Luke 10:16

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1384391' date='Sep 12 2007, 04:47 PM']But you just said the Chuch has imperfect people speaking imperfectly for it.[/quote]

We can be assured that the truths that Jesus entrusted to his apostles have been preserved through his magesterium and that all doctrine is the truth and nothing but the truth in accordance with apostolic oral and written tradition, as Jesus promised to send the Holy spirit to his church, [b]regardless [/b]of the imperfect people speaking for her. Jesus gave himself up for her, washes his bride and sanctifies her through his word.

"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word;"
Ephesians 5:25-26

Do you doubt that Jesus cannot santify his church through and through with the washing of his word, which is TRUTH and nothing but the truth, regardless of the Judas' and the Mahoney's and every imperfect clergy throughout the ages?

["Kyrie eleison"]

Anomaly,

There are many things that Jesus wished for us to know which would not be revealed till a later time, his Church has revealed these truths, and has DECLARED THEM, as promised, by Jesus, when the time was right. It is in God's time.

"Many things yet I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them [b]now[/b]. But when the Spirit of Truth has come, he will teach you all the truth, ...and the things that are to come he will declare to you," Jn 16:12-15

[Anomaly]

Here's the thing, Kyrie. The Catholic Church demands obedience and submission of will to certain things that are not easily defended or established by Scripture or Tradition, otherwise you can't call yourself 'Catholic'. For example, the Roman Catholic Church can clearly establish and defend the principle of a 'Pope' who is the leader among bishops. Fine, let's call that Primacy. Subsequently, to then claim 'Supremacy', is a much different matter. If we concede that Jesus established Peter's role as Primary Bishop, but that doesn't mean he's Supreme Bishop. That's going beyond what Tradition and Scripture has established. That's one of the many stumbling blocks that keeps the East/West Schism a reality today.

The Roman Catholic Church's erroneous decision to transform the Primacy role of Pope to a role as Supreme Ruler is one of the problem that many Christians have with Roman Catholic Church. That is a transformation of roles that humans developed for geo-political purposes, more so than theological need. Sure, it would be great to have the Church viewed as an Infallible Mouthpiece of God, but that's not reality. It sure would solve alot of problems and difficulties. But that's not what God has done in the past, even with sinner/saints after Jesus' ressurection.

Even the RC Church admits and concedes it is not the exclusive presense of salvific grace. The nuance is similar. The original Christian Church can claim to be the exclusive original source, but humanity has not fragmanted God's grace that salvific grace is exclusive property of a human defined 'Church'.

If I reject Supremacy of the Pope because I believe quite strongly that it should be a Primacy as God established and not a convenient and useful idea that humans invented, does that mean I reject God Himself? Though the Catholic Church will kick me out for that, does God kick me out of His family? Are all Orthodox Church members condemened to hell because they are committed to their side of the Schism because that's what they believe God teaches and has established via Christ?

I believe that Christian Churches often over-reach the authority that Jesus gives them. We're human and God allows us that imperfection. Christian Churches regularly demand obedience to this doctrine or that doctrine when it's not required by God to be an either/or question. Not that I believe in absolute Truths, but that I don't believe the Church can, does, or should provide absolutes in anything but very fundamental principles. Infallible in all matter of faith and morals, is much different that infallibility in providing specific definitions and answers to fundamental questions while working in conjunction with the established body of the Church. Speak and determine whether Jesus is Divine, Human, or Both. Answer the question of whether Mary was sinless as being possible, laudible, and likely, but that's not a fundamental question required to access God's salvific grace. Demand otherwise, and you force people away un-neccessarily and undermine respect for the role the Church is intended to fulfill.

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote]'Anomaly' date='Sep 12 2007, 06:19 PM' post='1384426']
Here's the thing, Kyrie. The Catholic Church demands obedience and submission of will to certain things that are not easily defended or established by Scripture or Tradition, otherwise you can't call yourself 'Catholic'. For example, the Roman Catholic Church can clearly establish and defend the principle of a 'Pope' who is the leader among bishops. Fine, let's call that Primacy. Subsequently, to then claim 'Supremacy', is a much different matter. If we concede that Jesus established Peter's role as Primary Bishop, but that doesn't mean he's Supreme Bishop. That's going beyond what Tradition and Scripture has established. That's one of the many stumbling blocks that keeps the East/West Schism a reality today.[/quote]

When Jesus commanded Peter to feed his sheep and to tend his sheep, John 21:15-17 Jesus gave him[b] full [/b]supremacy over his flock. In John 10:16, Jesus said, "...and there shall be [b]ONE FOLD [/b]and [b]ONE SHEPHERD." [/b]

[quote]The Roman Catholic Church's erroneous decision to transform the Primacy role of Pope to a role as Supreme Ruler is one of the problem that many Christians have with Roman Catholic Church. That is a transformation of roles that humans developed for geo-political purposes, more so than theological need. Sure, it would be great to have the Church viewed as an Infallible Mouthpiece of God, but that's not reality. It sure would solve alot of problems and difficulties. But that's not what God has done in the past, even with sinner/saints after Jesus' ressurection.[/quote]

There have always been father figures in the bible to lead the people of God, in the past. Moses was the "Father Figure" for GOD's chosen people, the one who would lead them out of the bondage of Egypt. Exodus 1 to Deut 34.

Did not God speak directly to Moses from the Burning Bush in Exodus 3:4-10, and in many other verses.

Our Father Abraham: He became the "Father of a Multitude of Nations" in Genesis 17:5.
God did speak directly to Abraham in Genesis 17:1-22, and in many other verses.

Jacob, he became the "Father of Israel" in Genesis 32:29, and he had twelve sons who became the "Father Figures" of each of the twelve tribes of Israel, Exodus 29-49.
God spoke directly to Jacob in Genesis 35:1, and in other verses.

David, who was both King, 2Sam 6:16, and Priest, 2Sam 6:18, GOD spoke directly to David in 2Samuel 2:1 and in other verses.


"He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! [b]For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."[/b]Matthew 16:15-17

GOD has spoken through His "Father Figure", Peter, and Peter only,[b] revealing the truth to him.[/b]Why do you say that God does not speak today through His "Father Figure" on earth, or the successors to Simon Peter, just as God has done in the past? God is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow.

[quote]Even the RC Church admits and concedes it is not the exclusive presense of salvific grace. The nuance is similar. The original Christian Church can claim to be the exclusive original source, but humanity has not fragmanted God's grace that salvific grace is exclusive property of a human defined 'Church'.
If I reject Supremacy of the Pope because I believe quite strongly that it should be a Primacy as God established and not a convenient and useful idea that humans invented, does that mean I reject God Himself? Though the Catholic Church will kick me out for that, does God kick me out of His family? Are all Orthodox Church members condemened to hell because they are committed to their side of the Schism because that's what they believe God teaches and has established via Christ?[/quote]

Anomaly, I am not your judge, nor the orthodox who are involved in the schism, yet Jesus set the foundation and gave authority to his apostles and his Church, which Paul tells us is the pillar and ground of all truth, 1Timothy 3:15, which has the authority to call you anathema, if you refuse to listen to her. Mt 18:17.

Paul warns us in Rom 13:1-2, "Let everyone be subject to the higher authorities, for THERE EXISTS NO AUTHORITY EXCEPT FROM GOD, AND THOSE WHO EXIST HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY GOD. Therefore HE WHO RESISTS THE AUTHORITY RESISTS THE ORDINANCE OF GOD; AND THEY THAT RESIST BRING ON THEMSELVES CONDEMNATION."

and finally...

[quote]I believe that Christian Churches often over-reach the authority that Jesus gives them. We're human and God allows us that imperfection. Christian Churches regularly demand obedience to this doctrine or that doctrine when it's not required by God to be an either/or question. Not that I believe in absolute Truths, but that I don't believe the Church can, does, or should provide absolutes in anything but very fundamental principles. Infallible in all matter of faith and morals, is much different that infallibility in providing specific definitions and answers to fundamental questions while working in conjunction with the established body of the Church. Speak and determine whether Jesus is Divine, Human, or Both. Answer the question of whether Mary was sinless as being possible, laudible, and likely, but that's not a fundamental question required to access God's salvific grace. Demand otherwise, and you force people away un-neccessarily and undermine respect for the role the Church is intended to fulfill.[/quote]

What I keep on hearing is what you believe, and that is all fine and dandy, but does it make it so, Nope. Either you believe in Jesus promises or you don't. Jesus is not concerned with personal opinions but that of which is the truth.

"Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you are [b]not[/b] [b]concerned with anyone’s opinion.[/b] You do not regard a person’s status [b]but teach the way of God in accordance with the TRUTH." [/b]
Mark 12:14


Jesus made promiese to send the advocate to dwell with them forever and I believe and stand on his word which is truth.

John 14:16-17,
"And I will ask the Father and He will give you another [b]Advocate to dwell with you forever,[/b] the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you shall know Him, because He will dwell with you, and be in you."


Jesus made promises to his disciples to never leave them orpahns or forsake them.

I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. —John 14:18


Jesus promised to send them the Holy Spirit to remind them of everything he has taught them and yes, Jesus wanted his disciples to teach us these things also, if Jesus didn't think they were so important he wouldn't have commanded his apostles to teach us to[b] OBSERVE THEM. [/b]


Matthew 28:18-20,
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. [b]Go[/b] therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [b]teaching them to OBSERVE all that "I" have COMMANDED you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."[/b]

And yes, there are many things that Jesus has revealed to his church and promises that the spirit of truth will come and speak[b] and guide us into ALL truth.[/b]

"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them [b]now.[/b] When the Spirit of truth comes,[b] he will guide you into all the truth[/b]; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, [b]and he will declare to you the things that are to come."[/b]John 16:12-13

In closing, Anomaly, these scripture verses sums it all!

"But why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord', AND DO NOT PRACTICE THE THINGS THAT I SAY?" Matthew 7:21

Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words AND ACTS UPON THEM, I will show you what he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep AND LAID A FOUNDATION UPON ROCK (Matt 16:18). And when a flood came, the stream broke against that house AND COULD NOT SHAKE IT; because it was founded on rock. But he who has heard My words AND HAS NOT ACTED UPON THEM is like a MAN WHO BUILT HIS HOUSE UPON THE GROUND WITHOUT A FOUNDATION; against which the stream broke AND STRAIGHT AWAY IT FELL IN, AND GREAT WAS THE WRECK OF THAT HOUSE." Luke 6:46-49.

God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," 1 Tim. 2:3-4

I stand firmly on the promises of Jesus.

Either you believe the whole truth and nothing but the truth is out there as promised to his apostles by Jesus, or you make Jesus a liar.

Edited September 13, 2007 by "Kyrie eleison"

[Anomaly]

Kyrie,
You got nothing other than 'the Church has authority', so it can 'anathemize'.
But you admit the Church speaks through imperfect humans and can speak in error.
You stand firmly on the idea the Church has authority, but you won't discern when the Church speaks infallibly or not. I disagree with you when the Church is speaking in line with what Jesus has taught. I don't disagree that Jesus is present when 3 or more are gathered in His name, but does that make them able to speak for Jesus?
Either you believe the whole truth and nothing but the truth or Jesus is a liar? Yeah, right. Where does it say that? Where has God given people the ability to comprehend and believe the 'truth' with perfection? Did even Paul or Peter have it? Nope.
You sum it up with "But why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord', AND DO NOT PRACTICE THE THINGS THAT I SAY?" Matthew 7:21
The point I made is the Church speaks but it is not always the voice of Jesus. I have to follow when I believe it's Jesus, and I have the option not to if I beleive it contradicts what I believe Jesus has said.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Anomaly

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote]Either you believe the whole truth and nothing but the truth or Jesus is a liar? Yeah, right. Where does it say that? Where has God given people the ability to comprehend and believe the 'truth' with perfection? Did even Paul or Peter have it? Nope.
You sum it up with "But why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord', AND DO NOT PRACTICE THE THINGS THAT I SAY?" Matthew 7:21
The point I made is the Church speaks but it is not always the voice of Jesus. I have to follow when I believe it's Jesus, and I have the option not to if I beleive it contradicts what I believe Jesus has said.[/quote]

Anomaly,
O ye' of little faith of the [b]promises of Christ [/b]to send the [b]ADVOCATE[/b] to REVEAL the TRUTH to THEM and never to forsake them and be with them, leading them into all truth, till the end of this age.

As for me, Jesus made a promise to never leave his apostles orphans, that we would not have to wonder to and fro, with every wind of doctrine, like infants. Ephesians 4:14, the Catholic church can trace it's lineage all the way back to the original apostles of Christ, whom he made these many promises. No other church can do this. My mind, my heart and intellect, tell me to look to the church and follow the church in which Jesus made these promises and know without a doubt that Jesus has deposited his truth and it has been upheld to present day, till the end of time

My prayer for you and others who are searching is for you to come into the fullness of truth.

God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the [b]truth[/b]," 1 Tim. 2:3-4

[Anomaly]

O ye of faith in what you want, but not what is. It would be pleasant and comfortable to believe in a human organization that tells you everything you want to know, need to do, what to believe so you have no worries. Imagine the disappointment of rich man that asks Jesus is there anything else he needs to do besides follow the letter of the law. Didn't the pharisees get caught up in the details and were telling others they weren't complying with the law. Did that make Jesus happy?

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1384903' date='Sep 13 2007, 01:49 PM']O ye of faith in what you want, but not what is. It would be pleasant and comfortable to believe in a human organization that tells you everything you want to know, need to do, what to believe so you have no worries. Imagine the disappointment of rich man that asks Jesus is there anything else he needs to do besides follow the letter of the law. Didn't the pharisees get caught up in the details and were telling others they weren't complying with the law. Did that make Jesus happy?[/quote]



John 8
31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

The truth is out there Anomaly and it will set you free and no one can take that truth from you, when you have found it and you would be martyr for it, just as the others who have given their lives throughout the centuries to ATTEST to the TRUTH and SAFEGUARD IT.

[Anthony]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1384357' date='Sep 12 2007, 04:01 PM']Exactly. So we can reject imperfection and Catholics shouldn't get upset when people reject what they see as error in the Catholic Church.[/quote]

It is not the Church herself, it is the members. The Church is perfect, people are not.

[Dismas]

Written during the last year of Emperor Domitian's reign, or immediately after, most closely believed to be 96 AD, a letter was delivered to Greek Corinth. It wasn't Paul, who died along with Peter shortly after the fire of Rome in 64. Of the other apostles, only John still drew breath in this world.

John oversaw much of what is the core of the Eastern Church, and even in his exile in Patmos at this very time, his influence as apostle and bishop of Ephesus was great. The letter that I am writing about is not about John's three epistles, his Gospel, or even his Apocalypse.

The letter came from Rome. I am referring to Pope St. Clement I and his epistle to the Corinthians. It is a long read, and yet from it are the oldest surviving record in Sacred Tradition of universal, Papal authority, even within the sphere of influence of a living apostle. Indeed, even the Anglican scholar Joseph Barber Lightfoot attested to the importance of this document.
[quote name='Joseph Barber Lightfoot']It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal domination. And yet undoubtedly this is the case.[/quote]

You can read it for yourself if you like.
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm[/url]

[Anomaly]

Dismas,
Read section 44. [quote]We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.[/quote]
Obvioiusly if the appointed eposcopate do not blamelessly serve the flock, are not humble, peaceable, etc., can (and should be) justly dismised from the ministry.
If they aren't, what does that mean? If they are misbehaving, should they be obeyed? Nobody's denying that. Silly quips like 'the Church is perfect, the people are not' is a diservice to the Catholic Church, Christianity, and human reason. Are not the people part of the Church on earth? Cannot the appointed wielders of Jesus' authority on earth misuse what's been entrusted to them, just as the servants who were entrusted talents from the Master's own stores?

[Dismas]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1385337' date='Sep 14 2007, 07:56 AM']Dismas,
Read section 44.
Obvioiusly if the appointed eposcopate do not blamelessly serve the flock, are not humble, peaceable, etc., can (and should be) justly dismised from the ministry.[/quote]
Does the name Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo ring a bell? How about Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc? And Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre? These were excommunicated for their actions - not just retired, not just stripped, excommunicated. What about America? Well, Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee was retired early for not blamelessly serving his flock.

What about Cardinal Mahoney? Well, I certainly doubt that the Vatican does not know about him and his antics. Why don't they stop him? Because the Pope cannot micromanage every episcopacy in the world. Also, there has been since the reign of Pope Paul VI the fear that if the Vatican were to lay down the law too hard, that regions such as the U.S. would go from dissidence to outright rebellion. Even so, there are a number of lines in the sand, and I would not doubt that one day Cardinal Mahoney will reach too far, forget that it isn't the 1970's, and get into trouble.

There are even popes who have failed to minister as they aught, sometimes with great infamy. Are Catholics guaranteed that we won't have following the reign of Pope Benedict XVI, another Alexander VI? No, we aren't. We are only guaranteed that the fullness of Truth subsides within the Catholic Church.
[quote name='Anomaly' post='1385337' date='Sep 14 2007, 07:56 AM']If they aren't, what does that mean?[/quote]
It means that his superior, the pope, either is incapable of replacing him for a number of reasons, is dealing with bigger problems and isn't able to get to a nuisance offender, believes that such action will only cause further scandal and even schism and must therefore wait, is naturally a weak manager with poor skills regarding confrontation himself, or might even be corrupt himself.
[quote name='Anomaly' post='1385337' date='Sep 14 2007, 07:56 AM']If they are misbehaving, should they be obeyed? Nobody's denying that. Silly quips like 'the Church is perfect, the people are not' is a diservice to the Catholic Church, Christianity, and human reason. Are not the people part of the Church on earth?[/quote]
Only so long as the command is not for the sake of sin. Sin is defined in Sacred Scripture, especially in the Commandments, as well as in Sacred Tradition (big T). This is one of the reasons to have some reference material in Canon Law as well as the Catechism if you wish to be on the forefront of opposing the likes of Cardinal Mahoney.
[quote name='Anomaly' post='1385337' date='Sep 14 2007, 07:56 AM']Cannot the appointed wielders of Jesus' authority on earth misuse what's been entrusted to them, just as the servants who were entrusted talents from the Master's own stores?[/quote]
Verily they have, and are, and will continue to. Was Judas not sent by Jesus, though he was a traitor? Was not Simon Peter perhaps the most flawed of the apostles, and wasn't John the closest to Jesus's heart? And yet Christ Jesus made Peter the leader of the apostles.

Life isn't fair, and hasn't been since our banishment from Eden. People, even those who are given ministry over others still have fallen natures. Some give into that nature, and turn away from the God they vowed to serve. For all we know, Pope Benedict XVI will be followed by a man who shall seek to outdo Alexander VI in iniquity. Even so, even if such a monster be placed upon the papal throne, he may sin in all ways, and misuse his power in all ways, except when speaking ex-cathedra on faith and morals. That is cold comfort, but comfort nonetheless.

Even so, the Church marches on through time.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Dismas' post='1385694' date='Sep 14 2007, 11:20 PM']Life isn't fair, and hasn't been since our banishment from Eden. People, even those who are given ministry over others still have fallen natures. Some give into that nature, and turn away from the God they vowed to serve. For all we know, Pope Benedict XVI will be followed by a man who shall seek to outdo Alexander VI in iniquity. Even so, even if such a monster be placed upon the papal throne, he may sin in all ways, and misuse his power in all ways, except when speaking ex-cathedra on faith and morals. That is cold comfort, but comfort nonetheless.

Even so, the Church marches on through time.[/quote]Agreed very much with most of what you've written, especially this part, as that is my point. The Church is infallible only in very rare, extreme, and specific occasions because of the nature of Man. The Church is infallible on those unique circumstances because of God's participation. The difference is the gap between when the humans of the Church demand obedience in all matters and when the humans can actually be infallible and demand obedience. The Filoque-Schism came to be and continues to exist, because the Roman Church insists it IS and Was speaking infallibly despite insincere efforts to include and hear from all it's successors of Christ's authority, a neccessary element required to cooperate with Christ's authority and speak infallibly. The Filoque was not a response to heresy, but a response to a pertinent question. The Church should have answered it with a 'most likely and worthy of belief' answer, not a black or white, schism causing 'either/or' answer. Huge difference. That is why Catholic Christianity has helped caused the splintering of Christianity. Even today most Caholics think that a different Rite can't be Catholic and are just some obscure, old, Protestants. That same arrogant idea of 'being right in all matters of faith' is what causes further splintering of the Protestants.