U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-05-2010, 01:54 PM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,342,592 times
Reputation: 330

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shyspider View Post
Juj -

Do you believe the Orthodox have validly ordained bishops? The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that they do indeed. How then does it matter whether the Roman Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, is the true church?

Also, if Peter was the head of the church, why did James preside over the Jerusalem council? And why would Paul dare rebuke Peter to his face?
Yes and no. It is agreed that they are in communion because of the apostolic succession. The orthodox church's can claim lineage back to an Apostle. But that apostle was not the head Apostle who was Peter. My feelings are if all things are equal, then why would I go with one of the orthodox churches since I know the Rome based church to be the lead church set by Jesus. In addition, what orthodox church should I follow? There is no ONE Orthodox Church. Since they are separate, I have to assume the orthodox churches disagree on key items.

As far as Paul rebuking Peter. All the apostles had a say, but Peter was the final word. Paul made a cogent argument and Peter agreed. Nothing wrong with that. King Arthur listened to his knights and the President of the United States listens to his advisors. The King was still the King, and the President is still the President. Peter, as such, was still the Jesus appointed leader of the Christian world despite Paul disagreeing with him.

St. Peter, not St. James, presided at the Council of Jerusalem. The question at issue was whether the Gentiles were bound to obey the Mosaic law. Paul, Barnabas, James and the rest were present as teachers and judges, . . . but Peter was their head, and the supreme arbiter of the controversy . . .

St. Peter spoke first and decided the matter unhesitatingly [Acts 15:7-11], declaring that the Gentile converts were not bound by the Mosaic law. He claimed to exercise authority in the name of his special election by God to receive the Gentiles (Acts 15:7), and he severely rebuked those who held the opposite view (Acts 15:10). After he had spoken `all the multitude held their peace' (Acts 15:12) [immediately before Peter spoke, there had been "much disputing" - v.7]. Those who spoke after him merely confirmed his decision . . . James gave no special decision on the question . . . Moreover the decree is attributed to the Council of Apostles and Presbyters . . . (Acts 16:4), and not to James personally.

St. James, as local Bishop of Jerusalem, would naturally have a prominent position at the meeting, since it took place in Jerusalem. But there can be no doubt about his deference to the ecumenical position of St. Peter as chief of the Apostles [e.g., he starts by saying 'Simeon {Peter} hath declared . . .'].
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2010, 02:23 PM
 
1,883 posts, read 2,571,395 times
Reputation: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj View Post
There is no ONE Orthodox Church. Since they are separate, I have to assume the orthodox churches disagree on key items.
Not quite true.There is no one Orthodox Church that is for all the world,but there are not doctrinal disagreements between them.There are many different Orthodox churches because they chose to stay with the model of the apostles and the original churches and have what amounts to national churches,whereas the Roman church went away from the early apostolic model and decreed that all western church should maintain allegiance to Rome.In the future,as other Orthodox churches such as the Church of Finland reach the level to be considered an autocepalous church the number of Orthodox Churches will increase.They differ from Rome in that they do not try to retain all the power for themselves.

From Orthodoxwiki

The Eastern Orthodox Churches of today consist of a family of fourteen or fifteen autocephalous churches and five autonomous churches, sometimes referred to as jurisdictions. The number of autocephalous churches has varied in history. Autocephalous churches are fully self-governing in all they do, while autonomous churches must have their primates confirmed by one of the autocephalous churches, usually its mother church. All the Orthodox churches remain in full communion with one another, sharing the same faith and praxis. There have been occasional breaks in communion due to various problems throughout history, but they generally remain brief and not developing into full schism. It is hoped that the Great Schism, with the Church of Rome, will someday be mended too.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople is also the Ecumenical Patriarchate and has the status of "first among equals" among the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Church is not a centralized organization headed by a pontiff, but an organic community guided by the Holy Spirit in the world. The unity of the Church is visible in, and held together with, common faith and communion in the sacraments. No one but Christ himself is the real head of the Orthodox Church.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2010, 04:02 PM
 
621 posts, read 1,058,211 times
Reputation: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj View Post
Yes and no. It is agreed that they are in communion because of the apostolic succession. The orthodox church's can claim lineage back to an Apostle. But that apostle was not the head Apostle who was Peter. My feelings are if all things are equal, then why would I go with one of the orthodox churches since I know the Rome based church to be the lead church set by Jesus. In addition, what orthodox church should I follow? There is no ONE Orthodox Church. Since they are separate, I have to assume the orthodox churches disagree on key items.

As far as Paul rebuking Peter. All the apostles had a say, but Peter was the final word. Paul made a cogent argument and Peter agreed. Nothing wrong with that. King Arthur listened to his knights and the President of the United States listens to his advisors. The King was still the King, and the President is still the President. Peter, as such, was still the Jesus appointed leader of the Christian world despite Paul disagreeing with him.

St. Peter, not St. James, presided at the Council of Jerusalem. The question at issue was whether the Gentiles were bound to obey the Mosaic law. Paul, Barnabas, James and the rest were present as teachers and judges, . . . but Peter was their head, and the supreme arbiter of the controversy . . .

St. Peter spoke first and decided the matter unhesitatingly [Acts 15:7-11], declaring that the Gentile converts were not bound by the Mosaic law. He claimed to exercise authority in the name of his special election by God to receive the Gentiles (Acts 15:7), and he severely rebuked those who held the opposite view (Acts 15:10). After he had spoken `all the multitude held their peace' (Acts 15:12) [immediately before Peter spoke, there had been "much disputing" - v.7]. Those who spoke after him merely confirmed his decision . . . James gave no special decision on the question . . . Moreover the decree is attributed to the Council of Apostles and Presbyters . . . (Acts 16:4), and not to James personally.

St. James, as local Bishop of Jerusalem, would naturally have a prominent position at the meeting, since it took place in Jerusalem. But there can be no doubt about his deference to the ecumenical position of St. Peter as chief of the Apostles [e.g., he starts by saying 'Simeon {Peter} hath declared . . .'].
Okay, I obviously don't know your sources, but I'd heard that James presided over the Jerusalem council...which just reinforces the point that the debate about which church left the other is not easily resolved, since there are obviously conflicting accounts about these matters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2010, 06:48 AM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,342,592 times
Reputation: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan View Post
Not quite true.There is no one Orthodox Church that is for all the world,but there are not doctrinal disagreements between them.There are many different Orthodox churches because they chose to stay with the model of the apostles and the original churches and have what amounts to national churches,whereas the Roman church went away from the early apostolic model and decreed that all western church should maintain allegiance to Rome.In the future,as other Orthodox churches such as the Church of Finland reach the level to be considered an autocepalous church the number of Orthodox Churches will increase.They differ from Rome in that they do not try to retain all the power for themselves.

From Orthodoxwiki

The Eastern Orthodox Churches of today consist of a family of fourteen or fifteen autocephalous churches and five autonomous churches, sometimes referred to as jurisdictions. The number of autocephalous churches has varied in history. Autocephalous churches are fully self-governing in all they do, while autonomous churches must have their primates confirmed by one of the autocephalous churches, usually its mother church. All the Orthodox churches remain in full communion with one another, sharing the same faith and praxis. There have been occasional breaks in communion due to various problems throughout history, but they generally remain brief and not developing into full schism. It is hoped that the Great Schism, with the Church of Rome, will someday be mended too.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople is also the Ecumenical Patriarchate and has the status of "first among equals" among the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Church is not a centralized organization headed by a pontiff, but an organic community guided by the Holy Spirit in the world. The unity of the Church is visible in, and held together with, common faith and communion in the sacraments. No one but Christ himself is the real head of the Orthodox Church.
Without looking it up, I believe "autonomous" means separate and self-governing. The protestant churches claim to be together on the essentials but don't even agree on something as important as justification.

While the statements in bold sound great, the orthodox churches still are run separately and therefore, admittedly, disagree on key items. There is obviously much in common between the churches due to the very ancient common ancientry, but does anything stay lock-step after being separated for over a thousand years that have people and the associated politics involved?

A body without a head kind of flops around. Kinda like chickens. Jesus is the ultimate head of the Catholic Church too, but that doesn't stop men from screwing things up. Having a visible head of the church is not a bad thing. You need someone with Authority to keep things on the path. Anytime the Catholic Church got involved in politics, it rarely ended well. Religion should stick to religion. The schism was more to do with politics. I have nothing against the orthodox churches, but again, I believe it is best to stay with the originally appointed head. The orthodox churches and the protestant churches, for that matter, by their mere existence implies that they lost faith in what Jesus said in Matthew 16 about the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church. Of course you believe you are the original church. The truth is, you were part of the original Church. But then you made a left hand turn about a 1000 years ago.

I am sure you have great faith and appreciate your church. That's great. I appreciate mine, too. May the peace of Christ be you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2010, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Seward, Alaska
2,739 posts, read 7,889,862 times
Reputation: 1985
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj View Post
You are reading your Bible with the wrong set of glasses. That is why it is unclear for you. Try the original pair. There was no debate in the early Church who Jesus made the head of Church. Of course protestants can not possible concede that Peter was the Jesus appointed head of His Church because then the whole basis of protestantism would crumble. And orthodoxy for that matter.

All protestant inventive explanations of who the rock was in Matthew 16 has failed the test of time and reason. Jesus not only called Simon the rock, he changed his name to Rock. Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16. Just let it sink in. It's okay.

Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church. The Pope is running things down here.
Let a falacy sink in?
Simon's name was changed from "rock" to "ROCK", eh?
You didn't read the link I supplied, did you?
Yes, Jesus is the head of the Catholic church. And He is also the head of the Protestant churches, and the orthodox churches, and the non-denominational churches as well! He is the head of all!
The only thing the pope is running down here is the RCC, a man-made institution. Yes, Peter was the rock, but not THE ROCK. Jesus was referring to HIMSELF as the ROCK. (and not a re-naming of Peter to "ROCK", as you claim) The Church was built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ, and not upon any mortal man. Peter was an apostle, but I don't believe for a second that he was ever a "pope", nor had anything whatsoever to do with the establishment of the RCC.

I think your mind is "made up", and you'll refuse to accept any facts that might change your current view of the church. I will pray for you, to have your spiritual eyes opened. Have a nice day!

Bud
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2010, 08:02 PM
 
40,492 posts, read 27,031,235 times
Reputation: 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by BudinAk View Post
Let a fallacy sink in?
Simon's name was changed from "rock" to "ROCK", eh?
You didn't read the link I supplied, did you?
Yes, Jesus is the head of the Catholic church. And He is also the head of the Protestant churches, and the orthodox churches, and the non-denominational churches as well! He is the head of all!
The only thing the pope is running down here is the RCC, a man-made institution. Yes, Peter was the rock, but not THE ROCK. Jesus was referring to HIMSELF as the ROCK. (and not a re-naming of Peter to "ROCK", as you claim) The Church was built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ, and not upon any mortal man. Peter was an apostle, but I don't believe for a second that he was ever a "pope", nor had anything whatsoever to do with the establishment of the RCC.

I think your mind is "made up", and you'll refuse to accept any facts that might change your current view of the church. I will pray for you, to have your spiritual eyes opened. Have a nice day!

Bud
::sigh:: It is hopeless, Bud. There is not supposed to be ANYONE in charge. Hierarchy was specifically denied by Jesus. Ironically . . . the very example Jesus uses to solidify their understanding of this mandated equality of status is used as the basis for the ceremony that installs the Pope!?!?!?

The prohibition:

Matthew 23:8-12 (King James Version)

8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

The Example:

John 13:12-17 (King James Version)

12So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
13Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
14If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
15For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
16Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

And they have no excuse, especially since they claim Apostleship:

John 14:26 (King James Version)

26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2010, 08:31 PM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,342,592 times
Reputation: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by BudinAk View Post
Let a falacy sink in?
Simon's name was changed from "rock" to "ROCK", eh?
You didn't read the link I supplied, did you?
Yes, Jesus is the head of the Catholic church. And He is also the head of the Protestant churches, and the orthodox churches, and the non-denominational churches as well! He is the head of all!
The only thing the pope is running down here is the RCC, a man-made institution. Yes, Peter was the rock, but not THE ROCK. Jesus was referring to HIMSELF as the ROCK. (and not a re-naming of Peter to "ROCK", as you claim) The Church was built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ, and not upon any mortal man. Peter was an apostle, but I don't believe for a second that he was ever a "pope", nor had anything whatsoever to do with the establishment of the RCC.

I think your mind is "made up", and you'll refuse to accept any facts that might change your current view of the church. I will pray for you, to have your spiritual eyes opened. Have a nice day!

Bud
Your belief about Peter not being the rock on which Christ's Church was built is false and unorthodox, but clearly protestant. I don't need to read it. I have all the same baloney about God is the rock, Jesus is the rock, or my favorite, Peter was a little pebble, not a big rock. All proven false and not even believed to be true for 1500+ years. It is a free country, thank God, so believe what you will but know that your belief never crossed a Christian mind for three-quarters of the time Christians roamed the earth.

For truth, consult:
Peter the Rock
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2010, 08:44 PM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,342,592 times
Reputation: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
::sigh:: It is hopeless, Bud. There is not supposed to be ANYONE in charge. Hierarchy was specifically denied by Jesus. Ironically . . . the very example Jesus uses to solidify their understanding of this mandated equality of status is used as the basis for the ceremony that installs the Pope!?!?!?

The prohibition:

Matthew 23:8-12 (King James Version)

8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

The Example:

John 13:12-17 (King James Version)

12So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
13Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
14If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
15For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
16Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

And they have no excuse, especially since they claim Apostleship:

John 14:26 (King James Version)

26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Maybe in Matthew, Jesus said, you 33,0000 or so guys, start spreading my Gospel everywhere and tell them anything you like as long as you can proof text your belief with a line out of scripture. Heck, you good folks don't even have to agree on how you get to heaven. Oh and by the way, the new part of the scripture that you guys should follow won't even start to be written for decades and won't even be put in the same book for almost 400 years. Oh, and that Bible will be created by a rogue Church that calls themselves Catholic. But don't listen to a word that they say, but by all means, totally agree with what's in that book that they assembled. In fact, make that rogue, twisted Church's book your only source for Truth. Yea, now go forth and and spread my Word, uh Words, well your Words, oh, you know what I mean.

Yep, I certainly understand why protestantism makes perfect sense to you.

Last edited by juj; 07-06-2010 at 09:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2010, 09:12 PM
 
1,883 posts, read 2,571,395 times
Reputation: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj View Post
Your belief about Peter not being the rock on which Christ's Church was built is false and unorthodox, but clearly protestant. I don't need to read it. I have all the same baloney about God is the rock, Jesus is the rock, or my favorite, Peter was a little pebble, not a big rock. All proven false and not even believed to be true for 1500+ years. It is a free country, thank God, so believe what you will but know that your belief never crossed a Christian mind for three-quarters of the time Christians roamed the earth.

For truth, consult:
Peter the Rock
Untrue.None of the churches except Rome accepted the papacy,from the beginning of the church.The only people who believed in the papacy for 1500 years was the Roman church,not any of the others.Large numbers to be sure,but by no means all of Christianity up until Martin Luther.In fact,the other churches overruled Rome on occasion.It was the Roman church who proclaimed that there was no forgiveness for certain sins after baptism.They did so unilaterally and without consulting the other churches,and the others overruled Rome and pronounced neverending forgiveness for Christians.Imagine how different the church would be today of Rome had not been corrected in this error.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2010, 09:17 PM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,342,592 times
Reputation: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan View Post
Untrue.None of the churches except Rome accepted the papacy,from the beginning of the church.The only people who believed in the papacy for 1500 years was the Roman church,not any of the others.Large numbers to be sure,but by no means all of Christianity up until Martin Luther.In fact,the other churches overruled Rome on occasion.It was the Roman church who proclaimed that there was no forgiveness for certain sins after baptism.They did so unilaterally and without consulting the other churches,and the others overruled Rome and pronounced neverending forgiveness for Christians.Imagine how different the church would be today of Rome had not been corrected in this error.
Jesus not only accepted it, he started it. Peace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:41 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top