Single or multiple churches?

[jmcrae]

Unless:
(1) No authority in the Roman Catholic church was directly involved in the religious persecutions of the time period (of which the spanish inquisition was only 1)

AND one of the following

(2) No authority in the Roman Catholic church was aware of the religious persecutions of the time period

(3) The authorities in the Roman Catholic church that were aware of the religious persecutions of the time period did everything that they could to stop the religious persecutions of the time period.

Then the Roman Catholic church has some moral culpability in the religious persecutions of the time period. The only issue left is degree. I have no interest in debating degree.

Would you also say that the Church has an obligation to stop whatever is going on at Guantanamo Bay, since the persons in charge there are at least nominally Christian? Since obviously we are all at least somewhat aware of what is going on there.

And if so, how would you propose that the Church go about doing that, while at the same time not giving the appearance of interfering with national affairs, or being construed to be trying to deprive a nation of its self-defense?

 

[wisdomseeker]

On another board there is this question of Ecclesia vs. Hateriea. Or assembly verses social club when it came to churches. The consensus was that the Chruch was not unified other than that they preached the gospels but each was independent of each other rather than being unified. What position do you hold? What scriptures back up your opinion or historical facts?

here it is.

God had a plan of having a nation in which He could rule without a king here on earth because He would be the King.

So, Jesus came and begin His mission to acomplish this plan.

now we have a nation called Catholic. the people is spread throughout the world but they all belong to the one nation because they are tought the same thing and are under the authority of the prime minister.

this nation has Jesus as the King Who Art in Heaven. here on earth we have the prime minister(pope) and his cabinet the bishops who rule over its people.

if you are not under the leadership of the prime minister (pope)instituted by Jesus, can you consider yourselves to still be under the ruling of Out Lord Jesus if your are being dissobedient to His prime minister? i wouldnt think so.

food for thought.

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D…
**

 

[mozart-250]

Would you also say that the Church has an obligation to stop whatever is going on at Guantanamo Bay, since the persons in charge there are at least nominally Christian? Since obviously we are all at least somewhat aware of what is going on there.

And if so, how would you propose that the Church go about doing that, while at the same time not giving the appearance of interfering with national affairs, or being construed to be trying to deprive a nation of its self-defense?

The Catholic church today can and does speak out (to its credit) against evil in the world today (see abortion). In cases where there is church / state separation that is all that it can do. Did the Catholic church at least speak out against these evils when they were occurring in the 15th-17th centuries?

When I google for example the martyrdom of Michael Sattler (there is a name for you) every source tells me he was delivered to the Catholic authorities. When I read about the martyrdom of John Hus, it says he was condemned by the Council of Constance (an ecumenical Catholic council) and burned at the stake.

 

[jmcrae]

When I read about the martyrdom of John Hus, it says he was condemned by the Council of Constance (an ecumenical Catholic council) and burned at the stake.

I think rightly so. Jan Hus was a dangerous man. He received an appropriate penalty for his actions. He was kind of the Charles Manson or David Koresh of his era - a charismatic cult leader who changed around the words of the Bible to incite others to commit vandalism and violent crimes.

If he had lived in modern times, he would most likely would have received lethal injection or else the electric chair. He was not someone that any Protestant living today would want to be associated with, and if you look at his actual teachings, the romance of his being a “martyr” for his “faith” at the hands of the “big bad Romans” (most of whom were actually members of his own congregation - they did not want whatever “liberation” it was that he was offering them) definitely goes pale.

 

[mozart-250]

I think rightly so. Jan Hus was a dangerous man. He received an appropriate penalty for his actions. He was kind of the Charles Manson or David Koresh of his era - a charismatic cult leader who changed around the words of the Bible to incite others to commit vandalism and violent crimes.

If he had lived in modern times, he would most likely would have received lethal injection or else the electric chair. He was not someone that any Protestant living today would want to be associated with, and if you look at his actual teachings, the romance of his being a “martyr” for his “faith” at the hands of the “big bad Romans” (most of whom were actually members of his own congregation - they did not want whatever “liberation” it was that he was offering them) definitely goes pale.

If you are so morally blind to consider the frying of John Hus to be morally righteous, then I really have nothing to say and will retire from this thread.

I have hoped this is the attitude of isolated errant Catholics, but this seems to occur here far too often to be the case.

 

[jmcrae]

If you are so morally blind to consider the frying of John Hus to be morally righteous, then I really have nothing to say and will retire from this thread.

I have hoped this is the attitude of isolated errant Catholics, but this seems to occur here far too often to be the case.

He was not exactly an “innocent victim”. He received the appropriate justice at the time for his crimes.

 

[ralphinal]

Not to end the talk of Hus flambe style, but I would like to ask Mo a question here.

Why does it seem so easy for you to see the system that I see in the Bible when so many non-Catholic, non-EO Christians do not? WHat is hidden in this text?

 

[mozart-250]

Not to end the talk of Hus flambe style, but I would like to ask Mo a question here.

Why does it seem so easy for you to see the system that I see in the Bible when so many non-Catholic, non-EO Christians do not? WHat is hidden in this text?

Well I think I will recant from retiring from this thread. I think I will just retire from the John Hus…Is it alright for Christians to persecute Christians part of this thread (although I am still shocked that anyone could think that it is alright…this really sounds like calling evil good and good evil which I don’t know how to debate).

Actually it is not that easy for me to see any particular system in the Bible. But perhaps that is because studying the church (is the big word here ecclesiology) in the Bible has always been relatively low in the food chain as far as relevance for my life.

If I am unusual, it is because I don’t have a dispensationalist / cessationalist bone in my body, and if I see something mentioned and practiced in the book of Acts and the early church, my simple assumption is that it is still for today (at least in the ideal sense). That puts me at variance with many Protestants.

Also, I really do not try to approach the Bible with any bias…including a subtle anti-Catholic one. I have come to believe that many of the Protestant extremes I have encountered that I do not subscribe to are simply Protestants throwing out the baby with the bath water in their zeal to be “not Catholic”.

Finally, I have a great big fat skeptic side of my personality anyway, But for the grace of God, I would be a great atheist/agnostic.

 

[ralphinal]

Well I think I will recant from retiring from this thread. I think I will just retire from the John Hus…Is it alright for Christians to persecute Christians part of this thread (although I am still shocked that anyone could think that it is alright…this really sounds like calling evil good and good evil which I don’t know how to debate).

Actually it is not that easy for me to see any particular system in the Bible. But perhaps that is because studying the church (is the big word here ecclesiology) in the Bible has always been relatively low in the food chain as far as relevance for my life.

If I am unusual, it is because I don’t have a dispensationalist / cessationalist bone in my body, and if I see something mentioned and practiced in the book of Acts and the early church, my simple assumption is that it is still for today (at least in the ideal sense). That puts me at variance with many Protestants.

Also, I really do not try to approach the Bible with any bias…including a subtle anti-Catholic one. I have come to believe that many of the Protestant extremes I have encountered that I do not subscribe to are simply Protestants throwing out the baby with the bath water in their zeal to be “not Catholic”.

Finally, I have a great big fat skeptic side of my personality anyway, But for the grace of God, I would be a great atheist/agnostic.

I will not condone nor condemn any acts by those Christians before me unless I know all of the facts. I do think that there were poeple who did things that were at best counter-productive to spreading the Gospel. At worst, they drove people away

Now, for your post, that all makes sense. I have noticed the “see how non-Catholic we are mentality.”

Good post

 

[Steadfast]

I think rightly so. Jan Hus was a dangerous man. He received an appropriate penalty for his actions. He was kind of the Charles Manson or David Koresh of his era - a charismatic cult leader who changed around the words of the Bible to incite others to commit vandalism and violent crimes.

If he had lived in modern times, he would most likely would have received lethal injection or else the electric chair. He was not someone that any Protestant living today would want to be associated with, and if you look at his actual teachings, the romance of his being a “martyr” for his “faith” at the hands of the “big bad Romans” (most of whom were actually members of his own congregation - they did not want whatever “liberation” it was that he was offering them) definitely goes pale.

Um, this is nonsense, Hus was no “Manson” or “Koresh”

You really must go to a source other than H. W. “Anything Goes” Crocker for your historical (hysterical?) information.

 

[ralphinal]

Now to return to previous derailment.

According to the (gag) wikipedia site

Nearly six centuries later in 1999, Pope John Paul II expressed “deep regret for the cruel death inflicted” on Hus. The pope then went on to suggest an inquiry as to whether Hus might be cleared of heresy.

Also, according to that site, he was willing to recant some of what he taught and recieve teaching on the other. He was not willing to recant someone else’s words, but that was not enough for the court. Now, there is the issue of riots and such, but it seems like there is no proof that he caused or encouraged it.

I would love someone to point out a better source.

 

[sambos671]

This was a post by someone off (Tom Butler) of the other site I wonder what the responses are?:

There is an aspect of our discussion that we have not touched on, and that is the question of accountability. To whom are we accountable for the things we do in Jesus’ name?

To whom are you, who say you act as members of the "Universal Church, accountable. If it is to God, how does that work? How does God communicate to you if he is pleased with you or not? How does God let you know if you get it wrong? To whom do you report what you have done?

We have a number of instances in the scriptures which demonstrate either a local church sending out missionaries, holding people accountable, or people reporting to a local church.

When the Judaizers sought to require Gentile converts to be circumsized, Paul and Barnabas debated with them. They they decided to take this issue to a council at Jerusalem, made up of leaders of the congregation there. After hearing Peter and others, James stated his opinion. Acts 15:22 "It pleased the apostles and elders and the whole church to send chosen men of their own company with Paul and Barnabas…to Antioch.

In Acts 8, after Philip reported conversions there, Peter and John went down from the Jerusalem church to verify the report. The personally saw the Holy Spirit fall on the Samaritan believers. This is the church requiring accountability.

In Acts 10, recording Peter’s visit to Cornelius, relates that the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and those gathered at his home. Even then, Peter polled the delegation who came with him. In essence he asked them, "do any of you oppose baptizing these folks, since they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?’ Even Peter sought confirmation of what he believed had happened.

In Acts 13, the Antioch congregation gave their approval to the Holy Spirit’s command to separate them out for a missionary journey. They laid hands on them and sent them off. In Acts 14:27, they returned to Antioch and gave an account of “all that God had done with them.”

Paul, writing in I Corinthians 5, ripped the congregation for putting up with a man who was having an affair. He instructed the church to hold him accountable by separating him from their fellowship.

We can see accoutability at work in local congregations. I don’t understand how it works in the “Unviersal Church.”

Actually, I do understand. There is no accountability because there is no Universal Church.

 

[ralphinal]

This was a post by someone off (Tom Butler) of the other site I wonder what the responses are?:

Well, I see the information but arrive at a different conclusion. The universal Church at the time of Acts WAS that little group right there. THere is accountability to the Council and all through the Epistles you see correction that is clearly local in focus but taught from higher up.

Now I may have misread what he was saying. There are a lot of words and my brain is currently not being an active participant in my life.

 

[sambos671]

Well, I see the information but arrive at a different conclusion. The universal Church at the time of Acts WAS that little group right there. THere is accountability to the Council and all through the Epistles you see correction that is clearly local in focus but taught from higher up.

Now I may have misread what he was saying. There are a lot of words and my brain is currently not being an active participant in my life.

I agree with you Raphinal! I read the same information but saw it as evidence for universality. You didn’t miss understand him that was exactly what he meant. There is this consept of individual churches and that Jesus never instituted a universality in his church. I can’t see this but these people are pretty dogmatic. To be honest I wanted to see another opinion that was closer to what I believe to help me with a response. The scriptures seem to indicate universality with the churches. That each church felt accountable with other churches. Not only in the NT but also with the early church fathers.
I find it curious that they are very dogmatic about this issue but there is some vehemence. Then one refered me to a booklet called “trail of blood” by Carroll. I read through it and found myself wondering at it. Supposeably Baptist identify with persecuted christians by the Universal Church. Which strangely enough was (according to them) established by Constantine. I find it ludicrious that this so. I also followed their supposed lineage and found myself disturbed by it. (Actually it drive me closer to the Catholic Church if there is any validity to it.) Jesus set up a church in Jerusalem with a commission to go into the world. (establishing other independent churches) then the Universal church starts persecuting them before Constantine. The flow they claim is this. After the initial christian churches the “real” christians become Montanist (I have serious issues with this heretical movement as well as pentecostals), then Donatist (strange from Turkey then to North Africa but hey. The Donatist weren’t very forgiving), then Cathare (a Manachean throw off), then the Paulican (another Manachean throw off), to the Waldeans, finally the baptist. The truth is that there is no real lineage for the baptist before the Reformation. Most American baptist are more closely related to the Puritans in England though there were some that came from other European sources. There are those that have similiar theology to Calvin
If these heresys are the protestant heratige I want nothing to do with them. Though I don’t believe it is so.

 

[ralphinal]

Sam,
When you get down to it, most non-Catholic denominaitons can be traced to a man. We even have historical dates and proof. That cannot be denied.

What is the crux of the issue is how was the early church set up. To most people throughout history, it is either like the Catholic or the Orthodox, not a totally independant, self governing Church with no oversight from outside.

I am glad I got what he was saying.

Good post