Posted on 03/16/2013 11:03:44 AM PDT by marshmallow
Why believers of all stripes should care about the new head of the Catholic Church.
When the new pope is consecrated, he will inherit a troubled global church. Internal scandal and unaddressed external problems pose great risks to the vitality of Catholicism. But the consequences of success or failure are huge for the church universal, the world's 2.1 billion Christians of every denomination.
This is more than a butterfly effect. Rome is not Las Vegas—what happens in Rome will not stay within the borders of Vatican City. One consequence of globalization is that the walls that have long divided Catholics from Orthodox, mainline Protestants, evangelicals, and Pentecostals are eroding.
Brian Stiller,a global ambassador for the World Evangelical Alliance, commenting about Catholic and evangelical relations, wrote on his blog recently, "Not in 500 years have the two sides been so close and friendly."
The challenges inside the Vatican and the Catholic Church are familiar, and they are of concern to every Christian who longs for a healthy body. Two cardinals, Keith O'Brien (Scotland) and Roger Mahony (Los Angeles), are just the latest Catholic leaders who stand accused of wrongdoing. Several priests allege that O'Brien initiated "inappropriate" behavior, possibly sexual, with them. Court documents reveal that Mahony relocated priests, known to be sexually abusive, to shield them from prosecution. In addition, a money-laundering scandal has tainted the Vatican's reputation of integrity. And the so-called Vatileaks scandal has pulled back the curtain on infighting and factionalism within the potent Catholic curia, the leadership core.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
“Establish his Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevai; against it?
Umm..which Church do you think that turned out to be?”
The one I’m in.
With all due respect, I think you need to study history again. Your church was not even around back then....
“With all due respect, I think you need to study history again. Your church was not even around back then....”
With all due respect, the body of Christ is the church:
Eph 1:22-23 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, (23) Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
It isn’t walls, or even an institution, but is Christ as the head, and all Christians being the members of it.
This is the true church that has never been defeated, even when the Roman Church began to elect “universal Bishops” 300 to 400 years after the fact.
As a Catholic, we believe that all Christian based religions will allow for eternal life
as long as you accept Jesus Christ as your savior.
I have respect for the Baptist Faith, just as I do for Lutheranism, Anglica, etc.
But history is cannot be changed to follow our beliefs.
There has been a Pope in place ever since Peter, one after another all the way up until the one just elected. And it all started with Peter as the first Pope after Jesus started the Church with Peter.
All other Christian denominations spawned off Catholicism... that is a fact and that is history my friend.
Why is it that nobody on the face of the earth can provide the name of the person or group that started Catholicism?
Funny how you keep taking passages that substantiate your claim, but you dont take the very passage about Christ establishing Peter as the rock of the Church which was the founding of the Catholic Church?
What time is it where you are by the way?
I respect the fact that you are Christian and love your Church...
I love my Church as well. I love you as a fellow Christian... we are not going to agree.
I am merely pointing out events that happened in time for which its history cannot be changed. You can interpret the Bible and passages anyway you want. That is why there are so many “Free Will Baptist Churches” and not one single cohesive unit.
I can read a passage in the Bible and interpret it anyway that fits my argument.
That does not change the fact that there has been a “physical” breathing Pope ever since Peter for thousands of years” and Peter was the first Pope.
A lot of that, I'm sure, is the result of the push of liberal Catholic priests and leaders toward Liberation Theology in Latin America. The new Pope was one of the Jesuits who pushed AGAINST Liberation Theology, as a young Jesuit, and as a result, was banished to the hinterlands to teach and preach. He was brought back to Buenos Aires by Pope John Paul II, when he made Bergoglio a Bishop. This, I'm sure, didn't make the liberal Jesuits very happy, and they were even more annoyed when Bergoglio was made a Cardinal, and didn't have to answer to the Jesuit Provincial anymore.
I haven't ready anything yet in "America", the Jesuit magazine, about the new Pope, but I'm curious about what they have to say. He is 'for the poor', but not in the way the Jesuits in Latin America have done it.
What I’ve read, and it was in European press, not a word about it stateside, is that the Pope’s immediate problem with the Jesuits is what was called ‘homoheresy’ among the U.S. Jesuits.
“As a Catholic, we believe that all Christian based religions will allow for eternal life
as long as you accept Jesus Christ as your savior”
As a Christian, I charge that any religion that preaches a different Gospel than Jesus Christ is an enemy of the Gospel. I cannot join together with other “churches” that do this.
“There has been a Pope in place ever since Peter, one after another all the way up until the one just elected. And it all started with Peter as the first Pope after Jesus started the Church with Peter.”
The Rock upon which the church is built is the confession of Jesus Christ. All Christians are “stones,” and priests and saints of the true church, which is Christ’s body, with Christ as the chief cornerstone.
1Pe 2:5-6 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Peter never, in any of his epistles, calls himself the Rock upon which the church is built, or refers to himself as anything more than an Apostle of Jesus Christ, just as Paul and the others called themselves. In fact, Paul even rebuked Peter when he was in error. Not as an inferior having respect for a Pope, but as an equal.
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
This doctrine of Papal primacy, universal Bishop as the “head” of the church, is one that came later.
Ignatius, writing sometime before his death between 97 and 115AD, listed the highest tier of the church as the Bishop. He never mentions any higher tiers.
“Pope” Gregory the first, more than 400 years later, who asserted Peter was the First of the Apostles, nevertheless denied the title of the Universal Bishop (though the one who came right after him petitioned the Emperor that he should take the title), and asserted that the See of Peter was made up of three locations.
“But I confidently say, that whosoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires to be called so, in his pride is the forerunner of antichrist, because in his pride he prefers himself to the rest. And he is conducted to error with a similar pride; for as that wicked one wishes to appear a God above all men, so whosoever he is who alone desires to be called a bishop, extols himself above all other bishops.” — To Mauritius Augustus.
St. Peter’s Primacy descended to three Bishopricks, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome.
“Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. — In the Eulogy’ to the Bishop of Alexandria
Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
Ultimately, what authority does a church have when it has fallen so far from the word of God?
“I respect the fact that you are Christian and love your Church...”
I disrespect the fact that you say I love my Church, as if a denomination was all that I was defending.
“I can read a passage in the Bible and interpret it anyway that fits my argument.”
You can try your luck, but only the words of the scripture can prevail.
There is too much of PC going on. A must-read is from one of the great English essayists, Hillaire Belloc: “The Heretics.” This book is brilliantly written and argued. Unfortunately, we have a number of “low-intellect” Christians who go around simply quoting snatches from the Bible and religious treatises taken out of scriptural context, history, tradition, revelation, and liturgy.
But you dont seem to think that the scripture passage about Christ provding Peter the “Keys to the Kingdom” which essentially established Peter as the first Pope as valid?
Because it doesnt fit your narrative!!!!
Because it doesnt fit your narrative!!!!”
You seem to think that the scripture does not say that all the Apostles received it. It just doesn’t fit your narrative. Neither does the fact that Peter never hoards it over any of the others, or that Christians themselves are ‘stones’ making up the church, and that Christ is the chief cornerstone, not Peter, who, interestingly enough, is the one pointing out all these things.
You probably even think the Apostles had the right to forgive sins!
I like Jerome’s exposition of the matter:
Against the judicial Power of the Priests in forgiving Sins.
“The bishops and priests not understanding that passage, assume to themselves somewhat of the arrogance of the Pharisees, so far as to imagine that they may condemn the innocent or absolve the guilty, whereas with God, it is not the sentence of the priests, but the life* of the guilty that is looked into. We read in Leviticus concerning the lepers, where they were commanded to show themselves to the priests, in order that if they had a leprosy, they might be made unclean by the priests : not that the priests made them lepers and unclean, but be cause they knew who were lepers and who were not, and could dis cover who were clean and who were unclean. In the same manner therefore as the priest there made a man clean or unclean, so here the bishop or priest either binds or loosens, not those who are innocent or guilty, but officially, when he has heard the nature of their sins, he knows who is to be bound and who is to be loosened.” — On the 16th chap, of Mat. vol. 6.
My interlocutor is a person well versed in the Lutheran theology. He is also close to the hierarchy of the Lutheran Church, and frequently publishes articles on religious matters. A well respected conservative man. Whether his stetement to me represents the view (on papacy) of his church, I don’t know.
Who are you? Jim Bakker, the Crouch couple, the drunken preacher on the downtown corner, Marjo, or a follower of one of those? Because your readings of the Holy Scripture count as much as the readings of any of those listed. That is by the very definition of your Church protesting against Rome. Rome will outlast us all. If you define yourself but what you are against, then you ain’t much.
Just remember that you would not even have a Bible to quote from if it were not for the Catholic Church, Monks, and Friars saving the scripture from destruction during the medieval times.
Also, the reason I asked you what time it was where you are located because the very clock and calendat you use was developed as the Gregorian Calendar, yes...Pope Gregory.
The very Corporate Structure of Companies is derived from the Catholic structure, (Pope=President, Cardinals= Board of Directors, Bishops= Vice Presidents, etc. The very Senate and Congress representative structure we have in our country is derived from the Holy Roman Senate structure...
You cannot escape all the things Catholicism brought to the modern world and its influence.
I dont recall in history, written or recorded anywhere, a reference to a Baptist Church except maybe after the 17th Century.
It all came from Catholicism!!!
“My interlocutor is a person well versed in the Lutheran theology.”
I’ve read Luther. I could tell you what Luther says on the matter, but it would make everyone angry.
“Who are you?”
A Christian, whose head is Christ, not the Bishop of Rome.
“Just remember that you would not even have a Bible to quote from if it were not for the Catholic Church, Monks, and Friars saving the scripture from destruction during the medieval times.”
That’s like saying if not for the Pharisees, who demanded that Christ be killed, we wouldn’t have the Bible. It is God who preserves His word.
“Also, the reason I asked you what time it was where you are located because the very clock and calendat you use was developed as the Gregorian Calendar, yes...Pope Gregory.”
Hey! That’s great! I quoted Pope Gregory denying the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
“You cannot escape all the things Catholicism brought to the modern world and its influence.”
Christ’s Kingdom is NOT of this world.
You got that right. I'm glad you agree. May I quote you?
Them snakes bitin’ today, padner? Take out the banjoes!
“Them snakes bitin’ today, padner? Take out the banjoes!”
Yes, the snakes are biting today, but their arguments are quite lame, and far beneath the scripture.
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.