Do you think the organization Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF) is good for the Church?

[Richardols]

It seems that the RCF would prefer a situation where the laity would run the Church. Congregations could hire pastors - and fire them for cause, bishops could be elected - for fixed terms, and could be impeached like any other elected official, etc. Perhaps some Cardinals could be appointed by the Pope and some elected by the laity of their nation. The Church could be operated in a more business-like way as well.

 

[FiremanFrank]

chicago
But why does it necessarily have to be taken to such extreme as “sticking our heads in the sand” and the kind of abrasice approach RCF uses? Isn’t there a healthier middle ground?

I appreciate your reply and comment chicago.

But tell me this sir. With all that has happened thus far that threatens our Church and our children, can we really be anything les than “abrasive”?

I don’t think so. Because there is too much at stake here.

With all do respect sir, we aren’t really talking about sports here, or a game show.

This has to do with an attack on God’s Church, which thereby has become a direct attack on our life long journey towards getting to heaven with Jesus.

So, I’d say that at this point chicago (and taking into consideration everything that has already happened to our Church and to our children) - Yeah. It might be time to start getting “abrasive”.

Don’t you think?

 

[FiremanFrank]

Richardols
It seems that the RCF would prefer a situation where the laity would run the Church.

No, that’s not what they’re all about Richard. Please read their website sir.

I think that you might have confused RCF (Roman Catholic Faithful) with the heretical and dissident filled organization of VOTF (Voice of the Faithful).

Because VOTF is the one that wants to re-organize the structure of the Church. And that’s just plain wrong, not to even mention that God would never permit such a thing to occur.

Jesus did not design the Church to function in that regard.

It will not ever happen.

 

[Richardols]

FiremanFrank:

Because VOTF is the one that wants to re-organize the structure of the Church.

And, RCF seems to want to do the same by attacking the Church’s bishops.

I don’t care for laity of either stripe presuming to make themselves self-appointed judges of those appointed to lead the Church.

 

[flameburns623]

"… a good thing for y’all".
Are you Catholic flame?

No. Check my profile.

Calling the sacred books “not history” can in fact lead many people down the road of false biblical exegesis which would erroneously teach that no history exists in the sacred texts.

Mebbe but I have read a number of books on Biblical exegesis by Evangelical Protestants who ABSOLUTELY believe in the historicity of the Bible–right down to the literal details of the opening chapters of Genesis. Most if not all such texts stress that NONE of the books of the Bible, particularly not the Gospels, are ‘history’ in the modern, scientific sense of the term. The emphasis of Scripture is upon the working-out of God’s plans in human affairs, not the precise, schematic, recounting of details in a careful, accurate fashion as a historian might. This is why some accouints of the visits to the Garden tomb mention one angel, some mention two or more, etcetera. Why Peter denied Christ three times ‘before the cock crowed’ in one account, and ‘before the cock crowed three times’ in another. This is why a cursory reading of many of the stories in the Gospels seem to leave out or to include details which other Gospels mention or exclude.

This is not to imply that the events did not happen, in real, historical time–but that the purpose of the human Biblical writer was not to report ‘just the facts’, but was endeavoring to make a point about what God was doing at that particular moment. The precise details were not as important as they would be if a modern, professional historian were conveying the information.

The “clergyman” that you speak of is a Catholic bishop flame. Please do not leave out the important details.

I didn’t, and this isn’t particularly germaine.

If you had provided us with the greater portion of that article, people would have seen where you were clearly off the mark on this one, and that RCF was dead on the money (as usual).

Not hardly.

When the “bishop” had called the sacred books “theological relections”, he thereby refutes your own claim that “he wasn’t using history in a technical sense”.

Because in believing that the sacred books are merely “theological reflections”, then there is no room for a real historcial sense to exist.

The bishop is not saying that the events did not occur, that they were not truly reported, or that Scripture is not Divinely inspired or innerant. He is not denying the facticity of the Biblical record, only commenting on the methodology and motives of it’s human authors. The Bible simply does not recount human affairs in the same manner that a modern, professional historian would report them. The motives of the Biblical writers differ from the motives of an historian, the methods are different. That is all which is being implied.

Put another way flame:

If the Sacred Books = “theological reflections”

then …

“theological reflections” cannot = historical texts

False dichotomy. Logical error–I think it’s the ‘this equals that’ error to be precise. The Sacred Books ARE NOT historical texts, in the sense that my daughter’s high school textbook is a historical text. However–the Sacred Books are inspired, inerrant, and report real and actual events, probably more accurately than my daughter’s historical text, given the prevailing winds of Political Correctness in textbook writing these days.

So RCF was absolutely and totally justified in their criticism of the bishop’s statement.

No, for the reasons just outlined at no small length.

---

Time to go back to school and re-learn your faith, dear bishop …

---

I have no idea who this Catholic bishop actually is nor how orthodox he is. He may be so far off-base theologically that he makes Spong look more Catholic than the Pope. I do think it rather humorous that I–an Anglican, have spent 15 minutes defending one remark by a Roman Catholic bishop from the ill-advised criticisms of one Roman Catholic.

 

[puzzleannie]

looks like your typical one man vigilante crusade against anybody and anything he doesn’t personally agree with, marketed as legitimate lay reaction to the clergy sex scandal.

 

[chicago]

FiremanFrank:

I appreciate your reply and comment chicago.

But tell me this sir. With all that has happened thus far that threatens our Church and our children, can we really be anything les than “abrasive”?

I don’t think so. Because there is too much at stake here.

With all do respect sir, we aren’t really talking about sports here, or a game show.

This has to do with an attack on God’s Church, which thereby has become a direct attack on our life long journey towards getting to heaven with Jesus.

So, I’d say that at this point chicago (and taking into consideration everything that has already happened to our Church and to our children) - Yeah. It might be time to start getting “abrasive”.

Don’t you think?

Well, actually, yes. I think that we both can and should be something other than abrasive by and large. And I think that such will ultimately produce better results. Given, sometimes one needs to hold someone’s feet to the fire and plainly, but mercifully, call them to task and/or repentance. However, all true genuine and positive renewal in the Church tends to come primarily from joyful Christians. Indeed, this is the key characteristic of Christians. So I think that it is likely much better to place our emphasis on accentuating the positive rather than seeming like whiny, griping, angry Christians all the time. That isn’t ultimately very attractive and tends to turn off more people than draw them to following your mission. Being an “attack dog” tends toward the counterproductive, even if it sometimes make some people feel good and self affirmed in their standpoint.

As far as “all that has happened thus far that threatens our Church and our children”, well do you mean basically the history of the Church over these lo 2000 years? Afterall, there have been plenty of times in our history when things have been worse. It’s the story of sinful man on a journey through this vale of tears. Always has been, always will be. People, including Churchmen, are all too human and will often fall or fail, despite what is sometimes even exercizing best intentions.

 

[jjwilkman]

estesbob:

I have often said that the only worst than letting the Bishops run the Church would be to let the Laity run the Church!

amen, amen, clap clap

 

[jjwilkman]

Richardols:

It seems that the RCF would prefer a situation where the laity would run the Church. Congregations could hire pastors - and fire them for cause, bishops could be elected - for fixed terms, and could be impeached like any other elected official, etc. Perhaps some Cardinals could be appointed by the Pope and some elected by the laity of their nation. The Church could be operated in a more business-like way as well.

can’t resist. HA HA

 

[FiremanFrank]

flameburns623

Are you Catholic flame?

No. Check my profile.

I have no need to check your profile flame, as in this instance I will readily accept your word on the matter.

Calling the sacred books “not history” can in fact lead many people down the road of false biblical exegesis which would erroneously teach that no history exists in the sacred texts.
***Mebbe ***

Not “mebbe” flame, but reality. As I have personally witnessed where calling some of the Sacred books “not history” has led to a multitude of errors. And from the very start here, let’s be extremely clear about what genuine Catholic Biblical exegesis teaches. And that teaching is: That SOME (though not all) of the books of Holy Scripture ARE in fact Historical Texts.

… but I have read a number of books on Biblical exegesis by Evangelical Protestants who ABSOLUTELY believe in the historicity of the Bible … Most if not all such texts stress that NONE of the books of the Bible, particularly not the Gospels, are ‘history’ in the modern, scientific sense of the term.

Not myself being an Evangelical, I will not attempt to confirm nor deny your statment. But whatever Evangelical Protestants might believe, their views remain as an irrelevant feature to our discussion. We are talking here about what a Catholic bishop had said, not what an Evangelical Christian had stated. Do not confuse the two.

I’m talking about Catholic Biblical exegesis here flame, so please, and if you have any experiences in that regard - then let us stick to the topic at hand.

The emphasis of Scripture is upon the working-out of God’s plans in human affairs, not the precise, schematic, recounting of details in a careful, accurate fashion as a historian might.

Yes and no. You state certain truths, while unfortuneately placing them in parallel with incorrect perceptions.

Yes. Scripture is in fact an account of the “working out of God’s plans in human affairs.” But where you and Catholicsim disagree is that within that account, there exist what are plainly obvious examples of a recounting of certain events which have been made in “a careful, accurate fashion as a historian might”. There are many, many areas of Holy Scripture which contain precisely that kind of text flame. Do you not know of these?

This is why some accouints of the visits to the Garden tomb mention one angel, some mention two or more, etcetera.

Incorrect again flame. Just because one witness might have observed “one angel” while another may have observed “two or more angels” in no way effects the historicity of those texts.

To make such a claim about what had happened at the Garden tomb would illustrate that one has seriously neglected to observe the following: That what God might have allowed one person to witness, He also might have chosen to hide from another. Both accounts would then still remain true, both then would be free from all error.

Why Peter denied Christ three times ‘before the cock crowed’ in one account, and ‘before the cock crowed three times’ in another. This is why a cursory reading of many of the stories in the Gospels seem to leave out or to include details which other Gospels mention or exclude.

No they do not. The problem is that you are simply are not reading them correctly to begin with flame. I have read a book by a noted and well respected Catholic scholar which specifically refutes all of the errors that you are now mentioning. I am not currently writing you from my home at the moment, but tomorrow I will locate that book and I will provide you with it’s title and author. Stay tuned …

This is not to imply that the events did not happen, in real, historical time–but that the purpose of the human Biblical writer was not to report ‘just the facts’, but was endeavoring to make a point about what God was doing at that particular moment.

But besides “endeavoring to make a point about what God was doing at the time”, in certain texts - the authors were reporting “the facts” as well. This is now where you and the Catholic Church have gone their separate ways as it relates to their understanding of the Bible. While I might not be able to change your own beliefs here flame, rest assured that no one will ever change the Catholic Church’s view on it’s understanding of Holy Scripture.

cont’d.

 

[FiremanFrank]

cont’d.

The precise details were not as important as they would be if a modern, professional historian were conveying the information.

And why not? By what authority do you “reveal” to us what God had in mind when He had inspired the writers of Holy Scripture? As a Catholic, I know for sure that God gave the authority to teach His flock via the Magisterium of the Church. Anything else is a mere flip of the coin, it might be right - or it might be wrong. In this case, you oppose the Teaching of my Church, so you are plainly wrong. Hands down.

Additionally flame, where are you getting this “style” of exegesis from? Is this the Anglican way of understanding Scripture? Or is it merely a device of your own making?

The “clergyman” that you speak of is a Catholic bishop flame. Please do not leave out the important details.
I didn’t, and this isn’t particularly germaine.

You in fact did flame, so I must firmly disagree with you on that remark. Because for a Catholic bishop to be in error on the proper understanding of the Bible is much more grievous fault than for a “clergy” to have those same misguided beliefs - as the bishop is supposed to help in leading the flock in Truth.

If you had provided us with the greater portion of that article, people would have seen where you were clearly off the mark on this one, and that RCF was dead on the money (as usual).
Not hardly.

The article speaks for itself. Just because your understanding of Biblical exegesis does not parallell that of the Catholic Church, that in no way undermines the accuracy and integrity of the observations made by RCF.

*When the “bishop” had called the sacred books “theological relections”, he thereby refutes your own claim that “he wasn’t using history in a technical sense”. Because in believing that the sacred books are merely “theological reflections”, then there is no room for a real historcial sense to exist. *

The bishop is not saying that the events did not occur, that they were not truly reported

And neither then, did he confirm that these events were historically accurate, which Catholicsim has always taught (and always will teach) that they were. And by not having said that explicitly, along with his saying that these events were then “theological reflections”, he sends a clear message and makes the succinct implication that they were not.

He is not denying the facticity of the Biblical record, only commenting on the methodology and motives of it’s human authors.

“Methodology” and “motives” flame?

It is evident that you (as was the bishop) are speaking in extremely vague terms here, and that is unacceptable. So please allow me to be more specific for you on the matter of those two phrases. God’s “methodology” was to use human beings as eye witnesses to certain events that He wished them to see. And the “motives” of those people who witnessed those events was that they were to definitively to describe the historical events that God had allowed them to be witness to.

Do you see the difference in perceptions there flame?

cont’d.

 

[FiremanFrank]

cont’d.

The Bible simply does not recount human affairs in the same manner that a modern, professional historian would report them.

Wrong. This is what you have claimed flame, but the Catholic Church would find your statement to be in contradiction to Her teachings on certain Books of Holy Scripture. Forgive me flame, but in this regard I shall place my trust in the Catholic Church (who has authority), and not in you (who have none).

The motives of the Biblical writers differ from the motives of an historian, the methods are different. That is all which is being implied.

Wrong, and … wrong again. Now simply take what you have said and completely reverse it flame. There. What you will have then will be the Truth.

*Put another way flame: *

If the Sacred Books = “theological reflections”

then …

*“theological reflections” cannot = historical texts *

False dichotomy. Logical error–I think it’s the ‘this equals that’ error to be precise.

The Sacred Books ARE NOT historical texts, in the sense that my daughter’s high school textbook is a historical text.

Not a false dichotomy - but an example that’s truer than life. Yet I fear that only a critical realignment of your heart and mind would allow you to truly understand the meaning behind my statement.

As to the latter part of your reply - let me repeat this for you one more time flame: **THE CATHOLIC CHURCH VIEWS CERTAIN BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE AS BEING HISTORICAL TEXTS.

PERIOD.

**

However–the Sacred Books are inspired, inerrant, and report real and actual events, probably more accurately than my daughter’s historical text, given the prevailing winds of Political Correctness in textbook writing these days.

Well, this is what I had been awaiting flame. Because as with all teachings of error, hypocritical statements must then (as a rule) follow those dubious teachings. After you had tried to explain to us here about how Scripture might not be “historical”, you then go on to describe the Sacred Books using such terms as “inerrant”, “real”, “actual”, and “more accurately than … historical text”.

Thank you for proving my point flame.

*So RCF was absolutely and totally justified in their criticism of the bishop’s statement. *

No, for the reasons just outlined at no small length.

Quite obviously yes, from the facts that I have submitted above.

I do think it rather humorous that I–an Anglican, have spent 15 minutes defending one remark by a Roman Catholic bishop from the ill-advised criticisms of one Roman Catholic.

Speaking of humor, I must now thank you for having supplied me with my much needed chuckle for the day! And as an Anglican my friend, I would humbly suggest that you restrain yourself to debates which only involve issues revolving around your own denomination - as your “criticisms” of Catholic Biblical exegesis have demonstrated that, if nothing else - you lack any real sense of what the Catholic faith is all about.

Or maybe even better yet flames, learn what the Catholic Church really teaches!

 

[FiremanFrank]

puzzleannie

looks like your typical one man vigilante crusade against anybody and anything he doesn’t personally agree with, marketed as legitimate lay reaction to the clergy sex scandal.

Fine Annie.

So according to your mis-directed negative feelings about a group that is only out there to try and help clean up the mess in the Church, a mess that you are apparently too selfish or uncaring over to do anything about it:

I’ll then put you down for:

20 more molested children …

40 more pro-agenda homosexual priests …

and

And about 10,000 more people who are going to leave the Church over this debacle.

Is that the order that you want to be filled?

Because that is exactly what you are asking for.

Wake up Annie, wake up from your slumber …

 

[FiremanFrank]

Chicago

Well, actually, yes. I think that we both can and should be something other than abrasive by and large. And I think that such will ultimately produce better results.

Please show me the proof of this type of reasoning chicago, as I do not believe that this is going to work in this case. These abusers/molesters/dissidents are indignant and uncaring individuals. Read about them on RCF’s website. They couldn’t give a hoot about what you think or want them to do.

However, all true genuine and positive renewal in the Church tends to come primarily from joyful Christians.

We DON’T NEED a renewal chicago. What we need is a mass spiritual conversion of churchgoers on a drastic scale - so that they might become genuinely Catholic in their beliefs.

This is war John. The spiritual battle lines must be drawn.

Indeed, this is the key characteristic of Christians.

The key characteristic of Christians is to carry the sword of Truth. Exposing heretics, dissidents, and the homosexual agenda in the priesthood is clearly part of that sword of Truth.

So I think that it is likely much better to place our emphasis on accentuating the positive rather than seeming like whiny, griping, angry Christians all the time.

Accentuate the positive? And what would that positive be chicago?

That Catholics have become totally de-catechized and no longer know or believe in the basics teachings of their faith?

That this type of de-catechization and indifference towards the True Teachings of our faith has caused a direct shortage in the priesthood - a shipwreck in religious vocations?

That because of the wayward and distorted teachings of those disobedient bishops and priests, these “sheep in wolf’s clothing” - that fewer and fewer Catholics now believe that the Body and Blood of our Savior is actually present in the Holy Eucharist?

Etc, etc.

That isn’t ultimately very attractive and tends to turn off more people than draw them to following your mission.

I could really care less about “attactiveness” chicago. I only desire the Truth. It is the Truth that I desire, and nothing else.

Being an “attack dog” tends toward the counterproductive, even if it sometimes make some people feel good and self affirmed in their standpoint.

Sometimes we in the spiritual battlefield NEED a little self-affirmation, as these derelict/predatory priests and bishops have left us almost totally void of any spiritual nourishment.

As far as “all that has happened thus far that threatens our Church and our children”, well do you mean basically the history of the Church over these lo 2000 years?

No chicago, I’m talking about the spiritual and physical attack that our children are receiving RIGHT NOW!

Afterall, there have been plenty of times in our history when things have been worse.

So, if we learn nothing from our mistakes and allow the same old sins to rear their ugly heads over and over again - then we will have nobody to blame then but ourselves for our crisis of faith. God gave us a brain chicago - we should use it!

It’s the story of sinful man on a journey through this vale of tears. Always has been, always will be. People, including Churchmen, are all too human and will often fall or fail, despite what is sometimes even exercizing best intentions.

I don’t by it. The “best of intentions” only reduces the degree of the sin of our indifference. But the sin of spiritual slothfulness remains a sin.

I’ll tell you what John. I sincerely believe that if most of the Catholic people out there share in your general view on things, that our Church isn’t even close to hitting rock bottom yet.

Not even close …

 

[FiremanFrank]

Here you go flame, as promised.

And I have a big surprise for you too! It seems that the book that I was going to refer you to now appears on the web - in it’s entirety!

It’s your lucky day flame!

The book is titled:

"Free From All Error"
Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture,
Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars

by Fr. William G. Most (deceased)

Amongst many of his well known attributes, Fr. Most was a …

• Member of the Pontifical International Marian Academy
• President of the Mariological Society of America
• Member of the Catholic Biblical Association of America
• Teacher of Theology and Classics at Loras College, Iowa

As well as having been the author of many, many books.

And here now is the link to "Freedom From All Error"

catholicculture.org/docs/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=216&ChapNum=27

I’ll journey back here to this thread sometime down the road, after having allowed you sufficient time to digest Fr. Most’s writings on Catholic Biblical exegesis.

Later …

 

[puzzleannie]

FiremanFrank:

Fine Annie.

So according to your mis-directed negative feelings about a group that is only out there to try and help clean up the mess in the Church, a mess that you are apparently too selfish or uncaring over to do anything about it:

I’ll then put you down for:

20 more molested children …

40 more pro-agenda homosexual priests …

and

And about 10,000 more people who are going to leave the Church over this debacle.

Is that the order that you want to be filled?

Because that is exactly what you are asking for.

Wake up Annie, wake up from your slumber …

you do not know diddly about what I personally do or do not due to combat abuse in the church so do not cast nasturtiums. As it happens, this concern takes up a large portion of my time and energy. I just do it ecclessially, within the mechanisms and procedures established by the Church, not on my own volition, according to my own rules, and I do not use that concern as an excuse to attach the members of the clergy and hierarchy publicly. You posted a poll with answers pre-selected to produce skewed results, in itself a violation of forum rules and courtesy. By posting a poll you asked for opinions about a website. If you do not want negative responses, do not solicit them. If you would like to start your own one man band please set up your own blog or website and don’t hijack the forums.

 

[m134e5]

A Saint- I think it was St. Basil or St. John Chrysostom- once said "the streets of hell are paved with the skulls of rotten bishops. If we blindly follow those bishops he speaks of, we’ll end up there too. We are not puppets of the clergy.

We are called to instruct the ignorant, as well as to admonish the sinner, if we are in a position to do so- the bishops should know how to carry out their vocation- when they’re not doing it, it’s up to whoever else is willing to correct them to do so (with charity of course). Catechesis breeds orthodoxy.

 

[Richardols]

puzzleannie:

I do not use that concern as an excuse to attack the members of the clergy and hierarchy publicly. You posted a poll with answers pre-selected to produce skewed results, in itself a violation of forum rules and courtesy. By posting a poll you asked for opinions about a website. If you do not want negative responses, do not solicit them. If you would like to start your own one man band please set up your own blog or website and don’t hijack the forums.

If Frank’s nasty attitude towards anyone on this thread who disagrees with him is a reflection of the kind of people who support RCF, I can only anticipate the well-deserved collapse of such a hate-filled organization. IMO, of course. BTW, I don’t care what you might say in reply, Frank.

 

[flameburns623]

cont’d.

Wrong. This is what you have claimed flame, but the Catholic Church would find your statement to be in contradiction to Her teachings on certain Books of Holy Scripture . . . . As to the latter part of your reply - let me repeat this for you one more time flame: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH VIEWS CERTAIN BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE AS BEING HISTORICAL TEXTS.

PERIOD.

Well, this is what I had been awaiting flame. Because as with all teachings of error, hypocritical statements must then (as a rule) follow those dubious teachings. After you had tried to explain to us here about how Scripture might not be “historical”, you then go on to describe the Sacred Books using such terms as “inerrant”, “real”, “actual”, and “more accurately than … historical text”.
. . . .

Speaking of humor, I must now thank you for having supplied me with my much needed chuckle for the day! And as an Anglican my friend, I would humbly suggest that you restrain yourself to debates which only involve issues revolving around your own denomination - as your “criticisms” of Catholic Biblical exegesis have demonstrated that, if nothing else - you lack any real sense of what the Catholic faith is all about.

You don’t know much philosophy. You don’t know much Biblical hermeneutics. You don’t even know the rules of the forum very well–I am as free to post opinions in this thread as any other member of the forum, irrespective of my religious affiliation. I am NOT opposed to the RCF or to the idea of lay organizations which help to safeguard a denomination from bad shepherds. I simply feel that the RCF is not choosing it’s battles wisely or well, that it is intemperately and injudiciously attacking people who–on the face of things–do NOT appear to be saying anything particularly heterodox.

I distinguished between ‘history’ as an academic discipline at some length. You appear unable to grasp the distinction between modern scientific historical analysis and the efforts of the Biblical writers. Yes, the Bible CONTAINS historical information, yes there are certain books specifically categorized as ‘historical’ books. However, by modern definitions, the authors of the Pentetauch, the Gospels, the Book of Acts, etcetera, were NOT historians. Everything they reported happened, in real and historical time. I am in no wise impugning the accuracy of Scripture, it’s perfection, it’s inerrancy. Nor do I believe that the Catholic bishop was doing so. The point is–the Biblical authors were not MERELY reporting historical facts–in fact, they were not PRIMARILY doing so. Their primary purposes were theological, not historical. They wrote to affirm and to confirm faith, not to merely convey historical datum as a modern historian might do. This is NOT to suggest that there are historical or factual errors in the Bible, and I don’t believe your bishop meant to imply otherwise, at least not from what he has been quoted as saying.

So far as the bishop’s comments–I assume that he was addressing an audience which understood these sorts of distinctions, or had reason to think his audience could understand his intended thought. On issues of this sort, by the way, there is little or no disagreement among most Protestants, Anglicans, Orthodox, or Roman Catholics. Yes, there ARE differences in how the various bodies exegete Scripture, and yes we often come to different conclusions about some matters. But we often share in common textbooks on basic matters of Biblical hermeneutics.

I suggest again–the bishop in question MIGHT NOT be a sound teacher of Biblical theology. I know nothing more about him that the single citation I observed on the RCF webpage. THAT citation of itself, however, is being taken to imply a degree of heterodoxy which seems to me entirely unfair to the bishop. The single citation by itself is NOT heterodox, and does not ‘prove’ that the Bishop denies the inerrancy of Scripture or seeks to undermine faith in the Word of God. My point is that it appears there is a pattern on the part of the RCF of taking lone, out-of-context quotes or incidents and using them to instigate witch-hunts which may or may not be justified. If this bishop is a bad shepherd–more power to the RCF in exposing this and bringing the bishop back into line. But to calumniate him over a single citation which seems pre-eminently clear to me to be out-of-context and not even unorthodox is supremely unfair to the bishop and bodes ill for the RCF.

 

[PJR]

Wow, that’s just how it works in the protestant churches. It works really well there too.

People seem to deny the infallibility we try to defend to the protestants. The laity is not given the assurance from the Holy Spirit.

We can’t agree on how to stand up around here. Are we ready to take a vote on Doctrine?

We should always be allowed to have a voice and call on the Church to answer us, but their approach seems to want to cut the bishops off at the knees. We may not be privy to everything all the time. Let the Holy Spirit guide the Pope. I’m sure he’s a little wiser than this guy.

Richardols:

It seems that the RCF would prefer a situation where the laity would run the Church. Congregations could hire pastors - and fire them for cause, bishops could be elected - for fixed terms, and could be impeached like any other elected official, etc. Perhaps some Cardinals could be appointed by the Pope and some elected by the laity of their nation. The Church could be operated in a more business-like way as well.