Misconceptions of Christianity 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
921

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Next time I drive by the reservation, I’ll keep your suggestions for us in mind. But, I also be wondering if you’ll lead the way. Maybe we can get neighboring seats on the flight to Europe?[/quote]

Please forgive me, but I am a light weight as many has seen on here. The protestants that moved to American and founded this Country, wrote in the Constitution that there is to be separation of Church and State. The original set up that God ordained in the Old Testament. The acts of the Government is not led by any church whether Protestant, nor Catholic.

Are you saying that the Native Americans here in America were forced to go to the Reservation because the Protestant Churches in this Country took their land?[/quote]

Um, the governments in the OT, didn’t have seperation of Church and State.[/quote]

Um, yes it did. The King was not to preform the priestly duties, and the priests were not to be the King. Look at Saul. Saul slaughtered all those bulls because he wanted to get to fighting. In doing that God told him through the prophet that his lineage would be destroyed. His kingdom would be taken away from him. God used the priests to tell the King what God wanted, but the priests never went to war to fight in the battles. That was the Kings duties. Separation of church and state at its pureist form.[/quote]

Lawl, that is not seperation of Church and State. That’s a seperation of duty. The David ate of the bread that was reserved for the Priests. David wrote Psalms. David ruled a Godly kingdom, so did Solomon. David tried to follow God’s will, and he made religious deisions I’m sure. Like curtailing other religions in his Kingdom, and the Jewish Judges went to war with other people for religious reasons. Not really a seperation of Church and State there.[/quote]

No, it is a separation of church and state. Separation of duties is what keeps the separation. We have Presidents that follow religion, but they are not the preist or pastor of a church. David was never the high priest or any priest for that matter, of the Jewish temple. Solomon was never the priest of the Jewish Temple. Both men were confronted by prophets and priests to repent. That is pure separation of church and State. God wanted to be the King and God is the only one that can keep both offices as one. God separated the two offices of King and Priest so that there would be no absolute power by one man. [/quote]

Okay, I think you are a little confused on seperation of Church and State, Solomon built the temple…another religious act. They were not a priest, we know, however that doesn’t mean that Isreal had a secular government. They didn’t, at all, not even close. Israel is not America. Israel had a religious theocracy, run by Jews.

922

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I was reading the Gospels tonight, OMG a Catholic reading the Bible, get CNN on the phone.

And I decided to read the Introductions to the Gospels by Curits Mitch in the front of the book I found something was very nicely written about the Church and the Gospels.

"The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ar the foundational documents of historic Christianity. Most of what is known about the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth is known from these four books. Interlaced with their factual information about Christ is also the faith of the Church, the conviction that Jesus was the Messiah of ancietn expectation and the eternal Son of God come in the flesh.

It is no surprise, then, that Christian tradition gives the four Gospels pride of place among the books of Sacred Scripture. They are placed first in the collection of New Testament writings, much as the five books of Moses, being the formative religious texts of Israel, stand at the head of the Old Testament. Without the Gospels, the Church would lack not only crucial information about her divine Founder but a vital source of strength and inspiration for her mission in the world.

Authority of the Gospels Becausae the Gospels give us unique access to the words and eeds of Jesus, the possess the very highest authority. The Church acknowledges this in various ways, most obviously in the liturgy. where the Gospels are held aloft in procession, perfumed with incense, and proclaimed as the word of God. Selections from all parts of the Scriptures are represented in the Church’s lectionary, but the Gospel reading is always feature as the highpoint of the Liturgy of the Word. The belief is that Jesus is made present to his people in word and sacrament, both in the inspired accounts of the evangelists and in the consecrated elements of the Eucharist.

The authority of the Gospels is ultimately grounded in their divine inspiration, as is the hcase with all books of the Bible. However, in addition to this theological coniction, the Church also maintains the historical conviction that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John bear witness to the preaching of the apostles. As recently as Vaticann II, this teaching was reaffirmed with clarity and emphasis: “The Church has always and everywhere maintained, and continues to maintain, the apostolic origin of the four Gospels” (Dei Vrebum 18). Unlike the many apocryphal gospels that proliferated in the second and third centuries, the four cannonical Gospels coe firectly from the apostolic age. They express in written form what the apostles were preaching and teaching about Jesus in the earliest decades of Christian history."

There is more, but this will do to show my point.[/quote]

We never said you do not read the bible. Our confusion is that you hold tradition at the same level as the bible. If tradition was the same as the bible why was the bible cannonized? As Tirib has stated the bible is the direct inspired word of God. The word became flesh in the form of Jesus. Yes the catholic church gave us the bible and we are appreciative. [/quote]

I think you just skipped over my entire paste job, we do not hold other Sacred documents above or equal to the Bible, that is silliness. However, we do not hold Sola Scripture as tradition, AT ALL. This means that we can and do have other documents that have importance, and do not have to be directly stated in the Bible. That does not mean they conflict with the Bible either.

You can say Mary is a plain Jane, mother of Jesus. However, we found early in the Church history that she is more than the Mother of Jesus, she is the Mother of God (not the Father or the Holy Spirit, but Jesus Christ the God-Man). She is also not just another laity, she is the most revered woman among women. And because the Messaih would fulfill a Davidic Covenant, and come as the Son of Man, his mother has a special office not given to any other woman or man.

923

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Oh, and Tirib, I’m sorry but your preachers teaching of Assumption of Salvation is wrong. It is not Biblical.[/quote]Did you actually get through the whole thing? I’ll give ya sincere credit for that. He would say “assurance” as would I, having been blessed with it even when I didn’t wanna be and tried very very hard not to be. My sin was nailed to the cross of Christ once for all and the life that I now live I live by faith in the risen Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. You do what you want. I’ll keep my assurance.

Lemme throw out here too that I have never nor would I say that the RCC disregards the bible. What I and it are saying is that in the RCC the light of the holy scriptures dies a death of a thousand “traditional” additions, qualifications and manipulations.

One more thing. You really don’t understand us at all. Our lady of loretto RCC is where I vote and it’s about 500 yards from my house. I sometimes go there to be by myself and pray. It’s always open and I’ll always be the only one there. I have no fear of being in a catholic building LOL! It’s all God’s my friend. He knows my heart. He has no regard for bricks and wood. http://www.ourladyoflorettoparish.org/
[/quote]

So, what you are saying is if you go kill someone tomorrow and rape and pillage small tropical villeages for the rest of your days, never speak or think of God, and if you do you struggle to not for the rest of your life, you are going to Heaven?

924

People still believe this shit… amazing.

925

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Maybe this could be a new Misconception?

What is the definition of Church?

To me it is not a building but the people that Christ lives in. We are all the body of the Church. [/quote]

Oh how I love mixing of phrases. We are the Body of Christ, not the Body of the Church. We are but it is not really biblical, but more of a common phrase in english instead we are the Physical Church.

A Church is the structure (it could be in a white brick house, or a Cathedral) of believers authoritative and laity. It is the Kingdom of God on earth. When looking at Catholic dogmas and ideas, always look towards how David and Solomon’s kingdoms were set up. The Church is a Kingdom on earth, It is the heirarchy and the citizens. I’m a citizen of the Vatican, where the thrown of God’s Kingdom on earth is located.

That is the best way I can explain it. But again, don’t trust me.

926

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Oh, and Tirib, I’m sorry but your preachers teaching of Assumption of Salvation is wrong. It is not Biblical.[/quote]Did you actually get through the whole thing? I’ll give ya sincere credit for that. He would say “assurance” as would I, having been blessed with it even when I didn’t wanna be and tried very very hard not to be. My sin was nailed to the cross of Christ once for all and the life that I now live I live by faith in the risen Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. You do what you want. I’ll keep my assurance.

Lemme throw out here too that I have never nor would I say that the RCC disregards the bible. What I and it are saying is that in the RCC the light of the holy scriptures dies a death of a thousand “traditional” additions, qualifications and manipulations.

One more thing. You really don’t understand us at all. Our lady of loretto RCC is where I vote and it’s about 500 yards from my house. I sometimes go there to be by myself and pray. It’s always open and I’ll always be the only one there. I have no fear of being in a catholic building LOL! It’s all God’s my friend. He knows my heart. He has no regard for bricks and wood. http://www.ourladyoflorettoparish.org/
[/quote]

So, what you are saying is if you go kill someone tomorrow and rape and pillage small tropical villeages for the rest of your days, never speak or think of God, and if you do you struggle to not for the rest of your life, you are going to Heaven?[/quote]You didn’t listen =[

927

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< You are not calling the Church a tool of satan with heavy heart, you are doing it for effect and I gather to get me and others riled up. If we are tool of satan, you lot are his footstool. >>>[/quote] Funny how you think you know my heart now when a minute ago nobody could do that. You are dead wrong Pat. Go ahead and call me liar, I have not done that to you. I have said nothing here for the purpose of getting anybody riled up. NOTHING. I have repeatedly stated that I like all you guys and I meant it and still do. The last quote was from Pius XI January 6, 1928 taken from his encyclical on religious unity wherein the pontiff blasts those claiming true knowledge of God as coming from different religions and saying of such as would proclaim such things they are “altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” Here AGAIN is the link to where I got it at dailyCATHOLIC,org www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002Jan/mortali1.htm[quote]pat wrote:<<< a large quote from the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church)[/quote] I wanna know what the council AT Trent in say 1560 thought. Not what the CCC today says or the church today says they thought. And regardless of either I have clearly and repeatedly committed mortal sin for which I am in no way repentant and I fully plan to die in. I OWN it as mortal sin. I AM NOT SORRY and in fact reiterate it to the nth power.

Yes that was somewhat for effect, but only in form as it was entirely sincere in substance. If that does not earn me an eternal death sentence in the eyes of the papacy could you or someone else please enlighten me toward the accomplishment of that end as it doesn’t appear possible. Please Pat. Any minute I expect to see Sloth pop back in here and yell “ALRIGHT ALREADY!!! you’re damned… now what!!!”

Also you apparently didn’t notice that when people were asking for RCC info one of the links I posted was to the CCC on the vatican website, along with the canons and decrees from Trent and the Baltimore Catechism. No “hater sites” ever, nor have I utilized them almost at all. You have my word if that means anything to you. You guys whom have PM’d me please feel free to reveal exactly how many anti catholic websites I have linked you to if you wish. (especially you D, how many hater sites have been in the links I sent you?)[quote]pat wrote:This is the stance of the Church. I suggest you educate yourself on the church and history lest you say more dumb things that are absolutely false… or I’ll see if I can find some “We hate Catholics” websites for you so you can coalesce more hate filled vitriol.[/quote]Please see the preceding and I do not hate catholics Pat. What is with you? I bet however dismayed and or angry Sloth has ever gotten with me he does not agree with you about my hating any individual person in communion with your church. At least I really hope not. That’s just not true. I do hate that church and I forgot how much. I’ve said so, but that has nothing to do with hating YOU. Exactly the opposite. You have let your emotions get the best of you here. My hand is out to you. I have never said otherwise and went out of my way to make clear how not personal all this was. You forgot or you don’t believe me?

928

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
In short (very short)
Matthew 18:20

OY!!! You have torn down the Catholic Church with only one stroke of your sword! Thank you for setting me free, and to all those who have used this verse in history against the Catholic Church.

Let’s do as your own Pastor says, look at the context! The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, is likely written by a the Apostle Matthew, or at least he was a Jewish man that came from Palestine and so forth, who made a look towards money and such, likely a businessman or a Tax Collector. He was well versed in Hebrew as well as Greek. This is likely, that he was a Jew, because of the structure of Matthew, it is set up like the Torah, includes 5 books or sections, if you would. With a prologue and and ending section, respectively.

In the fourth book (fourth book in the Torah is Numbers, instructions to the Levites that Levites are designed to serve the tabernacle) of Matthew, it is Jesus giving instructions to Peter and the Twelve. Each book is split between a Narrative of Jesus and then a Discourse pertaining to the narrative. The Discourse in Chap. 18 is commonly referred to as Sermon on Life in the Church.

Now, after a little context we’ll go to the actually verse and the passage context!

Matthew 18:20 is a passage commonly titled Binding and Loosing of Sins.

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 word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or more 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 in the midst of them."

18:15-20 Church discipline is a serious matter for her leaders. Jesus outlines a three-step procedure for (1) privately confronting the sinner, (2) addressing the sin before a circle of witnesses, and (3) bringing the matter before the Churh. Emphasis is placed on reconcilation. If the member resists correction, the Church’s leaders (apostles and successors) may exercise Christ’s authority by disciplining the impenitent. This final decision is backed even by the Father (18:19) (CCC 1463).

18:16 two or three witnesses: Criteria for judicial testimony in Old Covenant Israel (Deut 19:15). Jesus’ language reinforces the Church’s identity as the restored Israel of the New Covenant (Gal 6:16; cf. 2 Cor 13:1).

18:17 the Church: Mentioned only here and 16:18 in the Gospels. Whereas 16:18 envisions Peter’s authority over the universal Church, this verse pertains to a local congregation of Christians. Genitle… tax collector: Two groups generally despised by first-century Jews. The choice of these terms suggest that Jesus requires a policy of non-assocation with those who are disciplined by leaders of the Church (cf. 1 Cor 5:9-13; 2 Cor 6:14-15).

18:18 whatever you bind… loose: In 16:19, Peter was invested with Christ’s authority as the visible head of the Church. A derivative-but subordinate-authority is given also to the apostles as royal ministers in the kingdom. Jesus’ authority in this context is related to Church discipline; by extension, it is also a sacramental authority to forgive sins (cf Jn 20:23; CCC 553, 1444)

Looking at this passage, he is talking to the apostles. There is evidence in 18:1 as so, “the disciples” and more as they ask, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” A question which is prompted by Jesus’ favoritism and honor of Peter in the previous episodes (16:17-19, 17:1, 27). From 18:1 to verse 35 we can see in the Fourth discourse in Matthew (see my outline). Jesus teaches about life in the Church, where the greatness of her leaders is measured by humility, service (18:1-14), and boundless mercy (18:21-35).

Jesus is teaching about life in the Church, not life wherever we wish. We are not talking about demons deciding to gather in His name, we are talking about those in the Church. Because even demons can use scripture, as the Angel of Light even did with Jesus did, to tempt Him during his fast.

This is another one of those questions if it is either/or OR both/and. It is both/and in this situation, if you gather in Jesus name AND live in the Church, he will be in your presence. This verse has and will never conclude that the Church is not needed.

929

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< You talk as if you know, but you do not know, nor do you care. Being right is all you care about. Not only being right, but being right with dramatic flare. You do not understand the faith, yet you attack it vociferously, with out cause. The problems you claim you have with the church, don’t even exist. There is no idolatry, there is not worship of anything other than God.

You are rallying against fictions. One of my best friends is evangelical, we discuss religion all the time. He has no problem with my faith and I have no problem with his.

Now, I will tell you this truly. If you think I am going to hell for the faith I practice, I will see you there. You are not better than me and your faith is in no way superior to mine.
[/quote]I doubt if I can convince you, but you couldn’t be more wrong about me. I avoided any confrontation about catholicism in these threads for weeks because I knew it would be no fun and it isn’t. I couldn’t care less about being right. I want to return the faithfulness to Him that He has shown to me. There is no my faith and your faith. There is only THE faith once for all delivered to the saints. All saints. I have not said anything about you going to hell and if you do it won’t because you were a catholic.

Could you please answer this. You never did. I’ll try one more time.

I said a few pages back:

[quote]Come on Pat ol buddy. Have the courage of your convictions. I’m not even being sarcastic here. Not a bit. I reject the pope, the holy see, the catholic sacraments, Mary as anything other than “blessed among women” and a true example of piety. I reject any "tradition of the RCC not found by overt declaration or necessary implication in the holy scriptures. In short I reject anything and everything uniquely catholic about the Roman church as a horrific deception and tool of Satan to lead untold millions of unsuspecting faithful followers to their eternal death and as such I do hate it. (I must emphatically add that this does not translate into hatred for individual catholics in any way or on any level. Quite and absolutely the contrary)

I declare all of the above with the full knowledge that by Roman dogma I am a living a symphony of “mortal” sin and do hereby proclaim that if Rome be true I am bound for hell should I perish in this state.

Agree or disagree?

Or since Pat’s not talkin to me anymore maybe one of you other guys can agree or disagree with what I just said. Or you can ignore me entirely. Let me say one more time. This is not fun for me and I am not hateful or even angry at any person in this forum. If you people knew me in real life you would know that. Truly. [/quote]

[/quote]

Pat may not have answered this, but I did. I may not have directly answered it but I did address it to either you or blacksheep. There is a difference between formal heresy and material heresy. I can’t really say which one you would fall in but likely material heresy since you were never in the Church and believed in her being the true church. Calvin on the other hand did know that she was the true church, and he would be in the area of formal heresy and of course schism which is probably an automatic sin, now whether it is mortal or venial or not, no one can say although I am sure someon could figure out through his writings before and after leaving the Church.

930

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

I’m gonna go out on limb and submit that you haven’t done Rome any PR favors here to which I’m sure you’ll reply that that isn’t your job or problem.

[/quote]

I’m still curious about the apostolic Church Christ did leave us, with the ministerial priesthood we see in scripture itself, and which must–Per Christ’s assuarance it would prevail even against the gates of hell–exist yet today.[/quote]

This struck me as an interesting question.

What do you think Christ meant when he said the gates of hell will not prevail?
[/quote]

It means that Satan will try, but not succeed at destroying it. He will protect it ultimately. History bares this out. It was attempted to be squashed by Nero and the Church grew huge. It was attempted to be destroyed from with in, yet it stands. It was attempted to be divided, but yet it remains.[/quote]

That is an interesting and common take on it, but I would say that is incorrect. In Jesus times Gates were not used as an offensive weapon, instead they were a defensive weapon.
I would say that Jesus is saying that the gates of Hell can’t with stand an offensive and attacking Church. Which if you reverse your viewpoint of the church as a victim in those situations and see it instead as the reactions to an advancing church that would be inline with my take on it.

I held your view point on that as well. Then I realized a gate doesn’t attack instead it defends. So why should I interject that meaning into it.
[/quote]

…The name “Peter” comeds from the Greek word for “rock.” Jesus makes him the foundation on which the church is to built. The word “church” means “assembly” or “society” of believers. The Hebrew equivalent is used in the Old Testament to indicate the chosen people. In applying it to the church, Jesus shows it to be the Messianic community foretold by the Prophets. The Gates of death, even if it does show a defensive position, it is almost always that death attacks us. We may attack it yes, and we do. That doesn’t mean that the Church will be corrupted some how by death.

931

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You guys whom have PM’d me please feel free to reveal exactly how many anti catholic websites I have linked you to if you wish. (especially you D, how many hater sites have been in the links I sent you?)[/quote]

I will 100% substantiate this. I asked Tiribulus and Sloth for links to the Baltimore Catechism, and anyother sites that would be good for me to read while on my vacation. Tirib is the only one that replied, and he only sent me sites that were not Catholic Haters. They were infact Catholic websites. He has posted all the ones he has given me in this thread.

932

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That goes for the rest of you guys too, even you Pat, who thinks I just wanna be right which is just SO wrong.[/quote]

See, still trying to be right and prove everyone else wrong… :wink:

933

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually, one last question as a bit of related trivia. Who succeeded to Judas’ office? Admittedly, I already gave it away through the link I shared above. [/quote]

There were two that were given the position. The first was Matthias which was chosen by the 11. This includes Peter, but Jesus had a different opinion. Jesus did not choose Matthias, but Saul of Tarsus was chosen. Jesus usurps the power of the pope. Jesus went over Peter’s head and chose Saul of Tarsus.

IMO I beleive that Jesus went over the Pope’s head during the Reformation. The Holy Spirit sturred the hearts of men to try and reform the church from the inside, and when that did not work he went public with it. What changes did the Roman Catholic Church make after the Reformation? Pat has claimed that the Roman Catholic Chruch cleaned house. To me it looks like they just solidified into Dogma what had been going on for centuries. I hope I am wrong about the Catholic Church, and I will be doing a lot of reading this next week while on Vacation in Germany. [/quote]

I hope you do, because that isn’t correct. God didn’t go over the Pope, Paul was a great friend of Peter of course after he stopped that killing of Christians non-sense. Paul even wrote to the Romans, the Pope had to make the decision of Paul be a bishop. You couldn’t just come along one day and be like, “Hey, I’m a bishop!” No, you had to be taught, you had to be given authority.

Protestants talk about reformation, but really they didn’t really reform anything, what did they reform? It’s kind of weird to reform something and then still protest it. They plainly revolted, they have changed how they believe, but no reformation was done on their part. Reformation has to reform an already formed thing. The Council of Trent and still today the Catholic Church is reforming. Protestants continue to have schism in the Church (some of them horribly so) where you can walk in and be sure of hearing something negative about the Catholic Church.

934

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That goes for the rest of you guys too, even you Pat, who thinks I just wanna be right which is just SO wrong.[/quote]

See, still trying to be right and prove everyone else wrong… ;)[/quote]

He is trying to show you by using the words of Popes past that what he is saying is truth.

Another questions does the current CCC Catechism over rule all previous Catechisms?

935

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Did you really think that I had not heard every last syllable on this page you linked to at one time or another? I am not at the moment up to a point by point rebuttal to this heroic, but fatally flawed attempt to establish the Roman ministerial priesthood from the bible.[/quote]

Fine, forget the RCC claim. The point stands that a hierarchial and ministerial priesthood is clearly left behind. And since we are promised that the Church left by Christ will not perish, if not the RCC, you should be able to point out some Church (and their hierarchy) that is the Church Christ intended to leave behind. Let’s start there.

[/quote]
After Pentecost when the church was born, do you think there was anyone save that was not part of the RCC? I am not sure what tirib will respond with but my take on the church is all believers in Christ since the church was born are part of this church and is lead by Christ. Therefore it is not defined or limited by buildings, space and time or ran by institutions of men. All those in the church are one body in Christ so there will be some elders, deacons and preachers etc… but all those in the body are one in Christ so why should there be hierarchy among the people themselves except for having God as their master.[/quote]

The Catholic church is not defined or limited by buildings, space, and time, that is the definition of Catholic, we hold true to our name. The Church does not claim to a city, state, city-state, palace, um…country, nation, continent. We are everywhere, we have been here since Jesus established his Church, we have no end in site, we are not limited by buildings, the Apache indians until recently did not go to church they had their mass outside.

It is clear in the Bible that the Church is ran by men, why do we ignore the Bible. Why should their be hierarchy? Because if you cut the foot off, then you have cut the foot off, if you cut the heart out, the rest of the body is dead. Obviously certain things in the body have some kind of power over the rest. Otherwise it would be strange for the foot to control the heart…or would be equal to the heart.

936

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
All those in the church are one body in Christ so there will be some elders, deacons and preachers etc…

…so why should there be hierarchy among the people themselves except for having God as their master…[/quote]

“Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders (presbyteroi) of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”
James 5:14-15

It is apparent that there were different stations (as you’ve named) with different duties (as we in the above verse.[/quote]

Sloth, I agree with you on this, but it does not only happen in the RCC. Every denomination of Christianity has some sort of Hierarchy. We have preachers, teachers, deacons, elders, laity, evangelists, administrators, and many others. We do not have Cardinals though or the Pope, so by not having these 2 positions does not make us the church?[/quote]

Well I can say that your congregation really doesn’t pass the whole catholic name. Catholic universal, all time and place. If you are under the Baptist heirarchy in America going over to Europe those baptists will be controlled by a seperate baptist heirarchy.

937

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I hope you do, because that isn’t correct. God didn’t go over the Pope, Paul was a great friend of Peter of course after he stopped that killing of Christians non-sense. Paul even wrote to the Romans, the Pope had to make the decision of Paul be a bishop. You couldn’t just come along one day and be like, “Hey, I’m a bishop!” No, you had to be taught, you had to be given authority.

Protestants talk about reformation, but really they didn’t really reform anything, what did they reform? It’s kind of weird to reform something and then still protest it. They plainly revolted, they have changed how they believe, but no reformation was done on their part. Reformation has to reform an already formed thing. The Council of Trent and still today the Catholic Church is reforming. Protestants continue to have schism in the Church (some of them horribly so) where you can walk in and be sure of hearing something negative about the Catholic Church.[/quote]

Jesus changed the heart of Paul, not Peter, and yes God/Jesus did go over Peter’s decision to make Mattthias an apostle. The authority given to Paul was not from Peter, but from Jesus Christ himself. Jesus called Paul to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. Paul did submit and present himself to Peter so that his conversion would be solidified. Paul was the one who set up the Church in Rome, and not Peter. Paul even confronted Peter in public when he was wrong. Peter was smart enough, and his heart soft enough to see the error in his ways. Pride is a very hard sin to overcome. I struggle with it myself. I see the pride in the Catholic Chruch and in the Protestant Churches. The Reformation would not have gone public had the Pope softened his heart. The church would still be one church had the Pope swallowed his pride and repented. The Pope of the time beleived that he was infallible and could not be corrected by any human. Peter knew better than this. Maybe we should learn more humbleness from Peter. Peter and Paul were equals. Peter did not rule over Paul. Peter did not rule over any of the believers. Peter taught the beleivers what he was taught by Jesus. Paul did the same thing. Paul taught beleivers what he was taught by Jesus and not from Peter. Paul was a scholar of the Jewish Law. Paul quoted the OT all the time to prove the existence and authority of Jesus Christ.

938

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
@ D and Joab:

I don’t know catholicism like the catholics here do and I accordingly don’t wanna sound like a know it all, but you are not grasping what they mean by “ministerial priesthood” and succession backward into the NT era. I will throw out, as I did to you D that this concept, while wrong, is not instantly dismissible as idiotic.[/quote]

If I am wrong please correct me, but I was under the impression that Apostolic Succession only applies to the Pope. I understand the idea of apostolic succession, but do not understand how it is put into practice. Each Pope is not discipled by the previous Pope as Peter was discipled by Jesus.

I forgot to add, that the ministerial priesthood also has a succession?[/quote]

Yes, and that is why the Catholic Church recognizes the Sacrements and the Apostlic succession in some Eastern Orthodox Church and other Orthodox Churches that exist today, because they kept the Apostlic succession in proper form.

The Apostolic succession is like this, you have to be ordained. Bishops ordain deacons and priests, to become a bishop you have to be ordained as bishop by another bishop. The Pope is basically head bishop. AS does not mean the Pope. This is a neat little thing that you can think about.

It is kind of like 6 degrees of seperation, but even cooler! It involves Jesus. Go shake a priests hand, touch his shoulder, whatever. Now! think about the fact that you just shook the had of a man that shook hands or was touched by other men that were touched by other men that eventually leads to men that were touched by Jesus personally! Gets me everytime.

939

[quote]Rah-Knee wrote:
People still believe this shit… amazing.[/quote]

May God have mercy on your soul. Amen.

940

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
All those in the church are one body in Christ so there will be some elders, deacons and preachers etc…

…so why should there be hierarchy among the people themselves except for having God as their master…[/quote]

“Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders (presbyteroi) of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”
James 5:14-15

It is apparent that there were different stations (as you’ve named) with different duties (as we in the above verse.[/quote]

Sloth, I agree with you on this, but it does not only happen in the RCC. Every denomination of Christianity has some sort of Hierarchy. We have preachers, teachers, deacons, elders, laity, evangelists, administrators, and many others. We do not have Cardinals though or the Pope, so by not having these 2 positions does not make us the church?[/quote]

Well I can say that your congregation really doesn’t pass the whole catholic name. Catholic universal, all time and place. If you are under the Baptist heirarchy in America going over to Europe those baptists will be controlled by a seperate baptist heirarchy. [/quote]

You do know that Southern Baptists are the second largest denomination in the World only behind Catholics, and there is only one hierarchy? Southern Baptists are sending Missionaries all over the world going to parts of the world where Catholics have not even touched. In third world countries Southern Baptists are starting to overtake Catholicism. You may want to tone down your Baptist Retoric. Baptists are torn down just as much as Catholics. And Baptists trace their roots to John the Baptist. We do not trace our roots to the Reformation. We honestly do not even consider ourselves Protestants. We beleive in baptism and that is where we get out name. The Anabaptists are not the same as the Southern Baptists. Please feel free to put up some Southern Baptist Hater Websites though. Those are always funny. I am not going to take this attack personal. Have a good night, and see you all in a week.

Again God Bless, and may the Peace of our Living Lord be with you.