Tom
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 4,893
Joined: April 2001
|
|
|
|
Forums31
Topics8,379
Posts56,579
Members992
| |
Most Online4,295 May 22nd, 2026
|
|
|
#18596
Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:16 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351 |
catholicsoldier said: Sorry yourself. Maybe you should actually read the passage. The apostle was picked to replace Judas, indicating incontrovertably that succession was a must. But you just don't want to see it. James, Before I begin, I just wanted to say that I quite enjoy having you stick around here. It gives us all a chance to reexamine our beliefs, and hold them up to the light of Scripture. I quite enjoy these exchanges, but I still believe you are in great error, and pray the Holy Spirit would open your eyes to the Truth of God as revealed in Scripture. I wanted to respond to this individual point you made, which I quote above. Your agument roughly goes as follows: 1. One of the fist apostles died 2. The remaining 11 apostles picked a successor for him 3. Therefore, every apostle was to always have a successor, and the apostleship was to continue, ad infinitumHowever, to say that this logic is faulty and presumptuous is to say the least. Let me give an example of similar logic, in a different situation, to highlight it's absurdity: 1. Last night I had no food in my cupboards 2. So I ordered pizza 3. Therefore, every time my cupboards will be empty for the rest of my life, I will always order pizza What I am doing is drawing an unwarranted conclusion based upon insuffiecient data, something we call "silly" when we see it in real life. Let's look at a couple for examples, which might come a bit closer to the issue of apostolic succession: 1. Carl's wife died 2. Carl remarried shortly afterword, finding himself a new wife 3. Therefore, Carl is going to always find himself a new wife after each one dies, ad infitumThis last statement is bizarre and nosensical. For starters, Carl himself is going to die before long. Even if he outlives this new wife, nowhere are we told that he plans to marry again. We are simply jumping to unwarranted and silly conclusions. And lastly, 1. Bill is a partner is a business, and looses his partner somehow 2. Bill finds a new partner to replace this old one 2. Therefore, Bill is always going to find a new partner if he looses one, and, in the event of Bill's death, his parter at that time will find a replacement for him, and their sucessors will so the same thing, ad infinitumDo you see the humourous logical errors I am making? For starters, Bill has not told me anything of his plan. Just because he does this thing once, I am in no place to assume that he will always do this, or especially to assume that his parter will always do this, so that their business will carry on for all time. This is simply ridiculous, for countless reasons which don't need explaining. The only reason I would jump to this conclusion, is if, for whatever reason, I held to a predetermined belief in the continual sucession of Bill's business. Then I might take this paltry data I am supplied with and build my case upon it. But truly, If I take myself seriously in the process, I am to be pitied by all. I have a few points I'd like you to respond to: You are right that Catholic doctrine taches that the Pope is only infallible when he adresses the whole Church. However, it is a historical fact that the Pope never did this until 1300 AD. One of the primary reasons being, there wasn't a unified church over which he solely stood prior to this time. (If you doubt this fact, I recommend some serious historical research, starting with the book I am going to quote from in a bit here.) We must ask, what was the purpose of the pope up till then? Was his power simply suspended? What happened in all the time from Peter until the 5th century, when the bishop of Rome began to take prominence, or from then until centuries lateer when he arose as what we know know as the pope? What right does a church have to give Peter a title or office (Pope, Bishop of Rome, etc.) centuries after his death, which he never took himself in his lifetime, and then appoint a man who to be a successor to that office or title(s)? I'm going to supply a couple quotes from a book you must absolutely read if you take your faith seriously at all. Is is mainly historical analysis, looking at the pontifical history from Peter on down. It is called "Vicars of Christ" and was written by Peter de Rosa in 1988. (from pp. 34-37)As (St. Peter's Basilica) returns to normal, it is tempting to ask: If Peter were to arise from his tomb under the dome and be told that all this was erected in his honor, how would he react? ...The only fair question is: If Peter came back as a pilgrim, how would he judge what goes on in the Vatican by the standards of the Gospel.
Jesus was born in a stable. In his ministry, he had nowhere to lay his head. Today, his Vicar inhabits a palace with eleven thousand rooms. And then there is Castelgandalfo, overlooking the Alban Lake where pontiffs go to escape the summer heat. Beautiful Castelgandolfo, slightly larger than the Vatican, is there John Paul, at some cost, had a swimming pool built for personal use. Jesus renounced possessions. He constantly taught: "Go, sell all thou hast and give to the poor, then some and follow me." He preached doom to the rich and powerful. "Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, He said, where neither rust nor moth can spoil it.
Christ's Vicar lives surrounded by treasures, some of pagan origin. Any suggestion that the pope should sell all he has and give to the poor is greeted with derision as impractical. The rich young man in the gospel reacted in the same way. Throughout his life, Jesus lived simple; he died naked, offering the sacrifice of his life on the cross. When the pope renews that sacrifice at pontifical high mass, no grater contrast could be imagined. Without any sense of irony, Christ's Vicar is clad in gold and the costliest silks.
This has often been a source of scandal. For example, in the fourteenth century, the great Petrarch described a papal mass in Avignon which was far less splendid than the recent ceremony at St. Peter's. "I am astounded," Petrarch wrote, 'as I recall the pope's predecessors, to see these men loaded with gold and clad in purple. We seem to be among the kings of the Persians or the Parthians, before whom we must fall down and worship. O apostles and early popes, ye unkempt and emaciated old men, it is for this ye labored?"
Jesus only title was given him by Pilate in mockery: "King of the Jews." In the Pontifical Yearbook, Peter sees the pope has a dozen glorious titles, including State Sovereign. he would find Pontifex Maximus the most surprising, for in his time that was the title of the pagan high priest of Rome. Besides, Jesus was only a layman. The pope's aides also have titles somewhat unexpected in the light of the Sermon on the Mount: Excellency, Eminence, Your Grace, My Lord, illustrious One, Most Reverend, and so on.
However, the cardinal's hats that once brought in millions to the papal coffers are now handed over free of charge. But still their Eminences dress like royalty, even if their trains have been cut back recently by several yards. Impressions do matter. Those who dress in purple silk, live in palaces, sit on thrones- it is not easy for them to represent the Poor Man of Nazareth to the poor and starving of the world.
Only twice has John Paul called his cardinals together. Each time it was to discuss the parlous state of Vatican finances. Peter, always penniless, would be intrigued to know that according to canon 1518 of the 1917 code his successor is "the supremeadministrator and manager of all church properties." And that the Vatican has its own bank to which clients are only admitted if, in addition to sound references, they can provide something Peter himself never had: a baptismal certificate. The celibacy of the clergy, popes included, might also surprise Peter, seeing that Jesus chose him, knowing he was married.
Peter would finally be staggered at the sheer number of images in St. Peter's. He and his Master, as Jews, were opposed to religious images. God, whose very name could not be uttered, could not be represented, either. Reverence for One who dwells in inaccessible light demands the utmost reticence. Even the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem temple was but a bare dark room. In St. Peter's, Jesus is crucified at every altar. The basilica is decorated with statues of kneeling and reclining popes. Some figured and less than edifying. Pope Paul III, for instance, lies buried in the apse. His monument is adorned with reclining beauties, one of whom is Justice. Originally naked, she was fitted with a metal chemise, painted to look like the original marble, at the command of Pius IX. His Holiness had discovered that the model for Justice was Paul III's sister Giulia, the mistress of Pope Alexander VI.
Peter attended the simple ceremony of the Supper on the night before Jesus died. He knew that on that rock knoll outside Jerusalem, Jesus, previously reviled, scourged, spat upon, his head crowned with thorns, was stripped naked and crucified between two thieves. What connection, if any, Peter would wonder, is there between those events and a papal mass? Has all this pageantry distorted and trivialized the message of Jesus? How and by what tortuous paths has a small persecuted community traversed the seemingly infinite distance between Calvary and the Vatican? (from pp. 34) Decades passed. The bishop of Rome became increasingly important, especially when the Imperial Court was transferred to Constantinople in the 4th century. That left an enormous political, administrative and emotional gap. The Bishops of Rome were on hand, so to speak, to fill it. From this time on, the Bishops of Rome started to separate Peter from Paul, and applied to themselves the promises made in the gospel to Peter. Such was not the prestige of the Bishop of Rome that scholars searched the scriptures for texts that would underpin his role as civil leader and patriarch of the West. What would be neater than to apply texts which in the gospels refer only to Peter, to the bishop who rules in the city where Peter died?
The gospels did not create the papacy; the papacy, once in being, leaned for support on the gospels. This support did not come easily; it required skill to take statements made by a poor Carpenter to an equally poor Fisherman and apply them to a regal pontiff who was soon to be called Lord of the World.
(Latin phrase goes here.)
|
|
|
|
|
Entire Thread
|
Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:00 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:48 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:01 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:29 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:26 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:41 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:37 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:12 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
MarieP
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:55 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:08 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:56 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
CovenantInBlood
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:18 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:12 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
CovenantInBlood
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:09 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Henry
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:36 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:40 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Henry
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:16 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Henry
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:49 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Gileskirk
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:30 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Henry
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:58 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Gileskirk
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:17 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Gileskirk
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:27 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Henry
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:37 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:47 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Gileskirk
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:54 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:14 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Gileskirk
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:33 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Henry
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:51 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:36 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:08 PM
|
Popish Heresy
|
J_Edwards
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:34 PM
|
What I don't understand is...
|
TheClingingVine
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:25 PM
|
Re: What I don't understand is...
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:50 PM
|
Ask and ye shall receive....
|
TheClingingVine
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:33 PM
|
Re: Ask and ye shall receive....
|
Anonymous
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:12 AM
|
No, you're safe.
|
TheClingingVine
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:41 AM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Anonymous
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:15 AM
|
Yes, that's certainly what I always understood...
|
TheClingingVine
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:06 AM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Pilgrim
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:36 AM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Anonymous
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:48 PM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Henry
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:08 PM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Anonymous
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:42 PM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Henry
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:09 PM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Gileskirk
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:03 AM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Henry
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:02 AM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
CovenantInBlood
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:59 AM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Anonymous
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:53 AM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
CovenantInBlood
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:05 AM
|
Re: What I don't understand is...
|
Anonymous
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:49 PM
|
Still Waiting.........
|
J_Edwards
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:07 PM
|
Re: Still Waiting.........
|
Gileskirk
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:32 AM
|
Re: Still Waiting.........
|
Anonymous
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:08 AM
|
Yet Another Delay Tactic....
|
J_Edwards
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:16 AM
|
Re: Yet Another Delay Tactic....
|
neicey
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:16 PM
|
Re: Yet Another Delay Tactic....
|
J_Edwards
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:07 PM
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
93
guests, and
15
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|