the conversation took place. When you factor in the possible play on words the syntax is not so clear.
Now, if this was the only passage in the Gospels that addressed the primacy of Peter there might be some room for disagreement, but there are about 50 verses that establish it. Peter, like Abram (Abraham) Jacob (Israel) and Sara (Sarah) was given a new name by God upon the bestowing of their holy office. Collectively these leave no doubt.
What is meant by Church? It certainly is not a loose aggregation of like minded persons. The English word “church”, with its history of usage, clouds and confuses the intention of this passage. The Greek word used was Ekklesia and the Hebrew / Aramaic word was Qahal. These had very specific meanings to the first century witnesses.
The concept of an Ekklesia, or the called out, was centuries old in the Greek culture. More correctly translated as a convocation, it was a specific group of people called into a hierarchical and structured assembly for a specific purpose. It was the supreme governing body of the Greek city states. It was limited to men over the age of 18 who had served at least two years of military service in the defense of the city. It alone had the power to pass a death sentence, to select, remove, or try a government official, and to declare war. There were also severe penalties for failure to assemble when called.
The Qahal is even more indicative of a fixed and hierarchical organizational structure. It was the theocratic organizational structure in ancient Israelite society.
Very kind response and, as usual, delivered well.
Thank you. I do my best and when it is not my best, I am very kindly and effectively and repeatedly informed of that fact. With great emphasis!!! :)
But, (there's that "but"), the difference between an "organization" and a gathering is enormous. Rome has created an "organization", even a country. Yet, the English word translated "church" is a fabricated word from the Scottish term "kirk" intended to distinguish it. A feature not found in the Scriptural word. That word is of course "ecclesia" or "assembly" and the Greek NT will occasionally used it precisely for a chaotic mob.
A well put point. Let us examine other languages to find out what they use.
French: église
Italian: Chiesa
Spanish: Iglesia
It is the Germans and Northern Europeans who have changed it.
German: kirche
Norwegian: Kirke
But enough of this banter. Ecclesia means chaotic mob? Let us see.
We know that it means 'congregation' of a church, as well as an assembly of citizens in ancient Greece in a particular city-state. No chaos here.
In Acts 19, the assembly of citizens is normally a rather orderly and organized, well, organization. It is just that the intention of Paul to enter Ephesus turns the orderly assembly into confusion. It is not that the term is used to indicate chaotic mob, it is the normally orderly assembly that happens to be chaotic at this point in time when confronted by this intention of Paul. The ecclesia is not the description of the mob. The mob is formed from the members of the ecclesia in reaction to Paul.
I have reread Acts 2 and 10 and cannot find papalism. I find no apostolic succession. Again, please point out exactly where a "pope" is set up and a new one is going to be appointed after the death of the last one.
I had understood your term papalism to be the office in which Peter was serving. If you had said papal succession, then of course I would have pointed to the extensive succession preparation that Paul did in order to prepare for his death, as well as point out the succession of various others throughout the NT. If one understands the role of bishop to be an office, why then the next occupier of that office is a successor.
Sacerdotalism does not appear at the so-called "Last Supper" (a name the publishers added to the top of the pages). If this is the way Rome constructs a doctrine it is little wonder they could manufacture so much.
Ah, yes. A brain fart.
Let us try this instead.
John 20: 19Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. 20And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. 21He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
My error.
Indulgences are making a comeback but there is no evidence anywhere in the Scripture that a man can grant another man forgiveness before God. The Jews recognized that one would have to be God to do so.
See above.
Confession in booths. Of course I believe in confession. Even confessing sin against one another TO one another. But, this is not the confession in booths going on in the RCC which holds that men can grant one another forgiveness for some kind of penalty paid, such as six Hail Mary's, five Our Fathers. Nowhere is such nonsense found in the Scriptures.
For forgiveness, see above again.
The idea of paying off a debt to the Lord (or temporal lord) runs deep throughout the Bible both Old and New. It is true that the Church only began writing extensively about it in the second century, so this form of Church discipline gradually came to to entire Church probably more piecemeal as bishops gradually implemented it.
I apologize for the Prada shoes remark. I actually thought this was the case. In view the enormous amount of gold, silk, decor, pomp & circumstance granted this man, I still find the contrast between him and Jesus shocking, yet Jesus was God on Earth. It was the errant Pharisees who loved the center stage and the RCC just looks oddly similar.
An examination of the estate of JPII is highly illuminating. He was the steward of Christ, yet died nearly penniless. As did his predecessors going back centuries. He lived in small papal apartments in the Vatican. He has the use of his office, yet owns nearly nothing.
My intention is not to beat up the RCC (although that is tempting because of the great errors I notice), but to call to those involved with it to look closely at the Text. The doctrines this organization promulgates are simply not there. Much more could be said, but I have to go.
Vaya con Dios, my friend. Even though your heart may be as stony as a Biblical execution, God has Grace in abundance, enough for all.