Submission.

[MoreCoffee]

What if the bishops themselves fail in meeting these qualifications?

Then the people can petition the curia and the pope (if the curia & pope have not already taken note of the situation).

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Then the people can petition the curia and the pope (if the curia & pope have not already taken note of the situation).

And what if the curia and the pope aren't acting according to these standards?

 

[MoreCoffee]

And what if the curia and the pope aren't acting according to these standards?

Eventually, if one follows the series of what-ifs to its end, one will be asking what if God proves false to his promises? A priest, a bishop, or a pope may fail to do right and in truth each has happened but the idea that priests, bishops, and pope would all conspire to fail to do what is right at the same time is getting close to expecting God's promises to fail too. In the end one relies on God's promises because he is God and he did promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. That promise is like the promise that Christ would be with the faithful until the and of the ages. One relies upon God and that implies relying upon God's promises and that implies that the church really is God's church and will not be overcome by wickedness even should this or that person in the church be overcome for a time.

 

[Rick Otto]

God's promise is that a great apostasy would happen.
How could it not be great if it wasn't amongst the establishment contenders of what is considered orthodox??
Christ being faithful is a promise to His church, not yours or mine.
The wickedness is in high places.
What is the height of the Magesterium in relation to "spiritual sea level"?

 

[MoreCoffee]

God's promise is that a great apostasy would happen.

Yeah, I heard about that. Happened around 1521 AD I reckon

How could it not be great if it wasn't amongst the establishment contenders of what is considered orthodox??

How could it be apostasy if it wasn't among apostates ... or heretics ... I reckon it was among heretics and that led to apostasy for some. I wonder if the passage in scripture means apostasy as in a flight from faith to atheism or if it means a flight from faith into heresy ... hard to be sure really.

Christ being faithful is a promise to His church, not yours or mine.

Yeah, I like to think that Christ really does still have a Church and that there are real people in it who do real things in real places of worship with real sacraments and real ministers and real presbyters and real bishops. But some say it isn't so. There's some kind of "spiritual" church that doesn't have a place of worship, minister, presbyter, or bishop. No sacraments either. And nobody really knows who is a member of that 'spiritual' church because one can never see into the souls of others; wasn't it Queen Elizabeth the first who said she wouldn't make windows into the souls of men. Odd really, this 'spiritual' church kind of depends on windows in a way. One needs them to know it exists at all. One needs at least one window, the one into one's own soul, without it one can never know if anybody living is in this 'spiritual' church.

The wickedness is in high places.

Hmm, what is the highest city in the world, maybe that's where the wickedness you mention is to be found. What you say below suggests that you might want to search out some high elevation when looking for it.

What is the height of the Magesterium in relation to "spiritual sea level"?

 

[hedrick]

Yeah, I like to think that Christ really does still have a Church and that there are real people in it who do real things in real places of worship with real sacraments and real ministers and real presbyters and real bishops. But some say it isn't so. There's some kind of "spiritual" church that doesn't have a place of worship, minister, presbyter, or bishop. No sacraments either. And nobody really knows who is a member of that 'spiritual' church because one can never see into the souls of others; wasn't it Queen Elizabeth the first who said she wouldn't make windows into the souls of men. Odd really, this 'spiritual' church kind of depends on windows in a way. One needs them to know it exists at all. One needs at least one window, the one into one's own soul, without it one can never know if anybody living is in this 'spiritual' church.

I think we really need to accept both aspects. There is a visible Church and an invisible Church. The visible church does visible things in visible places. But Jesus has followers who aren't visibly part of the Church, and some in the visible Church may not actually be following Jesus. So we have a Church in a different sense that consists of all true followers.

Catholic doctrine recognizes this distinction, saying that there are those outside the visible Church that are still in some sense part of it. This (in recent Catholic statements) seems to include non-Christians and maybe even atheists.

The NT doesn't give a complete Church constitution, but it does talk about officers, and Jesus gives it the power of the keys, which I understand as a rabbinical concept that means that power to make authoritative interpretation of Scripture.

Unfortunately this Church is currently divided. But it's still real and visible. Where I disagree is with only our part of the Church is really the visible Church. Sorry. We don't get to do that. Our various leaders will have to answer to Jesus for how they used the authority given to the Church, not to you or the Pope.

 

[Rick Otto]

Thanks, Hedrick.
I think we need to have a less materialistic definition of reality.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Eventually, if one follows the series of what-ifs to its end, one will be asking what if God proves false to his promises?

The RCC CHANGES the promises..... the "promises" the RCC keeps referencing are the virtual antithesis of what God promised. They are just a case of the RCC looking only to one: itself. They are a case of the RCC completely ignoring what God said and replacing it with what the RCC demands that God say instead.


God promised that he would be with us always. He said NOTHING about any denomination - much less the specific, singular, unique, sole, exclusive, individual, institutional RC Denomination.


God promised that He would lead the church. Not that there would be one infallible, unaccountable, denomination that would always follow. "LEAD" is not "FOLLOW." YOU is not "the individual, exclusive, particular denomination with the legal moniker of "Catholic Church." Just because God leads (even inerrantly) does NOT mean all (or even one) will infallibly follow (read Genesis chapter 3?).


God promised that He would teach the church. Not that there would be one infallible, unaccountable denomination that would be the perfect student. "TEACH" is not "LEARN." Even if Ms. Gardner in the First Grade classroom at Washington Elementary School is a PERFECT, INERRANT teacher does not mandate that Bobbie is an infallible, unaccountable student (even if Bobbie claims such for himself exclusively so as to avoid taking any tests or being asked any questions).


The RCC just deletes what God promised and replaces it with its own self-serving substitutions.

he did promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church.

No mention of any specific, singular, individual, institutional denomination..... A gates are DEFENSIVE. To date, Christians HAVE been able to share the Gospel even to those whom Satan called his own. This promise has NOTHING to do about how any denomination will thrive (and we note how Pentecostalism and Mormonism are thriving while 30 million have LEFT the RC Denomination just currently just in the USA alone).

That promise is like the promise that Christ would be with the faithful until the and of the ages.

... The FAITHFUL, not egotistical, self-centered, self-serving, self-glorifying DENOMINATIONS obsessed with POWER, obsessed with lording it over others as the Gentiles do, obsessed with evading accountability/responsibility.




I think we CAN rely on the promises of GOD. But not on the entirely CHANGED, entirely DIFFERENT, egotistical, self-centered, self-serving promises that the RCC substitutes for them.






.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think we really need to accept both aspects. There is a visible Church and an invisible Church. The visible church does visible things in visible places. But Jesus has followers who aren't visibly part of the Church, and some in the visible Church may not actually be following Jesus. So we have a Church in a different sense that consists of all true followers.

Catholic doctrine recognizes this distinction, saying that there are those outside the visible Church that are still in some sense part of it. This (in recent Catholic statements) seems to include non-Christians and maybe even atheists.

The NT doesn't give a complete Church constitution, but it does talk about officers, and Jesus gives it the power of the keys, which I understand as a rabbinical concept that means that power to make authoritative interpretation of Scripture.

Unfortunately this Church is currently divided. But it's still real and visible. Where I disagree is with only our part of the Church is really the visible Church. Sorry. We don't get to do that. Our various leaders will have to answer to Jesus for how they used the authority given to the Church, not to you or the Pope.

My reply to Rick Otto has more context than you chose to reply to. But I am not going to go into the matter again. It is sufficient to let the reader read my reply in its context.

 

[Rick Otto]

No sense in replying to fantasy like the reformers were apostate.
Apostates have to believe first, what they turn on.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Eventually, if one follows the series of what-ifs to its end, one will be asking what if God proves false to his promises? A priest, a bishop, or a pope may fail to do right and in truth each has happened but the idea that priests, bishops, and pope would all conspire to fail to do what is right at the same time is getting close to expecting God's promises to fail too. In the end one relies on God's promises because he is God and he did promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. That promise is like the promise that Christ would be with the faithful until the and of the ages. One relies upon God and that implies relying upon God's promises and that implies that the church really is God's church and will not be overcome by wickedness even should this or that person in the church be overcome for a time.

But the "gates of hell" metaphor is no way about the doctrine or infallibility of the church. Gates don't prevail against anything in the sense that they corrupt. It's siege imagery- and hell is the city that is under siege. The kingdom of God is like an army, with Christ as king, Peter as grand vizier, and the people of God as the troops, taking down enemy fortresses, bursting through their gates. This is about final victory, not about infallibility between Pentecost and the eschaton. To make it about doctrine, or the corruption of the church hierarchy, does violence to Christ's chosen imagery.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But the "gates of hell" metaphor is no way about the doctrine or infallibility of the church.

... particularly one individual, exclusive sub-set of such. Even if the self-same alone so insists for the self-same exclusively.

Gates don't prevail against anything in the sense that they corrupt. It's siege imagery- and hell is the city that is under siege. The kingdom of God is like an army, with Christ as king, Peter as grand vizier, and the people of God as the troops, taking down enemy fortresses, bursting through their gates. This is about final victory, not about infallibility between Pentecost and the eschaton. To make it about doctrine, or the corruption of the church hierarchy, does violence to Christ's chosen imagery.

... well stated. Gates are DEFENSIVE.







.

 

[tz620q]

But the "gates of hell" metaphor is no way about the doctrine or infallibility of the church. Gates don't prevail against anything in the sense that they corrupt.

It seemed strange to me why Jesus would have his disciples walk 25 miles to Caesarea Philippi to deliver this lesson. So I studied the geography where Jesus made this statement to get the full import of what he was trying to teach the disciples.

Here is a link to a Rabbi talking about it
Gates of Hell | Follow The Rabbi

"The Gates of Hell
To the pagan mind, the cave at Caesarea Philippi created a gate to the underworld, where fertility gods lived during the winter. They committed detestable acts to worship these false gods.
Caesarea Philippi's location was especially unique because it stood at the base of a cliff where spring water flowed. At one time, the water ran directly from the mouth of a cave set in the bottom of the cliff.
The pagans of Jesus' day commonly believed that their fertility gods lived in the underworld during the winter and returned to earth each spring. They saw water as a symbol of the underworld and thought that their gods traveled to and from that world through caves.
To the pagan mind, then, the cave and spring water at Caesarea Philippi created a gate to the underworld. They believed that their city was literally at the gates of the underworld—the gates of hell. In order to entice the return of their god, Pan, each year, the people of Caesarea Philippi engaged in horrible deeds, including prostitution and sexual interaction between humans and goats.
When Jesus brought his disciples to the area, they must have been shocked. Caesarea Philippi was like a red-light district in their world and devout Jews would have avoided any contact with the despicable acts committed there.
It was a city of people eagerly knocking on the doors of hell."

 

[98cwitr]

If your priest comes up to you and asks you for $500, and you ask what for and he wont give you a straight answer, do you give it to him?

 

[barryatlake]

tz620q, thank you for that explanation.

 

[lesliedellow]

Can you be a Christian and refuse to submit to the presbyters (priests) in the church?

Yes, unless you have a vocation which involves a vow of obedience.

Never trust anybody who is too keen on having you submit to them; especially if you cannot turf them out in an election. The Catholic hierarchy might think that it is exempt from the dictum that power tends to corrupt, but it is not, as recent history has made only too plain.

 

[BobRyan]

And what if the curia and the pope aren't acting according to these standards?

Paul has an answer for what to do with wayward leadership.

So then each of us go to our magisterium and each finds that they all "agree" to condemn certain doctrines held dearly by 'the other guy's" magisterium.

Was that supposed to be a surprise?

Paul speaks to church leadership in Acts 20

Acts 20
28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.

Gal 1:6-9

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (APOSTLES!), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

It is the magisterium of the one true infallible nation-church started by God at Sinai - that crucifies Christ.

As we all agree.

And Paul deserves "some consideration" on such a topic.

 

[Rick Otto]

tz620q, thank you for that explanation.

Thank you for acknowledging it.

It proves the disconnect in the idea of it being about church inerrancy.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yes, unless you have a vocation which involves a vow of obedience.

Never trust anybody who is too keen on having you submit to them; especially if you cannot turf them out in an election. The Catholic hierarchy might think that it is exempt from the dictum that power tends to corrupt, but it is not, as recent history has made only too plain.

...and it was Lord Acton, a prominent Catholic, who's famous quote was spoken in opposition to the idea of papal infallibility.

 

[tz620q]

Thank you for acknowledging it.

It proves the disconnect in the idea of it being about church inerrancy.

From the same site
Gates of Hell | Follow The Rabbi

"In Old Testament times, the northeastern area of Israel became a center for Baal worship. In the nearby city of Dan, Israelite king Jeroboam built the high place that angered God and eventually led the Israelites to worship false gods. Eventually, worship of the baals was replaced with worship of Greek fertility gods."

Dan was a short walk from Caesarea Philippi. So this area would have spoken of more than just pagan's worshipping pagan gods; but the corruption of the Jews under Jeroboam to worshipping Baal. I can see many different meaning to the phrase, "Gates of Hell" and I think Jesus purposefully chose this spot to highlight all these meanings. One meaning is the literal one based on the geography of the area. He was saying that the church built on the rock would not succumb to pagan worship like the Baal-worshippers in Paneas (Caesarea Phillipi) or the Jews in Dan did.