[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Although KingKai has already taken it past your capabilities. It’s interesting I state RC doctrine of salvation is “another gospel”, and Pat immediately gives me a verse on works.
[/quote]
Yep, KingKai definitely handed you your own ass. [/quote]
You are standing behind someone else and gloating? You should send him some money to help with his tuition. And then send him some more as your tuition.
[/quote]
Chuckling, actually. I am both humbled and impressed at his knowledge. He did something that almost never happens on a forum, he blew me away… I am not afraid or ashamed to admit it.
[quote]
The phrase in my avatar says- The hero carries God’s sword. You are neither. Go back and squat in the corner with Sloth, it seems you 2 are a pair.[/quote]
Is this really the best you can do?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Eh, maybe. Templar’s weren’t known for their brutality against non-combatants. After the first crusade, which could be considered a Just War, the Templars did one of two things, only killed those who were armed infidels or at least spared the women and children of the infidels. I’m sure it happened, but mostly they took back Christian lands, protected Christian pilgrims, &c. [/quote]
I’m sure you’re right. I started to research the subject of the Crusades on the net and eventually came across a listing of all the warfare and people killed over religious differences throughout history. It wasn’t even an exhaustive list and you’ve probably seen them before. That saddens me even more than just thinking about the Christian crusades!
My question is how do you keep the faith knowing that Catholisicm (and other religions) have such a horrid and cruel history? It seems that religous tolerance is the only way to go. I know there are exceptions from a human rights standpoint - i.e. the Taliban. But seriously, how does a religous person come to peace with a murderous past of their religion?[/quote]
Easy answer, my faith is not in men. Catholicism is not founded on the holiness of man, it is founded on the holiness of God and the fallenness of man. It is the Church militant, not the Church triumphant.
Let me ask you a question before I continue (if the above is not in-depth enough for you), is fighting ever the answer?[/quote]
Sure, as a last resort, fighting can be the answer. Fighting is good in self-defense (protection). Fighting can get back things stolen from you (restoration). I’m not sure I understand the Church militant. I’d rather see and be part of a Church triumphant.
[/quote]
You have to die the good death to be part of the Church triumphant, and likely go through the Church suffering to get there. Church militant are the pilgrims on earth. Basically Church militant = baptized. Church triumphant = in heaven.
Further, you have to make a distinction between the different crusades. I won’t do much of that here besides the distinction of the first crusades and later crusades.
The first crusades were a reaction against the invasion of Mohammedans and their attack in Eastern Christendom. To argue that the Church shouldn’t have helped out their fellow brethren in the first crusades, because of whatever far flung reason is to ignore this fact. The also ignore the fact that Christendom lost the Crusades (as a whole). The opposition of Christendom was not a peaceful foe. They were in the habit of invasion, attack, and forced conversion.
Other things people seem to forget is that, for example the Templars (who were supposed to be paupers), the knights were servants to the pilgrims in later crusades to the Holy Land, in the sense that they protected the pilgrims from the infidels and possibly other knights. However, most knights weren’t sworn to chivalry, and often assumed that their reward would be booty and not necessarily like the Templars’ reward: salvation.
I was educated for a time at a Jesuit institution, but I now disavow that association.
I came into this thread because you wanted to move our conversation here. Now you’re stuck with me.
Both you and Pat have implied I know nothing of your doctrine, yet we have discussed Peter, as well as Paul’s teaching on the law and justification. We will get back to Mt 16:18, so study up. Although KingKai has already taken it past your capabilities. It’s interesting I state RC doctrine of salvation is “another gospel”, and Pat immediately gives me a verse on works. I guess he knows I know what the issue is. I guess I know something huh?
But let’s just do a short one in the interim:
I don’t think the pope should allow himself to be addressed as “Holy Father”, let alone Most Holy Father, because it is a term used to address my Heavenly Father, and NEVER used to refer to any man. How does your papa have the audacity to appropriate it for himself?[/quote]
That is not a Catholic doctrine. Seems like your hung up on minutia. You said you have issues with Catholic doctrine. BC asked you to name one, explain it correctly and then explain your issue with it.
The pope cannot control how he is referred. The name he chose for himself is Pope Benedict XVI. Seems like you don’t know any Catholic doctrine.
Put up or shut up, Chen.[/quote]
As you should have already noted from above, what exactly a Catholic doctrine is needed some clarification.
[/quote]
Proof that our admonitions about you not knowing them are true. If you don’t even know what qualifies as a Catholic doctrine, how do you know you disagree with it. You seem more like a cheerleader than a knowledgeable apologist. You are just going along with what somebody has told you and your not even sure why.
I am not going to help you with this. You have an issue with Catholic doctrine, and you don’t even know what qualifies? That’s just bad.
[quote]
As far as your claim the pope is not able to control what people call him, absolutely ridiculous.
His habit of taking a name like a king is peculiar. Does this have some precedent in Scripture that I’ve missed, or perhaps during the early decades of church life?[/quote]
I believe in Chronicles or Kings there is some sort of precedent. It’s been a while since I read them so I do not remember off hand.
It’s just merely a symbolic action of taking off your old self and putting on a new self. It’s not really that important, it’s just tradition. I cannot imagine why something so small bothers you so much. Who cares really? He doesn’t have to change his name if he doesn’t want to, I imagine most do it because their birth names are difficult for the world populous.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Eh, maybe. Templar’s weren’t known for their brutality against non-combatants. After the first crusade, which could be considered a Just War, the Templars did one of two things, only killed those who were armed infidels or at least spared the women and children of the infidels. I’m sure it happened, but mostly they took back Christian lands, protected Christian pilgrims, &c. [/quote]
I’m sure you’re right. I started to research the subject of the Crusades on the net and eventually came across a listing of all the warfare and people killed over religious differences throughout history. It wasn’t even an exhaustive list and you’ve probably seen them before. That saddens me even more than just thinking about the Christian crusades!
My question is how do you keep the faith knowing that Catholisicm (and other religions) have such a horrid and cruel history? It seems that religous tolerance is the only way to go. I know there are exceptions from a human rights standpoint - i.e. the Taliban. But seriously, how does a religous person come to peace with a murderous past of their religion?[/quote]
Easy answer, my faith is not in men. Catholicism is not founded on the holiness of man, it is founded on the holiness of God and the fallenness of man. It is the Church militant, not the Church triumphant.
Let me ask you a question before I continue (if the above is not in-depth enough for you), is fighting ever the answer?[/quote]
Sure, as a last resort, fighting can be the answer. Fighting is good in self-defense (protection). Fighting can get back things stolen from you (restoration). I’m not sure I understand the Church militant. I’d rather see and be part of a Church triumphant.
[/quote]
You really have to look at the honest history of the Crusades. In a nut shell they were wars like any other. Their intention was to stop the conquest of the Moors from Jerusalem and Europe.
Had their not been Crusades, Christianity may literally have ceased existing.
Yes, bad people did bad things, but not everybody was bad and not everything done was bad. Keep in mind the time and the culture of the times. You don’t always find the most savory people who are willing to wield a sword and plunge it in to another person.
It was indeed a dirty job, and sometime hands had to get dirty to fix problems, that’s just the way the world works. Back then the Church was also a political figure, so if Europe had problems, so did the church and vice versa. It’s easy to criticize 800 years later, living in comfort relatively free from threats and intimidation.
I also must point out that nobody, no entity or nation or church, or affiliation is without sin, with out some horrors in their history. If some are fewer it’s because the history is shorter and the participants are fewer.
I don’t suppose you are renouncing you American Citizenship over what we did to the Indians, though few can argue that it wasn’t completely horrible and unjustified?
Similarly, I am not renouncing my church citizenship because some people a long time ago did some bad things.
[quote]Leanna wrote:<<< I’m not sure I understand the Church militant. I’d rather see and be part of a Church triumphant. [/quote]Now to answer your question.
The church “militant” is on earth strugginlg with sin and the devil anc the church “triumphant” are those who have already died and are in heaven. In Catholicism that is. Not surprisingly I don’t hold the same version of this that they do. THE church IS triumphant in Christ. Always has been.
[quote]pat wrote:
Is this really the best you can do?[/quote]
This line of yours is getting old. You’ll need to think of a new snappy retort if you want to keep up readership. I recommend leaving out the foul language though; it cheapens the effort.
I was educated for a time at a Jesuit institution, but I now disavow that association.
I came into this thread because you wanted to move our conversation here. Now you’re stuck with me.
Both you and Pat have implied I know nothing of your doctrine, yet we have discussed Peter, as well as Paul’s teaching on the law and justification. We will get back to Mt 16:18, so study up. Although KingKai has already taken it past your capabilities. It’s interesting I state RC doctrine of salvation is “another gospel”, and Pat immediately gives me a verse on works. I guess he knows I know what the issue is. I guess I know something huh?
But let’s just do a short one in the interim:
I don’t think the pope should allow himself to be addressed as “Holy Father”, let alone Most Holy Father, because it is a term used to address my Heavenly Father, and NEVER used to refer to any man. How does your papa have the audacity to appropriate it for himself?[/quote]
That is not a Catholic doctrine. Seems like your hung up on minutia. You said you have issues with Catholic doctrine. BC asked you to name one, explain it correctly and then explain your issue with it.
The pope cannot control how he is referred. The name he chose for himself is Pope Benedict XVI. Seems like you don’t know any Catholic doctrine.
Put up or shut up, Chen.[/quote]
As you should have already noted from above, what exactly a Catholic doctrine is needed some clarification.
[/quote]
Proof that our admonitions about you not knowing them are true. If you don’t even know what qualifies as a Catholic doctrine, how do you know you disagree with it. You seem more like a cheerleader than a knowledgeable apologist. You are just going along with what somebody has told you and your not even sure why.
I am not going to help you with this. You have an issue with Catholic doctrine, and you don’t even know what qualifies? That’s just bad.
[quote]
As far as your claim the pope is not able to control what people call him, absolutely ridiculous.
His habit of taking a name like a king is peculiar. Does this have some precedent in Scripture that I’ve missed, or perhaps during the early decades of church life?[/quote]
I believe in Chronicles or Kings there is some sort of precedent. It’s been a while since I read them so I do not remember off hand.
It’s just merely a symbolic action of taking off your old self and putting on a new self. It’s not really that important, it’s just tradition. I cannot imagine why something so small bothers you so much. Who cares really? He doesn’t have to change his name if he doesn’t want to, I imagine most do it because their birth names are difficult for the world populous. [/quote]
This is Catholic Q and A Pat, I might bring up something in regards to Catholicism that I’m not clear about. But feel free to ignore me. I was having that discussion with someone else anyway.
So you haven’t read Chronicles or Kings recently? I thought you were a committed Christian. We committed Christians read our bible DAILY. I average reading through the whole bible once every 3 months. I’ve done this for 30 years. You complain about me not coming up with the goods, but you’re going to refer to something that you think might be in the bible. Why don’t you look it up? Don’t you have a bible study tool on your computer? Although you’d have to know at least a word or two contained in the verse in question to find it.
The reason I make an issue of it is because a leader like him should avoid all such displays as an example of humility. This is the what you find in the NT. And nobody calls him by his name anyway. The call him “most holy father”. Otherwise he could be addressed as Pope Joseph, like the apostles used their first names. He does it to emphasize his power Pat. His term is called a reign. In the past he had the ability to negotiate with, and even squeeze out kings. Of course the exact opposite of what Christ said he should be doing.
And I’ll add that he didn’t choose his name as a “symbolic action of taking off your old self and putting on a new self”. At least not according to his own words as quoted on Wikipedia. But I’m a bit ignorant, maybe you can explain it better.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
We committed Christians read our bible DAILY. I average reading through the whole bible once every 3 months. I’ve done this for 30 years. [/quote]
At school, there was this kid, his dad the read the whole Bible every day. Twice. For 47 years. It’s true.
Sorry, I can’t get the video here. So naturally I don’t understand what your getting at. I suspect you’re making some kind of joke. But I won’t put words in your mouth.
If we’re going to have strange rules so that we can’t make things up (because you know only using the Bible really stopped all those heresies), I say we use the longest used vocabulary and language the Bible has used, theological Latin.[/quote]
Heresy is primarily about how you use the words. I could just as easily use your RC vocabulary and make heresy.
Use Latin? Then everyone would have to study Latin before they could learn any bible doctrine. The beauty of Scripture is it’s own vocabulary is largely adequate to teach anything.[/quote]
Yes, so stop making ridiculous rules. Define your definitions, make distinctions and move on. Doctrine is not the same thing as a systematic teaching of biblical truth. [/quote]
So are you wanting to explain the RC systematic teaching on humility? I don’t know how you could make one.[/quote]
Chris,
Originally, you asked if I had a question about RC doctrine. I asked about the pope’s use of the title “Most Holy Father” and you said it’s not a doctrine. I suggested it is a question of humility which relates to the doctrine of man. We protestants consider this a major bible doctrine. Finally we have come to your statements above. If you don’t want to discuss the title the pope uses, that’s fine. Hand that one to Pat, as he seems to have taken it up anyways. I am asking if you are inclined to discuss the RC teaching on humility, rather than go on about the pope’s title.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
As far as your claim the pope is not able to control what people call him, absolutely ridiculous.[/quote][/quote]
Well, his parents do in fact name him at birth…so I’m not sure how much control he has. Pope Joseph. Or Pope Ratzinger. However, I’m still digging the B16 or Papa Clouds (my personal nickname for him, have you seen his magnificent hair?)
Name like a king? Like changing his name? Well, yeah…Abraham, Peter, &c. Persons in the early Church would often change their names when they were confirmed in their faith, as being a new person adopted into a royal family.
[quote]
I believe in Chronicles or Kings there is some sort of precedent. It’s been a while since I read them so I do not remember off hand.
It’s just merely a symbolic action of taking off your old self and putting on a new self. It’s not really that important, it’s just tradition. I cannot imagine why something so small bothers you so much. Who cares really? He doesn’t have to change his name if he doesn’t want to, I imagine most do it because their birth names are difficult for the world populous. [/quote]
Isaiah 22. Steward of King David’s kingdom is given the keys of authority which allow him to loose and bound…like Jesus did to Peter.
[quote]Leanna wrote:<<< I’m not sure I understand the Church militant. I’d rather see and be part of a Church triumphant. [/quote]Now to answer your question.
The church “militant” is on earth strugginlg with sin and the devil anc the church “triumphant” are those who have already died and are in heaven. In Catholicism that is. Not surprisingly I don’t hold the same version of this that they do. THE church IS triumphant in Christ. Always has been.[/quote]
That’s because you don’t understand the theology behind it.
If we’re going to have strange rules so that we can’t make things up (because you know only using the Bible really stopped all those heresies), I say we use the longest used vocabulary and language the Bible has used, theological Latin.[/quote]
Heresy is primarily about how you use the words. I could just as easily use your RC vocabulary and make heresy.
Use Latin? Then everyone would have to study Latin before they could learn any bible doctrine. The beauty of Scripture is it’s own vocabulary is largely adequate to teach anything.[/quote]
Yes, so stop making ridiculous rules. Define your definitions, make distinctions and move on. Doctrine is not the same thing as a systematic teaching of biblical truth. [/quote]
So are you wanting to explain the RC systematic teaching on humility? I don’t know how you could make one.[/quote]
Chris,
Originally, you asked if I had a question about RC doctrine. I asked about the pope’s use of the title “Most Holy Father” and you said it’s not a doctrine. I suggested it is a question of humility which relates to the doctrine of man. We protestants consider this a major bible doctrine. Finally we have come to your statements above. If you don’t want to discuss the title the pope uses, that’s fine. Hand that one to Pat, as he seems to have taken it up anyways. I am asking if you are inclined to discuss the RC teaching on humility, rather than go on about the pope’s title.[/quote]
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
As far as your claim the pope is not able to control what people call him, absolutely ridiculous.[/quote][/quote]
Well, his parents do in fact name him at birth…so I’m not sure how much control he has. Pope Joseph. Or Pope Ratzinger. However, I’m still digging the B16 or Papa Clouds (my personal nickname for him, have you seen his magnificent hair?)
Name like a king? Like changing his name? Well, yeah…Abraham, Peter, &c. Persons in the early Church would often change their names when they were confirmed in their faith, as being a new person adopted into a royal family.
[quote]
I believe in Chronicles or Kings there is some sort of precedent. It’s been a while since I read them so I do not remember off hand.
It’s just merely a symbolic action of taking off your old self and putting on a new self. It’s not really that important, it’s just tradition. I cannot imagine why something so small bothers you so much. Who cares really? He doesn’t have to change his name if he doesn’t want to, I imagine most do it because their birth names are difficult for the world populous. [/quote]
Isaiah 22. Steward of King David’s kingdom is given the keys of authority which allow him to loose and bound…like Jesus did to Peter.[/quote]
In both cases, it is a name that God gave, not one they appropriated for themselves. Quite different.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
In both cases, it is a name that God gave, not one they appropriated for themselves. Quite different.[/quote]
Okay. I don’t follow your objection. Or see an objection.[/quote]
You are equating the pope choosing a new name for himself with the above cases of men in the bible receiving a new name from God. These instances do not support the pope’s practice.
Consider these verses, especially the last:
Luk 14:7-11 And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, (8) When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; (9) And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. (10) But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. (11) For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
[quote]pat wrote:
Is this really the best you can do?[/quote]
This line of yours is getting old. You’ll need to think of a new snappy retort if you want to keep up readership. I recommend leaving out the foul language though; it cheapens the effort.[/quote]
Why do I need something when your arguement boils down to, “I don’t know it, but I know it’s wrong.”
I was educated for a time at a Jesuit institution, but I now disavow that association.
I came into this thread because you wanted to move our conversation here. Now you’re stuck with me.
Both you and Pat have implied I know nothing of your doctrine, yet we have discussed Peter, as well as Paul’s teaching on the law and justification. We will get back to Mt 16:18, so study up. Although KingKai has already taken it past your capabilities. It’s interesting I state RC doctrine of salvation is “another gospel”, and Pat immediately gives me a verse on works. I guess he knows I know what the issue is. I guess I know something huh?
But let’s just do a short one in the interim:
I don’t think the pope should allow himself to be addressed as “Holy Father”, let alone Most Holy Father, because it is a term used to address my Heavenly Father, and NEVER used to refer to any man. How does your papa have the audacity to appropriate it for himself?[/quote]
That is not a Catholic doctrine. Seems like your hung up on minutia. You said you have issues with Catholic doctrine. BC asked you to name one, explain it correctly and then explain your issue with it.
The pope cannot control how he is referred. The name he chose for himself is Pope Benedict XVI. Seems like you don’t know any Catholic doctrine.
Put up or shut up, Chen.[/quote]
As you should have already noted from above, what exactly a Catholic doctrine is needed some clarification.
[/quote]
Proof that our admonitions about you not knowing them are true. If you don’t even know what qualifies as a Catholic doctrine, how do you know you disagree with it. You seem more like a cheerleader than a knowledgeable apologist. You are just going along with what somebody has told you and your not even sure why.
I am not going to help you with this. You have an issue with Catholic doctrine, and you don’t even know what qualifies? That’s just bad.
Are you really passing judgement on me because what you perceived on how much I read scripture? Really?
So you are bragging about how righteous you are to me and admonishing me for not being as righteous as you are, and you don’t see anything wrong with this. When you read, do you understand the words?
What you brought up about Catholicism is ridiculously petty and was answered. Why are you afraid to deal with real issues?
[quote]
The reason I make an issue of it is because a leader like him should avoid all such displays as an example of humility. This is the what you find in the NT. And nobody calls him by his name anyway. The call him “most holy father”. Otherwise he could be addressed as Pope Joseph, like the apostles used their first names. He does it to emphasize his power Pat. His term is called a reign. In the past he had the ability to negotiate with, and even squeeze out kings. Of course the exact opposite of what Christ said he should be doing.
And I’ll add that he didn’t choose his name as a “symbolic action of taking off your old self and putting on a new self”. At least not according to his own words as quoted on Wikipedia. But I’m a bit ignorant, maybe you can explain it better.[/quote]
It’s been explained and it’s petty…So what? What does it matter what people call him. People call their own father’s fathers. Holy Father is more or less an alias.
This is what I call a creative way to avoid substance. Bring up crap that doesn’t matter and hammer away.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
In both cases, it is a name that God gave, not one they appropriated for themselves. Quite different.[/quote]
Okay. I don’t follow your objection. Or see an objection.[/quote]
You are equating the pope choosing a new name for himself with the above cases of men in the bible receiving a new name from God. These instances do not support the pope’s practice.
Consider these verses, especially the last:
Luk 14:7-11 And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, (8) When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; (9) And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. (10) But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. (11) For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
[/quote]
Guess you didn’t read Isaiah 22. Or Matthew 16. Jesus chooses St. Simon Peter and names him Cephas, just like David in Isaiah 22. So, when each Bishop of Rome comes into office, like Cephas they take on a new name.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
In both cases, it is a name that God gave, not one they appropriated for themselves. Quite different.[/quote]
Okay. I don’t follow your objection. Or see an objection.[/quote]
You are equating the pope choosing a new name for himself with the above cases of men in the bible receiving a new name from God. These instances do not support the pope’s practice.
Consider these verses, especially the last:
Luk 14:7-11 And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, (8) When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; (9) And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. (10) But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. (11) For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
[/quote]
Guess you didn’t read Isaiah 22. Or Matthew 16. Jesus chooses St. Simon Peter and names him Cephas, just like David in Isaiah 22. So, when each Bishop of Rome comes into office, like Cephas they take on a new name.[/quote] How the new name is acquired is what I’m getting at. Surely you are not missing my objection. You can call it irrelevant if you want, but don’t say you don’t understand it. I have read all your references, so skip the sarcasm. I’ll even add another to the list- Jacob is renamed Israel by God in Gen 32:28. All these cases the renamed person receives this name from God, he does not choose his own. The pope chooses his own name. They both end up with new names, but only one group has their new name given by God.