Catholic-Anglican Reunion.

[mclees8]

Oh good grief you guys!  Your aluminium hats are on too tight. 

 

Pay no mind AMO, we are not the first ones that have been scoffed and laughed at.

Thing is they laugh while not even giving serious answers for the questions asked. When they don't have the answers all they can do is is make light of it.

I would like just one catholic here give a serious answer to the questions I posed.

The fact is they won't. They defend and know not what it is they defend. If they did they could answer. Religious pride and prejudice will be their downfall

God bless


   

[desertknight]

McLees, I would answer if you had any "serious questions" you asked.  I've read your posts and can't see any questions you have asked.  Maybe instead of pasting long diatribes you can actually just ask one of us Catholics something that can be answered.  I can say that of what you have posted, it is pretty silly stuff equating a Church who's dogmas, doctrines, worship, and teachings are those of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and implying that in your opinion the "beast" of Revelation and the home of the anti-Christ, is a blasphemous and slanderous thing that you should be ashamed of.  God will judge you for slandering His Church if you do not repent.  Walk into any Catholic Church on Sunday, anywhere in the world and the centre of faith and worship is Christ.  Word and Sacrament.   By Cannon law in every Catholic Church, every day, the Holy Scriptures are read to the faithful and the bread and wine is consecrated as the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ and received by the people as a remembrance of His sacrifice for us.  It is only by His grace through our faith that we are saved.  That is rock-solid Catholic doctrine and the heart of Catholic faith.  It has remained unchanged and unaltered for 2,000 years of the Church on earth.  Holy Scripture emphatically tells us over and over that the "beast" and the anti-Christ will be one who denies Christ's divinity, the Incarnation, that Christ is Lord.  Please point out where the Church has now, or ever in it's history done so.  You cannot, and it makes the point of your posts utter rubbish.  The Church is filled with sinful men and sinful acts throughout history because Christ's Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from going astray, but Christ people must cooperate with our Lord's grace for their own protection and salvation.  Popes have been great saints and horrible sinners.  It is no reflection on what the Catholic Church is.  God's kingdom may not be of this world, but His Church on earth is, and was instituted among ordinary and sinful men to be so.  Every Apostle sinned.  The first head of His Church denied he even knew our Lord three times before the cock crowed.  It has nothing to do with the truth of the Church.  The Pope is not some mystical prophet, he is nothing but a fallible and sinful man, as all our Bishops are.   Protestantism, (As if one can pin down it's various 35,000+ interpretations of scripture and the faith.), has been infected by so called "enlightenment" ideas that have nothing to do with Christian doctrine or even Protestant doctrine of any kind.  To say that the Christian Church was never supposed to have anything to do with secular government was born in the parlours of the 18th century enlightenment by men who thought all organised religion dangerous and silly, not by those who follow Christ.  Our Lord instructed us to treat each other as brothers, that includes by all logical definition, the very governments we constitute for ourselves.  Your post against Catholic involvement, or any Christian church's involvement in world affairs or government are derived, whether you realise it or not, from the begining of the tragic history of "modernism", that began with pushing Christianity our of the halls of government, that of course led inevitably with the atheist regimes that have worked so hard with Satan to destroy us.  These un-Christian ideas that were gleaned from Enlightenment atheist and "Deist", would have been totally alien to all Christians for the first 1,700 years of the faith.  They were even totally alien to the founders of the "Reformation".  That Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI may call for, and work for the poor of the world, or the victims of disasters or wars, or for justice, through the governments that are constituted as those people's rulers is in no way, shape, or form, contrary to Christian doctrine.  That God's kingdom and ours is ultimately in heaven does not get us off the hook for our responsibility to act like grown men and do the work of grown men in establishing law and order for our governance on earth.  That men like Charlemagne were given honour as Catholic kings to set out laws and restore civilisation, that he and those like him set about in creating order and learning, stability and a home for the faith, is to be praised to the roof-tops, not condemned by any Christian.  Praise the Lord for such valiant kings.  Does that excuse the sins of the Church's past leaders or of Catholic kings in what they may have done wrong?  No!  Of course not, but to be a man is to lead; to be accountable to God and not shirk our responsibility to govern in this world.      

How's that for a start?    

[banished]

Oh good grief you guys!  Your aluminium hats are on too tight. 

 

Good Morning mclees8,

Don't you guys think that you kind of went off the deep end talking about the end of the World?  The Vatican did not consume the Church of England like you guys claim. An agreement was made so that the members of the Anglican Church (who want to switch) can enter the Holy Catholic Church and be under the Pope and be under Canon Law. Remember that there have been recent unGodly pratices in the Anglican Church.  That is all there was to it!  Take off your aluminum foil hats!

Take your wife up to Apple Hill for some fresh cider and donuts, and a fresh outlook on your Christian Walk.



Pay no mind AMO, we are not the first ones that have been scoffed and laughed at.

Thing is they laugh while not even giving serious answers for the questions asked. When they don't have the answers all they can do is is make light of it.

I would like just one catholic here give a serious answer to the questions I posed.

The fact is they won't. They defend and know not what it is they defend. If they did they could answer. Religious pride and prejudice will be their downfall

God bless


   

[banished]

Oh good grief you guys!  Your aluminium hats are on too tight. 

 

Pay no mind AMO, we are not the first ones that have been scoffed and laughed at.

Thing is they laugh while not even giving serious answers for the questions asked. When they don't have the answers all they can do is is make light of it.

I would like just one catholic here give a serious answer to the questions I posed.

The fact is they won't. They defend and know not what it is they defend. If they did they could answer. Religious pride and prejudice will be their downfall

God bless


   

Good Morning mclees8,

Don't you guys think that you kind of went off the deep end talking about the end of the World?  The Vatican did not consume the Church of England like you guys claim. An agreement was made so that the members of the Anglican Church (who want to switch) can enter the Holy Catholic Church and be under the Pope and be under Canon Law. Remember that there have been recent unGodly pratices in the Anglican Church.  That is all there was to it!  Take off your aluminum foil hats!

Take your wife up to Apple Hill for some fresh cider and donuts, and a fresh outlook on your Christian Walk.

[Amo]

Good Morning mclees8,

Don't you guys think that you kind of went off the deep end talking about the end of the World?  The Vatican did not consume the Church of England like you guys claim. An agreement was made so that the members of the Anglican Church (who want to switch) can enter the Holy Catholic Church and be under the Pope and be under Canon Law. Remember that there have been recent unGodly pratices in the Anglican Church.  That is all there was to it!  Take off your aluminum foil hats!

Take your wife up to Apple Hill for some fresh cider and donuts, and a fresh outlook on your Christian Walk.

My point was not that the Church of Rome consumed them, but that, those who will not continue the Reformation, will naturally turn back to Rome.  Before the end of this world, there will only be two harvests on earth to reap, those of Rome(this world), and those of God(citizens of the kingdom of heaven).  That something has drastically changed within the Church of England is obvious.  Nothing could be more ungodly within that Church, than to go back to the Church of Rome which she came out of.  Observe the following -

The Episcopal Confession of Faith
The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion

Of the Church.

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

Of Purgatory.

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.
 
Of the Lord's Supper.

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrowing the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
 
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.
 
The Offering of Christ once made in that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

Of the Marriage of Priests.

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.
Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates.

The Power of the Civil Magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, in all things temporal; but hath no authority in things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of all men who are professors of the Gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the Civil Authority, regularly and legitimately constituted.

The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article reads as follows: "The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.

"The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.

"The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offenses.

"It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars."

[banished]

Hello Amo,

 

I am trying very hard not to offend you guys, but in my honest opinion, you are not here in the Catholic Section to discuss or compare the Catholic perspective on anything, You guys seem to be determined otb demonizing the Pope and the Holy Catholic Church.  If you were truly interested in the End Times Prophesy there is a Forum Section where you can discuss that topic with other interested Christians.  I would like to give you an example of why there isn't a Catholic in this World who will listen to you. This loaded statement is in the first paragraph of your reply:

(quote from Amo)

"Before the end of this world, there will be two harvests on earth to reap, those of Rome (this world), and those of God (citizens of the kingdom of heaven).
(end of quote from Amo)

Are you okay?  Huh!  Why would you post something like that in the Catholic Section?  Huh!

I am assuming that you are referring to (Revelation 14:14-16) where John prophesied about the harvest of the earth at Armageddon?  If so, and I'm sure that you are, then inserting your remarks into the text only reviled your hate for the Catholic Church.  Because you seem to be so determined on demonizing the Catholics I will not refer to the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church, but rather use the Protestant point of view.  That is,  the harvest takes place at Armageddon which is on the outskirts of Jerusalem, and there is no mention that the "vine of the earth" is of Rome, (like you say).

Verse 20 goes on to say that the battle of Armageddon has such a slaughter that the scripture says there will be a river of blood 200 miles long, 6 feet deep. 200 miles is the complete length of Israel and reaching up to the horse’s bridle would be about six feet deep.

[desertknight]

I know, I hate people who just cut and paste too, but this is very interesting news....

The Rt Rev John Hind, the Bishop of Chichester, has announced he is considering becoming a Roman Catholic in a move that could spark an exodus of clergy.

Bishop Hind said he would be "happy" to be reordained as a Catholic priest and said that divisions in Anglicanism could make it impossible to stay in the church.

He is the most senior Anglican to admit that he is prepared to accept the offer from the Pope, who shocked the Church of England last week when he paved the way for clergy to convert to Catholicism in large numbers.

In a further blow to the Archbishop of Canterbury's hopes of preventing the Anglican Communion from disintegrating, other bishops have cast doubt over its survival.

The Rt Rev John Broadhurst, the Bishop of Fulham, even claimed that "the Anglican experiment is over". He said it has been shown to be powerless to cope with the crises over gays and women bishops.

In one of the most significant developments since the Reformation, the Pope last week announced that a new structure would be set up to allow disaffected Anglicans to enter full communion with Rome, while maintaining parts of their Protestant heritage.

The move comes after secret talks between the Vatican and a group of senior Anglican bishops. Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was not informed of the meetings and his advisers even denied that they had taken place when the Sunday Telegraph broke the story last year.

Now Bishop Hind, the most senior traditionalist in the Church of England, has confirmed that he is willing to sacrifice his salary and palace residence to defect to the Catholic Church.

"This is a remarkable new step from the Vatican," he said. "At long last there are some choices for Catholics in the Church of England. I'd be happy to be reordained into the Catholic Church."

While the bishop stressed that this would depend on his previous ministry being recognised, he said that the divisions in the Anglican Communion could make it impossible to stay.

"How can the Church exist if bishops are not in full communion with each other," he said.

Conservative archbishops and bishops have broken ties with their liberal counterparts following the US Episcopal Church's consecration of Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop.

Bishop Broadhurst said that the Pope has made his offer in response to the pleas of Anglicans who despair at the disintegration of their Church.

"Anglicanism has become a joke because it has singularly failed to deal with any of its contentious issues," said the bishop, who is chairman of Forward in Faith, the Anglo-Catholic network that represents around 1,000 traditionalist priests.

"There is widespread dissent across the [Anglican] Communion. We are divided in major ways on major issues and the Communion has unravelled.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6424562/Senior-Anglican-bishop-reveals-he-is-ready-to-convert-to-Roman-Catholicism.html

[mclees8]

Dear Night thank you for your answer.  My Diatribes just expose the truth from the deception. I make it a rule not to exceed a page or a little more Most people will lose interest if you run on and on.. My questions are very serious .Did you miss them? What slander? I have not accused anyone. Just commenting on what scripture tells us  Putting two and two together is for you to  decide. I believe you when you say that they present Christ and his Gospel. As long as it is His Gospel they preach and don’t add to it the teaching and traditions of men. Your problem here is you say the institution is sole representative of the church The earthly authority is everything  Therefore you say it is the church. I do not see the church in that light. What is the truth and has not changed for 2000 years? Is it not the word that is written? What does it tell us about who the church is, which are the saints, which is comprised of every believer since the day of Pentecost?.  So what is the truth?  Christ is the truth, and when we believe upon Him we are saved not by the institution but when we believe upon the Gospel. It is the body of  Christ that is the church. Leadership is just a part of it.  Do you think the leadership are of higher accountability? Do you think Jesus will wink at misrepresentation.? 

I never said the RCC denies Christ or his divinity. I never said the pope is the antichrist. Do I think the pope will be deceived by the antichrist and mislead God’s people ? I think he already is. Please note that is not slander. I know, I know there is no evidence or facts. But I can tell you what is a fact. That the papacy is very politically involved with world affairs? That it sees itself as the moral compass of the world and its governments.  That it ecumenically wants to bring the protestant denominations back to the church Rome. That they want world government and interfaith relations between other faiths. Of course you will think this is  a good thing. And in the eyes of the world it may seem like a good thing . World peace and economic stability and posterity. Sounds great doesn’t it. Funny though that your very own Peter said when they cry peace and safety then sudden destruction shall come upon them.  The word also tells us that sin will wax worse and worse till the end comes, and the world and its governments and all who have put their faith in them will come to judgment. But that’s just diatribes isn’t it. We don’t need to listen to Gods word just men who say they are the church and you only need to hear them.   

So what about these questions I asked. You talk about Atheist and haters of organized religion. And thank God for Godly kings. Will Organized religion change the world? Will Godly kings make the world more godly? Think now. While you are homed in on only what you think is right you miss Christ by a million miles.

If the world would suddenly all become convicted of sin and all would come to Christ then truly the world would be a better place. Jesus would then already rule and judgment would not have to come. Jesus never taught the church was going to change the world or rule it.  The world is racing toward  antichrist. Let me say it again. The world and its politics and religions is racing toward antichrist. He will be to them the answer to world peace, and economic stability. Why is the pope concerned about the world markets. Is not Jesus going to bring judgment to Babylon?
1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance# of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.#
Now just think about what the pope is up to his neck in. No slander Just facts

You said who is antichrist but the one who denies Christ deity. So why is the Church of Rome in bed with the political ambitions of this world that will ultimately usher in the antichrist.  What does the papacy want? To be the center of world religion and politics. They are walking hand and right now.    They were married in 500 AD   The same ambition is still there. Are we ringing any bells yet? Don’t just think about what things  defend your position.  Think about what I just said.
God bless

[desertknight]

What is the truth and has not changed for 2000 years? Is it not the word that is written?

It is Word and Sacrament.  It is Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, that magisterial teaching that Christ charged His anointed Apostles with and that only they can pass the authority onto successors with by the laying on of hands.  

Acts 2:42  "And they continued steadfast in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

2 Tim 1:6  "For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God  that you have through the imposition of my hands."

Acts 14:23  "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

Tit. 1:5  "For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you."

Acts 14:23  "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

If your Presbyters do not have the succession of the Apostles, if they cannot trace their authority through ordination by the authority given by Christ Himself, they are not true elders of His Church.  Scripture is clear.  My Church and the Orthodox Church's of the east, can do exactly that.

There is not one, single, solitary, example in Scripture, of anyone, receiving the office of either Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, without having been properly ordained, by one who has the mandate from the Apostles to do it, by the imposition of hands.  Not one.  Like many, I grew tired of trying to divine truth out of the thousands of Christian denominations outside of the Church and their thousands of different interpretations of Scripture and then I came to reading the writings of the early Church Fathers and reading the New Testament again and again in the light of that knowledge.  Only the Catholic Church and our Orthodox brethren had the same teaching, same truth, same authority, as that mentioned by the earliest of Christians and in Scripture.

Much of the "failed experiment of Anglicanism", just as much of what is left orthodox within Lutheranism, is making their way across the Tiber exactly because they have discovered where denying the authority of Christ's anointed and interpreting scripture according to the fashion of the day has gotten them.  From woman priests on one side of us Catholics, to denying the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist of the Evangelicals and conservative Protestants on the other side of us, they each are the product of the events of the age that birthed them and have spawned thousands of beliefs that have little resemblance to the Church of St. Paul or Polycarp.  I belong to the age old faith that like our fore-bearers in the Catacombs, lights the lamps and hears the Word preached, breaks the bread and pours the wine that will become the Body and Blood of Christ at our consecration and receive as His grace and then goes out into the world and set the example with God's grace of the Christian people we are.  We may have fallen short many, many times and so have our leaders, but we are not expected to be perfect but to be faithful.

What has changed?

"Discipline and subordination are necessary as in an army and in the human body, while arrogance is absurd for man is nothing. The Apostles foresaw feuds, and provided for a succession of Bishops and Deacons; such, therefore cannot be removed at pleasure."  Pope Clement I, ordained by St. Peter, Epistle to the Corinthians  AD 96.

"See that you all follow the Bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the Presbyteriam as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as a command of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that be considered a certain [βεβαια, "valid"] Eucharist which is under the leadership of the Bishop, or one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church."  St. Ignatius of Antioch, ordained by the Apostle John.

"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1-20).  AD 150.  The descriptions of the Mass liturgy in Rome by Hippolytus (died c. 235) and Novatian (died c. 250) are similar to Justin's.

...nothing much in my Church for 2,000 years.    The quotes above are as accurate to both Catholic belief and practice in any Catholic parish church today as the day the Church Fathers wrote them above.  How bout' the church you attend?  Does it obey and reverence the Bishop who's authority is derived from direct Succession?  Do they partake of the Lord's Supper at every Sunday and acknowledge it as the true flesh and blood of Christ?  If they don't, then it is not Christ's Church, but an invention of men who drew on ideas of their age, not God's.

This is why you have a bias against the very idea of say a Pope engaging world leaders.  Was not God's anointed under the Old Covenant tasked to do the same?  Of course they were!  Please explain to me in Scripture where Protestants have decided that God's model in this no longer applies.  That you may believe in the separation of Church and state;  that even I may believe in it as best for America, is still, just an "Enlightenment" idea of secular men who didn't have God's will in mind at all, it would have been unrecognisable to anyone before the 18th century, but as Protestants always do, (Not because they are 'bad' people, but because they lack true authority to teach.), they simply take the values of their modern, secular world and wrap God and Scripture around it.  It's like when I have run into conservative Protestants who go through tortured arguments about how Christ and His followers did not ever drink actual wine.  Why?  Well because they prohibit such and therefore they must agonise over how to get scripture to "fit" their own temperance belief's born of a different age.  Any of our Lord's disciples and believers who if told that God thinks wine prohibited, would have looked at the messenger of such with stunned disbelief.  I use this example because it illustrates the Protestant fallacy.  Like your aversion to Church leadership engaging in the world and with it's leaders, it is simply your own opinion that is unique to your background and biases and would not only have not been recognised by any of Christ's Apostles and leaders, but wouldn't even be recognised by any of the leaders of the Reformation.  Luther engaged the princes of Germany in a close relationship.  Calvin ruled in Geneva with an iron fist.  Knox so engaged in the politics of Scotland, his imprint on Scottish life and politics exist to this day.  You views are that of a child of 'Enlightenment' ideas, whether you recognise it or not, and has little to do with Biblical models.



Samuel anointing David.
  
We are tasked to engage in the world, including in it's leadership, because we are tasked to be men who are the stewards of this world and the leaders of the people.  Does not a man rule his house?  Does not a Shepard rule his flock?  Was not a Bishop tasked to lead his?  Then why on earth do you think it stops there and please site your support for such a notion from either Scripture or history.  You said that I believe, "earthly authority is everything."  I did no such thing, but neither are we left with only Scripture with an organisation on earth.  Christ's first act of His ministry after His baptism was to go out and anoint twelve ordinary, and sinful I might add., men to lead a very visible and earthly Church on earth.  They clearly passed that authority on through ordination to others who passed it on to others through the laying on of hands and it has come down to us today, and is the only authority of the Church in the New Testament that is recognised.  Yes, the Lord will judge some Popes harshly for their sins for they bear the weight of other's journey to salvation on themselves, as with the other Bishops and the Presbyters and Deacons.   Heavy weighs the crown, they are Christ's 'regents', but that some have committed sin or sinned while engaged in the world is no "proof" that the alternative God desires for us is for His church's leaders to withdrawal from world affairs and sit around waiting for the end times.  Does not Christ tell us to care for the poor?  Are not the peacemakers blessed?  How does one do those things without engaging in the world?  I worked for a year in the Bay area building housing for the poor, for people living on the street.  My Church and myself in those efforts worked with San Francisco's political leaders.  Was that not what we are tasked to do?  Care for the least among us?  So if that is acceptable then why is the Pope arbitrating peace in the middle east or arguing for low interest loans to help poor farmers in Africa, wrong?  Where are you finding your opposition in Holy Scripture?  You can't.  It is simply your own opinion that you have, and you are equating it with God's.

As to the Church being "Babylon"  Revelation is of course, written in the light of pagan Rome that was crucifying our people, not about the Christ's Church who that same Rome was persecuting.  The Church is in Rome, because we triumphed and they lost.   You say the anti-Christ may not be the Pope but may influence the Pope, but even you admit no evidence of such.  Scripture clearly states that the anti-Christ will be the leader and the "beast" you allude to being the Catholic Church, not simply influence it's leader.  You and Amo sited Rev. 18 in doing this.  Yet Scripture tells us that their marks will be to deny Christ and to lead the people away with that denial.  Even you admit that, "I never said the RCC denies Christ or his divinity".  Good, then that should end your slanderous speculation that the Church is the 'beast' of Revelation.  Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would reside within His Church until the end of time.   He promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against it.  He promised that those He appointed in it's leadership would have the power of the Holy Spirit to make what is on earth binding in heaven;  such was the vast authority given, just as under the Old Covenant.   Where are you getting that God changed His mind on all this and now has a new idea about His Church?  I know what the "beast" will be and Scripture call for me to be vigilant, but not to dwell on such things.  In every age everyone who has found the enemy they hate in charge has definitively stated their knowledge that alas the "beast" and the anti-Christ has been unmasked.  They have all thus far, been completely wrong.  The 'beast' may be in existence now, or maybe we will not know of it for 2,000 more years.  We do not know.  All who have ever stated with Scriptural "proof" that they knew who the Beast and anti-Christ were, from many of the Reformationist to the Restorationist, from the Jehovah's Witnesses to the Mormons, have all been laughably, but dangerously wrong in their prophecy.  That should tell us something about their motives and biases and the long and misguided history of such speculation.  
  

  

[Amo]

If your Presbyters do not have the succession of the Apostles, if they cannot trace their authority through ordination by the authority given by Christ Himself, they are not true elders of His Church.  Scripture is clear.  My Church and the Orthodox Church's of the east, can do exactly that.

So said the scribes and pharisees before Christ rebuked them.

Matt 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

God does not need any person or institution to select and empower His own.  Most often He has had to do so from without that which considered itself the established of God.  This is just more of Rome's usurpation of God's authority.  This is why the institution is Antichrist, it has placed itself between humanity and God in so very many ways.  This place belongs to Christ alone, and His ministers are whomsoever He chooses.  Men can lay their hands upon anyone they wish, and claim whatever they wish about doing so.  Unless God does the same, it has no meaning or effect.  Go ahead and Lord your Church over every other.  The same is proof positive that your Church is not God's.

Mark 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

The true Church appeals to Christ always as the authority, not this or that institution, which are all subject to becoming corrupt.  The more power they claim for themselves, the more corrupt they likely are.

[desertknight]

Christ rebuked them as the Old Covenant was ended and they failed to recognise that fact.  He did however institute a new one and you have yet to prove that any authority within New Testament scripture can be derived through one's own making.  Even the Apostle Paul, chosen by Christ Himself, went to Christ's anointed Church leaders for ordination by the laying on of hands.  

Please site your "sola scriptura" evidence from Holy Scripture.  Only the Apostles, Bishops and Presbyters had the 'mandate' to teach and lead worship in Christ's name.  There is not one, single, solitary example of any other model existing in New Testement Scripture.

No visible Church authority?

Heb. 13:17  "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

1 Thes. 5:12-13  "Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other."

[mclees8]

What is the truth and has not changed for 2000 years? Is it not the word that is written?

It is Word and Sacrament.  It is Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, that magisterial teaching that Christ charged His anointed Apostles with and that only they can pass the authority onto successors with by the laying on of hands.  

Acts 2:42  "And they continued steadfast in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

2 Tim 1:6  "For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God  that you have through the imposition of my hands."

Acts 14:23  "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

Tit. 1:5  "For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you."

Acts 14:23  "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

If your Presbyters do not have the succession of the Apostles, if they cannot trace their authority through ordination by the authority given by Christ Himself, they are not true elders of His Church.  Scripture is clear.  My Church and the Orthodox Church's of the east, can do exactly that.

There is not one, single, solitary, example in Scripture, of anyone, receiving the office of either Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, without having been properly ordained, by one who has the mandate from the Apostles to do it, by the imposition of hands.  Not one.  Like many, I grew tired of trying to divine truth out of the thousands of Christian denominations outside of the Church and their thousands of different interpretations of Scripture and then I came to reading the writings of the early Church Fathers and reading the New Testament again and again in the light of that knowledge.  Only the Catholic Church and our Orthodox brethren had the same teaching, same truth, same authority, as that mentioned by the earliest of Christians and in Scripture.

Much of the "failed experiment of Anglicanism", just as much of what is left orthodox within Lutheranism, is making their way across the Tiber exactly because they have discovered where denying the authority of Christ's anointed and interpreting scripture according to the fashion of the day has gotten them.  From woman priests on one side of us Catholics, to denying the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist of the Evangelicals and conservative Protestants on the other side of us, they each are the product of the events of the age that birthed them and have spawned thousands of beliefs that have little resemblance to the Church of St. Paul or Polycarp.  I belong to the age old faith that like our fore-bearers in the Catacombs, lights the lamps and hears the Word preached, breaks the bread and pours the wine that will become the Body and Blood of Christ at our consecration and receive as His grace and then goes out into the world and set the example with God's grace of the Christian people we are.  We may have fallen short many, many times and so have our leaders, but we are not expected to be perfect but to be faithful.

What has changed?

"Discipline and subordination are necessary as in an army and in the human body, while arrogance is absurd for man is nothing. The Apostles foresaw feuds, and provided for a succession of Bishops and Deacons; such, therefore cannot be removed at pleasure."  Pope Clement I, ordained by St. Peter, Epistle to the Corinthians  AD 96.

"See that you all follow the Bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the presbyterium as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as a command of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that be considered a certain [βεβαια, "valid"] eucharist which is under the leadership of the Bishop, or one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church."  St. Ignatius of Antioch, ordained by the Apostle John.

"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1-20).  AD 150.  The descriptions of the Mass liturgy in Rome by Hippolytus (died c. 235) and Novatian (died c. 250) are similar to Justin's.

...nothing much in my Church for 2,000 years.    The quotes above are as accurate to both Catholic belief and practice in any Catholic parish church today as the day the Church Fathers wrote them above.  How bout' the church you attend?  Does it obey and reverence the Bishop who's authority is derived from direct Succession?  Do they partake of the Lord's Supper at every Sunday and acknowledge it as the true flesh and blood of Christ?  If they don't, then it is not Christ's Church, but an invention of men who drew on ideas of their age, not God's.

This is why you have a bias against the very idea of say a Pope engaging world leaders.  Was not God's anointed under the Old Covenant tasked to do the same?  Of course they were!  Please explain to me in Scripture where Protestants have decided that God's model in this no longer applies.  That you may believe in the separation of Church and state;  that even I may believe in it as best for America, is still, just an "Enlightenment" idea of secular men who didn't have God's will in mind at all, it would have been unrecognisable to anyone before the 18th century, but as Protestants always do, (Not because they are 'bad' people, but because they lack true authority to teach.), they simply take the values of their modern, secular world and wrap God and Scripture around it.  It's like when I have run into conservative Protestants who go through tortured arguments about how Christ and His followers did not ever drink actual wine.  Why?  Well because they prohibit such and therefore they must agonise over how to get scripture to "fit" their own temperance belief's born of a different age.  Any of our Lord's disciples and believers who if told that God thinks wine prohibited, would have looked at the messenger of such with stunned disbelief.  I use this example because it illustrates the Protestant fallacy.  Like your aversion to Church leadership engaging in the world and with it's leaders, it is simply your own opinion that is unique to your background and biases and would not only have not been recognised by any of Christ's Apostles and leaders, but wouldn't even be recognised by any of the leaders of the Reformation.  Luther engaged the princes of Germany in a close relationship.  Calvin ruled in Geneva with an iron fist.  Knox so engaged in the politics of Scotland, his imprint on Scottish life and politics exist to this day.  You views are that of a child of 'Enlightenment' ideas, whether you recognise it or not, and has little to do with Biblical models.



Samuel anointing David.
  
We are tasked to engage in the world, including in it's leadership, because we are tasked to be men who are the stewards of this world and the leaders of the people.  Does not a man rule his house?  Does not a Shepard rule his flock?  Was not a Bishop tasked to lead his?  Then why on earth do you think it stops there and please site your support for such a notion from either Scripture or history.  You said that I believe, "earthly authority is everything."  I did no such thing, but neither are we left with only Scripture with an organisation on earth.  Christ's first act of His ministry after His baptism was to go out and anoint twelve ordinary, and sinful I might add., men to lead a very visible and earthly Church on earth.  They clearly passed that authority on through ordination to others who passed it on to others through the laying on of hands and it has come down to us today, and is the only authority of the Church in the New Testament that is recognised.  Yes, the Lord will judge some Popes harshly for their sins for they bear the weight of other's journey to salvation on themselves, as with the other Bishops and the Presbyters and Deacons.   Heavy weighs the crown, they are Christ's 'regents', but that is no "proof" that the alternative God desires for us is for His church's leaders to withdrawal from world affairs and sit around waiting for the end times.  Does not Christ tell us to care for the poor?  Are not the peacemakers blessed?  How does one do those things without engaging in the world?  I worked for a year in the Bay area building housing for the poor, for people living on the street.  My Church and myself in those efforts worked with San Francisco's political leaders.  Was that not what we are tasked to do?  Care for the least among us?  So if that is acceptable then why is the Pope arbitrating peace in the middle east or arguing for low interest loans to help poor farmers in Africa, wrong?  Where are you finding your opposition in Holy Scripture?  You can't.  It is simply your own opinion that you have, and you are equating it with God's.

As to the Church being "Babylon"  Revelation is of course, written in the light of pagan Rome that was crucifying our people, not about the Christ's Church who that same Rome was persecuting.  The Church is in Rome, because we triumphed and they lost.   You say the anti-Christ may not be the Pope but may influence the Pope, but even you admit no evidence of such.  Scripture clearly states that the anti-Christ will be the leader and the "beast" will devour the Church, not simply influence it's leader.  Their marks will be to deny Christ and to lead the people away with that denial.  Even you admit that, "I never said the RCC denies Christ or his divinity".  Good, then that should end your slanderous speculation that the Church is the 'beast' of Revelation.  Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would reside within His Church until the end of time.   He promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against it.  He promised that those He appointed in it's leadership would have the power of the Holy Spirit to make what is on earth binding in heaven;  such was the vast authority given, just as under the Old Covenant.   Where are you getting that God changed His mind on all this and now has a new idea about His Church?  
  

  

Dear Njght I am asking you to read again the meat of my message to you and try to give real thought here. I know what you believe and why you think it is right. Listen I commend your helping the poor and we all do things like that. I to help the poor and minister to them every Sunday in the park. I bring food and minister Christ to them. we do this under a big banyon tree and I call it  the church with out walls. It is the closest thing i can think of as being how the early church was.   The church was ministers of the gospel and did good works long before it got involved in any politics. or some hierachial system like the RCC.  You think the church must play a part in the moral political thing to do and be his church.  He said that he must be lifted up to a lost and dieing world. He called us to be ambassadors displaying His love for others. Are you going to Church or is the church and Christ in you. There a time when one stops going to the teacher and becomes a teacher. This is what discipleship is. This is what the apostles became.

But this world is heading for its inevitable end. Please read my message again

Also I did not say the church was Babylon, but is in Babylon. baby Lon is the whole world system. It is the world, but Christ that while we were still init wer were not to be apart of it.
 

So what about these questions I asked. You talk about Atheist and haters of organized religion. And thank God for Godly kings. Will Organized religion change the world? Will Godly kings make the world more godly? Think now. While you are homed in on only what you think is right you miss Christ by a million miles.

If the world would suddenly all become convicted of sin and all would come to Christ then truly the world would be a better place. Jesus would then already rule and judgment would not have to come. Jesus never taught the church was going to change the world or rule it.  The world is racing toward  antichrist. Let me say it again. The world and its politics and religions is racing toward antichrist. He will be to them the answer to world peace, and economic stability. Why is the pope concerned about the world markets. Is not Jesus going to bring judgment to Babylon?
1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance# of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.#
Now just think about what the pope is up to his neck in. No slander Just facts

You said who is antichrist but the one who denies Christ deity. So why is the Church of Rome in bed with the political ambitions of this world that will ultimately usher in the antichrist.  What does the papacy want? To be the center of world religion and politics. They are walking hand and right now.    They were married in 500 AD   The same ambition is still there. Are we ringing any bells yet? Don’t just think about what things  defend your position.  Think about what I just said.
God bless

[Amo]

Christ rebuked them as the Old Covenant was ended and they failed to recognise that fact.  He did however institute a new one and you have yet to prove that any authority within New Testament scripture can be derived through one's own making.  Even the Apostle Paul, chosen by Christ Himself, went to Christ's anointed Church leaders for ordination by the laying on of hands.  

Please site your "sola scriptura" evidence from Holy Scripture.  Only the Apostles, Bishops and Presbyters had the 'mandate' to teach and lead worship in Christ's name.  There is not one, single, solitary example of any other model existing in New Testement Scripture.

No visible Church authority?

Heb. 13:17  "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

1 Thes. 5:12-13  "Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other."

Men can ordain whoever they want, this does not mean that God has ordained them.  This much even you acknowledge, in that you would not accept the ordination of any but those ordained through Rome.  The history of many a Pope and Priest has proven that even though they were ordained of Rome, they most certainly were not ordained of God.  The following verses apply to all, including those ordained by anyone.

Matt 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

[mclees8]

Christ rebuked them as the Old Covenant was ended and they failed to recognise that fact.  He did however institute a new one and you have yet to prove that any authority within New Testament scripture can be derived through one's own making.  Even the Apostle Paul, chosen by Christ Himself, went to Christ's anointed Church leaders for ordination by the laying on of hands.  

Please site your "sola scriptura" evidence from Holy Scripture.  Only the Apostles, Bishops and Presbyters had the 'mandate' to teach and lead worship in Christ's name.  There is not one, single, solitary example of any other model existing in New Testement Scripture.

No visible Church authority?

Heb. 13:17  "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

1 Thes. 5:12-13  "Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other."

Yes we are to respect all authority. and those who are church leaders. as long as they stay on track. We are about the gospel not politics. When these verses were first spoken there was no political agendas.
God bless

[desertknight]

You can try to get around it all you want, Amo, but you don't reference any New Testament Scripture that I sited because the evidence is indisputable.  Yes, the Church's ministers can ordain whoever they want, but they only have the right to do so based on the fact that they were ordained by one with that same authority themselves.

There is not one single, solitary, example in New Testament scripture, of anyone, ever, being accepted as a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon without having been ordained so through the laying on of hands by legitimate, (i.e., those who can trace their ordination back to the Apostles.), Authority.  Not one, not ever.  Timothy, Titus, Silas...all had to receive proper ordination from those with valid authority in order to have the mandate to teach, preach and lead worship or most importantly as they were overseers, Bishops, to ordain Presbyters to lead individual Christian communities, so that pretty much blows your theory of no visible earthly church structure being established or necessary.  We actually have an example in the NT of those who tried to act without being properly ordained...

Acts 15:24-26 "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Notice that it was not simply that their teachings had disturbed some, that was incidental to the Apostles, but they had done so, "without any mandate from us", and so the remedy was to send those who did.

There is not a single example in the New Testament Church, contrary to Protestant practice, of anyone, anywhere, being self-appointed or appointed by any other than proper Apostolic authority, as being valid.  Not one.