If I may be immodest for the sake of candor. I--and many others here--already DO "do better." If it were not for the denominational icon next to our names, most of us would be impossible to identify, church-wise. Contrast that with the Catholic militants here who make a point of sneering at the non-Catholic readers in almost every post with one version or another of the "My church is the only good one, sorry about you heretics" line. Over and over again--often very literally over and over again with the very same denominational talking points--the claims are thrown at us solely for the purposes of claiming to be superior to other Christians. The proof is right there before everyone's eyes, steve.
Boy, if that's the way you think we are, you'd better have another look. I don't think I've ever seen any Catholic here say "My church is the only good one. In fact, I've said many times that we're all one body of Christian. Just that the Catholic Church is the whole, and you guys make up parts of it.
Because the word is a perfectly good word, a dictionary word, there's no satisfactory alternative, and it's nothing that's derogatory. And I don't go out of my way to use it. But if your idea is that we ought to bend over backwards not to give offense by our choice of words, even good ones, why don't you lecture your own troops who make us look like amateurs when it comes to using language that might be considered offensive?
It's a perfectly good word for denominations. But "Catholic" is not a denomination.
Incidentally, on the poll that deals with this matter, 48% of the respondents feel that the RCC is a denomination, and the other 52% are mainly Roman Catholics.
I don't care what polls say. Most Catholics might even say it, but those who practice their faith know otherwise. Being a denomination implies that Christ created many churches with different flavors. Catholicism is not a popularity contest. Jesus didn't try to be popular. He tried to win souls.
__________________ See my profile to visit my blogs:
The God who made you without your cooperation will not save you without your cooperation.--St. Augustine
Wise men STILL find Him with His mother...
God uses Mary as bait to capture the hearts of men. -St. Theresa of Avila
Albion: I remember reading you in other posts, and noticing that although you list yourself as an Anglican (a religion that is actually very similar to R. Catholics, you always seem to have a bone to pick with the Catholics. More of a deep seated hatred, and it seems to show through wherever you are and whatever you post. Why is that?
That's apparently what you want to believe. Leaving aside the affrontery of you defining for me what my religion is supposed to be, I am not at all moved by hatred for Roman Catholicism. Sorry to burst your partisan balloon by saying that.
However, I am just appalled by the viciousness that a few people on this forum exhibit towards other Christians, and I feel it only fair to point it out when they are either misinformed or are engaging in deliberate misrepresentations. You don't have to look much further for an example than the mocking nature of the title of this very thread.
Moreover, it should not surprise anyone that they damage the reputation of their church by their behavior towards other Christians. I hope that your attempt to stir up animosity here and your use of excessive and accusatory language does not signal that you are thinking of going down that road yourself.
As far as my post, that you criticized; well, only God knows the heart, and I am thankful that He doesn't judge me the way you do. You may want to remember to "judge not, lest ye be judged.
Apparently the truth hurts, and you expected to denigrate "non-Catholics" without any fear of an opposing opinion. No one is judging you. However, THAT POST was anything but the loving and considerate analysis you pretended it was.
I am in perfect agreement with you that that the speculations are all problematic. However, they are modeled after YOUR speculations as to how the roman congregation might have recieved the religious authority of Peter.
For example, In order to make YOUR speculation work when you speculated that Paul designated Timothy as his successor before Pauls death, by the same logic, Peter may also designate a successor before his death, if James had been Peter's designee, then, using your logic James may designate his successor before his death, who then may have designated his successor before HIS death,... ad nauseum. It was your suggestion that created this illogical model, not mine.
Also, In order to improve YOUR speculation, you also questioned whether it needed to be Peter who ordained your “unknown bishop”. If YOUR theory is correct, then it did not need to be Peter to ordain Mark or James, or John or any other unknown and obscure bishop of any other congregation. (it is illogical, but it was your suggestion ...)
I did not create this silly logic, I simply used your illogical speculation as a model. This is the problem that speculation without paying attention to data will create.
I am in perfect agreement that we may dismiss these speculations . However, if we dismiss the illogical speculations, we cannot “pick and choose”. We must dismiss ALL illogical, dataless, and foolish speculations, including your speculation that Peter would gave an unknown "mystery man" religious power over the world; the "keys of heaven and hell".
Your speculative man is unknown – neither we, nor you know who he was.
Your speculative unknown, “mystery man” has no direct witness of Jesus even though direct witnesses of Jesus exist.
Your unknown, “mystery man” also doesn’t tell anyone that he has this power and passes it on without telling anyone. It is only in a later century that someone somehow "remembers" that this happened and makes the claim that it happened.
There are no period appropriate records indicating this happened.
No one at the time tells anyone.
No one hears about it nor understands that it happened no one writes about it.
No extant christian diary mentions this authority.
No early psalm celebrates this authority.
No early christian commentary teaches this authority was given.
No apostolic father knows anything about such authority being given.
it is in the next century when the claim is made. It is a "back claim".
I agree that all this speculation is completely illogical, improbable, and, as YOU put it,... "funny".
SO, IF WE DISPENSE WITH ALL TENUOUS AND STRANGE SPECULATIONS BASED ON COMPLETELY POOR LOGIC AND LACK OF DATA THE QUESTION STILL REMAINS :
ROOT OF JESSE, DO YOU WANT TO TRY AGAIN AND OFFER ANY DATA THAT SUPPORTS THE CATHOLIC CLAIM THAT PETER ORDAINED AN UNKNOWN BISHOP AND GAVE HIM POWER OVER ALL OTHER LIVING APOSTLES AND OVER THE REST OF THE WORLD?
over and over and over the catholics have claimed to "have special religious authority". Now is the time to offer us data and evidence.
ARE THERE ANY CATHOLICS IN THIS FORUM WHO ARE ABLE TO OFFER THE DATA WHICH ROOT OF JESSE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO FIND IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE CATHOLIC CLAIM THAT PETER ORDAINED AN UNKNOWN MAN AND GAVE THIS UNKNOWN INDIVIDUAL THE KEYS OF HEAVEN AND HELL?
Clearly
nefufudr
Well, you see, you misunderstood what I said, again. All the apostles had the right to appoint bishops- wherever they went, they did so. It is not speculative that Paul consecrated Timothy and Titus as bishops. He wrote them letters admonishing them to be good shepherds of their flocks. Every bishop today is a successor to one of the apostles. Peter certainly appointed bishops. When he left Antioch, he did so, we know. What I said was it doesn't matter who consecrated Linus as bishop, as to whether he could be the successor of Peter. Popes, on the other hand, were chosen after the death of the previous popes, usually by the body of clergy.
Right, it did not need to be Peter who consecrated Mark, James or John. But James was dead before Peter, by about 20 years, Mark was elsewhere, and John was a prisoner of Nero on Patmos experiencing his vision when Peter was martyred by Nero.
Regarding all the other statements you made, so what? The reason no other apostolic father 'knows of Linus' appointment', is that the majority of them were already martyred. Andrew-30 November, A.D. 60 by Nero, James in 44AD, James the Less in 42AD, and I could go on. Besides which, you think these guys were very mobile? How long do you think it might take for Rome to call one of the other apostles from wherever they might be, and ask them to stop what they're doing and come be pope?
The data supporting Linus is from Iranaeus. I'll grant that others say otherwise. But again, that doesn't affect the claim of Peter as Pope, or the fact that there were successors of all the apostles.
__________________ See my profile to visit my blogs:
The God who made you without your cooperation will not save you without your cooperation.--St. Augustine
Wise men STILL find Him with His mother...
God uses Mary as bait to capture the hearts of men. -St. Theresa of Avila
This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "Why is Catholicism so successful? (2)"
Linear Mode
