[annalex]

Our side does not need or want a pope

Then don't tell me anything in terms of theological absolutes. Stick to "I think that the scripture without the oral tradition or the institution of the Church is sufficient for understanding Christ"; "I think that faith alone is necessary for salvation", "I don't think praying to saints is a good idea", etc.

You become popes when you interpret the scripture personally but claim it to be the universally correct interpretation.

[Mad Dawg]

Annalex. I want to differ here. There is something else at stake here. Or something as well. I see Kolo and the Eo contributers saying that they have a kind of magisterium in the Consensus Patrium (if that's a phrase) and we look to the MAgisterium. We find things in which we rest, and from which our enquiries spring as from a firm base.

But when, as I mentioned earlier, the 16th century Anglicans and their successors say that Councils can err, what the Protestants are left with, and this is not to sneer or disparage, is simply throwing themselves on the Lord and His mercy. No reliable doctrine is between them and Him, and right belief can never be absolutely known or relied on, since if those pious people, met in the Name of the Lord and calling on His spirit, can err, how much more can we err? And how much more can those err who do not trust the Lord to keep them from error?

I think it comes down to an entirely different epistemology and approach to the tenets of the Faith.

Ecclesiology, considering the vaguely gnostic idea of the invisible Church, becomes fundamental in one's approach, if not to Jesus Himself, certainly to thinking about him.

We look to the promise of soundness in the Apostolic fellowship, and trust them to give us the trail markers and guide. If we question it's more, "Do I understand this?" They are asking, "Is this person right on this matter or not?"

Or so I guess.

[Quix]

You become popes when you interpret the scripture personally but claim it to be the universally correct interpretation.
= = = =

Uhhhhh, no.

Not by a long shot.

1. We did not/do not wage intense political fights and intrigues--some waged over centuries--manipulating, consolidating, coercing ever greater levels and degrees of political power and calling it Godly.

2. We particularly do not go out with masses of armed troops to take more territory and power unto ourselves.

3. We do not build stacks of castles and layers of bureaucracy on top of toothpick shreds of ASSUMPTION, INFERENCE AND EXTRAPOLATION and pretend that's THE ABSOLUTE HOLY WRIT FROM MT SINAI.

4. We do not claim infallibility.

5. We do not fabricate layers and whole schemas of fantastical magical dogma and pretended history for Mary on top of negligible evidence and considerable evidence to the contrary--all essentially for monitary and political gain.

6. We do not parade around in pontifical splendor facilitating vain glory and idolatrous worship on the part of those bowing and scraping for the chance to kiss our ring.

7. We do not interpose ourselves between God and man and facilitate others doing so in our name.

8. We do not claim that our particular organizational group is the exclusive protectrate and exclusively mandated host to God's only righteous and correct organizational expression on earth.

9. We do not demand that all Christendom conform to our edicts or face damnation or near it.

10. We do not pretend to be the latest of a long line of nonsensically, nonBiblically appointed successors to a pebble of a Christian leader more exhorted than crowned by Christ.

. . .

. . .

The list could go on and on.

We are NOT remotely papal. And many of us would find the assertion extremely insulting and scandalous to imagine such a thing.

But I can appreciate what a convenient little out it seemed like at the time to ignore all such facts above and claim otherwise.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "Our side does not need or want a pope."

Then don't tell me anything in terms of theological absolutes. Stick to "I think that the scripture without the oral tradition or the institution of the Church is sufficient for understanding Christ"; "I think that faith alone is necessary for salvation", "I don't think praying to saints is a good idea", etc. You become popes when you interpret the scripture personally but claim it to be the universally correct interpretation.

What? The scriptures are filled with theological absolutes, and we just recite them to the degree the Spirit has led us to date. (The Spirit does not imbue new believers with all knowledge and understanding instantly. It is a lifelong process, culminating at whatever level the Spirit has predetermined.) How does this have anything to do with becoming a self-made pope? As Quix said, we don't claim infallibility. You do for your pope (ex Cathedra). My mind has been changed on a few things. Yours must be fixed on anything important. When your Church hierarchy cares about your views, they will give them to you. :) These are two completely different systems, and ours does not include a pope. Ours includes the Holy Spirit instead.