|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 27, 2010 18:36:35 GMT -5
Only because (in the eyes of some) you need to be educated to the gospel message of Christ.  There are some of us that see your views the same as we see the views of 'hardcore 2x2's'. You are simply giving the views of your relationship with your church, and not from the personal relationship with Christ. You would be in error on that. They have always been my views. They continue to be my views and are in harmony with the teachings of the Catholic Church. I would also like to clarify. Being homosexual is not a sin. Being divorced is not a sin. Sins are not who we are, but are rather actions we take that are not according to God's natural law. Is this where we're headed? Excerpt Ga. School Forces Christian Student to Alter Beliefs to Graduate By Nathan Black|Christian Post Reporter "An Augusta State University student filed suit Wednesday after she was told to change her Christian beliefs or otherwise be expelled from the school's graduate counseling program . . . "Abandoning one’s own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree," ADF's David French contended. "This type of leftist zero-tolerance policy is in place at far too many universities, and it must stop. Jennifer’s only crime was to have the beliefs that she does." www.christianpost.com/article/20100722/ga-school-forces-christian-student-to-alter-beliefs-to-graduate/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 27, 2010 18:38:03 GMT -5
I only come to that conclusion because of what the workers themselves have preached in gone-by days and what the bible itself says about "knowing". Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. ' I do not consider multiple accountings of CSA crimes and rapes to be "good fruit", do you? And THAT alone is a testimony of God not blessing the workership. It IS sad for it does paint ALL the workership black as Ed A. put it, but the workers who have NOT dealt with the known CSA perps in the legal and correct manner have brought this all down on the whole workership and we cannot deny that. I DO NOT like thinking of some of the workers now long gone who were part of this coverup, it hurts me greatly because these were workers I knew and loved, but to find out they were part of the coverup? That increases my grief! I'm sorry but that's how I see it. Couple of flaws there. An individual worker committing CSA does not make all workers guilty of it. So thus you cannot indict the workers en masse for the sins of a few. I'm sure those verses you quote apply to the individual. Workers could be indicted though for believing that such things are impossible within the workership and that they are above certain sins. From that pride would flow things like cover-ups, denial ... things we're not seeing to the same extent, so there's much to be hopeful for. You know you don't have to justify yourself to anyone for leaving the fellowship, Sharon. That is a nasty remark...we were not even talking about leaving the fellowship...I was replying to Dc's comment...I''m talking about God's blessing on a total workership...and it is exactly as worer Ed A said ....because of the "coverup" and lack of dealing with the CSA issues and other sexual exploits BY THE POWERS THAT WERE AND ARE within the workership the WHOLE workership gets painted black! That has NOTHING to do with leaving or justifying it. I feel NO need to justify what God has led me to do...and God certainly had a hand in the whole thing! That's a fact,k though I suspect Rational will want to know the facts' list...that I won't put down for further accusations of "justifying".... |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 27, 2010 20:10:11 GMT -5
I just said that Spirit-led men and women will disagree. I did not say that the Spirit would lead men and women to disagree. If both truly submit to the Spirit then of course they will, in time, agree. I'm just commenting that we shouldn't expect the leadership to be in agreement at all times. The fault lies in not conceding that the human or base component has invaded the process. The Spirit would lift us up above that base aspect; we cannot do this ourselves. The Spirit can only do that if we admit ourselves as base, and also if we see ourselves as having limited what the Spirit can do. In the case of the D&R issue what might prevent agreement is the thought that one's side is in true and complete possession of the Spirit. When what would bring agreement is repenting and sitting in sackcloth and ashes. What I would be looking for in any spiritual leadership is not uniformity of action between workers, or of consistency of action over the years. These are superficial aspects which are man-induced to give the appearance of the Spirit working. I wholeheartedly agree. What I would look for in spiritual leadership is willingness to bend, to change, to yield, to adapt. To the knowledge of our own base nature and to the leading and guiding of the Spirit from our baser nature to goodness and truth. To Christ-centred principles as they would speak to men and women in our present day and age. I would look above all for movement and change in the apparent form of things. I agree that it's necessary to bend and change from our base nature to goodness, truth and Christ/based principles. I'm not so sure it needs changing to fit our present day and age. I tend to believe Christ-based principles fit every age. |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 27, 2010 20:26:21 GMT -5
If both truly submit to the Spirit then of course they will, in time, agree. The question that remains is, how much time is an acceptable amount of time? If truly led by the Spirit, why has the church of the 2x2 not been able to come to doctrinal agreement on the very important issue of D&R (for instance). It has been quite a long time. When should it be said it is indicative that they are not led by the Spirit? How long did differences and solutions to problems go on in Bible times? "Let patience have her perfect work..." |
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Jul 27, 2010 20:31:51 GMT -5
I agree, education is very important and not only with regard to CSA. We need to become educated to learn that alcoholism is akin to a disease, that mental illness does not equate with evil, that remarriage is not adultery, that homosexuality is not depravity, and that not all non-2x2s will be dispatched immediately to hell upon expiration. Lots to learn beyond CSA. I could swallow the notion that alcoholism is akin to a disease -- perhaps a second or third cousin. I can accept that mental illness does not equate with evil -- as long as the person affected does no harm in his affliction. Remarriage is obviously adultery when the disposed spouse is still living. Homosexuality is depravity when expressed or acted upon. Whether 2x2s or non 2x2s all will be judged, some being giving a welcome, others being asked to depart. Without a doubt, the vast majority of the friends, including myself, residing in the western portion of the country share these beliefs. If these beliefs are not also shared by the rank and file on the eastern parts, then I can understand the basis of great division, east vs west. Any significant softening of their stance on these issues by western overseers would drastically undermine their support from the friends in the west. Should they decide to do this, they'd better have all their ducks in a row before they shoot! Of course this is just the opinion of an old professing guy who has been kicking around long enough that it won't be too long before they won't have to worry about him. |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 27, 2010 20:32:57 GMT -5
I just said that Spirit-led men and women will disagree. I did not say that the Spirit would lead men and women to disagree. If both truly submit to the Spirit then of course they will, in time, agree. I'm just commenting that we shouldn't expect the leadership to be in agreement at all times. The fault lies in not conceding that the human or base component has invaded the process. The Spirit would lift us up above that base aspect; we cannot do this ourselves. The Spirit can only do that if we admit ourselves as base, and also if we see ourselves as having limited what the Spirit can do. In the case of the D&R issue what might prevent agreement is the thought that one's side is in true and complete possession of the Spirit. When what would bring agreement is repenting and sitting in sackcloth and ashes. What I would be looking for in any spiritual leadership is not uniformity of action between workers, or of consistency of action over the years. These are superficial aspects which are man-induced to give the appearance of the Spirit working. I wholeheartedly agree. What I would look for in spiritual leadership is willingness to bend, to change, to yield, to adapt. To the knowledge of our own base nature and to the leading and guiding of the Spirit from our baser nature to goodness and truth. To Christ-centred principles as they would speak to men and women in our present day and age. I would look above all for movement and change in the apparent form of things. I agree that it's necessary to bend and change from our base nature to goodness, truth and Christ/based principles. I'm not so sure it needs changing to fit our present day and age. I tend to believe Christ-based principles fit every age.
What I would be looking for in any spiritual leadership is not uniformity of action between workers, I keep seeing things I missed. So, then, what good would sitting in sackcloth and ashes benefit if conformity (you say uniformity) is of man? Who are you suggesting should do the penance of sackcloth and ashes, in what form? If uniformity isn't the goal, what is? Repentance obviously. But then what? To go forward in the same non-uniformity? I suppose I don't understand how the desired agreement differs from uniformity. |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 27, 2010 20:41:11 GMT -5
If both truly submit to the Spirit then of course they will, in time, agree. The question that remains is, how much time is an acceptable amount of time? If truly led by the Spirit, why has the church of the 2x2 not been able to come to doctrinal agreement on the very important issue of D&R (for instance). It has been quite a long time. When should it be said it is indicative that they are not led by the Spirit? How long did differences and solutions to problems go on in Bible times? "Let patience have her perfect work..." How many councils have the 2x2 held to hammer out their differences? Which side has the guiding of the Holy Spirit--only one can be true, you know. How many years have they held this difference? How many marriages have been adversely affected by the doctrinal difference in D&R, how many people dealt with unfairly as a result? I'm not sure how to respond to your question--how long was "Bible times?" I probably wouldn't know the answer(s) anyway. You tell me. |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 27, 2010 20:46:10 GMT -5
How long did differences and solutions to problems go on in Bible times? "Let patience have her perfect work..." How many councils have the 2x2 held to hammer out their differences? Which side has the guiding of the Holy Spirit--only one can be true, you know. How many years have they held this difference? How many marriages have been adversely affected by the doctrinal difference in D&R, how many people dealt with unfairly as a result? I'm not sure how to respond to your question--how long was "Bible times?" I probably wouldn't know the answer anyway. You tell me. I don't know how long either, but I have read in the Bible of some pretty lengthy periods of time when all was not as it should be in man's interpretation of God's will. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 27, 2010 20:49:20 GMT -5
Remarriage is obviously adultery when the disposed spouse is still living. ... Homosexuality is depravity when Without a doubt, the vast majority of the friends, including myself, residing in the western portion of the country share these beliefs. ... Any significant softening of their stance on these issues by western overseers would drastically undermine their support from the friends in the west. Ron, if the topic D&R did come up in a discussion at the top level, there would be no reason to vote on whether or not it was a sin. All that matters is that a decision is made to quit taking a heavy-handed approach by banning sinners from participating in meeting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2010 20:56:51 GMT -5
Like I said ron, there's lots to learn!  I agree, education is very important and not only with regard to CSA. We need to become educated to learn that alcoholism is akin to a disease, that mental illness does not equate with evil, that remarriage is not adultery, that homosexuality is not depravity, and that not all non-2x2s will be dispatched immediately to hell upon expiration. Lots to learn beyond CSA. I could swallow the notion that alcoholism is akin to a disease -- perhaps a second or third cousin. I can accept that mental illness does not equate with evil -- as long as the person affected does no harm in his affliction. Remarriage is obviously adultery when the disposed spouse is still living. Homosexuality is depravity when expressed or acted upon. Whether 2x2s or non 2x2s all will be judged, some being giving a welcome, others being asked to depart. Without a doubt, the vast majority of the friends, including myself, residing in the western portion of the country share these beliefs. If these beliefs are not also shared by the rank and file on the eastern parts, then I can understand the basis of great division, east vs west. Any significant softening of their stance on these issues by western overseers would drastically undermine their support from the friends in the west. Should they decide to do this, they'd better have all their ducks in a row before they shoot! Of course this is just the opinion of an old professing guy who has been kicking around long enough that it won't be too long before they won't have to worry about him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2010 20:57:50 GMT -5
Remarriage is obviously adultery when the disposed spouse is still living. ... Homosexuality is depravity when Without a doubt, the vast majority of the friends, including myself, residing in the western portion of the country share these beliefs. ... Any significant softening of their stance on these issues by western overseers would drastically undermine their support from the friends in the west. Ron, if the topic D&R did come up in a discussion at the top level, there would be no reason to vote on whether or not it was a sin. All that matters is that a decision is made to quit taking a heavy-handed approach by banning sinners from participating in meeting. Good political solution there DC. Ever thought of running for Congressman? |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 27, 2010 21:01:09 GMT -5
How many councils have the 2x2 held to hammer out their differences? Which side has the guiding of the Holy Spirit--only one can be true, you know. How many years have they held this difference? How many marriages have been adversely affected by the doctrinal difference in D&R, how many people dealt with unfairly as a result? I'm not sure how to respond to your question--how long was "Bible times?" I probably wouldn't know the answer anyway. You tell me. I don't know how long either, but I have read in the Bible of some pretty lengthy periods of time when all was not as it should be in man's interpretation of God's will. I took a time out to go read your quoted Scripture--from James 1. A few verses on from your quote is James 1:8--about the double minded man. Commentary from biblos.com King James Bible A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. Douay-Rheims Bible A double minded man is inconstant in all his ways. Wesley's Notes 1:8 A doubleminded man - Who has, as it were, two souls; whose heart is not simply given up to God. Is unstable - Being without the true wisdom; perpetually disagrees both with himself and others, James 3:16. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 27, 2010 21:02:29 GMT -5
Good political solution there DC. Ever thought of running for Congressman? No. I thought very briefly about running for a Congresswoman, but she is in much better shape than me, and I'm certain I could never catch her. |
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Jul 27, 2010 21:04:34 GMT -5
Remarriage is obviously adultery when the disposed spouse is still living. ... Homosexuality is depravity when Without a doubt, the vast majority of the friends, including myself, residing in the western portion of the country share these beliefs. ... Any significant softening of their stance on these issues by western overseers would drastically undermine their support from the friends in the west. Ron, if the topic D&R did come up in a discussion at the top level, there would be no reason to vote on whether or not it was a sin. All that matters is that a decision is made to quit taking a heavy-handed approach by banning sinners from participating in meeting. That may seem to be an easy thing to pull off but I seriously don't think so. For example, how would they deal with the many who have been banned from participation over the many years. Just tell them they have to start participating now, like all the others. How about the many who have left and have friends and relatives still professing. How would an old guy like me feel if my son, daughter, brother, sister or whatever had left over the issue. Now suddenly a big blessing was announced for divorce and remarriage. Yeah! Right! |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2010 21:05:40 GMT -5
I hope my post to Ron clarifies my feeling on this. As much as the Spirit leads us to all truth, we ourselves will continue to prevent and inhibit its workings. And so it's good to examine ourselves, and if we don't then we're bound to fail all the more. I think you would agree now that I've expanded that a little. But on the quote of Witham I cannot agree. I am not sure what is meant by "the Church" in his statement. If he means the body of all true believers, then certainly "the Church" has erred. How else could there be fundamentally contradictory points of view? If he means the RCC, well I don't hold to the infallibility of that Church's record in establishing doctrine as I'm sure you must. Agree that you have expanded it. To ronhall you wrote: I just said that Spirit-led men and women will disagree. That is the misnomer. I (now) believe you are saying that men and women who are desirous of being led by the Holy Spirit will eventually be so led and will come to agreement. If both truly submit to the Spirit then of course they will, in time, agree. The question that remains is, how much time is an acceptable amount of time? If truly led by the Spirit, why has the church of the 2x2 not been able to come to doctrinal agreement on the very important issue of D&R (for instance). It has been quite a long time. When should it be said it is indicative that they are not led by the Spirit? But on the quote of Witham I cannot agree. I am not sure what is meant by "the Church" in his statement.Jesus said he would build a church. He said that the Holy Spirit would protect it from teaching error. We read that that church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Somewhere...that church exists. And that is the church to which Witham refers. I'd sure like to see the church that never erred in teaching. Remember when your church taught that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System and Universe, as one small example. So Galileo is your witness on that one. Of course, the Spirit will lead men and women towards Truth and the Light, but I don't believe we will ever arrive. As long as we're facing in the right direction, that's the best we can hope for. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2010 21:18:36 GMT -5
Couple of flaws there. An individual worker committing CSA does not make all workers guilty of it. So thus you cannot indict the workers en masse for the sins of a few. I'm sure those verses you quote apply to the individual. Workers could be indicted though for believing that such things are impossible within the workership and that they are above certain sins. From that pride would flow things like cover-ups, denial ... things we're not seeing to the same extent, so there's much to be hopeful for. You know you don't have to justify yourself to anyone for leaving the fellowship, Sharon. That is a nasty remark...we were not even talking about leaving the fellowship...I was replying to Dc's comment...I''m talking about God's blessing on a total workership...and it is exactly as worer Ed A said ....because of the "coverup" and lack of dealing with the CSA issues and other sexual exploits BY THE POWERS THAT WERE AND ARE within the workership the WHOLE workership gets painted black! That has NOTHING to do with leaving or justifying it. I feel NO need to justify what God has led me to do...and God certainly had a hand in the whole thing! That's a fact,k though I suspect Rational will want to know the facts' list...that I won't put down for further accusations of "justifying".... To be honest when you get a little heavy with the brickbats, it seems like you have a teensy-weensy bit of guilt about leaving. Maybe you don't at all. I wasn't trying to be nasty, just to tell you I'm cool with it. There's lots of reasons for people to leave, and you know that I view the True church as consisting of believers in every denomination. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2010 21:25:01 GMT -5
Ron, if the topic D&R did come up in a discussion at the top level, there would be no reason to vote on whether or not it was a sin. All that matters is that a decision is made to quit taking a heavy-handed approach by banning sinners from participating in meeting. That may seem to be an easy thing to pull off but I seriously don't think so. For example, how would they deal with the many who have been banned from participation over the many years. Just tell them they have to start participating now, like all the others. How about the many who have left and have friends and relatives still professing. How would an old guy like me feel if my son, daughter, brother, sister or whatever had left over the issue. Now suddenly a big blessing was announced for divorce and remarriage. Yeah! Right! Ron your skepticism is justified, but isn't it ironic that a group which preaches repentance as a fundamental and core doctrine is unable or uninterested in the possibility of repenting of past errors, or even self-examining for errors. It's an interesting world! |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2010 21:34:29 GMT -5
I just said that Spirit-led men and women will disagree. I did not say that the Spirit would lead men and women to disagree. If both truly submit to the Spirit then of course they will, in time, agree. I'm just commenting that we shouldn't expect the leadership to be in agreement at all times. The fault lies in not conceding that the human or base component has invaded the process. The Spirit would lift us up above that base aspect; we cannot do this ourselves. The Spirit can only do that if we admit ourselves as base, and also if we see ourselves as having limited what the Spirit can do. In the case of the D&R issue what might prevent agreement is the thought that one's side is in true and complete possession of the Spirit. When what would bring agreement is repenting and sitting in sackcloth and ashes. What I would be looking for in any spiritual leadership is not uniformity of action between workers, or of consistency of action over the years. These are superficial aspects which are man-induced to give the appearance of the Spirit working. I wholeheartedly agree. What I would look for in spiritual leadership is willingness to bend, to change, to yield, to adapt. To the knowledge of our own base nature and to the leading and guiding of the Spirit from our baser nature to goodness and truth. To Christ-centred principles as they would speak to men and women in our present day and age. I would look above all for movement and change in the apparent form of things. I agree that it's necessary to bend and change from our base nature to goodness, truth and Christ/based principles. I'm not so sure it needs changing to fit our present day and age. I tend to believe Christ-based principles fit every age. That one about "changing to fit our present day and age" is a very fine line, I agree. According to Tim Keller, the Anabaptist type churches, which we tend to be like, try to develop a strong counter-culture and community to show a Christ-centred life. So if we set ourselves apart by not having television, worldly entertainment, abstain from liquor and drugs, etc. etc. those are good things. But in other ways where we differentiate ourselves for the sake of being "separated", through clothing and hair styles, or through lack of empathy or involvement in the world, I think we risk no longer being able to reach people. And personally I believe we also need to live in active relation to government, business and civil society in order to speak to people, and even just to help them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2010 21:41:35 GMT -5
Amen to that.....there's no other way. Jesus did it big time.
The old separation doctrine was well intentioned to protect people, but it made baby Christians out of adult ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2010 21:47:06 GMT -5
I wholeheartedly agree. I agree that it's necessary to bend and change from our base nature to goodness, truth and Christ/based principles. I'm not so sure it needs changing to fit our present day and age. I tend to believe Christ-based principles fit every age.
What I would be looking for in any spiritual leadership is not uniformity of action between workers, I keep seeing things I missed. So, then, what good would sitting in sackcloth and ashes benefit if conformity (you say uniformity) is of man? Who are you suggesting should do the penance of sackcloth and ashes, in what form? If uniformity isn't the goal, what is? Repentance obviously. But then what? To go forward in the same non-uniformity? I suppose I don't understand how the desired agreement differs from uniformity. The "sackcloth and ashes" is metaphorical, of course. Taking the D&R issue as an example: if both sides are sitting thinking they have God on their side, then there's not going to be any movement. If both sides look for the good in the other side and the fault in their own side (which is where the sackcloth and ashes come in), then perhaps progress is possible. Uniformity and true unity are not the same thing. Uniformity strives for the appearance of unity only. Whereas unity is based on true Christian love and humility, serving one another. |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 27, 2010 22:05:41 GMT -5
I think you would agree now that I've expanded that a little.Agree that you have expanded it. To ronhall you wrote: I just said that Spirit-led men and women will disagree. That is the misnomer. I (now) believe you are saying that men and women who are desirous of being led by the Holy Spirit will eventually be so led and will come to agreement. If both truly submit to the Spirit then of course they will, in time, agree. The question that remains is, how much time is an acceptable amount of time? If truly led by the Spirit, why has the church of the 2x2 not been able to come to doctrinal agreement on the very important issue of D&R (for instance). It has been quite a long time. When should it be said it is indicative that they are not led by the Spirit? But on the quote of Witham I cannot agree. I am not sure what is meant by "the Church" in his statement.Jesus said he would build a church. He said that the Holy Spirit would protect it from teaching error. We read that that church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Somewhere...that church exists. And that is the church to which Witham refers. I'd sure like to see the church that never erred in teaching. Remember when your church taught that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System and Universe, as one small example. So Galileo is your witness on that one. Of course, the Spirit will lead men and women towards Truth and the Light, but I don't believe we will ever arrive. As long as we're facing in the right direction, that's the best we can hope for.
More references at the link.Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 - this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!) Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the "Way" prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein. Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals. Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail. Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift. Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation. Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus' presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived. www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.htmlMt 28 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 27, 2010 22:18:21 GMT -5
I'd sure like to see the church that never erred in teaching. Remember when your church taught that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System and Universe, as one small example. So Galileo is your witness on that one. "Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views. The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible. No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility. Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful. In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his. It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth. As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth. Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved." www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp |
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 27, 2010 23:48:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 28, 2010 1:03:25 GMT -5
The proceedings of the Cadaver Synod would be more in the realm of church law, and not a matter of teaching faith and morals from Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition that are protected from error by the Holy Spirit. CCC 84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful." The Magisterium of the Church 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. 86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith." 87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms. The dogmas of the faith 88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. 96 What Christ entrusted to the apostles, they in turn handed on by their preaching and writing, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to all generations, until Christ returns in glory. |
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 28, 2010 6:34:27 GMT -5
The proceedings of the Cadaver Synod would be more in the realm of church law, and not a matter of teaching faith and morals from Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition that are protected from error by the Holy Spirit. CCC 84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful." No matter how you spin it, a pope digging up his predecessor and trying him for his crimes is not becoming to "Peter's successor". Does a pope not teach "faith and morals" by example? If there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful, should there not be a similar harmony between a pope and his predecessor? |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 28, 2010 6:55:07 GMT -5
That is a nasty remark...we were not even talking about leaving the fellowship...I was replying to Dc's comment...I''m talking about God's blessing on a total workership...and it is exactly as worer Ed A said ....because of the "coverup" and lack of dealing with the CSA issues and other sexual exploits BY THE POWERS THAT WERE AND ARE within the workership the WHOLE workership gets painted black! That has NOTHING to do with leaving or justifying it. I feel NO need to justify what God has led me to do...and God certainly had a hand in the whole thing! That's a fact,k though I suspect Rational will want to know the facts' list...that I won't put down for further accusations of "justifying".... To be honest when you get a little heavy with the brickbats, it seems like you have a teensy-weensy bit of guilt about leaving. Maybe you don't at all. I wasn't trying to be nasty, just to tell you I'm cool with it. There's lots of reasons for people to leave, and you know that I view the True church as consisting of believers in every denomination. It seems to me the biggest problem in all of us is facing the truth that sometimes is weightier then those "brickbats"...justice will never be served if reality is not faced, admitted etc. The truth often hurts, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 28, 2010 13:33:53 GMT -5
The proceedings of the Cadaver Synod would be more in the realm of church law, and not a matter of teaching faith and morals from Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition that are protected from error by the Holy Spirit. No matter how you spin it, a pope digging up his predecessor and trying him for his crimes is not becoming to "Peter's successor". Does a pope not teach "faith and morals" by example? If there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful, should there not be a similar harmony between a pope and his predecessor?
The bishops of the Catholic Church, including the pope, are not personally infallible. They are human beings, imperfect human beings, sinful human beings as we all are.Does a pope not teach "faith and morals" by example?The charism of infallibility does not apply to personal example. It applies when:"he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals" If there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful, should there not be a similar harmony between a pope and his predecessor. Generally, a pope is deceased before his successor claims the chair. I think the the Cadaver Synod was indicative of the times and the (very unusual) circumstances."Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25). Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter." The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . "). Based on Christ’s Mandate Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might. www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.aspMorewww.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202sbs.asp |
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Jul 28, 2010 13:42:02 GMT -5
That may seem to be an easy thing to pull off but I seriously don't think so. For example, how would they deal with the many who have been banned from participation over the many years. Just tell them they have to start participating now, like all the others. How about the many who have left and have friends and relatives still professing. How would an old guy like me feel if my son, daughter, brother, sister or whatever had left over the issue. Now suddenly a big blessing was announced for divorce and remarriage. Yeah! Right! Ron your skepticism is justified, but isn't it ironic that a group which preaches repentance as a fundamental and core doctrine is unable or uninterested in the possibility of repenting of past errors, or even self-examining for errors. It's an interesting world! Had a chance to put this on the back burner and let it simmer over night. Yes, this is interesting and ironic, as you noted. What is at play, though, in my opinion is the concept of repentance being taught is repentance at a personal level and I would say this is taught rather well. The typical 'cog in the wheel' professing person is honest, contrite, meek and approachable, i.e., good folks most would love to have as a next door neighbor and would welcome their daughter to date their neighbor's son. What is not taught, or really even remotely considered by most, is that there would be any occasion to repent at the overall church level. The reason is that this is the "Truth", "True Way", "Only Way", "Perfect Way" etc. One of our Hymns goes: "We love the perfect way of God . . . ." What goes through my mind when this is sung is the perfect way is what someone looking on would define as the overall church level. I think most of us make that same interpretation. Sooooo . . . . . What need is there to improve on perfection. The whole concept of repenting from perfection becomes rather silly viewed from this viewpoint. Then when a problem or deficiency comes to light that is endemic to the entire church, we shift our focus away from the church, believing it is perfect and point fingers to individuals who just happen to be the most entangled in the problem within the church as the culprits and attempt correction at this level, i.e. the personal level. Whether this is the right approach or the wrong approach -- I haven't had time to form an opinion on it yet. Perhaps some others are quicker thinking than I. It might make for a good subject to ponder. |
|
Prayers for all who have requested prayer, or for whom prayer has been requested.
