I KNOW there are no Catholics here, but my question is...

Are/is the Sacred College of Cardinals (Latin CARDO, a hinge) of God ?

_yes _yes with an explanation _no _no with an explanation _yes and no _yes and no with an explanation _I do not know _I do not know with an explanation (which would include other possibilities I might have missed)

Andy Bennett Washington Court House Ohio

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2002

Answers

I hit a cardinal with my car today!!!!

Opps! Wrong "cardinal" discussion.

My bad!

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2002

Kevin Walker said...."That is two false doctrines of the Catholic Church and there are many more. Catholicism is a manifestation of that great departure from the faith of which Paul warned (see 2 Thes. 2:1ff; 1 Tim. 4:1ff)."

EXACTLY!!!!

Andy said..."We are all part of a priesthood with Jesus as the High Priest. That does not make all Christians priests."

Yet the Bible says in Revelation 1:6 concerning the work of Christ that He..."has made us to be a kingdom AND priests to serve His God and Father."

Hmmmmm.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Mr. Gabbar, Good ole change the subject humor. Honestly, it makes me feel like you don't respect my question. I doubt you answered the wrong "cardinal" discussion. I can be funny too. But why here ? I'd be sad (for a minute or two), if I hit a cardinal with my car

To all readers,

I KNOW there are no Catholics here, but my question is... Are/is the Sacred College of Cardinals (Latin CARDO, a hinge) of God ?

_yes _yes with an explanation _no _no with an explanation _yes and no _yes and no with an explanation _I do not know _I do not know with an explanation (which would include other possibilities I might have missed)

Andy Bennett Washington Court House Ohio

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2002

Andy,

A couple of replies here that fit none of your categories.

First, a backward question: Do we as mere mortals have the right to judge if something, or in this case - someone, is OF GOD or not? Is this a matter of "judge not, lest ye be judged" or is it a "don't cast pearl before swine" situation.

Second, What doctrines does this group believe & teach? If it is not the full Gospel of Christ (including imersion), if it does not hold to the fact that in these last days Jesus has spoken (i.e. no continuing revelation), and if it does not hold to the New Testament pattern of church organization (collegiate eldership vs. Pastor/Papal system) then can it actually be of God?

Can Anything be of God, if ANY PART of it stands in opposition to His Word (even though it may sound good)?

I think the question answers itself.

p.s. - Danny........I caught one of those cardinals across the helmet awhile back on the motorcycle.......Ha!

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2002

Ok Danny, You put up a barrier for me not to wonder about whether things are of God -the first part of your reply. Then you make judgments yourself. That is wierd. Or maybe that was a mistake, like hitting that cardinal. :-)

My question...you cut on the fact of what the question was about and then you cut on the fact that I asked it in the first place. I thought it was a relatively easy question, but had no idea it was so easy that it could answer itself. If you do not want me here, please advise.

As far as the New Testament pattern of organization is concerned, who is there that you can compare the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) with in your pattern of organization? If the Bible has replaced this group of leaders who were external (not part of the local collegiate elderships), then I wonder when that was. This is debate material here. It is related to my question, but not on point with it. Perhaps another thread, hmmm.

It seems evident you do not want to answer my question according the "categories" (they are what I think the possible ANSWERS might be, you know like in a survey or a multiple choice test). Why I do not know. That more than likely does not matter anyway.

I think you have answers to the five questions you asked in your reply. But if you really are wondering about the answers to them you can start another thread and I'll try to reply to them.

I don't want to be accused of putting words where they should not be, but is part of your reply that the Sacred College of Cardinals is of God if they believe and teach the full Gospel of Christ (including immersion), do not admit continuing revelation and follow the New Testament pattern of Church organization ?

If have written something you do not want me to write, I apologize.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2002

Andy,

If you are trying to establish that the council of Jerusalem was something that should have continued beyond the 1st century (mid 1st century at that), then what would be the qualifications for membership?

For "local collegiate" elderships over a single congregation/city, we have a pattern and a list of qualifications. But for a "college of cardinals" in the tradition of the council at Jerusalem, its a stretch to say we have a pattern and certainly we have no qualifications for membership listed anywhere in scripture.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2002

Brethren:

In response to this ignorance concerning a “College of Cardinals” in the church of Christ we would like to present something from our Brother J. W. McGarvey on the matter. He has spoken quite succinctly concerning the matter and we ask that you give attention to the things when he explains from the word of God about this subject.

“Before dismissing the subject of this appeal to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, we must notice briefly the use that is made of it by the advocates of representative assemblies in the Church, for judicial and legislative purposes. Romanists, and the advocates of episcopacy generally, find in the assembly in Jerusalem the first "general council," and have styled it "The Council of Jerusalem." The Presbyterians find in it the first synod; and others still appeal to it in general terms, as authority for assemblies of brethren to decide questions of doctrine and discipline. In order that it may properly be used as a precedent for any of these assemblies, it must be made to appear analogous to them in its essential features. But its essential features are: First, That it was occasioned by an appeal from one congregation to certain parties in one other congregation, in reference to a disputed question which the first felt unable to decide. Second, That the parties to whom the appeal was made were inspired men, who could say of their decision, when made, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us;" i. e., to the Holy Spirit as the divine arbiter, and to us as obedient subjects of his authority. It was the inspiration, and, consequently, the infallibility of the party appealed to, that suggested and that justified the appeal. In both these peculiarities all the councils and synods of Catholic and Protestant history are essentially deficient, for, instead of being called together at the request of some congregations, to decide some question presented, they consist of representatives from a number of congregations, or districts of country, assembled for the purpose of discussing and deciding whatever questions may come up among them; and instead of being infallible, their decisions are nothing but the fallible opinions of uninspired men, in reference to which it would be the height of profanity to say, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us." Not till we have an assembly under the guidance of inspired men can we allow them to authoritatively decide religious questions after the precedent of this assembly in Jerusalem. All the duties, responsibilities, and privileges of disciples have already been authoritatively propounded by inspired men; and for men now to meet together for the authoritative decision of such questions, is to assume a prerogative that belongs exclusively to inspired apostles and prophets, and, at the same time, is to assume that there are deficiencies in their infallible teachings to be supplied by uninspired men. In arguing thus upon the merits of all judicial and legislative assemblies among the Churches, we must not be understood as condemning the co-operation of different congregations, or of individuals from them, in performing duties which are imposed by divine authority. The essential difference between assemblies for these two purposes is, that in the latter we are simply uniting our energies to perform duties appointed by the word of God; while, in the former, we undertake to decide what truth and duty are--a work which none but inspired men can perform.”

It seems to me that Brother Mcgarvey has stated the case quite well and settled it as far as the teaching of the word of God is concerned. We are guided today by the same Holy Spirit that guided the early Church of Christ. And the Holy Spirit guides us through the same inspired words of the same apostles who were chosen by Jesus Christ himself. No others are qualified to settle any religious issues among the churches of Christ or to rule over any congregation beyond the local church. For none are inspired as were they to give us infallible words from God on such matters.

Now, if we were to imitate the Jerusalem council we would of necessity have to have INSPIRED men who were being directly guided by the Holy Spirit for such a council to ever be convened. And this is not possible simply because we no longer have any inspired men living among us. But we do have the inspired guidance of the apostles of Christ and the inspired writers of the New Testament. TO them we still appeal when issues must be decided among all of the churches of Christ. They remain our only authorized “college of elders” for they are the only men in the history of the church to have the one essential qualification for such an office. THEY WERE INSPIRED OF GOD. And they were not called “Cardinals” but were instead called the APOSTLES OF CHRIST. And to them Christ said:

“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 16:16-19). And that he said this to all of the apostles is evident from the following:

“Then said Jesus to them again, Peace [be] unto you: as [my] Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.” (John 20:21-23)

“To whom ye forgive any thing, I [forgive] also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave [it], for your sakes [forgave I it] in the person of Christ;” (2 Cor. 2:10).

No one but apostles had this power to bind anything upon the church of Christ for they were the apostles of Christ and had the authority and power to do things in the “person of Christ”. They are the only representatives of the head of the church of Christ who is Christ alone. And only Christ could select such a body and he has only selected his apostles through whom Christ the head of the church continues to guide the church of Christ to this very day. One may as well seek to establish a “Pope” as the “vicar of Christ on earth” as to attempt to replace the apostles of Christ with a “College of Cardinals”! For both are abominations to God and a high rebellion against his blessed will and the teachings of His inspired word! So, enough of this nonsense! Those who love the truth will have no part in such rebellion against Christ our Lord and His chosen Apostles.

Those who would so despise the apostles of Christ are in fact despising GOD.

“He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit.” (1 Thess. 4:8).

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2002

Proof texting...experts...because the scripture should be the only authority in the local congregations. We are getting off point of my original question. Still, I am hearing many "no"s in response to it. That is fine because I want to know what you think.

Mr. MacGarvey is on point about the Council at Jerusalem in the mid 1st century A.D.

"And as they went on their way through the cities, they delivered them the decrees to keep which had been ordained of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily" (ASV Acts 16:4-5)

If I follow your logic, those who despise the decrees ("dogmata" not to be confused with canonized scripture) ordained of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem are in fact despising THE HOLY SPIRIT. Hmmm.

Be careful, the unforgiveable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit which is attributing the work of God to the Devil.

All of you, please don't say the Sacred College of Cardinals is of the Devil. If God and the Holy Spirit is/are not working in the Catholic Church at large,...good grief of course they are (He is).

About qualifications for those who agreed on the dogma on the early Church, I honestly don't know. I imagine it has do with Apostolic tradition. I feel that when ever I would provide a scripture to support such, there would be somebody to disagree. I expect this here. Where are the qualifications for youth ministers ? Where are the qualifications for secretaries ? Computers ? Televisions. Either the Cardinals are of God or they are not. Be men enough to say one or the other and quit confusing people -not me, but probably your "flocks". If you believe the Catholic Church is of the Devil, I pray for you daily. Believe that. I pray for unity daily. I am a Christian (B.A. from C.B.C. & S.), but I too am not bound by the traditions this sect has created. I am all for Biblical authority, but not SOLA SCRIPTURA. This would have been considered nonsense until the days of the Reformation.

Please be advised I understand the thing about Biblical, Non-Biblical and Anti-Biblical. Been there and done that.

In checking the varioius threads on the Christian Church Bulletin board I see many people disagreeing. I see preachers in pain over their concern to help Jesus build his Church and are slapped in face with traditions that are called "being right"; each slapper no doubt able to back up their point of view with quote after quote from the scriptures.

The Church of Christ / Christian churches began at a certain point in time (late 18th-early 19th century) much later than Pentecost. We can not trace our origin (honestly) to then historically -only in the mind. Church historians know that in order to be a part of history, especially Restoration Movement history, all those who love God must be considered including the Copts, the Catholics, the Orthodox (a bunch of souls).

Catholics do love the truth and they are not in rebellion, I beleive we are.

False indoctrination reads powerfully. Go to Rome and live there awhile. I think they need some missionaries. There is some nonsense for ya Brother.

And return Lord Jesus and all Your Saints !

Peace be with you, Andy

p.s. I'll be seeing ya, if I'm not banned from the Christian Church threads. Otherwise, I'll be on the Catholic threads because they want one Church of all who accept Jesus as Lord.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2002

For someone who said: "No Catholic here......" in the "meaning of "Cardinal" in the Catholic Church hierarchy" thread and then to say in this thread: "If God and the Holy Spirit is/are not working in the Catholic Church at large,...good grief of course they are (He is)."

It really makes me wonder how Andy can make the statement above and yet say that he is not Catholic?

Especially after he makes this statement in this thread: "If you believe the Catholic Church is of the Devil, I pray for you daily."

I continue to be amazed how Catholics call the Pope “Holy Father” (in violation of Matthew 23:9). He is revered as the head of the church on earth (though Christ possesses all authority, in heaven and on earth, and is the exclusive head of the church – Matt. 28:18; Col. 1:18).

Also, The Catholic idea of a system of physical priests for today’s church has no support in the New Testament. All Christians are priests, and, with spiritual sacrifices (Rom. 12:1ff; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15-16; 1 Pet. 2:5), we offer up service to God through our High Priest, Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1; 4:14ff), who mediates on our behalf (Heb. 2:17ff; 1 Tim. 2:5).

That is two false doctrines of the Catholic Church and there are many more. Catholicism is a manifestation of that great departure from the faith of which Paul warned (see 2 Thes. 2:1ff; 1 Tim. 4:1ff).

My question to you Andy, is this: Where in the Bible is "Sacred College of Cardinals" even mentioned? I can't seem to find it in my Bible, and was wondering if you could provide Book, Chapter and Verse of it in yours.

You also said: "Either the Cardinals are of God or they are not."

I say they are from men and the Bible agrees with me.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2002

I am not a Catholic, but I sure am thinking about it -or at least why you want me to be. I suppose you would say there is a sin in that. I can make the statements I make and not be a Catholic. I could be Orthodox and amke them. I could be Copt and make them. Expand your paradigms and your horizons man. Look for ways to bring about the unity we think God wants. There are plenty of verses for that.

Kevin thinks all Christians are priests, but he reads I Peter incorrectly. We are all part of a priesthood with Jesus as the High Priest. That does not make all Christians priests.

Also I know many people who are not Catholics and those same people believe that Catholics are Christians.

Matthew 23:9....context reads that Jesus was speaking to the 12. At least that is one way of seeing it. A real scholar considers the most predominant ways things are perceived.

If Kevin really wants an answer about the proof text for the Sacred College of Cardinals, then I suggest he ask his local parish priest The Bible agrees with so many, right Kevin ? We have parish priests whether he wants to admit it or not. I do not think there is a proof text for the S.C.of C., but I could be wrong. I do not think there has to be in order for something to be of men and of God. The Bible was not written with you in mind (per se). You find a place in it when all people are addressed. The original recipients must be considered first. So, you're not in there, but you're OK. Being talked about in the 3rd person isn't meant to be mean. He did it and he thinks its OK. So I did it.

I dare you to try and interpret the N.T. (same in both most Bibles) - try and interpret it the same way as a Catholic does and stand up next to a priest and call him a brother. I double dare you. If you will, I will.

Washington Court House

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2002

Andy,

Once again, I will ask you this question that you conveniently tried to brush off to a local parish priest: "My question to you Andy, is this: Where in the Bible is "Sacred College of Cardinals" even mentioned? I can't seem to find it in my Bible, and was wondering if you could provide Book, Chapter and Verse of it in yours."

How about opening your Bible and answering the question yourself?

For someone who says "I am not a Catholic, but I sure am thinking about it" Either 1. You are lying, or 2. You just say that to cause trouble in this forum. I prefer option number 2. My question to you is, If you are "thinking about it" then, why don't you just "do it"?

Then you say: "I can make the statements I make and not be a Catholic. I could be Orthodox and amke them. I could be Copt and make them."

It seems to me that you make all of these statements just to cause trouble.

Then you speak of unity. There is only one way to have unity, and that is to use the Bible and the Bible only as our rule of faith and practice.

Then you said: "Kevin thinks all Christians are priests, but he reads I Peter incorrectly. We are all part of a priesthood with Jesus as the High Priest. That does not make all Christians priests."

Well, the Bible disagrees with you on this subject now doesn't it Andy?…Instead of just dismissing what I said, how about going to your Bible to argue your case? Oh, I forgot, I have to go to a local parish priest for this one too right Andy? Then you said: "Also I know many people who are not Catholics and those same people believe that Catholics are Christians."

That is the key isn't it? They "believe" that Catholics are Christians. Well Andy, once again, the Bible disagrees with you on this subject. Jesus is "the author of eternal salvation to all who OBEY him" (Hebrews 5:9). Catholics don't fit that bill now do they Andy? Especially since I gave you 2 false doctrines that they adhere to above in my first post that you conveniently ignored.

Regardless of what you "believe" or have been taught, the Bible says that unless someone OBEYS the gospel, they are NOT a Christian. Remember, Jesus will return "in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not OBEY the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thessalonians 1:8)

Then you said: "The Bible agrees with so many, right Kevin?"

The Bible says in Matthew 13:23, "But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and UNDERSTANDS it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty."

Then you said: "We have parish priests whether he wants to admit it or not. I do not think there is a proof text for the S.C.of C., but I could be wrong."

What you meant to say was that "The Catholic Church has parish priests". You haven't even proved this point, much less the point that Cardinals are authorized now have you? Then you said: "I do not think there has to be in order for something to be of men and of God. The Bible was not written with you in mind (per se). You find a place in it when all people are addressed. The original recipients must be considered first. So, you're not in there, but you're OK. Being talked about in the 3rd person isn't meant to be mean. He did it and he thinks its OK. So I did it."

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The Bible disagrees with you again, 1 Timothy 2:4 says, "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." If God desires all men to be saved, then how can the Bible NOT be written with me in mind?

Then you said: "I dare you to try and interpret the N.T. (same in both most Bibles) - try and interpret it the same way as a Catholic does and stand up next to a priest and call him a brother. I double dare you. If you will, I will."

The Bible says in 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, "And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

Our Catholic friends say, “We believe the Bible; we also believe in the traditions of the fathers.” It is their conviction that those traditions of the fathers are equally authoritative with the inspired Word of God. At that point we part company. The true church today is governed by the Bible alone for, “If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions,” (1 Timothy 6:3-4).

The traditions of the Catholic Church down through the centuries has developed a rather elaborate system of church government. The pope stands at the top, with the cardinals, archbishops, bishops and parish priests beneath. Since we are pledged to stand with the Bible and only the Bible we cannot accept that system of church organization. The church acknowledges Jesus ONLY as its head: “And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. ” (Ephesians 1:22-23). The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the pope as the head of the church.

There is still hope for you Andy. In order to be a Christian a man or woman must hear the message of Christ and must believe that Jesus is the Son of God (Hebrews 11:6; Mark 16:16). Having believed in Jesus, he or she must make the decision to change the course of his or her life, or repent (Acts 17:30). Having done that, he or she must heed Jesus instruction to confess him before men (Matthew 10:32, 33).

Finally, as the apostles believed and taught, in order to be a Christian a man or woman must be baptized for the remission of his sins. (Acts 2:38).

When we have done these things, we have merely done what was done in the first century and for generations thereafter by those who knew the will of God most directly and most intimately.

Any modification in this method of becoming a Christian is not approved of God. Paul said, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8-9).

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Kevin, I WROTE THAT I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A SCRIPTURE SUPPORTING THE SACRED COLLEGE OF CARDINALS. DID YOU MISS IT ? Or do you just like seeing yourself win an argument's point on these boards ? I know how to read the Bible and you telling me when to do it after I've already conceeded there doesn't have to be a proof text for me to think they are of God, makes me think that you don't care at all. You care about the point you want to make and dismiss what I have asked.

I am ending my input on this thread. I have want I want. Go ahead and keep believing the Catholic Church was corrupt/idolatrous in THE FOURTH CENTURY A.D. (no authority outside the local churches) and try to describe to someone who is wondering on what basis you accept thier choice of the CANON.

You may say, "I accept the fact that the Bible is God's word, but I don't accept the fact the Catholic Church and the men and women in it are who made the decisions about what books are in it prior to the Lutheran Bible." Historically they did. In a debate your misindoctrination will stand out like a sore thumb.

If you get a minute or two listen to http://www.churchesofchrist.com/SCOC/debate.htm. This is what needs to happen. Good old fashioned debates....that is what will have to happen to inform the public of the MISINDOCTRINATION that has split the Church up. I know that if I led a debate I'd want to know both sides so as to formulate my arguments better -the best.

I am sorry I posted this question about the Sacred College of Cardinals if by doing so anybody thought I really didn't know. It was a rhetorical question. You know like one used in a sermon, speech or debate. Thank you.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2002

Andy,

You said: “Kevin, I WROTE THAT I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A SCRIPTURE SUPPORTING THE SACRED COLLEGE OF CARDINALS. DID YOU MISS IT?”

If you look up at all of your responses, not once did you state what you say above. This is what you said: “I do not think there is a proof text for the S.C.of C., but I could be wrong.”

There is a difference between “I don’t want” and “I do not think”. It isn’t hard to read what you have written now is it, unless of course YOU missed it?

Then you said: “Or do you just like seeing yourself win an argument's point on these boards?”

No, this is not the case at all. You asked the following question: “Are/is the Sacred College of Cardinals (Latin CARDO, a hinge) of God?” To which I responded: “My question to you Andy, is this: Where in the Bible is "Sacred College of Cardinals" even mentioned? I can't seem to find it in my Bible, and was wondering if you could provide Book, Chapter and Verse of it in yours.”

Then you said: “I know how to read the Bible and you telling me when to do it after I've already conceeded there doesn't have to be a proof text for me to think they are of God, makes me think that you don't care at all. You care about the point you want to make and dismiss what I have asked.”

I answered your question by saying that I couldn’t find it in my Bible and I asked you to find it in yours, and your response was for me to go and see a local parish priest for the answer. Now, who is dismissing what was asked?

Then you said: “I am ending my input on this thread. I have want I want. Go ahead and keep believing the Catholic Church was corrupt/idolatrous in THE FOURTH CENTURY A.D. (no authority outside the local churches) and try to describe to someone who is wondering on what basis you accept thier choice of the CANON.”

I never said anything in my previous post what you stated above. Where did this statement come from?

Then you said: “You may say, "I accept the fact that the Bible is God's word, but I don't accept the fact the Catholic Church and the men and women in it are who made the decisions about what books are in it prior to the Lutheran Bible." Historically they did. In a debate your misindoctrination will stand out like a sore thumb. If you get a minute or two listen to http://www.churchesofchrist.com/SCOC/debate.htm. This is what needs to happen. Good old fashioned debates....that is what will have to happen to inform the public of the MISINDOCTRINATION that has split the Church up. I know that if I led a debate I'd want to know both sides so as to formulate my arguments better -the best.”

The Bible is God’s word, but I never made any type of argument about what books are in the Bible now did I? Where did this statement about “misindoctrination” come from? I agree with you about the debate issue, and there will be a debate here real soon on the issue of Authority. Stay tuned.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2002