In Roman Catholic History, Did That "Church" Ever Feel Threatened?

ramcam2

Well-known member
organizations are not the body/bride of Christ.
Believers are..

When you get that fundamental fact wrong: everything else fails
it is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism as the written word says.

not the many beliefs and many form of baptisms in the protestant denominations.
 

balshan

Well-known member
it is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism as the written word says.

not the many beliefs and many form of baptisms in the protestant denominations.
It is not written two mediators, two redeemers, two advocates and the false gospel, the false Mary of the RCC.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
organizations are not the body/bride of Christ. Believers are.
But the Body of Christ DOES have leaders as well as hierarchical elements and roles. We need to know whether or not those leaders are legitimate. We need to know whether those leaders truly have apostolic authority.
When you get that fundamental fact wrong: everything else fails
Your "Like, you know, believers are the body/bride of Christ, believers are" is a convenient way of minimizing or otherwise distracting from the issue of why Protestants cannot agree and why there are so many sects. It is a convenient way of introducing Red Herrings as to the unworkability and impracticality of Sola Scriptura.

In short, it is a nice statement but does nothing to address the underlying POINT.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
When you ask the question with clarity, it's easier to answer.

The "understatement" of the century!!! Definity NOT the way the "Body of Christ" would handle such things - demonstrating the total LIE and FRAUD involved in claiming to be the "One TRUE Church", or "The Church that Jesus Founded". JUST LOOK at your own history!!!! We have.

And since that's not the case (unless the denominational management of the church is the SOURCE of the heresy as in Rome's case) more detailed response is possible:

In the Assemblies of God Denomination, there's a national unit called the "Presbytery" that is the "enforcement branch" of the Denomination.

There are many "Regional Districts" in the Denomination, and each one has a "District Presbytery", normally a senior minister(s) with long congregational experience (Chuckle!! Ours is an Ex-Marine with an obvious military bearing).

The Presbytery deals with financial fraud, Pastoral malfeasance, Pastoral changes, SERIOUS Congregational issues, and adherence to the OFFICIAL DOCTRINES, and corporate ground rules of the Denomination (the AG equivalent of the Roman Catholic "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith").

The action(s) taken depend on the nature of the offence/issue. The denominational credentials of the individual(s) involved can be lifted.

The individual church itself may be denied the right to claim Assembly of God affiliation, or if financially impotent, may lose it's "Sovereignty, and become a "District affiliate" wherein the District Council "Takes over", dissolves the governing board of the individual church, and brings in a "Supply minister" to run the church until such times as it heals sufficiently, and becomes self supporting.

THEN the church can re-apply for sovereignty as an independent body authorized to claim affiliation with the AG Denomination.

OR

Assuming that there are no financial entanglements (Outstanding loans/Mortgages from the denomination, etc.) then with the approval of the congregation to REJECT the theological package of the AG, the individual church may just be "Cut loose" to do whatever they please INDEPENTENTLY of the AG Denominational system, and prohibited from displaying the AG logo, or claiming any relationship with The AG denomination on the facility.

NEW churches in the AG typically start out as "District affiliates, which are financially supported by the Denomination for up to 2 years, and are expected to achieve "Sovereigty"/ financial independance within that period, or be dissolved as "unviable".

Typically the Minister who launches a church, and brings it to "Sovereignty", will not be the Minister who will continue to MAINTAIN the church along with his church Deacon Board. Different Ministers have different callings / areas of expertise.

That gives you an idea of how the Assemblies of God would deal with your "heretic".
In other words: you agree with me.

Thanks. Such a long post when all you had to say is "I agree."
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
But now you know (not that you care) how a typical "Protestant denomination" handles things. We've never MURDERED ANYBODY for disagreeing. That's a Roman Catholic thing.
So you agree with me! You agree that the Church has the right and duty to go after heresy and not allow heresy to propagate.

Thank you! Why can't you just say "We agree?"

As for "murdering people" it is true that some heretics were put to death. It is also true that there were abuses.

Abuses aside, at the time, due to caesaropapism where Church and state were one and the same entity, heresy was a civil crime, a crime against the state. It was considered treason. Heresy not only affected the unity of Faith, but the unity of the state. This is why it was was a civil crime punishable by death. Heretics were a threat to the peace and security of the state.

I mean the OT also had penalties that called for death. Picking up sticks on the Sabbath was punishable by death. Rebellious teens were to be stoned. Do you complain about this? Of course not. Why do you not complain? The exact same reason I do not complain that heretics were put to death when Church and state were intertwined: context. The context was different.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
So you agree with me! You agree that the Church has the right and duty to go after heresy and not allow heresy to propagate.

Thank you! Why can't you just say "We agree?"

As for "murdering people" it is true that some heretics were put to death. It is also true that there were abuses.

Abuses aside, at the time, due to caesaropapism where Church and state were one and the same entity, heresy was a civil crime, a crime against the state. It was considered treason. Heresy not only affected the unity of Faith, but the unity of the state. This is why it was was a civil crime punishable by death. Heretics were a threat to the peace and security of the state.

I mean the OT also had penalties that called for death. Picking up sticks on the Sabbath was punishable by death. Rebellious teens were to be stoned. Do you complain about this? Of course not. Why do you not complain? The exact same reason I do not complain that heretics were put to death when Church and state were intertwined: context. The context was different.
You ignored the primary issue, of course WHY WERE THE "CHURCH" AND "STATE" intertwined??? The Disciples didn't "intertwine" with the civil, OR "Religious" authorities!!! That's a total disqualification of Catholicism to even BE "the church" (much less the "One true Church" - as you claim constantly).

A WISE Catholic should NEVER look back at their "Church's history" if they want to maintain any confidence in it.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
You ignored the primary issue, of course WHY WERE THE "CHURCH" AND "STATE" intertwined??? The Disciples didn't "intertwine" with the civil, OR "Religious" authorities!!! That's a total disqualification of Catholicism to even BE "the church" (much less the "One true Church" - as you claim constantly).

A WISE Catholic should NEVER look back at their "Church's history" if they want to maintain any confidence in it.
Really? Cause----Church and state were one in the same in the OT!
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
You make so many excuses for burning Christians alive!
But stoning people for adultery, or rebellious teens, or homosexuality, etc,----now THAT was so much better and more merciful! That was the mistake the Church made---we should have stoned heretics rather than burned them at the stake.
You are like the Hamas apologists and defenders I am talking to right now. They have excuses for burning grandma alive in her home, raping civilians, and beheading babies. "Abuses aside...."
Yeah--because it is the same thing, exactly. :rolleyes:
This is the true blood thirsty heart of Roman Catholicism.
Again, you are right. We should not have burned heretics at the stake. We should have stoned them like they did in the OT. That would have been the biblical option.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Oh GET REAL!!!! The Old Testament was a THEOCRACY!!! And you think that's the same as the CHRISTIAN CHURCH, intertwining with the PAGAN GENTILE GOVERNMENTS in the new testament????!!
Let me get this straight:

IF the Church was a theocracy like in the OT, then you would have had no problem with burning heretics at the stake?

The only reason you object to the practice was because the Church was not a strict theocracy?
 

balshan

Well-known member
But stoning people for adultery, or rebellious teens, or homosexuality, etc,----now THAT was so much better and more merciful! That was the mistake the Church made---we should have stoned heretics rather than burned them at the stake.

Yeah--because it is the same thing, exactly. :rolleyes:

Again, you are right. We should not have burned heretics at the stake. We should have stoned them like they did in the OT. That would have been the biblical option.
No it is much worse because the RCC does it in the name of Jesus.
 

balshan

Well-known member
I see. If we just did it in the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, it would be fine.
So you do not see how that is besmirching the name of Jesus, bring it into disrepute. You do not see the difference between those who are meant to be Christians and those who are not? You do not see the difference between before Pentecost and after? Doesn't surprise me at all.

You have just told me in no uncertain terms that RCs are just the same as Muslims and Jewish non believers and really anyone who does not follow Jesus.
 

Atemi

Well-known member
But stoning people for adultery, or rebellious teens, or homosexuality, etc,----now THAT was so much better and more merciful!

You can mock God all you want.

None of that will justify killing Christians.


That was the mistake the Church made---we should have stoned heretics rather than burned them at the stake.

Yeah. More jokes about killing Christians.

I have heard all this from devout Catholics before. I have tons of their posts saved.

What is funny is that I have never joked about killing Catholics. Must be those sacraments.

Yeah--because it is the same thing, exactly. :rolleyes:

Justifying evil is the same everywhere we look.


We should not have burned heretics at the stake. We should have stoned them like they did in the OT.

You are so down with the idea of killing Christians that you mention it repeatedly in one post.
 
Top