Wimpy bishops allow papal supremacy?

This came up in another thread, but I think it's worth discussing separately.

We Catholics are told something like that the early Church did not recognize papal supremacy, but that later popes forced it on the bishops.

What I want to know is, why did all the bishops of the West give in to this unscriptural and God-defying usurpation of authority? Why did all the bishops give up their rightful and God-given authority to the pope, their equal, even though they all knew he was wrong in demanding supremacy?

It's hard enough to get people to give up authority to legitimate claims, and yet here we apparently have a case of unanimous relinquishment of authority to an illegitimate claim.

I'd like to read some history about this Great Unscriptural Relinquishment. I'd like to read about the heated debates that took place. I'd like to read the scathing letters sent to Rome by angry bishops. I'd like to read about bishops who rejected the papal claims. I'd also like to read about bishops who gave in to the papal claims while acknowledging that they were unscriptural and fraudulent. I'd like to read about the wars fought over this wicked power grab. I'd like to read about subsequent reform attempts within the Church for the bishops to reclaim their rightful and God-given authority back from the popes.

Originally posted by MikeS:
This came up in another thread, but I think it's worth discussing separately.

We Catholics are told something like that the early Church did not recognize papal supremacy, but that later popes forced it on the bishops.

What I want to know is, why did all the bishops of the West give in to this unscriptural and God-defying usurpation of authority? Why did all the bishops give up their rightful and God-given authority to the pope, their equal, even though they all knew he was wrong in demanding supremacy?

It's hard enough to get people to give up authority to legitimate claims, and yet here we apparently have a case of unanimous relinquishment of authority to an illegitimate claim.

I'd like to read some history about this Great Unscriptural Relinquishment. I'd like to read about the heated debates that took place. I'd like to read the scathing letters sent to Rome by angry bishops. I'd like to read about bishops who rejected the papal claims. I'd also like to read about bishops who gave in to the papal claims while acknowledging that they were unscriptural and fraudulent. I'd like to read about the wars fought over this wicked power grab. I'd like to read about subsequent reform attempts within the Church for the bishops to reclaim their rightful and God-given authority back from the popes.

Click to expand...

They would provide it for you but like with all the evidence about the Paulicians, Donatists, Tertullinarians, and others being Baptist regardless of what everyone who was Catholic said about them, the evidence was destroyed by the Popes as they were slaughtering everyone.

Originally posted by thessalonian:
They would provide it for you but like with all the evidence about the Paulicians, Donatists, Tertullinarians, and others being Baptist regardless of what everyone who was Catholic said about them, the evidence was destroyed by the Popes as they were slaughtering everyone.

Click to expand...

Why, that's just horrible!

Okay....where's all dem Prots with all dem answers for us???

What I want to know is, why did all the bishops of the West give in to this unscriptural and God-defying usurpation of authority? Why did all the bishops give up their rightful and God-given authority to the pope, their equal, even though they all knew he was wrong in demanding supremacy?

Click to expand...

The rivalry between the bishops of the various churches did not fall overnight. Basically the fall of the Roman empire - led to a vaccuum in the seat of Rome. Constantine turned over the captial of the Empire to the Bishop of Rome and went to Constantinople. That left the bishop of Rome as the most "powerful" of all the Bishops in the west. It ALSO started a new level of rivalry between the bishop of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome.

And of course we all know how that played out.

This is basic - first grade history however - we all know it. So nothing new. In fact John predicted this vaccuum and turnover of the empire in Rev 13 as he viewed the future of mankind showing what was, what is and what is to come.

In Christ,

Bob

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What I want to know is, why did all the bishops of the West give in to this unscriptural and God-defying usurpation of authority? Why did all the bishops give up their rightful and God-given authority to the pope, their equal, even though they all knew he was wrong in demanding supremacy?

Click to expand...

This is basic - first grade history however - we all know it. So nothing new. In fact John predicted this vaccuum and turnover of the empire in Rev 13 as he viewed the future of mankind showing what was, what is and what is to come.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Wow, Bob, you must have gone to quite an advanced school!

So cite me all the writings of those holy bishops who said that papal supremacy was wrong. Cite me the writings of unholy bishops who weren't about to give up their power, because that was all that mattered to them. Cite me all the bishops over the centuries who have tried to return the position of Bishop of Rome to it's rightful level of authority. Maybe you can just send me a list of those first-grade textbooks as a start.

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
Okay....where's all dem Prots with all dem answers for us???

Click to expand...

Guess we should have paid more attention in those first-grade history classes, eh?!

Mark 9:
33 And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?
34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.
35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.

Mark 10:
43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Jesus, at no point, singled out Peter as the greatest. He stressed that to be the greatest one must be the servant of all. That is entirely opposite of any bishop or pope who wields control from the seat of Rome. They exercise undue authority, instead of being the servant that Christ commanded them to be. Christ commanded his Apostles to be servants, not despots. Take heed to your history.

Here is the conclusion of John’s gospel:
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Jesus never, at any time, exalted Peter. In fact, here, we find Him rebuking Peter. The command that Christ gives to Peter is simply to follow Christ; not to be a pope, not even a bishop—simply follow Christ. That was the last command that Christ gave to Peter—Follow me! Don’t be concerned with the work of the other apostles and followers of Christ; just be concerned with yourself and your relationship with me. Follow thou me. Follow Christ. There is no hint that Christ ever wanted Peter to be a pope, bishop, or what have you. He was simply commanded to follow Christ, and earlier, to feed His sheep.

Who said that papal supremacy is wrong?
Christ said it is wrong. He treated all the apostles equally, and never put one above another. You have all the historical references you need right in your own Bible. Proper hermeneutics is the key.
DHK

Originally posted by DHK:
Who said that papal supremacy is wrong?
Christ said it is wrong. He treated all the apostles equally, and never put one above another. You have all the historical references you need right in your own Bible. Proper hermeneutics is the key.
DHK

Click to expand...

Christ gave all of the apostles a new name, and promised to give them all the keys to the kingdom and to build His Church on them all?

Oh, I forgot, proper hermeneutics is the key. (meaning the kind that always gives the non-Catholic result)

Jesus never, at any time, exalted Peter. In fact, here, we find Him rebuking Peter. The command that Christ gives to Peter is simply to follow Christ; not to be a pope, not even a bishop—simply follow Christ. That was the last command that Christ gave to Peter—Follow me! Don’t be concerned with the work of the other apostles and followers of Christ; just be concerned with yourself and your relationship with me. Follow thou me. Follow Christ. There is no hint that Christ ever wanted Peter to be a pope, bishop, or what have you. He was simply commanded to follow Christ, and earlier, to feed His sheep.

Who said that papal supremacy is wrong?
Christ said it is wrong. He treated all the apostles equally, and never put one above another. You have all the historical references you need right in your own Bible. Proper hermeneutics is the key.

Click to expand...

You said a mouthful DHK. Proper hermeneutics is why there has been in the last 20 years a literal MOUNTAIN of converts coming into the Catholic and Orthodox Faiths from Protestantism. They are seeing the bankruptcy, heresy, and historical disconnect of Protestantism for what it is. Not to mention the schism, complete lack of authority and authorative voice in the world, infighting, and dozens of various "true" doctrines all arguing with one another. In short, it is chaos.

Furthermore, the covenant of God is THE KEY to proper hermeneutical understanding. I explained quite thoroughly in another thread, which you probably didn't get to read. Go to <a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001917;p=3#000033" target="_blank">

THIS PAGE</a>

and scoll down to my answer in box number 4 and you will have my answer for your nonsense.

Of course, you won't accept it, but who cares?

As much as you dislike the fact, we are in a covenant relationship with God through Christ Jesus our Lord, therefore, our relationship with Him is built upon the principles of the covenant as found outlined in Scripture. The principles of Protestantism are entirely devoid of any such covenantal understanding or reasoning, unlike those of the Covenant Kingdom, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Only the Church in its structure resembles a covenantal kingdom with a single head over it. The Church is the extension and fulfillment of the Jewish religion, which religion and structure is a picture of Heaven's Kingdom according to Scripture (Heb. 8:5). Therefore, the Church should also look like Heaven in its form, structure, and especially in its worship. This means, among other things, that you should have incense in your worship, as we see in Revelation. You should have the slain Lamb upon the altar, just as St. John saw Him. You should have priests and bishops as called for by Scripture. And a host of other things.

And most of all, since there is only One divine Head over the Church in Heaven, there can only be one human head over the Church on earth to properly reflect the truth which is in the spiritual realm.

I'm sure the Early Fathers, as they discussed this, came to a similar conclusion, which is why they gradually came to better and better understand the office of the papacy which was left to St. Peter through the keys bestowed upon him ALONE and no other apostle!!!

So cite me all the writings of those holy bishops who said that papal supremacy was wrong. Cite me the writings of unholy bishops who weren't about to give up their power, because that was all that mattered to them. Cite me all the bishops over the centuries who have tried to return the position of Bishop of Rome to it's rightful level of authority. Maybe you can just send me a list of those first-grade textbooks as a start.

Why is it that "history seems to come as a big surprise to so many Catholics???".

The word "Papacy" did not exist among the Bishops for centuries - so there is no reference to a non-concept. When the catholic church adopted the forms of paganism - ONE of them was to start referring to the Bishop of Rome in those terms - as the church of Rome was finally accepted to dominate and as the RCC absorbed enough paganism to consider religious orders to ALSO hold secular power.

Of course RC historians deny that term for the NT apostles BUT ALSO the term "priest". Notice the "evolution" of the RCC in the RC historians views...(Notes in parenthesis - mine)

Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" pg 49

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest. He saw his primary function (instead) to be the ministry of the word...but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character.

This sacralization of the clergy was brought about by various developments...the OT priesthood was seen as a model for the NT priesthood (gradually). The more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantine era, with it's features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule..for infants could not be preached to...

Before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred as opposed to the profane world outside; after Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between church and the world, the polarity between sacred and profane was transformed into one between sacred clergy and profane laity"


How did the Pope and the Papacy “evolve”?
(Pope) Damasus (366-384) was the first to formally claim “Claim” the possession of “primacy” over all other churches. (At a council in 382). His claim was not made by virtue of any conciliar decisions. Ibid pg 78
(In fact his claim was made in the same form as the claims made in the “Donation of Constantine”. He asserted that it was Peter’s right retroactively and then presumed that all who claimed succession to Peter must also have this grandfathered “right” given to Peter from the Bishop of Rome)

Click to expand...

In Christ,

Bob

The term “pontiff” formerly applied to any bishop, but became corrupted when adopted by the “supreme pontiff” as Pontifex Maximus, an exclusively pagan title. Many bishops employed the title “pope” (meaning “father”) in the early Church. Pope Leo in the fifth century was the first to use it officially. Pope Gregory in the eleventh century, by decree, reserved the title for the Bishop of Rome.

The Pagan system from which the RCC took power and title…

[/quote]
Pontifex maximus: the Roman high priest.
The pontifex maximus was not a real magistrate: he did not serve for a fixed period but for life, and he remained, officially, a citizen. As the title suggests, the pontifex maximus was 'the greatest' or chairman of the college of the pontifices, 'priests'. They were responsible for the Roman state cult as a whole and for several cults in particular, viz. the cults that had no priestly college of their own (such as the augures, the decemviri sacris faciundis and the fetiales).
The number of pontifices continued to grow. There were originally 5 'real' pontifices, after the Lex Ogulnia (300/299 BCE) 9, after Sulla 15, and after Julius Caesar 16. Another member was the rex sacrorum ('king of the sacrifices') who performed the religious acts that the king had usually done. There were three (later 15) flamines, special priests for the main gods, and there were three mysterious pontifices minores,. Finally, the high priest was also responsible for the eighteen priestesses of the goddess Vesta. This may have been his most important duty, and it comes as no surprise that the residence of the pontifex maximus, the domus publica, was next to the monastery of these women.
The main task of the pontifices was to maintain the pax deorum, the 'peace with the gods'. To obtain this goal, they gave advise to the magistrates, interpreted the omens, controlled the calendar and oversaw funerals. The pontifex maximus was responsible for a large collection of omens (annales maximi); every year, he wrote down the celestial and other signs, and added the events that had followed the omens, so that future generation would be able to better understand the divine will.
….
Julius Caesar was elected pontifex maximus in 63 BCE and kept the office until his death. The house where he spent the night before he was killed, was the domus publica. After his death, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus became pontifex maximus (44-12 BCE); when he died, the emperor Augustus became responsible for the state cult. He also put an end to the election of the pontifices. From then on, a position in the college of pontifices was a sign of special imperial favor, comparable to a decoration in our age.
The word pontifex is sometimes explained as 'bridge builder', but is in fact related to the Etruscan word pont, 'road', and means something like 'preparer of the road'. The pope still calls himself pontifex maximus.
Because the pontifex maximus was not a real magistrate, he was not allowed to wear the toga with the purple border. However, he could be recognized by the iron knife (secespita).
[/quote]

In Christ,

Bob

Originally posted by BobRyan:
How did the Pope and the Papacy “evolve”?
(Pope) Damasus (366-384) was the first to formally claim “Claim” the possession of “primacy” over all other churches. (At a council in 382). His claim was not made by virtue of any conciliar decisions. Ibid pg 78

Click to expand...

Bob, it's such a simple question. When Pope Damasus, as you claim, first asserted primacy ofer all other churches and bishops, where was the outrage and the resistance and the accusations of unscriptural error, by all the other bishops of the west who, we must assume, knew this claim to be false, and also to greatly dimish their own power?

Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" pg 49

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest.

And exactly WHERE does Bokenkotter get his information from? I swear, I get more than tired of all these "experts" who make statements like this for dummies to lap up just because "Bokenkotter says so".

Furthermore, you HYPOCTRITE, you will take the words of Bokenkotter, or any other anti-catholic as being the absolute imprimateur of truth, but when we quote the Early Fathers who were actually there and actually write about what was happening at that time we get 9 yards of grief and equivocation from you. What makes Bokenkotter absolutely reliable for doctrinal and eklessiastical history, but the Early Fathers not reliable at all? Hmmmmmmmmm???

He saw his primary function (instead) to be the ministry of the word...but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character.

BALONEY!!! Bokenkotter's prejudice, pure and simple. St Ignatius, writing to the Ephesians in 110AD makes it clear that the chief ministry of the presbyters was THE EUCHARIST.

"I will [send you further doctrinal explanations] especially if the Lord should reveal to me that all of you to a man, through grace derived from the Name, join in the common meeting in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David according to the flesh, the Son of Man and the Son of God, so that you give ear to the bishop and to the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one Bread, which is the medicine of immortality (gosh -- imagine that ) the antidote against death (what NOT the Word Oh my!!! ), enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.

Bokenkotter's BS doesn't wash with those of us who have studied and know better. His whole statement REEKS of Presbyterianist Calvinism, for despite what Jesus said in John 6: 53, they think that the Bible brings life eternal. Sheeeesh.

This sacralization of the clergy was brought about by various developments...the OT priesthood was seen as a model for the NT priesthood (gradually).

Christianity is not a new religion. It is the continuation of that which began with Judaism. Go read that Bible you bow down to and worship. It says right in Hebrews that God established a worship which is the shadow and type of the heavenly. What in the world makes you think He would scrap the true religion and replace it with something else? Christianity is the continuation of Judiasm. Therefore, there must be priests to administer the forgiveness of God. The only difference is that Christianity now has THE LAMB to offer sinners.

The more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantine era, with it's features borrowed from paganism,

Yada yada yada....same old "borrowed from paganism garbage. As we have said before, if our Liturgy was "borrowed from paganism" well, so was the Trinity. So was the idea of God becoming man and coming to earth. So was the idea of a crucified savior of mankind (there were 13 different crucified "saviors" before Christ). If Bokenkotter wants to be true to his statement, he better reject Christianity ALL TOGETHER. This is more bunk from a moron. Shame you take it in hook, line and sinker!!

enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule..for infants could not be preached to...

Oh, excuse me...he's a Reformed Baptist, eh? Well, again, the record of the Early Fathers proves him wrong. I swear, did these guys ever STUDY history and the Early Fathers, or was their whole ministry given to just opposing the Church and trashing the truth?

Before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred as opposed to the profane world outside; after Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between church and the world, the polarity between sacred and profane was transformed into one between sacred clergy and profane laity"

Eeeeeeeeeuuuuwwwwwwwwwwwwwww...this is such a load!! The whole purpose of the redemption in Christ was that the world was to become the kingdom of God again just as it had been in the Garden. Bokenkotter now acts like a Gnostic (ooooooo.....world baaaad.....spirit goooood!!!). Where do you see the idea of the spritual realm separate from the physical realm in Genesis? Adam was the spiritual and physical head over all the earth, and by being given AUTHORITY from God, he would have been KING OVER THE EARTH had he not sinned away his covenantal headship.

He asserted that it was Peter’s right retroactively and then presumed that all who claimed succession to Peter must also have this grandfathered “right” given to Peter from the Bishop of Rome)

It makes me sick to my stomach to realize that I was once fooled by these Calvinist dum dums. What about the giving of keys does this guy not understand? Maybe he forgot to read in Acts where the office of Judas was passed on to the next holder, complete with all the authority and perks of that office

Bob, please tell me that you are smarter that to fall for this CLAPTRAP.

Lastly of all, in the Early Church, the bishops performed the Sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist. They acted "in personae Christi" in line with the promised authority given to them by Christ Himself, stating that they had the divine right to forgive sins and confect the Eucharist.

Only when the Church became geographically impossible to maintain by a small handful of bishops were the priests consecrated. As Christianity spread all over the Middle East and Europe, many parishes were 6 months or longer waiting for the Eucharist. Since the Eucharist is the source of eternal life, such a situation was intolerable. Thus, the mediatorial priesthood was re-instated. And in every parish today, you will still see, in the center behind the altar, the bishop's chair, which reminds us that the real power and authority is not in the priest, but only extended to him through the bishop.

Before Bob jumps on this, Catholic Convert, I must state that Thomas Bokenkotter is a Catholic priest, I assume still, although I do not know for sure.

Yes, this is so, but that does not mean that he is necessarily orthodox. I just read a book from 1967 called "A modern priest in an outdated church" in which a Catholic priest basically tore down all of Catholicism and more or less preached a universalistic stance. Obviously, he was wrong.

Further, since I do not have this book, I'm reading selective quotes from it, and assuming Bob is even properly quoting him.

Since Thomas is Bob's favorite Catholic author of ALL TIME (he quotes him in every single case that he seeks a "Catholic source"), I might as well try to dig up a copy and see what all the hooplah is about. Bob sures seems to be infactuated with him.

EDIT: The university library has a copy, so I will be picking it up over the next few days.

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
You said a mouthful DHK. Proper hermeneutics is why there has been in the last 20 years a literal MOUNTAIN of converts coming into the Catholic and Orthodox Faiths from Protestantism. They are seeing the bankruptcy, heresy, and historical disconnect of Protestantism for what it is. Not to mention the schism, complete lack of authority and authorative voice in the world, infighting, and dozens of various "true" doctrines all arguing with one another. In short, it is chaos.

Furthermore, the covenant of God is THE KEY to proper hermeneutical understanding. I explained quite thoroughly in another thread, which you probably didn't get to read. Go to <a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001917;p=3#000033" target="_blank">

THIS PAGE</a>

and scoll down to my answer in box number 4 and you will have my answer for your nonsense.

Of course, you won't accept it, but who cares?

Click to expand...

I won't accept it because you haven't demnostrated anything. You have propagated lies. You have failed to tell the truth. The truth is: the Catholic Church everywhere is in great decline. Catholic churches are closing down for lack of membership. Some of the great historical cathedrals in Canada would close and be torn down or used for some other purpose, if it were not for government intervention to declare some of these old idol-worshipping buildings as historical sites. The Catholic Church is in decline. The Church now has to aggressively advertise for young men to enter into its seminaries. Many churches are without priests. You haven't done your research have you. Or do you just prefer to cover up the facts and lie about what you have found?

"The Decline & Fall Of The Catholic Church In America"
General Description:
This item is available as a preorder item. It will ship in late August. You will not be charged until the item ships.

by: David Carlin

The Roots of the crisis that's rocked the pulpits and emptied the pews

Many Catholics blame Vatican II for the decline of the Church in America these past 30 years: traditionalists say it caused too many changes, liberals say too few.

In this groundbreaking book, sociologist David Carlin shows that although Vatican II was the flashpoint for change in the Church, the roots of today's crisis go deeper than anything that happened during the Council.

Basing his conclusions on sociological analysis rather than on the theology or Church teachings, Carlin shows that in the 1960's the triumph of tolerance as an American virtue led Catholics to downplay their uniquely Catholic beliefs for the sake of national unity. At the same time, the weakened Church was being battered by a culture that, seemingly overnight, had become boldly secularist and morally libertine.

Called by Vatican II to engage the culture in order to evangelize it, while pressed by the culture to downplay its Catholicity in the name of tolerance, the Church in America lost its way.

The result? A widespread loss of Catholic identity; weakening of fidelity to Church teachings; Catholics abandoning their faith; and a diminishment of the Church's role as a moral voice in American society.

Carlin's analysis has uncovered a problem that's older and even more dangerous for the future of Catholicism than the deeds that have lately thrust the Church into the front pages. Indeed, says Carlin, the scandals are merely symptoms of this deeper problem that will continue to drain the Church's vitality long after the scandals are forgotten.

The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America: essential reading for all who seek to understand the decline of their beloved Church and who hope to devise effective ways to restore her.

Audience:
All those who live the Church and want to understand - and reverse - its decline in America
Persons seeking a nonideological explanation of Catholicism in American life these past 30 years
David Carlin is a professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island and served twelve years in the Rhode Island state senate.
Decline of the Caltholic Church

Conversely, if Mass attendances, priestly vocations, and knowledge and/or practice of Church teachings are any spiritual yardstick, the statistical decline at the grass roots continues. In Adelaide - as in much of Australia - barely 15% of Catholics attend weekly Mass and the seminary is almost empty.
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1997/feb1997p6_765.html

Vatican II Statistics
From The Reign of Mary, No. 112, Winter 2003
http://www.cmri.org/vatican2_stats.html

Do your homework Brother Ed. It might do you some good.
DHK

Well, he sure doesn't SOUND Catholic to me, and if he is, he is one of the numerous reasons the Church is in the sorry state She is in now.

And if he is Catholic, he is in my prayers every time I pray --

THAT GOD WOULD REMOVE HIS KIND FROM THE CHURCH!!!!!

Originally posted by MikeS:
Christ gave all of the apostles a new name, and promised to give them all the keys to the kingdom and to build His Church on them all?

Oh, I forgot, proper hermeneutics is the key. (meaning the kind that always gives the non-Catholic result)

Click to expand...

Proper hermeneutics is the key. You're so funny Mike. Yes Christ gave all of the Apostles a new name.
He has given every believer a new name.
He promised to the apostles the keys to the kingdom.
He has promised to every believer the keys to the kingdom (the message of the gospel).
He promised to build His church upon Himself as the foundation, as well as the Apostles, and the prophets, and every believer that makes up the household of God. If you are not part of that household, you are not saved.
DHK

GraceSaves said --
Before Bob jumps on this, Catholic Convert, I must state that Thomas Bokenkotter is a Catholic priest, I assume still, although I do not know for sure.

Yes, this is so, but that does not mean that he is necessarily orthodox. I just read a book from 1967 called "A modern priest in an outdated church" in which a Catholic priest basically tore down all of Catholicism and more or less preached a universalistic stance. Obviously, he was wrong.

Further, since I do not have this book, I'm reading selective quotes from it, and assuming Bob is even properly quoting him.

Since Thomas is Bob's favorite Catholic author of ALL TIME (he quotes him in every single case that he seeks a "Catholic source"), I might as well try to dig up a copy and see what all the hooplah is about. Bob sures seems to be infactuated with him.

Click to expand...

But it is not his religious "priesthood" that I am appealing to - RATHER - he happens to be a well recognized historian and best selling author.

All the "revisionist history" attempted on this board is refuted not ONLY by non-RC historians BUT ALSO by RC historians (if one of those RC historians happen to also be a priest - so be it).

My argument is NOT about his "theology" (as if you need THEOLOGY to get the right revision of history) RATHER it the FACTs of history that he is willing to divulge.

In Christ,

Bob

Thanks for the links. A few comments:

New style of leadership which empowers people

BALONEY!!! The Church is NOT a democracy. It is a kingdom and the King of Glory has spoken. There are far far too many Catholics who think this way. The bishops need to take their stand and invite all those who disagree to leave and go to hell with the pagans.

Work within the system - only a matter of time before the laity emerge as leaders of the Church at the local level

May GOD FORBID!!! The laity are not to be leaders. That is a typical Protestant notion and typical Novus Ordo CLAPTRAP!!


Follow-up, inclusivity, communication, empowerment, outreach, challenge;

More "New Age Speak". "Empowerment" Who else talks like that? Stinkin' whiney liberals, that's who. EEEEEVERYONE must be "empowered"

Opportunities for our pastors to 'refresh' and to change with the times

They don't need to "change with the times" if the times are anti-Christian, which this current age is in SPADES. They need to learn how to stand for truth and tell people if they don't like it -- hell is waiting to recieve them!!!

Educate our people to a new way of thinking

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Teach them how to be Catholic like the Early Church was. Teach them how to die to self and live for Christ. What these whiney people want is a "jesus" who caters to their every whim -- kinda like the entertainment circus called charismaticism!!

Dispel the myths of an outdated Church

Thoroughly Novus Ordo Speak in every way. The Church is not outdated because Jesus the Christ is unchangeable and never outdated. This piece was written by a liberal blockhead. :

Parish - inclusive nature, reach out non-judgementally

Oh!!!! How PRECIOUS!!!!

In other words, don't tell sodomites that hell awaits them. Don't tell fornicaters that hell awaits them. Don't do ANYTHING like telling the TRUTH because that might oooooofend someone!!!

Writing Eucharistic Prayers in more simple, meaningful language. Balance between 'being-in-touch' language and 'reverent' language

This is not the Church this man wants at all. it is a social club. The whole point of the Church is that in the Sacraments, God reaches out to man in mystagogy. We are not called to understand everything of these holy mysteries. Man, this is sickening.

To challenge the way we 'demonize' those groups in our Adelaide Catholic Community who are working with those who are alienated with Church (e.g., particularly women). The Sophia Christian Feminist Spirituality Centre is so life-giving for many ... the wider Church needs to hear the stories;

Should have known the feminazis would be represented in this blasphemous piece of doggerel. Hell is just gittin' warmed up for these rebels!!!

Less sacramental Church more social justice.

Socialism 101. These people are not Christian, they are classic socialists masquerading in Christian clothing. Their aim is nothing less than the destruction of the Church. May God deliver the Church from them!!

In October 1996 the Adelaide Diocesan Assembly, consisting of about 400 representatives from parishes, schools and other organisations endorsed the establishment of Basic Ecclesial Communities. The Pastoral Planning Co-ordinator for the Archdiocese, John Haren, said that "the aim of the assembly was to listen to the stories of church members and see what they were wanting from the Church. No one part of the Church has all the answers so we have to listen to each other."

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT??????

The Church has everything a sinner could want. These people don't know what they need -- forgiveness of sins through Christ and His Sacraments. This is just sorry. Real sorry.

But such wholesale invitations to air opinions and 'listen' to each other can easily become, at best, a pooling of ignorance,

AMEN TO THAT BROTHER. We see, as indicated above, how deep and foolish that ignorance already is!!

A far more urgent priority and challenge for the local Church's leadership is to communicate and 'sell' Church teachings - as enshrined in the new Catechism - to the increasing numbers of doubting or ignorant members of the flock.

They ought to preach hell hot and heaven available for repentant sinners. That is the message, not this inclusivist, socialist, feminazi balogna.

Click to expand...

Man, DHK, WARN ME next time you do this. I just had dinner and I'm struggling to keep it down now!!!!!!!

Ugh!!!!