Universal Church

[francisdesales]

fran, A:

It seems that I am not the ONLY one that has an 'understanding' of the basic history of the CC. Dun has offered MUCH of the exact thing that I have been saying from my first post here.

I think I will exit from this "discussion", as you are not providing me anything but opinions for the situation that exists today. I prefer not to deal in biased speculation on historical matters. There are numerous ancient documents that speak for the veracity of the claims of the Catholic Church. They go back to the first and second century and continue and multiply even before Constantine made Christianity a religion beyond state persecution.

Anyone who has access to the internet can research for themselves, just like I did. I looked at both "your" point of view and the Catholic claims, and find yours stands on dreams and biased speculations. It is amazing how little the vast majority of Protestants are aware of Church history, besides the half truths of the Inquistion and the "murder of billions" by the Catholic Church... And yet, these ignorant people continue to deny what they have no clue about.

When I first came back to actively practicing Christianity, I explored both sides of the coin - and found Protestantism was an active decision to leave the ONLY Christian Church of the West. Rather than seeing that Christ established the Church, these people chose to start their OWN church. Basically, the same concept is found in the Bible - read Numbers 16 - or better yet, read the story of Adam and Eve who wanted to become "like gods" themselves. Rather than fighting the goad, you should become more humble and accepting for what GOD has offered. God has provided a visible Church and "he who rejects you (the apostles' teachings) rejects Me (Christ) and the One (the Father) who sent Me." IF the Christ established the Apostolic teachings, then refusing to follow them is rejecting Christ Himself. Thus, ignoring the linkage between Christ and the Apostles and the Catholic Church is ignoring the historical evidence that we have. Wishful thinking will not change that, nor will the events of history 1000 years removed change what Christ did in 33 AD.

If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to PM me. Otherwise, I have no desire to continue reading about what you "offer". For the time being, we will consider the Catholic claims to be true until otherwise proven false... It is YOUR choice to continue to deny the evidence. No doubt, you will have to answer for that when you are judged in the next world. The bible doesn't speak highly of false teachers, and that is what you appear to be - since you proclaim something that is false and has no historical evidence.

Peace

 

[tblaine74]

I believe I have found bad logic in the last paragraph of my original argument. The argument for the church at Jerusalem is by accident of the fact that this is where the council presides. The argument for the church at Rome is poorly deduced from the excerpt of Irenaeus. The claim by Irenaeus is not logically exclusive. To claim that all must agree with one church does not exclude that all must agree with each other, or, in the context of his argument, with the churches of apostolic succession. After further research I find myself more in line with the Eastern Church. I do not want to leave the Western Rite. However, with my present understanding, or lack thereof, of the truth, I must. Help! I submit the following for debate:

Galatians 2:9 (New International Version)

“James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.â€Â

While appealing to the authority of these pillars, if Peter’s status was specially regarded, why not appeal to it as well, or even in lieu of this lesser recognition? If one is making an appeal for credibility, why plead to less as oppose to more?

FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA

“The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome.â€Â

If Rome’s authority was universal, how can comparison be drawn to it as a means of justification? If Rome’s authority is universal, then of course it has regional authority.

First Council of Constantinople

“Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.â€Â

This argument relies on a premise which insinuates authority as a consequence of social significance among the apostolic churches. If the chair of Peter had thus far been recognized as the validation for authority, why would anyone submit this logic?

Summa Theologiae III, 22, 4c

"Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a prefiguration of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ"

http://mafg.home.isp-direct.com/book/v1c10s2.htm

The new Code described the pope as "chief of all the holy priests of God," and Justinian's own laws spoke of Rome as "the source of all priesthood," and decreed that "the most holy pope of old Rome shall be the first of priests."

Justinian was a Roman emperor. Why would he decree that "the most holy pope of old Rome shall be the first of priests" if this was already accepted?

There are several letters around the fifth century that argue for the primacy of the Roman church. Why must they argue for something that, if correct, should be so elementary and fundamental?

St. Cyprian – The Unity of the Catholic Church

If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven†(St. Matthew 16:18). And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep†(St. John 21:16). It is on him that He builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;†(St. John 20:21, 22) yet, He founded a single Chair. That He might set forth unity, He established by His authority the origin of that unity, as having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he confidence that he is in the Church?

These words are powerful, especially considering they were written around A. D. 251. However, it is easy to recognize authority in that which one is in agreement with. St. Cyprian himself rewords this text at a time when he is no longer in agreement with Rome. In these texts he builds his argument from scripture. Why does he need to do that?

 

[A-Christian]

tbaline,
Although my disscussions with MEC and the newcomer are over because of their inabilty to support their position, I will be glad to continue this with you.

While I ponder the question you posed at the end of your post, here are some additional quotes dating much earlier than Cyprian's, concerning Rome being the seat of the visable leader of the Church.

Pope Clement I

"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).


Hermas

"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).


Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

Peace

 

[tblaine74]

A-Christian,
Thank you. I have read these before as well. I don’t think that there is any question that the church at Rome held a natural supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs. I have trouble finding, in this historical context, that which suggest this supremacy was recognized as conferred from above, rather than as a result of circumstance. Perhaps more aptly put, I have trouble finding that which suggests the authority was traditionally recognized, by the Church as a whole, as emanating from the chair of St. Peter, as opposed to Rome’s superior tradition (as Iranaeus puts it). Stating that the college of bishops must agree particularly with the bishop of Rome is an advancement that I have yet to reconcile with the early Church.

 

[Imagican]

A-Christian,
Thank you. I have read these before as well. I don’t think that there is any question that the church at Rome held a natural supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs. I have trouble finding, in this historical context, that which suggest this supremacy was recognized as conferred from above, rather than as a result of circumstance. Perhaps more aptly put, I have trouble finding that which suggests the authority was traditionally recognized, by the Church as a whole, as emanating from the chair of St. Peter, as opposed to Rome’s superior tradition (as Iranaeus puts it). Stating that the college of bishops must agree particularly with the bishop of Rome is an advancement that I have yet to reconcile with the early Church.

Ah, tblaine, watch it. For you too have questioned exactly what most historians have also.
and don't forget that once Constantine ended Christian persecution, that those Catholics in Rome were then made MOST powerful that had an Emperor as their ally.

Circumstances, as you refer, at this time deeply favored the church in Rome. Certainly adding sway to 'their interpretation' of organization and doctrine that they were most definitely able to defend with the power of the ENTIRE power of the Roman empire at their disposal.

So, what the CC would refer to as orthodox, is often nothing other than what was FORCED into Christianity by the RCC. And much indication is offered that they had NOT simply followed in the footsteps of the apostles, but introduced MUCH of their previous pagan ritual into their 'created doctrine'.

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

tblaine,

I think that what was witnessed with Cyprian was nothing more than a difference of opinion with Pope Stephen over the matter of re-baptizing heretics. It was a custom of the Catholic Churches in Africa to re-baptize any entering the Church, even if they had been baptized outside the Church by heretics. Cyprian wrote the "Unity of the Catholic Church" around 251 A.D. at a time when the pope was St. Cornelius. Years later when the pope was St. Stephen, Cyprian was catching flak from pope Stephen on Cyprian's refusal to accept one baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, given to those outside the Catholic Church by heretics. For those reading this, Cyprian was a Bishop of Africa, and felt strongly that anyone entering the Catholic Church should be baptized in the Catholic Church, even if they had been baptized by heretics outside the Church. This is still the case today, as the Catholic Church still recognizes one baptism, provided it was in the name of the trinity, even though many Protestants do not recognize baptisms performed by the Catholic Church.

Cyprian felt so strongly about this that he actually revised his "Unity of the Catholic Church" some where around 255-256 to say basically that the unity of all the bishops was what most important in the governing authority of the Church, rather than the chair of Peter being the head decision making bishop. The pope was, as popes tend to be, very patient with Cyprian, and before things reach a critical level, pope Stephen was martyred in 256 and Cyprian himself was beheaded in 258, the first African bishop to be martyred.

I have read both versions of Cyprian’s UOTCC, and find it interesting that in his second version, he reaffirmed the Catholic Church as the Church and that unity among the bishops and adherence to there teaching was critical to be considered as being in Christ’s church, but each bishop was accountable to GOD in the things his priest were doing, meaning all the bishops had an equal say. Re-baptizing heretics was a custom in Africa and Cyprian just did not want to listen to anyone (i.e. the pope) tell him otherwise. I feel there may have been a bit of pride on Cyprian’s part and I think most people can see if Cyprian’s view became the norm, where that would have taken the Church.

Just because Cyprian almost lapsed into schism, in no way takes away from the fact that there has to be a visible leader in order to keep the unity of the Church in check and history prior to Cyprian demonstrates that the chair of Peter is that authority.

Peace

 

[A-Christian]

tblaine,
I just had this funny thought of MEC being that little cartoon devil that sits on one's shoulders whispering into your ear trying to convince you that it's ok. :-D :-D

 

[francisdesales]

So, what the CC would refer to as orthodox, is often nothing other than what was FORCED into Christianity by the RCC. And much indication is offered that they had NOT simply followed in the footsteps of the apostles, but introduced MUCH of their previous pagan ritual into their 'created doctrine'.

Another indication that you don't know what you are talking about. There was no "RCC". There was only a CATHOLIC Church. The term "Roman Catholic Church" is a construct of the Anglican Church following the Reformation in their attempt to push forward the "branch" theory of the Apostolic Churches - Rome, England, and Constantinople. You won't find the term used in any official Catholic document preceding the first millenium.

This is just another fine example of what you offer - a lack of historical knowledge...

The second sentence is equally lacking of any knowledge of the events that occured. The Catholic Church, in their attempts to "bring all things to Christ", often changed the meaning of symbols - from pagan to Christian meanings. Thus, formely pagan devices now took on new, Christian meaning. This is the idea of inculturation - that is how Christianity spreads in foreign lands. One nice example is the Christmas tree. Very few people consider it a "pagan" symbol, though it once was. Now, because of Catholicism, Christians think about the tree as a Christian symbol. That's the idea of inculturation at work.

As usual, MEC, you spout off stuff that has no bearing in historical reality and call it "TRUTH". I would highly suggest that you read writings of the men who were present before making your assumptions. It appears clear to me that you first became Protestant before actually doing any real research on the historical facts of Christianity. Now, because you do not want to admit the reality of history, you feel forced to invent your own history.

Hey, if you can live with what you know is a lie, that's your decision. But don't come here "offering" it here. Very few people here appreciate false teachers.

 

[A-Christian]

Galatians 2:9 (New International Version)

“James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.â€Â

While appealing to the authority of these pillars, if Peter’s status was specially regarded, why not appeal to it as well, or even in lieu of this lesser recognition? If one is making an appeal for credibility, why plead to less as oppose to more?

2:9 only indicates that Peter is not a control freak. Two verses later does indicate the primacy of Peter.

Let's not forget the book of Acts either tblaine. Peter was definately in charge.

Peace

 

[stovebolts]

Sorry I"ve been away for a bit and havn't caught up with this thread, but this caught my eye.

The Catholic Church, in their attempts to "bring all things to Christ", often changed the meaning of symbols - from pagan to Christian meanings. Thus, formely pagan devices now took on new, Christian meaning. This is the idea of inculturation - that is how Christianity spreads in foreign lands.

There used to be a saying within the Roman Empire. It went something like this.

There is no other name which one can be saved, than by the name of Cesar. It' not only how Christianity spread to foreign lands, it's how Christianity took over the foreigners in their own land.

 

[Imagican]

Stove,

Thanks for your comment.

It seems that the 'same' spirit still exists in the CC.

Firstly, Let me rephrase what I offered. Instead of RCC, let me offer the CC 'IN ROME', (for we well KNOW that there were DIFFERENT groups all over the known world at the time; Eastern sects, Western sects, etc....).

We were WARNED NOT TO DO AS THE PAGANS. We were NEVER told to incorporate their ritual INTO Christianity. Quite the opposite in fact. And WOW, taking a pagan holiday and 'calling' it something 'different' doesn't CHANGE the TRUTH? Christmas is a perfect example of just such a situation. "Calling" a pagan Holiday 'Christmas' doesn't alter the TRUTH that we don't even KNOW the date of Christ's birth. And Christmas was NOT 'just' the CC 'picking' a day to celibrate Christ's birth, it was a matter of simply incorporating a 'pagan holiday' INTO Christianity. For the sake of NOT offending those that 'revered' this celibration, (they were WELL aware that such offense as 'abolishing' Saturnalia would offend to the point that MANY would 'deny' this NEW religion), they simply 'changed it's name' to Christmas.

Come now, my brother, you MUST be able to SEE that this is NOT "proper". That would be like 'changing' an IDOL of pagan origin, (that we have been SPECIFICALLY warned NOT TO worship such), into 'something' that we OFFER as Christian. Regardless of what you CALL the 'idol', we have been TOLD, by God, NOT to worship ANY idol. And not only are we dealing with issues of idolotry, but pure and PLAIN 'deception' in order to achieve a 'particular' goal. Do you HONESTLY 'think' that DECEPTION is 'the way' that God OR Christ, His Son, would choose to offer 'change'?

And this is EXACTLY what I have tried to point out in this thread and others. Just CALLING 'something' God or Christ does NOT 'make it so'.

And this is what I refer to in that IF the CC WERE the FIRST Church, they SHOULD have been WELL aware that they WERE their 'brothers keepers', and KNOWING this, most surely would have done EVERYTHING in their power to teach their followers the TRUTH regardless of the consequences.

We have numerous examples of the CC 'adding' things into Christianity for the sake of 'themselves'. For fear that their 'religion' may be rejected by the masses, they simply altered the names of these 'things' so as NOT to offend those that they wished to 'convert'.

And fran, you may well not 'like' what I have offered, (I probably wouldn't like someone calling my mother a 'drunk' EVEN if she WERE), but your accusations of my claims being foundless are a feeble attempt to alter the truth.

Now, HOW could the CC be 'TRULY' following in Spirit and not even be able to accept the truth of their own actions?

When I stated the 'same spirit' what I was refering to is the 'same spirit' that those were obviously filled with when they would 'choose' to imprison those that spoke out or published FACTS that contradicted the teachings of the CC. That is MOST certainly NOT The Spirit of TRUTH. And it appears that this 'same spirit' continues in this 'religion'.

These statements are NOT accusation against those that 'follow' this religion, what I offer is in explanation of it's 'formation' and 'evolution', (I kinda thought that this was the purpose of this thread). So, ONLY take my words 'personal' if you 'choose to'. For my words are NOT 'meant' to offend ANYONE.

MEC

 

[Vic C.]

Let's not forget the book of Acts either tblaine. Peter was definitely in charge.

Hmm, that's debatable. I'd say James had more of an influence over the Church in Jerusalem than Peter. He was their first Bishop; he was the one whom Paul came to when delivering the monetary offerings; he was the one that Peter insisted was informed when he (Peter) "escaped" from prison. James was the prominent figure at the Jerusalem and was the last to speak... in other words, he had the last word. 8-)

I'd say, from a historical perspective, James was in charge.

 

[francisdesales]

fran, you may well not 'like' what I have offered, (I probably wouldn't like someone calling my mother a 'drunk' EVEN if she WERE), but your accusations of my claims being foundless are a feeble attempt to alter the truth.

MEC

I still await your evidence to the contrary. All you offer is speculation, all very easily explained that does not take away from the historical fact that Christ established ONE historical Church, the Catholic Church. The Spirit guides this Church and that promise continues to this day. So if HE decides to inculturate, bringing pagans into the Church and teaching them PROPER and CORRECT worship by altering what they were doing, who are you to question?

For two weeks, I have been asking for evidence of this other Church that co-existed with the Catholic Church in 100 AD, one that was "from the Bible", one that the Catholic Church usurped that position from. Your silence on the issue is telling - you have nothing to offer but smoke and mirrors. Bring up the evil past all you want. The Jews also had an evil past, and yet, THEY and THEY ALONE worshipped the True God correctly before Jesus Christ came to call all nations to Himself through this community, the Catholic Church. Would you now argue that the Jews ALSO were usurping the role as "people of God"??? Well, you might as well toss the Bible into the stack of other so-called "holy books" then.

I see you make a big deal about things "added". Again, merely speculation. We really don't know at what point many doctrines were actually part of the Christian church and at when. Just because we have someone writing about the Trinity in 180 AD does NOT mean that men were not ALREADY BEING TAUGHT THAT beforehand by Paul HIMSELF... Nor do we necessarily agree that ANYTHING was "added" to begin with. If we can't even agree on whether something was "added", what does that say about your "evidence"? That it is biased and speculation. Worthless in this arena...

Until you provide hard, written evidence from the men living at the time that shows an "alter" Christianity that considered themselves orthodox and linked by apostolic succession, you got nothing but sour grapes. What is sad is that you continue lying to yourself. Surely, you must realize by now that your position is clearly resting upon wishful thinking, not unbiased logic.

Regards

 

[A-Christian]

James was the prominent figure at the Jerusalem and was the last to speak... in other words, he had the last word.

The host having the last word is not unusual. Peter led that very council.
There is plenty of evidence in the NT that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

Peace

 

[stovebolts]

Ok, call me dull, but I don’t really understand exactly what Peter has to do with all of this anyway.

First of all, every Christian can say the same thing about Peter, regardless of which denomination they’re from. Unfortunately, what it appears is happening is that the Roman Catholic Church is trying to usurp it’s authority by staking a proprietary claim on Peter. This approach doesn’t fly with the Eastern Orthodox and it certainly doesn’t fly with the Protestants which in essence were born out of the Roman Catholic Church. To make this point, somebody do the homework and show me the century that the West had to prove their authority and I’m willing to bet that push didn’t come to shove until 1054. Where did that put Peter up until the great schism since one of the main reasons the Catholic Church was divided was due to the authority of the Papacy since Rome wanted the final authority. If history has anything to shed on this fact, is that when the West started staking it’s claim as the primary authority, the church as a whole protested and was for once, truly divided. What a shame.

Peter was rebuked by Jesus, and he was rebuked by Paul. Both times he came to repentance which is something we can all learn from. If the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of anything, it’s guilty of trying to take the seat of honor by force, which has always led to protest. In my opinion, the best thing that’s ever happened to the Roman Catholic Church in the past 500 years has been Vatican 2. I hope that Pope Benedict continues to call for reconciliation and keeps the momentum of Pope John Paul rolling.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Ok, call me dull, but I don’t really understand exactly what Peter has to do with all of this anyway.

First of all, every Christian can say the same thing about Peter, regardless of which denomination they’re from. Unfortunately, what it appears is happening is that the Roman Catholic Church is trying to usurp it’s authority by staking a proprietary claim on Peter. This approach doesn’t fly with the Eastern Orthodox and it certainly doesn’t fly with the Protestants which in essence were born out of the Roman Catholic Church. To make this point, somebody do the homework and show me the century that the West had to prove their authority and I’m willing to bet that push didn’t come to shove until 1054. Where did that put Peter up until the great schism since one of the main reasons the Catholic Church was divided was due to the authority of the Papacy since Rome wanted the final authority. If history has anything to shed on this fact, is that when the West started staking it’s claim as the primary authority, the church as a whole protested and was for once, truly divided. What a shame.

Peter was rebuked by Jesus, and he was rebuked by Paul. Both times he came to repentance which is something we can all learn from. If the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of anything, it’s guilty of trying to take the seat of honor by force, which has always led to protest. In my opinion, the best thing that’s ever happened to the Roman Catholic Church in the past 500 years has been Vatican 2. I hope that Pope Benedict continues to call for reconciliation and keeps the momentum of Pope John Paul rolling.

And those who are ardent followers of Rome (they used to be called Romanists and Papists) argue that Vatican 2 has no binding on the "true" Roman Catholic church - that in fact, the so-called "Chair of Peter" or is it a cushion, does not have a rightful "pope" sitting in it.

 

[Imagican]

tblaine,
I just had this funny thought of MEC being that little cartoon devil that sits on one's shoulders whispering into your ear trying to convince you that it's ok. :-D :-D

So long as you don't refer to me as 'the little angel' on the other side, label me as you will.

Folks, I KNOW that the truth is sometimes hard to swallow. As we get older, all of us have a tendency to 'forget' who we REALLY are. For the TRUTH of our past often HURTS. So instead of facing it and owing up to it, we instead choose to 'pretend' that it didn't really exist as it 'truly did'.

What differentiates those that TRULY mature and those that don't is the ABILITY to ACCEPT the TRUTH.

What I see here is an attempt to institute the 'concept' of 'political correctness' in exchange for TRUTH. Since what I have to offer doesn't make 'some' HAPPY, then I shouldn't say it. Hmmmmm.... That's kinda the direction that the 'churches' have taken since the 'idea' of a 'church' being some 'building' in which gatherings take place. "If we don't LIKE what The Word says, then we'll just 'alter it somehow'.

The Jews did the EXACT same thing. The Rabis, over time, decided that they could benefit MORE by 'altering' the LAW and simply offered NEW interpretations of what had been offered by Moses and claimed that it was ORAL 'tradition' OF Moses. And that's TOO FUNNY. As we look back it doesn't even seem POSSIBLE. That the people could be 'duped' so easily. But, when we consider just how IGNORANT people were then, (most could neither read nor write), we begin to SEE how easy it would be for one to 'introduce' NEW laws and after a generation or so, the people would forget that it had EVER been any 'different'.

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

Since what I have to offer doesn't make 'some' HAPPY, then I shouldn't say it.

That's just it my friend; during this entire discussion, you have had nothing "to offer" that is relevant to the topic.

Peace

 

[stovebolts]

And those who are ardent followers of Rome (they used to be called Romanists and Papists) argue that Vatican 2 has no binding on the "true" Roman Catholic church - that in fact, the so-called "Chair of Peter" or is it a cushion, does not have a rightful "pope" sitting in it.

Yes, I've heard of them. In Metro Detroit, there area few Roman Catholic churches that have signs that state Vatican I... I know of one right off of Utica and I believe 12 or 13 mile rd? My cousin is a practicing Catholic and she's told me some stories from her old days (She speaks and reads Latin as she was brought up partially Vatican I)

Thing is, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is currently making moves in the right direction and are making those moves known, and so are many Protestant Churches. For example, I was at Old Saint Mary's in downtown Detroit a few month ago when the priest made the comment about their "Protestant Brothers" during his homily. Now I ask you, have you ever heard a Protestant preacher call a Catholic a brother during a sermon? Actually, I have, and it was from Mars Hill which ironically, has been erroneously labeled as part of the emergent church by the protestant fundamentalists. Kinda reminds me of Vatican I, but with a protestant twist.

Like the old die hards of Vatican I, we as Protestants will alway have our die hard fundamentals that can't come up to the 21st Century and the Pope will always be the Anti-Christ to them. Regardless, both parties are in the minority thank goodness.

What I believe it really comes down to though is this. We are all a part of the Catholic faith in the truest sense of it's meaning and it's truest origination which is in Christ Jesus. Where we become divided is when one member claims absolute authority and the wrestling match ensues.

Well, there's my ramble for the day... If I've spoken out of context or in error, I would appreciate the correction as this has been on my mid for quite some time.

 

[stovebolts]

"If we don't LIKE what The Word says, then we'll just 'alter it somehow'.

Hey Mike,
Actually, that sounds more like a protestant position than a Catholic position. Heck, there are so many flavors of protestantism we can't even count them all. Just look at Thomas Jefferson, if he didn't like what he read, he just tore the page out.

But were all guilty of altering the word somehow for whatever reason (assuming ignorance in most cases) and that's one reason why the Church is so important, for it should be the role of the church as a whole to come to terms with all of scripture and to maintain a level interpretation of scripture.

After all, it was the Universal Church that agreed upon the original cannon. Until a cannon was recognized, there were some that really abused the little writings that were around and all sorts of odd doctrines were forming.

The point is this, there has to be an authority that is able to interpret scripture and there has to be those that are willing to teach those scriptures in accordance to bringing about the kingdom of God. Right now, we could look at Christianity partially as the old saying, "Too many cooks in the kitchen ruins the stew".