S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Gary: I to like the way Daler thinks. It does make some sense to me also. I also think that good thoughts or ideas of explaining can come from many different sources not just Catholic one’s.
- Status
P
pocohombre
Guest
Well, I was speaking of you being offended .How do you decide if indeed there is an offense ?
My acceptance of them is not the point, for you surely do, yet you insist on a pope today that is above councils to a degree when he was not always so. I posted that most of our foundation,(for CC,OC, PC) was laid before the first 500 years, therefore councils would be part of the authoratative mechanism. This is part of that “visible” church,visible authority I spoke of. So those councils I suppose we mostly agree on/accept. I am not speaking of all the councils(14,15?) thereafter.
E
eddie_too
Guest
i do not know of any occasion in the history of the RCC where a majority of an ecumenical council disagreed with the Chair of Peter on any point of dogma or morality at the close of the council. if such an event did occur, i am most interested in learning about it.
if such an event has never occurred, it seems to be more than a bit unnecessarily apprehensive to worry about it occurring in the future.
having said that, speculate away about what would be the meaning of such an event to the theology of ecclesiology and more specifically, papal primacy. in speculating it is important to realize that the speculation spreads no additional light on the exact definition of papal primacy issued by vatican one.
if such an event has never occurred, it seems to be more than a bit unnecessarily apprehensive to worry about it occurring in the future.
having said that, speculate away about what would be the meaning of such an event to the theology of ecclesiology and more specifically, papal primacy. in speculating it is important to realize that the speculation spreads no additional light on the exact definition of papal primacy issued by vatican one.
S
SteveVH
Guest
No offense taken, daler. I just wanted to make sure I understood your perspective.
Which begs the question. Why then do we need a new Rose?
If the Catholic Church were dependent upon the wisdom and virtues of man, it would have died out long ago and I would agree with you wholeheartedly. This is something that seems to either be ignored or just not understood, but nevertheless not addressed. Jesus, who we believe to be God incarnate, not a manifestation or simple prophet, promised to remain with his Church until the end of time. He said that HE would BUILD HIS Church. So it is not a human institution, but rather divine. That is why we place our confidence in his Church.
Well, of course, I have as much disdain for the practices of these people as do you. But I do not measure any faith tradition by those who do not adhere to the very practices of the faith which they profess. They are charlatans, and indeed are selling dead flowers.
Once again, no offense taken.
So if I understand you, you are saying that it is a failure of man to bring the fragrance of Christ to the world and therefore we need to be reminded ever so often through various manifestations. This would mean, however, that Christ’s own Church has failed in its great commission to teach all nations. It then follows that Christ’s promises to this Church have failed. Yet the evidence in front of us supports the Catholic position that His Church will never fail. As I have already stated, it is the oldest institution on earth, having outlived every single human institution on earth since its inception. Reality does not contradict the claim, but rather supports it.
God bless.
Steve
S
SteveVH
Guest
If one breaks into my house and steals my wife’s jewelry do you imagine that I need to inquire as to whether or not I should be offended? And do I need to inquire as to whether or not I should forgive?
I don’t think so.
Excuse me, but you are arguing for the validity of Catholic councils for your own foundation and then usurping that authority in deciding for yourself which councils are valid and which are not. That is nonsensical. The same Church which convened the councils with which you agree also convened the councils with which you disagree. Where do you derive the authority to make such a decision?
P
pocohombre
Guest
It was assembly of God,now independent…We may not have bishops by today’s definition but certainly presbyters, which in scripture means bishop also…I say I can’t trace it but it is there somehow. While the physical touching, laying on of hand, the ordaining is visible and important, so is the transfer of the body of faith to be kept in tact, which is the whole reason for the ordaining in the first place. So the question you bring up is the physical "succession, while I bring up the actual transfer of the body of faith also.The two can be exclusive, and is not an automatic assumption that one follows the other. That is what I meant in that for sure the tracing is there for both of our bodies of faith, as held in a presbyter/teacher/prophet.missionary(apostle). We have similar yet different ideas about succession.
.Understand. Pretty neat, but again we disagree on the automatic transference of the body of faith thru out that long list …Anyways, does a bishop actually have, or can find an actual list / Is it something that can be looked up or if you call his office could he show it to you ?.Fascinating.
Thank you .Would one be wrong then to say the manner in which it is done is not apostolic, perhaps in spirit but not in mechanism, How is it done today(is it the pope/Rome), when did it change and why ? Thanks.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Hang in there ,trying to make point about visible authority .How do you know, not that you are offended, but offended because it is wrong to steal ? How do you know the thief is wrong ?
Yes, I thought this might logically come up. It is like changing mid stream, right? It is what I proposed the CC did also, by overriding other councils and declaring pope above them. How does one council override another, by what authority ? It like the authorities come looking to take your neighbor away unjustly but it is ok by you, and then another neighbor is taken, and still ok by you, you are silent until finally they come for you . Some people have a breaking point. The last one was for the Old Catholics after Vat 1, I think. They agree with, or at least accepted, the first 19 councils but that twentieth went too far. They could easily claim and quote Blessed pope Pius IX:
“I am only the pope. What power have I to touch the Canon?”
“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.”
webspace.webring.com/people/u…0the%20Fathers
P
pocohombre
Guest
I understand and sometimes try to use same argument for certain things.Same argument. If it is of God, we can’t stop it. If it isn’t it will fizzle out. Trouble is, it is not always true.The Jews did say this exact same thing about Jesus, then they crucified Him .The Jews also said that about the first “christians” and then shortly after martyred Stephen. Yet CC says OC and PC is not of God and has not fizzled out and we say you are wrong and you have not fizzled out. Islam.the Mormons, JW’s, Bhuddhists, Hindu’s etc. etc. have not fizzled out. So it is problematic, and persevering existence is not always a validation of correctness.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Good point,not sure .How do you excommunicate a pope( which has happened). Anyways you use a key word, “majority” which is proper, but can be problematic with politicalization. From what I understand there can be a lot of posturing and behind the scenes negotiating and even keeping the “minority” at bay or with limited verbilization or keep them from bringing views to floor on an equal basis(A bit like Washington). And it is interesting that a majority voting block is made up of Italian cardinals, and most popes have been Italian. I posted here somewhere the ratio of cardinals per catholic population per country…Thanks
Yes, things have been safeguarded for the status quo.is what some might say.
True, we have enough to speculate on already with the past.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Actually, it isn’t. Now, don’t get me wrong…I’m not saying that the leaders of of AoG are not holy, God-fearing, etc. But, and this is the part Bible Christians have a hard time with, either you have Apostolic Succession or you don’t. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (and a tiny group of Lutherans in Norway or someplace like that) do. No one else has valid apostolic succession.
Fair enough. My contention would be that Catholic bishops have both. They teach the faith handed on from the apostles AND they have been ordained validly by those who were validly ordained before them all the way back to the Apostles. Conversely, your clergy have “faith” but not apostolic authority via succession.
Some of this can be researched online, but yes, the bishops office can actually show you the list of his succession. It’s a bit like looking at a genealogical tree except that Bishops are generally ordained by three other bishops whereas you and I only have two biological parents. The reason for ordination by multiple bishops was to ensure that every ordination was valid. This is further evidence of just how important this stuff is.
This is a matter of Church Discipline (which can change) and not doctrine (which cannot change). In the past, consultation with the pope required long journeys that were undertaken with more than a little physical risk. As a result, many things were handled locally. In modern times, communication with the Pope has become easier (mail, phones, faxes, Internet, texting, etc.), so consulting with the Pope on matters that would have been handled locally has become much easier.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well, one way is to become Orthodox.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Their authority certainly is. For example, what does Protestantism teach about human sexuality? It’s all over the map, in practice - everything from the traditional definition of marriage, to allowing common-law arrangements, to actually blessing same-sex unions, with no one tell them they can’t do that - and everyone has his own opinion, but no one can say definitively, this is the teaching, according to Protestantism.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Islam, JW, and Mormons have not been around very long, less than a few hundred years in contrast to the Catholic Church, which is the oldest religion except for Judaism. All others that still exist in practice today are much younger.
Age is not as much the issue as timing though - the Catholic Church began to exist when Jesus was saying “My Church” - everything else began at some other time.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
and Hinduism, and Buddhism, and Jainism, and Zoroastrianism, and Shintoism…
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Except the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Polish National Catholic Church, and the Old Catholic Church.
P
PJM
Guest
Please excuse my DUH!!!
Do they believe in GOD?
If Not how can they be a “religion?”
God Bless you,
P
pocohombre
Guest
Thanks ,just looked it up and all were before Christ ,I mean Jesus incarnate.Thanks
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Hindus and Zoroastrians-most certainly. As for Buddhists and Jains, they do not believe in a creator god, but they do believe in a spirit world. Shintoism believes in nature spirits/gods.Please excuse my DUH!!!
Do they believe in GOD?
If Not how can they be a “religion?”
God Bless you,
P
PJM
Guest
ASTUTE Observation my friend,
that Is my point
- Status