AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is one of the topics I least understand how it can be embraced in any true Christian practice. Sorry.

---

There's clearly a difficult line between asking Mary to pray (as a saint who is alive, and queen mother) and treating her as if she is higher than Christ, that whatever she asks of Him will be granted and that you appeal to her with expectation. Early English reformers critiqued this practice hundreds of years ago.

If there is an external law or idea to God, to which He must submit, He's not God. However, you can fall into the ditch on many sides. With Romanism this is one form; in Protestantism it's the idea of justice in atonement, that God can't get around sacrificing Jesus because of Justice.

---

Are you claiming that the Church taught this? Or that some Christians believed this personally?

---

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Read the part before what you bolded.

If you know your Roman Catholic history, it would be unsurprising that much prevalent practice was critiqued by reformers. Your tradition is the one that gave us Hocus Pocus. Your priests denied laity the blood of Christ. You can claim priestly error all day long but who's responsible for oversight of priests if not the bishop? Who's the ultimate authority in your church, if not the pope? When does management take responsibility for the frontline workers it hires? I'm not here to fight that battle, nor was that my intent in posting, but contemporary Roman Catholics need to start squaring with the idea that things their church has since shrugged off, were used to jettison many faithful Roman Catholics. That's all I have to say on the subject.

---

Dude. I asked a question and you have this reaction? It was a simple question to understand where you were coming from.

1. Assigning the kind of power to Mary that you are talking about was a regional issue. Just like selling of indulgences was a regional issue. It was not practiced or recognized by the entire church. Ever wonder why the reformation kicked off in specific areas? It's because the abuses were in those areas, not all over. When theses issues were brought up, Rome agreed with the reformers and "took responsibility for it's front line workers" by telling them to knock it off and clarifying doctrine.

2. When English bishops split from Rome, many priests stayed loyal to Rome. The English response was to imprison and execute these priests. Is that how management is supposed to take responsibility for their workers? Maybe the Catholic Church should have just executed all the priests that weren't acting appropriately? The case of John Hus is still held against the Church today by some protestants, so something tells me if done on a wide scale, you would still disapprove. What was the Church supposed to do, in your opinion, outside of what it did: correct the issue once it was made known?

3. Hocus Pocus was a slur generated by Reformed protestants in England because they didn't believe in the real presence, and wanted to make fun of Catholics using Latin. Not sure how we "gave" you that.

Every single protestant denomination has had multiple splits and off shoots due to some doctrine or another. Based on you criteria, everyone is doing a terrible job of getting their front line workers in line.

---

I put the part before your bolding in because it is important. Cutting it out and asking a question that, in my experience, leads to plausible deniability, warranted more explanation. No offense in that respect was intended.

The point is that there is historical practice that the pope allowed to flourish and took years to correct, and not without being forced. Remember, though, the Protestants don't have a pope. You can criticize them for every man being a pope, but that doesn't absolve you of what accrues to your bishop because of your own structure. You can't have it both ways.

---

I think this has a bit of modern bias. I'm not sure why the pope should be expected have all the details of what's going on 1000 miles away when he is relying on information on the wrong doing to be sent to him from the bishops doing the wrongdoing. There is very little evidence that he was aware of how Tetzel and Co were going about their business until Luther went public about it. Once he went public, the pope stepped in. As it should be. I truly believe that Luther could have been a saint for what he did until his pride got in the way.

As for the rest of that second paragraph, I really don't know what you're trying to get at. The best I can make sense of it is that apparently the pope is in charge of being aware of all error, everywhere, all the time and correcting it instantly. It doesn't work that way. He's a human with limited abilities as we all are.

---

You're absolutely right: that's one of the English reformer's criticisms of the pope being the head of Christ's church on earth. He's not Christ and can't hope to be, and it's evident in how things here are administered

---

Then I guess it's a good thing he doesn't claim to be Christ. But one does not need to be Jesus to be the administrative head of the Church on earth. Why would that be necessary?

---

For the exact reason you lay out: it's too much for one man to handle and he can't be aware of scandals, heresies, controversies, and a great many other things that go on without his knowledge. That's why bishop is the highest episcopal level instituted by the church. He must be able to know his charges and parishioners.

---

Is this another one of those papal maximalist arguments? No one ever claimed the pope needs to know all things at all times in order to be in charge. We have thousands and thousands of bishops that handle business in their area. The pope is only needed when the bishops in their area aren't handling business and unity is being harmed. This idea that because the pope is the head bishop that all other bishops have no real, local authority is a caricature of the Catholic Church.

---

You have a hierarchal structure: it's not something you can hand waive away as a caricature when it's inconvenient.

---

I find this hierarchal evolution fascinating even as a reformed protestant, as we see early persecution paired with a thriving house church environment. Then Constantine and the legality of Christianity paired with an Emperor seeking to have his hand in church affairs, etc. And then the growth of of a more centralized organization.

Don't some Western Catholics however believe the Church was hierarchal at the beginning?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is one of the topics I least understand how it can be embraced in any true Christian practice. Sorry.

---

There's clearly a difficult line between asking Mary to pray (as a saint who is alive, and queen mother) and treating her as if she is higher than Christ, that whatever she asks of Him will be granted and that you appeal to her with expectation. Early English reformers critiqued this practice hundreds of years ago.

If there is an external law or idea to God, to which He must submit, He's not God. However, you can fall into the ditch on many sides. With Romanism this is one form; in Protestantism it's the idea of justice in atonement, that God can't get around sacrificing Jesus because of Justice.

---

Are you claiming that the Church taught this? Or that some Christians believed this personally?

---

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Read the part before what you bolded.

If you know your Roman Catholic history, it would be unsurprising that much prevalent practice was critiqued by reformers. Your tradition is the one that gave us Hocus Pocus. Your priests denied laity the blood of Christ. You can claim priestly error all day long but who's responsible for oversight of priests if not the bishop? Who's the ultimate authority in your church, if not the pope? When does management take responsibility for the frontline workers it hires? I'm not here to fight that battle, nor was that my intent in posting, but contemporary Roman Catholics need to start squaring with the idea that things their church has since shrugged off, were used to jettison many faithful Roman Catholics. That's all I have to say on the subject.

---

Dude. I asked a question and you have this reaction? It was a simple question to understand where you were coming from.

1. Assigning the kind of power to Mary that you are talking about was a regional issue. Just like selling of indulgences was a regional issue. It was not practiced or recognized by the entire church. Ever wonder why the reformation kicked off in specific areas? It's because the abuses were in those areas, not all over. When theses issues were brought up, Rome agreed with the reformers and "took responsibility for it's front line workers" by telling them to knock it off and clarifying doctrine.

2. When English bishops split from Rome, many priests stayed loyal to Rome. The English response was to imprison and execute these priests. Is that how management is supposed to take responsibility for their workers? Maybe the Catholic Church should have just executed all the priests that weren't acting appropriately? The case of John Hus is still held against the Church today by some protestants, so something tells me if done on a wide scale, you would still disapprove. What was the Church supposed to do, in your opinion, outside of what it did: correct the issue once it was made known?

3. Hocus Pocus was a slur generated by Reformed protestants in England because they didn't believe in the real presence, and wanted to make fun of Catholics using Latin. Not sure how we "gave" you that.

Every single protestant denomination has had multiple splits and off shoots due to some doctrine or another. Based on you criteria, everyone is doing a terrible job of getting their front line workers in line.

---

I put the part before your bolding in because it is important. Cutting it out and asking a question that, in my experience, leads to plausible deniability, warranted more explanation. No offense in that respect was intended.

The point is that there is historical practice that the pope allowed to flourish and took years to correct, and not without being forced. Remember, though, the Protestants don't have a pope. You can criticize them for every man being a pope, but that doesn't absolve you of what accrues to your bishop because of your own structure. You can't have it both ways.

---

I think this has a bit of modern bias. I'm not sure why the pope should be expected have all the details of what's going on 1000 miles away when he is relying on information on the wrong doing to be sent to him from the bishops doing the wrongdoing. There is very little evidence that he was aware of how Tetzel and Co were going about their business until Luther went public about it. Once he went public, the pope stepped in. As it should be. I truly believe that Luther could have been a saint for what he did until his pride got in the way.

As for the rest of that second paragraph, I really don't know what you're trying to get at. The best I can make sense of it is that apparently the pope is in charge of being aware of all error, everywhere, all the time and correcting it instantly. It doesn't work that way. He's a human with limited abilities as we all are.

---

You're absolutely right: that's one of the English reformer's criticisms of the pope being the head of Christ's church on earth. He's not Christ and can't hope to be, and it's evident in how things here are administered

---

Then I guess it's a good thing he doesn't claim to be Christ. But one does not need to be Jesus to be the administrative head of the Church on earth. Why would that be necessary?

---

For the exact reason you lay out: it's too much for one man to handle and he can't be aware of scandals, heresies, controversies, and a great many other things that go on without his knowledge. That's why bishop is the highest episcopal level instituted by the church. He must be able to know his charges and parishioners.

---

Is this another one of those papal maximalist arguments? No one ever claimed the pope needs to know all things at all times in order to be in charge. We have thousands and thousands of bishops that handle business in their area. The pope is only needed when the bishops in their area aren't handling business and unity is being harmed. This idea that because the pope is the head bishop that all other bishops have no real, local authority is a caricature of the Catholic Church.

---

You have a hierarchal structure: it's not something you can hand waive away as a caricature when it's inconvenient.

---

I find this hierarchal evolution fascinating even as a reformed protestant, as we see early persecution paired with a thriving house church environment. Then Constantine and the legality of Christianity paired with an Emperor seeking to have his hand in church affairs, etc. And then the growth of of a more centralized organization.

Don't some Western Catholics however believe the Church was hierarchal at the beginning?

---

It's very clearly hierarchical at the beginning. I would suggest you read the church fathers like Clement, but you don't even need to. In Titus, Paul clearly states that he left someone in charge when he left Crete, and that this someone (Titus) is responsible for appointing more people to be in charge.

You also have nine NT letters addressed to "the church in ...", indicating that a church authority has been in place before the letter that became scripture was ever written. The very clearly is a structure. The idea that these were just house churches that sat around reading the bible is inaccurate.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is one of the topics I least understand how it can be embraced in any true Christian practice. Sorry.

---

There's clearly a difficult line between asking Mary to pray (as a saint who is alive, and queen mother) and treating her as if she is higher than Christ, that whatever she asks of Him will be granted and that you appeal to her with expectation. Early English reformers critiqued this practice hundreds of years ago.

If there is an external law or idea to God, to which He must submit, He's not God. However, you can fall into the ditch on many sides. With Romanism this is one form; in Protestantism it's the idea of justice in atonement, that God can't get around sacrificing Jesus because of Justice.

---

Are you claiming that the Church taught this? Or that some Christians believed this personally?

---

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Read the part before what you bolded.

If you know your Roman Catholic history, it would be unsurprising that much prevalent practice was critiqued by reformers. Your tradition is the one that gave us Hocus Pocus. Your priests denied laity the blood of Christ. You can claim priestly error all day long but who's responsible for oversight of priests if not the bishop? Who's the ultimate authority in your church, if not the pope? When does management take responsibility for the frontline workers it hires? I'm not here to fight that battle, nor was that my intent in posting, but contemporary Roman Catholics need to start squaring with the idea that things their church has since shrugged off, were used to jettison many faithful Roman Catholics. That's all I have to say on the subject.

---

Dude. I asked a question and you have this reaction? It was a simple question to understand where you were coming from.

1. Assigning the kind of power to Mary that you are talking about was a regional issue. Just like selling of indulgences was a regional issue. It was not practiced or recognized by the entire church. Ever wonder why the reformation kicked off in specific areas? It's because the abuses were in those areas, not all over. When theses issues were brought up, Rome agreed with the reformers and "took responsibility for it's front line workers" by telling them to knock it off and clarifying doctrine.

2. When English bishops split from Rome, many priests stayed loyal to Rome. The English response was to imprison and execute these priests. Is that how management is supposed to take responsibility for their workers? Maybe the Catholic Church should have just executed all the priests that weren't acting appropriately? The case of John Hus is still held against the Church today by some protestants, so something tells me if done on a wide scale, you would still disapprove. What was the Church supposed to do, in your opinion, outside of what it did: correct the issue once it was made known?

3. Hocus Pocus was a slur generated by Reformed protestants in England because they didn't believe in the real presence, and wanted to make fun of Catholics using Latin. Not sure how we "gave" you that.

Every single protestant denomination has had multiple splits and off shoots due to some doctrine or another. Based on you criteria, everyone is doing a terrible job of getting their front line workers in line.

---

I put the part before your bolding in because it is important. Cutting it out and asking a question that, in my experience, leads to plausible deniability, warranted more explanation. No offense in that respect was intended.

The point is that there is historical practice that the pope allowed to flourish and took years to correct, and not without being forced. Remember, though, the Protestants don't have a pope. You can criticize them for every man being a pope, but that doesn't absolve you of what accrues to your bishop because of your own structure. You can't have it both ways.

---

I think this has a bit of modern bias. I'm not sure why the pope should be expected have all the details of what's going on 1000 miles away when he is relying on information on the wrong doing to be sent to him from the bishops doing the wrongdoing. There is very little evidence that he was aware of how Tetzel and Co were going about their business until Luther went public about it. Once he went public, the pope stepped in. As it should be. I truly believe that Luther could have been a saint for what he did until his pride got in the way.

As for the rest of that second paragraph, I really don't know what you're trying to get at. The best I can make sense of it is that apparently the pope is in charge of being aware of all error, everywhere, all the time and correcting it instantly. It doesn't work that way. He's a human with limited abilities as we all are.

---

You're absolutely right: that's one of the English reformer's criticisms of the pope being the head of Christ's church on earth. He's not Christ and can't hope to be, and it's evident in how things here are administered

---

Then I guess it's a good thing he doesn't claim to be Christ. But one does not need to be Jesus to be the administrative head of the Church on earth. Why would that be necessary?

---

For the exact reason you lay out: it's too much for one man to handle and he can't be aware of scandals, heresies, controversies, and a great many other things that go on without his knowledge. That's why bishop is the highest episcopal level instituted by the church. He must be able to know his charges and parishioners.

---

Is this another one of those papal maximalist arguments? No one ever claimed the pope needs to know all things at all times in order to be in charge. We have thousands and thousands of bishops that handle business in their area. The pope is only needed when the bishops in their area aren't handling business and unity is being harmed. This idea that because the pope is the head bishop that all other bishops have no real, local authority is a caricature of the Catholic Church.

---

That doesn't square with how historic popes have viewed themselves (in their own words) and acted, though. I don't think it's intentionally motte and bailey, but it's hard to avoid with the long history of the church (note that I'm trying to be gracious here). If you have to choose between believing someone's words and actions, I know few people that would choose words. Sure, if you make the umbrella of 'unity' big enough it covers all things, but that renders unity so useless a word as to mean, 'anything the pope disagrees with.' You have a hierarchal structure: it's not something you can hand waive away as a caricature when it's inconvenient.

---

I appreciate you being gracious and I will try to do the same. This reads to me as if you are saying that historically, popes have viewed themselves of being capable of knowing all things at all times as a part of their papal abilities. I've never seen anything like this claimed before, but maybe you have some instances.

The reason why the Catholic Church teaches that you should follow the words and not necessarily the actions of a pope is for precisely this reason. The teaching is what is protected, not the pope's day to day activities. For the latter to exist, the man who becomes pope would have to lose his free will upon assuming the role, which makes no sense. What does make sense is what Jesus Himself tells His followers: to follow what the Pharisees teach, but not what they do. The Church He left has an infallible teaching authority, unlike the Pharisees, but the teaching vs actions situation remains the same

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is one of the topics I least understand how it can be embraced in any true Christian practice. Sorry.

---

There's clearly a difficult line between asking Mary to pray (as a saint who is alive, and queen mother) and treating her as if she is higher than Christ, that whatever she asks of Him will be granted and that you appeal to her with expectation. Early English reformers critiqued this practice hundreds of years ago.

If there is an external law or idea to God, to which He must submit, He's not God. However, you can fall into the ditch on many sides. With Romanism this is one form; in Protestantism it's the idea of justice in atonement, that God can't get around sacrificing Jesus because of Justice.

---

Are you claiming that the Church taught this? Or that some Christians believed this personally?

---

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Read the part before what you bolded.

If you know your Roman Catholic history, it would be unsurprising that much prevalent practice was critiqued by reformers. Your tradition is the one that gave us Hocus Pocus. Your priests denied laity the blood of Christ. You can claim priestly error all day long but who's responsible for oversight of priests if not the bishop? Who's the ultimate authority in your church, if not the pope? When does management take responsibility for the frontline workers it hires? I'm not here to fight that battle, nor was that my intent in posting, but contemporary Roman Catholics need to start squaring with the idea that things their church has since shrugged off, were used to jettison many faithful Roman Catholics. That's all I have to say on the subject.

---

Dude. I asked a question and you have this reaction? It was a simple question to understand where you were coming from.

1. Assigning the kind of power to Mary that you are talking about was a regional issue. Just like selling of indulgences was a regional issue. It was not practiced or recognized by the entire church. Ever wonder why the reformation kicked off in specific areas? It's because the abuses were in those areas, not all over. When theses issues were brought up, Rome agreed with the reformers and "took responsibility for it's front line workers" by telling them to knock it off and clarifying doctrine.

2. When English bishops split from Rome, many priests stayed loyal to Rome. The English response was to imprison and execute these priests. Is that how management is supposed to take responsibility for their workers? Maybe the Catholic Church should have just executed all the priests that weren't acting appropriately? The case of John Hus is still held against the Church today by some protestants, so something tells me if done on a wide scale, you would still disapprove. What was the Church supposed to do, in your opinion, outside of what it did: correct the issue once it was made known?

3. Hocus Pocus was a slur generated by Reformed protestants in England because they didn't believe in the real presence, and wanted to make fun of Catholics using Latin. Not sure how we "gave" you that.

Every single protestant denomination has had multiple splits and off shoots due to some doctrine or another. Based on you criteria, everyone is doing a terrible job of getting their front line workers in line.

---

I put the part before your bolding in because it is important. Cutting it out and asking a question that, in my experience, leads to plausible deniability, warranted more explanation. No offense in that respect was intended.

The point is that there is historical practice that the pope allowed to flourish and took years to correct, and not without being forced. Remember, though, the Protestants don't have a pope. You can criticize them for every man being a pope, but that doesn't absolve you of what accrues to your bishop because of your own structure. You can't have it both ways.

---

I think this has a bit of modern bias. I'm not sure why the pope should be expected have all the details of what's going on 1000 miles away when he is relying on information on the wrong doing to be sent to him from the bishops doing the wrongdoing. There is very little evidence that he was aware of how Tetzel and Co were going about their business until Luther went public about it. Once he went public, the pope stepped in. As it should be. I truly believe that Luther could have been a saint for what he did until his pride got in the way.

As for the rest of that second paragraph, I really don't know what you're trying to get at. The best I can make sense of it is that apparently the pope is in charge of being aware of all error, everywhere, all the time and correcting it instantly. It doesn't work that way. He's a human with limited abilities as we all are.

---

You're absolutely right: that's one of the English reformer's criticisms of the pope being the head of Christ's church on earth. He's not Christ and can't hope to be, and it's evident in how things here are administered

---

Then I guess it's a good thing he doesn't claim to be Christ. But one does not need to be Jesus to be the administrative head of the Church on earth. Why would that be necessary?

---

For the exact reason you lay out: it's too much for one man to handle and he can't be aware of scandals, heresies, controversies, and a great many other things that go on without his knowledge. That's why bishop is the highest episcopal level instituted by the church. He must be able to know his charges and parishioners.

---

Is this another one of those papal maximalist arguments? No one ever claimed the pope needs to know all things at all times in order to be in charge. We have thousands and thousands of bishops that handle business in their area. The pope is only needed when the bishops in their area aren't handling business and unity is being harmed. This idea that because the pope is the head bishop that all other bishops have no real, local authority is a caricature of the Catholic Church.

---

You have a hierarchal structure: it's not something you can hand waive away as a caricature when it's inconvenient.

---

I find this hierarchal evolution fascinating even as a reformed protestant, as we see early persecution paired with a thriving house church environment. Then Constantine and the legality of Christianity paired with an Emperor seeking to have his hand in church affairs, etc. And then the growth of of a more centralized organization.

Don't some Western Catholics however believe the Church was hierarchal at the beginning?

---

It's very clearly hierarchical at the beginning. I would suggest you read the church fathers like Clement, but you don't even need to. In Titus, Paul clearly states that he left someone in charge when he left, and that this someone is responsible for appointing more people to be in charge. You've got nine NT letters addressed to "the church in ...". The very clearly is a structure. The idea that these were just house churches that sat around reading the bible is inaccurate.

---

I do not at all reject the idea of a n early structure and official ministerial offices existing. But they were all essentially on a level playing field. The nine NT letters you mentioned, for me, represent NOT having a hierarchy. Each church was accountable for its own actions.

---

What would be the point of Paul writing if he held no authority? They're not dear colleague letters; they're received as authoritative and something to teach so clearly, that they're canonized as scripture by the church. You're imposing Baptist polity onto the early church; they already have a priestly hierarchy that exists and Christ is fulfillment, not abolition, so why would they change what they practice?

Edit: when I say priestly hierarchy that exists, I mean the levitical priesthood.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is one of the topics I least understand how it can be embraced in any true Christian practice. Sorry.

---

There's clearly a difficult line between asking Mary to pray (as a saint who is alive, and queen mother) and treating her as if she is higher than Christ, that whatever she asks of Him will be granted and that you appeal to her with expectation. Early English reformers critiqued this practice hundreds of years ago.

If there is an external law or idea to God, to which He must submit, He's not God. However, you can fall into the ditch on many sides. With Romanism this is one form; in Protestantism it's the idea of justice in atonement, that God can't get around sacrificing Jesus because of Justice.

---

Are you claiming that the Church taught this? Or that some Christians believed this personally?

---

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Read the part before what you bolded.

If you know your Roman Catholic history, it would be unsurprising that much prevalent practice was critiqued by reformers. Your tradition is the one that gave us Hocus Pocus. Your priests denied laity the blood of Christ. You can claim priestly error all day long but who's responsible for oversight of priests if not the bishop? Who's the ultimate authority in your church, if not the pope? When does management take responsibility for the frontline workers it hires? I'm not here to fight that battle, nor was that my intent in posting, but contemporary Roman Catholics need to start squaring with the idea that things their church has since shrugged off, were used to jettison many faithful Roman Catholics. That's all I have to say on the subject.

---

Dude. I asked a question and you have this reaction? It was a simple question to understand where you were coming from.

1. Assigning the kind of power to Mary that you are talking about was a regional issue. Just like selling of indulgences was a regional issue. It was not practiced or recognized by the entire church. Ever wonder why the reformation kicked off in specific areas? It's because the abuses were in those areas, not all over. When theses issues were brought up, Rome agreed with the reformers and "took responsibility for it's front line workers" by telling them to knock it off and clarifying doctrine.

2. When English bishops split from Rome, many priests stayed loyal to Rome. The English response was to imprison and execute these priests. Is that how management is supposed to take responsibility for their workers? Maybe the Catholic Church should have just executed all the priests that weren't acting appropriately? The case of John Hus is still held against the Church today by some protestants, so something tells me if done on a wide scale, you would still disapprove. What was the Church supposed to do, in your opinion, outside of what it did: correct the issue once it was made known?

3. Hocus Pocus was a slur generated by Reformed protestants in England because they didn't believe in the real presence, and wanted to make fun of Catholics using Latin. Not sure how we "gave" you that.

Every single protestant denomination has had multiple splits and off shoots due to some doctrine or another. Based on you criteria, everyone is doing a terrible job of getting their front line workers in line.

---

I put the part before your bolding in because it is important. Cutting it out and asking a question that, in my experience, leads to plausible deniability, warranted more explanation. No offense in that respect was intended.

The point is that there is historical practice that the pope allowed to flourish and took years to correct, and not without being forced. Remember, though, the Protestants don't have a pope. You can criticize them for every man being a pope, but that doesn't absolve you of what accrues to your bishop because of your own structure. You can't have it both ways.

---

I think this has a bit of modern bias. I'm not sure why the pope should be expected have all the details of what's going on 1000 miles away when he is relying on information on the wrong doing to be sent to him from the bishops doing the wrongdoing. There is very little evidence that he was aware of how Tetzel and Co were going about their business until Luther went public about it. Once he went public, the pope stepped in. As it should be. I truly believe that Luther could have been a saint for what he did until his pride got in the way.

As for the rest of that second paragraph, I really don't know what you're trying to get at. The best I can make sense of it is that apparently the pope is in charge of being aware of all error, everywhere, all the time and correcting it instantly. It doesn't work that way. He's a human with limited abilities as we all are.

---

You're absolutely right: that's one of the English reformer's criticisms of the pope being the head of Christ's church on earth. He's not Christ and can't hope to be, and it's evident in how things here are administered

---

Then I guess it's a good thing he doesn't claim to be Christ. But one does not need to be Jesus to be the administrative head of the Church on earth. Why would that be necessary?

---

For the exact reason you lay out: it's too much for one man to handle and he can't be aware of scandals, heresies, controversies, and a great many other things that go on without his knowledge. That's why bishop is the highest episcopal level instituted by the church. He must be able to know his charges and parishioners.

---

Is this another one of those papal maximalist arguments? No one ever claimed the pope needs to know all things at all times in order to be in charge. We have thousands and thousands of bishops that handle business in their area. The pope is only needed when the bishops in their area aren't handling business and unity is being harmed. This idea that because the pope is the head bishop that all other bishops have no real, local authority is a caricature of the Catholic Church.

---

You have a hierarchal structure: it's not something you can hand waive away as a caricature when it's inconvenient.

---

I find this hierarchal evolution fascinating even as a reformed protestant, as we see early persecution paired with a thriving house church environment. Then Constantine and the legality of Christianity paired with an Emperor seeking to have his hand in church affairs, etc. And then the growth of of a more centralized organization.

Don't some Western Catholics however believe the Church was hierarchal at the beginning?

---

It's very clearly hierarchical at the beginning. I would suggest you read the church fathers like Clement, but you don't even need to. In Titus, Paul clearly states that he left someone in charge when he left, and that this someone is responsible for appointing more people to be in charge. You've got nine NT letters addressed to "the church in ...". The very clearly is a structure. The idea that these were just house churches that sat around reading the bible is inaccurate.

---

I do not at all reject the idea of a n early structure and official ministerial offices existing. But they were all essentially on a level playing field. The nine NT letters you mentioned, for me, represent NOT having a hierarchy. Each church was accountable for its own actions.

---

If each church was accountable to itself, then why was Paul writing them so many letters telling them how to behave? In multiple letters he mentions the messenger to make sure his words are heard and heeded. He very clearly expected these churches to do what they were told

And again, in Titus we read

Quote:

---

This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders[b] in every town as I directed you

---

The man with authority (Paul) leaves someone to do his bidding (Titus) in an area (Crete) where Paul did not intend to stay. Even more, the command he left to Titus was to put people in charge in EVERY town in order to make sure what was defective was corrected. This is a clear authority structure.

I don't disagree with what you said, but to me that is not proof of a centralized organization. I see it more as a mentorship by Paul to ensure the early Churches were following the right path and raising up faithful Churches that are in line with an Apostolic authority.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I don't disagree with what you said, but to me that is not proof of a centralized organization. I see it more as a mentorship by Paul to ensure the early Churches were following the right path and raising up faithful Churches that are in line with an Apostolic authority.

---

With your church background, I can see why you'd read it that way. The fact that we read it differently is a great example of why Jesus left His authority with the apostles and not the written word.

I don't see how this being a "mentorship" letter makes sense. If you boss says "10, why don't you try X", this is mentorship. However, if your boss says "10, you need to do X and I'm leaving Titus here to make sure you do it", it is not mentorship anymore. It is a command.

I don't expect you to change your mind on this. I know many great Baptist/non-denoms that love Jesus but can't quite wrap their heads around this. Being taught from early on that a structured Church authority can't help but become corrupted and untrustworthy, it's hard to allow for that structured authority to be commanded in the bible.

ETA: Titus 2:15

Quote:

---

Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.

---

I suggest reading the entire letter, but I can't quote the whole thing here. Again, Paul is telling Titus what to do in Crete. Not asking. Not suggesting. Telling. And he is telling Titus to act with all authority. So Paul must have the authority to tell Titus to use his own authority to keep his area in line. Once you see it, you can't unsee it

Maybe mentor was not the greatest word, because I do think Paul had authority in the direction he was giving.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Maybe mentor was not the greatest word, because I do think Paul had authority in the direction he was giving.

---

Sorry, I don't mean to hold you to a specific word when we're all talking casually.

This was a big revelation for me and the cause of me reverting back to Catholicism. I went baptist in college and stayed there for about 10 years. But once it became clear to me that there was a hierarchy with full authority early on, it started by path back. The fact that the faith clearly existed in the places these letters were addressed prior to the letter itself meant that the faith clearly was not restricted to the letters themselves. The authoritative Church pre-dates the bible and we can use the bible to prove that.

I enjoy conversations with you, 10. Thanks for always keeping it civil.

Likewise! Discussions on here have spurred on some of my own research, and I have come to find that modern Protestantism often severely discounts the early Church, Apostolic succession, the sacraments, and many other aspects of the faith. We have different views of how this all plays out obviously, but I do appreciate the reverence to those who blazed the trails for us.

The reason that saintly prayers are so efficacious is because of James 5:16. And no matter how much you pray to Jesus (and we all should), sooner or later you have to go back to work, to sleep, eating, etc. Saints in heaven, however, just keep on praying for you, non-stop, as they are partakers in the divine nature of God (2 Peter 1:4), and they are one spirit in Christ (1 Corinthians 6:17).

FIDO95 said:

---

lobopride said:

---

I'm just glad Mary has no idea all this garbage has been added to who she is.

---

Mary knew who she was. The angel Gabriel told her:

"28 And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you." -Luke 1:28

Jesus also told her/us who she was when He told John from the Cross:

"26 So when Jesus saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" 27 Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her into his own household." -John 1:26-27

And then John, who venerated Mary as was Jewish custom, told us who Mary was in relationship to us:

" 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspringthose who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus." -Rev 12:17

If you hold fast to the testimony of Jesus, you are considered the offspring of Mary and you should venerate her unless of course you think Jesus and John are liars. Your choice.

In regards to the OP, I'm having a hard time with that depiction. It seems to imply that the Holy Spirit is beneath Christ and God as opposed to be equally united in the Trinity? I would depict it as Mary sitting next to me and joining me in my prayers directly to Christ. I can ask her to pray with me and I know she continues to pray for me, as a mother would, when I am unable to pray for myself.

---

This seemingly comes up every couple of months.

Even Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the early church did not believe Revelation 12 was about Mary. It was about the Christian Church.

You are certainly free to believe it if you want, but it's a century's later accretion and not something that has historical support.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Because Paul recommends intercessory prayer in 1 Timothy 2:1. The entire bible is made up of people interceding for others in prayer (Abraham, Moses, Joshua, etc.). And James tells us that the prayer of a righteous person is very powerful (James 5), and who is more righteous than a Christian in heaven?

---

This is a prime example of where Rome stretches reality.

This is what 1 Timothy 2 says:

2 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.


There is no way you can read that and come away with the belief that Paul is saying we should be asking Saints or Mary in heaven for intercessions.

He's quite literally asking this of those who are hearing his letter.

Revelation 12 is about Mary and Jesus fighting the devil, which was prophesied in Genesis 3:15. Revelation 12 says that the Woman gives birth to Jesus, which can only be Mary. The church did not give birth to Jesus, as Jesus created the Church, not the other way around.

Genesis 3:15 says that the woman and her seed will be at enmity with the devil. Women don't have seeds, they have eggs, so the Woman has to be one very special kind of female, one who had a virgin birth...

Yawn...

We've gone down this road in multiple threads.

The early church universally saw Revelation 12 as being about the Church/Christians. It took 400+ years before there started to be a belief that maybe it could also be about Mary. None of this is debated or challenged.

Rome scholars all agree. It's the pop apologists such at Catholic Answers that don't seem to get that.

Catholics, did this intercessory prayer exist in the Old Testament?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Catholics, did this intercessory prayer exist in the Old Testament?

---

There are no souls in heaven to ask for intercession, so clearly the answer is no. Jewish, Old testament thought, was that heavens gates would be opened by the Messiah. If you believe Jesus was that Messiah, when He dies and descends into Hades/Sheol and releases the righteous souls before ascending into Heaven opening the gates there. After this point, those that believe will have eternal life in Heaven:

"16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life." -John 3:16

"46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life." -John 6: 46-48

So if Jesus is to be believed (I recommend it), there are souls in Heaven that have eternal life. The New Testament has many examples of Christians praying for each other. Would they not have eternal life after their physical body dies? The likely reason more isn't written is because many apostles/saints were still alive when the Gospels and letters of the NT were being recorded.

Quote:

---

Catholics, did this intercessory prayer exist in the Old Testament?

---

Yes. Jeremiah, long deceased, prayed much for the people of Israel...This was in the KJV original, but the Scottish Bible Society took it out of the protestant bible in the 19th Century...

2 Maccabees 15: 13 Then likewise a man appeared, distinguished by his gray hair and dignity, and of marvelous majesty and authority. 14 And Onias spoke, saying, "This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God." 15 Jeremiah stretched out his right hand and gave to Judas a golden sword, and as he gave it he addressed him thus: 16 "Take this holy sword, a gift from God, with which you will strike down your adversaries."

Wow, even the great Charlie Kirk is starting to come around!?! He obviously has a long way to go but it's a start!

"I think as Protestants and Evangelicals underestimate Mary. She was very important... We as P&E have overcorrected. We don't talk about Mary enough. We don't VENERATE her enough."



Not to derail the thread, but he made very good arguments about Mary until the end when he holds onto the claim of Jesus having "brothers or half brothers. It doesn't take a deep dive into the original Greek text and limiting factors of translation of "adelphos", historical use of the word, and/or historical views of the early Christians on the subject to recognize that error.

By his logic, Paul and Timothy were blood brothers...

2 Corinthians 1:1

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother. To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia: