Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Its not clear to me what you’re saying here, but you know my stand on this issue.
What I am saying is that the "accusations" you make, using Jesus' words, against my leaders, I do nto see as any different from the early Church leaders and what they did.
So if you use Jesus to criticise the Pope, you are also criticising Peter and Paul.
Now I know you see things differently, but I don't see a difference in kind between today's bishops and Peter and Paul, only a difference in degree.
SD
There are, of course, gradations. And no one generates traffic on these posts better than you, Dave. By the way, your original point in regards to the corporate nature of the Church was right on the mark.
Yep. Missed it by 'this' much, off by a bit, close but no cigar, way off base, out in left field, and just plain wrong. ;-)
By the way, your original point in regards to the corporate nature of the Church was right on the mark.
I had a point? Oh, yes, I remember. Thanks.
SD
When Petr and Paul led the early Church, told them what to believe, and wrote them letters detailing these beliefs, Jesus didn't criticise them for trying to "lord over" them or of failing to be a "servant." Their leadership was their service.
SD
The Boston Archdiocese "Finance Council" has just authorized a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy filing for the Archdiocese of Boston. This is the same council which told poor old Cardinal Law it was not possible to implement his promise of a settlement to a group of victims.
Poor Cardinal Law, he apparently has no "authority".
The "wise" student, based on his own reading of the "textbook" rejects any "teacher" that does not agree with him. He places himself under the "authority" of a "teacher" only as much as the "teacher" agrees with the student ... in regard to the written word which both the teacher and the student can see and interpret.The alternative is that you don't even need the written word, for it is only the word of the teacher which matters.
A Catholic believes the Church is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. A Protestant believes that the Holy Spirit will personally interpret Scripture authoritatively for him.
This is, essentially, an accurate statement.
John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being [yet] present with you.26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Heh. You've got that right.
PS What I really like about this thread is how yall make up before "going to bed" LOL CD
Yes, but we are not set apart or sanctified by emulating the Jews. That has passed.
Now we are called to a spiritual cleanliness that is not affected by the foods we eat, but our actions toward others and God.
Agreed. But emulating Jews isn't the goal. Emulating Christ is. Would Jesus eat pork if he were alive today? Oh wait...he is! :-)
They sure do. And I can see where a Christian of your type might be inclined to continue the Jewish traditions. Because they are Scriptural.
My point has always been that it's not "jewish". For example Noah knew about clean and unclean animals. Abel offered sacrifices of clean animals. Scripturally they were never done away with. But I know you have tradition that says they were.
If one believes the early Church had God's authority to release Christians from the Jewish dietary laws, and if one believes this Church remains authoritatie today, it is of little surprise that it could invoke other dietary laws.
I can't argue with tradition Dave. Only scripture.
Well, that's certainly huge. It seems Cardinal Law would welcome right about now being relieved of his duties. Which is why, I reckon, he wasn't. He has a bit more reckoning to do.
SD
He was dead Dave. What criticism of Peter did he have while he was still on this earth "in the flesh"?
I'm not sure I see yoru point. Are you suggesting that Jesus did not approve of Peter and Paul writing Scripture and teaching people? Of course not.
Which is my point, that the continuation of that teaching authority is in no way what Jesus called "lording" it over others.
While Jesus was on earth in the flesh He criticised Peter for wanting to set up booths at the Transfiguration.
SD
in regard to the written word which both the teacher and the student can see and interpret.
That is precisely your assumption. Then of what use is the teacher? If the student can just as easily "read and interpret" the written Word himself?
The alternative is that you don't even need the written word, for it is only the word of the teacher which matters.
No, the alternative is that the written Word requires a concomitant understanding in order to be udnerstood well. Which takes us back to another dichotomy -- is Scripture so plain that its meaning is obvious or not?
A Catholic believes the Church is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. A Protestant believes that the Holy Spirit will personally interpret Scripture authoritatively for him.
This is, essentially, an accurate statement.
Thank you. At least two Protestants took issue with it. I don't know why.
SD
Hey, if they just agreed with you, there wouldn't be any discussion, would there?
I am reminded of the old saw that if you ask three Jews a question of theology, you'll get four different answers.
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.