The Papal State & Vatican City

DHK, if your take on the "local church" is both true and scriptural (versus traditional) then why would Paul submit himself to the Jerusalem church when he was, as you admit, a member of the Antioch church?

Seems that there is a fly in your ointment direct from the pages of Scripture.




The Biblicist, before you can make such grand and sweeping pronouncements concerning the RCC, you will have to demonstrate conclusively that they are indeed the harlot. Seeing as how much of Revelation remains yet prophecy, I would find that a difficult task unless one just "decides" that such is true. In that case, you may be guilty of a similar sort of error as was made by the Jewish leaders when Messiah stood in their midst. They too searched the Scriptures and brought forth pronouncements that later proved un-truthful because they were not based in surety of knowledge, but rather a choice of interpretation. Enough so that they supported the crucifixion of the very Son of God for blaspheming, well, Himself!

 

I didn't quote your whole response, but would not Islam also meet the same objectives?

 

>Where in the New Testament can there be found any church built by Christ that ruled over territories as a church state with ambassadors in other countries of the world?????????

AMEN!!!! Jesus, Paul, James, John . . . taught the Church to avoid politics and civil courts. Republican Baptists should heed their recommendation.

 

The following copied from "Churchand Statein Early Christianity" authored by
Hugo Rahner --other parts from Catechism of Catholic Church

You must read it to settle this issue of CHURCH and STATE

What, then, does the Church think about the state? Historically, beginning with Jesus himself, it has said to governments at the same time yes and no. And the Church maintains a delicate balance between her yes and her no. In his book, Church and State in Early Christianity, Hugo Rahner writes, "The Church has never confronted the state with a ‘no’ of inflexible refusal dictated by an other-worldly mysticism or with a ‘yes’ of unqualified acceptance based on political indifference. The Church of the martyrs with a sure political instinct illuminated by grace knew how to find a balance between ‘yes’ and ‘no.’"

Let’s look more closely at that yes and no.

First, the Church says a profound yes to the state, and this is rooted in a very simple fact: All authority, all power, comes from God. Therefore obeying earthly, civil authority becomes part of our obedience to God.

Scripture is filled with examples of this. Perhaps one of the most striking is in the book of the prophet Jeremiah. Even when the state and the powers of civil authority are persecuting believers, believers are exhorted to be good citizens. We read that God’s people are being taken into exile in Babylon. Yet they’re not told to create a revolution. They’re not called to overthrow the Babylonians. What are they called to do?

Thus says the Lord of hosts, to the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives, have sons and daughters. Take wives for your sons that they may bear sons and daughters. Multiply there, do not decrease. Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile and pray to the Lord on its behalf for in its welfare you will find your welfare. (Jer 29:4-7)

Seek the welfare of the city even if the city is holding you in exile.

We’re even more familiar with the New Testament exhortations. Peter, for example says:

Maintain good contact among the Gentiles, so that in case they speak against you as wrongdoers they may see your good deeds and glorify God . . . Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme or to governors . . . Honor all men, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the emperor. (1 Pt 2:12-13, 17)

And then of course we find the exhortation to pay taxes and the example of Jesus paying the temple tax and taking the coin out of the mouth of the fish to do so.

So to put it simply, the fact that we are citizens of heaven (Phil 3:20) does not give us the right to ignore our duties as citizens of earth. One of the old criticisms of religion is that because we focus on the world to come we are less concerned about this one. But the Church’s teaching has always been very clear: Preparing for the world to come makes us more concerned about this one. After all, we want to spend eternity with the person next to us. God is preparing for us new heavens and a new earth—not some kind of totally disconnected world that has nothing to do with the things that go on in this life.

Nonetheless, the Church also says a clear no to the state. That no is grounded in the very nature of a kingdom not of this world. When Pilate asked Jesus if he was a king, Jesus replied that his kingdom was not of this world (Jn 18:36). When Jesus was asked, "Is it lawful to pay the tax to Caesar? ," notice what Jesus does in response. He asks whose image and inscription are on the coin. They say "Caesar’s." "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s," he tells them (that’s the yes to the state) "but give to God what is God’s" (that’s the no; see Mt 17:24-27, 22:17-21). In other words there’s something higher here. There’s a duty to be given. Now, from where does that duty flow? Think of what he said. The coin belongs to Caesar because it bears the image of Caesar, so give it to him. But "give to God what belongs to God." That belongs to God which bears the image of God, namely human beings—including Caesar himself! So Christ establishes the framework. Caesar himself belongs to God. The state itself belongs to God.

The Church has always taught that the state does not contain the fullness of human hope or embrace the totality of human existence. The state exists for the human person, not the other way around. Our destiny, ultimately, is the new heavens and the new earth. So we can never put our ultimate hope and trust in what the state can do for us. In this consists the Church’s no to the state. It frees us from the myth of some kind of political salvation. The Church is the first to say that we are not asked to put ultimate hope and trust in any political party, candidate or system. Those things do play a key role but never merit our ultimate hope or trust. Our destiny is not comprised by this world alone.

That does not mean, however, that we can shirk our responsibilities. We can’t walk away saying, "Oh, we can’t rely on those people anyway; they’re all crooked, they never keep their promises."

God’s Law Comes First
In this context, then, we can return to the question with which we began. What would we do if a law were passed in our country outlawing attendance at Mass?

Hopefully, we would have the courage to disobey it.

The Catechism asserts in its own words the Church’s yes and no to the state in sections 1897-1904 and again in 2234 to 2243. It explains that we are "resident aliens." Our citizenship is in heaven, and only there is our ultimate loyalty. Hence, if that loyalty conflicts with our loyalty to civic authority, loyalty to God must prevail.

Having said this, the Catechism then explicitly talks about the proper role civil disobedience can play, if circumstances warrant. We have to obey authority, it reminds us. But the role of authority "is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society" (1898). Sometimes authority will fail in doing so.

It explains such a circumstance in this way:

Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility: A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence. (1902)

Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse. (1903)

Our duty in such cases is explained a bit later in the Catechism:

The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." "We must obey God rather than men":

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the law of the gospel. (2242)

 

When Jesus was asked, "Is it lawful to pay the tax to Caesar? ," notice what Jesus does in response. He asks whose image and inscription are on the coin. They say "Caesar’s." "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s," he tells them (that’s the yes to the state) "but give to God what is God’s" (that’s the no; see Mt 17:24-27, 22:17-21). In other words there’s something higher here. There’s a duty to be given. Now, from where does that duty flow? Think of what he said. The coin belongs to Caesar because it bears the image of Caesar, so give it to him. But "give to God what belongs to God." That belongs to God which bears the image of God, namely human beings—including Caesar himself! So Christ establishes the framework. Caesar himself belongs to God. The state itself belongs to God.

 

No, both belong to God. Everything that is Catholic comes from God, a state of [governing ourselves ] government that too is accepted by God and Jesus established a "teaching authorative Church" [ my church in Matt. 16 ] that Church has to be involved in the state so as it is under a jurisdiction of God's authorative teachings, if possible. Some governments are godless.Would you prefer a godless government? Too bad that many have that same attitude of secularism.

 

Do you mean like Innocent III? Is he a good enough example for you?
You do know of his accomplishments don't you?

 

Let me remind you just in case:
http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/innocentIII.html

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/rulers/innocentiii.html?start=2

 

Just wondering if it is a greater sin to slaughter 15,000 or just burning one solitary man at the stake on a slow roast?

 

Why do you have to wonder? Do you have plans?

 

DNK, please inform us about the Protestant peasent wars. Did those Prots not burn others at the stake ???Besides , Jesus never said that the members of His Apostolic Church would be perfect ,to the contrary , this tension of there being "good' and 'bad' members of His One True Church is one foretold by Jesus in Matt 13: 24-30 and again in Matt.13: 1-9. And as St. Paul told St. Timothy : " If we are unfaithful , he remains faithful , for he cannot deny himself " [ 2 Tim. 2;13 ]

 

This is a Baptist Board. Baptists were not Protestants and never had any part in the Reformation. Now go back to your history books and please tell us where Baptists ever persecuted anyone. Does "not being perfect" include the slaughter of 15,000 innocent people in just one crusade authorized by just one man. Shall I list all the others along with the various inquisitions that add evil upon evil, inherent in the RCC?

 

Does it matter what means the Pope will use to reach his end of globalization of the RCC?

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...-benetton-withdraws-ad-showing-pope-imam-kiss

 

DNK, So where in deep Christian history does the word "Baptist" appear besides in the name of John the Baptist? Do you mean that you are saying that 'Baptists' are not followers of Jesus but of John the Baptists ? Because that is what i am hearing you admit.

I've produced the Bible verses that tell us that Jesus said His Church would contain "good and bad ' members . I now suppose you are also in disagreement with those verses, being that your church has all perfect members. so I quess Jesus wasn't speaking about all your church's "saved members ''.Can't be the church that Jesus was speaking about, nope , not your church.

 

I am not the one that brought up John the Baptist, and I don't agree with that position. I believe that Baptist churches or at least churches that are Baptist in doctrine have existed since the Apostles. Take the testimony of Cardinal Hosius in 1300. His statement that the Waldenses have existed for the last 1200 years dating right back to the Apostles. The Waldenses were Baptistic in doctrine. Even the Catholics admit it.

However, there is no "Church" only "churches."

Our church is small. In membership we admit only those that have been regenerated (saved), and then baptized. Their testimonies speak for themselves. Yes, we can be fairly sure that all those who are members of "our assembly" are saved, made perfect in Christ.

Yes He was. He was speaking of every church that is based on the Bible and has Christ as the head. That excludes the RCC.