Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Roots of the Papacy and the Primacy of Peter
Insight Scoop ^ | August 21, 2011 | Carl Olson

Posted on 08/21/2011 2:42:22 PM PDT by NYer

Readings:
• Isa 22:19-23
• Ps 138:1-2, 2-3, 6, 8
• Rom 11:33-36
• Mt 16:13-20

“The doctrine of the primacy of Peter is just one more of the many errors that the Church of Rome has added to the Christian religion.”

So wrote the Presbyterian theologian Loraine Boettner in his 1962 book, Roman Catholicism, a popular work of anti-Catholic polemics. Although the religious landscape has changed significantly since the early 1960s, there are still many non-Catholic Christians today who agree wholeheartedly with Boettner’s assertions. The Papacy is unbiblical! It has no basis in Scripture! Peter was never singled out as a leader of the apostles!

Growing up in a Fundamentalist home, I believed such statements. But I now agree instead with the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock” (par 881; cf. 551-53). Some of the reasons for the change in my beliefs are found in today’s readings, which provide some Old Testament context for the papacy and also describe a profound exchange between Jesus and Peter.

First, the Old Testament background. King Solomon and his successors had twelve deputies or ministers who helped the king govern and rule (cf., 1 Kings 4:1ff). The master of the palace, or prime minister, had a unique position among those twelve, as described in today’s reading from the prophet Isaiah. The prime minister wore a robe and sash befitting his office, and was entrusted by the king to wield the king’s authority. The symbol for that authority were “the keys of the House of David,” which enabled the minister to regulate the affairs of the king’s household—that is, of the kingdom. In addition, this prime minister is described by Isaiah as a “father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.”

Fast forward to about the year A.D. 30. Jesus and his disciples are in the region of Caesarea Philippi, a pagan area about 25 miles north of the Sea of Galilee. They likely were standing at the base of Mount Hermon in front of a well-known cliff filled with niches holding statues of pagan deities; at the top of the cliff stood a temple in honor of Caesar. Jesus first asked the disciples who other people thought he was. The variety of answers given revealed the confusion surrounding the identity of Jesus, quite similar to the confusion and controversies about Jesus in our own time. 

Jesus asked who they thought he was. It was Peter—brash but correct—who responded with the great acclamation, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”, confessing both the divinity and kingship of Jesus. Peter was then addressed singularly by Jesus, who renamed him Petros, or “Rock”. That name was unique among the Jews, reserved in the Old Testament for God alone. Jesus further declared he would build his Church upon the newly named Rock, and he gave Peter “the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” 

This dramatic moment makes little or no sense without the context provided by Isaiah 22 and other Old Testament passages. Jesus, heir of David and King of kings, was appointing Peter to be his prime minister, the head of the Twelve. “The ‘power of the keys’,” explains the Catechism, “designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church” (par 553). The binding and loosing refers to prohibiting and permitting; it also includes the function of rendering authoritative teaching and making official pronouncements.

Does this mean that Peter and his successors are sinless or even somehow divine? No, of course not. They are men in need of salvation, just like you and I. But God has chosen to work through such men in order to proclaim the Gospel, to lead the Church, and to teach the faithful. They are fathers (“pope” means “papa”) who hold a unique office for one reason: they were called by Christ to hold the keys of the household of God.

(This "Opening the Word" column originally appeared in the August 24, 2008, edition of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles, Book Excerpts, and Interviews:

Peter and Succession | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
"Primacy in Love": The Chair Altar of Saint Peter's in Rome | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome | Stephen K. Ray
From "The Appeal to Antiquity", Chapter One of The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 | Adrian Fortescue
The Essential Nature and Task of the Church | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
On the Papacy, John Paul II, and the Nature of the Church | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Papal Authority in von Balthasar's Ecclesiology | Raymond Cleaveland
Church Authority and the Petrine Element | Hans Urs von Balthasar
Motherhood of the Entire Church | Henri de Lubac, S.J.
Mater Ecclesia: An Ecclesiology for the 21st Century | Donald Calloway, M.I.C.
The Papacy and Ecumenism | Rev. Adriano Garuti, O.F.M.
The Church Is the Goal of All Things | Christoph Cardinal Schönborn
Excerpts from Theology of the Church | Charles Cardinal Journet
Authority and Dissent in the Catholic Church | Dr. William E. May


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History
KEYWORDS: bishop; catholic; catholicchurch; father; keystothekingdom; papacy; peter; pope; priest; primacyofpeter; primeminister; rootsofthepapacy; stpeter; theoneandtruechurch; uponthisrock

1 posted on 08/21/2011 2:42:24 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...
To the above, I would like to add this link.

Peter and the Papacy

2 posted on 08/21/2011 2:43:37 PM PDT by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Thanks for post and all of the links, NYer!

Never thought through the words “prime minister” before and where “prime minister” might have come from.

Fascinating post! <><

3 posted on 08/21/2011 3:01:37 PM PDT by hummingbird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hummingbird

The posts forget about the Coptic Christian church started by Mark and the even older Ethiopian Orthodox Christian church which can trace it roots back to the Second Temple.


4 posted on 08/21/2011 3:15:29 PM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine
The posts forget about the Coptic Christian church started by Mark and the even older Ethiopian Orthodox Christian church which can trace it roots back to the Second Temple.

Not at all.


The Catholic Church

Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:

"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).

Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.

To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:

CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES

5 posted on 08/21/2011 3:22:20 PM PDT by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine

They also forgot the Antiochian Church. I am content to let the Roman Church determine its own hierarchy, just as the Eastern Churches have done so from day one.


6 posted on 08/21/2011 3:24:06 PM PDT by firebasecody (Orthodoxy, proclaiming the Truth since AD 33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer
No disrespect meant to those that want to worship Jesus as a Catholic does but to me, this:

They are fathers (“pope” means “papa”) who hold a unique office for one reason: they were called by Christ to hold the keys of the household of God.

doesn't jibe with this:

Matt 23:8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ

Not only the Pope but Priests (or Mary) standing between Jesus and me are also off my list because:

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

7 posted on 08/21/2011 3:35:15 PM PDT by 1forall (America - my home, my land, my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1forall
I think you're taking one passage of Scripture out of context and misunderstanding it. Please read this article. Short version: Jesus was speaking hyperbolically against the Pharisees who wanted to kill him. Paul directly endorses and claims for himself the mantle of spiritual father in 1 Cor 4:14-15.

Not only the Pope but Priests (or Mary) standing between Jesus and me are also off my list

I'm a Catholic, and I don't think of priests as "standing between Jesus and me" at all. They hold their office as part of God's plan to bring Jesus to me.

Again, the passage you quote does not say anything against priests, the Pope, or Mary. In fact, taken in context, it's part of a passage that specifically commands intercessory prayer (cf 1 Tm 2:1-2). It's not mediation to the Father instead of Jesus' mediation with the Father, but mediation that proceeds through that mediation of the One Mediator and relies on it.

Otherwise, we're forced to conclude that it's some kind of offense to the mediation of Christ for Christians to pray for one another. However, Scripture directly commands Christians to pray for one another! (cf James 5:16, Gal 6:2, Heb 13:18, 2 Thess 3:1, etc.)

8 posted on 08/21/2011 3:51:58 PM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I have no wish to debate since I stopped reading after the first sentence regarding the Old Testament background. Using one king’s cabinet makeup (there is no proof that “and his successors” as you’ve put it, ever followed his example) to defend the position of the papacy is a stretch and extremely weak at best.
Furthermore his cabinet dealt with ruling a nation and had nothing to do with worship and sacrifices to God as that fell to the tribe of Levi and the Temple he built.


9 posted on 08/21/2011 5:11:50 PM PDT by thatjoeguy (Wind is just air, but pushier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Campion; NYer
More about the Old Testament here"

The Sacred Page

Sunday, August 21, 2011

The Biblical Basis for the Papacy: The Readings for the Twenty-First Sunday in Ordinary Time


In terms of Catholic “preachability,” today’s Readings are a soft-ball pitch, a long high arc that every homilist ought to be able to knock out of the park.  The lectionary readings have been set up for a clear explanation of the nature of the Papacy and its basis in Scripture.



The context of the Old Testament Reading should be explained.  During the lifetime of the prophet Isaiah, the royal steward of the palace, a certain Shebna, was arrogating to himself royal privileges.  In particular, he was having a tomb cut for himself in the area reserved for the royal Sons of David.  Like Denethor in The Return of the King , he was forgetting his place as steward and confusing his role with that of the king (not an accidental parallel, by the way--Tolkien was Catholic).  As a result, the LORD sends an oracle to Shebna via Isaiah, to the effect that Shebna will be replaced in his position by a more righteous man, a certain Eliakim son of Hilkiah:

Is 22:19-23
Thus says the LORD to Shebna, master of the palace:
"I will thrust you from your office
and pull you down from your station.
On that day I will summon my servant
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe,
and gird him with your sash,
and give over to him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on Eliakim's shoulder;
when he opens, no one shall shut
when he shuts, no one shall open.
I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot,
to be a place of honor for his family."

The role of “master of the palace,” literally “the one over the house” (Heb. ‘asher ‘al-habayith), was the Number Two position of authority after the King (observe the dynamic in 1 Kings 18:1-5, for example).  The office was first established by Solomon (1 Kings 4:6).  Apparently, the badge of his office was the wearing of the key to the palace on the shoulder (Isa 22:22).  The steward controlled access to the king, either by unlocking or locking the palace doors to those who sought the king’s presence.

Michael Barber has done work showing that the Royal Steward was understood as a priestly character.  I cannot repeat all his evidence, but I will point out the connections of which I am aware: (1) the girdle (Heb. ‘abnet) mentioned in the passage (“sash” in the Lectionary translation) is only mentioned elsewhere in the OT as a priestly garment, usually along with the robe (Heb. kuttonet): Ex. 28:4, 39, 40; 29:9; 39:29; Lev. 8:7, 13; 16:4. (2) The steward is said to be a father to the House of Judah.  “Father” is a priestly title in the Old Testament (Gen 45:8; Judg 17:10; 18:19). (3) Eliakim is the son of Hilkiah.  Although we are not sure which Hilkiah this is, it is notable that the name “Hilkiah” is only used by Levites in the Old Testament (Jeremiah, a Levite, is also “son of Hilkiah,” Jer 1:1), and at least two Hilkiahs were in fact High Priests (2 Kings 22:4 etc. and parallels in 2 Chron 34; Neh 12:7).

In summary, the Kingdom of David included the office of the Royal Steward (‘asher ‘al-habayit), a position associated with priesthood and second only to the king in authority.

As we move toward today’s Gospel reading, let’s not forget that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke both take great pains in their opening chapters to emphasize Jesus’ royal Davidic lineage.  He is the Son of David come to fulfill all the promises of the Davidic Covenant (see Jer 33:15, 19-21).  However, we as Christian readers usually practice a sort of literary schizophrenia when reading the Gospels.  We do not connect the "Kingdom of David" promised to Jesus with the "Kingdom of Heaven" that Jesus proclaims in his ministry:

Luke 1:31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.  32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,  33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

However, already in the Old Testament, there was an awareness that the Kingdom of David was a manifestation of God’s own Kingdom:

2Chr. 13:8   “And now you think to withstand the kingdom of the LORD in the hand of the sons of David?

The Kingdom of Heaven, manifested on earth as the Church, is also the Kingdom of David, and in its structures it reflects that Davidic heritage.

This Old Testament background elucidates the Gospel reading, a controversial one whose meaning is hotly debated because of the importance of its implications:

Mt 16:13-20
Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi and
he asked his disciples,
"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah,
still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter said in reply,
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus said to him in reply,
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Then he strictly ordered his disciples
to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Isaiah 22 is clearly the background for the promise of the “keys to the Kingdom.”  Aside from Judges 3:23-25, which has no thematic parallels, Isaiah 22 is the only passage of the Old Testament where the word “key” even occurs.  The thematic parallels are strong: the promise to Eliakim concerning “opening” and “shutting” is repeated to Peter, although using the terms “binding” and “loosing.”  “Binding” and “loosing” were technical terms in first century Judaism referring to the authority to decide matters of halakhah (lit. “the walk”, i.e. “the behavior” or “how one behaves”), that is, the practical application of divine law. 

Jesus did not decide all matters of the application of divine law himself.  Nor did he write down a book with the answers to all controversies in this area that would ever arise in the history of the Church.  He did, however, invest Peter with the authority to make decisions in this regard. 

Even some non-Catholic commentators (most notably, W.F. Albright, father of American biblical archeology and Old Testament studies) recognize that, in Matt 16, Jesus is investing Peter with role of royal steward in the Kingdom that Jesus is establishing.

The Church has always held that Peter’s authority—like the authority of the apostles in general—was passed down to his successors.  Otherwise, passages like Matt 16:13-20 and others which speak to us of the authority of the apostles are simply matters of historical curiosity for us:  "So Jesus invested Peter and the apostles with authority over the Church.  After they died, however, Jesus left no provision for the governance of the Church, so now it is every believer for him- or herself."  This is the view I once held myself.

It implies that apparently Jesus didn’t recognize the continuing need for authoritative leadership in the Church.  Maybe Jesus thought he was going to return before the apostles died (but he was mistaken).  Or maybe he thought that while the Church was small, it would need strong and visible leadership, but in subsequent generations, when it spread all over the world to a host of cultures and a host of controversies would arise, there would no longer be the need for strong and visible leadership to maintain the Church’s unity and doctrine.

Let me voice my disagreement with the above-mentioned position.  I do not think Jesus made a mistake about the timing of his return, nor that he did not foresee the continuing need for leadership in the Church.  The succession of subsequent generations to the authority of the apostles is already visible in Scripture itself (Acts 6:1-6; Titus 1:5; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Peter 5:1-2).   

The Church was not mistaken in understanding Peter’s authority to be passed to his successors.  So we see, already in the first or early second century, Clement of Rome exercising a spiritual authority over churches far away from his immediate geographical jurisdiction (see 1 Clement).

The priestly and paternal roles of the Royal Steward, Peter and his successors, is reflected in titles given to the Bishop of Rome: “pontifex maximus” (“greatest priest”) and “Papa” or “Pope,” meaning “Father.”

He continues to authoritatively “bind” and “loose,” making decisions of halakhah for the People of God.  A pertinent modern example: how does divine law apply to physical and chemical contraceptives, which were not as widely available in previous centuries?  Paul VI gave an authoritative halakhic decision: they are impermissible.  The decision remains universally controversial, but Christians who will not accept it, I am afraid, will find themselves voluntarily extinguishing their own communities as the generations pass.


10 posted on 08/21/2011 5:50:22 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; NYer; Campion

I do love you guys!


11 posted on 08/21/2011 6:26:30 PM PDT by Shark24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

All very interesting. The Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:1-17) promised among other things that there would be a sure land for Israel forever. (Gen. 17; 2 Sam. 7:10). It was an everlasting covenant. And it included dwelling safely in the land God had promised them. Luke 22:30 says that Christ told the 12 Disciples they would sit upon twelve thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the Kingdom. That He will establish at His coming. So, my question to you is to which of the 12 tribes do you belong? If Peter is going to sit on a throne judging the 12 tribes of Israel during the Kingdom, and you follow Peter and believe he has the keys to the Kingdom, then you must believe that you must endure the tribulation in order to enter that Kingdom. And that you are Israel.


12 posted on 08/21/2011 6:26:47 PM PDT by smvoice (The Cross was NOT God's Plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Elendur; it_ürür; Bockscar; Mary Kochan; Bed_Zeppelin; YellowRoseofTx; Rashputin; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


13 posted on 08/21/2011 6:31:14 PM PDT by narses ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Campion
I think you're taking one passage of Scripture out of context and misunderstanding it.

Of course I disagree. Jesus spoke of what the religious elite of His day enjoyed - titles and human admiration - and warned His disciples not to take that path. Undeserved titles for human recognition of some spirituality. Paul spoke of himself as the spiritual father of the Corinthians as they were infintile Christians. He actually brought them up in the nurture and admonision of Christ. The pope has done neither for me personally and therefore could not possibly be my spiritual father.

They hold their office as part of God's plan to bring Jesus to me.

As a protestant, I understand God's plan to be for God to bring Jesus to me, outside of the priesthood. Hebrews details the redundancy of earthly priests and our High Priest. Since Christ is my High Priest forever, there is no further need for any earthly priest to point the way or pave the way. Christ already completed that fully at the cross. It may be symantics - what you call a priest I call a pastor/elder.

the passage you quote does not say anything against priests, the Pope, or Mary

It does tell me there is no other mediator except One. And the context, as you stated, distinguishes making intercessions for others and mediation. Praying, to Christ (sole mediator), for others (health, blessings, instruction etc) = acceptable and pleasing. Praying to someone other than Christ = unacceptable because there is no other and there is to be no other.

Therefore, I do not need the redundancy of a co-mediatrix assisting Christ on my behalf. I do not need a titular-only Father (my own dad was my spiritual mentor or spiritual father). No need for a priest to usher me into the presence of Christ or to bring Christ to me or to distinguish right from wrong for me(Heb 5:14 "But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.").

In summary, as a protestant, looking into the Catholic practices, I see unnecessary redundancy in my quest for Christ and in the daily exercise of my Christ-quest. As in all things, however, I may be wrong and I will certainly give an account one day.

14 posted on 08/21/2011 7:06:48 PM PDT by 1forall (America - my home, my land, my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer
I have respect for people who want to worship as they will but I could never become a member of the Catholic Church. It has the blood of too many on its hands. Too many burnings at the stake. Too much political intrigue.

Please understand that this is not against Catholic people but the Church leadership itself. The Catholic church is a prime example why governments should never be controlled by a Church.

And all of this is aside from the doctrinal differences I have with the Church.

15 posted on 08/21/2011 8:26:16 PM PDT by ColdSteelTalon (Light is fading to shadow, and casting its shroud over all we have known...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Scott Hahn would be proud.


16 posted on 08/21/2011 8:49:40 PM PDT by STJPII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Salvation

Good reading materials. Excellent.


17 posted on 08/21/2011 8:50:54 PM PDT by johngrace (1 John 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdSteelTalon
I could never become a member of the Catholic Church. It has the blood of too many on its hands. Too many burnings at the stake. Too much political intrigue.

These are broad statements. Can you back them up with some specifics?

In its 2000 year history, not one pope has ever erred in doctrines of faith or morals. The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has "no spot, wrinkle or blemish" (Ephesians 5:27). Christ also stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error? Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).

18 posted on 08/22/2011 5:52:21 AM PDT by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Shark24; Salvation; NYer; Campion

“I do love you guys!”

Amen, Thanks for all the time and energy you spend compiling your info. I appreciate it and enjoy reading it. It helps educate me and I use some of it in conversations to educate others.

You are lights which are not covered by a basket!


19 posted on 08/22/2011 5:53:35 AM PDT by jafojeffsurf (Return to the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ColdSteelTalon

**I have respect for people who want to worship as they will but I could never become a member of the Catholic Church. It has the blood of too many on its hands. Too many burnings at the stake. Too much political intrigue. **

It might be good for you to get part of the real truth — Try Ken Follett’s book “Pillars of the Earth.” Very explicit in some parts, but quite well researched on the building of a cathedral and the treatment of Catholics by those in control.

And I will bet you a steak dinner that there are many more Catholic martyrs, killed for their faith, that you would ever imagine.


20 posted on 08/22/2011 10:02:03 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NYer
“In its 2000 year history, not one pope has ever erred in doctrines of faith or morals.”

Really?

So was Pope Stephen in error in doctrines of faith or morals when he had his predecessor exhumed and held to trial (while dead) for violations of cannon law and other charges - or was Pope Formosus in error in doctrines of faith or morals as Pope Stephen charged?

Hard to say that neither men erred in doctrines of faith or morals. One of then had to be wrong.

21 posted on 08/22/2011 10:17:53 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NYer
These are broad statements. Can you back them up with some specifics?

The church wiped out the Cathars for starters.

22 posted on 08/22/2011 11:16:44 AM PDT by ColdSteelTalon (Light is fading to shadow, and casting its shroud over all we have known...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
And I will bet you a steak dinner that there are many more Catholic martyrs, killed for their faith, that you would ever imagine.

Lets not change the subject. I am talking about Catholic Church sanctioned violence either directly or by it agents in governments under the Catholic Church's control.

23 posted on 08/22/2011 11:34:12 AM PDT by ColdSteelTalon (Light is fading to shadow, and casting its shroud over all we have known...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
So was Pope Stephen in error in doctrines of faith or morals when he had his predecessor exhumed and held to trial (while dead) for violations of cannon law and other charges...

Pope St. Stephen served the church from 12 May, 254, until his death on 2 August, 257. Which pope did he exhume?

24 posted on 08/22/2011 1:47:49 PM PDT by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ColdSteelTalon
The church wiped out the Cathars for starters.

I believe you meant to say the church eradicated the Cathar heresy. The essential characteristic of the Catharist faith was Dualism, i.e. the belief in a good and an evil principle, of whom the former created the invisible and spiritual universe, while the latter was the author of the material world. The Catharist system was a simultaneous attack on the Catholic Church and the then existing State. The Church was directly assailed in its doctrine and hierarchy. The denial of the value of oaths, and the suppression, at least in theory, of the right to punish, undermined the basis of the Christian State. But the worst danger was that the triumph of the heretical principles meant the extinction of the human race. This annihilation was the direct consequence of the Catharist doctrine, that all intercourse between the sexes ought to be avoided and that suicide or the Endura, under certain circumstances, is not only lawful but commendable. The assertion of some writers, like Charles Molinier, that Catholic and Catharist teaching respecting marriage are identical, is an erroneous interpretation of Catholic doctrine and practice. Among Catholics, the priest is forbidden to marry, but the faithful can merit eternal happiness in the married state. For the Cathari, no salvation was possible without previous renunciation of marriage. Mr. H.C. Lea, who cannot be suspected of partiality towards the Catholic Church, writes: "However much we may deprecate the means used for its (Catharism) suppression and commiserate those who suffered for conscience' sake, we cannot but admit that the cause of orthodoxy was in this case the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to prove disastrous." source

See also, The Cathar Heresy

25 posted on 08/22/2011 2:04:51 PM PDT by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Pope Stephen VI (died August 897) was Pope from May 22, 896 to August 897.

He had Pope Formosus exhumed, as I previously stated in my rather short post. It was called the Cadaver Synod - a rather famous event - I am surprised you have never heard of it.

When one Pope accuses another of crimes, has his body exhumed and his corpse desecrated and thrown in the Tiber - one Pope was OBVIOUSLY in error.

Which one?

26 posted on 08/22/2011 2:08:16 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The question is did the Catholic church sanction the killing of Cathars? Unless you believe that the Church was right in killing them and that it was part of eradication of the heresy?


27 posted on 08/22/2011 2:22:28 PM PDT by ColdSteelTalon (Light is fading to shadow, and casting its shroud over all we have known...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ColdSteelTalon

St. Peter has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven; you might think otherwise, but that is not what the Bible says.


28 posted on 08/22/2011 2:25:24 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ColdSteelTalon

And how many Catholics were killed by Nero for sport?


29 posted on 08/22/2011 2:26:33 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Good stuff. Scripture clearly tells us who the author of confusion is and anyone who looks at the non-Catholic community can see that it's a mass of confusion. Christ gave Peter a new name for a reason, not on a whim or so he could make a joke about big rocks and little rocks. Without the authority of a priesthood and an earthly prime minister for His Church, there is no limit to the number of ways folks can reinterpret, redefine terms, remove from context, and otherwise rationalize whatever they want to do as what they should be doing. The Holy Spirit for comfort and individual guidance and the priesthood for education, correction, confession, and most importantly to bring us the Eucharist makes perfect sense. The main reason it's difficult for a lot of people to accept boils down to personal pride in being the final authority in all matters which frees an individual from bearing any cross other than the cross of minor inconvenience.

Eve began her slide into sin by misquoting what she had been told to do and then falling for the lie that she could know all things and interpret both good and evil for herself. Just as with Eve, the sins we see running rampant in traditional non-Catholic churches (homosexual pastors, homosexual marriage, accepting abortion & birth control, ...) all begin from the same thing, individual interpretation that ends up being individual permission to bear no cross and to not follow Christ if doing so gets in the way of making a buck or having a good time.

Taking up the cross and following Christ begins with accepting the burden of not being the final authority on all matters of faith and morals. Anyone who is dedicated to Sola Yourselfa needs to consider the fact that Christ took the role of the Jewish priesthood very seriously and instructed his followers to obey them but not to emulate them. That's not the sort of thing He would say if He was the beginning of some new sort of anarchy founded on individual interpretation based on personal understanding.

Regards

30 posted on 08/22/2011 2:36:24 PM PDT by Rashputin (Obama is insane but kept medicated and on golf courses to hide it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
And how many Catholics were killed by Nero for sport?

Lets not change the subject. The question is did the Catholic Church cause people who it did not agree with to be killed? My answer is yes the Church did kill people who it did not agree with. The Cathars are a prime example cited by me. Lets not change the subject to how many Catholics were killed by Nero. Its not relevant to answering the question.

Such answer on your behalf amounts to what is often referred to as a straw man argument.

The fact is when the Catholic Church got a hold of temporal power it abused that power and killed those with whom it disagreed. The Cathars are a prime example.

Now if you desire to take the position that history is wrong and that the Catholic Church did not at any time in history cause people to die that it did not agree with, then you should start with disproving the historical facts regarding how the Church acted against the Cathars.

Now of course you might want to make the argument that the Cathars were proclaimed by Catholic Church as heretics, and thus it was OK for the Catholic Church to harm them. That would be an attempt at justification for the actions of the Catholic Church in killing Cathars because the Catholic Church did not agree with them.

31 posted on 08/22/2011 3:14:04 PM PDT by ColdSteelTalon (Light is fading to shadow, and casting its shroud over all we have known...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NYer; allmendream; ColdSteelTalon; Salvation
I believe he is talking of later popes. Pope Formosius (891-896) was succeeded at at his death (d. 4/4/896) by Pope Boniface VI who was elected on 4/11/896 and quickly died on 4/26/896. Next was Pope Stephen VI (apparently also known as Pope Stephen VII who was elected in May, 896 and was deposed in August, 897, "thrown into prison for his brutality and murdered there." He was strangled by his enemies not apparently martyred for the Faith. The period was generally not a feather in the cap of the papacy. There were many popes in a very few years and few of them were anything to be proud of. Several were proof of God's love for His Church (which survived in spite of their efforts) and that Jesus Christ REALLY meant it when He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.

Pope Formosius's corpse was indeed dug out of his grave, dressed in papal robes, put on trial (accused of trumped up non-doctrinal political charges advanced against his defenseless corpse by his ecclesiastical in-house enemies) and convicted and deposed posthumously (a silly and vain attempt at revising history) and the corpse ordered to be thrown in the Tiber whence it was retrieved by a passing monk. A couple of popes later, the corpse was reburied by Theodore II in 11/897 and Formosius's status restored.

The Formosius affair had nothing whatsoever to do with doctrine or dogma but rather with the fact that Formosius was already bishop of some other diocese when he was elected pope (bishop of Rome) which is quite common thereafter for many bishops who change dioceses as they are promoted whether to the papacy or not. Moving from one diocese to another as a bishop was then known as "translation" and ostensibly forbidden by then existing (but not yet codified) Canon Law (sort of an early equivalent at that time of what was yet to be called Common Law in Britain).

The pending question of allmendream is whether Formosius or Stephen VI or VII had committed doctrinal error. The answer is clearly not, much less with the rigorous standards of Vatican I in the 1850s as to papal infallibility. That conciliar declaration has always riled up and been thoroughly misunderstood by those who are not of our Faith. They tend to be driven into a complete tizzy by the word "infallible" or to confuse infallible with sinless or impeccable (all popes have been sinners and for a spectacular example one could study on Alexander VI whose maiden name was Borgia and he is merely the most spectacular and by no means lonely except as to the rampaging nature of his misbehavior).

The story is covered verrrry briefly by distinguished British Catholic and historian Paul Johnson in his "The Papacy" republished by Barnes and Noble in 1997 and with particular attention to page 69 and to the brief description of the popes in question on page 213. Stephen VI or VII of 896-897 may have been many things but proclaimed and canonized a saint was not one of them and is unlikely to ever be before the end of the world and the Final Judgment at the very least.

All that having been said, our burden is not to prove that no pope has never been mistaken at all or even as to the Faith but that the pope, when speaking ex cathedra (from the throne) as successor of Peter, on a matter of faith and morals, and specifically invoking the extraordinary infallibility defined at Vatican I (in the 1850s) by the Council Fathers. This invocation has been made exactly three times: Pius IX defining such a council as infallible when acting in concert with the pope and under the same circumstances (1850s); Pius IX defining infallibly that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, was conceived "alone of all her race (other than Jesus)" without her soul bearing the mark of Original Sin (1850s after the very famous Marian apparitions on that subject to the child St. Bernadette Soubarous (sp.?) at Lourdes; and Pius XII in 1954 who defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, body and soul, into heaven.

Allmendream and coldsteeltalon: This info is offered to both of you and anyone else with Christian fraternal respect and, while I disagree (in all likelihood with each of you as each of you likely disagree with me and other Catholics), that does not mean that I bear ill will toward you. May Christians, Catholic or Reformed, join together whenever possible and respect one another in all circumstances, in service to Him and His plan. May God bless both of you and all of yours for your sincere efforts in service to God and God's Word.

God bless NYer and Salvation and all of theirs for all of the magnificent work that both of you do for Jesus Christ and His Church here on FR. I try not to get in the middle of Catholic/Reformed controversies, as you both know. I have promised myself not to make a habit of this. You both deserve defense by all Catholics here.

NYer: Any word on whether Hubbard is likely to be replaced by a Catholic or who that successor may be?

32 posted on 08/22/2011 3:19:32 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Well said Blackelk.

I have no problem with people practicing their faith as they see fit. I am only making the argument that the Catholic Church (in the past) has had a history of persecuting others who did not agree with Catholic doctrine. Hence while I am a Christian, I could not be a Catholic knowing what was done to people with a different Christian viewpoint when the Church possessed power over governments of various nations. The Catholic Church has not had an unblemished history like many would believe.

And I certainly am for working together outside of our differences, especially on things like stopping abortion etc.

That said, it is disturbing that there are those who seem to take the bent that the Catholic Church is infallible as well as the Pope. History has plainly shown otherwise.

33 posted on 08/22/2011 3:30:25 PM PDT by ColdSteelTalon (Light is fading to shadow, and casting its shroud over all we have known...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
“In its 2000 year history, not one pope has ever erred in doctrines of faith or morals”

Seems that one or the other of Pope Stephen (called the sixth or the seventh posthumously) or Pope Formosius erred in regards to doctrine and morality.

Which one?

Now if the poster had said that no Pope ever erred when speaking “ex cathedra” I wouldn't have raised my objection. But to say that no Pope ever erred in regards to doctrines of faith or morality strains credulity to anyone knowledgeable of history.

Excellent post, by the way. The Borgia era, the “reign of the harlots”, and many other events should make one tremble at the unwarranted self pride necessary for a Catholic to say that no Pope ever made an error as far as doctrines of faith or morality.

34 posted on 08/22/2011 3:34:13 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ColdSteelTalon
Here's three martyrs who are remembered today. I can post more to you each day.

 

Sts. Timothy, Hippolytus & Symphorian
During the pontificate of Pope Melchiades (311-314), Timothy of Antioch came to Rome and preached the Gospel. The prefect of the city, Tarquin, placed him under arrest and after a period of imprisonment ordered that he be scourged three times because he refused to sacrifice to the gods. After further excruciating torments Timothy was beheaded. At Ostia, the bishop St. Hippolytus, was a man of exceptional culture. Because he was an outstanding witness to the faith, he was bound hand and foot by Emperor Alexander and cast into a deep pit filled with water; thereby he obtained the crown. Not far away Christians buried his body. At Autun the youthful Symphorian was brought to judgment under Emperor Aurelian (270-275). His mother urged perseverance: "My son, think of eternal life. Raise your glance to heaven and behold your eternal King! Your life will not be taken from you, but transformed into a better one!"

Excerpted from the Roman Martyrology


35 posted on 08/22/2011 4:06:57 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
When one Pope accuses another of crimes, has his body exhumed and his corpse desecrated and thrown in the Tiber - one Pope was OBVIOUSLY in error. Which one?

Since neither one of us was there, we will never know.

Stephen was a Roman, and the son of John, a priest. He had been consecrated Bishop of Anagni, possibly against his will, by Formosus, and became pope about May, 896. Whether induced by evil passion or perhaps, more probably, compelled by the Emperor Lambert and his mother Ageltruda, he caused the body of Formosus to be exhumed, and in January, 897, to be placed before an unwilling synod of the Roman clergy. A deacon was appointed to answer for the deceased pontiff, who was condemned for performing the functions of a bishop when he had been deposed and for passing from the See of Porto to that of Rome. source.

Regardless of the circumstances, he never erred in doctrines of faith or morals.

36 posted on 08/22/2011 4:25:49 PM PDT by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
NYer: Any word on whether Hubbard is likely to be replaced by a Catholic or who that successor may be?

Thanks for thinking and praying for us here in Albany. No word yet on who will replace Hubbard, or Rochester bishop Clark, his good friend from seminary. Both turn 75 in 2 more years. Please keep praying for us the Holy Father! Cent' Anni!

37 posted on 08/22/2011 4:33:22 PM PDT by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NYer
I guess it depends upon what your definition of “doctrines of faith or morals” is - or what your definition of “error” is.

What was the substance of the stated disagreement between Pope Stephen and Pope Formosus if not over doctrine?

Either Pope Formosus was in error for performing the functions of a bishop, or Pope Stephen was in error for condemning him for it.

It seems to me that it is impossible to have both be correct over the doctrine they ‘argued’ over.

38 posted on 08/22/2011 4:40:10 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NYer; ColdSteelTalon

“In its 2000 year history, not one pope has ever erred in doctrines of faith or morals.”

That is a broad statement. Care to explain how you define it? Peter, for example, gave in to the teaching of the Judaizers:

” 11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

15We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

17But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” - Gal 2

If Peter tried to “force the Gentiles to live like Jews”, how was that NOT wrong doctrine?

One could go on.

“Pope Honorius I (died October 12, 638) was pope from 625 to 638...

...More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”.

Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, “And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” The Sixteenth Session adds: “To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!”

This condemnation was subsequently confirmed by Leo II (a fact disputed by such persons as Cesare Baronio and Bellarmine,[1] but which has since become commonly accepted) in the form, “and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes: “It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned.” (quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia)” - Wiki on Honorius

Ever hear this? “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm (UNAM SANCTAM, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302)

Is that still the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, or has it changed? And if it is no longer believed, then didn’t Pope Boniface teach something false, and declare...proclaim...define a false doctrine of faith?


39 posted on 08/22/2011 4:49:59 PM PDT by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM


40 posted on 08/22/2011 5:00:58 PM PDT by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Here's three martyrs who are remembered today. I can post more to you each day.

You keep trying to change the subject.

I have proven my point regarding the Catholic Church's abuse of power to kill those they did not agree with using the Cathars as an example. You can throw martyrs at me every day, it does not change historical facts.

41 posted on 08/22/2011 5:34:19 PM PDT by ColdSteelTalon (Light is fading to shadow, and casting its shroud over all we have known...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ColdSteelTalon; BlackElk

I understand what you are saying, but I must ask you, what is your feeling about the reign of Elizabeth I, who, in the name of her Christian beliefs had Catholics killed?

No one here claims the Church has an unblemished record, nor that there have been popes and other leaders of seriously bad character.

For me, that truth has been one of the reasons I am Catholic.

Jesus promised His Church would survive even the gates of hell and it has.


42 posted on 08/22/2011 7:41:16 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ColdSteelTalon
It has the blood of too many on its hands.

one finds the same argument used against Christianity as a whole.

43 posted on 08/22/2011 7:53:57 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jvette; ColdSteelTalon; BlackElk

“...I must ask you, what is your feeling about the reign of Elizabeth I, who, in the name of her Christian beliefs had Catholics killed?”

You could pick a better example than Queen Elizabeth. She had very few Catholics put to death during most of her reign. At the end, after multiple attempts on her life by Catholics, she killed Catholics for lack of loyalty, not out of religious belief. Unlike her older sister, Bloody Mary...

There have been ample killings on both sides. When you mix church and state, evil comes. Doesn’t matter if it is Protestant or Catholic, mixing politics with church is a bad idea.


44 posted on 08/22/2011 7:55:29 PM PDT by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ColdSteelTalon
It has the blood of too many on its hands.

Secondly, one finds that argument used to blame even our Southern Baptist friends who accuse it (incorrectly) of being an outcome of being anti-African American.

Talking about actions in the 1500s or even 1700s and comparing this to a denomination just formed in the 20th century is apples and oranges

45 posted on 08/22/2011 7:57:19 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ColdSteelTalon

Finally, the Cathars were Gnostics who believed that all matter was evil and that the best way to handle this was to not bring more children into the world and to die to escape this illusion of a world — a very Jain philosophy but without the depth of Jainism


46 posted on 08/22/2011 7:58:42 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I agree with your point and when one examines the times that religion has been used as a justification for killing others, it can almost always be traced back to civil or political agendas.

The point is that the Church does have human leaders and humans are sinners and some of those sinful leaders have used the Church to further their own power and wealth.

It is unfortunate, but not limited to just the Catholic Church.


47 posted on 08/22/2011 8:17:30 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I just saw dr. scott hahn talk about Isa 22 on the show “our Father’s plan”...


48 posted on 09/04/2011 5:39:59 PM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdSteelTalon

There were a lot of Catholics burnt at the stake also! How about Joan of Arc, who was but one of many? Also, how about the Catholics who died along w/Jews in the Holocaust? There was a large number of Catholic priests and monks who died when Henry the Eighth, (who started his own church)went on a rampage on the monasteries!


49 posted on 01/13/2012 12:07:11 AM PST by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dsutah

In reply to your question. It does not matter happened to Catholics when they did not have the power. It matters what the Catholic Church has done when it held on to the levers of political power. The historical fact is that the Catholic Church was directly responsible for killing people that did not agree with its doctrine. They had the power they had a choice, and in the past the Church chose to murder people. Granted it does not do or advocate these things today. But the Church expressly decided to kill against the will of Christ. I do not align myself with an organization that has such a history. I am a Christian but I would disavow the Church I am affiliated with in heartbeat if it advocated in the now or if it was ever proven that it had a history in the past, of murdering people.


50 posted on 01/13/2012 9:12:57 AM PST by ColdSteelTalon (Light is fading to shadow, and casting its shroud over all we have known...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson