Skip to comments.Catholic Leaders in Massachusetts Come Out in Support of Sweeping Anti-Gun Legislation
Posted on 06/01/2014 7:45:05 AM PDT by KeyLargo
Catholic Leaders in Massachusetts Come Out in Support of Sweeping Anti-Gun Legislation May 31 2014 by Dan Cannon Share This Post
According to a statement issued by The Roman Catholic Bishops of the Commonwealth, it looks like the leaders of the Catholic church in Massachusetts have come out in support of a sweeping gun control bill that was introduced late last week.
Here is the statement according to iobserve.org,
The Roman Catholic Bishops of the Commonwealth are in support of adjustments to existing firearm laws. Any law that would address the role that violence, some mental illnesses, and substance abuse play in many tragedies involving firearms would be a welcomed advance in this area of the law and would be a great benefit to our society.
It appears that the legislation introduced Tuesday is measured and reasonable; it does not infringe upon the rights of sportsmen and others who possess firearms for legal and legitimate purposes. It would help to prevent tragedies such as those in Newtown, Connecticut or more recently in Isla Vista, California. No community is immune to the possibility of a devastating tragedy. Whatever its final form, it is abundantly clear that legislation aimed toward the reduction of preventable deaths is necessary.
If Massachusetts Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo gets his way, MA will become one of the least gun friendly states in the country.
The lawmaker today unveiled a gun control package that includes sweeping restrictions. According to The Boston Herald,
The bill, called the states most comprehensive since 1998 by House leaders, adds the state to a nationwide criminal background database and, for the first time, allows local police chiefs discretion in licensing owners for shotguns and rifles. The legislation also bans the private sale of guns without a licensed gun dealer and requires gun owners to list all the guns they own each time they renew their license.
I knew that Massachusetts would take a different path than other states, said DeLeo, who chided other states for legislation that was hastily proposed in the aftermath of the massacre at Newtowns Sandy Hook elementary school in December 2012. What is in this legislation is very, very reasonable.
There seems to be many religious denominations that have an affinity for communist thought even though one of the basic tenants of communism is Atheism and anti human actions.
So who listens? They come out with all kinds of dopey things but it ain’t dogma and it ain’t infallible.
BOSTON The Massachusetts Catholic Conference has released the following statement on behalf of the four Roman Catholic bishops of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in reaction to Tuesdays introduction of An Act relative to the reduction of gun violence in the Massachusetts Legislature:
The Roman Catholic Bishops of the Commonwealth are in support of adjustments to existing firearm laws. Any law that would address the role that violence, some mental illnesses, and substance abuse play in many tragedies involving firearms would be a welcomed advance in this area of the law and would be a great benefit to our society.
“It appears that the legislation introduced Tuesday is measured and reasonable; it does not infringe upon the rights of sportsmen and others who possess firearms for legal and legitimate purposes. It would help to prevent tragedies such as those in Newtown, Connecticut or more recently in Isla Vista, California. No community is immune to the possibility of a devastating tragedy. Whatever its final form, it is abundantly clear that legislation aimed toward the reduction of preventable deaths is necessary.
His Eminence Seán P. Cardinal OMalley, OFM, Cap.
Archbishop of Boston
Most Rev. Timothy A. McDonnell
Bishop of Springfield
Most Rev. Robert J. McManus
Bishop of Worcester
Most Rev. George W. Coleman
Bishop of Fall River
Sadly,the Roman Catholic Church has always been comfortable with dictatorship and absolute monarchs. The divine right of kings and all that nonsense.
The only thing these douchebags never talk about is Jesus Christ and salvation. I am so sick of the hierarchy, going right up to Pope Bozo the First.
Yet again, the AmCath Bishops expose their utter foolishness. They all need to confess the sin of meddling into matters they have no authority or competence in.
Massachusetts: Clergy coming out in favor of strict new gun control bill
5/31/14 | by Chris Eger
According to a 2010 survey by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, Massachusetts is the most heavily Catholic state in the Union, with some 44 percent of its residents belonging to parishes.
The move by the Catholic leaders in New England can be seen as a continuation of involvement by clergy in the gun-control debate.
Earlier this month, when Georgias controversial new gun law allowing concealed carry in churches passed into law, both Episcopal and Catholic bishops in that state issued decrees banning the practice. Jewish rabbis in Atlanta soon echoed this stance.
How about restoring orthodoxy to seminaries and nominally Catholic colleges, as a matter of priority?
One of several reasons THIS recovering catholic will never return to that church.
Gun ownership isn’t about “sportsman” activity any more than SUV ownership is.
THERE is a job worthy of the office. Teaching and preaching and all that.
And no, Catholics have not historically proposed or defended the "divine right of kings". On the contrary, all the great Catholic reformers (believed and taught that the power of kings is limited. Ref. the Gregorian (Hildebrandian) reforms of the 11th century, and the lay investiture controversy.
Any student of history knows that over many centuries popes engaged in diplomatic conflict and even warfare against kings and emperors.
The Church of Massachusetts?
The sins/mistakes of men is not a reason to leave/stay away from the Church. (Or even to join it). Just to say, for your benefit.
The only reason to come or stay is because one is convinced Jesus is present. Because men will always disappoint, no matter where one goes.
It’s never been the promise of the Church to say her leadership wouldn’t disappoint. After all, they can’t fulfill our infinite desire since they aren’t Christ, thus they will always disappoint if we expect them to fulfill the desire for Christ only He can satisfy.
The only promise they keep is that they, as a body (not as individuals) would never teach, corporately and cooperatively, error on faith or morals. Not politics.
Daniel I thought you might find this interesting given our previous chat on the subject of authority and infallibility.
Firearm Ownership is something like 1/8 of what it was 20 years ago in Mass. This would take it to almost 0 IMHO, and the last remaining Conservatives would have no choice but to leave. Enjoy your Socialist Paradise ( sarc / off ) .....
Don't remember Prop 6, but MA's copy of CA's Prop 13 was Prop 2½ (actual name Proposition 2, but it limited local property tax increases to 2.5%, without a voter override...)
The Catholic bishops’ stupid statement on guns is but one more example of those ordained in the post-Vatican II kumbaya era declaring their far-left views for all to see.
I’m Catholic. Most bishops IMO are far removed from the daily pastoral work of parish priests. Their eyes & their lifestyles are at a loftier height than that.
Most members of the Catholic church are and always have been democrat voters, there is only a handful of exceptions, and most of those were for the second term, not the first.
We are importing millions of Catholics, the political message they receive from their leadership, matters.
Was prop 6 led by conservatives, or libertarians?
If what Catholics call "sacraments" were actually a gift...
...then the leadership, the people who partake in the sacraments the most...
...would show some indication of additional wisdom, of additional love, of basic "signs" that a gift has been imparted to them.
Instead, what we see is just the opposite: those that partake in it the most, that pursue Catholicism with, well, "religious fervor" - the leadership - are the ones pushing for all this sin, and most insultingly, are trying to do it using the good name of Christ.
Supporting murder (through extensive outright support of abortion-loving politicians) - check.
Supporting theft and covetousness - through outright calls for socialism - BY THE POPE - check.
Support of false idols - through support (here in the Bay Area) of yoga as a "Catholic practice" - check.
(And yes, although Mary is the mother of Christianity, many, with the Church's support - go way overboard with adoring her, rather than just honoring her.)
Support of lying outright, by being two-faced when questioned why they do the above - check.
Support for foreign invasion, and for making fellow Americans unemployed, through support for amnesty and more H1B visas - check.
Support for tyranny through taking away basic rights of self-defense - check.
On and on and on.
There are things about Catholicism I miss, but the fruits of it are poison, absolute poison. What they say about the sacraments CANNOT be true. Love Christ, not Catholicism!
Wait until some disturbed, armed LIB decides to take over a church service because they are “gun-free” zones.
Catholicism is just another name for so-called social justice, progressivism, liberalism and even communism. This pope and so many of the other entrenched hierarchy of bishops and priests are sellouts. This is just more of it.
Thanks, for the correction, and dusting off the cobwebs :-) it had been a long time since I last thought of that ballot issue...
To quote the late great Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen:
“WHO IS GOING TO SAVE OUR CHURCH? NOT OUR BISHOPS, NOT OUR PRIESTS AND RELIGIOUS. IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE. YOU HAVE THE MINDS, THE EYES, THE EARS TO SAVE THE CHURCH. YOUR MISSION IS TO SEE THAT YOUR PRIESTS ACT LIKE PRIESTS, YOUR BISHOPS, LIKE BISHOPS, AND YOUR RELIGIOUS ACT LIKE RELIGIOUS.
Bishops are director level administrators in RC INC., the largest, most profitable, oldest multinational corporation on the planet.
What do you expect from a group of people that looked the other way for years with Cardinal Law at the helm?
I’m sooo tired of your anti-Catholic rants. Day in, day out.
The anti-Catholic loons are out today - must be Sunday!
I’me never made an anti-Catholic rant, so don’t lie about that, democrat voting and politics was the subject of that post.
You don’t connect the subject of this thread with Catholics being democrat voters?
Not anti-RC. Just against what RC inc has become. Do you realize your diocese probably has on retainer high priced lawyers at upwards fo 500$/hr. to defend against molestation charges? A large portion of your collection plate contribution goes to their legal bills.. Have you ever been involved in being a small part in a priest molestation trial (deposition about what happened to someone in the past?)? It is a very sordid affair and the lawyers for RCINC play for keeps.
Err...I’m a lapsed Catholic who is just sick of the Catholic hatred on FR. I don’t have a diocese. Why don’t you take a deep breath, a la Hillary Clinton, and go bug some Episcopalians.
Little defensive are we when confronted with facts like Dear Leader?
Its never been the promise of the Church to say her leadership wouldnt disappoint....
But the doctrine of infallibility assures men will not disappoint under certain conditions. The problem is that this formulaic assured infallibility is neither taught nor required in Scripture. But you believe it, based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
The only promise they keep is that they, as a body (not as individuals) would never teach, corporately and cooperatively, error on faith or morals.
No, Rome does indeed promise individuals would never teach, corporately and cooperatively, error on faith or morals, that being the pope under the said conditions. Yet which is not what Scripture teaches, but which is extrapolated based upon false premises referred to in my last post to you.
Protesters Question Clergyman’s Loyalty
At Archbishop Jose Gomez Residence
Dozens of protesters have shown up at Archbishop of Los Angelus Jose Gomez residence many carrying American flags and bearing signs questioning his loyalty to the US not Mexico along with many signs demanding equal rights for American citizens in Mexico.
The protest was apparently triggered by the clerics decision to push forward with his predecessors decision the disgraced Cardinal Mahoney with offering amnesty thus citizenship to Mexicans crossing the border illegally while thousands of Americans in Mexico suffer under 2nd class citizenship unable to own property and suffer indignitys let alone participate in Mexican elections while living there in Mexico.
A spokeswoman for the group, Harriet Hildegarden insisted her group consists of Catholics loyal to the church. “We will be protesting at other locations where prominent clergy of the church have sided with the Obama regime”Hildy” claims the church is supporting the democrat party which denied God at their convention and declared what she claims is war on the Catholics but would collude with i t on many issues including “amnesty” .
When asked if she may be denied communion for her activities her reply was “Well it’s been known that when that happens quicker when clerics get personally attacked than when some politican challanges the church on the grounds of faith and morals” . You didn’t hear much from them (the bishops) about the Gosnell baby murderer trial. Now that it’s winding up perhaps the bishops might call a “conference” next year but they sure acted swiftly when it comes to allowing this country resigning its sovereign rights new parishioners.
WHILE THIS WAS SATIRE THAT’S WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN
Ah, nothing like a content-free attempted insult to prove...
...that you have no content to dispute our points.
Love Christ, not an organization.
Sure thing dirt-bag!
You can posit all you want, but this isn’t the only time it’s leadership has “disappointed.”
You demand Scriptural proof of an infallible magisterium but when given to you by other Catholics you reject it because you don’t agree with it. You don’t agree with it because you reject the idea of an infallible magisterium to begin with.
I can see no further reason to go around in this circle with you. Either you accept from your own experience that human beings need a final tangible authority to settle matters of dispute, and that Jesus knows this need which is why he established the church the way he did, or you don’t. You don’t agree that God uses humans to teach humans. You don’t agree that Tradition actually generated Scripture, (both new and old testaments) you don’t agree that there is any need for a teaching authority despite your protestations (no pun intended) to the contrary.
What function does a teaching authority serve if, at a certain point in a study of Scripture you come to a point where you disagree with your teachers? Your elders? You may submit to them or you might not, citing the Bible as your reason to disagree. And then you leave that church to find or found another and the process starts all over again.
Your teachers are mere figureheads, at the mercy and whim of their flock. The pastor doesn’t fulfill his role of Shepard in that scenario, he’s a man of popularity. Trying to please as many as possible in his congregation so they don’t all leave or throw him out. After all, it’s their right to do so, if the pastor doesn’t follow the Bible (ie, do what the congregation THINKS the Bible says).
There’s no real submission there. There’s no real authority. There’s no vulnerability on the part of the people who are unwilling to say, “You know what, I might just be wrong and can’t see it. I may never be able to see how I’m wrong but I’m willing to trust in my elders over my own opinion”.
There’s none of that. And there should be. Or else tradition and history and a teacher, all appointed and given by God, have no meaning.
The Bible can’t be the sole rule on matters of faith, all of human history proves all this does is not only allow, but encourage individuals to ignore history and tradition whenever it suits them, eventually citing Scripture as the reason for fragmentation. As I’ve said to another if that kind of disorder and rebelliousness is what you believe God intends for his “invisible church” so be it. It just doesn’t work for me, as a believer who’s also a human being.
I don’t know why the both of you seem to have such a problem believing that God uses fallible men to teach truth.
Were the authors of Scripture sinless? I don’t think they were. But they were used by God in an even greater way than occurs today! The written word of God is closed, but even THAT was written by fallible men.
Somehow though, the notion that, today, God would keep a few of these fallible men from just teaching error (which is LESS than the Word of God itself) is an anathema? Satanic? Cultish?
Do you believe in miracles? Really?
Liberation theology, gun grabbing, nuclear freeze (remember that one?) and amnesty for illegals are, for starters, why that church is one with whom I will not associate. For those who want to go down that path, more power to them.... but not me.
Especially THIS pope. While his regular-guy appeal is laudable, he seems to have an underlying streak of leftist populism.
Those are all political positions.
Again, no one says the Catholic Church can’t make mistakes wrt politics. And you’re even allowed to much less encouraged to voice dissent in such cases where a priest or bishop tries to use his office to further a political agenda. (If such agenda is contrary to universal church teaching like liberation theology is, by the way. Liberation theology is condemned by the church)
Just be sure you choose to separate yourself like I said, for the right reason. Not because you disagree politically but because you don’t believe Jesus is found in it. Because again, men fail when they go at it alone without Jesus, which is what happens every time when bishops and priests promote leftist Marxist agendas. But the church doesn’t fail in her universal teaching, only the men that pervert it.
Mistakes are one thing... repeated policy statements (remember all those "bishops' letters demanding a nuclear freeze?) are another. I'm not blasting the catholic church... it's just not for me.
And besides.. the route to salvation is through a personal relationship with Christ.
Rather, it is it is RCs who must reject anything that contradicts Rome as that is the supreme authority for Truth. Meanwhile, as i first require Scriptural substantiation, i reject the AIM (assuredly infallible magisterium) of Rome because it is not found in Scripture.
For Scriptural proof of her infallible magisterium has never been provided by anyone, but instead it is extrapolated out of promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, which presuppose an AIM is essential for this and assurance of Truth (such as what writings are of God and what they mean), which is why i ask my questions.
Only to be met with silence, or a denial that a basis is needed (faith is a gift), or that is contains too many presuppositions (but which are RC presuppositions), or which fail to apprehend what the RC position is arguing, and thus misconstrue what the issue is
For in the face of our Scriptural reproofs of RC traditions, we are constantly given "the Catholic church gave you the Bible," "without the Catholic church you would not have a Bible," "he that rejects you [Rome] rejects me" and other like polemical assertions that reprove as "private interpretation" contrary arguments, and argue a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium is necessary to fulfill promises of Divine presence, and preservation and for providing Truth and assurance of it (including knowing what the Bible is and means). And that her historical descent of apostolic succession proves she is that magisterium. Thus those who rebel against Rome are
Yet the texts they extrapolate this AIM from are interpretive, and assurance of Truth being obtained on the basis of objective examination of evidences is an evangelical means of determining Truth, and instead the RCs is assured such texts support Rome because she is infallible and uses them for support. Thus the RC basis for assurance of Truth is the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, who has infallibly decreed she uniquely possesses this.
I can see no further reason to go around in this circle with you.
I assure you, it is not my argument that is circular, it is the RCs.
Either you accept from your own experience that human beings need a final tangible authority to settle matters of dispute, and that Jesus knows this need which is why he established the church the way he did, or you dont.
Again, you are misrepresenting the issue, which is not that of the place of the teaching office, but an assuredly infallible magisterium. Westminster: "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.... - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
In order to defend Rome, you must argue that the perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium is Biblically essential to assuredly settle matters of dispute, and thus to provide Biblical assurance of Truth, including recognizing which men and writings are of God and what they mean, so that dissent from this is rebellion against God.
You dont agree that God uses humans to teach humans.
You are resorting to straw man.
You dont agree that Tradition actually generated Scripture, (both new and old testaments)
Another straw man. That fact that some (and only some) of Scripture first existed in oral form does not justify anything that also was oral as equally being the assured word of God, as writing of God, like men of God, were essentially established as being so due to their unique and enduring qualities and attestation, not by the decree of an AIM (if you disagree, tell me how anyone know Isaiah and his writings were of God). And once Scripture began to be written, it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And additional conflative and complementary writings were added to it. Thus Rome's traditions must be judged by Scripture, and which shows they are not found therein, including her traditions of a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, which is the real basis for these traditions having authority. "Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true. Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
you dont agree that there is any need for a teaching authority despite your protestations (no pun intended) to the contrary.
More straw. What is not Scriptural is an infallible supreme court, and which in Scripture was not how God provided or preserved Truth and faith. Instead He often raised up men from without the magisterium to reprove it. Thus the church began under dissenters, the Lord and apostles and prophets. (Eph. 2:20) And these followers of Christ did not make the mistake of also presuming of themselves above that which is written.
What function does a teaching authority serve if, at a certain point in a study of Scripture you come to a point where you disagree with your teachers? Your elders? You may submit to them or you might not, citing the Bible as your reason to disagree. And then you leave that church to find or found another and the process starts all over again.
What a disaster! I even know of an entire religion that began when the common people held a man in the desert who are insects to be a prophet indeed, and gladly heard an itinerant Preacher, (Mk. 12:37) both of whom reproved by Scripture as supreme (Mk/ 7:2-16) the magisterium who sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) over Israel, who were the inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34) and which leaders challenged and rejected the authority of both of them.
But which Preacher established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, , by conformity to text and in virtue and supernatural attestation, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Thus since the church actually Thus both men and magisteriums can be right as well as wrong, but because the laity can and so differ, then not simply is a magisterium needed, but an assuredly infallible one is. Thus rather than competing Truth claims having to be established upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation as the Lord and the apostles did, the autocratic say so of the infallible magisterium does so. But as this is not Scriptural and they can and so err as the Pharisees did - thinking "of men above that which is written" (1Cor. 4:6) and "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mk. 7:7) - then the problem of the men teaching errors is elevated to an institutional level leading souls into corporate error.
Under this sole ecclesia (the church is the sole supreme authority) model then unity is indeed easier to obtain, depending on how strict leadership is, and thus cults such as the so-called Jehovah's Witnesses can claim the most comprehensive unity, and can require assent even to things conspicuously absent in Scripture (as PTDS ) promulgated by men whose words are held as assuredly infallible under certain conditions, even if they are devils.
In contrast, unity due to establishing truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power is how the church began, in dissent from the established magisterium, but this means that the authority of men and of unity in doctrine is relative to the weight of warrant. Thus the unity of the early church was in basic doctrines and under men whose authority was unmistakably supernaturally and virtuously Scriptural manifested to be of God, while the so-called apostolic successors of Rome manifestly fail of both the requirements and manner of attestation of Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21-22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12,17; 2Cor. 4:2; 6:4-10; 12)
As under the Scriptural model assurance of Truth is relative to the weight of warrant, thus evangelicals overall have historically contended for the many core Truths we hold in common with Catholics, and against those (cults) who deny them, but thus also against traditions of men being taught as doctrines.
Meanwhile, outside what we both concur on, doctrinal unity in Rome is quite limited and largely on paper, and disagreement abounds, while what Rome really teaches is shown by what she does and effects, which is much that of fostering a liberal majority by treating them as members in life and in death. Evangelicals are actually more unified in key conservative basic beliefs.
Your teachers are mere figureheads, at the mercy and whim of their flock. The pastor doesnt fulfill his role of Shepard in that scenario, hes a man of popularity. Trying to please as many as possible in his congregation so they dont all leave or throw him out.
Another straw man unless you think i am defending Unitarianism or Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen types. Go tell the pastors even at the local SBC here or other churches i can tell of that you want to be a member, but deny the apostle's creed, Hell fire, salvation by grace thru faith, or a faith that does not effect obedience, etc. etc.,and see how far you get. Instead one must affirm such truths, and or the strong preaching (not a 10 minute sermonette) will make liberals quite uncomfortable. And thus those who remain are not there due to perfectly pleasing preaching. But those who deny such truths can easily find a home in Rome with your liberal majority.
After all, its their right to do so, if the pastor doesnt follow the Bible (ie, do what the congregation THINKS the Bible says) Theres no real submission there. Theres no real authority.
So again, this presupposes the one job of 1st c. Jews should have been to follow their pastors regardless of what seemed to them as error. And that evangelical churches must not have any doctrinal statements and pastoral oversight that pastors and teachers are to uphold and the congregation to appeal to in case of pastoral error. And when a pastor preaches liberalism or is molesting kids and leadership knows and does nothing, then those who know must have no means to remove him. That is what your Roman model more easily allows.
Theres no real submission there. Theres no real authority.
That is absurd. Your logical fallacy thus far has been to assume what can happen under a form of one system invalidates all that is under that system. I could excuse this as rank ignorance, otherwise it is recourse to using what some liberal churches do as a reason to reject Scripture as being the supreme authority, yet it is overall the churches which most strongly hold to Scripture as being the wholly inspired and authoritative word of God that most strongly hold to pastoral authority and require submission. I spent years in a Fund. Baptist church, and have been in others and can speak from experience. And despite your portrayal, the fact is that Evangelicals have been far more unified in key core beliefs than the fruit of Rome.
And which is far more than in Roman Catholicism, which is where i came from, in which even public prosodomite murderers are treated as members in life and death, and can even get masses said in their own house. Rome is where those who want to escape accountability can easily be at home.
Theres no vulnerability on the part of the people who are unwilling to say, You know what, I might just be wrong and cant see it. I may never be able to see how Im wrong but Im willing to trust in my elders over my own opinion.
While there is a place for submission in some things when one is ignorant, or awaiting more light, what you describe as a whole is fit for a cult in which there is essentially implicit assent of faith and of mind and will. Which Rome calls for, but settles for nominalism at best. And many RCs advise against such submission to local elders, which of course are a entity that is foreign to the NT church as a distinctively sacrificial class titled "priests." Once again, under your idea that the historical magisterium always knows best invalidates the church before it began. .
Theres none of that. And there should be.
You have used enough straw in your attempted polemic to have a bonfire.
The Bible cant be the sole rule on matters of faith, all of human history proves all this does is not only allow, but encourage individuals to ignore history and tradition whenever it suits them, eventually citing Scripture as the reason for fragmentation.
Actually, SS does not reject the need and place of the magisterium, but not as infallible and supreme over Scripture, while what human history proves that it is when Scripture is not strongly preached and held to as literally being the wholly inspired word of God and supreme standard on matters of faith that the most critical errors are seen. Which is exampled in such sola ecclesia cults as the Mormons , the Watchtower society, and others in which souls follow a man or men like RCs are do toward their supreme authority. All profess Scripture is the word of God, but it is not their supreme standard, but their org. is, and thus as with RCs, they are to believe only what their church says is assuredly truth.
Sola ecclesia takes the problem of erroneous personal teaching to an institutional and corporate level, thus necessitating God raising up men from without to correct such presumption, as in times past. .
All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else. Henry G. Graham, What Faith Really Means "...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X
Then you have liberal Prot churches, who, while not requiring implicit assent of faith and of mind and will, foster a low view of the authority of Scripture, often subscribing to liberal revisionism, which is also seen in much of RC Bible scholarship.
And rather than ignoring history and tradition whenever it suits them, we show that it is Rome which autocratically presumes to portray, history tradition and Scripture to support her, and even modern Catholic scholarship, among others, provides testimony against past portrayals of history.
Meanwhile she often compels Scripture to support her, but as it does not provide what she desires, it is no wonder such fabrications as the Donation of Constantine , widely accepted as authentic during the Middle Ages, and the extensive and influential medieval forgeries, the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals , and others were employed by Rome to validate her claims,
And which Romanized version means played a part in the division with the tradition-based EOs.
In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent a letter to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, that cited a large portion of the forgery called the Donation of Constantine, believing it genuine. The official status of this letter is acknowledged in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, entry on Donation of Constantine. "The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon it was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood." Leo IX assured the Patriarch that the donation was completely genuine, not a fable or old wives' tale, so only the apostolic successor to Peter possessed that primacy and was the rightful head of all the Church. The Patriarch rejected the claims of papal primacy, and subsequently the Catholic Church was split in two in the Great East-West Schism of 1054. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism#Mutual_excommunication_of_1054
And thus under the alternative model, that of sola ecclesia, you also have fragmentation, with Catholicism existing on schism and sects. And as said, outside your limited and largely paper unity, Catholics are less unified than evangelicals in practice, which is where it counts, not mere profession. Thus to be consistent with your logic that disunity invalidates a system, Catholicism must be invalidated.
As Ive said to another if that kind of disorder and rebelliousness is what you believe God intends for his invisible church so be it. It just doesnt work for me, as a believer whos also a human being.
The fact is that the very model for determining and assurance of Truth that you oppose is that which the church began under. While as said, pastoral authority is upheld, and obedience to the preaching the Scriptural word of God, the church did not begin under the premise of assured magisterial infallibility reproved the magisterium by Scripture, and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church.
The oral preaching of the word of God was established as being so by this means, and words and accounts committed to print, "that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." (Luke 1:4) For "the gospel of God" was "promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," and "made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 1:1,2; 16:26)
The problem with this model in which the authority of men and truth claims are est. as being so by scriptural substantiation in word and in power, by conformity to text and in virtue and supernatural attestation, versus the premise of assured magisterial veracity so that the words of men are supreme and implicitly submitted to, is that the former is dependent upon the weight of warrant, and which the Biblical apostles powerfully provided. But we do not see such apostles today. If you want Biblical unity in basic in the scope they saw, then we need such leadership.
Yet apart from paper unity, today the strongest unity on key core truths is among those who hold most strongly to Scripture being as i described before, yet which also sees the most pronounced disagreements. Which is also true in Rome, as the most pronounced disagreements is among those who are most committed to doctrinal purity. Under both models assent to certain truths is required, and disagreement is allowed in others, but Rome sees far greater liberal and errant views, some of which she herself teaches. She could deal with the problem of dissent from her own views by actually engaging in strong preaching and strict discipline if she had the heart to do so, but she does not, while this would not solve the problem with her own errors. Thus due to both issues true believers must heed the exhortation,
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14) Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:17-18)
Your argumentation most certainly is circular because of the following:
You demand Scriptural proof of the infallible magisterium. When provided you don’t accept them (you just derided one in your last post to me, to whit, “Whoever hears you hears me”). You don’t accept them because you don’t accept that there has been a Traditional teaching associated with that and other passages.
So you reject infallible teaching because it isn’t in Scripture (in your opinion), and it isn’t in Scripture (in your opinion) because you reject the traditional teaching associated with such passages. It’s classic circular reasoning.
You accuse me of utilizing straw men in my arguments but fail to demonstrate how my assertions about your faith system are false. Namely, that there is disunity in the so-called “invisible church”. You point here http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html as proof there is more doctrinal unity in the invisible church than in the Catholic. But this is flawed in two respects:
First, the denominations mentioned there have serious doctrinal differences whether you want to admit it or not. For example, the AOG believe that salvation can be lost due to sin, whereas Presbyterians do not. The Foursquare Pentecostal “church” believes in the modalist (”oneness”) heresy, whereas the AOG and Lutherans and a few others (not counting the “evangelical” group because I don’t know what that means, since that’s rather vague) believe in the Trinity.
Second, even beyond these serious differences among the “invisible church”, the statistics you cite do not show what you claim for another reason, and that is that all they really show is, that the Catholic Church (at least in America) has done a poor job of catechising her members. One may think this is a cop out, or evading the issue at hand but it isn’t. On one had you claim the Church is more *doctrinally* diverse than the “invisible” church and then with the other hand only demonstrate not her actual doctrines, but her lack of proper education. There’s a clear difference there in what is being claimed and what is being shown, whether you see it or not.
No Catholic (at least none on FR) says the Church has been great at education, in the last 50 or so years. Thanks be to the 60’s counter culture. But this isn’t proof of doctrinal disunity. And then of course one has the problem stated previously, which is that the denominations listed disagree more than any Catholic does. If you don’t agree then fine, we’ll just have to agree to disagree there I guess. To me though, the dogma of the Trinity seems to be a pretty important one.
You have also relied on the same criticism as Scott, to whit you point to the scandals of men in the Church, as if that demonstrates anything more than sinners in the church. I’m frankly not impressed, and will leave it at that (see my other posts to Scott if you’d like more there)
Finally you claim that the Catholic Church is “sola ecclesia” which is flat out not true. Talk about using straw men! In brief, that term is misleading as it may lead one to think the church just makes things up as she goes along and claims infallibility when someone disagrees.
No, that’s not the church’s claim in fact the opposite. As “pillar and ground of the truth” the church holds up (supports) both Scripture and Tradition.
Not the Tradition of men but the Word of God which you yourself a knowledge was and is the genesis of (some) Scripture. (I still maintain all but it’s a minor point to quibble IMO)
So we have the pillar and ground of the truth holding up the Word of God. And how does it do that? By teaching what she was taught by Christ, by word of mouth and by letter.
Let me put it this way because I think it will be clear this way, even though sadly you may find it insulting: you may not agree with the church’s teaching on a matter, but your disagreement with the church proves nothing. Because as “reasonable” as they might be (although I have demonstrated at least a few areas of error already), the church has equally reasonable counter arguments. The difference between the two are you are not : 2000 years old and appointed by Christ. So your reasoning is that of men only.
Finally still you claim the early church began in rebellion to the heirarchal system of the Jews which is true in a way but in a way not true. It’s true Jesus taught that the Pharasees (among others) were wrong about HIM, but he never taught that the Jews were wrong about the LAW. Indeed, Jesus himself exported his followers to “do as they say but not as they do” because he knew that humans would ALWAYS need a system of governance to resolve dispute and dissension. Just not the system the Jews had perverted by their man-made traditions.
So he wasn’t exhorting his followers to become some kind of anarchists, rather to throw off the man made portions of the Jews and KEEP the rest, including their heirarchal structure.
Otherwise the anathemas St. Paul spoke of have no meaning. What does it mean to “let him be accursed” if, after given such a rebuke, all an early Chrisitian had to do was to down the road to another “church” and join that one? After all, there wasn’t any unified visible authority, right? Or wait, there was one, but it didn’t mean much since Jesus was a rebel anyway, they could go to another “church” in another country then.
I don’t think so. I think the anathemas of St. Paul carried some weight. I think anyone unfortunate enough to find himself in such a state knew they were out of the CHURCH, as a WHOLE, until and unless they repented. And such an excommunication couldn’t be done, from even a practical standpoint much less a theological, unless there WAS a governing body in place that had the ultimate authority to speak finally on matters of faith.
Rather, while i do as 1st century souls did, (Acts 17:11) you affirm that a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) is essential for assurance of Truth, and that Rome is that AIM, and that I need to submit to her in order to know that she is that AIM, since she has infallibly declared that she is.
Otherwise tell me how Whoever hears you hears me translates into a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium? Dissent even in the OT could be a capital offense, (Dt. 17) but which did not mean they were infallible. Answer me.
So you reject infallible teaching because it isnt in Scripture (in your opinion), and it isnt in Scripture (in your opinion) because you reject the traditional teaching associated with such passages. Its classic circular reasoning.
By no means. You demand of me that i accept the claimed veracity of Rome but submitting to Rome as having assure veracity. My rejection of Roman claims that i must submit to Rome's tradition-wresting interpretation of Scripture is simply is not circular any more than 1st c. souls rejecting the Pharisees claims against Christ was, which magisterium also presumed of itself a level of assured veracity, and sounded just like your reasoning:
Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:47-49)
For what i reject is the circular reasoning of RCs, that one cannot obtain certainty of Truth based upon Scriptural substantiation, but must submit to the AIM of Rome, only by which can one obtain certainty of Truth, including that the magisterium of Rome is assuredly infallible.
You accuse me of utilizing straw men in my arguments but fail to demonstrate how my assertions about your faith system are false.
I am sorry if you cannot see that by affirming the AIM of Rome is essential for assurance of Truth, then the basis for your assurance that this itself is Truth is because Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. >
Meanwhile, it appears you are also blind to the fact that i did show how your assertions about your faith system are false, as they are either straw men or based upon ignorance. Instead of shown as being false, you cannot explain how an assuredly infallible magisterium, having stewardship of Scripture, is essential for determining Truth, yet common people recognized an insect-eating holy man in the desert was "a prophet indeed," and an itinerant Jewish prophet was the Divine Christ and Son of God, when both were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, unto who "were committed the oracles of God," "to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.. (Romans 3:2; 9:4)
First, the denominations mentioned there have serious doctrinal differences whether you want to admit it or not.
As is the case in Catholicism, the difference being a matter of degrees. However, i can have a close kinship and a blessed unity of the Spirit due to our shared conversion and relationship with Christ which is greater than our difference among surrendered believers, often immediate spontaneous upon meeting, and centered on Christ, but which i rarely have realized in meeting RCs. And i became born again at age 25 while being a weekly mass going RC, and remained therein for 6 years, during which taught CCD and was a lector.
The Foursquare Pentecostal church
You are again exampling your ignorance of the subject you are debating.The Foursquare Pentecostal church, or Pentecostal churches as this is what Foursquare describes, are not characteristically that of the modalist "Jesus Only" United Pentecostal Church International.
whereas the AOG and Lutherans and a few others (not counting the evangelical group because I dont know what that means, since thats rather vague) believe in the Trinity.
"The AOG and Lutherans and a few others"! How about most every Prot church there is, including the largest single denomination, the SBC! And if you knew the history of the evangelical movement you would know it rose due to a common contention for basic Truths, and against cults. Listen to Walter Martin, or read his classic work, "the kingdom of the Cults ."
Second, even beyond these serious differences among the invisible church, the statistics you cite do not show what you claim for another reason, and that is that all they really show is, that the Catholic Church (at least in America) has done a poor job of catechising her members.
Please, what the evidence testifies to is how Rome has catechized her members according to what she really believes, or do you mock Jesus and James: "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20) "I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18)
One may think this is a cop out, or evading the issue at hand but it isnt.
Yes it is.
On one had you claim the Church is more *doctrinally* diverse than the invisible church
I did not say either. Those churches of historical evangelical faith are manifestly diverse yet with a stronger essential unity, and are very visible, even if as a remnant (per unusual), while the church of Rome with its contrasts is what is most invisible in the NT.
and then with the other hand only demonstrate not her actual doctrines, but her lack of proper education.
And who are you to reprove Rome for how and what she chooses to inculcate. After all, you are the one emphasizing submission to elders as knowing better than the flock. I am judging Rome Biblically.
No Catholic (at least none on FR) says the Church has been great at education, in the last 50 or so years.
But you want evangelicals to leave their conservative active churches and eat the wafer with liberal pols and the majority of RCs which support them.
Thanks be to the 60s counter culture.
It was worse in the 1st century, and we have no excuse.
But this isnt proof of doctrinal disunity.
It is, as besides what they testify to by actions, even her paper unity is quite limited, and there is a multitude of thin gs RCs can and so disagree on. Sometimes all the pope can do is call a truce .
To me though, the dogma of the Trinity seems to be a pretty important one.
Which is why it is one of the things, among others, fundamental evangelicals overall have contended for thru decades.
You have also relied on the same criticism as Scott, to whit you point to the scandals of men in the Church, as if that demonstrates anything more than sinners in the church.
No, when you honor a Ted Kennedy as Rome did, it is not the same as simply having sinners in the church. "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." (1 Corinthians 5:13)
Finally you claim that the Catholic Church is sola ecclesia which is flat out not true. Talk about using straw men!
It is flat out true, with no straw whatsoever.
In brief, that term is misleading as it may lead one to think the church just makes things up as she goes along and claims infallibility when someone disagrees.
It means Rome is the supreme infallibly authority, claiming to uniquely infallibly define both what Divine revelation is and what it means. Thus it alone is the supreme authority on earth. To say otherwise is what is misleading.
This does mean she can teach for doctrine what someone made up for all we know, based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome. And she has made use of forgeries to support her pretensions.
And under this premise, Scripture, tradition and history only assuredly mean what she says they do. As no less than Manning stated, "It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour." Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, pp. 227,28
No, thats not the churchs claim in fact the opposite. As pillar and ground of the truth the church holds up (supports) both Scripture and Tradition.
More wresting of Scripture. The church of the living God (not the institutionalize one) being the pillar and ground of the truth" (1Tim. 3:15) - which RCs love to invoke as if it said more than that - does not require or equate to assured infallibility so that whatever Rome speaks universally on faith and morals will he infallible. That is a RC contrivance.
Not the Tradition of men but the Word of God which you yourself a knowledge was and is the genesis of (some) Scripture. (I still maintain all but its a minor point to quibble IMO)
Which was not established upon the premise of assured infallibility, but by manifestly God ordained apostles, and whose "traditions" were not ancient tales, but contemporary preached truths, which we can expect would be subsequently written down, shown by a study of the phrase "the word of God/the Lord."
So we have the pillar and ground of the truth holding up the Word of God.
Or that the church both supports the Truth and rests upon that foundation. See here .
And how does it do that? By teaching what she was taught by Christ, by word of mouth and by letter.
And the whole church went preaching the Word, (Act 8:4) as do faithful evangelical types. But not under the premise of the church possessing perpetual assured infallible magisterium or it being necessary, which it never was for in order for God to preserve Truth, which Scripture does.
you may not agree with the churchs teaching on a matter, but your disagreement with the church proves nothing. Because as reasonable as they might be (although I have demonstrated at least a few areas of error already), the church has equally reasonable counter arguments.
No it does not, and you have "demonstrated" zilch, for the basis for the veracity of her arguments cannot the evangelical means of Scriptural substantiation, under which the church began, but they rest upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome. According to her interpretation, or decree, one her version can be correct in any conflict.
"Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law..all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church." (Providentissimus Deus;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
The difference between the two are you are not: 2000 years old and appointed by Christ. So your reasoning is that of men only.
The difference between the two are Rome can only claim to be 2000 years old and appointed by Christ, defining reality as she sees it as expressed above, but Scripture refuses to bear this out. So your reasoning is based on the premise of presumptuous men.
We certainly do not see the NT in Scripture the churches being presided over by a pope the whole church looked to as it supreme infallible head in Rome, and being taught that he was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18?
Or even a successor for the martyred apostle James (Acts 12:1,2) being chosen like Matthias was and after that manner (Acts 1, in order to keep the original number of apostles)?
And a separate sacerdotal class of believers titled "priests ," as they uniquely changed bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the masses to receive life in them and eternal life (RCs keep quoting Jn. 6:53,54 to us)?
And a hierarchical order of priests, bishops, Cardinals, etc., with ostentatious religious dress and titles, including "Most Reverend?"
And required (with rare exceptions) clerical celibacy, which presumes all such have that gift.
And incognizant (usually) souls being formally justified by interior holiness via sprinkling of water in recognition of proxy faith, and (usually) ending up becoming good enough to enter Heaven in purgatory ?
And a separate class of believers called saints,
And praying to the departed, or angels, and before images?
And the apostles teaching Mary was born and kept sinless?
And a church that conformed to this world in using papal sanctioned physical oppression torture, burning and death to deal with theological dissent
Or who, having lost that power, treats even notorious manifestly impenitent public sinners as members in life and in death, in contrast to the NT means of disfellowship and spiritual discipline.
And which members overall come in near last in things such as evangelism, commitment, and personal Bible reading, the latter which it hindered for a long time, and later sanctions teaching millions such things as that OT miraculous stories are fables or folktales, etc.
And teaches that the deity Muslims worship (not as unknown) is the same as theirs.
And which boasts of unity while being discouraged from objectively searching the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine, while (on the other hand) lacking certainty about all the things they must hold as certain, and seeing varying degrees of interpretation by the magisterium, as well in the great liberty they have to interpret Scripture in order to support Rome.
More can be said, but while i do not see any body of apostles today, esp in Catholicism, with the degree of power, purity, piety and performance like that of the early church, and that could effectually function as a universal magisterium, (which Rome is not even a form of), and the church overall as in negative contrast with the early church, yet among churches that hold Scripture as supreme as the wholly inspired and basically literal word of God,
i see men ordained according to the Biblical requirements, (1Tim. 3:1-7)
with with simple titles of pastor as elders/bishops, that being one office, (Titus 1:5-7)
and clothed with humility as well the clothes of common men, (Mt. 23:5-12)
and preaching the gospel of repentant faith in the Lord Jesus to save contrite damned + destitute sinners on His expense and credit, (Eph. 2:8,9) that being counted for righteousness, (Rm. 3 - 4:7ff)
which heart faith confesses the Lord Jesus, (Rm. 10:9,10) justifying them as souls having saving faith, (Heb. 6:9,10). and thus baptizing them as believers who can fulfill the stated requirements of repentance and wholehearted faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37)
and thus overall on the practical level they foster the most unified and committed group of born again believers in core Christian truths,
realizing a basic unity of the Spirit as a result of a common personal conversion of heart faith in Christ, and resultant Scripture-based relationship with Him, which transcends external tribalism,
thus being treated by both Rome and liberals alike as their greatest threat to their rule.
But who, as predicted in the latter days, have been and increasingly are a remnant. To God be the glory.
Finally still you claim the early church began in rebellion to the heirarchal system of the Jews which is true in a way but in a way not true. Its true Jesus taught that the Pharasees (among others) were wrong about HIM, but he never taught that the Jews were wrong about the LAW.
Wrong! Who is telling you these things? In upholding Scripture as the supreme standard for Truth over the magisterium, He corrected their negation of one of the 10 commandments no less, "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition," (Mark 7:9) As well as about whom Moses spoke of in Dt. 18:18,19 (cf. Acts 3:22,23), "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:46-47) And He also corrected their answer to the question, "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David," (Matthew 22:41-42) which they could not correct, they were wrong in saying "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." (John 7:52) for Jonah, Hosea, Nahum and maybe Elijah, Elisha, and Amos were from Galilee.
Note that the Lord (Mt. 21:16,42; 22:44; 23:39; 25:41; 27:46) the multitudes (Mt. 21:9; 27:35; Jn. 6:31) and even the devil (Ps 91:11,12) invoked Psalms in the gospels, and the Holy Spirit to the Jews in Acts (Acts 1:20; 2:25-28,31,34; 13:22) and is called Scripture, (Jn. 19:28) it supports this as Scripture and argues for Writings being included as "the law and the prophets" (Jn. 10:34; 12:34; 15:25; cf. Ps. 69:4; 82:6; 89:28, 29; 110:4) and as part of the books the Lord referred to as Scripture in Lk. 24:44. 1 Corinthians 14:21 is also called
Plus we have clear quotes of Proverbs. (Romans 2:6; 3:15; 12:20; Heb. 12:5,6; Ja. 4:6; 1Pt. 5:5) Other of the Writings [hagiographa] may be included as accepted Scripture, to which Paul for instance references.
Indeed, Jesus himself exported his followers to do as they say but not as they do
Wrong, as their errors obviously extended into doctrine, thus Jesus Himself enjoined conditional submission (Mt. 23:2) as is always the case towaerd man, but obviously not implicit assent of faith as per Rome which is the issue. And thus it remains that under your model for determining Truth, that the magisterium (that is the steward of Scripture) is essential and always correct in determining Truth (and thus what writings and men are of God), then the 1st c. souls should have submitted to the seat of Moses, the stewards of Scripture, thus invalidating the church.
because he knew that humans would ALWAYS need a system of governance to resolve dispute and dissension.
No dispute here, as the teaching/governing office is upheld, as shown. Just not on that presumes assured veracity.
Just not the system the Jews had perverted by their man-made traditions.
But this is an impossible charge when the magisterium is the supreme indisputable judge on what is Truth, and the Pharisees could have easily justified their purification precepts as well as the law of Corban under the premise of them being the assuredly correct interpreters of Scripture, and the purification precepts were an extension of the temple purity laws, and that money dedicated to God was an extension of priestly dedication to the Temple.
After all, among many other things , Catholicism divides makes one believers into being "saints,"and ascribes to created beings an attribute only God is shown being able to have, that of hearing virtually infinite and incessant numbers of mental prayers to them in Heaven, which no one (except pagans) are shown to taught to do.
And by imposed functional equivalence Rome renders NT pastors into a distinctive class of clergy titled "priests" (hiereus), which the Holy Spirit never does, nor does presbuteros mean hiereus . And renders the requirements for pastors which assume they normally be married, and know how to rule his own house and thus can take care of the church of God, (1Tim. 3:1,5) into a requirement that all (but a few converts) be celibate, which presumes they all have the have gift of celibacy, (1Cor. 7:7) which church law (if changeable) is highly presumptuous and contrary to Scripture. And makes events Scripture nowhere mentions, and is contrary to Scripture, that of Mary already being bodily raised and crowned before the Lord's return, and ascribes to her an unScriptural demigoddess status.
The veracity of all of which tradition does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
So he wasnt exhorting his followers to become some kind of anarchists,
A false dilemma. The magisterium is to be upheld, and in fact there should a centralized one, which Rome nuked by her recalcitrant arrogance and error, but not as claiming assured infallibility, but in which credence is dependent upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as it was in the NT church.
rather to throw off the man made portions of the Jews and KEEP the rest, including their heirarchal structure.
Rather, it is actually under the same basis that some Jewish upstarts dissented from man made portions of the Jews and doctrinal errors of those who sat in the seat of Moses that we must reject the same of Rome. Which includes her false idea of Pete r and papacy , which even the EOs much reject, as well as her extra and contra-Scriptural traditions being taught as doctrines, and which includes her artificial distinctions btwn episkopos and presbuteros, and papal pomp, lofty titles and ostentatious religious garb. (Mt. 23:5-11)
Otherwise the anathemas St. Paul spoke of have no meaning. What does it mean to let him be accursed if, after given such a rebuke, all an early Chrisitian had to do was to down the road to another church and join that one?
It means that rather than as in Rome, in which even impenitent proabortion sodomites are treated as members even in death, we are to obey "come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you," (2 Corinthians 6:17) and be in a congregation that exercises effectual discipline of the impenitent, while helping the contrite trying to overcome sin.
The fact is that in absolutely none of the epistles to the churches, or the Lord's own words to the 7 churches in Rv. 2+3 is submission to Peter listed as a solution, even with the Corinthians following false apostles, and (contrary the arrogance of Rome toward us) they were all called churches, even the Laodiceans, and that of Diotrephes (a papal prototype). No doubt one could be expelled from the church of Philadelphia and join the Laodicean church, while even true apostles were excluded from the church under pastor Diotrephes. (3Jn. 1:9) Meanwhile it was Paul who is the only one who is shown calling elders together and discipling them.
After all, there wasnt any unified visible authority, right?
Another false dilemma, and more recourse to the usual straw man. Of course, we could go to the lengths of the Puritans also.
And such an excommunication couldnt be done, from even a practical standpoint much less a theological, unless there WAS a governing body in place that had the ultimate authority to speak finally on matters of faith.
Indeed, under manifest God-ordained apostles, in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,...By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4,7) Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12) But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty [not as Rome], not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)
The greater the claim, the greater corespondent attestation is required, and as said, Rome utterly fails of the requirements and attestation of Biblical apostles, who did not even claim assured formulaic infallibility of office as Rome. And what was ordained in Acts 15 was wholly Scriptural. (Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14)
The most the magisterium can require is conditional submission, which we must also render to Caesar, and which does not equate to anarchy except in the Roman mind, which cannot conceive of how one could have assurance of Truth without an infallible magisterium, and thus how the church could begin without this.
The more you try to defend your imaginary church, the more it is exposed as being invisible in Scripture .
Oh good grief! Can’t these guys save it for abortion and euthanasia? Don’t they realize how much credibility they lose when they come out with an opinion upon which reasonable Catholics can disagree?
Well I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree as I’ve stated all along. I don’t have the time or inclination, really to go through your work point by point. I don’t have enough time to put in the work that would require. So I guess you “win” by volume ultimately.
1. The inspiration and authority of scripture.
2. The incarnation and deity of Christ.
3. The doctrine of the Trinity.
4. Salvation by grace through faith.
5. The immanent second coming of Jesus.
6. The reality of hell.
7. The Great Commission
8. The universality of human sinfulness.
9. The five solas of the Reformation.
10. The virginal conception of Jesus.
From one of your sources is pretty much what the Church teaches too (except 9 of course) so I guess if that’s your list of what makes a church part of the invisible one this is all a waste of time anyway.
To me it’s more important to decide whether or not a baby should be baptized or whether or not salvation can be lost than determining which Scripture passages have been defined dogmatically or which feast day belongs to what saint. (All from your list liked to here http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DisagrementsSSandSE.html )
By the way, the list of what “Catholics are allowed to disagree on” is contrived at best and unsourced at any rate. I reject pretty much everything else in that list for the simple fact that the claim is too vague (eg “The Holy Church Canons) or simply not true (eg “Allowance of Icons”. Icons are certainly allowed in any church or home, that was settled centuries ago with the iconoclasm heresy).
You forget one key thing in all your argumentation: Scripture says *in your opinion*. That is, it is in your opinion that the Scriptures you cite demonstrate or say what you claim. I have an opinion too. So we are stuck between our two competing opinions. Even in our own discussion/debate there is a need for a third party, the evidence for the need is right here in front of you, but you don’t see it.
“He who hears you hears me” most certainly is a guarantee of infallibility or else it seems to me you state Jesus isn’t infallible or he can’t confer such a gift to men.
3 John 1:9 isn’t an example of a believer excommunicated from one church and welcome in another. It’s an example of a man who is prideful in a church, disallowing unity with other members for reasons of pride. Hardly the same.
By the way the passages you cite about “known by their fruits” are speaking of the best way to judge MEN, as individuals. Not church bodies as a whole. Read them in context. You are forcing something out of the Scripture that isn’t there.
Of course you’re probably going to disagree with these assertions, the ones I just made about some of the Scripture you mentioned, because again in your opinion it doesn’t say what I say it says. So we are back *again* for a need for authority or else we are all in a “church” that really doesn’t care about doctrinal unity, whether or not batism saves, whether or not one can lose ones salvation, and a whole host of other differences in the list of Protestant disagreements you provided. Again, you can have that.
And you’re right the United Pentecostal “Church” believes in modalism not the Foursquare. Forgive me, it’s difficult to keep all these denominations straight. Regardless, in the surveys mentioned in your previous post ( http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html ) there is the group “Pentecostals/Foursquare” which seems to indicate to me both Foursquare and other Pentecostals. If not, no matter. Either way you are limiting this true “invisible” church via belief in the Trinity. Fine. But does it stop there?
I noticed you glossed over the difference between the AOG and the rest. (Remember, the AOG believes salvation can be lost due to sin, where the Presbyterians don’t) So is the AOG out or in? Are the Presbys out or in? What’s the divinding line? Which doctrines do YOU say comprise the true church?
Or do you really not care about doctrinal unity at all?
You will probably disagree with everything I’ve said now and will post again in an attempt to rebut, and that’s ok. That’s your right. You have a right to your opinion. I’m done giving mine. And someone has to shut up eventually anyway if there isn’t any way to decide who’s “right”, other than the assertion of one man’s *opinion* (or even many men’s opinions) about Scripture passages.
There is much more, but how about you giving me an indisputable list of all infallible, indisputable RC teachings?
To me its more important to decide whether or not a baby should be baptized or whether or not salvation can be lost than determining which Scripture passages have been defined dogmatically or which feast day belongs to what saint.
Indeed, and it is certain that if infants baptism was a salvific matter than the Holy Spirit would provide at least one manifest example of that, as He did for women and Gentiles being baptized, but instead RCs must read that into the mention th very few cases of household baptism, as there must have been some there who could not obey the stated requirements for baptism.
By the way, the list of what Catholics are allowed to disagree on is contrived at best and unsourced at any rate.
Rather, challenge anyone of them and i let me provide you examples of disagreement on them.
I reject pretty much everything else in that list for the simple fact that the claim is too vague (eg The Holy Church Canons) or simply not true (eg Allowance of Icons. Icons are certainly allowed in any church or home, that was settled centuries ago with the iconoclasm heresy).
I had made that as a basic comparison a while ago, and the Canons entry should be edited to clarify disputes over what canons say, as in Roman rejection of the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, accepted by the EOS, which explicitly proclaimed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, and that it established the highest court of ecclesiastical appeal in Constantinople.
Likewise for icons, it should that of statues, as while not "official" (and the East is usually much less technical and magisterial in her doctrinal realm) some see 3-D statues as to be avoided,
since Iconoclasm, the East dislikes solid statues. Perhaps they are too reminiscent of the old Greek gods. At all events, the Eastern icon (whether Orthodox, Nestorian or Monophysite) is always flat a painting, mosaic, bas-relief. Some of the less intelligent Easterns even seem to see a question of principle in this and explain the difference between a holy icon, such as a Christian man should venerate, and a detestable idol, in the simplest and crudest way: "icons are flat, idols are solid." - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm
Secondarily, there is disagreement now about how icons should be allowed to appear. That this can be contentious issue is seen by the history of dispute btwn Catholics on the use of icons. And while resolved, some Orthodox state distinctions such as that "God the Father cannot be painted because He has never been seen," and pics "are always flat, flat so that we who inhabit the physical world will understand that the world of the spirit where Christ, His Mother, the angels, the saints, and the departed dwell, is a world of mystery which cannot be penetrated by our five senses. Customarily, Roman Catholicism has historically employed statues in its worship. The statues are life-like and three-dimensional. They seem to imitate the art of ancient Greece. Both arts are naturalistic. The Latins portray Christ, the Mother of God, the saints, even the angels, as if they were in a state of nature.... Orthodoxy teaches, as we recall, that grace is uncreated, and impacts all creation. It is a mysterious extension of the Divine Nature. Orthodox iconography reflects this truth, even as Roman Catholic statues reflect its idea of grace."
Another states "precisely because Roman Catholicism does not accept the existence of uncreated divine grace, and as a result the theosis of the person participating in this grace, it doesn't have the theological presuppositions to develop an iconography that expresses the theosis of man." "In contrast to Western iconography, Orthodox iconography presupposes the theology and the spiritual experience of the Orthodox Church. " - http://www.impantokratoros.gr/iconology.en.aspx
However, these are indeed minor things compared with denial of papal infallibility, power and jurisdiction, and other things which lead some to say,
Then there are those who attempt to join together all Christian religions into one faith. They would be horrified at the idea of a service with Hindus and Christians celebrating together, yet they do not bat an eyelash at the idea of Orthodox celebrating with Roman Catholics, who with no authority broke off from the Church close to a thousand years ago. http://www.orthodox.net/articles/against-ecumenism.html
Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, she knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church. Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997; http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-07-033-b.
And for RCs on that other hand to opine,
Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation... Over the past 2,000 years there have been many heresies, schisms, and systems of thought comprehensively opposed to Catholicism. But none has carried the potential threat for corruption of all of Catholic dogma which Eastern Orthodoxy represents..-http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii
You forget one key thing in all your argumentation: Scripture says *in your opinion*. That is, it is in your opinion that the Scriptures you cite demonstrate or say what you claim. I have an opinion too. So we are stuck between our two competing opinions. Even in our own discussion/debate there is a need for a third party, the evidence for the need is right here in front of you, but you dont see it.
What you seem unable to see is that this is unavoidable, as you must allow persons this ability in seeking them to even convert to Rome, based upon examination of the evidences, which is the very thing you attack as able to result in determination and assurance of Truth. For if this evangelical means of determining Truth could result in making (what you would hold as) a correct choice in choosing Rome, then it must be allowed that the judgment of the AIM of Rome is not essential for determination of Truth even in this major issue.
But faced with the problem of trying to argue for a church which is essentially invisible in Scripture, you want to dispense with the debate and require me to just assent to the infallible magisterium as deciding this.
And you likewise continue to ignore that under your affirmed means for determination and assurance of truth, and that the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that AIM, then you have effected nuke the church which began in dissent from the Jewish magisterium over Israel, the historical stewards of Divine revelation.
He who hears you hears me most certainly is a guarantee of infallibility or else it seems to me you state Jesus isnt infallible or he cant confer such a gift to men.
Entirely fallacious. As said but ignored, under the OT it could be a capital crime to dissent from magisterial decisions, (Dt. 17) and even resisting the civil powers is said to be resisting God, yet neither of these infers or requires assured infallibility of office, nor does required submission to such mean implicit assent of faith, and of mind and will. And to require this towards the magisterium is to act contrary to how the church began. In addition, "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me" (Matthew 10:40) is just as universal as what preceded it, "He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. (v.:39). And in Lk. 10:16 it was not spoken to just apostles but to the 72 disciples, and thus to be consistent you must hold that they must have possessed perpetual assured infallibility whenever and whatever they spoke on faith and morals, rather than the basic Scriptural message being Divine Truth, rejection of any of which is rejecting Him.
Yet the fact is all believers are to be witnesses, thus all the church went preaching the Word, and even those who were being used of God but were not of the company of the apostles were said to be on the Lord's side. (Mk. 9:38-40) And those who reject even any oral Scriptural truth are rejecting Christ, and Rome even affirms evang, "ecclesial communities" as being instruments for salvation. And to reject the basic gospel truth of just Jn. 3:16 is to reject infallible Truth, and God/Christ Himself.
Thus possessing assured infallibility is not required in order for those who reject the gospel to be of those who reject Christ, even if not part of the formal church. And even rejecting valid civil authorities acting justly is rejecting God.
Of course, even the presumption of Rome that she alone can validly ordain men to be witnesses, and only those who reject them are rejecting Christ is itself an example of rejecting Christ. And in fact one must reject Rome in order to follow Christ faithfully according to Scripture, in which the church of Rome is essentially foreign to it.
3 John 1:9 isnt an example of a believer excommunicated from one church and welcome in another. Its an example of a man who is prideful in a church, disallowing unity with other members for reasons of pride. Hardly the same.
It is an example in microcosm of the arrogant elitist presumption of Rome, supposing she alone is the one true church, while it is easily seen how one could leave one of the churches in Scripture and go be in another, as the Corinthian church, like Rome, treated as members manifestly impenitent immoral men, and like most RCs, the Laodiceans were hardly zealous in doctrine.
By the way the passages you cite about known by their fruits are speaking of the best way to judge MEN, as individuals. Not church bodies as a whole. Read them in context. You are forcing something out of the Scripture that isnt there.
Yikes. That you would say this testifies to ignorance of Scripture and or constraint to defend Rome. The text is referring to "them," false prophets as a group, and the Lord likewise judged both cities (Mt. 11:20-24) and churches (Rv. 2+3) as a group, based on what they did and not as what they professed being the reality.
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: (Revelation 2:2)
Thus it is you that is not reading Scripture in context, immediate and larger, and are are forcing something out of the Scripture that is there.
again in your opinion it doesnt say what I say it says.
Which has and is the manifest case, and like the apostles, the "manifestation of the Truth" is presented to others to decide, (2Cor. 4:2) appealing to reason and asking, "judge ye what I say." (1 Corinthians 10:15; Lk. 12:57; Acts 4:19) Thus your need to get me to surrender our minds to a self-proclaimed magisterium.
And youre right the United Pentecostal Church believes in modalism not the Foursquare. Forgive me, its difficult to keep all these denominations straight.
Indeed, when "Protestant" is defined (Unitarianism to Swedenborg) with the breadth atheists use in defining "Christian," while most are unaware of the divisions within Catholicism and the scope and depth of them. See to thy own house.
there is the group Pentecostals/Foursquare which seems to indicate to me both Foursquare and other Pentecostals.
More ignorance. Foursquare is a term describing Pentecostalism, as in the WP page on Pentecostalism : "Pentecostals emphasize the teaching of the "full gospel" or "foursquare gospel". The term foursquare refers to the four fundamental beliefs of Pentecostalism: Jesus saves according to John 3:16; baptizes with the Holy Spirit according to Acts 2:4; heals bodily according to James 5:15; and is coming again to receive those who are saved according to 1 Thessalonians 4:1617."
Either way you are limiting this true invisible church via belief in the Trinity. Fine. But does it stop there?
It is actually more visible per church than Rome, due to greater commitment per person, and exclusion does not stop at the Trinity. It is most essentially the gospel and its basic Truths (nature of God, sin, judgment, etc.) that determines a true vs. false church, The redeemed have come to God as souls damned for their works - not saved because of them - and destitute of any means or merit whereby they may escape their just and eternal punishment in Hell Fire and gain eternal life with God. And with contrite heart have cast their whole-hearted repentant faith upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Divine Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:9 - 5:1) And whose faith is thus counted as righteousness, but it is a faith that will follow Him.
In contrast is a "another gospel" that teaches that the actual act of baptism, possibly even if done by a pagan, works remission of sins and regeneration, even upon a morally incognizant innocent soul who cannot fulfill the stated requirements for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-37)
And which formally justifies such on the basis of their own personal righteousness and holiness, (Catholic Encyclopedia> Sanctifying Grace) and thus is this salvation system the baptized usually end up in a mythical purgatory in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, having truly merited eternal life by the very works which have been done in God. (Trent, XVI)
Which, despite fine theological distinctions about merit which are lost to the laymen, results in souls who have never know of a "day of salvation," consciously coming to Christ as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, and trusting Him to save soley by His blood and righteousness, but presume they will gain eternal life due to being good enough and the power of Rome, with some mercy thrown in.
I noticed you glossed over the difference between the AOG and the rest..
I noticed you glossed over the fact that the both assent to basic salvific truths and souls can and do become manifestly born again both in such churches as the AOG, the largest Pentecostal denomination, or the SBC, largest Prot. denomination. And outside distinctive Pentecostal beliefs - and the EOs reject the Catholic charismatics - and eschatological details, there is little substantial disagreements. Some Calvinists rail on Arminians, but some conservative RCs rail on JP2, and or V2, and even feel they must be separatists.
.Which doctrines do YOU say comprise the true church?
As explained, it is most essentially the gospel by which the church even has its members, but this includes apostle creed Truths, and what you collectively see in the preaching of Acts, convicting men of sin, righteousness, and judgment, (John 16:9-10) not fine details of how election all works, etc.
Or do you really not care about doctrinal unity at all?
Or you do not care about the fact that evangelicals testify to more actual unity in key core truth than the fruit of Rome overall, and want to be like the Pharisees and boast of unity in word, in self proclamation of an overall dead church, which claims they are apostles, but are not (nor am I). To such pretenders it is written, "I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:19-20).
You will probably disagree with everything Ive said now and will post again in an attempt to rebut, and thats ok. Thats your right. You have a right to your opinion. Im done giving mine.
But mine is by Scriptural appeal to the Scriptures as the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, as it is abundantly evidenced to be, while
But your Roman opinion is by appeal to the presumed assured veracity of Rome, in order to convince me Rome possesses assured veracity which calls for implicit assent of faith, and of mind and will, which is cultic, not NT. If Rome wants to even claim apostolic authority and see the level of submission they had then she needs to forsake the premise of her assured veracity and historical descent as warrant for that, and hold Scripture as being supreme as they did, and establish Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And this forsake her traditions of men, and demonstrate the power, purity and probity of the NT apostles. Only insofar as this is done can any church claim to be that of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth, but Rome is not even in the running to be a leader, but is a Babylonian test for man, has become sadly as the great gates of Hell for most of her multitudes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.