Catholic-Anglican Reunion.

[desertknight]

as long as they stay on track.

That is not actually correct.  Although the Church is protected from gross errancy in matters of faith and morals, to state that once we decide on our own, though our own interpretation of Scripture, that Church leaders have erred and therefore we are no longer to follow them, has no Scriptural support.  I'm not saying the Church expects us to blindly follow errant ministers, but the problem with your model is that you cannot act out of your own interpretations without authority.  To act as you have stated is not to 'obey and respect', but to simply follow as long as you are in agreement with them.  That is not obedience, which scripture demands, but simple agreement.  Are the sheep allowed to wonder on their own if they think the Shepard is lost?  NO!  I may disagree with my father and my father may be wrong, but I am under his authority and obedience, nevertheless.  Such was Old Covenant law that a father could put to death his own children for their disobedience to him and God enshrined that very view in Holy Scripture.  Of course I am not advocating that today, but clearly it stands in stark contrast to our modernist views that say, "I will obey Mom and Dad or my other leaders in authority, be they civil or religious, only as long as I happen to agree with them".  Look what a toxic waste-dump of our society that has made in this world.   Look what a jumbled mess of incoherency it has made in the 35,000+ "denominations" of Christianity outside the Catholic Church, all claiming the truth.

[mclees8]

as long as they stay on track.

That is not actually correct.  Although the Church is protected from gross errancy in matters of faith and morals, to state that once we decide on our own, though our own interpretation of Scripture, that Church leaders have erred and therefore we are no longer to follow them, has no Scriptural support.  I'm not saying the Church expects us to blindly follow errant ministers, but the problem with your model is that you cannot act out of your own interpretations without authority.  To act as you have stated is not to 'obey and respect', but to simply follow as long as you are in agreement with them.  That is not obedience, which scripture demands, but simple agreement.  Are the sheep allowed to wonder on their own if they think the Shepard is lost?  NO!  I may disagree with my father and my father may be wrong, but I am under his authority and obedience, nevertheless.  Such was Old Covenant law that a father could put to death his own children for their disobedience to him and God enshrined that very view in Holy Scripture.  Of course I am not advocating that today, but clearly it stands in stark contrast to our modernist views that say, "I will obey Mom and Dad or my other leaders in authority, be they civil or religious, only as long as I happen to agree with them".  Look what a toxic waste-dump of our society that has made in this world.   Look what a jumbled mess of incoherency it has made in the 35,000+ "denominations" of Christianity outside the Catholic Church, all claiming the truth.

Political ambition was a gross error. You always say what scriptural support do i have for this or that. I have scriptural support but you never say anything about it.  So now let me ask you where is there any support in scripture that the church was to become a politically charged church.  A marriage between Christ church and the political power of the land? five hundred years after the church was born. Being the religious political authority representing Christ  before the whole empire and the known world is an extreemly important position for a bishop of Rome. Not even Peter had such a position.  So important is it that it is not likely Christ would have neglected to mention it noting it was five hundred years before it happened. And even then only by fraud. So what scriptural support do you have for this?
God bless
God bless 

[banished]

as long as they stay on track.

That is not actually correct.  Although the Church is protected from gross errancy in matters of faith and morals, to state that once we decide on our own, though our own interpretation of Scripture, that Church leaders have erred and therefore we are no longer to follow them, has no Scriptural support.  I'm not saying the Church expects us to blindly follow errant ministers, but the problem with your model is that you cannot act out of your own interpretations without authority.  To act as you have stated is not to 'obey and respect', but to simply follow as long as you are in agreement with them.  That is not obedience, which scripture demands, but simple agreement.  Are the sheep allowed to wonder on their own if they think the Shepard is lost?  NO!  I may disagree with my father and my father may be wrong, but I am under his authority and obedience, nevertheless.  Such was Old Covenant law that a father could put to death his own children for their disobedience to him and God enshrined that very view in Holy Scripture.  Of course I am not advocating that today, but clearly it stands in stark contrast to our modernist views that say, "I will obey Mom and Dad or my other leaders in authority, be they civil or religious, only as long as I happen to agree with them".  Look what a toxic waste-dump of our society that has made in this world.   Look what a jumbled mess of incoherency it has made in the 35,000+ "denominations" of Christianity outside the Catholic Church, all claiming the truth.

Political ambition was a gross error. You always say what scriptural support do i have for this or that. I have scriptural support but you never say anything about it.  So now let me ask you where is there any support in scripture that the church was to become a politically charged church.  A marriage between Christ church and the political power of the land? five hundred years after the church was born. Being the religious political authority representing Christ  before the whole empire and the known world is an extreemly important position for a bishop of Rome. Not even Peter had such a position.  So important is it that it is not likely Christ would have neglected to mention it noting it was five hundred years before it happened. And even then only by fraud. So what scriptural support do you have for this?
God bless
God bless 

mclees8,

"'But there are some of you who do not believe.' Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, 'For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.' As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, 'Do you also want to leave?' Simon Peter answered him, 'Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.'" John 6:64-68

[mclees8]

as long as they stay on track.

That is not actually correct.  Although the Church is protected from gross errancy in matters of faith and morals, to state that once we decide on our own, though our own interpretation of Scripture, that Church leaders have erred and therefore we are no longer to follow them, has no Scriptural support.  I'm not saying the Church expects us to blindly follow errant ministers, but the problem with your model is that you cannot act out of your own interpretations without authority.  To act as you have stated is not to 'obey and respect', but to simply follow as long as you are in agreement with them.  That is not obedience, which scripture demands, but simple agreement.  Are the sheep allowed to wonder on their own if they think the Shepard is lost?  NO!  I may disagree with my father and my father may be wrong, but I am under his authority and obedience, nevertheless.  Such was Old Covenant law that a father could put to death his own children for their disobedience to him and God enshrined that very view in Holy Scripture.  Of course I am not advocating that today, but clearly it stands in stark contrast to our modernist views that say, "I will obey Mom and Dad or my other leaders in authority, be they civil or religious, only as long as I happen to agree with them".  Look what a toxic waste-dump of our society that has made in this world.   Look what a jumbled mess of incoherency it has made in the 35,000+ "denominations" of Christianity outside the Catholic Church, all claiming the truth.

Political ambition was a gross error. You always say what scriptural support do i have for this or that. I have scriptural support but you never say anything about it.  So now let me ask you where is there any support in scripture that the church was to become a politically charged church.  A marriage between Christ church and the political power of the land? five hundred years after the church was born. Being the religious political authority representing Christ  before the whole empire and the known world is an extreemly important position for a bishop of Rome. Not even Peter had such a position.  So important is it that it is not likely Christ would have neglected to mention it noting it was five hundred years before it happened. And even then only by fraud. So what scriptural support do you have for this?
God bless
God bless 

mclees8,

"'But there are some of you who do not believe.' Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, 'For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.' As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, 'Do you also want to leave?' Simon Peter answered him, 'Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.'" John 6:64-68

Nice scripture, but it doesn't support what i was talking about. there question to support politacal ambition is still there.
 
God bless

[Amo]

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.

That is a bunch of nonsense.  It is by their fruits, and their teachings that we are to know the true Church.  It is ridiculous to think that for the last two thousand years we were supposed to keep track of every one ever ordained, and know whether they can be traced back to the apostles.  All that would be needed by any then, would be a good forgery to fool everyone.  Which very thing the Church of Rome is guilty of using in the past, and therefore could not be trusted now to be honest about the same.

I know that even you will admit that there have been many that were ordained by Rome, only to be later excommunicated from the same for not maintaining Rome’s teachings.  Thus the ordination loses all significance.  So also does any ordination from Rome, since she has departed so far from the scriptures with her teachings, and practices.  Even if you could produce real documentation back to the apostles, it would mean nothing to me because of your teachings.  Nor to anyone else who holds scripture above tradition. 

Of course the scriptures give no account of ordination apart from the apostles, they were written by them during their lives.  I’m sure they were involved in many ordinations.  On the other hand, I am sure that many took place without them also.  They certainly could not have kept up with the pace at which the early Church grew, and prospered.  If you consider how many the apostles ordained, and then how many those who the apostles ordained, ordained, and so on and so son, you see the impossibility of keeping track of every supposed authentic ordination over the last two thousand years.  The only Church I could think of demanding this for proof of authenticity and obedience, would be one that did not have the truth, and therefore sought other means of lording itself over others.  Which very thing the Church of Rome has done all throughout history, even commanding those who would not bow to her, to be killed for the same.  Proof positive that she is not the true Church regardless of any claim she has, or any supposed proof of lineage back to the apostles.

This is exactly what many of the Jews did in Jesus day.  They claimed to be of the lineage of Abraham as authenticity of their true religion, but then they crucified Christ, and persecuted and killed His followers.  Thus proving the exact opposite.  So also the political aspirations of the Church of Rome, have left behind in the annals of history her bloody path of persecution of all that would not bow to her claim for authority as the true and authentic Church of Christ on earth.  Thus proving the exact opposite.  What you call the true Church of Christ, the bible calls BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

She is presently seeking relations with as many of the kings of the earth as she possibly can.  There is no other religion in the world that comes anywhere near being as politically involved in the same.  The result this time will be the same as last time.  She will end up persecuting God’s true Church in this world.  The Church which is composed of all those who have chosen to submit their lives to the guidance of God’s word above all other powers of this world, including Rome’s.

[ex cathedra]

that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that Man of Sin be revealed, the Son of Perdition; who opposeth and exalteth  himself above all that is called God… so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God… For the Mystery of Iniquity doth already work…  until he be taken out of the way. And then shall That Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming…”  2 Thessalonians 2:3-8

[banished]

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.

That is a bunch of nonsense.  It is by their fruits, and their teachings that we are to know the true Church.  It is ridiculous to think that for the last two thousand years we were supposed to keep track of every one ever ordained, and know whether they can be traced back to the apostles.  All that would be needed by any then, would be a good forgery to fool everyone.  Which very thing the Church of Rome is guilty of using in the past, and therefore could not be trusted now to be honest about the same.

I know that even you will admit that there have been many that were ordained by Rome, only to be later excommunicated from the same for not maintaining Rome’s teachings.  Thus the ordination loses all significance.  So also does any ordination from Rome, since she has departed so far from the scriptures with her teachings, and practices.  Even if you could produce real documentation back to the apostles, it would mean nothing to me because of your teachings.  Nor to anyone else who holds scripture above tradition. 

Of course the scriptures give no account of ordination apart from the apostles, they were written by them during their lives.  I’m sure they were involved in many ordinations.  On the other hand, I am sure that many took place without them also.  They certainly could not have kept up with the pace at which the early Church grew, and prospered.  If you consider how many the apostles ordained, and then how many those who the apostles ordained, ordained, and so on and so son, you see the impossibility of keeping track of every supposed authentic ordination over the last two thousand years.  The only Church I could think of demanding this for proof of authenticity and obedience, would be one that did not have the truth, and therefore sought other means of lording itself over others.  Which very thing the Church of Rome has done all throughout history, even commanding those who would not bow to her, to be killed for the same.  Proof positive that she is not the true Church regardless of any claim she has, or any supposed proof of lineage back to the apostles.

This is exactly what many of the Jews did in Jesus day.  They claimed to be of the lineage of Abraham as authenticity of their true religion, but then they crucified Christ, and persecuted and killed His followers.  Thus proving the exact opposite.  So also the political aspirations of the Church of Rome, have left behind in the annals of history her bloody path of persecution of all that would not bow to her claim for authority as the true and authentic Church of Christ on earth.  Thus proving the exact opposite.  What you call the true Church of Christ, the bible calls BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

She is presently seeking relations with as many of the kings of the earth as she possibly can.  There is no other religion in the world that comes anywhere near being as politically involved in the same.  The result this time will be the same as last time.  She will end up persecuting God’s true Church in this world.  The Church which is composed of all those who have chosen to submit their lives to the guidance of God’s word above all other powers of this world, including Rome’s.

The New Advent: Know-Nothingism:

Amo, you wasted all afternoon typing a Worn-Out Anti-Catholic Allegation, "The Church Is the wh*re of Babylon" Huh?  Is everything okay?  Huh? 

[Bocephus]

What are the Catholics going to try to heal their split from the Syriac Church?

[Amo]

If Rome would stop committing fornication with the kings of the earth, calling her Babylon would get worn out.  Since she will not stop, but to the contrary is continually increasing the same, the accusation becomes increasingly true.  True Protestantism leads to separation of Church and state, not the amalgamation of the same.  Thus this once Protestant nation made a separation between the two.  Now that Rome is taking over, that separation is, and will continue to disappear.  So also will this nation continue it's dive, for turning away from it's Protestant roots, and back to Rome.

It is the wh*re of the book of Revelation that seeks to have illicit relationships with the kings of the earth, in order to manipulate and control the same.  She seeks the power of political alliances in this world, over the power of the Holy Spirit of God, and thus commits spiritual fornication with the kings of the earth.  A Friend of the world, is the enemy of God.  You can be no closer to the world, than to be the one controlling it.  Thus Rome is the enemy of God, and all true Christians.

James 4:1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
4 [b]Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.[/b]

No surprise that the history of the Church of Rome is filled with political strife and bloodshed.  Her future is bound for the same.  Go to, and gain all the political power of this world that you can, I will have none of it.  My hope is in the next world, not this one.  God calls His people out of Babylon, because many are still within her ranks.  Come out, come out, for why will you receive of her plagues?  What profit is it if you gain the entire world, but lose your soul?

[banished]

What are the Catholics going to try to heal their split from the Syriac Church?

I doubt that the Orthodox have the same problem as the Anglicans.  What happened was the traditional Anglicans wanted out.  I have been Excommunicated for 22 years because of my Protestant marriage, and now I hear the Anglican marriages are going to be recognized. There is going to be some changes.

[desertknight]

That is a bunch of nonsense.  It is by their fruits, and their teachings that we are to know the true Church.  It is ridiculous to think that for the last two thousand years we were supposed to keep track of every one ever ordained, and know whether they can be traced back to the apostles.  All that would be needed by any then, would be a good forgery to fool everyone.  Which very thing the Church of Rome is guilty of using in the past, and therefore could not be trusted now to be honest about the same.

It is neither a bunch of nonsense, nor is it what you claim.  Every ordination is not traced back to the Apostles...because that would be foolishly unnecessary.  All that is required is what is very much the historic record.  Those that were constituted Bishops were the ones empowered to ordain and that succession is without doubt.  It is nonsense that you assume that it requires every priest to trace their line of ordination back to the Apostles, they only need to verify that the Bishop that oversaw their ordination was 1.  A valid Bishop.  2.  The ordination was both valid and licit under cannon law.

Please provide proof of which "forgeries" of ordination you are refering to.  There may be some histories of lines of Bishops that are uncertain, or even wrong, but again, that is unimportant as to the validity of Holy Orders.  Let me give you a perfect example to help you understand where your concept of Apostolic Succession is wrong.  The Church officially list Linus as Peter's successor but also accepts that other histories of the time list Clement as Peter's successor.  Does that "invalidate" the succession?  Of course not.  It makes little difference except to the records of history who came before whom.  That is not what Ap. Succession is.  All that is required is that both Linus and Clement were validly ordained.

Wiki puts it nicely...

The Roman Catholic Church holds that a bishop's consecration is valid if the sacrament of Holy Orders is validly administered with the intention of doing what the Church does by ordination and according to a valid sacramental form, and if the consecrating bishop's orders are valid, regardless of whether the rite takes place within or outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, Roman Catholics recognize the validity of the episcopacy of Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East and Old Catholic bishops, but the situation is less clear regarding Anglican bishops and Independent Catholic bishops (see Episcopi vagantes).

I know that even you will admit that there have been many that were ordained by Rome, only to be later excommunicated from the same for not maintaining Rome’s teachings.  Thus the ordination loses all significance.

Nope.  Excommunication neither invalidates previous sacraments by that person that were legitimately carried out, nor any validity of ordination that they consecrated.  BTW, ALL episcopal ordinations are carried out by multiple presbyterial authority, just as in the NT, which also should shed some light on and invalidate your first objection.  Apostolic succession is not that each ordained person is in exact line with another ahead of them, it is the validity of ordination being carried out by only those authorised, (i.e., previously ordained.), to do so.  In other words, a Bishop is not simply ordained by one person.  Ordination usually involve several who are gathered and authorised to do so.  That is a point that many get wrong.  As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it...

"By this consecration and by hierarchical communion with the Pope and other bishops, the bishop becomes a member of the episcopal body. The Church's ancient practice of several bishops consecrating every new bishop witnesses to the bishop's collegial nature."

In other words, Apostolic Succession is not one single linear line, but multiple ever expanding linear lines that emanate from the original Apostles.

So also does any ordination from Rome, since she has departed so far from the scriptures with her teachings, and practices.  Even if you could produce real documentation back to the apostles, it would mean nothing to me because of your teachings.  Nor to anyone else who holds scripture above tradition.

The first point is bogus, but we will simply differ.  The second as well, as not only do we maintain lines of succession, so do all of the eastern Churches outside the Catholic Church, and my Church fully recognises them, as well as the Anglicans, up until the 19th century when they changed some important forms of ordination and began accepting clergy from other denominations who did not have proper succession.

Of course the scriptures give no account of ordination apart from the apostles, they were written by them during their lives.  I’m sure they were involved in many ordinations.  On the other hand, I am sure that many took place without them also.  They certainly could not have kept up with the pace at which the early Church grew, and prospered.  If you consider how many the apostles ordained, and then how many those who the apostles ordained, ordained, and so on and so son, you see the impossibility of keeping track of every supposed authentic ordination over the last two thousand years.

Nope.  The Scriptures give ample account of ordination apart from the Apostles.  Timothy and Titus for a couple of examples, are tasked as overseers and recorded specifically in the New Testament as being charged with ordaining Presbyters in various cities.  How are you sure that many took place without them?  You mean outside of succession?  Well, not only is there not one, single, solitary, example from the NT of that occurring, there is the example that I sited of Paul acting to rectify those who tried, "without a mandate from us" as he put it, and were overturned.  To your last points here again, it still begs the observation that you are unaware of how this works.  The Apostles did not have to "keep up with the pace of growth".  As the Church grew so did the number of those who were empowered to ordain.  NT scripture illustrates that clearly, thus the eventual distinction between Bishops and Presbyters.  What is absolutely indisputable from scripture is that only those who's ordination was from one who was themselves validly ordained, was accepted.  Not impossible at all to keep track of that.  There is not a single record or history anywhere of say, presbyters being organically constituted in local communities as the Protestants do.  It simply did not exist.

The only Church I could think of demanding this for proof of authenticity and obedience, would be one that did not have the truth, and therefore sought other means of lording itself over others.  Which very thing the Church of Rome has done all throughout history, even commanding those who would not bow to her, to be killed for the same.  Proof positive that she is not the true Church regardless of any claim she has, or any supposed proof of lineage back to the apostles.

That's just ludicrous and nonsense in it's argument.  That there have been Catholic leaders who have sinned, even committed murder, does in no way invalidate the Church.  Peter denied Christ and cut off the ear of a Roman soldier in a fight, that did not invalidate the Church he was clearly a leader of nor did it invalidate his Apostleship.  Apples and oranges.  Everyone of the original Apostles was clearly guilty of sin, some even great and horrible ones.  Did that invalidate the Church?  Of course not, but you seem incapable of grasping this.  I hate to break the news to you, but every single solitary leader of the Christian faith in the world today, whether Protestant or Catholic, is a sinner of the worst sort and undeserving of salvation, including you and me.  We are only saved by the free gift of grace that flows from the the Blood of the Cross.  No sinner can invalidate the Church, from Pope to parishioner.

This is exactly what many of the Jews did in Jesus day.  They claimed to be of the lineage of Abraham as authenticity of their true religion, but then they crucified Christ, and persecuted and killed His followers.  Thus proving the exact opposite.

Again, nonsense.  That they killed Christ is no reflection on any linage traced back to Abraham.  Again, apples and oranges.  Are you just making this stuff up?  Christ rebuked them, but you seem to think that He thought the Jewish priesthood of the OT, invalid.    That would be a unique view held by not one single Protestant theologian that I know of.  Where are you coming up with that?  Christ WAS a member of that Jewish priesthood with succession that very much IS traced through succession in the Bible.  You act as if this succession idea is alien to the faith and yet scripture after scripture on the subject states the opposite of your view.  Did you just miss reading all that in the OT about the validity of the Jewish priesthood and in the NT of how Christ is part of that succession of the Melchizedek priesthood?  Where are you getting that it is invalid?  The difference is that the Christian priesthood, sharing in the one priesthood of Christ, is not hereditary, just as the new Israel of the Church, requires no circumcision or Jewish blood to partake of the Covenant.

Thus proving the exact opposite.  What you call the true Church of Christ, the bible calls BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Nonsense, gutter bigotry and reported to the moderators.  PROVE IT!!!  Not just your opinion or how you feel...PROVE IT!!!

She is presently seeking relations with as many of the kings of the earth as she possibly can.

And this is unbiblical how?

The rest of your post is just the typical unhinged rant of slime and bigotry that should make all Christians turn red with shame.  I will let it go as I know the pointlessness of trying to stop those who say, "Christ, Christ!"  while doing the Devil's work of slander and dragging their brother Christians through the gutter.

  

[desertknight]

Political ambition was a gross error. You always say what scriptural support do i have for this or that. I have scriptural support but you never say anything about it.  So now let me ask you where is there any support in scripture that the church was to become a politically charged church.  So what scriptural support do you have for this?

Maybe you need to read back through your own posts.  You did not provide any scriptural support for your position, you only quoted from one passage of Revelation and then made such sweeping statements as, "The Pope is up to his neck to"  and "Church of Rome in bed with the political ambitions of this world that will ultimately usher in the Antichrist."  Now of course those statements are nonsense.  They are broad, unsupported sweeping statements that you would have mean that if the Pope is arbitrating a peace accord with the Arabs and Jews that he is, "is up to his neck to"...and then you go on to indicate the ways of the anti-Christ.  Now when scripture says, "Blessed are the peacemakers", whom does it refer?  Doesn't one have to engage in the world to make peace between states who are at war?  Of course so!  If the Church is trying to bring respect for human dignity back to Rwanda then dealing with the governments there you equate to the Church being, "in bed with the political ambitions of this world."  Really?    How so, and how do you maintain that Scripture is opposed to it when Holy Scripture clearly states that we are "blessed" by working for peace, fighting for justice, feeding the poor, protecting the innocent?

As to the overall Biblical history and justification of dealing with the world and it's kings and governments, I hardly know where to start.  The Old Testament is the logical place.  It's history of God's chosen is the history of not just a people, but of the political nation-states of Israel and Judea, of judges and kings, of armies and taxes, of diplomacy and bureaucracy....all with the benevolent approval of God.  Are you actually unaware of this?  I don't think you are, I just honestly think that through a combination of believing that the Church must always be invisible and your bias against past Catholic history, you just assume that your opinions are supported by Holy Scripture, but contrary to that, the Bible is a story of God's chosen being a nation-state of Israel and of the new Israel, as Holy Scripture states directly, the Church, being the full and complete inheritors of those promises of the Lord.  Are you just unaware of God's anointment of kings, His support of armies, His demand of obedience to the very visible and worldly government of His chosen, the Jewish nation?  Where are you getting that the Church is prohibited from this as the inheritors of the Jewish Covenant?  I assume that you are not part of the Evangelical active support of Israel that I am constantly bombarded with on my Protestant religious TV channels and by all the televangelist that I hear, for I can think of no greater involvement by the "Church" in worldly affairs, no greater being, "up to our neck" in it, as you put it, then the active political involvement with Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict that is the constant theme of those very evangelicals, Protestants and televangelist.  How bout' abortion and gay "marriage"?  Should we not sully ourselves in those political issues of the state?  Of course the nations of the world will all be brought low in the end times.  Of course they will be deceived by the anti-Christ in the end, but nowhere does this abrogate the Church's responsibility in being a part of the world here and now, and actively engaging it as a witness to Christ and an instrument of God's will, just as the very imperfect, very bloody at times, very unjust at times, nation state of Israel was in the OT.  

[mclees8]

While you are trying to refute AMO I still have an unanswered question on the board. Where is you biblical justification for the Vatican's political ambition in 500 AD or now.

All I ever hear is your justification for authority. A true blinding hangup. you can't see beyond your nose. You want proof for this and that. real documents, biblical support. Its funny  you are so against Bible only but you use it as a matter convienience every time you think it supports your ideas.

I have stated clearly the case against the churches political ambition. Even bibilicaly
why Jesus does not ordain this.  This is why the church is in Babylon. It sleeps with the world and all that will bring Antichrist. I tell you that Jesus does not support you and I challenge you to prove otherwise.   And if you can't prove otherwise then I would strongly suggest you rethink your thinking. Don't come at us with more of the same old same old.

I get tired hearing about apostilic succession being your justification for authority. This will never justify what the papacy became and is. Now state your case for the churches political ambition biblically. Just one thing the Jesus or Peter or the apostles said or wrote that supports it.

God bless

[desertknight]

While you are trying to refute AMO I still have an unanswered question on the board. Where is you biblical justification for the Vatican's political ambition in 500 AD or now.

Maybe you were working on this and didn't see my response to you has already been posted just above.  It is all there.

Just one thing the Jesus or Peter or the apostles said or wrote that supports it.

It is clearly stated in scripture and clearly posted by me.  Multiple scriptural examples of the validity of Church office being ONLY through ordination by ONLY those who are themselves validly ordained to do so, is the ONLY model of the Church in the NT.  That IS the very definition of the Apostolic Succession.

[mclees8]

Political ambition was a gross error. You always say what scriptural support do i have for this or that. I have scriptural support but you never say anything about it.  So now let me ask you where is there any support in scripture that the church was to become a politically charged church.  So what scriptural support do you have for this?

Maybe you need to read back through your own posts.  You did not provide any scriptural support for your position, you only quoted from one passage of Revelation and then made such sweeping statements as, "The Pope is up to his neck to"  and "Church of Rome in bed with the political ambitions of this world that will ultimately usher in the Antichrist."  Now of course those statements are nonsense.  They are broad, unsupported sweeping statements that you would have mean that if the Pope is arbitrating a peace accord with the Arabs and Jews that he is, "is up to his neck to"...and then you go on to indicate the ways of the anti-Christ.  Now when scripture says, "Blessed are the peacemakers", whom does it refer?  Doesn't one have to engage in the world to make peace between states who at war?  Of course so!  If the Church is trying to bring respect for human dignity back to Rwanda then dealing with the governments there you equate to the Church being, "in bed with the political ambitions of this world."  Really?    How so, and how do you maintain that Scripture is opposed to it when Holy Scripture clearly states that we are "blessed" by working for peace, fighting for justice, feeding the poor, protecting the innocent.

As to the overall Biblical history and justification of dealing with the world and it's kings and governments, I hardly know where to start.  The Old Testament is the logical place.  It's history of God's chosen is the history of not just a people, but of the political nation-states of Israel and Judea, of judges and kings, of armies and taxes, of diplomacy and bureaucracy....all with the benevolent approval of God.  Are you actually unaware of this?  I don't think you are, I just honestly think that through a combination of believing that the Church must always be invisible and your bias against past Catholic history, you just assume that your opinions are supported by Holy Scripture, but contrary to that, the Bible is a story of God's chosen being a nation-state of Israel and of the new Israel, as Holy Scripture states directly, the Church, being the full and complete inheritors of those promises of the Lord.  Are you just unaware of God's anointment of kings, His support of armies, His demand of obedience to the very visible and worldly government of His chosen, the Jewish nation.  Where are you getting that the Church is prohibited from this as the inheritors of the Jewish Covenant?  I assume that you are not part of the Evangelical active support of Israel that I am constantly bombarded with on my Protestant religious TV channels and by all the televangelist that I hear, for I can think of no greater involvement by the "Church" in worldly affairs, no greater being, "up to our neck" in it, as you put it, then the active political involvement with Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict that is the constant theme of those very evangelicals, Protestants and televangelist.  How bout' abortion and gay "marriage"?  Should we not sully ourselves in those political issues of the state?  Of course the nations of the world will all be brought low in the end times.  Of course they will be deceived by the anti-Christ in the end, but nowhere does this abrogate the Church's responsibility in being a part of the world here and now, and actively engaging it as a witness to Christ and an instrument of God's will, just as the very imperfect, very bloody at times, very unjust at times, nation state of Israel was in the OT.  

You justify political ambitions with moral responsibility. Funny I don't see this in scripture.
You justify politics which is always steeped in corruptions. Explain why Jesus did not mandate political ambition and the church was all that he commanded it to be for 500years before papal rule.

Listen I don;t justify protestant involvement either. Tha is t the problem with the church as a a whole.  Its looking to men and government to sole the worlds moral delima instead of staying focused on who we are in Christ and the hope we have in his second coming. the example of loving out neighbor does not mean we are to be in the worlds  political fabric.

My question still stands