|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/5/2008 2:49:22 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1118
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
This is another issue. You have yet to identify the details of how the RCC came about in your mind. Was there a declaration? What was Christianity before this time?
I've said it a few times, actually, but I'll say it again, no problem. The RCC came about in 1054 when the pope and the patriarch of the EO excommunicated each other over the fact that the pope wanted to be the boss of everyone and the change the pope made to the Nicene Creed.
Was there Christianity before this time? Yes. Surprisingly, there was Christianity after, too. *sigh*
quote:
Anyway our doctrine has remained the same as a review of the early Church fathers attest to. Now you will say it has changed but imagine if you will that you only learned addition. Now if you later studied more and learned algebra, would you now say you changed or forgot addition or just understood math better? Same with the development of doctrine/dogma. The Church has always had 7 sacraments, etc and those dogmas have not changed. Now have things changed...of course but just in practice and not the dogmatic beliefs of the Catholic faith. The Pope uses a pope-mobile now for instance.
Really. Then perhaps you could explain why the schism involved the fact that the proto-RCC changed the Nicene Creed. Frankly, without changing the text of the Bible itself, you can't get much more "doctrinal change" than that.
quote:
What body? Please identify these people so we may test the verasity of their claims? What if you no longer follow the beliefs of these "believers" that thought they could just start from scratch--hence my Lutheran question that is still no answered. I don't recall that example from the bible. In fact the bible says it will guide us to all truth and Christ would be with us to the end of the age???
Right. The Bible says it will guide us to all truth and Christ will be with us to the end of the age. Who is "us"? The church. Who is the church? Those who have placed their faith in Him. It doesn't say that Christ will be with the Roman Catholic Church to the end of the age, or any other specific denom, for that matter. It says Christ will be with US, His followers.
quote:
Reform is one thing, but revolution and rejection is something not found or expected in the bible.
If you don't think revolution and rejection is in the Bible, then you missed out on basically the New Testament. Rejection of the old sacrificial methods, a revolution from God Himself in the person of His Son sacrificed for our sins. Rejection of the old law, a revolution of grace.
Jesus was a revolutionary.
Interestingly, Luther was quite the contrary... he tried to be a reformer. It's not his fault ya'll kicked him out.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/5/2008 6:05:21 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 920
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
The RCC came about in 1054 when the pope and the patriarch of the EO excommunicated each other over the fact that the pope wanted to be the boss of everyone and the change the pope made to the Nicene Creed. You can say it all you want - doesn't make it correct.
From a historical and cultural point of view, in the early Church it was assumed that the patriarch inherited the dignity of the founder of his see (now referred to as "diocese" in modern Church organization). Therefore, the successor to an Apostle has special rights and privileges, and this resulted in the culture of a hierarchical organization. From the very beginning, there was a graduated hierarchy of metropolitans, exarchs, and primates, and this is important in explaining the Pope's position. He was not the one immediate superior of each bishop; he was the chief of an elaborate organization, as it were the apex of a carefully graduated pyramid. The consciousness of the early Christian probably would have been that the heads of Christendom were the patriarchs; then further he knew quite well that the chief patriarch sat at Rome. However, the immediate head of each part of the Church was its patriarch. It was unknown to the early Church that the Bishops were equal - its not the case to this day.
The seeds of the schism (which was a gradual exit of the Eastern Church around its patriarchs away from the Roman Patriarch) were laid before Chalcedon in 451. There were 5 patriarchs of the Church - Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. You'll note that if the patriarchs of the "east" leave the Patriarch of the "west", you have the current hierarchical organization of each Church (a single Pontiff in Rome for the Roman Catholic Church, and the hierarchy of the Patriarchs for the Eastern Orthodox Faith).
Legally speaking , the schism is formalized by the repudiation of the Eastern Patriarchs of the Council of Florence in 1472. I appreciate the source of your date, but the schism was a slow gradual process and not the cataclysmic event you are making it out to be in 1054. It took 1,000 years to happen - twice as long as the time from now back to the reformation.
And it didn't have to do with the reasons you point out, as much as it did based on culture, geographic separation, language difference and a number of other factors.
Lastly - from a technical point of view - East left (rejected) West, and not the other way around.
quote:
Luther was quite the contrary... he tried to be a reformer. It's not his fault ya'll kicked him out. Luther rejected the Catholic Church. His excommunication (as all excommunications are...) was simply recognizing the fact that Luther had rejected the Faith, and was a public demonstration and announcement of this fact. If Luther had recanted his rejection and re-committed himself to the Church, he would have been received, as is true for all who have placed themselves in a state of ex-communication with the Church.
quote:
Jesus was a revolutionary. Indeed...but He was not inventive or innovative. He simply clarified, amplified and demonstrated the relationship that God has asked man to participate in from the time of the fall. Luther was an inventor, as was Calvin, King Henry the VIII and any other reformer-character you want to throw into the mix.
Jesus did not abandon and scrap OT faith in favor of a new invention; He simply lived it as it was supposed to and instructed people (the Apostles) how to do the same. A huge difference to me between Jesus and the reformers.
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/5/2008 8:36:04 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1118
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
You can say it all you want - doesn't make it correct.
From a historical and cultural point of view, in the early Church it was assumed that the patriarch inherited the dignity of the founder of his see (now referred to as "diocese" in modern Church organization). Therefore, the successor to an Apostle has special rights and privileges, and this resulted in the culture of a hierarchical organization. From the very beginning, there was a graduated hierarchy of metropolitans, exarchs, and primates, and this is important in explaining the Pope's position. He was not the one immediate superior of each bishop; he was the chief of an elaborate organization, as it were the apex of a carefully graduated pyramid. The consciousness of the early Christian probably would have been that the heads of Christendom were the patriarchs; then further he knew quite well that the chief patriarch sat at Rome. However, the immediate head of each part of the Church was its patriarch. It was unknown to the early Church that the Bishops were equal - its not the case to this day.
The seeds of the schism (which was a gradual exit of the Eastern Church around its patriarchs away from the Roman Patriarch) were laid before Chalcedon in 451. There were 5 patriarchs of the Church - Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. You'll note that if the patriarchs of the "east" leave the Patriarch of the "west", you have the current hierarchical organization of each Church (a single Pontiff in Rome for the Roman Catholic Church, and the hierarchy of the Patriarchs for the Eastern Orthodox Faith).
Legally speaking , the schism is formalized by the repudiation of the Eastern Patriarchs of the Council of Florence in 1472. I appreciate the source of your date, but the schism was a slow gradual process and not the cataclysmic event you are making it out to be in 1054. It took 1,000 years to happen - twice as long as the time from now back to the reformation.
And it didn't have to do with the reasons you point out, as much as it did based on culture, geographic separation, language difference and a number of other factors.
Lastly - from a technical point of view - East left (rejected) West, and not the other way around.
Well, sure, there were a lot of factors. I'm picking 1054 because that's pretty much the final date.
Who rejected who depends on who you ask, mostly ;) As does whether or not the pope was the boss from day 1. I've had opportunity to discuss all this with EO too, you know. ;)
But, I really don't think it's accurate to claim that you folks spent 1000 years working on a schism. At least I would hope you didn't.
quote:
Luther rejected the Catholic Church. His excommunication (as all excommunications are...) was simply recognizing the fact that Luther had rejected the Faith, and was a public demonstration and announcement of this fact. If Luther had recanted his rejection and re-committed himself to the Church, he would have been received, as is true for all who have placed themselves in a state of ex-communication with the Church.
Mmm. Would you deny that Luther's INTENT was to reform the Catholic Church rather than schisming off it? Surely we can agree on that. I would point out that many of Luther's requests for reform were later accepted by the RCC (dispensations, for instance).
quote:
Jesus was a revolutionary. Indeed...but He was not inventive or innovative. He simply clarified, amplified and demonstrated the relationship that God has asked man to participate in from the time of the fall. Luther was an inventor, as was Calvin, King Henry the VIII and any other reformer-character you want to throw into the mix.
What did Luther invent, exactly? I can name a whole bunch of things that don't appear in Scripture which were apparently invented by the RCC.
quote:
Jesus did not abandon and scrap OT faith in favor of a new invention; He simply lived it as it was supposed to and instructed people (the Apostles) how to do the same. A huge difference to me between Jesus and the reformers.
Stopping the requirements to sacrifice at the Temple in favor of His sacrifice? That's huge.
Or do you still sacrifice sheep, bulls, and doves every Sunday to atone? Do you still refuse to do any work on Saturday? Do you eat pork and shellfish?
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/5/2008 9:41:19 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 428
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Was there Christianity before this time? Yes. Surprisingly, there was Christianity after, too.
Zhi,
I keep asking the same thing in from different angles because your view of history is not sustainable or logical. For example, do you have a statement by the pope back then that said he wanted to "the boss of everybody"? We're just trying to figure out where you get this stuff.
And again what kind of Christianity was there before and after this critical date of yours? Did all of those "odd" Catholic practices and doctrine just pop-up all at the same time?
quote:
Then perhaps you could explain why the schism involved the fact that the proto-RCC changed the Nicene Creed.
The Church developed the hypostatic union and faught numerous groups in defense of the trinity and its definition. The filoque is a complex theological discussion and the below link can help if you can wade through it. Filioque
Do you even believe the Nicean creed?
quote:
If you don't think revolution and rejection is in the Bible, then you missed out on basically the New Testament. Rejection of the old sacrificial methods, a revolution from God Himself in the person of His Son sacrificed for our sins. Rejection of the old law, a revolution of grace.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18).
Enough said...
quote:
Interestingly, Luther was quite the contrary... he tried to be a reformer. It's not his fault ya'll kicked him out.
Please. Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/5/2008 10:10:44 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 544
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Zhi,
quote:
I've said it a few times, actually, but I'll say it again, no problem. The RCC came about in 1054 when the pope and the patriarch of the EO excommunicated each other over the fact that the pope wanted to be the boss of everyone and the change the pope made to the Nicene Creed.
Since you appear to be quite familiar with the "EOC" side of the story, are you also aware of the political ploys by eastern patriarchs buddying up to the Emperor? Does that fact hold any weight in your opinion? Are you aware of all the pleas to the Bishop of Rome to settle eastern disputes? Familiar with St. Ignatius and the usurpation of his bishopric by Photius? Do you agree that was a bit shady? If so, how do you justify your defense of the "EOC?" If not, why do you appear to be defending the EOC? If you believe the "EOC" is the true ancient Faith of our fathers, why haven't you joined their ranks? Just a few puzzles I hope you solve for me.
quote:
Right. The Bible says it will guide us to all truth and Christ will be with us to the end of the age.
Actually the "Bible says" the "Spirit" would guide the Apostles to "all truth" and be with them "to the end of the age," which is when in your opinion? Scripture does not intimate that anyone centuries removed who happens to have a bible and can read will reap the promises of Christ! [Was it just a faux pas that you equated "The Bible" to the Spirit? If not, you are clearly misinterpreting John 16:13.]
quote:
Christ kept His promise and as led His Church "to all truth." Unfortunately, some folks can't recognize that fact and prefer to interpret that particular passage out of context and apply it to themselves, who many times, are ill-equipped to do so.
Amen.
quote:
It doesn't say that Christ will be with the Roman Catholic Church to the end of the age, or any other specific denom, for that matter.
FYI, the "Roman Catholic Church" resides in Rome, Italy. When the "one-stop threads" were created, the administrator decided a concession was in order by Catholic Christians that "Roman Catholic Church" and it's acronym "RCC" were acceptable in addressing the source of our beliefs, but technically, there is only the Catholic Church which is spread throughout the world.
I agree with Doghouse. Luther was not looking for reform, but made himself pope and created chaos, then vehemently chastised anyone who disagreed with his self-proclaimed doctrine of "sola scriptura." Used a lot of nasty words to describe his opponents, too...very Christ-like, no?
quote:
Interestingly, Luther was quite the contrary... he tried to be a reformer. It's not his fault ya'll kicked him out.
Did you know him personally?  It most definitely was his own fault. The Church has been "reformed" countless times by living Saints like St. Francis of Assisi and St. Catherine of Siena, to name but two. They both lived as Christ and evoked "reform" without schism and anarchy...something Martin Luther didn't quite achieve. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion.
Pax Christi,
gatolover
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/6/2008 11:51:21 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1118
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
I keep asking the same thing in from different angles because your view of history is not sustainable or logical. For example, do you have a statement by the pope back then that said he wanted to "the boss of everybody"? We're just trying to figure out where you get this stuff.
Well, wasn't that the point? That the Pope decided he should be the head spiritual leader of the entirety of Christianity?
quote:
And again what kind of Christianity was there before and after this critical date of yours? Did all of those "odd" Catholic practices and doctrine just pop-up all at the same time?
They developed over time, both before and after, like most traditions do, for better or for worse.
quote:
The Church developed the hypostatic union and faught numerous groups in defense of the trinity and its definition. The filoque is a complex theological discussion and the below link can help if you can wade through it. Filioque
Sure it is, but the fact remains that the Nicene Creed was changed.
quote:
Do you even believe the Nicean creed?
Of course we do. Most Protestants are just as attached to it as you are. Last I checked my church was printing the original version of it on the back of our bulletins still under a heading titled "what we believe".
quote:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18).
Enough said...
Then do you eat pork? Shellfish? Sacrifice sheep at the Temple in Jerusalem to pay for your sins?
quote:
Since you appear to be quite familiar with the "EOC" side of the story, are you also aware of the political ploys by eastern patriarchs buddying up to the Emperor? Does that fact hold any weight in your opinion? Are you aware of all the pleas to the Bishop of Rome to settle eastern disputes? Familiar with St. Ignatius and the usurpation of his bishopric by Photius? Do you agree that was a bit shady? If so, how do you justify your defense of the "EOC?" If not, why do you appear to be defending the EOC? If you believe the "EOC" is the true ancient Faith of our fathers, why haven't you joined their ranks? Just a few puzzles I hope you solve for me.
Yes, I'm pretty familiar with all that too. I find early church history fascinating. There are plenty of shady things on both side. Take the RCC sacking of Constantinople for instance. That wasn't very nice.
I think the EOC had it right when determining that the bishops were supposed to be equal. I think that like the RCC, they developed some unfortunate traditions at times, but never got nearly as corrupt as the RCC did, probably primarily because they never got as massively involved with political machinations as the RCC. I haven't joined the EOC because, as mentioned, I think some of their traditions are somewhat Scripturally problematic, though not so much so as RCC traditions.
quote:
Actually the "Bible says" the "Spirit" would guide the Apostles to "all truth" and be with them "to the end of the age," which is when in your opinion? Scripture does not intimate that anyone centuries removed who happens to have a bible and can read will reap the promises of Christ! [Was it just a faux pas that you equated "The Bible" to the Spirit? If not, you are clearly misinterpreting John 16:13.]
No, I just thought you were referencing a different verse or two (John 17:17, 2 Tim 3:16-17). The "end of the age" would be when Jesus returns for us, and Jesus says HE will be with us always. Specifically, Jesus says in Mat 24:3-9 (NIV) As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Wait, did you just say that you believe that Jesus isn't with us anymore?
Again, it's astonishing me that the RCC can take the handing over of Mary specifically to John by Jesus to mean that Mary is the mother of us all, but refuses to take the listing of Jesus to a room full of people giving the job description of the Holy Spirit to mean that we're all guided by the Holy Spirit.
The fact that the Holy Spirit is with people other than the Apostles (or whatever direct and lone successors they choose) is extremely evident in Scripture, there is verse after verse after verse about people other than the Apostles receiving the Holy Spirit, sometimes without the Apostles even trying to give it to them (Acts 10:44-48)
quote:
FYI, the "Roman Catholic Church" resides in Rome, Italy. When the "one-stop threads" were created, the administrator decided a concession was in order by Catholic Christians that "Roman Catholic Church" and it's acronym "RCC" were acceptable in addressing the source of our beliefs, but technically, there is only the Catholic Church which is spread throughout the world.
Sure. And it's all believers.
quote:
I agree with Doghouse. Luther was not looking for reform, but made himself pope and created chaos, then vehemently chastised anyone who disagreed with his self-proclaimed doctrine of "sola scriptura." Used a lot of nasty words to describe his opponents, too...very Christ-like, no?
Hmm. Actually yes. I seem to recall Christ using words like "You generation of vipers" and "You whitewashed tombs".
Let's discuss how Christ-like the Pope's desire to burn Luther at the stake was.
quote:
Did you know him personally? It most definitely was his own fault. The Church has been "reformed" countless times by living Saints like St. Francis of Assisi and St. Catherine of Siena, to name but two. They both lived as Christ and evoked "reform" without schism and anarchy...something Martin Luther didn't quite achieve. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion.
I suppose they got in before the corruption had reached such a level that the Pope wouldn't listen to anyone at all. I guess they also didn't try to step on the Pope's pet cash stream.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/6/2008 12:17:30 PM
|
|
|
JesKlu
Posts: 544
Joined: 4/16/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
Reform is one thing, but revolution and rejection is something not found or expected in the bible.
Otis
Luther wanted to reform the Catholic Church. Actually the nailing of the 95 thesis was meant to only be read by the clergy. How it got out of hand? There was a rich man who was a book publisher, who knew Latin, and he thought "Oh, this is great!" So he translated the theses into German so the common people could understand. It was actually the book publisher who got things started, not Luther.
Good Old Martin wanted to reform the Church, he did not want to leave, (unlike other reformers). He had a forced excommunication, and he just went through with it. The Catholic Church was absolutely oposed to reform. They were very corrupt. And the reforms of St Francis of Assisi were very short lived and the Church just got worse.
And the Lutherans still retain the Sacraments, but only the 2 instituted by Jesus, Baptism and Communion. We call those Sacraments. We believe in baptismal regeneration and that the Lord's Supper is truly Christ's body and blood, just not in the way the Roman Catholics interpret it. We're probably closer to the Eastern Orthodox interpretation of the Lord's Supper.
And another thing, Luther held in very high esteem the Eastern Orthodox.
We are actually thinking about adding Confession to the list, which would automatically add the Annointing of the Sick, so there's 4 right there. But the Lutheran Church is still thinking about that. We would not add Matrimony though, because it was not something specifically instituted in the New Testament, (even though it was ordained and blessed by God in paradise), it is not enough to call it a Sacrament.
So actually, compared to other protestants, we did not reject everything Catholic. We rejected only the stuff that has no basis in Scripture. Indulgences, purgatory, praying to the Saints and Mary, and the pope being the head of all Christendom.
And a lot of times we call ourselves Evangelical Catholics, because protestant these days is too broad a term for us to use. We are Catholic because of the historical creeds, worship and sacramentalism, and we are Evangelical in our trust in the good news of Christ, that in His cross He has saved us by sheer grace for a life of Christian freedom.
JW's and oneness pentecostals are not protestant, they are fully heretical sects who do not profess orthodox Christianity. The Jehovah's Witnesses are part of the Arian heresy, and the oneness pentecostals follow the Modalist heresy.
I hope this helps. And we shouldn't be talking bad about Martin Luther, he had good intentions and did not want to leave the Catholic Church, they kicked him out. But he did not have a bad attitude towards everything Catholic.
Your sister in Christ Jesus,
Jessica
_____________________________
And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/6/2008 12:36:44 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 428
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well, wasn't that the point? That the Pope decided he should be the head spiritual leader of the entirety of Christianity?
Zhi,
Be saying "decided" you are implying that some pope all of a sudden just declared this and the schism was off to the races. I believe he is and have posted statements that support that starting with Clement (and the bible of course). I'm just asking for some facts that you base your opinion on.
quote:
They developed over time, both before and after, like most traditions do, for better or for worse.
At least you think there are "better"/good traditions. But once again, is there proof that at one time lets say the Church only had 3 sacraments or didn't believe what the eucharist really meant? Did they stop having a priesthood for a while? We would say the core has remained the same from the beginning and to boot both before and after said schism you will not distinctive protestant beliefs until that monk Luther shows up.
quote:
I think the EOC had it right when determining that the bishops were supposed to be equal.
OK, now think about it...if all bishops are supposed to have perfectly equal authority how are disputes supposed to be resolved? Well what you see in EOC is that they haven't had any councils to decide anything and numerous times the bishops become tools of the ruling government. Russian Orth, Greek, etc., even the names imply it.
quote:
Let's discuss how Christ-like the Pope's desire to burn Luther at the stake was.
Where do you get this stuff...seriously.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/6/2008 1:15:18 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1118
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
Be saying "decided" you are implying that some pope all of a sudden just declared this and the schism was off to the races. I believe he is and have posted statements that support that starting with Clement (and the bible of course). I'm just asking for some facts that you base your opinion on.
Well, for one thing, there wouldn't have been a schism if this had been accepted all along. So the fact that there was an East-West schism over it, indicates that this was not the sole line of thought on the matter. I've quoted church fathers as well.
quote:
At least you think there are "better"/good traditions. But once again, is there proof that at one time lets say the Church only had 3 sacraments or didn't believe what the eucharist really meant? Did they stop having a priesthood for a while? We would say the core has remained the same from the beginning and to boot both before and after said schism you will not distinctive protestant beliefs until that monk Luther shows up.
Well, we go back to Scripture again. If it's NOT IN SCRIPTURE, then it WASN'T ALWAYS THE DOCTRINE. Obviously.
quote:
OK, now think about it...if all bishops are supposed to have perfectly equal authority how are disputes supposed to be resolved? Well what you see in EOC is that they haven't had any councils to decide anything and numerous times the bishops become tools of the ruling government. Russian Orth, Greek, etc., even the names imply it.
Well, I would assume by ecumenical council, which is the way that it was done prior to the schism.
I would also point out that the RCC is historically demonstrated as hardly immune to being "tools of the ruling government". If anything, the RCC was somewhat easier to use as a tool due to the fact that you only had to convince (or bribe) one person.
quote:
Where do you get this stuff...seriously.
Oh, I dunno. History? Shall I really repost the list of papal barbecues? A burning at the stake generally WAS the end result of a heresy process like the one Pope Leo launched in 1518, correct? Good thing they couldn't get to him.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/7/2008 10:42:22 AM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 462
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello family and friends!
What are shepherds and overseers of our souls?
1 Peter 2:25
Submission to Authority
25For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
Overseer of your souls are...
Acts 20:28
28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Philippians 1
1Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,
To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons:
1 Timothy 3
Overseers and Deacons
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task.
1 Timothy 3:2-3
Overseers and Deacons
2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
Titus 1:7
Qualifications for Elders
7Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.
1 Peter 5:1-3
Shepherd the Flock of God
1So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.
3not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.
1 Peter 5:4
Shepherd the Flock of God
4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
4And when the Chief Shepherd appears (Lord Jesus Christ) Shepherd One
1 Peter 5:5
5Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."
"God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."
Matthew 5:7
The Beatitudes
7"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Peter
< Message edited by PeterD -- 8/7/2008 10:54:03 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/8/2008 2:15:52 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5487
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
I've quoted church fathers as well.
Zhi,
I'm not surprised. The more I read the church fathers, the more I agree with the conclusion that the papacy was the deviation, and that the Reformation was the restoration.
For example, I see comments from the other side like this one:
quote:
I keep asking the same thing in from different angles because your view of history is not sustainable or logical.
but in fact I keep seeing historical investigation turn up the fact that the papacy was a development. In fact, around 1054 (after losing the battle for control over the eastern sees) and within a few decades after that, as the popes butted heads with the "Holy Roman" Emporers was really a time of development for the papacy as the popes gained both secular and ecclesiastical authority they didn't have before.
-Turretinfan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/9/2008 8:45:28 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 920
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
The more I read the church fathers,... Well...at least you are reading them. That's a start down the road to illumination.
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/9/2008 10:59:28 AM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2210
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Well, wasn't that the point? That the Pope decided he should be the head spiritual leader of the entirety of Christianity?
We know Jesus gave a job to Peter.
He fulfilled that mission. The End.
Jesus spoke clearly to Peter ALONE.
Jesus did not start a NEW church.
God revealed Himself to The Jews, and
tabernacled amongst The Jewish people.
God's outreach to man begins with Jews.
Jesus is a Jew. Not a Catholic or Lutheran.
Why some insist on closing the door on
The Jews and suddenly manufacturing a
new denomination that is not ordained by
God is both confusing and perilous.
Jesus as a Jew fulfilled The Law.
The Fathers are all Jewish.
The promises were all made to Israel.
We are given eternal life, by the grace
of God, a gift from God, redeemed by
The Blood of The Lamb, Jesus The Jew.
If anything, the pope should be Jewish !!!
_____________________________
"WHOSOEVER"are the elect-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/11/2008 5:04:39 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3653
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Well, wasn't that the point? That the Pope decided he should be the head spiritual leader of the entirety of Christianity?
We know Jesus gave a job to Peter.
He fulfilled that mission. The End.
Jesus spoke clearly to Peter ALONE.
Jesus did not start a NEW church.
God revealed Himself to The Jews, and
tabernacled amongst The Jewish people.
God's outreach to man begins with Jews.
Jesus is a Jew. Not a Catholic or Lutheran.
Why some insist on closing the door on
The Jews and suddenly manufacturing a
new denomination that is not ordained by
God is both confusing and perilous.
Jesus as a Jew fulfilled The Law.
The Fathers are all Jewish.
The promises were all made to Israel.
We are given eternal life, by the grace
of God, a gift from God, redeemed by
The Blood of The Lamb, Jesus The Jew.
If anything, the pope should be Jewish !!!
There's much truth to the fact that Christ did not "start" a new church.
Christ was sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. Jesus and the Apostles taught in the Temple and the synagogues. They were throw-out of them by the hierarchy of the Temple - just as Luther and the Reformers were thrown out of the then church.
God calls Israel the "church in the wilderness". We see this in Acts 7:38, although, there are many other passages as well.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/11/2008 5:58:02 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 1859
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
Yeap, i think K is right. If I may venture a guess, dearest Kate – i am not absolutely sure, but br. Manna probably meant the view of Church,Bride of Christ as one consisting of all believers, from the OT and NT; per Protestant view, that our beloved and highly respected Catholic brethren dismiss.
Unless I am mistaken about what he meant.
But he rocks.  Manna, my heart, you rule! That’s what I was also thinking, ab. practical idea of Jewish Pope. Who else can be a better liaison between God and Catholic People,Catholic People and Protestant People, God and world leaders and other idiots etc. As any spokesperson, agent or strategist, shadken -is ther even a word for this in English? matchmaker -no better one has ever been invented then a Jew.
Like Ari Fleischer to G Bush- is that an Aaron to tongue-tied Moses or what. Where would that cute Obama kiddo be without Dave Axelrod?
Kelman, are you with us? We got your vote, I presume?
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/11/2008 6:07:01 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 1859
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
The more I read the church fathers,... Well...at least you are reading them. That's a start down the road to illumination.
As much as i like annoying Dog - its more fun then agreeing with him, i ought to say Amen, reading (and r. about) Church Fathers and Mothers and other lives of the saints is indeed incredibly enlightening. Even some Popes, as much as i like to criticize that bunch - were absolutely amazing people of faith.
( i am confident that TF doesnt need a reminder - he is most well-read person when it comes to old time theologians then anyone i ever talked to)
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/12/2008 12:51:27 AM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11610
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
As off topic as it is, I beg to differ.
The church began at Pentecost.
And, the oft-repeated verse in this thread gives proof that Jesus *did* start a new church : You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church.
I do not see how anyone can argue otherwise, but if one feels so inclined, please start a new thread.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/12/2008 8:12:17 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5487
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
While I agree with Mannamuncher, I recognize that I'll have to argue that someplace else.
As for Doghouse's comment, I would disagree. The road to illumination is found in reading the Bible and praying to God for the Holy Spirit, which is exactly why we don't need a supposedly infallible pope.
Nevertheless, the church fathers are of interest for a number of reasons - especially for historical reasons. They are particularly of interest on a topic such as this one, because they rebut the claim of Vatican I that their doctrine was: "... as it has always been understood by the catholic church ... ."
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/12/2008 5:07:20 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3653
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
Yeap, i think K is right. If I may venture a guess, dearest Kate – i am not absolutely sure, but br. Manna probably meant the view of Church,Bride of Christ as one consisting of all believers, from the OT and NT; per Protestant view, that our beloved and highly respected Catholic brethren dismiss.
Unless I am mistaken about what he meant.
But he rocks. Manna, my heart, you rule! That’s what I was also thinking, ab. practical idea of Jewish Pope. Who else can be a better liaison between God and Catholic People,Catholic People and Protestant People, God and world leaders and other idiots etc. As any spokesperson, agent or strategist, shadken -is ther even a word for this in English? matchmaker -no better one has ever been invented then a Jew.
Like Ari Fleischer to G Bush- is that an Aaron to tongue-tied Moses or what. Where would that cute Obama kiddo be without Dave Axelrod?
Kelman, are you with us? We got your vote, I presume?
It's very possible that's what Manna meant, perhaps he'll let us know.
But, in any event, you are absolutely correct. It is the invisible eternal church Christ speaks of when He says "the gates of hell shall not prevail" not local congregations headed by popes and ministers. We know Christ is not speaking of local congregations for a few reasons.
First, there comes a time when the local church is judged by God and found very wanting. Second, Christ teaches the local church is comprised of both wheat and tares. Third, we see just fifty years from Pentecost that Christ permitted Satan to indeed prevail over the local congregations.
It is always Christ - for it is He who has the Key to "open or shut" - never any human entity.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/15/2008 6:49:04 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 920
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
which is exactly why we don't need a supposedly infallible pope. Can faith and its practice be infallibly discerned and defined? Or not?
If it can't, are we just supposed to try to find the best fallible version of faith we can, and practice that?
If faith can be infallibly defined, who is the authority doing the "defining"?
I'll start by saying that obviously, Jesus deposited the Faith infallibly with the Apostles. And I think everybody believes that the Apostles that chose to write some of this stuff down did so infallibly in Koine Greek.
The problem is - I don't sp | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
