Dominion Over

[Buzzard]

[url="http://www.theologyreview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=642"]http://www.theologyreview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=642[/url]

[url="http://www.theologyreview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1552"]http://www.theologyreview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1552[/url]

[quote]
But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. (Revelation 2:6)
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. (Revelation 2:15)


~{Matt.20:25}~
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said,
Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles
[b][u][color=red]exercise dominion[/color][/u][/b] over them,
and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it [b][u][color=red]shall not be so[/color][/u][/b] among you:

~{Mark 10:42}~
42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them,
Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles
[b][u][color=red]exercise lordship[/color][/u][/b] over them;
and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
43 But so [b][u][color=red]shall it not be[/color][/u][/b] among you:
[/quote]

Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible


[quote]3. His rise is mentioned, 2Th_2:6, 2Th_2:7. Concerning this we are to observe two things: - (1.) There was something that hindered or withheld, or let, until it was taken away. This is supposed to be the power of the Roman empire, which the apostle did not think fit to mention more plainly at that time; and it is notorious that, while this power continued, it prevented the advances of the bishops of Rome to that height of tyranny to which soon afterwards they arrived. (2.) This mystery of iniquity was gradually to arrive at its height; and so it was in effect that the universal corruption of doctrine and worship in the Romish church came in by degrees, and the usurpation of the bishops of Rome was gradual, not all at once; and thus the mystery of iniquity did the more easily, and almost insensibly, prevail. The apostle justly calls it a mystery of iniquity, because wicked designs and actions were concealed under false shows and pretences, at least they were concealed from the common view and observation. By pretended devotion, superstition and idolatry were advanced; and, by a pretended zeal for God and his glory, bigotry and persecution were promoted. And he tells us that this mystery of iniquity did even then begin, or did already work. While the apostles were yet living, the enemy came, and sowed tares; there were then [color=red]the deeds of the Nicolaitans[/color], [color=blue]persons who pretended zeal for Christ, but really opposed him. Pride, ambition, and worldly interest of church-pastors and church-rulers[/color], as in Diotrephes and others, were the early working of the mystery of iniquity, which, by degrees, came to that prodigious height which has been visible in the church of Rome.[/quote]

26 But it [b][u][color=red]shall not be so[/color][/u][/b] among you:

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Yeah...it's all about lording it over...that's why the pope's title is "Servant of the Servants of God"...

Do you think Christ was condemning Moses, who certainly was in a position above the Hebrews? The point was to condemn pride, not rank.

Certainly some individuals have pride, but that is not characteristic of rank, it's characteristic of humanity.

[Dave]

What are you trying to say? That the Catholic Church is wrong to have a hierarchy? If so, then you misunderstand its purpose. The hierarchy isn't meant to lord its rule over people. The members of the hierarchy are appointed by God to serve people by bringing them the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If they lorded it over people, then they wouldn't be serving anybody -- we'd have to serve them instead.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Buzzard']3. His rise is mentioned, 2Th_2:6, 2Th_2:7. Concerning this we are to observe two things: - (1.) There was something that hindered or withheld, or let, until it was taken away. This is supposed to be the power of the Roman empire, which the apostle did not think fit to mention more plainly at that time; and it is notorious that, while this power continued, it prevented the advances of the bishops of Rome to that height of tyranny to which soon afterwards they arrived. (2.) This mystery of iniquity was gradually to arrive at its height; and so it was in effect that the universal corruption of doctrine and worship in the Romish church came in by degrees, and the usurpation of the bishops of Rome was gradual, not all at once; and thus the mystery of iniquity did the more easily, and almost insensibly, prevail. The apostle justly calls it a mystery of iniquity, because wicked designs and actions were concealed under false shows and pretences, at least they were concealed from the common view and observation. By pretended devotion, superstition and idolatry were advanced; and, by a pretended zeal for God and his glory, bigotry and persecution were promoted. And he tells us that this mystery of iniquity did even then begin, or did already work. While the apostles were yet living, the enemy came, and sowed tares; there were then the deeds of the Nicolaitans, persons who pretended zeal for Christ, but really opposed him. Pride, ambition, and worldly interest of church-pastors and church-rulers, as in Diotrephes and others, were the early working of the mystery of iniquity, which, by degrees, came to that prodigious height which has been visible in the church of Rome.[/quote]
First of all, I don't recall dialoguing with you before, so welcome to Phatmass. May the peace of Christ be with you.

Could I suggest that you find some more accurate reading material? While it may certainly be true that some Popes in the past have exercised their authority wrongly (and we concede that -- they're human, and they're not impeccable), the idea of Papal Authority is biblical. The idea behind it is not to lord the power of the papacy over others, but to lead and have authority in the way that Christ led and had authority -- by being a servant. That's why one of the Pope's titles is "Servant of the servants of God," because while he is the leader of the universal Church, this also makes him the servant of the universal Church. The papacy is a leadership of service, not lordship.

Some verses from the Bible that support Papal Authority:

From the Gospel of Matthew to the Book of Revelation, St. Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of the Apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. St. Peter is also always listed first, except in 1 Cor 3:22 and Gal 2:9.

In Matthew 14:28-29, St. Peter is the only one who has enough faith to walk on the water with Jesus.

In Matthew 16:16, Mark 8:29, and John 6:69, St. Peter is the first to confess the divinity of Christ. In Matthew 16:17, Peter alone is told that he received a revelation from God the Father, and in Matthew 16:18 Jesus proclaims Peter the Rock upon which the Church will be built. This is also important because it occurs in the Gospel of Matthew, written for a mostly Jewish Christian audience, who would have been curious about how Jesus would have replaced the previous authority of the Aaronic and Levitical priesthood, which was ordained by God.

In Matthew 17:24-25, it's St. Peter who is approached for Jesus' tax. This shows that St. Peter was the spokesman for Christ.

In Mark 16:7, St. Peter is specified as the leader of the Apostles when the angel confirms the Resurrection of Christ.

In Luke 5:3, Jesus teaches from St. Peter's boat, and St. Peter's boat was a metaphor in both the early Church and in today's Church for the Church itself.

In many verses throughout Luke and Acts, St. Peter is mentioned before St. John -- the disciple whom Jesus loved, showing that St. Peter had primacy even over the beloved disciple.

In Luke 9:28-33, St. Peter was the first to go to the mountain for the Transfiguration, and he was the only one to speak.

In Luke 22:31-32, Jesus prays for St. Peter alone, that his faith will not fail so that he can strengthen the rest of the Apostles and disciples.

In Luke 24:12 and John 20:4-6, St. John arrived at the tomb first, but waited for St. Peter to arrive so that he could enter the Tomb first.

In John 6:68, St. Peter is the first to confess belief in Christ after many of the disciples left Him.

In John 21:15-17, Jesus charged St. Peter with feeding His sheep. Throughout the Gospels, Christ is referred to as the "Good Shepherd," and the sheep are a metaphor for the Church. It is St. Peter who is charged with care of the Church.

In Acts 1:15, St. Peter initiates the choosing of a successor for Judas. Not only does this show St. Peter's authority in deciding whether or not Judas needed a successor, but it also shows that there were successors for the Apostles -- it follows that there would have been successors for St. Peter, too.

In Acts 2:14, St. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel after the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

In Acts 3:6-7, St. Peter worked the first healing after Pentecost.

In Acts 5:3, St. Peter declared the first anathema against Ananias and Sapphira, which was ratified by God with their deaths. St. Peter exercised his binding authority, and God responded.

In Acts 5:15, St. Peter's shadow had healing power. This power is not ascribed to any other Apostle.

In Acts 9:38-40, St. Peter was the first to raise anyone (Tabitha) from the dead after Pentecost.

In Acts 10:5, Cornelius was told by an angel to seek out St. Peter, showing that St. Peter was clearly the leader of the Church.

In Acts 10:34-48 and 11:1-18, St. Peter was the first to preach about salvation being available to all, both Jew and Gentile.

In Acts 12:6-11, St. Peter is freed from jail by an angel, making him the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

In Acts 15:7-12, it was St. Peter who decided the first doctrinal dispute over circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem, and no one questioned his decision.

In Romans 15:20, Paul says that he doesn't want to build on another man's foundation, acknowledging that someone else -- St. Peter -- built the Church in Rome.

In 1 Cor 9:5, St. Peter is distinguished from the rest of the Apostles and the brethren of the Lord.

In 1 Cor 15:4-8, St. Paul distinguished Jesus' post-Resurrection appearances to St. Peter from the appearances to the other Apostles. Christ appeared "to Cephas, then to the twelve."

In Gal 1:18, it's revealed that St. Paul spent fifteen days with St. Peter before beginning his ministry, even though Christ had already revealed Himself and the Gospel to St. Paul.

In 1 Peter 5:1, St. Peter acts as the Chief Bishop by exhorting all of the other Bishops and elders (priests).

1 Peter 5:13 shows that St. Peter was indeed in Rome (some Protestants argue that he was not) because he says that he is writing from Babylon, which is used elsewhere as a codename for Rome.

In 2 Peter 3:16, St. Peter makes a judgement on the proper interpretation of St. Paul's letters.

And yet we also know from the Church's tradition that St. Peter went on to be martyred at Rome, and that he suffered a unique martyrdom -- because he did not feel worthy to die as Christ died, tradition tells us that he was crucified upside down. In this, St. Peter showed his humility and that his leadership was a leadership of service, as is the papacy today.


---

As for the Nicolaitans, they were mentioned by Irenaeus, who said that "they lead lives of unrestrained indulgence," and Clement of Alexandria connects them to promiscuity. They were quite outside the Church, opposed by many of the Church Fathers. And they had nothing to do with the verses you cite about lordship, since their sin seems to have been promiscuity.

I hope you'll read the verses from Scripture that I've provided as support for the papacy and pray over them before responding. It's important in dialogue that we not only listen to each other, but also to God who is working through and in us.

[Buzzard]

[url="http://www.redemptoristpublications.com/reality/sept02/editorial.html"]http://www.redemptoristpublications.com/re.../editorial.html[/url]
[quote]
September : From the Editor

On clericalism

[list]The sex abuse scandals, which have done so much damage to the Catholic Church in recent months, raise some very serious questions about the culture of clericalism that exists in the church.

Most clergy I know are not consciously part of this culture. They may be clerics but they are not clerical. They are uncomfortable with being placed on pedestals, do their best to listen to what lay people have to say, and are not into power games. They want only to serve God and the people to whom they minister.

But that clericalism is deeply rooted in our church cannot be denied. Clericalism has nothing to do with wearing the Roman collar or with conforming to a rigid dress code, though that is part of it. It is, rather, a state of mind, a mentality that is strictly hierarchical and authoritarian. It is to belong to, and to see oneself as belonging to, an exclusive club – all-male, hierarchical, and celibate – that is closed and secretive; part of a system of privilege, deference, and status.

It is a culture that is far removed from the Gospel model of how the disciples related to each other and to the Lord.

In the clerical culture, the instinct is to protect the interests of the club, its reputation, at all costs, even – at times – at the cost of justice and truth itself. It is now clear that this has been a factor in the failure of some church leaders down the years to address the problem of clerical sexual abuse. The reputation of the institution came before the needs of victims. Men, who saw themselves as very faithful to the church – indeed precisely because they saw themselves as being loyal to the church – made decisions that further harmed people who had already been harmed by priest abusers.

The culture of clericalism is damaging in many other ways too.

Clericalism attests to the idea of the laity as the People of God. But this is merely lip service. For the clerical mentality believes that the proper role of the faithful is to pay, pray and obey. Members of the clerical caste, those on the upper rungs of the hierarchical ladder, are the ones who have a monopoly on wisdom and of access to the Holy Spirit.

Clericalism is big into status and privilege. It loves titles and rank and pedestals. Woe betide the unfortunate who does not afford the clerical-minded one his proper title, or give him the respect which he demands as his right.

Clericalism thrives on power and is sustained by it. It is a strong believer in accountability – but only accountability upwards, not downwards. Decisions and decision-making happen at the top. Lay people (and ordinary clergy) do not have to be consulted. And seldom are.

Clericalism has no time for dialogue and debate. It regards those who talk about renewal in the church or who express any criticism of the church as dangerous, and as having a liberal ‘agenda’. But it doesn’t regard those with a conservative vision of the church as having any agenda. They are merely orthodox.

Clericalism talks about service, and of the church as a church of service. But it loves
ambition, and encourages careerism. To get ahead in the clerical world means always being careful to say the right things, to cultivate the right friendships, and to tow the party line
on litmus-test issues such as celibacy, Humanae Vitae, and the role of women.

Clericalism adores secrecy, and needs it. How appointments are made, why clergy are transferred, how complaints are dealt with, the reasons why decisions are arrived at, are seldom explained. They don’t have to be. Power and control are better exercised in a culture of secrecy.

Clericalism is a cancer at the heart of the church. Thank God, most clergy do not suffer from it. But that it is immensely damaging and must be rooted out is obvious. If the sex abuse scandals help to speed up that process, then that will have been a very good thing.

Gerard Moloney


[/list]Back to Reality, September 2002[/quote]

[url="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bsnapsurvivorsnetwork"]http://pub72.ezboard.com/bsnapsurvivorsnetwork[/url]

[God Conquers]

Wow,

That is probably one of the most ridiculous articles I've read in a long time.

First, he says that most priests are NOT clerical... which is silly... because they are CLERICS.

Then he defines clericalism against the majority of clerics.

It makes absolutely no sense.

If MOST priests are not doing these things, like he asserts, then clericalism would be the opposite of this.


Also, the definaition he provides is not only pessimistic, but patently false. I have met 100's of priests, and none have fit this mould.

Buzzard, I'm also not really sure what you are trying to argue... It would greatly help discussion if, rather than pasting, or on top of pasting, you would explain a little bit what you're trying to get at.

It's very difficult to both rebut an unknown argument... and more difficult for you to get your points across to us if we don't know what exactly it is you're trying to say.