Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Then you're violating Scripture.
Nonsense.
I'm not "Hebrew" at all - and this letter doesn't only count for the Hebrews.
In most traditional churches where there is a solid structure with well-defined roles, authority is rather a non-issue. The leadership is usually appointed through a defined process and ratified by the congregation. In the case of Anglican churches, the bishop is recognised as having oversight, and ministers are trained and licensed by the church and so members don't have a problem with the pastoral guidance their vicar performs. Other churches have their own systems of appointing elders and deacons, and training ministers. It is very rare to have bullying, dominating ministers in those churches, and, in the case of the Presbyterian church, it is run by ruling elders, making it very difficult for a minister to dominate, seeing that he or she has just one vote toward any decision that is made in an elders' meeting.
Your quote can only be found on SDA sites. If you can't site an official Catholic source revealing full context, you should stop making things up.
Going to shops, may actually have one today, usually do if its not busy.
I love how you trade one lie for another, their delusion for your own.
You have no problems assembling with those you have little in common with on a regular basis? or do you 'visit' for the purpose of performing what you might consider 'religious obligations/duties' with this being the common activity?
Neither.
That wafer spiritually nourishes you?
John 6:53-58
Okay....
Yet encyclicals, binding or not, are a reflection of Catholic opinion, particularly when it's repeated by Catholic media decades later. We are talking about general Catholic incompatibility with the spirit of the constitution. That is religious liberty. Religious liberty is not a Catholic principle, except for itself.
could you tell me where the body is?.....a live one ie.....not walking cadavers?
Lol. As if you would seek to convince readers that SDA sites pull this stuff out of thin air. You know perfectly well that this wasn't invented by the SDA Church, and that it is a direct quote. I could pull the Quanta Qura encyclical from all over the place and it would say the same thing. As for context, I understand the context. Pius was repeating and agreeing with what Gregory wrote in another encyclical about 50 or so years previously. I also understand that within Catholicism there are conservative and liberal elements who have been debating these same ideas for ever, especially since Vatican 2. Some even arguing that Vatican 2 contradicts what Pius was saying in Quanta Qura. That debate continues today, 60 years later, even within Catholicism. . So it isn't just me. It certainly isn't just the SDA Church that has concerns for true religious freedom in a context of Catholic majority. These ideas I am talking about are not frivolous attacks or anti Catholic vitriol as you would all like to make out. There are genuine concerns for those liberties as set out in state sponsored constitutions that guarantee the rights of individuals to worship according to conscience. Yours and BoLs and Marymogs arguments and denials do absolutely nothing toward offering any reassurance. Catholic belligerence and accusing us of being liars etc when we bring these matters into the conversation is further evidence for our caution and suspicion.
Here is the full context of Quanta Qura. Your suspicious quote is not found in it.
Correct. But it is found in the syllabus of errors written and prepared by the same author and annexed to the encyclical, thus giving it the same authority and reflecting the thoughts of the author.
Who's "we"?
