Can Christianity survive without the Pope?

[razeontherock]

This was the part I was considering.
(But we all have our own opinions and choices to make.
God bless you!)
and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
But so shall it not be among you:

Yes Rhamiel, this is the most valid part of all history: the Lord was talking to the Apostles, how they (and we) should act. Which is why the power-grab of the Pope is so heinous that the EO would rather be under Muslim rule than the pope's. And why Rome sticking to those same doctrinal errors forced the Pr split as well. I have to wonder why they didn't consider EO to be an option at the time?

 

[Secundulus]

Yes Rhamiel, this is the most valid part of all history: the Lord was talking to the Apostles, how they (and we) should act. Which is why the power-grab of the Pope is so heinous that the EO would rather be under Muslim rule than the pope's. And why Rome sticking to those same doctrinal errors forced the Pr split as well. I have to wonder why they didn't consider EO to be an option at the time?

The EO Bishops reunited with Rome. Their authority was usurped by rebellion. Rebellion was followed by 500 years of Muslim rule. Korah redux.

 

[Montalban]

The EO Bishops reunited with Rome. Their authority was usurped by rebellion. Rebellion was followed by 500 years of Muslim rule.

No. Some EO bishops signed up. The church as a whole NEVER re-united.

And people were so impressed with Catholicism that within a hundred years the RCC lost half of their hold of Europe.

And despite years of Islam and Communism we're still here professing the same truth - not a truth that 'progresses' with the times.

 

[Montalban]

xenophobia
that was the main reason that the common man in greece did not want reunion with rome at the time of the council

What evidence do you have for this?

 

[Rhamiel]

No. Some EO bishops signed up. The church as a whole NEVER re-united.

And people were so impressed with Catholicism that within a hundred years the RCC lost half of their hold of Europe.

And despite years of Islam and Communism we're still here professing the same truth - not a truth that 'progresses' with the times.

the EO has gone through a lot of "progress" it just moved a lot slower because of cultural stagnation that happened under muslim and communist rule

What evidence do you have for this?

the fear of everything western even after the Bishops worked out the theological problems
the Eastern Rite Churches are small but have no problem with being in union with the Latin Church

 

[Montalban]

the EO has gone through a lot of "progress" it just moved a lot slower because of cultural stagnation that happened under muslim and communist rule

It's a common mythconception based on a complete lack of knowledge of history and geography - given for instance that Russia wasn't under Muslim rule that Orthodoxy is 'stagnant'. However 'activity' does not equate to doctrinal development, like in Catholicism.

This book
Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289) deals with ongoing discussion of matters of faith.

1672 saw a Synod in Jerusalem to discuss Protestantism - very vigourous and alive Orthodoxy after the schism! But Catholics prefer to fantasise about history - how we withered after 1056

the fear of everything western even after the Bishops worked out the theological problems
the Eastern Rite Churches are small but have no problem with being in union with the Latin Church

So your evidence that they were xenophobic is based on you re-stating it?

 

[Elife3]

I don't see why a pope was necessary in the first place to be honest. I mean, Christianity was going on for a few centuries until Catholicism started. Also, I don't remember any popes in scripture.

 

[Montalban]

I don't see why a pope was necessary in the first place to be honest. I mean, Christianity was going on for a few centuries until Catholicism started. Also, I don't remember any popes in scripture.

Jesus appointed 12. One of these 12 is Peter. Peter was entrusted to go out and found churches. He'd go to a city, start the church up and appoint people to guide and look after the church in that city. He founded a church in Antioch. He went to Rome and with Paul preached there founding the church in Rome.

The first 'pope' is the person chosen by them to guide that church.

The basis for the head of a church - a bishop - is founded in that way the early church worked.

Our church (the Orthodox) still continues in that manner. The RCC however had one bishop gaining power over other bishops which is not how the churches were set up.

 

[Philothei]

The EO Bishops reunited with Rome. Their authority was usurped by rebellion. Rebellion was followed by 500 years of Muslim rule. Korah redux.

This version is interesting ...yet not true. Just because an Emperor made a mistake does not mean the EO were ready for giving into Papacy. NOT all Bishops 'gave in" to this thus never recognized the 'false union'. Are you implying EO were punished for 400 years under the Turkish yoke?

 

[Philothei]

Yes Rhamiel, this is the most valid part of all history: the Lord was talking to the Apostles, how they (and we) should act. Which is why the power-grab of the Pope is so heinous that the EO would rather be under Muslim rule than the pope's. And why Rome sticking to those same doctrinal errors forced the Pr split as well. I have to wonder why they didn't consider EO to be an option at the time?

I think Luther was aware of the EO and their theology... Just a matter of getting 'together" though and there was not a possbility. I think the language indimidated him; although he had a good commant of the Hellenistic language....That is what I heard at least.:o

 

[Montalban]

Are you implying EO were punished for 400 years under the Turkish yoke?

It's a doggy test for truth. I can (and did) suggest that one can use the same means to show that Catholicism broke apart not long after, with all of northern Europe leaving their church

 

[prodromos]

you missrepresent the council, it was not "utter surrender", it lasted about seven years and a lot of issues were talked out
oh and the fact that at the time the monastic orders of the EO would rather be under islamic rulers then to go back into union with Rome... well that speaks to the spirit of pride and racism agianst the west that was alive in the EO monestaries at the time

It is you who misrepresents. The bishops, priests and monks who were not present at the council preferred to hold fast to the Orthodox faith which they had received from their fathers rather than accept the errors of the Latins. This is not racism but holding fast to Tradition.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It is you who misrepresents. The bishops, priests and monks who were not present at the council preferred to hold fast to the Orthodox faith which they had received from their fathers rather than accept the errors of the Latins. This is not racism but holding fast to Tradition.

Yes, it is Tradition which yet divides Christendom. Sadly, the Catholic Church continues to evolve its own Tradition.

 

[Montalban]

Yes, it is Tradition which yet divides Christendom. Sadly, the Catholic Church continues to evolve its own Tradition.

Western churches were already heading away from Christ's church long before the formal split.

I've yet to see a decent argument from evidence for Catholicism. Most I meet simply prefer to cite quote-mines at me.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, it is Tradition which yet divides Christendom. Sadly, the Catholic Church continues to evolve its own Tradition.

Which reminds me of this ole thread

http://www.christianforums.com/t7339906-77/#post50567127
How can RCs and Protestants reconcile

 

[Montalban]

An old thread you've not revived?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Western churches were already heading away from Christ's church long before the formal split.

I've yet to see a decent argument from evidence for Catholicism. Most I meet simply prefer to cite quote-mines at me.

I have also yet to see a decent argument from evidence for Catholicism despite having been surrounded much of my life by Catholics.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

An old thread you've not revived?

Tis not for lack of trying

http://www.christianforums.com/t7339906/#post50571379
11th February 2009, 02:39 PM

Mod Hat On
​

Thread closed until 2/18.​

 

[Montalban]

I have also yet to see a decent argument from evidence for Catholicism despite having been surrounded much of my life by Catholics.

When I was moving from Catholicsm to Orthodoxy four different Catholic friends gave me the same quote-mined information.

It actually put a brake on my move to Orthodoxy as prima facie the RCC seemed to have a case.

I went investigating the quotes and was thoroughly dissappointed with the actual lack of honesty in the quotes. It made me think too that if a church has to rely on falsehoods that it can't have much going for it.

I already knew of the Donation of Constantine which the RCC used well after they knew it was a fake.

 

[boswd]

I have also yet to see a decent argument from evidence for Catholicism despite having been surrounded much of my life by Catholics.

I always kind of crack a giggle when I see these Evangelica'sl attempting to embrace Othrodox members in this " Yeah Yeah we may not agree on everything but we both can't stand the Catholic Church and we bond together in our mutal dislike of the Catholic Church" You know the old saying " an enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine" type of mind set.

yet most if not all Ortodox think Evangelicals have fallen further down the heretical rabbit hole and are worse than the Catholics with their Sola Scriputura, utter lack of respect for Mary, symbolic only view of the Euchaist and Baptism etc. persoanl interpretation of scripture, Faith Alone, on and on.

always makes me giggle.