Posted on 02/09/2013 2:28:44 PM PST by NYer
Misguided and sad, ping!
“sides, has reduced authentic Christianity to just himself? “
Or even worse, reducing the Body of Christ to just one church/denomination...
I think Mad Mo’ was one of those.
The story is told of a Navy ship that came upon a solitary castaway on a deserted island—he had been there twenty years or more. The rescuers were amazed at how the castaway had single-handedly transformed the island, including building several impressive structures. “What is that over there?” asked a rescuer. “Why, that’s the church I built for myself,” said the castaway. “And what is that other building over there?” “Why, that’s my other church,” said the castaway. “I got mad at what was going on at the first church and had to leave.”
My foray into “evangelical” “denominations” has humorously proven the old adage that it takes two baptists to start a church and three to break it apart. If the reform movement was driven over a “literal” translation of the Bible, how come there are so many flavors?
Stay Tuned!
more protestant bashing.
ROFL! Thank you; that made my day.
Some of them were certainly serious men ~ and a lot of them were simply churches with one member, and him not all that reliable.
That aspect of Christianity disappeared after the islamic conquest of North Africa.
That's most of a thousand years before Protestantism came along.
Here's where I remind everyone that all the early Protestants had been either Orthodox or Roman Catholic Christians. This stuff didn't just appear out of the mists. Neither did those early hermits.
We should remember, there are the patron saints of animal topics, the patron saints of actors, of airline stewardress, of ammunition workers, of bell makers, of box makers, of boot blacks (not prayed too to much these days I suspect). There are the patron saints of bladder diseases, of blisters, of bowel disorders, of dandruff, of fainting. There are the patron saints of catepillars (not the tractors), dog bites, insect bites, patron saints of bees and, of course, bee keepers (one must have equal time).
It is understandable why our Catholic friends would laugh at a "church of one". They simply must love a party. After all, one can tell who prays to the saint of dandruff by whether they have telltale white flakes on their coats.
To be fair, do not some Roman Catholics do the same?
They are of this rite, or that rite, or, most commonly, are Cafeteria Catholics or CINOs. They become of Father this-and-so or This Holy Order of Nuns. Many official nuns and priests and monks actively oppose official church doctrines - and they aren’t excuseable as “just members.”
I don’t think the charge of sectarianism lies at the feet of Protestants alone. The Roman Catholics are NOT all marching to the same beat.
You might say, well, then they are not true Roman Catholics. I can see that. But then I’d say, all those “Protestants” who deny basic gospel truths are not true Protestants, either. That knife cuts both ways.
The RC polemic really is an attempt to negate the validity of any Scriptural challenge to her, as she is akin but more extreme than what it condemns, being the outworking of a premise that it alone is assuredly infallible, that according to her interpretation only her interpretation is correct in any conflict, but which is not the basis for the establishment of truth and the church, whih actually began in dissent from those who likewise presumed of themselves morr than what it written.
Meanwhile, most of what constitutes Rome have their own version of Catholicism, and whom Rome counts, treats and buries as members.
Great point. Thanks.
The article displays a gross a misunderstanding of what the body of Christ is as any I have read.
Neither the author nor the virtual sectarian he portrays, understand the Scriptural definition of the body of Christ.
The guy is just one of thousands, he just shows up a little more.
And therein lies the problem for the RC.
There were two views throughout history. The Eastern Orthodox from the beginning looked upon the scriptures (while divine and inspired), to be a living document to be carefully and methodolically changed and altered by the bishops as living circumstances changed. Thus, some of Paul's teachings were not edged in stone but were flexible as the church grew. Teaching could be modified with the approval of bishops but this isn't to be done lightly. While I don't share this view, there is some rational behind it.
This was not true for the western church. The early church fathers (Augustine, Jerome, etc) recognized the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures, and purposely set it apart from Church writings and doctrine. They held a high view of scripture unlike church doctrine that could become corrupted. Scripture could not be wrong. Church views could be. Thus, Church doctrine could and should be changed to conform with scripture when discovered to be wrong.
This worked for quite a while until the Roman Catholic Church started getting challenges to it's doctrine and authority. But at no time was this greater than in the Middle Ages when it tried to set up a king and kingdom on earth, and wanting to tax countries to pay tribute to it and the building of the Vatican. The rebellion of Luther and others was really just a final flash point that had been brewing for over four centuries.
The Council of Trent decided to take the Eastern Orthodox approach in saying that the Church was the authority-not the scriptures. Of course this creates problems for the RCC in that this was never historic position of the western church nor does it make sense with the writings and positions of the early fathers. The RCC no longer truly believes like the fathers in the setting apart of the scriptures. And you'll see this on this board today. While Catholics will tout the scriptures, they'll rely upon the Church positions (usually going no farther back than Anselm). When asked if they believe scripture to be more divinely inspired than church writings, one can hear the sound of crickets in the background.
Unlike the Orthodox who always believed they could change and make modifications to writings and teachings to keep up with the times, Catholics tout that they go back to the very early writings-something that they really ignored. Today it is no wonder that Catholics believe like the Orthodox (we won't even discuss Pelagius' views).
And that is why Roman Catholics don't like to be challenged scripturally. They really no longer recognized the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures. It is whatever Rome tells them to believe.
Maybe; but it is DEFINITELY the RCC favorite strawman to build upon!
Or historically; either!
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.