G
GKC
Guest
Only if you read the book(s).Thank you for all your diligent research. I feel like I just got out of a graduate seminar. Do I have to give a book report next week?
GKC
- Status
GKC
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Wait, what?Thank you. She is such a sweet person that it’s heartbreaking to see her lose strength and health. I know many people face these things sooner or later.
Did I miss something?
I certainly hope she’s OK.
S
SteveVH
Guest
I think the reference is to AbideWithMe’s ailing mother. I don’t know why GKC said:
Maybe GKC can explain.
G
GKC
Guest
I think she has me blocked.I think the reference is to AbideWithMe’s ailing mother. I don’t know why GKC said:
Maybe GKC can explain.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
Tomi this phrase has been sticking in my mid for a couple of days. I started to make assumptions about what you might mean by “demonstably lower level” then realized it might be better to ask.
Would these be like pastors in training? Pastors with less expereince?
G
GKC
Guest
B
benhur
Guest
. See CCC91-92]“Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things”. The “ye” is all the "little children "he mentions all thru out the epistle so it is not to other elders as some try to imply. Here is my quote from another thread that is appropo: "Absolutely but if we go to far with the dichotomizing (individual vs “Body’ Church) we may abrogate the dignity and newness of those middle wall of partitions being torn down and the veil being torn in two. It does say neighbor will *not *need to teach his neighbor, that He, the Almighty, will write the law on the heart of the believer, and (as Augustine says, He, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, will teach us), even illumine every member of the ecclesia, forbearing teachers and prophets and apostles and healers, etc… It is a new dispensation, where He will pour out His spirit upon all flesh , a new covenant.”…So, it is both individual and corporate and am careful not to diminish any member of the ecclesia. It is not just the church in a corporate sense if taken in context. It is “whosoever” is in the Body. John speaks to you and me as individuals as part of the ecclesia. He does not say the Church sets you straight . He does not say the magisterium sets you straight . They could not set straight those that departed from the church and consequently I say it is not the ultimate reason for those staying in it. He says the Holy One sets you straight (again forbearing the giftings and offices we may have as indicated in other scriptures).
T
Tomyris
Guest
Four models
1
a A herd of wild horses. One stallion who will kill any and all potential rivals. Other males are tolerated as long as they know their place. The ‘head pastor’ may go through a succession of titles, from ‘pastor’ to ‘prophet’ and finally to ‘apostle’. He may have ‘deacons’ but no other elders, no one in a decision making capacity.
b I observed a church in which there was an ‘apostle’ and ordained elders under him. He, however, made all the decisions and was quick to criticize and limit and override the under-elders. (See #1) Young, gifted people who could really have blessed the church were driven out. Likewise people who called him on it. He actually finally recognized what he was doing and moved halfway across the country, and fought the urge the rest of his life to keep his hand in it.
c The charismatic leader without any organizational skills - he is the boss, no question, but is willing to recognize, use and develop the gifts of others. Often you will see a someone highly skilled in administration quietly working to keep the place running - but he also knows enough to make sure the charismatic leader does not feel threatened (see #1).
I am not talking necessarily about the Gifts of the Spirit here - this could be someone with fantastic teaching, preaching or ‘people skills’, or someone who sets the example and challenges others to follow. I have in mind the founder and director of an inner city ministry to the poor that I observed in a city I used to live in. His followers, and others, really do buy into ‘the man of God’.
- One ordained elder, some deacons who answer to him (and maybe to him alone). If there is another pastor, he is the ASSISTANT or JUNIOR pastor, with a markedly reduced role and responsibilities.
- One head pastor, experienced, Type A, and elders on the ‘Board’ who basically rubber-stamp everything he says. This is a degraded form of presbyterianism. A milder form of #1 but if the head pastor loves power, there is no stopping him.
- Christ and His disciples. He was God to them. Legitimately. We can recognize a primacy for Peter without maintaining Peter was supposed to be so far ahead of the others that they answered to him.(shameless plug follows) In the book of Acts and the rest of the NT we see plural leadership: “set in place elderS” never a sole pastor. And I think that community of eldership was something that He taught the twelve, something that the papacy in its degeneration (see Alexander VI) lost.
T
Tomyris
Guest
I am flummoxed. What odds? What race?
Do you think leggings will make a comeback? I think they have never left.
We have not touched on the absence of teaching authority in the Catholic Church in the late medieval era, and the prevalence of multitudinous views that the Magisterium was silent on. People did not know where the teaching authority lay, whether with the monastarys, the universities, or where. Some of this was because of the aftereffects of the time of the pope and anti-pope and the papal concern for earthly power, but another whole effect was the real abandonment of any sort of guidance of the church in terms of teaching.
Comments? I would dearly love to hear your approach to ankle and calf tattoos in coordination with capris-length leggings. Or maybe not. And, of course, their bearing on the Reformation.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
And while we are at it.
How come Mickey Mouse wears pants and not shirt but Donald Duck wears a shirt and no pants? And then Goofy is fully dressed while poor Pluto is au-naturale?
G
GKC
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
We do not think that what is given by God is revoked because people refuse to embrace and use the gift. Corruption does not invalidate the authentic, anymore than Judas’ betrayal of his office can invalidate the reality of the offices of the other Apostles.
Truth is not defined by those who depart from it.
but, if you wish, we can certainly delve into any and everything that relates to the Reformational “fuss”.
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s vastly overstated. The authority conflicts were mostly administrative, not doctrinal, and when there were doctrinal controversies (like John XXII’s view on the Beatific Vision) they were pretty rarefied and were resolved relatively quickly. The major exception was the Immaculate Conception, but it wasn’t as if that couldn’t have been resolved. The papacy did not weigh in on it, and the one Council that did was a schismatic one.
There was a vast, overwhelming consensus on doctrine, and the authority of the Pope was accepted–the question was precisely how that authority interacted with other authorities. Again, you’re blowing things out of proportion in order to create a false comparison with the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism. And you’re assuming, as you do throughout, that the Catholic position requires absolute, cookie-cutter unanimity. Just because some silly people on the Internet talk this way doesn’t justify you in ignoring the nuanced work on authority that has been produced by good Catholic theologians and by official Church organs such as Vatican II.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Very good explanation. Still, there is a conceptual distinction which I think is unjustified. It isn’t, in my view, that the classical Protestant view is outright heretical so much as that it’s unnecessarily cumbersome. You have to introduce a lot of “epicycles” in order to avoid antinomian conclusions. This doesn’t automatically make the position false, but it does raise the question of whether all this is really necessary.
It’s not a myth. No one, of course, encourages such behavior, but in some Baptist circles this is the conclusion. It’s a result of tearing perseverance of the saints out of its original Reformed context. If you believe that a person can be born again by an act of the free will (free in a “libertarian” sense), and that such a person’s salvation is then assured, it seems to follow that (however deplorably) a person could then choose to live an ungodly life, die, and go to heaven. In my experience, Baptists (of the “eternal security but not Calvinism” persuasion) waver between something like the Reformed position (believers won’t want to sin) and genuine antinomianism. But some do in fact bite the bullet and say that being born again is no guarantee of a righteous life and that a person who chooses to live an unrighteous life will “lose their reward” but will still go to heaven. One claim I’ve commonly heard in fundamentalist Baptist circles is that a sinful believer will be punished by temporal death (this seems to result from OT passages about death as the consequence of sin).
Apparently there have been Calvinists who held to antinomian views–perhaps the Primitive Baptists do today, although I am not directly familiar with them. In the eighteenth century, John Fletcher charged some of his Calvinist contemporaries with antinomianism, while acknowledging that this was by no means the dominant position among evangelical Calvinists. But my experience agrees with yours that Calvinists are, by and large, very far from antinomianism. Indeed, if anything I see more antinomianism among Catholics and more works righteousness (of both the neurotically fearful and the smugly self-righteous variety) among Calvinists!
Edwin
R
rfournier103
Guest
I think the Reformation CONTINUES to have negative ramifications on Christianity as a whole, and Catholics in particular; therefore making it of significant importance in the 21st Century.
Even with any bloodshed that may have occurred with the Great Schism in the 1000s; it is a small drop in the bucket compared to the brutality and atrocities committed against Catholics by Protestants in Europe during the Reformation and the era following it. Oliver Cromwell’s atrocities against Catholics are a shining example of Protestantism’s attitudes of the day towards Catholicism. Anti-Catholic attitudes in Britain and Ireland persist to this day because of Cromwell’s actions. I don’t know what Protestant “church” Cromwell belonged to, but have they ever apologized or even acknowledged their genocide against Catholics? I searched the internet and couldn’t find anything
Is there anything in Protestantism like this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II?
The Reformation also has warped Christian theology…
For example; IS Christ present on the Holy Eucharist or NOT??? Catholicism and Orthodoxy say YES. You (Protestants) say no. In effect, the Reformation denied Christ’s presence. The day Christians denied Christ was a sad day. I have had a Protestant say to my face that the Body of Christ was a “cracker”. My self-control was sorely tested with that “gentleman”. A lasting consequence of your glorious Reformation.
This brings us to interpretation of Sacred Scripture. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has been interpreting Scripture since the founding of the Church. (see Acts 8:26-31) A LITERATE man needs interpretation of Scripture. Not only in Acts Chapter 8, but whenever anyone wishes to study Scripture. That’s why we have footnotes and explanations in our Bibles, no? In Catholic versions of the Holy Bible, these footnotes have been either written by, or approved by the Church. Without guidance, we have a hodgepodge of people deciding for themselves what Scripture really means.
~Is abortion murder? Some Protestants say yes; some say no.
~Can homosexuals be considered married in the eyes of God? Some Protestants say yes; some say no.
~Can women be ordained clergy? Some Protestants say yes; some say no.
Granted, not every Catholic tows the company line on all of these topics; BUT there IS a company line on these issues - determined by the Church’s interpretation of Sacred Scripture.
The Reformation gave the unwashed masses license to interpret the Bible in any way that suits them; and the world is far worse off for it.
Lastly, Protestant anti-Catholic bigotry persists to this day. For your reading pleasure; Tomy:
ianpaisley.org/antichrist.asp
ign.com/boards/threads/why-the-new-pope-is-the-antichrist.452918537/
reachingcatholics.org/eucharistic_adoration.html
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4303692.stm
jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm
These sites and stories are NOT the result of Protestants wanting to coexist with Catholics. These people want us to see the “heresies” of Catholicism and convert. Anti-Catholic intolerance and biggotry is the ripest fruit of the Reformation; and it is VERY MUCH alive and well.
That’s why all the fuss.
T
Tomyris
Guest
I find in this presumption and a bizarre twist on ‘once saved, always saved’ only at the corporate level. God took away Israel and Judah because of their sins, and he took away the Levitical priesthood. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Why do you think God would spare the papacy?
Agreed. But this knife slices in more than one direction.
Secondly, much of what the Reformation discussed were matters that had not been central in earlier disputes in the Church. For example, during the Trinitarian controversy, people wrote on that, and the quotes we have to bolster whatever position are asides, presented in the course of discussing other things. There is an enormous amount of overly enthusiastic eisegesis on both sides, particularly pertaining to Augustine. Methinks less of an interested in rhetoric and more of one on lucidity would have been helpful. The gentle bishop rambled and was infected with prolixity. My suspicion is that at some point the Church has endeavored to rule on what the paradosis did not contain, making the mistake that any extension from the same is as good as the original if you presume on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Like the effect on fashions in ladies’ hats? Historians have not spent much attention on this aspect, IMHO.
T
Tomyris
Guest
What I said lines up with what I have read, so I think you may be overstating how vastly I have overstated. I believe you will agree that there were competing authorities, with the University of Paris, for example, being looked to. I will back up to the extent of saying that it was a complex situation, one that may no longer be apprehendable by us. Many (Erasmus, for example) were calling for reformation (although he himself did not cross the Danube, or the Rhine, or whatever). The Greek texts had arrived from the east and there was some consternation in their discovery: is THIS what the Church teaches?
My bubbly, happy thought is that if Leo X had been guided by the Holy Ghost and was the guardian of the unity of the Church, the very symbol of the unity, he could have held a council early on and listened to everyone. Group hugs and tears and reconciliation and we would still be one church organizationally. That in itself calls into question the ability of the papacy to effect unity - where was it when it was really needed? Off at a concert or something.
- Status