Which is More Important to You, Faith or Politics?

from JoeUser Forums

In the fallout of Fr. Michael Pfleger’s recent "sermon" at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Senator Barack Obama resigned his membership there. This was the culmination of several months of political trauma for the Obama campaign, beginning with revelations in the national media that Obama's pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, has made many politically contentious statements. My intention here is not to judge Senator Obama, Father Pfleger, or Jeremiah Wright, but I do want to assess the choice made by Senator Obama to leave his church of 20 years at the moment when it became a political liability to his campaign.

First, let me point out that I am a Roman Catholic. Thus, I am a member of the same universal Church in which Father Pfleger is an ordained priest. I am a proud Catholic, despite the fact that the Church has had some embarrassing and disgraceful moments in recent history, namely the sexual abuse scandals in the United States. Sadly, many people left the Church in the fallout of these scandals.

The question at hand is the following: Should someone leave their church because of the statements or abuses of some of their church's ministers?

Before I state my opinion, let me first say that every human should feel free to choose their place of worship for whatever reason they desire. This freedom, however, does not mean that others cannot criticize another person's choice of place of worship, or question their motivations for choosing one place of worship over another, particularly when the person in question is running for President of the United States.

In my opinion, the most important factor in choosing a church should be the tenets of faith that the church embraces. For the Catholic Church, these tenets are summarized in the Nicene Creed (“We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen…”). Certainly, the qualities of the pastor or the faith community that you worship with might be secondary factors in one’s choice, but if one believes their church is ordained and protected by God, then the church should transcend the individuals who make up its membership or even its leadership.

I am reminded here of a story about St. Francis of Assisi, who lived in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. In this story, it is said that one of St. Francis’s brothers asked him what he would do if he knew that a priest celebrating Mass had three concubines on the side. St. Francis’s response was, “When it came time for Holy Communion, I would go to receive the sacred Body of my Lord from the priest's anointed hands.” The point is that ministers are ordained and “endorsed” by God, not by humans.

If I were a member of Father Pfleger’s St. Sabina parish in the south side of Church, I would take example from St. Francis and faithfully receive Holy Communion from Father Pfleger’s anointed hands. I would not leave his parish. If he was preaching heretical or inappropriate teachings, I might consider reporting this to the Bishop, but I wouldn’t publicly criticize Father Pfleger because to me he is a man of God and to criticize him would be unfaithful to Church teachings.

Senator Obama has instead completely abandoned his church for seemingly political reasons. He has not even said that he will remain a member of the United Church of Christ and simply seek another UCC congregation in which to worship. He just renounced his church at the moment that his church became a liability to his presidential aims.

Let me end by saying I respect Senator Obama’s right to leave his church for whatever reason he wants. And honestly, I hope he joins the Roman Catholic Church because I think it’s the greatest church in the universe. But the fact that he was so quick to leave his church when it was under a political firestorm, to me speaks volumes about whether he exemplifies some of the qualities I would like to see in the President of the United States: Loyalty, commitment, worthy ambition, and a strong, resilient faith.

politics barack obama pfleger trinity church united christ ucc catholic jeremiah wright saint francis assisi
45,085 views 73 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
For alot of people, myself included, belonging to a church is a very minor and periphery aspect to Christianity. I have a feeling Obama might be of a similar mindset. The reality was his church was continuing to be a liability and embarassement. The press just wouldn't shut up about it. He probably didn't have many strong feelings about the specific church one way or another, so he had no problem renouncing his pastor or leaving his church. Concerning priests, pastors, and whether it is right to denounce them; Jesus, or paul, said nothing of these people supposedly ordained by God. You have your faith, which tells you that to denounce your priest and leave your church would be inappropiate and unfaithful, and he has is (which is not any less valid).

But remember, above all, where/when/how/if a politician goes to church is entirely his own business. I don't think it's a good idea to read into it too much.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

For alot of people, myself included, belonging to a church is a very minor and periphery aspect to Christianity.
End of quote

If that is the case, then a lot of people have kinda missed the whole point of Christianity. Worshipping in community was very central to Jesus' teachings.

WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

The most important thing to me is my faith.  But not a faith in any human institution but my faith in God according to scripture. 

Obama did the right thing.  If a pastor or priest is preaching heresy it's not God's church.  God is not going to bless this.  Just because these men are preaching from a church pulpit doesn't make them one of God's ambassadors.  Many use the platform for their own agendas completely bypassing God's agenda which is to preach his word not their own. 

In order to know if something is heretical or not is to be familiar with the real thing.  If we know the truth well enough we'll be able to spot the lie in an instance and should either try to correct the error by speaking against it or flee from it if they will not listen to sound reasoning. 

 

 

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

The most important thing to me is my faith. But not a faith in any human institution but my faith in God according to scripture.
End of quote

According to scripture, God (Jesus) did establish the church:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
If that is the case, then a lot of people have kinda missed the whole point of Christianity. Worshipping in community was very central to Jesus' teachings.
End of quote


Really? Where? Besides that one verse about peter being the rock. In Luke 11:27-28 you see Jesus directing worship away from himself, he often said that prayer was best done in private, and he made no mention of singing. In fact, Jesus also said some things that would directly imply that there shouldn't be a church (e.g. Luke 12:49-53). The central teachings of Jesus was actually ethical, or if you like, existential. Redemption was placed entirely on our existence within the world (e.g. Luke 7:47, Matthew 6:14, Matthew 25:31-46).

Besides, the church groups established by Paul are quite different to the churches of today. They were always small (30-50 people), was held in houses, did not have a strictly heirarchical structure, the Lord's supper was a full meal, and everyone participated in edification.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Which is More Important to You, Faith or Politics?
End of quote


My Catholic faith is the most important. :) 

I respect Senator Obama’s right to leave his church for whatever reason he wants.
End of quote


Me too.

I hope he joins the Roman Catholic Church because I think it’s the greatest church in the universe.
End of quote


Ditto!

But the fact that he was so quick to leave his church when it was under a political firestorm,
End of quote


The reality was his church was continuing to be a liability and embarassement.
End of quote


Exactly, if he hadn't left, it would have dogged him (and still may) all through the election process until November, that is, unless Hillary Clinton somehow pulls a miracle out of the political hat box.

It was politically expedient for Obama to leave and it has been said that it was politically expedient that he chose that particular church when he was running for Illinois state legislature.

to me speaks volumes about whether he exemplifies some of the qualities I would like to see in the President of the United States: Loyalty, commitment, worthy ambition, and a strong, resilient faith.
End of quote


Strong, resilient faith....Obama? Nah, Obama's a hypocrite for he calls himself a Christian and Our Lord said, "If you love Me you will keep My Commandments", yet by his 100% pro-abortion voting record, he disobeys the Fifth Commandment of Almighty God, thou shalt not kill. For that alone, I've measured his character and found him woefully wanting for if he can't get that part of politics right by voting to save the innocent life in the womb, then he's going to come up short on all the rest of it.

Father Pfleger..... If he was preaching heretical or inappropriate teachings, I might consider reporting this to the Bishop,
End of quote


I've seen both the video of his "preaching" and read his remarks...there is no "if" about it..it was heretical that he was preaching in this church to begin for all Catholics are forbidden to participate in any other forms of worship other than those prescribed by the Catholic religion. What he said is not only inappropriate, but wrong.

Evidently, Cardinal George has already been informed and has forbidden Fr.Pfleger from speaking again. Only time will tell if Fr. Pfleger keeps his word not to do so.


but I wouldn’t publicly criticize Father Pfleger because to me he is a man of God and to criticize him would be unfaithful to Church teachings.
End of quote


I wouldn't publicly criticize him either, but in fraternal charity I would privately admonish and correct him. This is called a spiritual work of mercy one of the gifts and fruits of the Holy Ghost we received at our Confirmation.




Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
KFC POSTS:
If we know the truth well enough we'll be able to spot the lie in an instance and should either try to correct the error by speaking against it or flee from it if they will not listen to sound reasoning.
End of quote


I agree.

God said, "If I tell the wicked man that he shall surely die, and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked man from his way, he shall die from his guilt, but I will hold you responsible for his death." Ezek. 33:8.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
If that is the case, then a lot of people have kinda missed the whole point of Christianity. Worshipping in community was very central to Jesus' teachings.
End of quote


Really? Where?
End of quote


You'll find the early Christians worshipping together in the Book of Acts of the Apostles which for the most part describes the building up of the early Church. What's so neat about Acts is that it's considered a true history of events. Acts 2 describes how they "broke bread" (the Holy Eucharist to Catholics) in their homes praising God and reading the Psalms. You are correct at the very beginning they met in houses for prayer and worship. They didn't have a building especially reserved for liturgical functions for financial as well as for the fact, they were still being persecuted which would last until the 3rd century.

Scripture describes Church communities in Jerusalem, Ephesus, Thessalonica, Corinth, Phillippi, Antioch and Judea, to name a few.

In fact, Jesus also said some things that would directly imply that there shouldn't be a church (e.g. Luke 12:49-53).
End of quote


I disagree. For example, take Eph. 5:25-29, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the Chruch to Himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. ...For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church."

This is the Church, the one founded by our Lord as prophesied by Isias 2:2. "In the last days the mountain of the house of the LOrd shall be prepared on the top of mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow into it."

St.Matt. said of Christ's Chruch, "You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid." The New Testament writers point to this visible Church in 110 references. In St.Matt. the Church is also spoken of as "the kingdom of God"; "the kingdom of Heaven", or simply as "the kingdom" 36 times. So the visible Church with the good fish, bad fish, and cockle in the wheat is the Kingdom of God.



Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top

Thanks lulapilgrim for responding to responding to timothy's question. References to worshipping in community are found throughout the New Testament, beginning with Jesus' assembling of twelve apostles and continuing with the Great Comission, where Jesus sent the disciples out to establish faith communities throughout the world. Lastly, Jesus said "where two or three have come together in my name, I am there among them." (Matthew 18:20)

Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top

Redemption was placed entirely on our existence within the world (e.g. Luke 7:47, Matthew 6:14, Matthew 25:31-46).
End of quote

Can you explain what you mean by that? I read all three of those passages, and I still don't understand what you mean. Jesus promised that we would be rewarded in heaven, not in this world. He said His Kingdom not of this world, but in heaven. He said in the Gospel of John:

He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal." (John 12:25)

Paul said in 1 John:

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (1 John 2:15)

Besides, the church groups established by Paul are quite different to the churches of today. They were always small (30-50 people), was held in houses, did not have a strictly heirarchical structure, the Lord's supper was a full meal, and everyone participated in edification.
End of quote

There were very good reasons that the early Christians met in each other houses (namely fear of persecution). And I don't know from where you base your statements that the early church communities were small and that they didn't have a hierarchy. It is very clear in history that in the first few centuries after Christ, Christianity spread like wildfire throughout the Roman Empire. Secondly, the hierarchy was there from the very beginning, and is evident in Paul's letters and in Acts. The supremacy of the seat of Peter (i.e. the Bishop of Rome) was firmly established by the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

It is true that the early Christian ceremonies were held after full meals in each other's homes, but this only further affirms the importance of community and fellowship among early Christians, just as it was central to Jesus's works on Earth, when he commanded his disciples to establish these very communities.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
The central teachings of Jesus was actually ethical, or if you like, existential.
End of quote


Christ taught absolutes (objective truth) concerning right and wrong. Doing wrong is a sin, an offense against the love of God and neighbor.

Luke 7:47, Matthew 6:14, Matthew 25:31-46).
These passages speak of sin and through Christ's Redemption, the forgiveness of sin, the last St. Matt. 25 describes the Last Judgment where we will be judged on how we lived our life (existence?)

What you mean by existential for existentialism is at variance with Christ's teachings?




Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
Can you explain what you mean by that? I read all three of those passages, and I still don't understand what you mean.
End of quote


Sorry I didn't really state it well. What I mean is that Jesus said that God's forgiveness for sins depends entirely on your actions within the world, if you read the verses Jesus says that if you love much you'll be forgiven much, if you forgive others God WILL forgive you, and the parable of the sheep/goats where you are judged by God depending on how you treated the poor among you. What I'm trying to get at here is that church is not a necessary part of Christianity. I'm not saying it's wrong, or that it can't be beneficial, just that you shouldn't judge a Christian (like Obama) based on whether he goes to church or not.

And I don't know from where you base your statements that the early church communities were small and that they didn't have a hierarchy.
End of quote


A moderately prosperous household back then would be able to hold about 30 people, 50 if they were wealthy and the people were squashed in, but historians really don't see it as any larger than that. In Acts Paul does indeed appoint elders in the church, however the greek word used here, 'episkopos', was never really used to refer to a specific function or a significant one. Hence, these elders would not have held positions of power that you see in churches today.

In Paul's letters, he never uses the word for priest, hiereis. Instead, he addresses all of his letters, with advice/criticism/suggestions to all of the church. People in the church were encouraged to participate in the church whereever their spiritual gift was (greek word charisma), and this did indeed include talents of administration and organisation. I believe it is likely to conclude, though, that these people did not have any overriding power or leadership over the others in the church. This fits very well with Jesus saying to call no man rabbi or father.

The supremacy of the seat of Peter (i.e. the Bishop of Rome) was firmly established by the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
End of quote


I understand that you believe this adds credibility to your argument, but I don't think anything post-Jesus has much authority in what Christianity should be, if you get what I mean.

It is true that the early Christian ceremonies were held after full meals in each other's homes, but this only further affirms the importance of community and fellowship among early Christians, just as it was central to Jesus's works on Earth, when he commanded his disciples to establish these very communities.
End of quote


I sympathise with you here, as I also believe that Jesus Christ wanted communities of Christians to be established. To me, this is what he meant by the coming kingdom of God and the ethics of these communities of people were spelled out in the sermon on the mount. However, no such community exists today. I have no faith in any of the institutionalised church systems, and so it is very easy for me to not place much emphasis on church attendance.
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
St.Matt. said of Christ's Chruch, "You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid." The New Testament writers point to this visible Church in 110 references. In St.Matt. the Church is also spoken of as "the kingdom of God"; "the kingdom of Heaven", or simply as "the kingdom" 36 times. So the visible Church with the good fish, bad fish, and cockle in the wheat is the Kingdom of God.
End of quote


All of these references in the Gospel point to Jesus either describing his followers (this is different from a church, as his followers back then were a collection of individuals) or describing his idealised communities that will shape the kingdom of God. And maybe Paul did bring these communities into realisation, but the church that evolved from that process is too dissimilar to the early church to claim that Jesus is necessarily talking about the churches that exist today.

What you mean by existential for existentialism is at variance with Christ's teachings?
End of quote


In fact, the first existentialists were Christians. Look at Soren Kierkegaard (a brilliant writer and philosopher), Paul Tillich, Gabriel Marcel, among others. The word "existential" here essentially means relating to existence within the world. I can't do justice of Christian existentialism (or existential Christianity, which can mean different things) here, so if you still think it's absurd maybe check it out.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Faith and Politics are like Bread and water. Both necessary (given today's society), but hardly interchangeable.

That being said, I would leave Pfleggler's building. The Church is the people, not the building. And I would no more feel a part of his "church" than I would Wrights. The Rite of Holy Orders is conducted by man with all his fallibilities.

He is no more a vessle of God than you or I. Which is to say he is as much a vessel as you and I as well. I can give you the Eucharist. Our belief just says we cannot consecrate it, that must be done by someone ordained.

He is just a man with human weaknesses - ones he has shown all to glaringly recently. I do not have to honor the man if the man is wrong. And ordained or not, he is wrong. But not for the reasons the press is making out either.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
he disobeys the Fifth Commandment of Almighty God, thou shalt not kill.
End of quote


The fifth commandment, according to the real (read: not idolatry-approving) Ten Commandments, is to honor your father and mother. The sixth commandment is to not murder.

I know Catholics are always eager to get rid of the second because of their desire to bow down before graven images in express disagreement with the Ten Commandments, but whatever.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

DRGUY POSTS:

I would leave Pfleggler's building.
End of quote

Me too. I'd be out of there checking out any number of Catholic churches in the surrounding area in which to celebrate  the Holy Mass and receive the Sacraments.  

He is just a man with human weaknesses - ones he has shown all to glaringly recently. I do not have to honor the man if the man is wrong. And ordained or not, he is wrong. But not for the reasons the press is making out either.
End of quote

 The Catholic Church imposes serious obligations upon her priests and by these latest actions, Fr. Pfleger has shown himself to be faithless to his priestly obligations.  But this proves nothing against Christ or His Church.

 

 

 

 

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
A moderately prosperous household back then would be able to hold about 30 people, 50 if they were wealthy and the people were squashed in, but historians really don't see it as any larger than that.
End of quote


The early Christians were first persecuted by the Jews and then the Romans to the point that that they were forced to worship in the catacombs. This persecution continued until 312 when the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan which decreed that all religious groups, including Christians, in the Roman Empire were free to worship as they pleased.

In Acts Paul does indeed appoint elders in the church, however the greek word used here, 'episkopos', was never really used to refer to a specific function or a significant one. Hence, these elders would not have held positions of power that you see in churches today.

In Paul's letters, he never uses the word for priest, hiereis.
End of quote


Christ commanded that His Apostles teach all nations until the end of the world. Obviously, the Apostles would not live until the end of the world and so they in turn appointed their successors which we now call bishops, priests and deacons. Christ established a separate ministerial priesthood with exclusinve powers for the work of the ministry Eph. 4:12. Throughout the Book of Acts we read the Apostles ordained other men by the imposition or "laying of hands", now called the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Priests are "ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that (they) may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins." Hebrews 5:1. Timothy was told not to neglect the grace of GOd "which is in thee by the impostion of hands." 1Tim.4:4. Rightly ordained priests alone have the right to teach the Gospel authoritatively and carry on its sacred ministry.

The translation of the Protestant King James Version changed the Greek word "presbyter" meaning "priest" into an "elder" which is misleading. Under "elder" in the dictionary we find the rendering of the Greek title given to a certain order or class of office bearers in the early Christian Chruch. The Greek word was adopted in Latin as "presbyter" and its historical representation in English is "priest".

To be called to the separate, sacrificing priesthood of the New Covenant pledged to sacred service on the altar on behalf of the rest of us. This priesthood is an ongoing reality as can be seen by the tense of the verbs in the texts of St.Paul in Hebrews 5:1-4 and Rom. 1:1.

The Hebrew word for priest is kohen or cohen would have confused the first Christians converts from Biblical Judaism and so was rejected by the Apostles in favor of Presbyter because they wished to make a distinction between the Church and a Jewish sect.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
People in the church were encouraged to participate in the church whereever their spiritual gift was (greek word charisma), and this did indeed include talents of administration and organisation. I believe it is likely to conclude, though, that these people did not have any overriding power or leadership over the others in the church.
End of quote


St.Paul wrote to the Hebrews 13:17 and said, "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them."
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well, I had nearly finished a long reply to timothy_sfker’s comment, but I lost it…that will teach me not to type long entries directly into the JU window. Let me do my best to reproduce my reply.

 

First let me say that, while we are getting a bit off topic from my original post, I’ve found this discussion very interesting, and I appreciate everyone’s comments. I agree to some extent with almost everyone’s comments, but on some items I have some very serious issues. Of course, that doesn’t take away from how much I appreciate you and your feedback to my post!

 

Sorry I didn't really state it well. What I mean is that Jesus said that God's forgiveness for sins depends entirely on your actions within the world, if you read the verses Jesus says that if you love much you'll be forgiven much, if you forgive others God WILL forgive you, and the parable of the sheep/goats where you are judged by God depending on how you treated the poor among you.
End of quote

 

No problem. That’s what I thought you might be getting at. I won’t argue with you here. Certainly our redemption is not dependent on our actions before or after our life on Earth (or in space, if you’re an astronaut or cosmonaut).

 

What I'm trying to get at here is that church is not a necessary part of Christianity.
End of quote

 

On this point, I couldn’t disagree with you more. Lulapilgrim already provided ample evidence from Scriptures that this is not the case. What Paul said regarding the Church and Lulapilgrim alluded to, is that using anatomy as a metaphor Jesus is the head of the Church and we are the body (Colossians 1:18, 24; Romans 12:5; Ephesians 3:6, 5:23; and most famously in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27). The Church cannot exist without the head or without the body. And Jesus is forever married to the Church, which is one of His great gifts to us on Earth.

 

I respect the fact that there are many people who support Jesus’s ethical teachings, such as “love your neighbor”, but do not wish to be associated with an institutionalized religion. I sympathize with you because I have been in that very same place during my personal faith journey. But if you really delve into Scripture and the historical record of the years immediately following Jesus’s death, I believe you can only form one conclusion regarding what Jesus desired for the role of the Church in the lives of his followers—that is, that Jesus intended the Church to play a central, pivotal role in every Christian’s life.

 

If after careful study, you do not see this in Jesus’s teaching, I ask you to answer one simple question: Do you really think that Jesus—that is, God—who knows humanity far better than any human—would send his only Son to the world and leave us with *only* written word for us to interpret and understand His most important teachings on how He desires us to live our lives?

 

This is not met in any way to disrespect the great value that Scripture has, which I believe is the inspired Word of God. Anything we suppose to be the will of God must be firmly backed by the whole of this great gift we have in the Bible. But God knows how we humans are and how our minds work. God knows how we can manipulate any set of words and interpret them to mean just about anything we want. That’s why He gave us the Holy Spirit! That’s why He gave us the Church! That’s why He gave us the lives of the saints! Because we humans are so prone to selfishness and manipulation of God’s gifts for our own purposes, in His infinite wisdom, He gave us an unbroken line of His followers, set aflame with passion by the Holy Spirit, all the way back to Jesus and His Apostles. That is the Church!!!

 

I can understand when some people look at religion, they see a great deal of shame. It is easy to find if you look for it, and the devil is working very hard to tear down the Church, so there are many examples where people have fallen to his temptations and brought shame upon the Church. But if you look at the whole of the 2000 year history of the Church, there are literally tens of thousands of examples of Holy men and women who have brought great glory to the Church. There are countless examples of the Church encountering some challenge to its authority or some scandal or heresy, only to arise from it with even greater glory.

 

If you do not agree with me about how wonderful the Church is and you do not see the great works it has done in the world, I invite you to study the lives of the saints. St. Francis of Assisi, whom I quoted in my article, is a good person with whom to start. He lived in a time of great scandal in the Church, and he worked very hard to change the Church for the better, even though other Christians even threatened his life for it. And ultimately he prevailed. Still, despite the Church’s flaws, he NEVER condemned the Church or left its side. He continued throughout to praise its glory and majesty because he saw God’s work in the Church.

 

I'm not saying it's wrong, or that it can't be beneficial, just that you shouldn't judge a Christian (like Obama) based on whether he goes to church or not.
End of quote

 

Of course, you shouldn’t judge any man or woman, and I really and truly am trying not to judge Senator Obama. My goal has been to look at the action of leaving one’s church because one disagrees with one of its leaders or invited speakers. In particular, I wanted to investigate what it may signify to leave one’s church, resign after 20 years of membership, at the very moment when one’s membership became politically unpopular. While I try not to criticize Senator Obama personally, we cannot escape our God-given duty to carefully judge his candidacy for President—such a powerful position for so many issues important to Christians, and we can only make these judgments based on what we know about his past and most current choices. Based on this, I reaffirm what I originally stated: If someone leaves his or her church of 20 years at the moment when that church became politically unpopular, then it is a good sign the faith he claims to have found in that very church is firmly engrained in his every bone.

 

If he truly loved his faith and his faith community, then why not remain in the church and try to rid it of any bigotry or hatred that he sees there? How much more powerful would it have been if he took some time out from his busy presidential campaign, went to Trinity church, and made a speech there denouncing hatred and divisiveness? How much more fruit could he bear, by using the relationship he’s established with the pastor and the church’s members, to ask them not to tolerate hate within the Church’s walls? Instead he chose to cut himself from the vine at the very moment that the clouds began to cover the skies.

 

[quote]I sympathise with you here, as I also believe that Jesus Christ wanted communities of Christians to be established. To me, this is what he meant by the coming kingdom of God and the ethics of these communities of people were spelled out in the sermon on the mount. However, no such community exists today. I have no faith in any of the institutionalised church systems, and so it is very easy for me to not place much emphasis on church attendance.[\quote]

 

I invite you to come to my home parish (St. Paul the Apostle Church) in Houston, Texas. I wish you could see how vibrant and loving this church community is. We are literally bursting the walls with attendance. Every night of the week that I show up to the church, the parking lot is literally full of cars. Someone is there 24-hours a day / 7 days a week, worshipping the Lord (in Perpetual Adoration). We are not perfect, nor are any of our members perfect, but I truly see God every time I interact with someone from my parish.

 

And we are not the only parish like this. Sure, some parishes are more active than others. Some communities are more committed to Jesus’s teachings than others. (This was true in the early Christian communities as well, by the way). But I believe within every parish, you can find the hand of God. Again, Jesus said “where there are two or three gathered in my name, I am there.”

 

Lastly, let me say this regarding church communities that are not in communion with the universal Church. As sad as I am about the fragmentation that has existed among Christians (from the very earliest of times), and as much as I love the Catholic Church and believe that it is possesses the unbroken authority of Jesus, handed down from Him to Peter and his successors…all of this is not to say that the Catholic Church has a monopoly on God. God is present in many places, in many churches, and in many places outside of Church (in fact, all places). Jesus’s message is alive and well in many Christian denominations throughout the world, and in some places, Protestants or Orthodox Christians can outdo their neighbor Catholics a hundred fold in their fervor for Christ. But look at the history of every church that has broken off from the Apostolic Church. Do any of them equal in size, unity, or majesty the Church founded upon Peter by Jesus? Why has every church that broke off from the Catholic Church continued to fraction into more and more denominations? There are literally hundreds of thousands of churches, based on different interpretations of the Bible, so many that you wonder if there is a church for every possible permutation interpretations of the Bible possible (but God knows we’re capable of many more…)

 

For those feel they can know God without any church, you are absolutely correct. You can even know God without Jesus. God has given us prayer. God has given us nature. God has given us many fascinating faith and expressions of spirituality. One can know God from a variety of different sources at a variety of different levels.

 

Yet, God has also given us Jesus, and Jesus has given us the Church. Most importantly, Jesus has given us his very Body and Blood for us to experience His Divinity. One cannot possibly know God more fully than by consuming Him and sharing in His Divinity. I admit it must sound strange to those who haven’t experienced God’s Sacraments! But Christians have been doing this very act since the very beginning, based on Jesus’ words to the very first Christians: “This is my Body. This is my Blood.” And *that* is what the Church offers each one of us today!

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
where Jesus sent the disciples out to establish faith communities throughout the world. Lastly, Jesus said "where two or three have come together in my name, I am there among them." (Matthew 18:20)
End of quote


You have misquoted this scripture as is quite common actually when it comes to Matt 18.

Jesus didn't mean it the way you're explaining it here. If you look at the context (18:15-20) you'd see that he was speaking about Church discipline. He was saying if someone is not doing what is Godly then you must meet and tell him so. If they don't listen you need to take two or three witnesses with you. If he still won't listen take it to the church and if he doesn't listen to the church then he needs to be put out of fellowship.

So basically Christ is saying "I know this is hard to do but where you gather in my name together I will be there with you."

Because otherwise you're saying Christ is not with us when we are alone by ourselves and he made it perfectly clear when we pray we should go alone, shut the door and pray and be with him and he will hear us (Matt 6).

The supremacy of the seat of Peter (i.e. the Bishop of Rome) was firmly established by the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
End of quote


can you show me where Peter was the Bishop of Rome? There is no historical evidence I know of where he held that position. In fact, the Romans hung him for his faith. Peter died well before 325. In fact he died before 70 AD.

Scripture is quite clear the Peter was the Apostle of the Jews and Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles. Paul speaking to the Galatians said:

"On the contrary when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles) and when James and Peter and John who seemed to be pillars perceived the grace that was given to me they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 2:7-10
Reply #21 from Stardock Forums Top

You have misquoted this scripture as is quite common actually when it comes to Matt 18. Jesus didn't mean it the way you're explaining it here. If you look at the context (18:15-20) you'd see that he was speaking about Church discipline. He was saying if someone is not doing what is Godly then you must meet and tell him so. If they don't listen you need to take two or three witnesses with you. If he still won't listen take it to the church and if he doesn't listen to the church then he needs to be put out of fellowship. So basically Christ is saying "I know this is hard to do but where you gather in my name together I will be there with you."
End of quote

How did I misquote the Scripture? You are right to point to the context around that verse, but the difficulty of using Scripture quotes to back up a claim is that sometimes you have to understand the context of the entire Bible to understand a single verse or chapter. And one cannot prudently rely on one's own interpretation alone, but rather one should seek the counsel of the many great Biblical scholars that came before us.

Matthew 18 is interweaving many important messages about the authority of the Church and the presence of Christ among the ministry of the Church. That's what's so amazing about the Bible, but also what makes it so challenging to interpret on our own! Matthew 18:18 contains an almost word-for-word not-so-subtle reference to Matthew 16:19...the very same verse that where Jesus gives the authority of the Church to Peter!

Paraphrasing in modern language he is saying, first to Peter and now to all twelve disciples, "whatever is done by you on Earth will also be done in heaven, and vice versa!" That is another example of why the Apostles--the first Bishops--play such an important role in the Church! ...but again, we have to be very careful about the context of what Jesus is speaking about...specifically he is talking about what has become in Church tradition excommunication, which can only be done by Bishops, i.e. the successors of the Apostles.

The process of using two or three witnesses, described in Matthew 18:15-17, is first a reference to the Old Testament, specifically Deuteronomy 19:15. St. Matthew uses the word "church" in Matthew 18:17, which is actually only one of two places that the word church is used in all of the Gospels....guess what the other instance is? That's right, Matthew 16:18, where Jesus founds his church upon Peter, the rock.

What's absolutely amazing to me (I believe, God's work) is that Jesus is laying out the exact process that I tried to express that Senator Obama should do with respect to things he doesn't agree with in his church. That is, first tell his brother or brothers privately what he doesn't agree with. If that doesn't work, "tell the church". But who has the sole authority to cast members out of the church? The successors of the Apostles, that is, the Bishops. And Jesus said these decisions by the Apostles and their successors will be ratified by God in heaven.

But that's not my personal interpretation of this passage...it's nearly 2000 years of Church tradition!

 

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
How did I misquote the Scripture? You are right to point to the context around that verse, but the difficulty of using Scripture quotes to back up a claim is that sometimes you have to understand the context of the entire Bible to understand a single verse or chapter
End of quote


It's really not that difficult. You look at the context sometimes it's involving just a paragraph and sometimes it's a whole chapter or a string of a couple of chapters but you first must look at context.

The reason I said you didn't use it correctly is that instead of looking at it from a discipline angle you saw it and used it as a meeting together or fellowshiping angle. Many do that but it's not the right context or interpretation.

I mean, of course you can say if two or three are gathered in Christ's name he'll be there. True. But many use it as we need to meet two or three in order for Christ to be there and that's false. That's saying Christ won't be with just one?

Every scripture has only one interpretation but has many applications. The bible always interprets itself. So while you can say he's with us in a group, it's not what that particular scriptue is telling us.

I'm an ex-Catholic so I don't beieve in the authority of the CC and when Christ talked about the church he wasn't talking denomination or institution. He was speaking of people....."ecclesia." His church is his people. You rightly said above "my kingdom is not part of this world."

He never meant to set up a religion for his name but a people for his name. That's why he bypassed the religious institution during his day and went to the simple people instead.
Reply #23 from Stardock Forums Top

can you show me where Peter was the Bishop of Rome? There is no historical evidence I know of where he held that position. In fact, the Romans hung him for his faith. Peter died well before 325. In fact he died before 70 AD.
End of quote

Certainly, though the Church did not yet use the word "bishop" during his time. There is significant evidence both in Scripture and in early Christian texts and artifacts that (1) Peter was the leader among the Apostles, and (2) that he spent the latter part (25 years) of his ministry in Rome.

First, regarding Scripture, I have already mentioned several times Matthew 16:19, but consider also that Peter was the first of the Apostles that Jesus called to follow Him, and in many places where the Apostles are listed in the Gospels, Peter is named first (e.g.John 21:1;). Also, refer to John 21: 15-17, when Jesus pressed Peter three times to "Feed my sheep." (as a shepherd cares for his flock).

Second, the first Epistle of Peter is believed to have been written from Rome because at the closing, he says "The church in Bablyon...salutes you; and so does my son Mark" (1 Peter 5:14), which scholars tell us was a reference to Rome (the original Babylon was destroyed over a hundred years before Christ), as in other early Christian literature (Revelations, for example).

St. Papias, who was born in the late first century and said to have heard St. John speak, and St. Clement of Alexandria, who lived in the late second century and early third century, both recorded in their writings that St. Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, so taken together with 1 Peter 5:14, it is pretty clear that Peter was in Rome.

The fact that St. Peter was martyred is well-established, as is the fact that this martyrdom took place in Rome.

Consider, for example, Pope Clement I, who became the fourth Pope after Peter and undoubtedly served the Church of Rome. He wrote in his letter to the Corinthians in about the year 70 A.D.:

“Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.”

Clement is believed to have been ordained by Peter, according to Tertullian, who recorded this Church tradition in about 199 A.D.

Bishop Dionysius wrote in about 170 A.D:

"You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom."

St. Irenaeus described the Church of Rome, in sometime around 177 A.D., as:

"the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul"

Caius, who lived in Rome at the end of the second century, wrote:

"But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church".

Modern scholars believe “trophies” referred to the places where Sts. Peter and Paul were executed. The Vatican, of course, is where St. Peter’s Basilica was built and is thus believed to be built on the site of St. Peter’s execution. St. Peter’s bones are stored underneath the altar in St. Peter’s Basilica.

Peter, in fact, was not hung, he was crucified, as was common among the Romans at the time. This is supported in early Christian documents as early as the late 2nd century.

It is not known the exact year that this occurred, but the most widely excepted date is 67 A.D., which was supported by the early "doctor" (a special title for reserved for the four most widely respected scholars in Church history) of the Church, St. Jerome and Eusebius, who is considered the "Father of Church History." The range of dates that have been proposed and defended by various scholars range from 55 A.D. to 68 A.D., and the Church holds that it occurred sometime between July of 64 A.D. and early in 68 A.D.

For more online info on Church history, I recommend the website New Advent (http://www.newadvent.org). For a great book on Church history, I recommend A Concise History of the Catholic Church by Thomas Bokenkotter.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Certainly, though the Church did not yet use the word "bishop" during his time. There is significant evidence both in Scripture and in early Christian texts and artifacts that (1) Peter was the leader among the Apostles, and (2) that he spent the latter part (25 years) of his ministry in Rome.
End of quote


No there is no evidence in scriptue of this at all. In fact Paul wrote most of the NT and I showed you above where he was the Apostle the Gentiles.

In fact Peter wrote two books of the NT while Paul wrote 13. More is mentioned of Paul than Peter after the resrrection.

James was actually the head of the church to begin with and we see he was the leader of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15) not Peter.

The rock mentioned in Chap 16 of Matthew is Christ not Peter. The church would be built on Christ, who was the bedrock not Peter which literally means a stone. "Upon this rock" is Christ, not PEter. It was a play on words and the CC has taken it as their proof text.

If you do a word search on rock you'd see it always refers to Christ and using it this once to build a whole denomination is not a good thing. Check out the whole book of Psalms for instance and read about Christ being the rock.

Consider, for example, Pope Clement I, who became the fourth Pope after Peter and undoubtedly served the Church of Rome. He wrote in his letter to the Corinthians in about the year 70 A.D.:
End of quote


there were no popes until after the CC was firmly established after Constantine in 323 A.D.

The RCC really first started with the Edict of Milan during this time. They cannot prove their history before this time no matter what they tell you.

Peter was never a pope nor would he be wishing to be put in that position. Have you read his 1 and 2 Peter's?

And if you look at the book of Romans which Paul penned early in his career you'd see a list of those who founded the church in Rome. Notice who he's speaking to? Do you see Peter mentioned?



Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
The supremacy of the seat of Peter (i.e. the Bishop of Rome) was firmly established by the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
End of quote


can you show me where Peter was the Bishop of Rome? There is no historical evidence I know of where he held that position.
End of quote


Scripture tells us that when Simon Peter professed the Divinity of Christ he was promised by Christ the headship or the primacy of jurisdiction over the kingdom of Heaven on earth. The early Church and the early Chruch Fathers clearly recognized this.

St.Peter exercised his jurisdiction as Bishop for he spoke for the Apostles, was the first to preach Christ, first to receive the Gentiles, he presided over the election of St. Mathias, he was judge in the case of Ananias and Saphira and he settled the dispute at the first general council of the Church of Jerusalem.

Ignatius of ANtioch, Irenaeus, Dionysius of Corinth, Gaius, etc. are just some of the dozens of authorities to substantiate the fact that St.Peter was the authority in Rome. Pope Clement, the fourth Bishop of Rome, who reigned there during 88-97 AD gave written testimony to the COrinthians, a document still in existence,of the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul.

The list of eleven Popes from St.Peter to Anicetus that was drawn up by St.Hegissipus, a convert from Judaism, less than a century after St.Peter's martyrdom traces them as Bishops of Rome.

St.Peter himself gives evidence in his first Epistle 5:13. "The Church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you." So here St.Peter was writing from Babylon but it wasn't the ancient city for that was totally destroyed in 275BC. It was Rome to which he referred when he informed the "strnagers" in Pontus, Galatia, and elsewhere to whom he wrote of the immoral, the Babylonish place in which he was making progress. Some say that since they were being persecuted that he was writing in code.

Anyway, when a search is made there is plenty of evidence of secular history of the first Christian centuries regardiang the 52 Caesers who reigned from Nero to Constantine as well as the historic data regarding the 32 Bishops of Rome from St. Peter to Mechiades, the Popes of the very same period.