Papacy - right or wrong?

[mclees8]

As uncomfortable as you try to make the vestments sound they put them on to exclaim one thing. The need to be seen and known as religious authority. To be exalted above the common.

This is a false statement made in ignorance.

Some thing we do not see in the early church authority. Right or wrong?

Wrong.  The Church leaders were set aside to serve God in a way that is differentiated from the role of the laity:

"Accordingly, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons, men who are an honor to the Lord, of gentle disposition, not attached to money, honest and well-tried; for they, too, render you the sacred service of the prophets and teachers." The Didache (c. A.D. 90).

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 44:1-2 (c. A.D. 96).

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyraens, 8 (c. A.D. 110).

Mike
The first letter you use, speaks of the personal Christian character of those who are to be leaders. For the most part all believers should have these  characters. But since not all believers are mature enough the instruction is stated for those who would be chosen so as to be good examples before the body.. The apostles themselves were to set the greatest example of Christian character in leadership and they felt no need to put on religious vestments to call attention to their position of authority. They just simply were authority by Gods grace through the Holy Spirit.. I do not see what you are trying to justify here about vestments

How ever there are other characters here they have not mentioned.. And that is they should be humble and not self seeking  or flaunt with pride and ambition their position And nothing stated by your bishops, who were not  popes, has anything to  do with wearing vestments. Your letter  states them as pope dated Ad 90. They were  bishops at that time that never addressed themselves as pope or presented themselves in any way as having any superior authority over all bishops, To present them as pope is added and is deception, used to present a false idea to  the body.  To deceive the body is lying.  It is false representation . It should never be in the church. . 

Your second letter by Clement is also deceptive representation. You will only find letter addressing himself as one bishop to another bishop being  equals.  The subject was one of successors. The instruction is again as one bishop to another, and has no reflection on wearing any vestments which they probably did not wear being so close the original apostles.

The last letter from  is not deceptive addressing Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch . How ever of all the letters used by Catholic theologians and apologists this one  is the most misused and abuse to justify RCC authority. Now this does not mean we are to not obey and respect authority. But what I see is they find it necessary to put the double exclamation point on their authority. It is their whole thrust to prove they are the true church and sit in the seat of Peter. To drive that point home so as to intimidate and control the body, and more than the body but project themselves as the authority of God on the earth They incorporate all this in their teaching.  It is to bad that Ignatius stated and emphasized this idea in his epistle for if he had known how the papacy would misuse and abuse his comments he may have greatly regretted saying it, and most of all using of the word catholic


Again this has no justification at all for the vestments. Especially because he was a direct disciple of John, whom I am sure would not have encouraged pride and exaltation in any way by the wearing of religious vestment,


God bless

[mclees8]

Please don't try to justify the papacy with on Old testament passage that does not reflect in the New. Peter was given authority in the Power of the spirit. He did not put on all those vestments because that was for the New Testament church. If it was then Peter would have put on vestments. Why did Jesus have to go back to the father, who was in heaven. He could have had an earthly throne. Now you say he gave that to Peter but Peter never sat on a throne let alone ware vestments.
It is true the Old testament for shadows Christ but the covenant is New.

Here an Old testament verse that speaks of the New Covenant.

In the New Testament, St. Peter was given the keys just as Eliakim was given the keys in the Old Testament.  God dressed Eliakin in priestly vestments.  Therefore, St. Peter and his successors would also be dressed in priestly vestments. 




So, now you switch to the New Covenant?  Weren't we speaking about the clothes of the Pope?  How did you go from clothes to the New Covenant?   

But Peter nor his succesors were given vestments were they.


Under the new covenant the old testament style priest hood was done away with. Now were are clothed in the spirit.

[LightHammer]

Please don't try to justify the papacy with on Old testament passage that does not reflect in the New. Peter was given authority in the Power of the spirit. He did not put on all those vestments because that was for the New Testament church. If it was then Peter would have put on vestments. Why did Jesus have to go back to the father, who was in heaven. He could have had an earthly throne. Now you say he gave that to Peter but Peter never sat on a throne let alone ware vestments.
It is true the Old testament for shadows Christ but the covenant is New.

Here an Old testament verse that speaks of the New Covenant.

In the New Testament, St. Peter was given the keys just as Eliakim was given the keys in the Old Testament.  God dressed Eliakin in priestly vestments.  Therefore, St. Peter and his successors would also be dressed in priestly vestments. 




So, now you switch to the New Covenant?  Weren't we speaking about the clothes of the Pope?  How did you go from clothes to the New Covenant?   

But Peter nor his succesors were given vestments were they.


Under the new covenant the old testament style priest hood was done away with. Now were are clothed in the spirit.

Just wanted to commend mcless in the unbiased unproach he's taken in this thread. If you guys didn't notice, not once has mclees resorted to the common undeucated anticatholic rants that some of our other protestant brothers and sisters like to practice. Manna to all of you.

This dialogue has put a smile on my face.

[Selene]

But Peter nor his succesors were given vestments were they.


Under the new covenant the old testament style priest hood was done away with. Now were are clothed in the spirit.

In the Old Testament, God went through great lengths explaining about the priestly vestments just as He went through great lengths to explain details on how to prepare the Passover.  Because it's already in the Old Testament, God does not need to tell it again in the New Testament.  Look at the Ten Commandments.  Do you think that was done away with despite that it's not in the New Testament?  Of course not.  Do not steal, do not commit murder, do not commit adultery, do not covet thy neighbor's wife and goods, honor your mother and father, etc. still applies to the New Testament.  God did not need to send another stone tablet in the New Testament.  Furthermore, the fact that the Catholic Church has retained her Jewish heritage is evidence that she is indeed the Church that Christ built.       

[Selene]

Again this has no justification at all for the vestments. Especially because he was a direct disciple of John, whom I am sure would not have encouraged pride and exaltation in any way by the wearing of religious vestment,


God bless

The problem here is that you see the sin of pride in a person's clothes.  So, if the Pope were to take off those clothes, would you see humility?  How simple it would be if our sins were in the clothes.  By taking off our clothes, we would be taking away our sins and don't need to repent. 

[chestertonrules]

As uncomfortable as you try to make the vestments sound they put them on to exclaim one thing. The need to be seen and known as religious authority. To be exalted above the common.

This is a false statement made in ignorance.

Some thing we do not see in the early church authority. Right or wrong?

Wrong.  The Church leaders were set aside to serve God in a way that is differentiated from the role of the laity:

"Accordingly, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons, men who are an honor to the Lord, of gentle disposition, not attached to money, honest and well-tried; for they, too, render you the sacred service of the prophets and teachers." The Didache (c. A.D. 90).

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 44:1-2 (c. A.D. 96).

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyraens, 8 (c. A.D. 110).

The first letter you use, speaks of the personal Christian character of those who are to be leaders.

So we are in agreement that the early Church had leaders and followers.

Your second letter by Clement is also deceptive representation. You will only find letter addressing himself as one bishop to another bishop being  equals.  The subject was one of successors. The instruction is again as one bishop to another, and has no reflection on wearing any vestments which they probably did not wear being so close the original apostles.

The point is that the leaders of the Church appointed successors.  I'm not sure what you think is deceptive about it.

The last letter from  is not deceptive addressing Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch . How ever of all the letters used by Catholic theologians and apologists this one  is the most misused and abuse to justify RCC authority. Now this does not mean we are to not obey and respect authority. But what I see is they find it necessary to put the double exclamation point on their authority. It is their whole thrust to prove they are the true church and sit in the seat of Peter. To drive that point home so as to intimidate and control the body, and more than the body but project themselves as the authority of God on the earth They incorporate all this in their teaching.  It is to bad that Ignatius stated and emphasized this idea in his epistle for if he had known how the papacy would misuse and abuse his comments he may have greatly regretted saying it, and most of all using of the word catholic

Jesus put the double exclamation point when he said,"he who listens to you listens to me."

Ignatius was a personal friend of the apostle John and he was eaten by lions for his faith.  His Christian credentials are well established.  I wouldn't dismiss him if I were you, I would study him, and the other early fathers, to help you find the Truth.

[mclees8]

As uncomfortable as you try to make the vestments sound they put them on to exclaim one thing. The need to be seen and known as religious authority. To be exalted above the common.

This is a false statement made in ignorance.

Some thing we do not see in the early church authority. Right or wrong?

Wrong.  The Church leaders were set aside to serve God in a way that is differentiated from the role of the laity:

"Accordingly, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons, men who are an honor to the Lord, of gentle disposition, not attached to money, honest and well-tried; for they, too, render you the sacred service of the prophets and teachers." The Didache (c. A.D. 90).

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 44:1-2 (c. A.D. 96).

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyraens, 8 (c. A.D. 110).

The first letter you use, speaks of the personal Christian character of those who are to be leaders.

So we are in agreement that the early Church had leaders and followers.

Your second letter by Clement is also deceptive representation. You will only find letter addressing himself as one bishop to another bishop being  equals.  The subject was one of successors. The instruction is again as one bishop to another, and has no reflection on wearing any vestments which they probably did not wear being so close the original apostles.

The point is that the leaders of the Church appointed successors.  I'm not sure what you think is deceptive about it.

The last letter from  is not deceptive addressing Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch . How ever of all the letters used by Catholic theologians and apologists this one  is the most misused and abuse to justify RCC authority. Now this does not mean we are to not obey and respect authority. But what I see is they find it necessary to put the double exclamation point on their authority. It is their whole thrust to prove they are the true church and sit in the seat of Peter. To drive that point home so as to intimidate and control the body, and more than the body but project themselves as the authority of God on the earth They incorporate all this in their teaching.  It is to bad that Ignatius stated and emphasized this idea in his epistle for if he had known how the papacy would misuse and abuse his comments he may have greatly regretted saying it, and most of all using of the word catholic

Jesus put the double exclamation point when he said,"he who listens to you listens to me."

Ignatius was a personal friend of the apostle John and he was eaten by lions for his faith.  His Christian credentials are well established.  I wouldn't dismiss him if I were you, I would study him, and the other early fathers, to help you find the Truth.

I never denied that the was a succession. what i deny is that Roman  bishops were papal bishops being recognized as supreme pope, even by other bishops or that the early church ever recognized them in that role. the letters do not reflect this yet the RC's add the title as if they were.  You present these letter using the added title pope

What I did not see in any of the presentation anything that justified wearing religious robes and vestments. or are you just trying to run me around. 

The early church fathers were not popes. but just Bishops like there were bishops in any other city and church. There was no petrine succession of popes From Peter in Rome that made all Roman bishops popes ( supreme papa, or supreme pontiff or supreme anything. Examination of the original letters will bare this out but don;t look at catholic reproductions of them that add they were popes always being recognized in that title role by all bishops.

Were you trying to justify vestment or something else.

Are we on the same page yet?

[mclees8]

But Peter nor his succesors were given vestments were they.


Under the new covenant the old testament style priest hood was done away with. Now were are clothed in the spirit.

In the Old Testament, God went through great lengths explaining about the priestly vestments just as He went through great lengths to explain details on how to prepare the Passover.  Because it's already in the Old Testament, God does not need to tell it again in the New Testament.  Look at the Ten Commandments.  Do you think that was done away with despite that it's not in the New Testament?  Of course not.  Do not steal, do not commit murder, do not commit adultery, do not covet thy neighbor's wife and goods, honor your mother and father, etc. still applies to the New Testament.  God did not need to send another stone tablet in the New Testament.  Furthermore, the fact that the Catholic Church has retained her Jewish heritage is evidence that she is indeed the Church that Christ built.       

If it is as you want to think then Why did the apostles not put on vestments. And why did Jusus castigate the Pharisees, Yes it is a pride problem.

God bless

[Selene]

But Peter nor his succesors were given vestments were they.


Under the new covenant the old testament style priest hood was done away with. Now were are clothed in the spirit.

In the Old Testament, God went through great lengths explaining about the priestly vestments just as He went through great lengths to explain details on how to prepare the Passover.  Because it's already in the Old Testament, God does not need to tell it again in the New Testament.  Look at the Ten Commandments.  Do you think that was done away with despite that it's not in the New Testament?  Of course not.  Do not steal, do not commit murder, do not commit adultery, do not covet thy neighbor's wife and goods, honor your mother and father, etc. still applies to the New Testament.  God did not need to send another stone tablet in the New Testament.  Furthermore, the fact that the Catholic Church has retained her Jewish heritage is evidence that she is indeed the Church that Christ built.       

If it is as you want to think then Why did the apostles not put on vestments. And why did Jusus castigate the Pharisees, Yes it is a pride problem.

God bless

Mike, Jesus castigated them for their hypocracy.  He did not castigate them for their robes.  God allowed the robes.  He did not allow the hypocrasy and the pride. As I said, you are mistakenly thinking that the sin of pride is in a person's clothes when it isn't.

[mclees8]

But Peter nor his succesors were given vestments were they.


Under the new covenant the old testament style priest hood was done away with. Now were are clothed in the spirit.

In the Old Testament, God went through great lengths explaining about the priestly vestments just as He went through great lengths to explain details on how to prepare the Passover.  Because it's already in the Old Testament, God does not need to tell it again in the New Testament.  Look at the Ten Commandments.  Do you think that was done away with despite that it's not in the New Testament?  Of course not.  Do not steal, do not commit murder, do not commit adultery, do not covet thy neighbor's wife and goods, honor your mother and father, etc. still applies to the New Testament.  God did not need to send another stone tablet in the New Testament.  Furthermore, the fact that the Catholic Church has retained her Jewish heritage is evidence that she is indeed the Church that Christ built.       

If it is as you want to think then Why did the apostles not put on vestments. And why did Jusus castigate the Pharisees, Yes it is a pride problem.

God bless

Mike, Jesus castigated them for their hypocracy.  He did not castigate them for their robes.  God allowed the robes.  He did not allow the hypocrasy and the pride. As I said, you are mistakenly thinking that the sin of pride is in a person's clothes when it isn't.

I believe we have discussed this already. There is a reason why the apostles did not put on vestments. Yet they had a greater power and authority and spirit of God than any Pope.  they did not have flaunt their authority by looking like religious authority. But this is the part you Refuse to acknowledges or understand.

So I am going to have to end this endless dialog. But I pray the Lord reveal the truth for you

God bless ans by for now.

[chestertonrules]

I believe we have discussed this already. There is a reason why the apostles did not put on vestments. Yet they had a greater power and authority and spirit of God than any Pope.  they did not have flaunt their authority by looking like religious authority. But this is the part you Refuse to acknowledges or understand.

So I am going to have to end this endless dialog. But I pray the Lord reveal the truth for you

God bless ans by for now.

You don't know what the apostles wore.

More importantly, there is a huge difference between exercising legitimate authority and flaunting authority.

The role of the Church leaders was to lead. 

[mclees8]

I believe we have discussed this already. There is a reason why the apostles did not put on vestments. Yet they had a greater power and authority and spirit of God than any Pope.  they did not have flaunt their authority by looking like religious authority. But this is the part you Refuse to acknowledges or understand.

So I am going to have to end this endless dialog. But I pray the Lord reveal the truth for you

God bless ans by for now.

You don't know what the apostles wore.

More importantly, there is a huge difference between exercising legitimate authority and flaunting authority.

The role of the Church leaders was to lead. 

They never wore vestments like any pope. I have no doubt about that what soever. They had very ligament power and authority but never sat as a pope.

God bless.

[LightHammer]

Wait thats it? Really? Oh come on! I want my money back!

[Selene]

They never wore vestments like any pope. I have no doubt about that what soever. They had very ligament power and authority but never sat as a pope.

God bless.

How do you know that?  Were you there? 

[chestertonrules]

They never wore vestments like any pope. I have no doubt about that what soever. They had very ligament power and authority but never sat as a pope.

God bless.

You are just making a guess based on your biases.

It makes no difference as to their authority anyway, so it is irrelevant.

[mclees8]

They never wore vestments like any pope. I have no doubt about that what soever. They had very ligament power and authority but never sat as a pope.

God bless.

You are just making a guess based on your biases.

It makes no difference as to their authority anyway, so it is irrelevant.

No bias. I am not catholic or protestant and I despise showy religious leaders in protestantism also.  It has everything to with position and office and the need to be seen as that. There is no other reason for religious vestments but to be recognized  and known for ones office and title. All this Jesus pointed to in the Pharisees. This is why i know that The apostles did not ware vestments nor did Jesus ever say they needed to be seen as authority by warring such.   

The apostles never wore vestments for they would have been in carnal pride if they had. I am not second guessing this.

God bless

 

[Selene]

No bias. I am not catholic or protestant and I despise showy religious leaders in protestantism also.  It has everything to with position and office and the need to be seen as that. There is no other reason for religious vestments but to be recognized  and known for ones office and title. All this Jesus pointed to in the Pharisees. This is why i know that The apostles did not ware vestments nor did Jesus ever say they needed to be seen as authority by warring such.    

The apostles never wore vestments for they would have been in carnal pride if they had. I am not second guessing this.

God bless

You despise religious leaders in Protestantism because of what they wear?  So, you are also against the Protestant preachers for wearing a suit and tie?  Do you ever wear a suit and tie?  And if so, why did you wear a suit and tie? Was it because you felt proud at that time when you wore a suit and tie?   

[mclees8]

No bias. I am not catholic or protestant and I despise showy religious leaders in protestantism also.  It has everything to with position and office and the need to be seen as that. There is no other reason for religious vestments but to be recognized  and known for ones office and title. All this Jesus pointed to in the Pharisees. This is why i know that The apostles did not ware vestments nor did Jesus ever say they needed to be seen as authority by warring such.    

The apostles never wore vestments for they would have been in carnal pride if they had. I am not second guessing this.

God bless

You despise religious leaders in Protestantism because of what they wear?  So, you are also against the Protestant preachers for wearing a suit and tie?  Do you ever wear a suit and tie?  And if so, why did you wear a suit and tie? Was it because you felt proud at that time when you wore a suit and tie?   

I am not talking about suits an ties. Would a despise the President because he wears a suit and tie. I know that i am being misunderstood and that maybe my fault. I am talking about vestments that makes a show or statement. Religious vestments says I am a religious man and I want that recognition. They like the stage and to be seen of men. The way some carry themselves is almost theatrical. they love the spotlight. I see this all the time. You might say I am judgmental but i cannot help what i see. These people are anything but humble but full of pride an arrogance Bishop Long is a good example

Oh yes I very rarely if ever wear a suit. Maybe to a funeral.


Ok can a man wear religious garments and be Humble. Yes they can but when you wear vestments like popes who sit on a throne surrounded with grandeur the whole setting is anything but humble  but is to impress people for who they are as in position. These things impress men but they do not impress God. Try seeing the pope wearing a suit an tie.

People want to see Him in all this grand array This is a product of carnal men. But i tell you Peter never followed after any of that but far greater power than any pope.

How many popes raised anyone from the dead. And when he went to Tabitha can you picture him looking like any pope.

[Selene]

I am not talking about suits an ties. Would a despise the President because he wears a suit and tie. I know that i am being misunderstood and that maybe my fault. I am talking about vestments that makes a show or statement. Religious vestments says I am a religious man and I want that recognition. They like the stage and to be seen of men. The way some carry themselves is almost theatrical. they love the spotlight. I see this all the time. You might say I am judgmental but i cannot help what i see. These people are anything but humble but full of pride an arrogance Bishop Long is a good example

Oh yes I very rarely if ever wear a suit. Maybe to a funeral.


Ok can a man wear religious garments and be Humble. Yes they can but when you wear vestments like popes who sit on a throne surrounded with grandeur the whole setting is anything but humble  but is to impress people for who they are as in position. These things impress men but they do not impress God. Try seeing the pope wearing a suit an tie.

People want to see Him in all this grand array This is a product of carnal men. But i tell you Peter never followed after any of that but far greater power than any pope.

How many popes raised anyone from the dead. And when he went to Tabitha can you picture him looking like any pope.

The way we judge others speaks more about ourselves rather than about them.  A person's judgement of another is really a reflection of that person. 

There was a priest who complained to his bishop about the showy wealth of the Catholic Church.  His superior said nothing.  When the young priest brought up the complaint a third time, the bishop finally said to him, "How much did you steal from your parish?"  The priest was shocked but later ended up confessing that he stole some money from his parish.  The way we judge others speaks more about ourselves rather than about the people we judge.   

[mclees8]

I am not talking about suits an ties. Would a despise the President because he wears a suit and tie. I know that i am being misunderstood and that maybe my fault. I am talking about vestments that makes a show or statement. Religious vestments says I am a religious man and I want that recognition. They like the stage and to be seen of men. The way some carry themselves is almost theatrical. they love the spotlight. I see this all the time. You might say I am judgmental but i cannot help what i see. These people are anything but humble but full of pride an arrogance Bishop Long is a good example

Oh yes I very rarely if ever wear a suit. Maybe to a funeral.


Ok can a man wear religious garments and be Humble. Yes they can but when you wear vestments like popes who sit on a throne surrounded with grandeur the whole setting is anything but humble  but is to impress people for who they are as in position. These things impress men but they do not impress God. Try seeing the pope wearing a suit an tie.

People want to see Him in all this grand array This is a product of carnal men. But i tell you Peter never followed after any of that but far greater power than any pope.

How many popes raised anyone from the dead. And when he went to Tabitha can you picture him looking like any pope.

The way we judge others speaks more about ourselves rather than about them.  A person's judgement of another is really a reflection of that person. 

There was a priest who complained to his bishop about the showy wealth of the Catholic Church.  His superior said nothing.  When the young priest brought up the complaint a third time, the bishop finally said to him, "How much did you steal from your parish?"  The priest was shocked but later ended up confessing that he stole some money from his parish.  The way we judge others speaks more about ourselves rather than about the people we judge.   

Is that what you think about me Selene?  I don't buy your analogy.  I have nothing to hide. Im just stating how i see it

[chestertonrules]

Is that what you think about me Selene?  I don't buy your analogy.  I have nothing to hide. Im just stating how i see it

You seem to be very judgmental.   Catholics honor priests because priests represent Christ.

It is not difficult to grasp unless you have a less than sincere motivation, IMO.

[John 10:10]

Catholics honor priests because priests represent Christ.  

Protestants believe everyone who enters the kingdon of God by being born again as Jesus revealed in John 3:3-7 represent Christ to one degree or another, some honorably and some dishonorably.  To be a Christian means that we are little Christs because Christ has given to us of His Spirit.

Blessings

[chestertonrules]

Catholics honor priests because priests represent Christ.  

Protestants believe everyone who enters the kingdon of God by being born again as Jesus revealed in John 3:3-7 represent Christ to one degree or another, some honorably and some dishonorably.  To be a Christian means that we are little Christs because Christ has given to us of His Spirit.

Blessings

This is a new idea spread by the Reformers who chose to lean on their own understanding and pride.  It is foreign to biblical and traditional Christianity.

[LightHammer]

Catholics honor priests because priests represent Christ.  

Protestants believe everyone who enters the kingdon of God by being born again as Jesus revealed in John 3:3-7 represent Christ to one degree or another, some honorably and some dishonorably.  To be a Christian means that we are little Christs because Christ has given to us of His Spirit.

Blessings

This is a new idea spread by the Reformers who chose to lean on their own understanding and pride.  It is foreign to biblical and traditional Christianity.

No tahts not necessarily true. Scripture is clear that we all are meant to live a life that brings glory to God. We are children of God which means that we mirror Christ in our daily lives.

I can provide scripture for this but I think you may agree with what mclees is saying more with the way I read worded it.

[chestertonrules]

No tahts not necessarily true. Scripture is clear that we all are meant to live a life that brings glory to God. We are children of God which means that we mirror Christ in our daily lives.

I can provide scripture for this but I think you may agree with what mclees is saying more with the way I read worded it.

Yes, I do agree with you.

 

[mclees8]

Is that what you think about me Selene?  I don't buy your analogy.  I have nothing to hide. Im just stating how i see it

You seem to be very judgmental.   Catholics honor priests because priests represent Christ.

It is not difficult to grasp unless you have a less than sincere motivation, IMO.

I'm sorry if I seem judgmental
It is not about honoring priests. I can honor any authority that truly and with a pure heart sincerely loves Christ and is a good representative of Him. It is the exalting of the clergy and the need to be exalted that I find fault with. All that is outward is carnal. and all that is spirit is spirit.

God bless

[Catholica]

Is that what you think about me Selene?  I don't buy your analogy.  I have nothing to hide. Im just stating how i see it

You seem to be very judgmental.   Catholics honor priests because priests represent Christ.

It is not difficult to grasp unless you have a less than sincere motivation, IMO.

I'm sorry if I seem judgmental
It is not about honoring priests. I can honor any authority that truly and with a pure heart sincerely loves Christ and is a good representative of Him. It is the exalting of the clergy and the need to be exalted that I find fault with. All that is outward is carnal. and all that is spirit is spirit.

God bless

Mike, Jesus became incarnate, and therefore was carnal.  Being "carnal" is not evil.

[mclees8]

Is that what you think about me Selene?  I don't buy your analogy.  I have nothing to hide. Im just stating how i see it

You seem to be very judgmental.   Catholics honor priests because priests represent Christ.

It is not difficult to grasp unless you have a less than sincere motivation, IMO.

I'm sorry if I seem judgmental
It is not about honoring priests. I can honor any authority that truly and with a pure heart sincerely loves Christ and is a good representative of Him. It is the exalting of the clergy and the need to be exalted that I find fault with. All that is outward is carnal. and all that is spirit is spirit.

God bless

Mike, Jesus became incarnate, and therefore was carnal.  Being "carnal" is not evil.

Catholica you sound like Nicodemus. He did not understand either . I find it uncanny that Paul wrote these verses here in his epistle to the Romans
Romans 8:6
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

I said before that carnal religion is mans religion. It is all that is outward. vain shows like  forms and ritual. it is vestments, Grand cathedrals and stained glass windows that look impressive to men. but God looks on the things of the spirit. That which dwells in the heart of a man who woships God in spirit and in Truth.

the vatican is just man wanting to establish god upon the earth. But those who are of the Spirit assend all the way to heaven where God truly resides

God bless

[islanddogs]

Hi

Jesus was incarnate, Emmanuel "God with us" he was not carnal. I think you will find a number of scriptures which point to the sinlessness of Jesus.

To paraphrase "He became sin for us, yet was without sin". That is he carried our sin, he was the scapegoat, of Deuteronomy, and the lamb.

Incarnate and carnal may share the same root, but not the same root meaning.

[John 10:10]

Catholics honor priests because priests represent Christ.  

Protestants believe everyone who enters the kingdon of God by being born again as Jesus revealed in John 3:3-7 represent Christ to one degree or another, some honorably and some dishonorably.  To be a Christian means that we are little Christs because Christ has given to us of His Spirit.

Blessings

This is a new idea spread by the Reformers who chose to lean on their own understanding and pride.  It is foreign to biblical and traditional Christianity.  

In truth, this is God's truth come to life in the lives of His children when we return to the truth and authority of Scripture.

To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.  1 Cor 1:2

One does not have to be a John Huss to understand this.  If you want to lean on your traditions, that is your choice.  But as for me, I will lean on the truth of who God is as revealed in His Word and by the gift of His Spirit.

Blessings

[Catholica]

Mike, Jesus became incarnate, and therefore was carnal.  Being "carnal" is not evil.

Catholica you sound like Nicodemus. He did not understand either . I find it uncanny that Paul wrote these verses here in his epistle to the Romans
Romans 8:6
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

I said before that carnal religion is mans religion. It is all that is outward. vain shows like  forms and ritual. it is vestments, Grand cathedrals and stained glass windows that look impressive to men. but God looks on the things of the spirit. That which dwells in the heart of a man who woships God in spirit and in Truth.

At its heart, our religion is very spiritual.  It seems that you have chosen to focus only on the physical.

You are trying too hard to fit carnal desires with the existence of vestments together.  God established a religion (Judaism) that explicitly had to use vestments, who built a huge exotic beautiful temple which contained the very presence of God for a very long time.  If you are trying to connect the existence of vestments and beautiful places of worship to carnal desires, then you are going to fail, because God himself endorsed or prescribed these very things in Israel.  

Only God can judge a man if he enjoys wearing vestments to appear important.  You cannot judge the hearts of men, so you are not able to say that vestments, cathedrals and stained glass windows were made to "look impressive to men".  What we have been telling you all along is that we build them to give glory to God.  How is that hard to understand?  And stained glass windows are a long-standing tradition that depicted the truths of scripture in a visual format so that those who could not read could still understand the gospel.  This came from the rampant illiteracy in the world that existed until the 20th century.  So stained glass windows have always been very functional.  Beautiful to glorify God, useful to spread the gospel.

the vatican is just man wanting to establish god upon the earth. But those who are of the Spirit assend all the way to heaven where God truly resides

God has not left us orphans.  That is what Jesus said.  I pray that you come to understand the profound reality of God, that he is very near to us and not distant.

[Catholica]

Hi

Jesus was incarnate, Emmanuel "God with us" he was not carnal. I think you will find a number of scriptures which point to the sinlessness of Jesus.

To paraphrase "He became sin for us, yet was without sin". That is he carried our sin, he was the scapegoat, of Deuteronomy, and the lamb.

Incarnate and carnal may share the same root, but not the same root meaning.

True.  It is just important to remember that just because a physical thing exists, simply because it is not spiritual, that does not make it evil.  Such was the gnostic heresy and what it taught.  Thus vestments in themselves are not evil, and people are not evil for wearing them.  If they became prideful because they were wearing them, then that is sin, but simply by wearing them does not mean that a person is prideful.  In fact, a priest who thought he knew better and eschewed his vestments would be more prideful than one who simply wore the vestments because that is part of his role.  God would be angry with the first, the one who eschewed vestments, and not angry at the second, who submitted to rightful authority.

[mclees8]

Mike, Jesus became incarnate, and therefore was carnal.  Being "carnal" is not evil.

Catholica you sound like Nicodemus. He did not understand either . I find it uncanny that Paul wrote these verses here in his epistle to the Romans
Romans 8:6
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

I said before that carnal religion is mans religion. It is all that is outward. vain shows like  forms and ritual. it is vestments, Grand cathedrals and stained glass windows that look impressive to men. but God looks on the things of the spirit. That which dwells in the heart of a man who woships God in spirit and in Truth.

At its heart, our religion is very spiritual.  It seems that you have chosen to focus only on the physical.

You are trying too hard to fit carnal desires with the existence of vestments together.  God established a religion (Judaism) that explicitly had to use vestments, who built a huge exotic beautiful temple which contained the very presence of God for a very long time.  If you are trying to connect the existence of vestments and beautiful places of worship to carnal desires, then you are going to fail, because God himself endorsed or prescribed these very things in Israel.  

Only God can judge a man if he enjoys wearing vestments to appear important.  You cannot judge the hearts of men, so you are not able to say that vestments, cathedrals and stained glass windows were made to "look impressive to men".  What we have been telling you all along is that we build them to give glory to God.  How is that hard to understand?  And stained glass windows are a long-standing tradition that depicted the truths of scripture in a visual format so that those who could not read could still understand the gospel.  This came from the rampant illiteracy in the world that existed until the 20th century.  So stained glass windows have always been very functional.  Beautiful to glorify God, useful to spread the gospel.

the vatican is just man wanting to establish god upon the earth. But those who are of the Spirit assend all the way to heaven where God truly resides

God has not left us orphans.  That is what Jesus said.  I pray that you come to understand the profound reality of God, that he is very near to us and not distant.

Why are you wanting to rebuild the Old testament. What Jesus established for the New testament church was not to be outward forms of religion but a new and better covenant in the spirit.  I am not saying that Catholics cannot hear the gospel or be of the spirit.  What the papacy was born out of was carnal desires. What they became was something Jesus never established. There were no religious forms and ritual or the wearing of vestments nor a Vatican city in all its religious architecture when Jesus started his church. It was established in humility but they walked in the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't know exactly when vestments showed up but when it did something  was lost and carnal Christianity began, but untill then there was none of that.

Jesus was walking in Jerusalem with the disciples when they saw the temple. and they were saying, see the temple how beautiful it was. Jesus said not one stone will be left on another. And i say to you that just as that came to pass the Vatican will also be a ruins. 

When the Christians found favor with Constantine the church authority took a nose dive into apostasy. Lust for power and position quickly set in  and the Holy Spirit quickly moved out. When after a long spell the bishops of Rome finally got what they wanted. and all that was vain religion was established they  became a religious political entity with all its corruptions. It married into Babylon and walked hand and hand and slept in the same bed. This is why Rev 17 is so vividly described and foresaw by John.  This same worldly spirit still exists today and will take the church to antichrist. but the Lord warns his church to come out of her or be judged with her.

God bless

[Catholica]

Why are you wanting to rebuild the Old testament.

We're not.  I'm trying to point out how your argument is false, the argument that seems to be that wearing vestments and building beautiful buildings indicate sinful pride.

What Jesus established for the New testament church was not to be outward forms of religion but a new and better covenant in the spirit.

That is your opinion.  In fact our Lord speaks highly of religion in the New Testament.  James 1:27 describes the important purpose of religion.  In other places, piety as a synonym to religion is spoken highly of.  The fact that the New Covenant is in the spirit does not preclude outward signs to glorify God.  How can we glorify God?  Can I do it through prayer?  How about playing a worship song?  How about living out the gospel in my life, at my job?  What if my gift is for building buildings or making clothes?  Can I make clothes that glorify God?  Can I build a building to glorify God?  Are other people edified by worshiping within a building that is so beautiful that it gives glory to God?  Can that building help us raise our spirit to God?  Yes!  Can a worship song do that?  Yes!  Can dressing up for Church do that?  Yes!

The vestments that the priest wears are all symbolic of spiritual truths.  Every piece of clothing was made and a prayer is said by the priest when he puts it on.  They all are there to glorify God.  But don't take my word for it...

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20100216_vestizione_en.html

What the papacy was born out of was carnal desires.

I disagree.  That is just your opinion.

What they became was something Jesus never established. There were no religious forms and ritual or the wearing of vestments nor a Vatican city in all its religious architecture when Jesus started his church.

The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed that grows and grows and grows.  Of course there was no Church before Jesus.  After Jesus there was one Church, the Catholic Church.

It was established in humility but they walked in the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't know exactly when vestments showed up but when it did something  was lost and carnal Christianity began, but untill then there was none of that.

Test everything, keep what is good.  The early Church saw the reverence and beauty of the wearing of vestments within the religions in Rome that existed at the time, and they saw that as a way to bring glory to our God.  So we adopted this practice, but added sacred meanings and prayers to them to sanctify this, to make it not carnal, but spiritual, and something that glorifies God.

Jesus was walking in Jerusalem with the disciples when they saw the temple. and they were saying, see the temple how beautiful it was. Jesus said not one stone will be left on another. And i say to you that just as that came to pass the Vatican will also be a ruins.  

2000 years.  Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.  If the Vatican and the Church could be destroyed, it would prove that Jesus lied.  But the Church will always be, until the end of the world, like it or not.

When the Christians found favor with Constantine the church authority took a nose dive into apostasy.

Show us how the doctrines changed, from the early Church to when the Catholic Church gained favor with Constantine.  Your claim of apostasy is completely unsubstantiated.  It is something that you have to believe to support your own personal beliefs but cannot prove is true.

Lust for power and position quickly set in  and the Holy Spirit quickly moved out. When after a long spell the bishops of Rome finally got what they wanted. and all that was vain religion was established they  became a religious political entity with all its corruptions.  It married into Babylon and walked hand and hand and slept in the same bed. This is why Rev 17 is so vividly described and foresaw by John.  This same worldly spirit still exists today and will take the church to antichrist. but the Lord warns his church to come out of her or be judged with her.

Substantiation please.  No doubt the Church is filled with sinners.  Every man is a sinner.  No doubt that some bishops abused their power.  None of that sin, though, ever changed the Catholic Church's moral teachings, has it?  Amazing.  Nor has the Church contradicted previous doctrines or abandoned the fullness of the truth given by Christ.  It seems that the promise of the Holy Spirit, that God himself is more powerful than sin.

I can't say the same thing for heretics though.  Look at the Anglican Church, look at the ELCA Lutherans.  That, my friend, is what we call apostasy.  And the beliefs of the Anglicans and the Lutherans started so close to the beliefs of the Catholic Church.  Yet there was something critical they all lacked, which was the promise of the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth and the authority to proclaim the gospel and consecrate the Eucharist.  They were not founded by Jesus, and they will fail.  No organization on Earth has lasted as long as the Catholic Church.

Why not substantiate your opinions?   You talk like you know a lot of history.  Rather just your fallible opinion of what scripture is saying.  Your beliefs are based on you.

[LightHammer]

Mike, Jesus became incarnate, and therefore was carnal.  Being "carnal" is not evil.

Catholica you sound like Nicodemus. He did not understand either . I find it uncanny that Paul wrote these verses here in his epistle to the Romans
Romans 8:6
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

I said before that carnal religion is mans religion. It is all that is outward. vain shows like  forms and ritual. it is vestments, Grand cathedrals and stained glass windows that look impressive to men. but God looks on the things of the spirit. That which dwells in the heart of a man who woships God in spirit and in Truth.

At its heart, our religion is very spiritual.  It seems that you have chosen to focus only on the physical.

You are trying too hard to fit carnal desires with the existence of vestments together.  God established a religion (Judaism) that explicitly had to use vestments, who built a huge exotic beautiful temple which contained the very presence of God for a very long time.  If you are trying to connect the existence of vestments and beautiful places of worship to carnal desires, then you are going to fail, because God himself endorsed or prescribed these very things in Israel.  

Only God can judge a man if he enjoys wearing vestments to appear important.  You cannot judge the hearts of men, so you are not able to say that vestments, cathedrals and stained glass windows were made to "look impressive to men".  What we have been telling you all along is that we build them to give glory to God.  How is that hard to understand?  And stained glass windows are a long-standing tradition that depicted the truths of scripture in a visual format so that those who could not read could still understand the gospel.  This came from the rampant illiteracy in the world that existed until the 20th century.  So stained glass windows have always been very functional.  Beautiful to glorify God, useful to spread the gospel.

the vatican is just man wanting to establish god upon the earth. But those who are of the Spirit assend all the way to heaven where God truly resides

God has not left us orphans.  That is what Jesus said.  I pray that you come to understand the profound reality of God, that he is very near to us and not distant.

Why are you wanting to rebuild the Old testament. What Jesus established for the New testament church was not to be outward forms of religion but a new and better covenant in the spirit.  I am not saying that Catholics cannot hear the gospel or be of the spirit.  What the papacy was born out of was carnal desires. What they became was something Jesus never established. There were no religious forms and ritual or the wearing of vestments nor a Vatican city in all its religious architecture when Jesus started his church. It was established in humility but they walked in the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't know exactly when vestments showed up but when it did something  was lost and carnal Christianity began, but untill then there was none of that.

Jesus was walking in Jerusalem with the disciples when they saw the temple. and they were saying, see the temple how beautiful it was. Jesus said not one stone will be left on another. And i say to you that just as that came to pass the Vatican will also be a ruins.  

When the Christians found favor with Constantine the church authority took a nose dive into apostasy. Lust for power and position quickly set in  and the Holy Spirit quickly moved out. When after a long spell the bishops of Rome finally got what they wanted. and all that was vain religion was established they  became a religious political entity with all its corruptions. It married into Babylon and walked hand and hand and slept in the same bed. This is why Rev 17 is so vividly described and foresaw by John.  This same worldly spirit still exists today and will take the church to antichrist. but the Lord warns his church to come out of her or be judged with her.

God bless

With all due respect brother I think you're missing our brother's point. You say that it is man's carnal nature that brought about the vestments and grand structures of Catholicism. You then go on to make "carnal" and "sinful" synonymous.

Catholica's first point goes back to the one of the very first foundations of Christianity. Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man. If, by your reasoning, "carnal"(man) and "sinful" are infact synonymous, then you would be indirectly advocating that Jesus, being both fully God(divine) and fully Man(carnal), would have share a synonymous essence with sin. Catholica is saying that of course is not the case. Just because something is carnal, physical or nonspiritual that does not mean that it is automatically sinful as well. Therefore YOU can not accurately and credibly discern that Catholic Church clergy wear vestments and build grand establishments as means to be prideful and/or flaunt their authoritive positions.

Our brother's second point is more of a supportive piece, in which he refers to God Himself ordaining His servants to build a grand temple and wear fine vestments not as a means to glorify themselves but as a means to bring glory to Him. Catholica is not saying that this is ironclad proof. He is however saying that this is scriptural and historic evidence to support the Catholic practices you oppose while not having any scriptural or historic backing refuting them as wrong.