True charity

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 16 2005, 03:39 PM']I mean, how could Jesus address a Catholic church that didn't exist. The Catholic church wasn't called Catholic until several centuries after Christ. Of course, you Catholics are going to launch into your interpretation of scripture that defends your point and when I counter that it's the wrong interpretation you'll say that only the Church has the right to interpret the scripture which is circular reasoning because you're using your interpretation to defend your right to interpret. Therego, this discussion will go nowhere.
[right][snapback]686849[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
why do you even bother bringing it up if you don't want to debate it and you think you already know how its going to turn out? make up your mind, bro.

[Mikhail]

What I'm saying is that there never was a universial church, and there never should have been an attempt to create one. The worst thing that ever happened to the church was organization. This goes for all organized religion. The only reason God addresses the churches individually is because that's how the believers were designated. They had little contact with other churches simply because people didn't travel much in that time. There was no central leader or any other such thing.

As I said on the other thread, I come here out of extreme boredom and in the hopes that it might annoy Miriam to some degree. As I get busier, I won't be on here, for this site is extremely low priority. I only come here as a last resort.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 18 2005, 03:20 AM']What I'm saying is that there never was a universial church...
[right][snapback]688717[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes there was; but don't take my word for it, read the writings of those who were alive in the first and second centuries. This man learned the faith from St. John the Apostle and succeeded St. Peter as the Bishop of Antioch:
[quote][u]St. Ignatius of Antioch[/u]
[b]Letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 110[/b]
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic [color=red][universal][/color] Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.[/quote]

Edited August 18, 2005 by thedude

[homeschoolmom]

oh my... is this thread still open??

[Laudate_Dominum]

Yep.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='traditional' date='Aug 15 2005, 06:42 AM']Check out this website:

[color=red] We don't link to pretend Catholic sites [/color]

There is the dogma with the authority of the Popes while Universal Salvation is extirpated DEFINITIVELY, once and for all. RC
[right][snapback]685417[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Trad,

Here is the problem. Flourence says that no schismatics can be saved according to the interprutation of the schismatic traditionalists. So that means if your interprutation is right, then you can't be saved.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 18 2005, 02:20 AM']What I'm saying is that there never was a universial church, and there never should have been an attempt to create one. The worst thing that ever happened to the church was organization. This goes for all organized religion. The only reason God addresses the churches individually is because that's how the believers were designated. They had little contact with other churches simply because people didn't travel much in that time. There was no central leader or any other such thing.
[right][snapback]688717[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Would you also feel that organized government is a bad thing? And if so, is that not leading to a claim that the world would be better off living in anarchy?

Edited August 18, 2005 by hierochloe

[Mikhail]

No, organized government is a necessary evil. However, to compare church and government is to show what is wrong with organized churches. Governments have to be organized for a reason. They are man-made structures governing men. Even in the Israelite government, God didn't want them to have a king. He was their leader and when they rejected his leadership, things went bad.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 19 2005, 03:18 AM']No, organized government is a necessary evil. However, to compare church and government is to show what is wrong with organized churches. Governments have to be organized for a reason. They are man-made structures governing men. Even in the Israelite government, God didn't want them to have a king. He was their leader and when they rejected his leadership, things went bad.
[right][snapback]690094[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[quote]The LORD said to Samuel: "How long will you grieve for Saul, whom I have rejected as king of Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and be on your way. I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem, for [b]I have chosen my king from among his sons[/b]."
1 Samuel 16:1[/quote]
In verse 12, David is chosen as the king.
[quote]O LORD, my God, [b]you have made me, your servant, king to succeed my father David[/b]; but I am a mere youth, not knowing at all how to act.
1 Kings 3:7[/quote]
David's son Solomon.
[quote]"You know that the kingdom was mine, and all Israel expected me to be king. But the kingdom escaped me and became my brother's, for [b]the LORD gave it to him[/b].
1 Kings 2:15[/quote]

[Mikhail]

You know, when I was 8 I memorized the books of Samuel. You have failed to quote the earlier passage which is the one I was refering to. I assumed everyone would recognize it, but since you don't, I'll post the whole chapter.

1st Samuel/Kings 8
[quote]" 1* ¶ And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.
2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba.
3* And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.
4 ¶ Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
5* And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
6* But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
7* And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
9* Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
19* Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
20* That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
21* And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.
22* And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.[/quote]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

But He approved of David and Solomon. God didn't want approve of the Israelites asking for a king (to be like the "other nations"), but later appointed his own. Not all Kings are bad.

A non-organized religion is one where, in the words of Martin Luther: "there are as many beliefs as there are heads."

[Mikhail]

Let me requote verse 18:
" And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day."

The Lord made them live with their choices, and choose kings for them, even though he did not want them to have kings in the first place. They made their bed, they had to lie in it.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The Israelites asked for a king to be like the other nations. God gave them a king like the other nations. Nobody disputes that God was upset about this request. However, God later chose righteous and humble kings for Israel. Not all kings are bad, and this has nothing to do with organized religion anyway.

[Mikhail]

God was displeased, yet they were his people. He choose them righteous kings because he took care of them. However, read through Kings. They caused his people nothing but grief. Also, I was showing how God doesn't like to depend on men to lead his institutions, he likes to take care of it himself. He organizes things, and he takes care of things. Whenever men take over, it screws up.

[DeeDee]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Aug 18 2005, 02:50 PM']Would you also feel that organized government is a bad thing? And if so, is that not leading to a claim that the world would be better off living in anarchy?
[right][snapback]689410[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The manner in which you reply leads me to believe that you are using the word "anarchy" to imply chaos. True anarchy is anything but chaos, but perfect order by responsible persons in union for a higher good. Of course, this is an ideal only, and will probably never be realized because people as nations are not all responsible. Look at the world today.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='DeeDee' date='Aug 23 2005, 12:17 PM']The manner in which you reply leads me to believe that you are using the word "anarchy" to imply chaos. True anarchy is anything but chaos, but perfect order by [b]responsible persons in union for a higher good[/b]. Of course, this is an ideal only, and will probably never be realized because people as nations are not all responsible. Look at the world today.
[right][snapback]695571[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Wouldn't that consitute a government?