Stand up and be counted?
Stand up and be counted?
Reading through the posts on Christianity, it is apparent that there are quite a few budding philosophers out there who revel in splitting hairs ( hi, Ted). Thus said, has anybody defending (or opposing) Christian teachings actually had the courage of their own convictions and given a public testimonial concerning their faith? By public testimonial, I am referring to either preaching the word of Jesus Christ on the web or, more testing, speaking in a public place like Hyde Park, and what was the result?
In HIM I place my trust.
Stand up and be counted?
Frederick:-6
I'm not sure you get the idea that I split hairs. I am not a follower of the tradional paradigm of Christianity but the emerging paradigm.
Now in answer to your questions I have preached sermons on my faith for years. My church has no problem with my position. In fact it encourages my position. I have had to give testimonies and workshops in various places. I live my Christian life on a daily basis not just on Sundays. Mine is a living action oriented faith not a cheap words faith. I have had many clergy complement me on my sermons as they have been present.
The results. The immediate results are folks are well satisfied with what I have to say and I get invited back. I guess that in itself says something.
Hope this answers your question.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I'm not sure you get the idea that I split hairs. I am not a follower of the tradional paradigm of Christianity but the emerging paradigm.
Now in answer to your questions I have preached sermons on my faith for years. My church has no problem with my position. In fact it encourages my position. I have had to give testimonies and workshops in various places. I live my Christian life on a daily basis not just on Sundays. Mine is a living action oriented faith not a cheap words faith. I have had many clergy complement me on my sermons as they have been present.
The results. The immediate results are folks are well satisfied with what I have to say and I get invited back. I guess that in itself says something.
Hope this answers your question.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Sixyears:-6
my impression of opus dei is totally negative.
Shalom
Ted:-6
my impression of opus dei is totally negative.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Stand up and be counted?
Ted wrote: Mine is a living action oriented faith not a cheap words faith.
Stand up and be counted?
Well, we're talking about two different things here. I'll deal with the original post first:Frederick wrote: Reading through the posts on Christianity, it is apparent that there are quite a few budding philosophers out there who revel in splitting hairs ( hi, Ted). Thus said, has anybody defending (or opposing) Christian teachings actually had the courage of their own convictions and given a public testimonial concerning their faith? By public testimonial, I am referring to either preaching the word of Jesus Christ on the web or, more testing, speaking in a public place like Hyde Park, and what was the result?Fred, Many Christians have a 'missionary zeal' that compels them to try to convert people. I have never had that; nonetheless, I am always happy to share my faith with anyone who asks.
Very briefly, and speaking only for myself, I believe in God for two reasons. First, the fact that anything exists at all indicates that there is probably a purpose, and by extension, a purpose to a human life.
Secondly, I have always felt God's presence in my life - His guidance and His grace.
I am a Christian because of Christ's teachings and the example of His life. I find much of merit in other religions also, but Christianity is my choice.
I am a Roman Catholic because there is no doubt whatever that it is the direct continuation of the community of believers that Christ instituted during His lifetime. I simply don't find any historic validity in the various sects and cults which are, directly or indirectly, the result of the so-called 'Reformation'.
End of 'testimony'.
Now to respond to a later post:sixyearsleft wrote: [Opus Dei is] becoming intergrated more and more into mainstream cathology, they actually use Dan Browns divinci code as a recruting tool, now where's the irony in that?First of all, what is 'cathology'? Do you mean Catholicism? If so, I have seen no evidence of that. I know very little about the organization except that it seems to be on the outer fringes of Catholicism and of little interest to the average Catholic except as a curiousity.
In any case, it's hard to see how they would use Brown's novel as 'a recruiting tool', since nearly everything in the book is to some extent fictionalized. I admit, however, that I haven't read the book.
Maybe you could be more specific. What are your objections to the organization and how do you think they are influencing mainstream Catholicism, and in what way is it ironic?
Very briefly, and speaking only for myself, I believe in God for two reasons. First, the fact that anything exists at all indicates that there is probably a purpose, and by extension, a purpose to a human life.
Secondly, I have always felt God's presence in my life - His guidance and His grace.
I am a Christian because of Christ's teachings and the example of His life. I find much of merit in other religions also, but Christianity is my choice.
I am a Roman Catholic because there is no doubt whatever that it is the direct continuation of the community of believers that Christ instituted during His lifetime. I simply don't find any historic validity in the various sects and cults which are, directly or indirectly, the result of the so-called 'Reformation'.
End of 'testimony'.
Now to respond to a later post:sixyearsleft wrote: [Opus Dei is] becoming intergrated more and more into mainstream cathology, they actually use Dan Browns divinci code as a recruting tool, now where's the irony in that?First of all, what is 'cathology'? Do you mean Catholicism? If so, I have seen no evidence of that. I know very little about the organization except that it seems to be on the outer fringes of Catholicism and of little interest to the average Catholic except as a curiousity.
In any case, it's hard to see how they would use Brown's novel as 'a recruiting tool', since nearly everything in the book is to some extent fictionalized. I admit, however, that I haven't read the book.
Maybe you could be more specific. What are your objections to the organization and how do you think they are influencing mainstream Catholicism, and in what way is it ironic?
Stand up and be counted?
Accountable:-6
Paul said that faith without works is dead. Talking the talk is cheap if it is not followed by walking the walk that flows from the talk.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Paul said that faith without works is dead. Talking the talk is cheap if it is not followed by walking the walk that flows from the talk.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Frederick:-6
I too will be blunt. Pure BS. and nothing else.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I too will be blunt. Pure BS. and nothing else.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Ted wrote: Frederick:-6
I'm not sure you get the idea that I split hairs. I am not a follower of the tradional paradigm of Christianity but the emerging paradigm.
Now in answer to your questions I have preached sermons on my faith for years. My church has no problem with my position. In fact it encourages my position. I have had to give testimonies and workshops in various places. I live my Christian life on a daily basis not just on Sundays. Mine is a living action oriented faith not a cheap words faith. I have had many clergy complement me on my sermons as they have been present.
The results. The immediate results are folks are well satisfied with what I have to say and I get invited back. I guess that in itself says something.
Hope this answers your question.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I often read your posts and admit to having a degree of admiration concerning your eloquence regarding your views on Christianity in their various forms, to take no offence - I mentioned your name tongue-in cheek
I'm not sure you get the idea that I split hairs. I am not a follower of the tradional paradigm of Christianity but the emerging paradigm.
Now in answer to your questions I have preached sermons on my faith for years. My church has no problem with my position. In fact it encourages my position. I have had to give testimonies and workshops in various places. I live my Christian life on a daily basis not just on Sundays. Mine is a living action oriented faith not a cheap words faith. I have had many clergy complement me on my sermons as they have been present.
The results. The immediate results are folks are well satisfied with what I have to say and I get invited back. I guess that in itself says something.
Hope this answers your question.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I often read your posts and admit to having a degree of admiration concerning your eloquence regarding your views on Christianity in their various forms, to take no offence - I mentioned your name tongue-in cheek
In HIM I place my trust.
Stand up and be counted?
Brownwen:-6
Your assertion concerning the Roman Catholic church being a continuation of the church established by Jesus and non other is, is questionable and debatable.
The Eastern Orthodox make the same claim.
As far as the reformation is concerned it did not start out to create a new branch of the church. Luther wanted to make changes in the existing church, especially where indulgences were concerned. It was the existing church that refused, at the time, to see the error of its ways and forced a reformation.
The Anglican church for its point did not renounce Catholicity but could not accept the fact that the Pope of the day thought that he should be able to control the king. Some give the argument that Henry was angry because he did not get the divorce he requested. However, that is absolutely untrue. Long before the divorce issue Henry and the people of England were tired of the Pope interfereing in politics. The church was ready to split anyway.
Using the idea that Jesus said upon this rock will I build my church is simply and misinterpretation of that writing. This by the way came from an RC priest.
Now we could go on and talk about the book "The Church that Forgot Christ" by Jim Bresslin. Who deals with the molestation problem and shows the extent to which the church was involved: lies, deceit, coverup and breaking the law to say nothing about the dispicable misuse of the name of Christ and the horrible effects it had on these children. lies came from priests, bishops and cardinals. None of this represents Jesus Christ. The church was in complete error when it tolerated or accepted these actions.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Your assertion concerning the Roman Catholic church being a continuation of the church established by Jesus and non other is, is questionable and debatable.
The Eastern Orthodox make the same claim.
As far as the reformation is concerned it did not start out to create a new branch of the church. Luther wanted to make changes in the existing church, especially where indulgences were concerned. It was the existing church that refused, at the time, to see the error of its ways and forced a reformation.
The Anglican church for its point did not renounce Catholicity but could not accept the fact that the Pope of the day thought that he should be able to control the king. Some give the argument that Henry was angry because he did not get the divorce he requested. However, that is absolutely untrue. Long before the divorce issue Henry and the people of England were tired of the Pope interfereing in politics. The church was ready to split anyway.
Using the idea that Jesus said upon this rock will I build my church is simply and misinterpretation of that writing. This by the way came from an RC priest.
Now we could go on and talk about the book "The Church that Forgot Christ" by Jim Bresslin. Who deals with the molestation problem and shows the extent to which the church was involved: lies, deceit, coverup and breaking the law to say nothing about the dispicable misuse of the name of Christ and the horrible effects it had on these children. lies came from priests, bishops and cardinals. None of this represents Jesus Christ. The church was in complete error when it tolerated or accepted these actions.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Frederick:-6
Thanks. No problem.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thanks. No problem.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Ted wrote: Frederick:-6
I'm not sure you get the idea that I split hairs. I am not a follower of the tradional paradigm of Christianity but the emerging paradigm.
Now in answer to your questions I have preached sermons on my faith for years. My church has no problem with my position. In fact it encourages my position. I have had to give testimonies and workshops in various places. I live my Christian life on a daily basis not just on Sundays. Mine is a living action oriented faith not a cheap words faith. I have had many clergy complement me on my sermons as they have been present.
The results. The immediate results are folks are well satisfied with what I have to say and I get invited back. I guess that in itself says something.
Hope this answers your question.
Shalom
Ted:-6
AOL keeps playing me up, giving me sixty seconds to finish what I am doing before shutting down on me, hence the brief reply.
While I admire your word power, there are several points I feel strongly on, namely I believe totally and 100% in Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary, and in him being the son of God. Secondly, HE HAD TO BE WITHOUT SIN, otherwise his death on the cross would have meant nothing. None other but the Son of God would be pure enough to die for our sins.
Since becoming a born-again Christian, and accepting Jesus Christ as my personal guide and saviour, my life has changed out of all proportion. The words from the hymn Amazing Grace could have been written for me personally:
Amazing Grace how sweet the sound
that saves a wretch like me
I was once lost but now I'm found,
WAS BLIND BUT NOW I SEE. Because I was blind - totally blind to the fact that without Jesus Christ as my personal guide and Saviour, I was just sinking into a slough of self-destruction of which there would have been no way out. When I asked Jesus Christ to come into my heart, I was millimeters away from a nervous breakdown. Not only has He answered EVERY request, he has also cleansed my mind. Consequently, never again will I derive personal gratification from top-shelf magazines. To me, becoming a born-again Christian was an extremely powerful and highly emotional experience.
Eleven words changed my life - I'd like to share those eleven words with everybody, because I am sure they can do to you what they did to me. They are, quire simply: "Lord, come into my heart, and live with me forever, Amen.
I'm not sure you get the idea that I split hairs. I am not a follower of the tradional paradigm of Christianity but the emerging paradigm.
Now in answer to your questions I have preached sermons on my faith for years. My church has no problem with my position. In fact it encourages my position. I have had to give testimonies and workshops in various places. I live my Christian life on a daily basis not just on Sundays. Mine is a living action oriented faith not a cheap words faith. I have had many clergy complement me on my sermons as they have been present.
The results. The immediate results are folks are well satisfied with what I have to say and I get invited back. I guess that in itself says something.
Hope this answers your question.
Shalom
Ted:-6
AOL keeps playing me up, giving me sixty seconds to finish what I am doing before shutting down on me, hence the brief reply.
While I admire your word power, there are several points I feel strongly on, namely I believe totally and 100% in Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary, and in him being the son of God. Secondly, HE HAD TO BE WITHOUT SIN, otherwise his death on the cross would have meant nothing. None other but the Son of God would be pure enough to die for our sins.
Since becoming a born-again Christian, and accepting Jesus Christ as my personal guide and saviour, my life has changed out of all proportion. The words from the hymn Amazing Grace could have been written for me personally:
Amazing Grace how sweet the sound
that saves a wretch like me
I was once lost but now I'm found,
WAS BLIND BUT NOW I SEE. Because I was blind - totally blind to the fact that without Jesus Christ as my personal guide and Saviour, I was just sinking into a slough of self-destruction of which there would have been no way out. When I asked Jesus Christ to come into my heart, I was millimeters away from a nervous breakdown. Not only has He answered EVERY request, he has also cleansed my mind. Consequently, never again will I derive personal gratification from top-shelf magazines. To me, becoming a born-again Christian was an extremely powerful and highly emotional experience.
Eleven words changed my life - I'd like to share those eleven words with everybody, because I am sure they can do to you what they did to me. They are, quire simply: "Lord, come into my heart, and live with me forever, Amen.
In HIM I place my trust.
Stand up and be counted?
Frederick:-6
I've no doubt that your life has been changed. So has mine. Many people throughout the world have had their lives changed by their experiences of the Divine.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I've no doubt that your life has been changed. So has mine. Many people throughout the world have had their lives changed by their experiences of the Divine.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Far Rider:-6
Each of us is born with certain talents: teaching, preaching, administration, prayer etc. No one usually has more then a few of these talents. But it indeed is a marvelous thing to use those talents for God and the betterment of mankind.
I would competely suspect that your talents were well used to the Glory of God and the betterment of man.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Each of us is born with certain talents: teaching, preaching, administration, prayer etc. No one usually has more then a few of these talents. But it indeed is a marvelous thing to use those talents for God and the betterment of mankind.
I would competely suspect that your talents were well used to the Glory of God and the betterment of man.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Ted wrote: Brownwen: Your assertion concerning the Roman Catholic church being a continuation of the church established by Jesus and non other is, is questionable and debatable.Hi Ted! You may be right, but it's a debate that the Catholics always win.
Seriously, you've made a lot of good points, and I'll respond to each of them as soon as possible. Today my online time is very limited, but I'm never too busy to send my best wishes for a great day, to you and the other posters!
Seriously, you've made a lot of good points, and I'll respond to each of them as soon as possible. Today my online time is very limited, but I'm never too busy to send my best wishes for a great day, to you and the other posters!
Stand up and be counted?
Far Rider:-6
Best of luck to you. Teaching on a one to one basis or one to a small group is much nicer then teaching to a larger group though I do both and enjoy it very much. I did give a sermon once to some 1200 people. It was interesting and exciting.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Best of luck to you. Teaching on a one to one basis or one to a small group is much nicer then teaching to a larger group though I do both and enjoy it very much. I did give a sermon once to some 1200 people. It was interesting and exciting.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Bronwen:-6
Thanks and have a good day. I look forward to our future discussions.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thanks and have a good day. I look forward to our future discussions.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Far Rider wrote: hehehe Ted I get your point and thank you. Ive been reading about the men of Isachar lately, I find Davids Men to be a very good source of how I ought to conduct my life. The phrase about "men who understand the times" is one I'll be working on in the next few months. It is odd I know I can teach, I do have a talent for it, but my alent is either one on one, or in small groups. And its almost always off the cuff and spontaneous, not a planned program
Thank you, Ted. I was expecting ridicule, so I'm encouraged by everybody's response, including somebody out there who thinks I must be potty for wanting to become a preacher - I agree! To become a qualified preacher takes exams in Ancient Hebrew etc. and takes years, so it's not for me, as I know my limitations. God has given each and every one of us talents, and it would be a sin to waste such talents. Certainly I would be no good addressing a large gathering , but I am fairly good at the written word.
Thank you, Ted. I was expecting ridicule, so I'm encouraged by everybody's response, including somebody out there who thinks I must be potty for wanting to become a preacher - I agree! To become a qualified preacher takes exams in Ancient Hebrew etc. and takes years, so it's not for me, as I know my limitations. God has given each and every one of us talents, and it would be a sin to waste such talents. Certainly I would be no good addressing a large gathering , but I am fairly good at the written word.
In HIM I place my trust.
Stand up and be counted?
Frederick:-6
I don't think you are at all nuts for thinking about being ordained. That is also a talent and a vocation to which one is called.
I have often wondered if that is what God wants me to do but so far it seems for me it is the unordained ministry to which I have been called. Although that could change even now. I have that education (Greek and Hebrew translation and interpretation as well as Biblical history) behind me.
Twice I have turned down ordination once here in Canada and once in Australia. I did not feel it was right at the time. It was not what I was being called to do at that time. But I have been involved in the lay ministry for many years.
Anyway, if you feel such a calling it does not hurt to look into the seminaries that suit your style. You may surpise yourself.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I don't think you are at all nuts for thinking about being ordained. That is also a talent and a vocation to which one is called.
I have often wondered if that is what God wants me to do but so far it seems for me it is the unordained ministry to which I have been called. Although that could change even now. I have that education (Greek and Hebrew translation and interpretation as well as Biblical history) behind me.
Twice I have turned down ordination once here in Canada and once in Australia. I did not feel it was right at the time. It was not what I was being called to do at that time. But I have been involved in the lay ministry for many years.
Anyway, if you feel such a calling it does not hurt to look into the seminaries that suit your style. You may surpise yourself.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Frederick:-6
I think that some folks are somewhat dismayed by what I say at times. It is because I follow the emerging paradigm of Christianity. Though I may see things slightly differently or in some cases greatly different those who do not understand have no need to fear this paradigm because it does not denigrate the traditional faith. The only thing they need to fear is fear itself.
The emerging paradigm is a step into the future with Jesus the Christ guiding and directing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I think that some folks are somewhat dismayed by what I say at times. It is because I follow the emerging paradigm of Christianity. Though I may see things slightly differently or in some cases greatly different those who do not understand have no need to fear this paradigm because it does not denigrate the traditional faith. The only thing they need to fear is fear itself.
The emerging paradigm is a step into the future with Jesus the Christ guiding and directing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Stand up and be counted?
I'm askin. I believe one can never have too much information.
Stand up and be counted?
six:-6
Anyone claiming to know the whole truth is living in a delusion. Perhaps you really don't understand religion at all whether Christianity, Islam or Hinduism etc.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Anyone claiming to know the whole truth is living in a delusion. Perhaps you really don't understand religion at all whether Christianity, Islam or Hinduism etc.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Ted wrote: 1. Your assertion concerning the Roman Catholic church being a continuation of the church established by Jesus and no other is is questionable and debatable.
2. The Eastern Orthodox make the same claim.
3. As far as the reformation is concerned it did not start out to create a new branch of the church. Luther wanted to make changes in the existing church, especially where indulgences were concerned.
4. It was the existing church that refused, at the time, to see the error of its ways and forced a reformation.
5. The Anglican church for its point did not renounce Catholicity but could not accept the fact that the Pope of the day thought that he should be able to control the king. Some give the argument that Henry was angry because he did not get the divorce he requested. However, that is absolutely untrue. Long before the divorce issue Henry and the people of England were tired of the Pope interfereing in politics. The church was ready to split anyway.
6. Using the idea that Jesus said upon this rock will I build my church is simply and misinterpretation of that writing. This by the way came from an RC priest.
7. Now we could go on and talk about the book "The Church that Forgot Christ" by Jim Bresslin. Who deals with the molestation problem and shows the extent to which the church was involved: lies, deceit, coverup and breaking the law to say nothing about the dispicable misuse of the name of Christ and the horrible effects it had on these children.
8. ...lies came from priests, bishops and cardinals. None of this represents Jesus Christ.
9. The church was in complete error when it tolerated or accepted these actions.
Well, Ted, one thing is fo' sho' - you and I are not going to mend the rift between Catholicism and Protestantism in this series of exchanges. But I will address your post briefly, point by point, and we can go on from there if you wish.
1. The problem for Protestants here is, if you take the position that the present-day RCC is NOT the community of believers that Jesus Christ founded on Peter, following the latter's confession of faith, then where DID the RCC originate, or where/when did the break with that original community occur? That is something for which Protestants have no answer, indeed for which there is no answer. Different Protestant apologists, mainly of the Fundamentalist bent, have attempted to support various theories, but they are 'all over the place' and mostly rather silly.
The fact is that every Catholic bishop living today can trace his ordination directly back to the apostles without a break. This is, as you know, referred to as 'apostolic succession' and is not limited to Roman Catholicism, as the Eastern Orthodox, the Anglican communion, and certain so-called 'Old Catholic' churches such as the Polish National Church also claim apostolic succession. These churches consider that extremely important. Churches that don't have it are obviously going to try to minimize its importance.
2. You are correct, and the RCC does not dispute that claim, regarding the EO Churches as 'separated brethren', having valid orders and valid sacraments. The technical term they use is that these Churches are 'merely schismatic'.
3. Well, you are basically correct, but I would phrase it a bit differently: Luther wanted to make changes in the Church and did not set out to establish a new Church or a new branch of Christianity. There were various 'reformationist' movements before, contemporary with, and after Luther, of which some were in violent disagreement with not just the Roman Church but with one another.
4. Here we must make a distinction between the temporal leadership of the Church and its doctrine. By Luther's time the Church had allowed itself to become the seat of enormous temporal and political power, and of course corruption occurred. Church DOCTRINE, however, was little affected, as the corrupt leadership had little interest in the purely spiritual aspects of Christianity. The doctrines of the Catholic Church today haven't really changed much since the earliest centuries of Christianity, and this traditionalism is one of the main reasons the RCC is so attractive to converts. So there were various abuses of power within the Church at that time, but very few of them involved doctrine. The selling is indulgences is the notable exception.
By contrast, the intent of most of the so-called 'reformers' was the changing of DOCTRINE, each coming up with his own bastardized version of Christianity. Calvin had his 'predestination', based on a few obscure verses of Scripture referring to 'the elect', while ignoring all the other verses assuring us that salvation through Christ is available to all. Wesley had his 'method' for salvation, Luther his 'sola fide' etc., all heretical and, for the most part, quite irreconcilable with Christ's teachings and ministry. So while the Church may have had, to use your phrase, 'errors in its ways', the errors of the 'reformers' were far more erroneous.
5. Strictly speaking, Henry was seeking an annulment, since divorce was completely out of the question as it is in Catholicism today. By the standards of the time for granting annulments, a good argument can be made that he should have qualified and it was withheld for political reasons. This was, however, a purely personal matter, between the Church and the King, hardly grounds for starting a new Church.
6. It is on this point that you and I differ the most, because here it is the Protestants who misinterpret, and VERY unconvincingly. Of course, I'm not sure exactly what the priest you refer to said, you would have to quote his exact words for me to comment. In any case, with regard to the authority of the Chruch, that verse and the verses that follow are the most important in all of Scripture. "Receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you (the apostles and their successors) BIND on earth shall be bound also in heaven and whatever you LOOSE on earth shall be loosed also in heaven". Now, Ted, as you know, most of the 'reformers' were renegade priests, and, as everybody who has ever changed jobs knows, when you leave the firm you gotta turn in your keys! Nor, of course, do ordinary priests have the power or authority to bind and loose; that belongs to the hierarchy, the bishop of Rome in collaboration with the other bishops.
7, 8 and 9 should probably be the subject of a separate thread, but I'll comment briefly.
7. Well, I haven't read Breslin's book, but as you know he's a Catholic and I don't know a single Catholic who isn't outraged over the way the situation was handled by Church officials. It was unforgivable and everyone knows it. What you ignore here, however, is that the problem is pedophilia, not Catholicism. Several other denominations, including but not limited to the Anglicans/Episcopalians, the Amish, the Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses have admitted similar problems, not only with the actual offenses, but with how they were handled by church officials. Should we conclude that the situation is different in the various denominations which have NOT made such admissions? Of course not.
8. Well, I'm not sure exactly what 'lies' you're referring to here. It seems to me the issue is not lies but bad administration and horrendous decisions on the part of Church officials.
9. Of that there is no question whatever, but of course, that has nothing to do with Church doctrine but rather with the temporal administration. No church official, as far as know, in the RCC or elsewhere, had ever attempted to excuse the abuse itself on moral or doctrinal grounds. Nor is there any doubt that a significant percentage of the accusations were false, but that is a separate issue.
If you wish to continue the discussion, I'd suggest separate threads for Church history and the recent scandals. They really don't go together.
2. The Eastern Orthodox make the same claim.
3. As far as the reformation is concerned it did not start out to create a new branch of the church. Luther wanted to make changes in the existing church, especially where indulgences were concerned.
4. It was the existing church that refused, at the time, to see the error of its ways and forced a reformation.
5. The Anglican church for its point did not renounce Catholicity but could not accept the fact that the Pope of the day thought that he should be able to control the king. Some give the argument that Henry was angry because he did not get the divorce he requested. However, that is absolutely untrue. Long before the divorce issue Henry and the people of England were tired of the Pope interfereing in politics. The church was ready to split anyway.
6. Using the idea that Jesus said upon this rock will I build my church is simply and misinterpretation of that writing. This by the way came from an RC priest.
7. Now we could go on and talk about the book "The Church that Forgot Christ" by Jim Bresslin. Who deals with the molestation problem and shows the extent to which the church was involved: lies, deceit, coverup and breaking the law to say nothing about the dispicable misuse of the name of Christ and the horrible effects it had on these children.
8. ...lies came from priests, bishops and cardinals. None of this represents Jesus Christ.
9. The church was in complete error when it tolerated or accepted these actions.
Well, Ted, one thing is fo' sho' - you and I are not going to mend the rift between Catholicism and Protestantism in this series of exchanges. But I will address your post briefly, point by point, and we can go on from there if you wish.
1. The problem for Protestants here is, if you take the position that the present-day RCC is NOT the community of believers that Jesus Christ founded on Peter, following the latter's confession of faith, then where DID the RCC originate, or where/when did the break with that original community occur? That is something for which Protestants have no answer, indeed for which there is no answer. Different Protestant apologists, mainly of the Fundamentalist bent, have attempted to support various theories, but they are 'all over the place' and mostly rather silly.
The fact is that every Catholic bishop living today can trace his ordination directly back to the apostles without a break. This is, as you know, referred to as 'apostolic succession' and is not limited to Roman Catholicism, as the Eastern Orthodox, the Anglican communion, and certain so-called 'Old Catholic' churches such as the Polish National Church also claim apostolic succession. These churches consider that extremely important. Churches that don't have it are obviously going to try to minimize its importance.
2. You are correct, and the RCC does not dispute that claim, regarding the EO Churches as 'separated brethren', having valid orders and valid sacraments. The technical term they use is that these Churches are 'merely schismatic'.
3. Well, you are basically correct, but I would phrase it a bit differently: Luther wanted to make changes in the Church and did not set out to establish a new Church or a new branch of Christianity. There were various 'reformationist' movements before, contemporary with, and after Luther, of which some were in violent disagreement with not just the Roman Church but with one another.
4. Here we must make a distinction between the temporal leadership of the Church and its doctrine. By Luther's time the Church had allowed itself to become the seat of enormous temporal and political power, and of course corruption occurred. Church DOCTRINE, however, was little affected, as the corrupt leadership had little interest in the purely spiritual aspects of Christianity. The doctrines of the Catholic Church today haven't really changed much since the earliest centuries of Christianity, and this traditionalism is one of the main reasons the RCC is so attractive to converts. So there were various abuses of power within the Church at that time, but very few of them involved doctrine. The selling is indulgences is the notable exception.
By contrast, the intent of most of the so-called 'reformers' was the changing of DOCTRINE, each coming up with his own bastardized version of Christianity. Calvin had his 'predestination', based on a few obscure verses of Scripture referring to 'the elect', while ignoring all the other verses assuring us that salvation through Christ is available to all. Wesley had his 'method' for salvation, Luther his 'sola fide' etc., all heretical and, for the most part, quite irreconcilable with Christ's teachings and ministry. So while the Church may have had, to use your phrase, 'errors in its ways', the errors of the 'reformers' were far more erroneous.
5. Strictly speaking, Henry was seeking an annulment, since divorce was completely out of the question as it is in Catholicism today. By the standards of the time for granting annulments, a good argument can be made that he should have qualified and it was withheld for political reasons. This was, however, a purely personal matter, between the Church and the King, hardly grounds for starting a new Church.
6. It is on this point that you and I differ the most, because here it is the Protestants who misinterpret, and VERY unconvincingly. Of course, I'm not sure exactly what the priest you refer to said, you would have to quote his exact words for me to comment. In any case, with regard to the authority of the Chruch, that verse and the verses that follow are the most important in all of Scripture. "Receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you (the apostles and their successors) BIND on earth shall be bound also in heaven and whatever you LOOSE on earth shall be loosed also in heaven". Now, Ted, as you know, most of the 'reformers' were renegade priests, and, as everybody who has ever changed jobs knows, when you leave the firm you gotta turn in your keys! Nor, of course, do ordinary priests have the power or authority to bind and loose; that belongs to the hierarchy, the bishop of Rome in collaboration with the other bishops.
7, 8 and 9 should probably be the subject of a separate thread, but I'll comment briefly.
7. Well, I haven't read Breslin's book, but as you know he's a Catholic and I don't know a single Catholic who isn't outraged over the way the situation was handled by Church officials. It was unforgivable and everyone knows it. What you ignore here, however, is that the problem is pedophilia, not Catholicism. Several other denominations, including but not limited to the Anglicans/Episcopalians, the Amish, the Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses have admitted similar problems, not only with the actual offenses, but with how they were handled by church officials. Should we conclude that the situation is different in the various denominations which have NOT made such admissions? Of course not.
8. Well, I'm not sure exactly what 'lies' you're referring to here. It seems to me the issue is not lies but bad administration and horrendous decisions on the part of Church officials.
9. Of that there is no question whatever, but of course, that has nothing to do with Church doctrine but rather with the temporal administration. No church official, as far as know, in the RCC or elsewhere, had ever attempted to excuse the abuse itself on moral or doctrinal grounds. Nor is there any doubt that a significant percentage of the accusations were false, but that is a separate issue.
If you wish to continue the discussion, I'd suggest separate threads for Church history and the recent scandals. They really don't go together.
Stand up and be counted?
sixyearsleft wrote: There was a point before your typical christian response steped in with his size 15flip flops, but now your shoulders dont seem big enough to rest my opinion upon,
so i'll get straight to the point, ever since the apostle paul came along this world as lived through lies and hatred by the new world religion "christianity", your faith is built on evil and blood, christian leaders have supressed the human race for the last two thousand years and its time for you to go, you've destroyed humanity,
its time for you to get out before its to late, the Gosples are lies made up 40 years after jesus was gone, paul copyed the pagons, and you say the devil went back in a time to create all the pagon myths to test your faith, you have been mislead. and your church leaders know it, they know who is the profane.
Sorry to be so blunt but you were impatientTed wrote: Frederick
I too will be blunt. Pure BS. and nothing else.
Shalom
TedTed, was this a typo on your part? You seem to be responding to six.. rather than to Frederick.
Six, several posters have asked you to clarify your position. What exactly and specifically is your problem with Christianity? Disagreement is certainly allowed here, so don't be intimidated, but at this point I don't think many of us, including myself, know what you're talking about.
so i'll get straight to the point, ever since the apostle paul came along this world as lived through lies and hatred by the new world religion "christianity", your faith is built on evil and blood, christian leaders have supressed the human race for the last two thousand years and its time for you to go, you've destroyed humanity,
its time for you to get out before its to late, the Gosples are lies made up 40 years after jesus was gone, paul copyed the pagons, and you say the devil went back in a time to create all the pagon myths to test your faith, you have been mislead. and your church leaders know it, they know who is the profane.
Sorry to be so blunt but you were impatientTed wrote: Frederick
I too will be blunt. Pure BS. and nothing else.
Shalom
TedTed, was this a typo on your part? You seem to be responding to six.. rather than to Frederick.
Six, several posters have asked you to clarify your position. What exactly and specifically is your problem with Christianity? Disagreement is certainly allowed here, so don't be intimidated, but at this point I don't think many of us, including myself, know what you're talking about.
Stand up and be counted?
sixyearsleft wrote: There was a point before your typical christian response steped in with his size 15flip flops, but now your shoulders dont seem big enough to rest my opinion upon,
so i'll get straight to the point, ever since the apostle paul came along this world as lived through lies and hatred by the new world religion "christianity", your faith is built on evil and blood, christian leaders have supressed the human race for the last two thousand years and its time for you to go, you've destroyed humanity,
its time for you to get out before its to late, the Gosples are lies made up 40 years after jesus was gone, paul copyed the pagons, and you say the devil went back in a time to create all the pagon myths to test your faith, you have been mislead. and your church leaders know it, they know who is the profane.
Sorry to be so blunt but you were impatient
Interesting, is it not, how it always seems to be the ANTI-Christian fraternity who put so much zest into their posts. Yes, you are quite right - Christianity is built on blood - the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. The first gospel was written by LUKE in approximately AD70, but being a doctor, I would have thought that would have made him be VERY sure of his facts before writing them down, certainly not based on heresay evidence. There are several passages in the book of Isaiah which foretold the birth of our Saviour thousands of years before it happened. Did he lie too? Have you even read the Bible, or would you perhaps benefit from a dictionary which will tell you that proper Names like Paul and Jesus begin with capital letters, the past tense of the word copy is COPIED...
so i'll get straight to the point, ever since the apostle paul came along this world as lived through lies and hatred by the new world religion "christianity", your faith is built on evil and blood, christian leaders have supressed the human race for the last two thousand years and its time for you to go, you've destroyed humanity,
its time for you to get out before its to late, the Gosples are lies made up 40 years after jesus was gone, paul copyed the pagons, and you say the devil went back in a time to create all the pagon myths to test your faith, you have been mislead. and your church leaders know it, they know who is the profane.
Sorry to be so blunt but you were impatient
Interesting, is it not, how it always seems to be the ANTI-Christian fraternity who put so much zest into their posts. Yes, you are quite right - Christianity is built on blood - the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. The first gospel was written by LUKE in approximately AD70, but being a doctor, I would have thought that would have made him be VERY sure of his facts before writing them down, certainly not based on heresay evidence. There are several passages in the book of Isaiah which foretold the birth of our Saviour thousands of years before it happened. Did he lie too? Have you even read the Bible, or would you perhaps benefit from a dictionary which will tell you that proper Names like Paul and Jesus begin with capital letters, the past tense of the word copy is COPIED...
In HIM I place my trust.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Stand up and be counted?
Six, you've peaked my curiosity. If you don't want these others responding to you, you could start a journal. No one can post there but the originator.
Journal Forum Link
Journal Forum Link
Stand up and be counted?
Frederick wrote: 1. The first gospel was written by LUKE in approximately AD70, but being a doctor, I would have thought that would have made him be VERY sure of his facts before writing them down, certainly not based on heresay evidence.
2. There are several passages in the book of Isaiah which foretold the birth of our Saviour thousands of years before it happened. Did he lie too?
3. Have you even read the Bible, or would you perhaps benefit from a dictionary which will tell you that proper Names like Paul and Jesus begin with capital letters, the past tense of the word copy is COPIED...1. Fred, what is the basis for your claim of Luke's primacy? Most contemporary NT scholars agree that the approximate dating of the gospels is:
1. Mark ca. AD65
2. Matthew ca. AD70-75
3. Luke ca. AD75-80
4. Luke II(Acts) ca. AD80-85
5. John ca. AD100
And by the way, Luke almost certainly DID base his gospel on hearsay. There is no evidence that he, a gentile, ever met or saw Jesus. Luke uses much of Mark, and the source(s) of his additions to Mark remain uncertain. It can only be said that his additions seem to come from different sources that Matthew's.
2. There are not SEVERAL, but rather scores or even hundreds of prophecies regarding the promised Jewish Messiah in the OT, and most of these are indeed in Isaiah. Most of them, however, remain unfulfilled, and only a few can be reasonably applied to Jesus, and even these could be just as reasonably applied to someone else. A couple of weeks ago, in a different thread, another poster claimed that Jesus had fulfilled over 300 OT prophecies. I asked the poster to name FIVE that clearly referred to Jesus and s/he was unable to do so. Perhaps you can do so, if so go for it. We are talking SPECIFIC here, not things like, 'A young woman shall bring forth a son...'.
3. Here I am willing, for the time being at least, to give six the benefit of the doubt, because some otherwise literate computer users seem to prefer a sort of 'cyberdialect' online, including nicities like suppressing caps, simplified spellings, etc. I personally find this annoying and rather silly but I'm willing to let it go if the posts are otherwise sane and logical.
Six, I'd like to know what to expect in 2007, too. Lay it on us. You might want to start a separate thread.
2. There are several passages in the book of Isaiah which foretold the birth of our Saviour thousands of years before it happened. Did he lie too?
3. Have you even read the Bible, or would you perhaps benefit from a dictionary which will tell you that proper Names like Paul and Jesus begin with capital letters, the past tense of the word copy is COPIED...1. Fred, what is the basis for your claim of Luke's primacy? Most contemporary NT scholars agree that the approximate dating of the gospels is:
1. Mark ca. AD65
2. Matthew ca. AD70-75
3. Luke ca. AD75-80
4. Luke II(Acts) ca. AD80-85
5. John ca. AD100
And by the way, Luke almost certainly DID base his gospel on hearsay. There is no evidence that he, a gentile, ever met or saw Jesus. Luke uses much of Mark, and the source(s) of his additions to Mark remain uncertain. It can only be said that his additions seem to come from different sources that Matthew's.
2. There are not SEVERAL, but rather scores or even hundreds of prophecies regarding the promised Jewish Messiah in the OT, and most of these are indeed in Isaiah. Most of them, however, remain unfulfilled, and only a few can be reasonably applied to Jesus, and even these could be just as reasonably applied to someone else. A couple of weeks ago, in a different thread, another poster claimed that Jesus had fulfilled over 300 OT prophecies. I asked the poster to name FIVE that clearly referred to Jesus and s/he was unable to do so. Perhaps you can do so, if so go for it. We are talking SPECIFIC here, not things like, 'A young woman shall bring forth a son...'.
3. Here I am willing, for the time being at least, to give six the benefit of the doubt, because some otherwise literate computer users seem to prefer a sort of 'cyberdialect' online, including nicities like suppressing caps, simplified spellings, etc. I personally find this annoying and rather silly but I'm willing to let it go if the posts are otherwise sane and logical.
Six, I'd like to know what to expect in 2007, too. Lay it on us. You might want to start a separate thread.
Stand up and be counted?
Bronwen:-6
My apologies. You are correct that was meant for "six" and not Frederic
Shalom
Ted:-6
My apologies. You are correct that was meant for "six" and not Frederic
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Ted wrote: Frederick:-6 I'm not sure you get the idea that I split hairs. I am not a follower of the tradional paradigm of Christianity but the emerging paradigm.
Ted's one of the best Christians I know. Enough said.
Ted's one of the best Christians I know. Enough said.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Stand up and be counted?
Bronwen:-6
Unfortunately I have misplaced my handout from that particular priest. I've been looking for two days. I am goin to see if I can retrieve a copy from a frined. I can gie you the jist of what he said on two points: According to his greek scholarship Jesus was infact referring to himself when talking of building a church. He also pointed out a 20-30 year lapse when there was no bishop in Rome thus negating the whole idea of apostolic succession in any church.
We do not totally disagree. I am with you in your views of fundamentalism.. I've been their, done that and found it wanting.
I've never been completely sympathetic with much of the Reformation. Though I cannot agree that men liske Wesly are heretical.
As you know many countries were not happy with the idea that the pope controlled the political power in their country. Henry's respose was the result of many other issues in the same vein as well. That was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.
Of course many of the reformers were renegades. But what does one do when one is convinced that the church was in erro and simply will not listen. They felt that the church had gone to far.
The comand about loosing and binding is rather itneresting. It was said to the apostles but was it meant striclty for them or all followers of Christ if he indeed even said those things. "On the basis of verbal statistics--no mention of ekklesia in the three out of the four Gospels and a nention in only two passages in Matthew--we may safely concludethat Jesus himself left no teaching aboout a church. Neither did he employ any other terms to denote a corresponding institution. Luke's little flock' (POImnion) firgures only once (Luke 12:32); the 'flock' (poimnion) in Matthew 26;31 comes from a direct quotation of Zechariah 13:7, and the phrase 'little ones' Matthew 10:42:; 18:6; Luke 17:2) is too vague to serve as the designation of an institution. In brief, there is no evidence to supposrt the idea that the foundation of the church was among the major concerns of Jesus. p365 "The Authentic Gospel of JEsus" Geza Vermes
24. Church rules (Matt. 18:15 [editorial, see no. 15 above'] Ibid 436
15. The duty to rebuke an erring brother (Matt. 18:15, 23; Luke 17:3-4): [formalized church rebuke; see no. 24 below].
Thus it becomes clear from scholarship that this does not go back to the historical Jesus but was part of the developing rules made by the early existing church.
If we look at the history of the church and its list of Popes the history is rife with things that are not acceptable nor do they reflect the teachings of Jesus. BTW this applies not to just the RCC but to many.
Just a quick reference to the molestations. Perhaps we should carry that on in a different thread. Priests molest children, Bishops did likewise either as bishops or priests. These men lied about and covered up their indiscretion damaging forever the lives of some folks who eventually committed suicided. The Cardinals covered this us ignoring their duty to both God and the secualr authorities and even shipped the molesters off to different churches so they had a new batch to molest.
Joseph Ratzinger while Cardinal advised the local hierarchy to say nothing, to cover it up thus putting himself in breach of the law. Good old Cardinal law who should have suffered the consequences of his actions actually got a plumb job in Rome. Thus the whole issue goes right to the top of the church with the exception of the Pope and this is certainly questionable.
You are correct Bresslin is Roman Catholic and remains so but is disgusted with and has divoced himselk from the "Holy Roman Catholic Church.
I have many good friends who are Roman Catholic fortunately most of them have left the RCC as a result of many things including the above.
I have had some personal experience with the RCC and would be willing to discuss it if you like.
Shalom
Ted
Unfortunately I have misplaced my handout from that particular priest. I've been looking for two days. I am goin to see if I can retrieve a copy from a frined. I can gie you the jist of what he said on two points: According to his greek scholarship Jesus was infact referring to himself when talking of building a church. He also pointed out a 20-30 year lapse when there was no bishop in Rome thus negating the whole idea of apostolic succession in any church.
We do not totally disagree. I am with you in your views of fundamentalism.. I've been their, done that and found it wanting.
I've never been completely sympathetic with much of the Reformation. Though I cannot agree that men liske Wesly are heretical.
As you know many countries were not happy with the idea that the pope controlled the political power in their country. Henry's respose was the result of many other issues in the same vein as well. That was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.
Of course many of the reformers were renegades. But what does one do when one is convinced that the church was in erro and simply will not listen. They felt that the church had gone to far.
The comand about loosing and binding is rather itneresting. It was said to the apostles but was it meant striclty for them or all followers of Christ if he indeed even said those things. "On the basis of verbal statistics--no mention of ekklesia in the three out of the four Gospels and a nention in only two passages in Matthew--we may safely concludethat Jesus himself left no teaching aboout a church. Neither did he employ any other terms to denote a corresponding institution. Luke's little flock' (POImnion) firgures only once (Luke 12:32); the 'flock' (poimnion) in Matthew 26;31 comes from a direct quotation of Zechariah 13:7, and the phrase 'little ones' Matthew 10:42:; 18:6; Luke 17:2) is too vague to serve as the designation of an institution. In brief, there is no evidence to supposrt the idea that the foundation of the church was among the major concerns of Jesus. p365 "The Authentic Gospel of JEsus" Geza Vermes
24. Church rules (Matt. 18:15 [editorial, see no. 15 above'] Ibid 436
15. The duty to rebuke an erring brother (Matt. 18:15, 23; Luke 17:3-4): [formalized church rebuke; see no. 24 below].
Thus it becomes clear from scholarship that this does not go back to the historical Jesus but was part of the developing rules made by the early existing church.
If we look at the history of the church and its list of Popes the history is rife with things that are not acceptable nor do they reflect the teachings of Jesus. BTW this applies not to just the RCC but to many.
Just a quick reference to the molestations. Perhaps we should carry that on in a different thread. Priests molest children, Bishops did likewise either as bishops or priests. These men lied about and covered up their indiscretion damaging forever the lives of some folks who eventually committed suicided. The Cardinals covered this us ignoring their duty to both God and the secualr authorities and even shipped the molesters off to different churches so they had a new batch to molest.
Joseph Ratzinger while Cardinal advised the local hierarchy to say nothing, to cover it up thus putting himself in breach of the law. Good old Cardinal law who should have suffered the consequences of his actions actually got a plumb job in Rome. Thus the whole issue goes right to the top of the church with the exception of the Pope and this is certainly questionable.
You are correct Bresslin is Roman Catholic and remains so but is disgusted with and has divoced himselk from the "Holy Roman Catholic Church.
I have many good friends who are Roman Catholic fortunately most of them have left the RCC as a result of many things including the above.
I have had some personal experience with the RCC and would be willing to discuss it if you like.
Shalom
Ted
Stand up and be counted?
Jives:-6
Thanks
Shalom
Ted
Thanks
Shalom
Ted
Stand up and be counted?
six:-6
I don't really think it is that no one likes you. We hardly know you. Your grammer is umimportant here.
I would suggest if you are going to make what you think are controversial statements that you back them up with some sources or books where you got tihs information When you make a statement that is controversial and give no sources it is difficult to make a discussion or debate out of it.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I don't really think it is that no one likes you. We hardly know you. Your grammer is umimportant here.
I would suggest if you are going to make what you think are controversial statements that you back them up with some sources or books where you got tihs information When you make a statement that is controversial and give no sources it is difficult to make a discussion or debate out of it.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
six:-6
Welcome. Speak your mind.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Welcome. Speak your mind.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Ted wrote: 1. Unfortunately I have misplaced my handout from that particular priest. I've been looking for two days. I am goin to see if I can retrieve a copy from a frined.
2. I can gie you the jist of what he said on two points: According to his greek scholarship Jesus was infact referring to himself when talking of building a church.
3. He also pointed out a 20-30 year lapse when there was no bishop in Rome thus negating the whole idea of apostolic succession in any church.
4. We do not totally disagree. I am with you in your views of fundamentalism.. I've been their, done that and found it wanting.
I've never been completely sympathetic with much of the Reformation. Though I cannot agree that men liske Wesly are heretical.
5. As you know many countries were not happy with the idea that the pope controlled the political power in their country. Henry's respose was the result of many other issues in the same vein as well. That was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.
6. Of course many of the reformers were renegades. But what does one do when one is convinced that the church was in erro and simply will not listen. They felt that the church had gone to far.
7. The comand about loosing and binding is rather itneresting. It was said to the apostles but was it meant striclty for them or all followers of Christ if he indeed even said those things.
8. "On the basis of verbal statistics--no mention of ekklesia in the three out of the four Gospels and a nention in only two passages in Matthew--we may safely concludethat Jesus himself left no teaching aboout a church. Neither did he employ any other terms to denote a corresponding institution. Luke's little flock' (POImnion) firgures only once (Luke 12:32); the 'flock' (poimnion) in Matthew 26;31 comes from a direct quotation of Zechariah 13:7, and the phrase 'little ones' Matthew 10:42:; 18:6; Luke 17:2) is too vague to serve as the designation of an institution. In brief, there is no evidence to supposrt the idea that the foundation of the church was among the major concerns of Jesus. p365 "The Authentic Gospel of JEsus" Geza Vermes
9. Thus it becomes clear from scholarship that this does not go back to the historical Jesus but was part of the developing rules made by the early existing church.
10. If we look at the history of the church and its list of Popes the history is rife with things that are not acceptable nor do they reflect the teachings of Jesus. BTW this applies not to just the RCC but to many.
11. Just a quick reference to the molestations. Perhaps we should carry that on in a different thread. Priests molest children, Bishops did likewise either as bishops or priests. These men lied about and covered up their indiscretion damaging forever the lives of some folks who eventually committed suicided.
12. The Cardinals covered this us ignoring their duty to both God and the secualr authorities and even shipped the molesters off to different churches so they had a new batch to molest.
13. Joseph Ratzinger while Cardinal advised the local hierarchy to say nothing, to cover it up thus putting himself in breach of the law.
14. Good old Cardinal law who should have suffered the consequences of his actions actually got a plumb job in Rome. Thus the whole issue goes right to the top of the church with the exception of the Pope and this is certainly questionable.
15. You are correct Bresslin is Roman Catholic and remains so but is disgusted with and has divoced himselk from the "Holy Roman Catholic Church.
16. I have many good friends who are Roman Catholic fortunately most of them have left the RCC as a result of many things including the above.
17. I have had some personal experience with the RCC and would be willing to discuss it if you like.Well, that's a lot for one post, but here goes, once again keeping it as brief as possible:
1. Well, you have definitely whetted my interest here because Catholic priests are not known for producing 'handouts' in the sense that you seem to be using the term here. Priests usually confine their preaching to the pulpit, unless of course they are scholars and authors, in which case the product would be a book or perhaps a magazine article, not a 'handout'. I hope to hear more about this.
2. True, but not, I think, in the sense that you mean it. According to traditional Christian belief, Christ IS the Church and the Church IS Christ, the Mystical Body that remained on earth after His physical body returned to the Father. The Church is also its members, so as Christians we are, mystically speaking, part of Christ, sharing His divinity (especially through the Eucharist) as He shared our humanity through His Incarnation. So the Church is not built ON Christ, rather it IS Christ. It was built ON Peter as His earthly successor, becasue of Peter's confession of faith, and Peter's primacy among the apostles was unquestioned until the so-called 'Reformation'.
3. There is a lapse every time the bishop of Rome dies. That has nothing to do with apostolic succession. For apostolic succession to be broken, every bishop on earth would have to die before any new bishops could be consecrated. That has never happened nor is it likely to.
4. I can tell from your posts that there is much on which we would agree.
5. Well, here you are correct but in a way you are helping me prove my own point, that political intrigues were just that and weren't generally involved with Church doctrine.
6. If he sincerely believes that, and assuming we are talking about doctrine and not politics, then he believes that the Holy Spirit has, for some reason, stopped guiding the Church and is guiding him instead. A very difficult position to defend.
7. If it was meant strictly for the apostles, then Christianity would have come to an end with the death of the last apostle. If it was meant for all Christians ('universal priesthood'), then where is the leadership? What separates the great scholars and theologians of Church history from sleazeballs like Jimmy Swaggert and Jerry Foulwell? A Church with no leadership is no Church at all.
8. I have never heard of 'Geza Vermes', it sounds like a disease. Geza, like anyone else, is certainly entitled to his/her opinion. As I remarked in the previous post, those parts of Christianity which have no direct link to the community of believers that Christ founded on Peter are predictably going to minimize the importance of such a link.
9. That isn't clear to me at all. You are correct, however, that certain Christian beliefs and practices developed after the time of the apostles.
10. True only with reference to non-doctrinal matters, the sale of indulgences being the notable exception.
11. This could be an entire new thread, and for that reason I hesitate to get into a long discussion here.
12. If you are implying that priests who admitted acts of abuse were simply sent elsewhere without any intervening period of isolation or counseling, I doubt that that is true. Nor is there any reason why the victims could not, or should not have filed criminal charges, which would have taken it out of the Church's hands.
13. I'm not sure that's true. What is your source?
14. He used to be in charge of one of the largest archdioceses in the world, and was mentioned as a possible candidate for the papacy. He is now in charge of one small church where he will probably serve out his remaining days in obscurity. That is hardly a promotion and once again, if he committed any criminal act, he is not immune from civil prosecution.
15. Did he say that? He can't remain a Catholic and 'divorce' himself from the Chruch. It's a contradiction in terms.
16. Then your experience is different from mine. I know of no Catholic who was not shocked by the abuse scandal and in particular the way it was handled by the leadership. But as we've been saying all along, Ted, that is politics. That does not alter the spiritual or doctrinal beliefs of Catholics, that they are part of Christ's community. Cutting oneself off from the Mystical Body and its sacraments as a protest against failures of temporal leadership would harm no one except the individual member. That they should make their outrage known is something that I support wholeheartedly, and many of us have done just that.
17. If you would like to share them with me, I'd be happy to comment. All I ask is truthfulness.
2. I can gie you the jist of what he said on two points: According to his greek scholarship Jesus was infact referring to himself when talking of building a church.
3. He also pointed out a 20-30 year lapse when there was no bishop in Rome thus negating the whole idea of apostolic succession in any church.
4. We do not totally disagree. I am with you in your views of fundamentalism.. I've been their, done that and found it wanting.
I've never been completely sympathetic with much of the Reformation. Though I cannot agree that men liske Wesly are heretical.
5. As you know many countries were not happy with the idea that the pope controlled the political power in their country. Henry's respose was the result of many other issues in the same vein as well. That was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.
6. Of course many of the reformers were renegades. But what does one do when one is convinced that the church was in erro and simply will not listen. They felt that the church had gone to far.
7. The comand about loosing and binding is rather itneresting. It was said to the apostles but was it meant striclty for them or all followers of Christ if he indeed even said those things.
8. "On the basis of verbal statistics--no mention of ekklesia in the three out of the four Gospels and a nention in only two passages in Matthew--we may safely concludethat Jesus himself left no teaching aboout a church. Neither did he employ any other terms to denote a corresponding institution. Luke's little flock' (POImnion) firgures only once (Luke 12:32); the 'flock' (poimnion) in Matthew 26;31 comes from a direct quotation of Zechariah 13:7, and the phrase 'little ones' Matthew 10:42:; 18:6; Luke 17:2) is too vague to serve as the designation of an institution. In brief, there is no evidence to supposrt the idea that the foundation of the church was among the major concerns of Jesus. p365 "The Authentic Gospel of JEsus" Geza Vermes
9. Thus it becomes clear from scholarship that this does not go back to the historical Jesus but was part of the developing rules made by the early existing church.
10. If we look at the history of the church and its list of Popes the history is rife with things that are not acceptable nor do they reflect the teachings of Jesus. BTW this applies not to just the RCC but to many.
11. Just a quick reference to the molestations. Perhaps we should carry that on in a different thread. Priests molest children, Bishops did likewise either as bishops or priests. These men lied about and covered up their indiscretion damaging forever the lives of some folks who eventually committed suicided.
12. The Cardinals covered this us ignoring their duty to both God and the secualr authorities and even shipped the molesters off to different churches so they had a new batch to molest.
13. Joseph Ratzinger while Cardinal advised the local hierarchy to say nothing, to cover it up thus putting himself in breach of the law.
14. Good old Cardinal law who should have suffered the consequences of his actions actually got a plumb job in Rome. Thus the whole issue goes right to the top of the church with the exception of the Pope and this is certainly questionable.
15. You are correct Bresslin is Roman Catholic and remains so but is disgusted with and has divoced himselk from the "Holy Roman Catholic Church.
16. I have many good friends who are Roman Catholic fortunately most of them have left the RCC as a result of many things including the above.
17. I have had some personal experience with the RCC and would be willing to discuss it if you like.Well, that's a lot for one post, but here goes, once again keeping it as brief as possible:
1. Well, you have definitely whetted my interest here because Catholic priests are not known for producing 'handouts' in the sense that you seem to be using the term here. Priests usually confine their preaching to the pulpit, unless of course they are scholars and authors, in which case the product would be a book or perhaps a magazine article, not a 'handout'. I hope to hear more about this.
2. True, but not, I think, in the sense that you mean it. According to traditional Christian belief, Christ IS the Church and the Church IS Christ, the Mystical Body that remained on earth after His physical body returned to the Father. The Church is also its members, so as Christians we are, mystically speaking, part of Christ, sharing His divinity (especially through the Eucharist) as He shared our humanity through His Incarnation. So the Church is not built ON Christ, rather it IS Christ. It was built ON Peter as His earthly successor, becasue of Peter's confession of faith, and Peter's primacy among the apostles was unquestioned until the so-called 'Reformation'.
3. There is a lapse every time the bishop of Rome dies. That has nothing to do with apostolic succession. For apostolic succession to be broken, every bishop on earth would have to die before any new bishops could be consecrated. That has never happened nor is it likely to.
4. I can tell from your posts that there is much on which we would agree.
5. Well, here you are correct but in a way you are helping me prove my own point, that political intrigues were just that and weren't generally involved with Church doctrine.
6. If he sincerely believes that, and assuming we are talking about doctrine and not politics, then he believes that the Holy Spirit has, for some reason, stopped guiding the Church and is guiding him instead. A very difficult position to defend.
7. If it was meant strictly for the apostles, then Christianity would have come to an end with the death of the last apostle. If it was meant for all Christians ('universal priesthood'), then where is the leadership? What separates the great scholars and theologians of Church history from sleazeballs like Jimmy Swaggert and Jerry Foulwell? A Church with no leadership is no Church at all.
8. I have never heard of 'Geza Vermes', it sounds like a disease. Geza, like anyone else, is certainly entitled to his/her opinion. As I remarked in the previous post, those parts of Christianity which have no direct link to the community of believers that Christ founded on Peter are predictably going to minimize the importance of such a link.
9. That isn't clear to me at all. You are correct, however, that certain Christian beliefs and practices developed after the time of the apostles.
10. True only with reference to non-doctrinal matters, the sale of indulgences being the notable exception.
11. This could be an entire new thread, and for that reason I hesitate to get into a long discussion here.
12. If you are implying that priests who admitted acts of abuse were simply sent elsewhere without any intervening period of isolation or counseling, I doubt that that is true. Nor is there any reason why the victims could not, or should not have filed criminal charges, which would have taken it out of the Church's hands.
13. I'm not sure that's true. What is your source?
14. He used to be in charge of one of the largest archdioceses in the world, and was mentioned as a possible candidate for the papacy. He is now in charge of one small church where he will probably serve out his remaining days in obscurity. That is hardly a promotion and once again, if he committed any criminal act, he is not immune from civil prosecution.
15. Did he say that? He can't remain a Catholic and 'divorce' himself from the Chruch. It's a contradiction in terms.
16. Then your experience is different from mine. I know of no Catholic who was not shocked by the abuse scandal and in particular the way it was handled by the leadership. But as we've been saying all along, Ted, that is politics. That does not alter the spiritual or doctrinal beliefs of Catholics, that they are part of Christ's community. Cutting oneself off from the Mystical Body and its sacraments as a protest against failures of temporal leadership would harm no one except the individual member. That they should make their outrage known is something that I support wholeheartedly, and many of us have done just that.
17. If you would like to share them with me, I'd be happy to comment. All I ask is truthfulness.
Stand up and be counted?
Bronwen:-6
Actually it is an interesting discussion. I do agree that there probably are many things on which we would agree.
Re my comment on Ratzinger--from a newspaper article but can't remember which one. Sorry about that. Old Timers I guess.
I do think that perhaps we will disagree on the "Church". My understanding is that the church is not a building nor a groups of bishops etc but all Christians for the the body of Christ which is all the faithful. In the very early church bishops were nothing more them administrators in individual churches. Laythrop "Holy People".
Why did a lot of folks not complain to the authorities? Bresslen answers that. First of all it was the Church so you complain to the diocese (they got coverup) You hope your church will do the right thing. Secondly when they did the Priest denied the allegations. It was not an easy task taking on the church when the likes of Law helped the pedophiles disappear.
I must take issue with one thing, the difference between "politics" and "Doctrine". I don't believe that one can divorce doctrine, politics and personal responsitility. For me that is a cop out.
Christinity is a way of life. Dogma and doctrine are purely manmade rules. Chrisitianity as a way of life means that your whole life, your whole being is committed to following in the steps of the master, one Yeshua of Nazareth. It seems to me that can produce the most beautiful doctrine etc. in the world but if you are a pedophile then your doctrine is tainted. In fact if the church supports you it too is committing an error. I do not believe for one moment that the church is without error, any church. Nor do I accept that the pope is infallible in any thing including doctrine. My belief is that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and He has given us the Holy Spirit to guide that church.
We should look at the term catholic=universal. There are many churches that consider themselves "Catholic" just not of the Roman flavor
I should add that I personally know several priests who believe the church is in error and has been for hundreds of years. They live in the hope that some day it will change
Bronwen, one of the hallmarks of my life and career has been truthfulness. I can live no other way.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Actually it is an interesting discussion. I do agree that there probably are many things on which we would agree.
Re my comment on Ratzinger--from a newspaper article but can't remember which one. Sorry about that. Old Timers I guess.
I do think that perhaps we will disagree on the "Church". My understanding is that the church is not a building nor a groups of bishops etc but all Christians for the the body of Christ which is all the faithful. In the very early church bishops were nothing more them administrators in individual churches. Laythrop "Holy People".
Why did a lot of folks not complain to the authorities? Bresslen answers that. First of all it was the Church so you complain to the diocese (they got coverup) You hope your church will do the right thing. Secondly when they did the Priest denied the allegations. It was not an easy task taking on the church when the likes of Law helped the pedophiles disappear.
I must take issue with one thing, the difference between "politics" and "Doctrine". I don't believe that one can divorce doctrine, politics and personal responsitility. For me that is a cop out.
Christinity is a way of life. Dogma and doctrine are purely manmade rules. Chrisitianity as a way of life means that your whole life, your whole being is committed to following in the steps of the master, one Yeshua of Nazareth. It seems to me that can produce the most beautiful doctrine etc. in the world but if you are a pedophile then your doctrine is tainted. In fact if the church supports you it too is committing an error. I do not believe for one moment that the church is without error, any church. Nor do I accept that the pope is infallible in any thing including doctrine. My belief is that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and He has given us the Holy Spirit to guide that church.
We should look at the term catholic=universal. There are many churches that consider themselves "Catholic" just not of the Roman flavor
I should add that I personally know several priests who believe the church is in error and has been for hundreds of years. They live in the hope that some day it will change
Bronwen, one of the hallmarks of my life and career has been truthfulness. I can live no other way.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Bronwen:-6
BTW I've just signed up to take a course as the Vancouver School of Theology. Dr. J. D. Crossan is the visiting scholar and one of my favourite reads. Phenomenal man. I'm sure looking forward to this course.
Shalom
Ted:-6
BTW I've just signed up to take a course as the Vancouver School of Theology. Dr. J. D. Crossan is the visiting scholar and one of my favourite reads. Phenomenal man. I'm sure looking forward to this course.
Shalom
Ted:-6