I didn't say, or even imply, that I "expect the organization known as the catholic church to not be corrupted".
The Catholic Church "treat (ed) it (the government) as something that is their own."
That's a can of worms. Where's your evidence? The CATHOLIC CHURCH cannot be doctrinally corrupted or Jesus lied. Next you have to argue when the Church began, or went corrupt. You pick. Scholarly sources only please.
"...that's not the truth though is it?"
The truth is this (about the governing authorities): from 1Peter 2: 13. "Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14. or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men—"
The government should be distinct from the Church of God.
Is THAT why you guys avoid the OT? What about Nero?
The Romans 13 verse, in the NKJV, uses "governing authorities" and "taxes" . The verses are talking about the governing authorities, not the church authorities.. my opinion, of course.
The body of Christ (the Church) is in the world, but not of the world.
The governments are worldly, and the Church is to be distinct from that.
Your message is confusing. The Church is to operate apart from society like those German cults?
see your opinion, that's not the truth though is it? the roman catholic church was a authority in the world, it was the church or religion of the state (roman empire) hence having influential and political power in the world that other powers in the world had to respect fear and or deal with.
get real, your expectation of human nature is not realistic if you expect the organization known as the catholic church to not be corrupted. its the same for any thing in the hands of man, once they treat it as something that is their own.
The CC doctrines are not in the hands of men alone. This is what you do not, or cannot understand. You failed to list the corrupt worldly emperors that persecuted the Church. There never has been DOCTRINAL CORRUPTION in the Catholic Church. Before you go bellyaching about any other types of corruption, look to your own church first. You have to get in your "BIG BOOGIE MAN" CATHOLIC CHURCH digs, don't you?. You are not being fair and you are not being realistic, and there is nothing "Christian" about bearing false witness. You are another anti-Catholic zealot that relies on fake histories, who are a dime a dozen. Try listing the great saints of the Church of any century instead of pointing out the squashed poop, it seems that's all you can do.
I didn't say, or even imply, that I "expect the organization known as the catholic church to not be corrupted".
The Catholic Church "treat (ed) it (the government) as something that is their own."
"...that's not the truth though is it?"
The truth is this (about the governing authorities): from 1Peter 2: 13. "Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14. or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men—"
That is a scripture citation, not a historical example. You are making up nonsense and trying to make it prophetic to attack the Infant Church. Shame on you.
The government should be distinct from the Church of God.
I care not for politics. By calling the Church an "organization" is a truly man made attempt to remove the divine qualities of the Church:
One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic. This makes re-writing history so much easier. This can never happen no matter how hard you try. Calling the Church "invisible" is even worse.
Remember, the last 40 (-1) popes were killed by pagan Romans, but that means nothing to anti-Catholics. They keep coming up with this government/church unification fantasy and ignore the other popes who who were killed by secular emperors. Selective blindness takes over. Hate wins with these people. Ignore them.
Did Jesus plan the monarchical papacy? He did not plan for the sometimes corrupt, venal and worldly papacy that it has sometimes become down through history, but Jesus did plan for one man to be his royal delegate on earth. He did plan for one man to lead the others (Lk.22.32) He did plan for one man to take up the spiritual and temporal leadership of his church. This is shown not only through the famous passage from Matthew 16, but also in the final chapter of John’s gospel where Jesus the Good Shepherd hands his pastoral role over to Peter.
This is unthinkable to Protestants, even though scripture is loud and clear on the matter. The Church is like the Incarnation (human and divine). That has been pointed out to you dozens of times, you refuse to get it. I will spell it out for you again: THE CHURCH IS AN EXTENSION OF THE INCARNATION UNITED BY THE EUCHARIST (that you unknowingly denigrate).
The critics of the Catholic Church aren’t really worried about when the term ‘pope’ was first used. What they mean when they say that Leo the Great (440-461) was the first pope is that this is when the papacy began to assume worldly power. This is, therefore, simply a problem in definition of terms. By ‘pope’ the Evangelical means what I thought of as ‘pope’ after my Evangelical childhood. By ‘pope’ they mean ‘corrupt earthly ruler’. In that respect Leo the Great might be termed the ‘first pope’ because he was the one, (in the face of the disintegrating Roman Empire) who stepped up and got involved in temporal power without apology.
However, seeing the pope as merely a temporal ruler and disapproving
is to be too simplistic. Catholics understand the pope’s power to be spiritual.
While certain popes did assume temporal power, they often did so reluctantly, and did not always wield that power in a corrupt way. Whether popes should have assumed worldly wealth and power is arguable, but at the heart of their ministry, like the Lord they served, they should have known that their kingdom was not of this world. Their rule was to be hierarchical and monarchical in the sense that they were serving the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
It was not first and foremost to be hierarchical and monarchical in the worldly sense.
The Protestant idea that the papacy was a fifth century invention
relies on a false understanding of the papacy itself. After the establishment of the church at Constantine’s conversion the church hierarchy did indeed become more influential in the kingdoms of this world, but that is not the essence of the papacy. The essence of the papacy lies in Jesus’ ordination of Peter as his royal steward, and his commission to assume the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s absence. The idea, therefore, that Leo the Great was the first ‘pope’ is a red herring based on
a misunderstanding of the pope’s true role.
a misunderstanding of the pope’s true role; get it?
The Church is an extension of the Incarnation (whether you understand that or not) united by the Eucharist.
"...These sincere Christians then attempt to ‘restore’ the church by creating a new church. The problem is, each new group of restorationists invariably create a church of their own liking determined by their contemporary cultural assumptions. They then imagine that the early church was like the one they have invented.
All of the historical documents show that, in essence, the closest thing we have today to the early church is actually the Catholic Church. In these main points the Catholic Church is today what she has always been. Her leadership is unapologetically monarchical and hierarchical. Her teaching authority is centralized and universal, and the pope is what he has always been, the universal pastor of Christ’s Church, the steward of Christ’s kingdom and the Rock on which Christ builds his Church.
The Early Papacy - 3 - Fr Longenecker at Patheos
Anti-Catholics don't care about violating the 9th Commandment as long as they can rationalize their lies.
