The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by CatholicConvert, Jan 16, 2003.

  1. CatholicConvert

    CatholicConvert
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    For Brother Neal

    "Earthly realities speak to us of heavenly truths which we could not understand if told of them. (Heb 8:5 & 9:24). God has created an earth which has many such truths to help us understand the unknowable.

    Why did God create man and woman? Why did God create man as the head of woman? Because Adam and Eve were a witness to creation of the unseen God. They were created in the image and likeness of the Godhead, that is, the Father and the Word, from whose union processes the Spirit of God. Note that in the well known verse in John 1, it says "In the beginning was The Word. And the Word was with God..." The Spirit of God is the "life giving Spirit" according to ancient Liturgical hymns, and His procession comes from the union of God and the Word.

    Likewise, on earth, from the union of man and woman comes life. It is a picture of heavenly reality.

    In a family, there is the covenantal head. Headship over the human family began with Adam. His headship was a gift from the Father. He was given authority over the creation and told to grow by taking dominion over all things. This is what covenantal sons do. They are trained and grow by that training towards the day in which they inherit the headship of the family and administer the covenant when the patriarch has passed on. Thus, a covenant has succession (or continuity) from generation to generation. It does not pass away.

    In the redemptive plan, God brought forth many who were “aw-dawm” (Adam , or COVENANTAL HEAD = mankind). Adam being the first, was the head over all earth and as God’s eldest created eldest son, the administrator of the covenant over the family which would come from his loins. From Adam, after the Fall, came others though whom God expanded the covenant, enlarging it and revealing it more clearly. Noah, Moses, Abraham, David, and Jesus who is the Christ. To each of these men were made promises by which the covenant was both enlarged and more deeply revealed. In our Lord Jesus Christ, we see the completion of this covenant as it is enlarged to include now the whole world (John 3:16) and revealed in fullness that the Son of God has come to be the Last Adam –the head of the Father’s family for all time. In this son is God well pleased. In the authority of the Son, therefore, as the inheritor of the covenantal headship, does the inheritance (eternal life) rest, and Scripture says that HE will give the blessings of this inheritance to all the faithful among His brothers and sisters. This happens at the Judgement, where Christ is seated as covenantal head/judge and determines the faithfulness to the covenantal family of each man and woman ever alive and what shall be their destiny.

    When earth and heaven are once again one and the separation of the curse passes away, the Son of Man shall be the family head, the Elder Brother of the covenant who administers the Father’s kingdom in power and glory. But until that time, earth and heaven and heaven are separate. The Son of God rules in the realm of Heaven. But He is not physically present on earth to rule, therefore, He must find an “alter christus”. A head over the family of God on earth must be selected and given authority so that the type on earth properly resembles the type in Heaven. What is true of the spiritual realm must be properly shown in types in the earthly realm.

    Which is why our Lord appointed an OFFICE of leadership in Matthew 16: 18 - 19. This is why the keys of the kingdom were only given to ONE MAN. They were not give to each of the twelve present there. They were not handed to St. Peter and then passed from hand to hand of each of the apostles. One office was created and one man was blessed to be the first to hold that office and its authority.

    Please remember this if you don’t remember anything else I say about the office of the
    pope on earth: It is the office which gives its authority to the man – NOT the other way around. No man who holds the papacy brings anything to that office. It is the office which blesses the man with infallibility.

    In God we have the existence of One who exists as family. In Heaven now, we have Two people in the flesh who are the realization and redemption of the covenantal family of mankind, the creation. We have the Blessed Virgin and Jesus, the two who were, like Adam and Eve, created without sin in flesh. The difference with Jesus, of course, is that He carried within His sinless body not only the nature of man, but the nature of Christ. Two divine natures separate and not co-mingled, in one person. Thus, when I talk about Jesus, I am discussing the fleshly Son of God who was created just like Adam.

    Both the Blessed Virgin and Jesus are in Heaven now, as the King and Queen of the created race of beings called human beings, and the children they have brought forth by their headship over all are the saints who join them and one day will also be resurrected in their flesh to be a complete family and representation of the Godhead itself. In this way, Jesus the Christ is able to be the perfect High Priest in Heaven. The role of the priest on earth is to be a bridge between the spiritual and the physical. In one body we have both. The fleshly Jesus – the divine Christ. One person in Whom both natures reside.

    But the King Jesus and Queen Mary are in Heaven, exercising the divine rule which is theirs by dint of Christ’s perfect obedience. What then of the earth?

    On earth, we yet have two earthly and physical institutions which parallel the covenantal headship of Heaven in the Christ Jesus and the Blessed Virgin. The male covenantal head of the whole covenantal family on earth is the one we call our Holy Father. He leads and directs all in a position of absolute authority, but not as a dictator, but as the chief shepherd among many shepherds on earth. Under His rule is the Church, which corresponds to the Blessed Virgin. This is why Catholic theology sees the Blessed Virgin as a type of the Church, for as she gave her life to Him in the sharing of her flesh to be come His flesh, nurtured, raised, and trained the Son of God in holiness, tenderly caring for Him as an infant, lovingly raising Him as a child, and weeping over Him in His death, so the Church is the instrument by which God gives life to His sons and daughters. It is the Church which is here to nurture the infant Christian, to raise these “god babies” in holiness, and to see them mature into the likeness of Christ, which is the goal of all who profess His name. The parallels, for those who have eyes to see, are indeed striking.

    It is inconceivable therefore that the office of the Holy Father could ever be tainted by error. If such was allowed to happen, God would no longer be producing sons and daughters out of the Church which is the Bride of Christ. This is why the promise of Matthew 16: 18 is so important:

    Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    For any man to sit in the Chair of St. Peter and in the office of the Holy Father, the covenantal head and leader of the earthly family, to teach error and heresy, would be for the Church not only to be prevailed against by the gates of hell, but to actually join league with those gates. Thus in Matthew 16: 18 we find the basis of the doctrine of Infallibility. There are Protestants who object that this was not taught until the Vatican Council of 1870, therefore it is an “invention of the corrupted papacy” and is invalid. But they who say such things show their entire lack of understanding of God’s covenantal promises and principles regarding His earthly family. No more would He allow His covenantal head on earth to teach error than He would allow His divine Son to see corruption. The papacy is protected by a promise from the Son of God which is a strong lock to keep out error in moral and doctrinal teaching. This is why, when all the assemblies which have come into existence as descendants of the Protestant Rebellion are falling head over heels to teach and promote immorality, the Catholic Church continues to stand against such teachings, despite the howls of outrage by God haters (Romans 1: 30) who are bereft of spiritual knowledge, spiritual sight, and possibly spiritual birth.

    One by one, these splinter groups have arisen, thinking that they alone are thepossessors and teachers of complete truth. And one by one they eventually have fallen into error and caved in to the demands of the world which hates Christian doctrine and teaching. The latest of these is the PCA, who, caving into the political correctness of the feminist crowd, have changed the Nicene Creed to become more PC and unoffensive. Instead of reading “....who for us MEN and our salvation came down from Heaven....” to the more feminist acceptable “...who for us and our salvation”. Seventeen hundred years of orthodoxy are thrown out the window because it might offend someone to recite a Creed which reinforces the patriarchal nature of God’s covenantal family. One only wonders “What next?” I am sure that J. Gresham Machen is rolling over in his grave. May I say that it is not too far down the road, perhaps two or three hundred years, that this body will see the abomination of so called “women pastors” infest them also.

    And the reason for this is quite simple. By severing themselves from the covenantal head of the earthly family, the Holy Father in Rome, they took themselves right out from the promise of Matthew 16: 18 and the protection afforded under that promise. They are like children wandering outside of their Father’s castle, building silly little houses of their own and feeding upon theological Twinkies and Moon Pies when inside the castle awaits the most nourishing banquet imaginable. Yet because they are self willed, stubborn, and consider their human knowledge to be greater than that which they do not understand, they stubbornly remain outside the Father’s mansion. It is sad indeed.

    There is only one family. There is only one God who exists in a divine covenantal family. There is only one heavenly family of the redeemed, headed by the Last Adam and the New Eve as the covenantal heads. And on earth there is only one physical family of God. It is the Catholic Church, the great Mother of all the living, headed by her earthly head, the Holy Father who resides in Rome. Break that and what do you have? Certainly not a family. Our brothers in Orthodoxy refuse to see this. Their answer. A body with no head. The Protestants refuse to see this. Their answer? A body with hundreds and hundreds of “heads”. Neither one of those earthly pictures keeps the body imagery of the heavenly reality intact.The only body on earth which properly represents and parallels the spiritual truth of Heaven’s reality is the Catholic Church."

    From the book "THE DANCE OF ISAIAH" The Joy of the Covenantal Family that is the Catholic Church.

    There it is. The reason that there must be a single, physical, human head over the covenantal family on earth is that it is the only form of Church governance which properly reflects the the true covenantal family in Heaven.

    Okay.

    Your turn.

    Brother Ed

    [ January 16, 2003, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]
     
  2. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    First off Ed, before I start to discuss this with you, thank-you for taking the time to come up with this, I appreciate it. Please, DO NOT take it like I am blowing off what you have posted. I hope to remain civil and I will personally try to avoid sarcasm and personal attacks and overgeneralized statements, as I hope that any who post in here will too.

    Okay, let's begin!

    Okay, but can't this be taken a little too far in trying to make everything into a representative of God? You come to a point where you are forcing things to be types.

    I don't really understand this. Is this saying that the Holy Spirit was created from some sort of union between the Father and the Word?

    This is an assumption that is in no way supported. Where is it ever stated and what support is there that there needs to be an "alter christus"?

    Again, where is this mandate that everything in the spiritual realm must have a type in the earthly realm? That is an assumption.

    Okay, first an office is set up and then one man gets the keys? If you really look at it, it is only Peter and Peter alone who gets the keys. There is no office set up! Why is there a need for an office? Jesus did not say "And upon this rock and those following you I will build my church." That is again reading into the text that an office is created. The plain reading is that Christ is talking to Peter and no one else, not a line of people or an office. All this hinges on the interpretation of the passage, which I don't agree with you to begin with, that Peter is the rock. I see Christ as the Rock. But even reading it your way, you have to eisegete that there is an "office" created.

    I understand this is where you stand.

    I don't want to get into the second Eve again ( :D ) but this is a huge leap. With the evidence we are given in Scripture, you have to do a lot of eisegeting to get to a sinless perpetual virgin Mary who is now the queen of heaven. Say what you will, but there is no clear passage that even begins to justify this position and leap to say that Mary is the queen of heaven. Surely if God wanted to reveal it He would have included something about in His Word.

    Again, huge amounts of eisegesis leads us to this. One thing I would point out, Jesus has a rightful position over us because He is our Creator. Mary is created.

    Again, you only get to this position by eisegesis. Do you see how it builds layer upon layer and you get farther and farther away from Scripture? The reason you are looking for two earthly institutions is because it is ASSUMED that there are two heavenly institutions, arrived at by eisegesis. What about the earthly institution of marriage (first shown in Adam and Eve) to show Christ's marriage with the Church, His bride, not with Mary, His mother? Ephesians 5:22-33 makes this pretty clear. Not Christ and Mary.

    It would be if they were necessary. Again, Eph. 5 makes it clear as to what the marriage institution represents. That is indeed striking.

    If there was ever an office created.

    I thought Mary was the Bride of Christ? Which one is it? (Before you say that you did not call Mary the Bride of Christ, look at what you are basing your whole position on. Adam and Eve = groom and bride. King and Queen = groom and bride.) Following your logic, the Church is the Bride of the Holy Father, the Pope. Remember, earthly types represent heavenly ones. So if Christ and Mary are in heaven (which I do not agree about Mary to begin with), then the Church is clearly the Bride of the Holy Father as a representation of Christ and Mary. The Church then can not be the Bride of Christ as well. You are using that title for two different things.

    By eisegesis. Infallibility is not even mentioned, along with any office. Say what you want, you have to read into it to get that out of it.

    Really? And you are upset at many of the things that the Catholic Church is now doing? If you remember, it is the Catholic Church in the USA who has fallen into gross immorality as well.

    This is an amazing statement. It could well apply to the Catholic Church also.

    What of the Catholic Church and homosexuality and pedophilia? There were leaders who seemed to ignore these problems when they knew they existed.

    Built on eisegesis and assumption. The Catholic Church has had its share of problems recently and seems be stumbling.

    No, I do not say hundreds and hundreds of heads. I see one, Christ. See Eph. 5:23.

    Mine has no conflict with heavenly reality spelled out in Scripture. As I pointed out, the Catholic position introduces problems. What happens to Mary one day? Is she bumped out of the way by the Church? They are not both the Bride of Christ in a family system.

    There is not the need for that. Where is Scriptural basis for many of the things assumed? It is eisegesis built on eisegesis. You can say what you want about Sola Scriptura, but you have to have a base to build on. When traditions are not supported by Scripture and contradict Scripture (Eph. 5 and this whole issue), one or the other is wrong. If you say Scripture is wrong, then you have nothing to base your faith on at all. If you say tradition is wrong, well, then begins to crumble the RCC.

    Again, thank-you for your effort Ed. You tell me to think all the time, but you think too. Let's stay cool and collected in this thread, as I hope that others who post will too.

    Neal

    [ January 17, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]
     
  3. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of interest is the fact that the Bishop of Rome wasn't very instrumental in anything for several hundred years after the Resurrection. Note his absence from the Council at Nicea in 325 ad...
     
  4. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi tragic_pizza,

    That's a very interesting handle (i.e. tragic_pizza).

    You wrote, "Of interest is the fact that the Bishop of Rome wasn't very instrumental in anything for several hundred years after the Resurrection."

    I would contend that your assertion is false.

    The first example I can think of is the strong rebuke Clement of Rome sent to the Church in Corinth circa 80 when John, the eldest of the Apostles, was still alive and well in Ephesus, which means that he, John, resided much closer to Corinth.

    Ignatius of Antioch circa 110 writes, "Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1).

    Ireaneus writes in 189, "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2).

    You also wrote, "Note his absence from the Council at Nicea in 325

    Yes, and let's also note the presence of the two papal legates - Victor and Vincentius - at the Council of Nicea. [​IMG]

    residing upon the bark of Peter,

    Carson
     
  5. LisaMC

    LisaMC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    CC,

    I hope to get more in depth with you later. However, I wanted to post quickly:

    Augustine

    On Christian Doctrine

    Chapter 18.-The Keys Given to the Church.


    17. He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven;14 that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.
     
  6. LisaMC

    LisaMC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carson,

    You quoted from Ignatius,
    I guess meaning can be misconstrued in the translation and terminology.

    From the New Advent Site, Catholic Encyclopedia:

    The phrase, ". . . which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans," does not mean that the church in Rome presides over the entirety of christendom.

    Preside: 1) to serve as chairman; 2) to have control or authority (over)

    So, let's rephrase the statement from Ignatius, "Ignatius . . . to the church which has control and authority in the place of the report of the Romans."

    There is no reason to believe that Ignatius believed the authority in Rome went any further than the boundaries of Rome.

    God Bless!!!!!!!!!!
     
  7. CatholicConvert

    CatholicConvert
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Neal --

    Well, first off, let me assert something which I have said before -- I am NOT a professional theologian. In fact, with the possible exception of our seminarian, Carson, I don't think there are too many of us on the board who are. Therefore, the things which I have posted are more of my opinion as I try to piece things together than they are "infallibilities". :D

    Okay, but can't this be taken a little too far in trying to make everything into a representative of God? You come to a point where you are forcing things to be types.

    I would agree that there has to be care with this. I don't think that I overstepped the typology when I was considering all this.

    I first began with Adam and Eve and looked at their relationship. They are said to be made "in the image" of God, which I think gives me certain license with them.

    So -- what were they? Son and Daughter of God.

    How was their relationship defined -- Covenantal Marriage Union.

    And now the big question -- why did God choose to create man and woman like that and in that relationship? Surely God could have left man single and able to tend the Garden by Himself. But apparently there was a certain purpose which could only be fulfilled in the creating of TWO beings who were "one flesh" in their relationship

    "Ge 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

    I think it safe to say therefore that the union experienced by Adam and Eve before the Fall was indeed the "image of God" and the image of the union of the Blessed Trinity.

    I don't really understand this. Is this saying that the Holy Spirit was created from some sort of union between the Father and the Word?

    I am a tad shy on this, because I just came across this concept and have not gotten into the deeps of it, but I do not wish to say that the Holy Spirit is any less a part of the Blessed Trinity, which would be heresy. Yet I heard a teaching that the union of the Father and the Word produces brings forth the life giving Holy Spirit, just as the union of man and woman brings forth a child. It seems to me that the child is the essence of both the parents -- it is not all of one or the other, but the combination of both and without both could not be. There is something there, but I have not researched this out as much as I would like. I think you might find it fruitful to meditate upon the similarities yourself.

    This is an assumption that is in no way supported. Where is it ever stated and what support is there that there needs to be an "alter christus"?

    If you understand the hierarchial principle of the covenantal family, a family must always have a head. All covenantal families have a head. Adam was the first. Then came the patriarchial families of the Jewish nation, which were, in my estimation, a type of the Church. (Catholic and Orthodox theology refer to the family as "the domestic church" and the father as the "priest of the family").

    Since the One Who is the covenantal head of the whole Church has been taken to Heaven to rule and reign, the earthly family needs a physical and visible head over it.

    Again, where is this mandate that everything in the spiritual realm must have a type in the earthly realm? That is an assumption.

    No, my friend, it is the truth of Hebrews 9: 24 and 8:5. You know, I heard a really interesting program on the local Christian radio the other day in which the teacher went to great lengths to show how there are numerous triads in nature and science which prove the existence of the Blessed Trinity. Space, for instance, has depth, length, and height. I don't remember all the examples he gave, but it was a neat show.

    Okay, first an office is set up and then one man gets the keys? If you really look at it, it is only Peter and Peter alone who gets the keys. There is no office set up! Why is there a need for an office? Jesus did not say "And upon this rock and those following you I will build my church." That is again reading into the text that an office is created. The plain reading is that Christ is talking to Peter and no one else, not a line of people or an office.

    Ac 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

    Would it make you feel better if I called it the "bishoprick" instead of office? :D

    25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

    Judas forfeited his place and another took it. One also may forfeit that office by death.

    All this hinges on the interpretation of the passage, which I don't agree with you to begin with, that Peter is the rock.

    Well, that is the problem. You are viewing what is written from an antagonistic viewpoint rather than opening your mind and saying "Hey....could it really be?"

    [b\I see Christ as the Rock. But even reading it your way, you have to eisegete that there is an "office" created.{/b]

    Neal, my friend, I just showed the passing on of the office of an apostle right from Scripture. There is nothing in Scripture which indicates that these "offices" would end with the dying out of the last apostles. This is the testimony of the Early Fathers also, and one must insist that they got this understanding from the apostles who taught them.

    And you have to ask yourself if our Lord would set up authority with the first bishops of the Church and then leave the sheep helpless after this generation passed away? It certainly doesn't seem like any way to run a Church.

    I don't want to get into the second Eve again but this is a huge leap. With the evidence we are given in Scripture, you have to do a lot of eisegeting to get to a sinless perpetual virgin Mary who is now the queen of heaven. Say what you will, but there is no clear passage that even begins to justify this position and leap to say that Mary is the queen of heaven. Surely if God wanted to reveal it He would have included something about in His Word.

    I know, but you are going to have to deal with the fact that God created Adam and Eve as human beings. People who were triadic in nature -- body, soul, and spirit. Therefore, to redeem that which was lost, the HUMAN BEINGS IN FLESHLY BODIES, there simply must be an Eve - a PHYSICAL PERSON, to Jesus' Last Adam. He is the Son of Man, which speaks to His human nature, His flesh, His perfected humanity.

    Also, with the creation of Adam and Eve, you need to again go back to God's original plan and ask "What was God doing and where was this plan going?'

    What He was doing was creating a son (Luke 3:38) who would grow into kingship. That is what the son of a king does -- he grows up to be a king. That is what the MAN, Jesus, did. He was a man, born of woman, who was perfected in the flesh (Heb. 5:9) and thus became the King of Glory. He went from Son of God to King of the Universe in this promotion.

    When you see Jesus, you see what Adam COULD HAVE BECOME. (Adam, of course, did not have the divine nature which was in Christ, the Son of God). It is fairly easy to exegete out that if this was the destiny of Adam, then the destiny of Eve was to be the Queen of the Creation alongside her husband, the king. Therefore, there needs be a new queen to the One Who is King. Your refusal to allow for this leaves the redemption incomplete.

    Again, huge amounts of eisegesis leads us to this. One thing I would point out, Jesus has a rightful position over us because He is our Creator. Mary is created.

    Jesus was not our Creator. Christ was. Jesus was the Son of Man. Christ was the Son of God. Do not forget that you are dealing with one person with two unique, different and unmingled natures. Your problem is that you are not separating them out properly. The man, Jesus, son of Mary, was a HUMAN BEING just like Adam. The Christ, the Son of God, in the same person, was God Incarnate. Keep them separate!

    What about the earthly institution of marriage (first shown in Adam and Eve) to show Christ's marriage with the Church, His bride, not with Mary, His mother?

    Again, you are not separating the two natures of the person. Jesus is IN THE FLESH. He is perfected humanity. Therefore, He must have one who is also perfected humanity in the feminine. Christ, as God, as spiritual being, would have the Church spiritual as His Bride. The Church physical on earth then would represent the unseen spiritual reality of the Church. And the Church on earth then would have to have a covenantal head, a leader over Her.

    Ephesians 5:22-33 makes this pretty clear.

    Yes, Christ is the Head of the Church. Won't deny this. But you must not deny the physical aspect of the redemption which involves redeeming Adam and Eve in physical bodies.

    Adam ("aw-dahm") means mankind, and it speaks to the headship of that position as covenantal head. All of mankind was to be under Aw-dahm.

    Eve means "Mother of all living". It was she who was to bring forth all life from her womb. Instead, she brought forth death from her disobedience. The Blessed Virgin, taking the place of Eve, brought forth all life from Her womb by bringing forth He Who would crush death by His death, and would give life to a multitude.

    I thought Mary was the Bride of Christ? Which one is it? (Before you say that you did not call Mary the Bride of Christ, look at what you are basing your whole position on. Adam and Eve = groom and bride. King and Queen = groom and bride.) Following your logic, the Church is the Bride of the Holy Father, the Pope.

    THAT'S RIGHT!!!! Because the Church on earth and the Holy Father are just TYPES!!!

    Remember, earthly types represent heavenly ones. So if Christ and Mary are in heaven (which I do not agree about Mary to begin with), then the Church is clearly the Bride of the Holy Father as a representation of Christ and Mary. The Church then can not be the Bride of Christ as well. You are using that title for two different things.

    The Bible is full of such dualities. For instance, is our Lord a lion or a lamb? Well? Is He the door, or the living bread? You are laboring under the problem of either/or thinking when Catholics look at the mysteries of God as both/and.

    Of course, again I correct you to remind you that it is JESUS AND MARY who are in Heaven. HUMAN BEINGS. Yes, Jesus the Christ is divine, but remember His two separate natures and keep them separate. Then you will not hit these snags.

    Really? And you are upset at many of the things that the Catholic Church is now doing? If you remember, it is the Catholic Church in the USA who has fallen into gross immorality as well.

    Yup. And there are going to be a lot of sodomite priest who are going to be HORRIFIED on the day of Christ's holy Judgement. But that does not change the Church just because the tares have grown in it. It is still the "pillar and ground" of truth (1 Tim 3: 15) and I think the proof of that is that we still have not seen the moral or doctrinal stance of the Church changed despite EVERYTHING and EVERYONE in it who HATE HER.

    This is an amazing statement. It could well apply to the Catholic Church also.

    No, it cannot. The splinter groups are those who keep schismating over doctrinal issues. They form new "churches" and denominations because they cannot agree with each other. There is still only one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church on earth, and someday, those in Her who are rebellious, apostates, and just plain old wicked, are going to git a woodsheddin' that they are going to regret for all eternity.

    What of the Catholic Church and homosexuality and pedophilia? There were leaders who seemed to ignore these problems when they knew they existed.

    WHY do you not understand that this is not the same thing? The Presbyterians were changing a 1700 year old Creed which had stood for orthodoxy for centuries. That is not the same thing as being ADMINISTRATIVE IDIOTS (which believe me, most of the bishops have been).

    One of the problems, which has been documented, is that for some strange reason, 30 years ago the bishops choose to listen to the sex researcher Kinsey (a real pervert if there ever was one) when he counseled them about what to do with this problem.

    Another problem is that there has been a real deep seated movement to infiltrate the Church. Masons, Illuminati, and the usual riff raff of sodomites, feminists, and generally morally dispicable types who just HATE the moral teaching of the Church, began plotting years ago to try to take Her over and change Her teachings. So far - utter failure, but they have made a considerable mess of things because the bishops were ill-equiped to handle these things.

    No, I do not say hundreds and hundreds of heads. I see one, Christ.

    You are not looking then, sir. Tell me then, WHO is your head. Jerry Falwell? Bob Jones? Jack Hyles? There has to be leadership on earth, a single head which controls the Body.

    Mine has no conflict with heavenly reality spelled out in Scripture. As I pointed out, the Catholic position introduces problems. What happens to Mary one day? Is she bumped out of the way by the Church? They are not both the Bride of Christ in a family system.

    You know, that is a somewhat intriging question, but I don't actually think it is going to be without answer. Hey, you gave me something to meditate on!!! Thanks!! :D

    There is not the need for that.

    You ARE joking, right? Look around you. Christianity is fractured and fractuous. There is no unified voice, there is more fighting than evangelizing, there is complete lack of moral voice (ordaining women and sodomites, etc.)

    You know, one thing I have been thinking about in the last week is this:

    When St. Peter and St. Paul were over the Church, they had POWER and AUTHORITY (Just ask Annaias and Saphira!!). WHERE is that power today? You know, authority comes with power. Where there is no power, there is no authority, right? I just keep wondering if people would take the Church a tad more seriously if there was to be a great demonstration of power. Perhaps the Holy Father could adjunt his letter to the politicians today by telling them "If you support abortion, the Eucharist will be a curse in your mouth"

    And then let's see the fun begin. I think if a few pro-abort politicians dropped dead at the altar rail (*gasp* Ed!!!! You are sooooooo un luuuuuving!!!) that people might get the idea that this is not a game nor a joke. That is what I see a lot of people, ESPECIALLY POLITICIANS, treating the Church as right now!!

    Hey!!! God didn't wince when Annaias and Saphira dropped dead, and what they did pales in comparison to 40 million dead babies!!!

    Again, thank-you for your effort Ed. You tell me to think all the time, but you think too. Let's stay cool and collected in this thread, as I hope that others who post will too.

    Brother Neal, you have my respect and admiration for this last statement. I do understand where you are coming from. I am sure that if you had posited these ideas in front of me 20 years ago I would have gone ballistic! But time, study, and change have opened my eyes to things I never saw before. I know they are hard to see, and I thank you for even considering them with the graciousness which you have demonstrated in your response.

    I also understand your concern that these things seem to take away from the honor and glory of our Lord. Certainly we must concern ourselves with that. I see them as God's "chain of command" so to speak. And He is the Great King over all of this which speaks of Him.

    Cordially in Christ,

    Brother Ed
     
  8. LisaMC

    LisaMC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carson,

    Let's expand on your quote from Iraneaus.

    I'm going to take the quote back to the paragraph preceeding your above quote.

    Once again I quote from the New Advent Site.

    1. Notice Iraneaus states the Church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul. Sort of negates the claim that Peter alone was Pope.

    2. This church is referred to as very, very great. That does not necessarily equal to superior authority.

    3. Iraneaus says that it is necessary that every church agree with this church due to it's pre-eminent authority. Agree with does not equal obey.

    4) The agreement is to be with the church at Rome and not the chair of the church of Rome.

    5) It would be possible to trace the succession of bishops from all the churches, however Iraneaus chose the church at Rome because of its universality as the example.

    Iraneaus' teachings to not support the theology of the Papacy.

    [ January 17, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]
     
  9. CatholicConvert

    CatholicConvert
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lisa --

    You are not doing your Baptist buddies a lot of favors by proving the existence of St. Peter in Rome. Kinda plays right into our hands.

    You are engaging in the very thing you accuse us of -- reading into the text. It says that Peter and Paul founded the Church. That can have a variety of meanings, however, for you to keep your Protestant defense shield on alert, you INSIST that it places St. Peter and St. Paul on equal footing.

    It does nothing of the sort.

    I continue to be amazed at Protestants who toss proof texts at us and say "SEE SEE SEE!!!" and then refuse to accept the texts we give for our positions. You torture the Scriptures and take things out of context and expect us to just roll over and say "Oh. My bad!!!! How could I be so dumb!! Where do I go to convert to being a ____________(whatever)?" just on the strength of your saying that a verse has a certain meaning.

    Augustine's ideas do NOT speak for the whole Church at that time anymore than the rebellious Catholic theoligian/heretics of today speak for the whole Church. Yet, no doubt, if this board is here in 500 years, [now there's an interesting thought!!] someone will dredge up the rantings of some dissident and claim that the Church had no official position, which is just ludicrous.

    You know, if you wish to believe in this way, why not become a Oneness Pentecostal? They can go back and find writings done at a time in which the whole Church, with the exception of St. Athanasius and the pope, were Arian heretics.

    It is amazing, given the volume of writings of the Early Fathers in favor of the Real Presence, the Primacy of Rome, etc., how you Protestants can go back and dig until you find one dissenting voice and base your whole theology on that person's single statement. If such were even close to true, how come your doctrines and teachings did not crop up until the heretics Luther (yeah, beatin' on him again!!) and Calvin (that goes double for him!!) showed up.

    Hmmmmmmmm.......?

    And don't give me that tired old saw about "Oh, the TRUE GOSPEL disappeared off the earth until they showed up"

    Makes ya sound like one of dem Mormon morons.

    Brother Ed -
     
  10. CatholicConvert

    CatholicConvert
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Notice Iraneaus states the Church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul. Sort of negates the claim that Peter alone was Pope.

    Baloney!! That is like saying that a general and a captain in the army worked together on a project but they were equals! You are totally reading into this to try to prove your point.

    2. This church is referred to as very, very great. That does not necessarily equal to superior authority.

    I don't know Greek. Do you? Do you know the nuance of the Greek word used here? I don't. Do you? Once again, you are building strawmen of nothing.

    3. Iraneaus says that it is necessary that every church agree with this church due to it's pre-eminent authority. Agree with does not equal obey.

    I read this and my jaw almost came unhinged. Tell you what, try that nonsense on your husband sometime when he is taking his position as head of the household!!

    "Oh yes, honey, I agree with you, but I am NOT going to obey you!!"

    4) The agreement is to be with the church at Rome and not the chair of the church of Rome.

    You really do NOT understand covenantal authority at all, do you? Go to Matthew 21: 33-46 and read. Jesus condemns the Jewish nation and prophesies its downfall. And in verse 45, it says that the chief priests and Pharisees knew that He spoke of them.

    The position of authority is also the place of authority. When the king speaks, the kingdom speaks.

    5) It would be possible to trace the succession of bishops from all the churches, however Iraneaus chose the church at Rome because of its universality as the example.

    More hogwash. He chose it because the line of succession ran through St. Peter, who, as you so nicely proved for us, was IN ROME AS BISHOP.
     
  11. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Lisa,

    You wrote, "Notice Iraneaus states the Church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul. Sort of negates the claim that Peter alone was Pope."

    I don't understand how Peter and Paul's joint founding of the church in Rome results in the automatic negation of Peter's position as the Prime Minister to the Davidic King. Your conclusion is what we call a non sequitur.

    You wrote, "This church is referred to as very, very great. That does not necessarily equal to superior authority."

    Not necessarily, but obviously my view of the Catholic diocese of Rome is quite a bit more in line with what Irenaeus speaks of than your complete rejection.

    You wrote, "Iraneaus says that it is necessary that every church agree with this church due to it's pre-eminent authority. Agree with does not equal obey."

    So, if everyone must agree with me, and if I say that we should all go to the movies, must we all go to the movies?

    Well, it would seem so, wouldn't it?

    Again, do you agree with the faith of the Bishop of Rome? Or do you disagree? Who - you or I - holds the faith of Irenaeus?

    You wrote, "The agreement is to be with the church at Rome and not the chair of the church of Rome."

    Clearly, Irenaeus points out the succession of the episcopate in Rome up until the present day. When "Church" is mentioned, it automatically implies the leadership of the bishop.

    You wrote, "It would be possible to trace the succession of bishops from all the churches, however Iraneaus chose the church at Rome because of its universality as the example."

    No, that's not what Irenaeus writes. He says that Rome has "superior origin" and because of this origin, with it "all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition".

    Why are you concerned with whether the Catholic faith is in line with the faith of Irenaeus? The content of your creed is obviously much further than the Catholic creed from Irenaeus, and if you lend him any credibility, you should first examine the stark contrast in your own creed before you begin to criticize the faith of others.

    Deep in the faith of the Apostles,

    Carson
     
  12. CatholicConvert

    CatholicConvert
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carson --

    I really should let you do this. You are much better at this, not to mention, more irenic than I can ever hope to be.

    Brother Ed
     
  13. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Ed,

    You wrote, "I really should let you do this."

    Oh, but I don't have the time. :eek:

    I need to be reading Dwight Campbell, Ratzinger, Schonborn, Dauphinais, Levering, and JPII right now for all of my classes!

    Psalm 71:2, "In thy righteousness deliver me and rescue me; incline thy ear to me, and save me!"

    I finally found your picture at

    http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=584446&uid=467436&members=1

    Very cool!

    Your account with Picturetrail.com will not allow you to link to your photo through Baptistboard.com, and that is why it is not showing in your profile. I put your photo at http://www.boerne.com/temp/Ed_Hara.jpg if you would like to link there instead.

    Blessings,

    Carson

    [ January 18, 2003, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
     
  14. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carson,
    you really should get permission before you do that kind of thing. Not everyone is as fond of having their picture spread around as you are. ;)
     
  15. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Me neither! :D Just a second semester seminarian and trying to be youth minsiter!

    Actually the Bible says: "Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.'" Gen. 2:18, ESV

    The only reason you can gather directly from Scripture as to why God created Eve was that He did not think it was good for the man to be alone. Anything beyond that is to go beyond the evidence given. Yes, I do agree He had a plan, but this is the clear reason He has given us in His Word, the rest is His plan, not ours.

    And I would not think it is safe to say that. Why does the union have to be the "image of God"? So each person is not in the "image of God", people have to be married to be in the image of God? And it would not be a good image of the union of the Blessed Trinity because a trinity is three, a marriage is two.

    I in no way, shape, or form would ever be comfortable calling the Holy Spirit the child (even in an image/type sense) of the Father and Son (i.e. He is the result of some sort of union). Each one is just as much God as the other.

    I still would like to see the evidence that shows the 'need' of a physical head and why Christ is not sufficient as Head.

    I beg to differ. Let's look and see what these two verses say.

    "They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying 'See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.'" Hebrews 8:5, ESV

    "For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf." Hebrews 9:24, ESV

    Both of this simply state that the things made by hands (looks to me both referring to the tabernacle) were copies of heavenly things. Nowhere in these two verses is there a mandate that everything in heaven has a copy on earth. I again say that is an assumption on your part.

    I have heard that before myself (I am really into Creation Science). It is pretty neat. However, it is also speculation, not something to be dogmatic about (that everything has to represent the Trinity).

    Refer to it as you will, but there is still no office of pope created. At best, you should be arguing for simply 12 men nowadays to rule the Church, not one pope.

    No, I have really wondered "Hey....could it really be?" But I don't see the support for it.

    Okay, but what about the office of the pope? That is what we are talking about.

    That is why we have His Word, the Holy Spirit, fellowship with other believers, and a personal relationship with Him. No, I am not arguing that everyone who SAYS that they got there message from the Holy Spirit really did. There are issues of sin and such that get in the way of our relationship with God.

    Again, where are the 12 apostles, not more or less, for today then?

    I have dealt with it. To deal with it you don't have to carry it into something it is not.

    I really don't know how you go from triadic in nature (which I agree) to needing an Eve to go with the last Adam. There would still be something missing. 3 does not equal 2.

    Okay, but this all goes way beyond simply asking questions. It is saying what God is thinking. I for one would not claim to know all the whats and whys of God's will and plan.

    I don't see it as Christ growing up to be King. He was King when He came.

    I do not agree with this at all. Again, He has always been King. He had to have something to lay aside when He came and took on the form of a servant (Phil. 2:6-7).

    Your second statement nullifies your first. There is no way Adam could have become what Christ is. Christ has a unique relationship with the Father that no one else ever could have or will have.

    Actually, it is not that easy. First, that is not exegesis. You are basing your 'exegesis' off of what you think Adam could have become, not on Scripture. Your resulting 'need' is based on an assumption that really has no evidence other than speculation.

    So now Jesus has an identity complex. Wasn't Jesus the Christ, i.e. Jesus is Christ? Therefore Jesus = Christ, thus making Him Creator. Yes, He was 100% human and 100% God. This is something I truly believe we can never understand, at least while we are here on earth. Remember, you are dealing with one person, not two. So that One Person is our Creator.

    How can you keep them separate if they are one?

    You are really starting to lose me. Here is another 'must' that if you go back and look is based on speculation.

    Which is why Christ died on the cross and was resurrected.

    Okay, you have a problem here. You can not state that she "was to" and then "Instead". She was the mother of all living. There is no need for someone to take her place. Look closely in Genesis 3. When was she named Eve? After the fall, in Gen. 3:20.

    "The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." Gen. 3:20, ESV

    So there was no failed role, because she did not get this name until after they had fallen!

    But that is NOT Scriptural. The church is not a type! She IS the Bride of Christ. And Christ IS the Head of her. There is no need for a Queen Mother to be the Bride, because the Church is the Bride. Same for the pope, no need for the type, because Christ is the head.

    Okay, just want to point out another observation. You say Mary is the Mother of Jesus, right? Okay, so if Mary is Queen, that would make Jesus..............Prince! Not King. I have never heard of a Prince who assumed the throne with his father and mother still living, much less with his mother as his queen. Now think, do you really believe God would give us an image that is strictly forbidden by Him (a son and mother together in a marriage relationship)?

    Does the RCC allow for homosexual priests? (I really don't know their official stand, but it seems they don't stop them from being priests)

    I tell you how I perceive things and who I see as head, and then you tell me I am not looking? As much as you want to you can't force me to look to any man as my head. I see the Lord Jesus Christ as Head, the one and only. This might bother you, but that is who my head is. Besides, I am not really fond or don't know much about any of those men.

    No problem! :D

    No, I am not. I think if people would truly look to and submit to Christ as Head, things would be much better off. I think a lot of the problems we have now is because of faith in men, not faith in the One we should have it in.

    I agree with you. However, I just think God is being patient and merciful, not willing that any should perish. But one day.......... :eek:

    And Ed, I am not blowing off what you had laid out. I really thought some today on these things before I responded, because my initial response was to write back right away. I am still thinking on these things and will consider them. I do enjoy having a civil conversation rather than what happens most of the time on this board!

    God bless,
    Neal

    [ January 18, 2003, 04:50 AM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]
     
  16. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Psalm,

    You wrote, "you really should get permission before you do that kind of thing. Not everyone is as fond of having their picture spread around as you are."

    If you were more observant, you would have recognized that Brother Ed linked to this picture in his profile for all to see, but it didn't appear because his Picturetrail service won't allow for this type of a link.

    In effect, I'm helping Ed out with what he means to do.

    God bless,

    Carson
     
  17. CatholicConvert

    CatholicConvert
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Carson --

    Well, I thank you for the link. Very much appreiciated. Now tell me how to get that picture under my name as you have yours.

    Brother Neal --

    Does the RCC allow for homosexual priests? (I really don't know their official stand, but it seems they don't stop them from being priests)

    Not officially, but as I said, the Church seems to have been plagued with administrative lunacy for the last 100 years or so.

    I tell you how I perceive things and who I see as head, and then you tell me I am not looking? As much as you want to you can't force me to look to any man as my head. I see the Lord Jesus Christ as Head, the one and only.

    Ultimately, that is also true for us as Catholics, which is why you have people like St. Catherine of Sienna who rebuked a pope to his face because he was wrong. (Not doctrinally wrong, but adminstratively wrong).

    We would not have to obey a bishop who would tell us something which would deny the teaching found in the Catechism of the Church.

    No, I am not. I think if people would truly look to and submit to Christ as Head, things would be much better off.

    Neal, honestly!!!! :rolleyes:

    Right here on this very board there are several flavors of non-Catholics, each of whom is submitting to Christ as Head. Yet we see that each one is well entrenched in his/her position, and that sometimes, the disagreements get considerably testy with each other. Each one proves himself/herself correct with the Bible and proves others wrong with the same Bible. And you don't think that is just a tad off?

    I think a lot of the problems we have now is because of faith in men, not faith in the One we should have it in.

    Everyone of the people on this board have faith in Christ. Yet there is no unity. I'm sorry, but there has to be a single mind in regards to moral and doctrinal issues. I do not particularly care for the way the bishops of the Roman rite are running their Church. Heck, I don't like the way our Eastern bishops are running our body. But I am going to stay in here and pray and do what I can towards having a better Church.

    And ultimately, it isn't my Church anyway, it is Christ's, and for some reason, He is allowing things to continue for now. Mercy, perhaps?

    I agree with you. However, I just think God is being patient and merciful, not willing that any should perish. But one day..........

    Yessir. One day WHAM!!! And it is NOT going to be fun at all.

    And Ed, I am not blowing off what you had laid out. I really thought some today on these things before I responded, because my initial response was to write back right away. I am still thinking on these things and will consider them. I do enjoy having a civil conversation rather than what happens most of the time on this board!

    I understand. Believe me. I am still in the process of becoming fully enculturated into the Catholic Faith. Honestly, it really IS a whole 'nother world, and I have had other converts tell me it could take many more years till I am really "thinking Catholic" through and through. I can appreciate therefore, that such ideas (and remember, they are only my ideas, nothing more!!) are very strange and perhaps troubling.

    Brother Ed
     
  18. MEE

    MEE
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/me3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    0
    CC, your picture looks "exactly" the way you sound. [​IMG]

    Carson, if you tell CC how to get his picture under his name, would you please post [​IMG] it here....so I will know how to do it also? :confused:

    Thanks,
    MEE (Carol)
     
  19. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Carol and Ed,

    If memory serves, I believe I emailed the webmaster of BaptistBoard.com with the link to where my picture is on the Internet, and she/he did the rest.

    I'm able to change my picture periodically by simply replacing the image file at that URL because the URL is static (i.e. it doesn't change).

    For example, my photo is on my website at
    http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg

    God bless,

    Carson
     
  20. CatholicConvert

    CatholicConvert
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carol --

    Oh dear. I have to wonder if that is good or bad?

    :D

    Brother Ed
     

Share This Page

Loading...