The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Australian Baptist Student]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
Austraillian Student:

What's the big deal, Adam just ate a piece of fruit for crying out loud. And who were those two in Acts that died on the spot when they didn't give all there money to the Church? Minor things it would seem. Rejection of legitimate authority is never a minor thing. People of different races and tongues recognized Pope Victors authority to excommunicate. Excommunation is not intended for the condemnation of the soul but as a drastic measure to call it back. Kind of a wakeup call. These people called themselves Catholic (I am quite sure the Quadramecians did) and yet rejected the Pope's authority over them. I am also quite sure that Catholics who traveled in their area fully accepted the Pope's excommunication of them and so did not attend their Chrurch services.

The big deal is that Adam directly disobeyed the command of God. The quartodecimans disobeyed not such command from God. They were kicked out of the church for celebrating the death and ressurection of Jesus!! For following apostolic practice. Read Romans 14 and see if you think Victor was in tune with the apostle Paul. Do you believe that a pope can over-rule the Bible and apostolic practice??
Take care, Colin

 

[CatholicConvert]

Colin --

The big deal is that Adam directly disobeyed the command of God.

Ananias and Saphira did not disobey a direct command of God. They simply lied. Our country is so full of liars today that we do not even know where to begin. It is like an art form here, and Bill Clinton was and is the Picasso of our times. Yet for this sin, which we find so insignificant, they were struck dead.

The quartodecimans disobeyed not such command from God.

Excuse me? If a general gives a captain an order and the captain tells a sargeant, who promptly disobeys that order, the sargeant has disobeyed not only the captain, but the general as well.

You do not seem to understand the concepts of hierarchy and authority, but they are clearly in the Scriptures. This same principle can not only be seen in the authority given to the office of St. Peter, but in the OT where the prophets spoke for God and disobeying them was tantamount to disobeying God.

This mindset is the rotten fruit of democracy, which in turn is the rotten fruit which America has spread. People no longer understand rulership and authority because we have lost the concept of monarchial rule, which is the form of governance which God Himself set up on earth. Democracy is man made rebellion against God's established order. Our Lord runs a kingdom, and He is the Great King. Unfortunately, the 21st century democratic mind does not understand what a kingdom is.

They were kicked out of the church for celebrating the death and ressurection of Jesus!!

They were kicked out of the Church for rebelling against established authority and not submitting to it, just as the rebel Martin Luther was when he decided he was smarter than the Papacy and the Ordinary Magisterium in regards to doctrinal ideas. And look at what his rebellion has fostered today. Pagans think that Christianity is a religion of nuts and fools as they view our broken, fragmented, and immoral practices in Christendom.

Do you believe that a pope can over-rule the Bible and apostolic practice??

Now you are just being silly. No pope would overrule Biblical practice. What he would overrule is doctrinal heresy trying to masquerade itself off as orthodoxy. For instance, you would claim that the "Lord's Supper" is merely a "rememberance" which neither conveys His grace nor has any special significance other than a rememberance. That is heresy.

Sorry, mate, but it is. The popes and the ordinary magisterium have stated otherwise. Of course, you see this as overriding the "clear sense" of the Bible, and therefore, you make the statement you made above. But the clear sense is John 6: 53 - 54 and the popes throughout the ages have simply defended this understanding, which can be found in the writings of Iranaeus as early as the second century.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

[LisaMC]

So Ed,

Your last response to me:

Okay Lisa --

I will choose to believe those Early Fathers who made doctrinal statements which support baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and other distinctly Catholic (and Orthodox, which I am) positions.

I don't think as a Catholic you can do that? Choose--I mean.

You may choose to believe those Early Fathers who make statements which support the denial of such positions.

Yep. Because, those be the ones who are confirming the Word of God to me.

Really! Is that all you have to say to me? Are you just blowing me off because I've brought a few of the inconsistencies of your faith to your attention? Ignoring me won't change the facts, you know?

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
Colin --

Now you are just being silly. No pope would overrule Biblical practice. What he would overrule is doctrinal heresy trying to masquerade itself off as orthodoxy.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Ed, Passover was celebrated according to God's command on the 14th of Nissan (Ex 12:6). Jesus celebrated Passover, which was also his last supper, on the 14th of Nissan. John taught his converts to celebrate the death of Jesus on the 14th of Nissan.

This was Biblical command and practice. Paul further commands the Romans not to fuss about days. Along comes Victor and goes against Biblical command and apostolic teaching, and also against Paul's clear instructions, and this is OK cos hes pope? Can you justify Victor's specific action here from the Bible? Quote chapter and verse to support his decision. Show me where celebrating these events on the 14th of Nissan is condemned, or admit that Victor was on a power trip, and not being the servant and least of all.
Take care, Colin

 

[Armando]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
[QB]Colin --

The big deal is that Adam directly disobeyed the command of God.

Ananias and Saphira did not disobey a direct command of God. They simply lied.

Considering:

Mt16,19 " And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven"

Jn 21, 15 "Peter, feed my lambs and my sheeps"

Lk 22,31 "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren"

Jn 13, 20 and Lk 10,16 "He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me"

To me, Annania and Saphira lied to Peter but they did lied to God

Act 5,4 Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.

And Peter having all authority delegated from our Lord (previous verses), it is understandable that lying to Peter is lying to God. And he is binding both Ananias and Saphira to sin and they died (death: final result of sin - binding someone to their sin = death)

Now, I wonder, if our Lord instructed the apostles to "preach the gospel" until the end of the world.

Mat 28,20 "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Who do you think has the authority delegated in Peter nowadays?

Thanks

[ January 23, 2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Armando ]

 

[GraceSaves]

Lisa,

Your comment about a Catholic not being able to chose was uncalled for.

A Catholic "chooses" to be Catholic. If a Catholic disagrees with the Church's teachings, no one has them tied to a chair; they have free will, and can leave. If one choose to agree with the Church's teachings, they CHOOSE to be Catholic. If they choose to disagree, they CHOOSE not to be Catholic.

Your attempt to play off being a Catholic as an analogy to some sort of slave, having no choice in one's belief, was wholly unwarrented.

Just wanted you to see that.

God bless,

Grant

 

[CatholicConvert]

Nice try, Grant.

She will not, of course, "see" that, because she, like the vast majority of Americans in this country who are infested with the disease of democracy, thinks that OBEDIENCE without question is mere slavery rather than freedom.

We serve a great and powerful King, our Lord Jesus. His laws are given not to thwart us, but to protect us from evil, to show us the way, and to help us grow in Christlikeness, which is our destiny. Yet how many in this country chafe and rebel against the moral teachings of the Church? How many would try to convince us that we are "not free" because we give our allegiance to our great King and His Church here on earth?

They simply do not understand.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
Colin --

The big deal is that Adam directly disobeyed the command of God.

The quartodecimans disobeyed not such command from God.

Excuse me? If a general gives a captain an order and the captain tells a sargeant, who promptly disobeys that order, the sargeant has disobeyed not only the captain, but the general as well.

You do not seem to understand the concepts of hierarchy and authority, but they are clearly in the Scriptures. This same principle can not only be seen in the authority given to the office of St. Peter, but in the OT where the prophets spoke for God and disobeying them was tantamount to disobeying God.

Brother Ed

Hi Ed, what if the sargent makes up an order and gives it to the private? What if this order countermands a previous order given by the captain? Jesus is my captain. In his holy word, he told me not to get hung up about days, but along comes Victor and says days are such a big deal he will toss me out of the company if I dont do exactly what he says (with no word from the captain to support it, and previous words from the Captain opposing it). The private decides that the sargent is overstepping his authority, is a "wicked servant" who beats the others while the Captain is away, and makes a descision to remain faithful to his captain, and disregard poor Victor and his crew.

Have fun, Colin

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
Colin --

Do you believe that a pope can over-rule the Bible and apostolic practice??

Now you are just being silly. No pope would overrule Biblical practice.
Brother Ed

Hi again,
Your answer invokes history. 'No Pope would ever do this' begs one to judge the popes on their record. A fair request!

Now, the OT clearly commands us to look after the stranger within our midst, and not to deprive him of his rights. The OT and NT affirm that we are commanded to love our neighbours. Now, if it can be shown that popes have violated these commands are you prepared to face what that means? The history I am about to relate has been related before, but without any real answer. Jesus says we are to show love to ALL, not just those we agree with (even tax collectors do that!).

OK, on March 5, 1233, Pope Gregory XI wrote to the archbishops and bishops of Germany complaining that the German Jews were not living in “the state of complete misery to which they had been condemned by God.” Thomas Aquinas had agreed with this, and preached the idea that Jews must be compelled to live in perpetual slavery. Pope Innocent III re-stated this in a letter to the Archbishop of Seus and the Bishop of Paris (15 July 1205): “The Jews are condemned to
eternal slavery.” A Papal legate presided over the Council of Breslau in 1266. This council decreed that Jews must not live side by side with Christians, and advised special quarters for Jews who must also wear pointed hats and a red badge. A year later, in 1267 the Council of Vienna urged the total separation of Jews from society. Their exclusion from the common law of humanity was explicitly affirmed in 1268, by the Jewry-law of
Brunn, where it was written: “The Jews are deprived of their natural rights and condemned to eternal misery for their sins.” In 1516 the first Ghetto was established in Venice. In 1555 Pope Paul IV, confirming that Jews had been condemned by God to eternal slavery, decreed the establishment of “Ghettos” throughout Europe.

So, were the popes who mandated Ghettoes by papal bulls etc sinning, breaking the command to love your neighbours, and to protect the rights of the aliens in your midst? Were these decisions, backed up by chuch councils, ecclesiastical laws and papal judgements, breaking Gods laws or what?

Over to you, Colin

 

[CatholicConvert]

Colin --

I have not studied the Quartedemecian controversy at all. Therefore, I am unqualified to make any comment on it.

The real issue is obedience. Remember what God said about rebellion? Something about being as the sin of witchcraft?

That's all I have to know. That, and the fact that the keys to the kingdom are still hanging on a peg in the office. If you can prove to me that the keys are no longer in the office, I'll feel free to do as I jolly well please regarding my worship practices.

But until then......rebellion? Not this little brown duck.

Brother Ed

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
Colin --

I have not studied the Quartedemecian controversy at all. Therefore, I am unqualified to make any comment on it.

The real issue is obedience.
Brother Ed

Agreed. So do you obey God or man? Given that the popes did order Jews into ghettoes, do you hate your neighbour and obey the pope, or honor the commands of God and disobey the pope? This is not a hypothetical. The catholic church has historically officially sinned in its actions. Who then do you obey?
Take care, Colin

 

[thessalonian]

"Do you believe that a pope can over-rule the Bible and apostolic practice??"

Where does the Bible say what day Easter is celebrated on? Do you have a complete list of the Chruch fathers opinions on what day Easter is celebrated on. For Cathoilcs the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff. Check out the documents of Vatican I if you really want to know what this means. He has authority to set feast days and liturgical calanders. Peter was told "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.". Now you as a Baptist may not like it but this is the context of the excommunication of the quadrametians. They were disobedient to the Pope and therefore to God. God bound it in heaven. From a Baptist perspective you will never get it but scripturally and historically it fits perfectly with Catholicism.

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
"Do you believe that a pope can over-rule the Bible and apostolic practice??"

Where does the Bible say what day Easter is celebrated on? Do you have a complete list of the Chruch fathers opinions on what day Easter is celebrated on. For Cathoilcs the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff. Check out the documents of Vatican I if you really want to know what this means. He has authority to set feast days and liturgical calanders. Peter was told "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.". Now you as a Baptist may not like it but this is the context of the excommunication of the quadrametians. .

Hi there, Jesus was crucified on the Passover, whose date is mandated in Scripture as the 14th of Nissan.

"They were disobedient to the Pope and therefore to God. God bound it in heaven. From a Baptist perspective you will never get it but scripturally and historically it fits perfectly with Catholicism"

So if the popes and councils mandate sin (see post above re persecuting your Jewish neighbour-direct contradiction to command of God to love em) you just obey men rather than God and sin??!

Take care, Colin

 

[CatholicConvert]

Colin --

Excuse me for what is going to seem like a rather testy comment, but your BS is getting rather thick.

After I joined the Church, it occured to me that I should read the Catholic Catechism through. Took me a while, since it is 700+ pages.

But you know what? I didn't find ONE SINGLE SENTENCE in it which suggested even vaguely that I commit sin and excuse it by pointing to another person. In fact, it has a rather loud call to personal holiness and righteousness.

The fact of the matter is this: on matters of doctrinal and moral teaching, the Holy Father's edicts, and the teachings of the eccumenical councils is binding and THAT IS THAT!!

I do not have to know much about the Quartedemecians to know that they, just like the Reformers, thought they found something which the Church should obey. The Holy Father ruled on it, they disobeyed, and they were excommunicated.

And that is the way it should work. You do not tell the King how to run his Kingdom and you do not argue with His prime minister either.

What do you not understand about that concept of authority and command?

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed - Obedient Orthodox Catholic. No Questions. Just obedience.

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Hi there, Ed,
you are avoiing the issue. Church councils and popes, on the basis of canon law, mandated ghettoes for hundreds of thousands of Jews over hundreds of years. The Bible commands us to love our neighbors, the catholic church threw them in jail. Are breaking God's commands and persecuting people a matter of faith and morals? If so, then catholics who obeyed their church sinned by so doing.
Do you still wish to tell me the virtues of blind obedience?
Take cae, Colin

 

[DanPC]

"mandated ghettoes for hundreds of thousands of Jews over hundreds of years"

The internet is not the best place to research this since all of the "hits" I found related to anti-Semitism and did not address the reasons for the ghettoes, anything beneficial that came out of being in ghettoes, etc.
Ghettoes in and of themself are not necessarily bad. Here in America many immigrants lived in defacto ghettoes for a generation or more until they became Americanized.
Judging past historical events by current standards is not profitable. [This is not a defense of ghettoes yet as I can't find anything yet giving much info on them.] Has your research shown anything?

 

[cameron]

A simple question to the Australian Bible Student:

By whose authority did we get the canon of the bible. It is difficult to go through life picking and chosing when to follow an authority and when not to. (I've learned over time I'm much happier if I keep things simple.) I think this is the primary reasons for so many denominations including so many sects of Baptists. Just an observation from an old man from Texas

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Originally posted by DanPC:
"mandated ghettoes for hundreds of thousands of Jews over hundreds of years"

The internet is not the best place to research this since all of the "hits" I found related to anti-Semitism and did not address the reasons for the ghettoes, anything beneficial that came out of being in ghettoes, etc.
Ghettoes in and of themself are not necessarily bad. Here in America many immigrants lived in defacto ghettoes for a generation or more until they became Americanized.
Judging past historical events by current standards is not profitable. [This is not a defense of ghettoes yet as I can't find anything yet giving much info on them.] Has your research shown anything?

Look up books by Edward Flannery, Malcom Hay, Friedrich Heer (all catholic historians) plus A History of the Jewish People ed. Ben Sasson (Harvard text). Ghettoes were mandated by church councils and popes as prisons for Jews. They had walls built around they, which were patrolled by "Christians". They were overcrowded, humilliating places where you were born, lived and died. You needed a pass to get out the gates, for work. The one in Rome had no hospital, Jews were forbidden to study medicine, attend schools etc. Fear of disease led in 1836 to the public health commission sending Prince Odescalchi to
investigate conditions within the ghetto of Rome. He reported that the inhabitants lived in
“untold misery.” It was at this time that a Jewish father begged the pope for help. He wrote on behalf of his seven family members, living within the one room: “because for a long time, our four children have been afflicted with diarrhoea that wont go away. Since they have to relieve themselves constantly, especially at night, the stench is overpowering, as we lack even a convenient place to keep the excrement.” The pope did not let him leave.
Look up the references given above for more, take care, Colin

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Originally posted by DanPC:
"mandated ghettoes for hundreds of thousands of Jews over hundreds of years"

The internet is not the best place to research this since all of the "hits" I found related to anti-Semitism and did not address the reasons for the ghettoes, anything beneficial that came out of being in ghettoes, etc.
Ghettoes in and of themself are not necessarily bad. Here in America many immigrants lived in defacto ghettoes for a generation or more until they became Americanized.
Judging past historical events by current standards is not profitable. [This is not a defense of ghettoes yet as I can't find anything yet giving much info on them.] Has your research shown anything?

Look up books by Edward Flannery, Malcom Hay, Friedrich Heer (all catholic historians) plus A History of the Jewish People ed. Ben Sasson (Harvard text). Ghettoes were mandated by church councils and popes as prisons for Jews. They had walls built around they, which were patrolled by "Christians". They were overcrowded, humilliating places where you were born, lived and died. You needed a pass to get out the gates, for work. The one in Rome had no hospital, Jews were forbidden to study medicine, attend schools etc. Fear of disease led in 1836 to the public health commission sending Prince Odescalchi to
investigate conditions within the ghetto of Rome. He reported that the inhabitants lived in
“untold misery.” It was at this time that a Jewish father begged the pope for help. He wrote on behalf of his seven family members, living within the one room: “because for a long time, our four children have been afflicted with diarrhoea that wont go away. Since they have to relieve themselves constantly, especially at night, the stench is overpowering, as we lack even a convenient place to keep the excrement.” The pope did not let him leave.
Look up the references given above for more, take care, Colin

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Originally posted by cameron:
A simple question to the Australian Bible Student:

By whose authority did we get the canon of the bible. It is difficult to go through life picking and chosing when to follow an authority and when not to. (I've learned over time I'm much happier if I keep things simple.) I think this is the primary reasons for so many denominations including so many sects of Baptists. Just an observation from an old man from Texas

Hi there, you ask a good question. Ill try and answer, but others here may be better qualified. Basically, we believe that all Scripture is the very Word of God. As such, it has a unique authority. Peter made a mistake, and was corrected by Paul, but neither would have dreampt of finding fault with God's word. Paul's usage of scripture is straight forward, "the scripture says ... therefore ... " No ifs, buts or questions. Just application. The scriptures are seen as an absolute authority. James in Acts 15 etc. The Talmud has a similar view, rabbis arguing with rabbis, but only the deepest respect for the Word. Likewise the early church fathers. They can disagree, they can discuss anything, but none would think to minimise or disagree with scripture. This is sacred, this is holy. This is why the church fathers and early councils would have been horrified to think anyone might place their discussions on equal level with God's word. They would never have imagined that.
Now, given that scripture is so different to other writings, how did we get the canon? Some catholics say, "we determined it, its our creation, this shows we are superior to it." Baptists would reply that early councils simply recognised what was already affirmed by the body of believers, that these books were of God in a special and unique way. They recognised this, they did not determine it. Clearly, either God wrote a book, or he did not. He did not require a bunch of men to tell him which books he had authored. The councils did not determine which books God had written, they merely recognised them.
I should also add that Baptists quite like the early fathers, and read their works for edification. A church father was quoted in the sermon in my church by our pastor this morning. In the same way we take what modern christian
writers way and test it against scripture, so them. We dont worship them, or consider their words as equal to scripture, but we often respect and are helped by them.
What it all comes down to is that these are God's words to us. If the early church fathers knew their human authors, thats neat, but we know personally their divine author, his Spirit dwells within us and he has been promised to us to lead us into all truth. When it comes to salvation, Christian life etc, their is broad agreement between believers, but true, their is also difference, as each believer takes seriously the charge to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. We dont just do what a priest tells us to, we read God's word, pray, discuss and sometimes disagree. It creats a healthy, vibrant and Godly way of life. Obviously some gatherings do this better than others, but, God willing, we are all free to encourage one another and stir one another up in the faith.
Hope this makes sence,
God bless, Colin