Posted on 01/15/2019 9:01:47 AM PST by Salvation
Councils plural?
Just WHY would there be a need for more than one?
Didn't get it quite 'right' to begin with?
the prototype being the one in Jerusalem Please clue me in to this one, so I can seen where y'all started from.
This is known as going on the OFFENSE; as there really is NO defense for the SAME thing happening in HER neck of the woods!
https://www.google.com/search?q=schims+in+catholic+church&ie=&oe=
Then there are the PRE-Vatican 2 folks and the POST Vatican 2 folks and the “Frank is a COMMUNIST!!!” folks and the “Bring back the RACK” folks and the flagellists and the stigmatists and the Mary worshipers and the...
Am I on the same page with you and Mom and Nana??
I guess anything else must be a lie; right??
When therefore we read in the writings of Saint Bernard, Saint Bernardine, Saint Bonaventure, and others that all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin, they mean that the authority which God was pleased to give her is so great that she seems to have the same power as God. Her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands in the sense that he never resists his dear mother’s prayer because it is always humble and conformed to his will.... St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, #27, 246.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
Trailing quite closely behind (or maybe even in front) of the Strawman is the Red Herring and the Rabbit Hole
...or the politician’s: “I’m glad you asked that question.”
...or the (often found here), “Uh; I don’t quite understand that.”
Step away from the Dulcolax!
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.* If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”
Two unrelated verses taken out of context.
Jesus' comment about listening to the church is strictly in the matter of resolving disputes between believers.
It is NOT about establishing the absolute authority of one church governing body over all believers for all of the church age nor is it anything at all about establishing a church hierarchy or anything remotely resembling the papacy.
Nor does it mean by default Roman Catholicism, in spite of their retroactive claim that Jesus is talking about that particular denomination.
Matthew 18:15-20 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
Basically all He's doing is telling the procedure for settling disputes and how to treat a person who will not listen.
It doesn't say they are going to hell or they've been ex-communicated. There was no recognition of *church membership* in those days so you can't even claim it's equivalent to removing them from the membership rolls (which I have no problem with.)
It's simply to treat them as an unbeliever, and that does NOT mean what many people think it does these days.
Jesus tells us how to relate to those who are considered our enemies in the Beatitudes.
What you said.
And the especially slippery Red Herring Fish Hat Strawman, hopping down a Rabbit Hole, saying, "Words mean what I want them to mean."
They use the same weak argument about calling their priests *father*.
ANYTHING to hang onto and justify their doctrine.
Historically, that's the reason there have been Councils, the prototype being the one in Jerusalem, so they'd all be in one Body, with one Head, led by the same Holy Spirit.
Just like these non differences between Roman Catholicism and the Easter Orthodox, right?
You know, the differences that caused the Great Schism some 1,000 years ago that has had no resolution since then?
All within one supposedly unified church.
In light of the major differences between just these two branches of Catholicism, I wonder how Catholics can, with a straight face, critique and condemn non-Catholic Christianity for having "doctrinal differences".
The Eastern Orthodox differ with Roman Catholicism on these issues:
The Holy Spirit (the filioque)
In EO - The third person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father alone as in the original Nicene Creed. The Father sends the Spirit at the intercession of the Son. The Son is therefore an agent only in the procession of the Spirit.
In RC - 'When the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He is not separated from the Father, He is not separated from the Son'.
Mary - Assumption and Immaculate conception of
EO - The Assumption is accepted and it is agreed that Mary experienced physical death, but the Immaculate conception is rejected. Orthodox belief is that the guilt of original sin is not transmitted from one generation to the next, thus obviating the need for Mary to be sinless.
RC - Both are dogmas of the church. The church has not as yet decided whether Mary actually experienced Physical death. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary, was at conception 'preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin' and should not be confused with the virgin birth.
Pope - Authority of
EO - As the Bishop of Rome, he has a primacy of honour when Orthodox, not of jurisdiction. At present, his primacy is not effective as the papacy needs to be reformed in accordance with Orthodoxy. His authority is thus no greater or lesser than any of his fellow Bishops in the church.
RC - The Pope is the 'Vicar of Christ' i.e. the visible head of the church on earth and spiritual successor of St. Peter. He has supreme authority (including that over church councils) within Christendom (The Power of the keys).
Pope - Infallibility of
EO - Papal Infallibility is rejected. The Holy Spirit acts to guide the church into truth through (for example) ecumenical councils. This Orthodoxy recognises the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787) as being infallible.
RC - The Pope is infallible when, through the Holy Spirit, he defines a doctrine on faith and morals that is to be held by the whole church. This is a dogma and is therefore a required belief within Catholicism.
Purgatory
EO - An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.
RC - A place of cleansing and preparation for heaven. Also a place where the punishment due to unremitted venial sins may be expiated.
I'd say these were the "biggies", but other differences also exist. These are explained here.
http://christianityinview.com/comparison.html
One body - all believers, redeemed born again, born from above followers of Jesus.
One Head - Jesus Christ
One Holy Spirit who indwells every born again, born from above followers of Christ.
+2
Sorry Madam, but while a central magisterium of manifest men of God should be the goal (and Westminster affirms, "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith..and authoritatively to determine the same"), rather than a divided "kingdom," the arrogance and recalcitrance of Rome is what necessitated the latter and she is doctrinally disqualified from having the very position she seeks to impose over all, and sets her contrary to the Acts 15 council you seek to enlist for support.
For whereas Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares under a Roman pope, this premise was not the basis for the validity and veracity of the council in Acts 15.
And which stands in contrast to that of Rome in other ways as well.
1. This was not called by any pope (cf. Can. 338 §1."It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council,,,") or emperor (as with the first 8). Paul actually was the only apostle to call a (local) council and with no mention of Peter, nor does Acts 15 say they went to see Peter, but the apostles collectively.
2. Rather than the church looking to Peter as her visible supreme head as Catholics are to do, much less reigning in Rome, after Acts 15 he is not even mentioned in Acts, and is only mentioned in two of the epistles besides his own two, nor in the messages to the churches in Acts 2+3). Despite the extensive instructions on the life of faith nowhere therein is there any reminder to the churches to submit to him as head (and who is listed after James in Gal. 2, and is the only apostle to be rebuked in Scripture) nor even mentioned among the over 30 people Paul mentions in Romans 16 (the "protection polemic" is absurd).
Instead, holy Spirit-filled (far more than I) humble Peter is manifest as the initial street-level leader among the 12, and lead pastor of the first church and the first one to bind (in discipline) and loose, to use the gospel keys to the kingdom, into which believers are translated upon believing the gospel. (Col. 1:13,14), and exercising a general pastoral role in his own epistles as "an apostles," "an elder." But for whom no planned successor is mentioned or intimated, nor for the apostle James after his martyrdom in Acts 12:1,2.
3. And rather than preaching the baptismal regeneration gospel of Rome, Peter preached the evangelical gospel to Cornelius and company, that of the washing of regeneration by faith, of remission of sins by faith in the risen Lord Jesus. (Acts 10:43; 15:7-10) Which is interpretive of Acts 2:38, that it is the faith behind baptism that appropriates the washing of regeneration, and thus the promise of it is given to those who will believe as well as to those who manifest that faith.
4. Peter did not provide the conclusive judgment in Acts 15 as to what should be done, but testified (along with Paul and Barnabas) to the evangelical gospel of grace, and exhorted liberty to the converts, while it was James who in confirmation to the above provided the definitive, Scripturally substantiated judgment as to what should be their position and its dissemination, which is what settled the matter .
5. The principle of conciliar judgment flows from the OT authoritative binding magisterial office, to which conditional obedience is enjoined, and disobedience punished, (Dt. 17:8-13) but which was not infallible nor was this charism ever promised or essential for preserving faith.
6. The church did not begin according to the Catholic model for assurance of Truth, with veracity assured to the magisterial stewards of express Divine revelation, and with the laity being unable to assuredly correctly ascertain the contents of Scripture, to know what it consists of, apart from faith in her.
Instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
7.Catholics do not have a Acts 15 magisterium nor do we, as a judgment, while the limited unity of the prima NT church was under incontrovertibly manifest Scriptural men of God, "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left." (2 Corinthians 6:4-7. KJV) Which was their basis for validity, not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is to be the basis for assurance of RC teaching for faithful RCs.
8. While men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither popes and councils claim to do so.
However, God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Psalm 102:18; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15) and unlike leadership which can go South, Scripture never does.
9. While evangelicals often disagree on the meaning of Scripture, such overall testify to greater unity in basic beliefs than those whom Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death, as Catholics disagree on the meaning of both Scripture and the teachings of their church. And it is not the place of the laity to determine who ois self-excommunicated, lest they be in conflict with leadership.
10. Seeing as Catholicism cannot be the one true NT church, as distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, and has become an unholy amalgamation with the extremes from cultic traditional devotees to liberal proabortion, prohomosexual members, then conservative evangelicals cannot become part of this distressed deformation of the NT church. 11. "Protestantism" itself is too obtuse a term to have much meaning, but the most liberal denominations are typically those who are closest to Catholcis, which has a near-majority of liberals
12. The one true church church which the Lord promised to overcome the gates of Hell is not one particular organic church or groups of such (nor necessarily opposed to them), but is the Lord's body, the one true church to which He is married, since it uniquely only always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.
Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law. But when they in their trouble did turn unto the Lord God of Israel, and sought him, he was found of them. (2 Chronicles 15:3-4. KJV) The following is what pertains to what I need and the body of Christ needs to do together, in which I came much short.
So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa. And they offered unto the Lord the same time, of the spoil which they had brought, seven hundred oxen and seven thousand sheep. And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. And they sware unto the Lord with a loud voice, and with shouting, and with trumpets, and with cornets. And all Judah rejoiced at the oath: for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought him with their whole desire; and he was found of them: and the Lord gave them rest round about. (2 Chronicles 15:10-15. KJV)
How about whack a mole? 😁
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.