Can Christianity survive without the Pope?

[boswd]

I personally love the "Peter is more important because of the number of times he's mentioned" argument

I personally think Peter was more like a President of a City Council. All the of the council members are equal but you have the President to be the voice and to sort of hold everyone to the same page.

would you say that would be in line with E. Orthodox views on Peter?

Orthowiki says Peter was the leader of the Apostles.

 

[Montalban]

I personally think Peter was more like a President of a City Council. All the of the council members are equal but you have the President to be the voice and to sort of hold everyone to the same page.

would you say that would be in line with E. Orthodox views on Peter?

Orthowiki says Peter was the leader of the Apostles.

There's different ideas of 'leadership' though. I think a great many are confused because of their coming from a presidential system where the President is not just leader, but head of state, and head of government.

I prefer to think of Peter in much the same way as the Queen is the head of the Commonwealth. She's the visible source of unity and tradition, but she doesn't have de jure headship over some nation-members which are in fact republics, such as India, or Pakistan.... though in her own right she is de jure leader of a limited area.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There's different ideas of 'leadership' though. I think a great many are confused because of their coming from a presidential system where the President is not just leader, but head of state, and head of government.

I prefer to think of Peter in much the same way as the Queen is the head of the Commonwealth. She's the visible source of unity and tradition, but she doesn't have de jure headship over some nation-members which are in fact republics, such as India, or Pakistan.... though in her own right she is de jure leader of a limited area.

LLOJ once again heads 4 the wiki

De jure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

De jure (in Classical Latin de iure) is an expression that means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact".
The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of "in principle" and "in practice", respectively, when one is describing political or legal situations.
In a legal context, de jure is also translated as "concerning law". A practice may exist de facto, where for example the people obey a contract as though there were a law enforcing it, yet there is no such law. A process known as "desuetude" may allow de facto practices to replace obsolete laws. On the other hand, practices may exist de jure and not be obeyed or observed by the people.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I personally think Peter was more like a President of a City Council. All the of the council members are equal but you have the President to be the voice and to sort of hold everyone to the same page.

would you say that would be in line with E. Orthodox views on Peter?

Orthowiki says Peter was the leader of the Apostles.

The way it looks, that is strictly more of a RC view, but not really sure

 

[Etsi]

Hating Rome trumps all.

EO doesn't "hate Rome"...just view Rome as a slightly wayward brother that stomped off when he didn't get his own way.

 

[razeontherock]

You mean like this?

"like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept." (Luke 7:32)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Secundulus Hating Rome trumps all.

EO doesn't "hate Rome"...just view Rome as a slightly wayward brother that stomped off when he didn't get his own way.

Tis a more gentle way of putting it

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Tis a more gentle way of putting it

What is this thread about again?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Greetings. I see the peter and pope threads are being discussed ad-nauseam again so I would like to make a simple poll for ALL denominations to answer. I am not talking about if he was simply a Bishop of Rome and only for that city but a Grand Pope of all Christianity.

So this poll is quite simple "CAN CHRISTIANITY SURVIVE TODAY WITHOUT THE POPE/PAPACY OF ROME"

Has this been answered LLoJ?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Oh yeah! Here we go...

Has this been answered?

Hi Jack!
According to the results of the poll.....I would have to say "probably"

 

[razeontherock]

So if I say 160 to 28, how many will be completely lost at the reference this time?

 

[Philothei]

This old thing... still going on... LLOJ This is amazing

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This old thing... still going on... LLOJ This is amazing

Tis getting near the great Split

 

[razeontherock]

Doesn't that require 1,054 posts?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Doesn't that require 1,054 posts?

I think it is 1000

 

[Hairy Tic]

Well, the whole idea of a 'pope' was borrowed from pagan religion. God's church, founded upon the Word of God, the Bible, is doing very well without a pope.

Dave

##

• 1. No, it can't & doesn't.
  
• 2. Your source for saying "the whole idea of a 'pope' was borrowed from pagan religion", please ? Thank you
  
• 3. The fact that something is present in a pre-Christian religion does not make it false, immoral, or unfit for Christian use. If it did, Christ could not be called Saviour, as this is a title common to many gods. Greek could have been rejected for all sorts of reasons, including being "pagan" - yet it is the language of the New Testament.
• 4. A Jewish High priest is merely the Jewish equivalent of the Roman Pontifex Maximus - neither is in itself better or worse than the other. They are both open to objection. Kohen gadol is as pagan as Pontifex Maximus - & the very title archiereus that translates kohen gadol in the Septuagint is taken from Greek paganism. There is nothing sacred about the Jewish calendar either - the month-names it now uses are taken from the Babylonian calendar. To avoid all "paganism", one would have to "leave the world"
• 5. Take away everything of "pagan" origin from society, & almost nothing would be left. Certainly not the Bible, or writing.
  

 

[Hairy Tic]

So then God, who could make children of Abraham out of rocks, could not unhold His children by His very breath? It as to be held up by the hands of men? Where was men when God created them? The church is not built on Peter.. Tee hee the church is built upon the very Fact that Christ is who He says He is and that His death and ressurection is the very core of the new covenant. Peter is not the new covenant.. Jesus shed blood for the sins of men is.

##What God could do =///= What God has done.

As matters have in fact been arranged, God has entrusted the salvation of the world to secondary causes, through which He always works. He is always at work - through them not least.

Some people's salvation will depend on the Bible - they may have no other means of knowing of God. Yet the Bible is less important than the Pope, because the Pope is made in the image of God, & the Bible is not. Abstractly speaking, the Bible is superfluous - this follows from your own reasoning. Why bother with a book, when God is so much better & more important ? Even Fundamentalists don't believe in salvation by the ink of Exodus, or justification by the grace of Acts 21. They believe - or say they believe - in Christ. If Catholics are idolaters, as Fundamentalists insist, Fundamentalists are Bibliolaters: they adore a book instead of the One to Whom it is meant to point. If Fundamentalists can get away with accusing Catholics of Pope-worship - Fundamentalists must expect to be accused of idolatry, such as Bible-worship. Make one accusation - & get one free.

There is so much wrong with the Bible anyway. Your reasoning against the Pope may rule him out; but it also rules out the Bible. Only inconsistency knocks out Pope, Bishops, Church, Doctrine & Sacraments, while sparing the Bible. The Bible is not a moral agent, so it cannot sin, unlike a person - but it is sinful in other ways: so by that analogy, objections to the ministers to God's ministers because of their sinfulness, are, if decisive, equally decisive against the Bible, which is a storehouse of sin. If the Bible is God, then it can't be ruled out. But only if it is God can it escape being a created means of grace. Are there Christians who think God is the Bible, & the Bible, God ? I don't know.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

##What God could do =///= What God has done.

As matters have in fact been arranged, God has entrusted the salvation of the world to secondary causes, through which He always works. He is always at work - through them not least.

Some people's salvation will depend on the Bible - they may have no other means of knowing of God. Yet the Bible is less important than the Pope, because the Pope is made in the image of God, & the Bible is not. Abstractly speaking, the Bible is superfluous - this follows from your own reasoning. Why bother with a book, when God is so much better & more important ? Even Fundamentalists don't believe in salvation by the ink of Exodus, or justification by the grace of Acts 21. They believe - or say they believe - in Christ. If Catholics are idolaters, as Fundamentalists insist, Fundamentalists are Bibliolaters: they adore a book instead of the One to Whom it is meant to point. If Fundamentalists can get away with accusing Catholics of Pope-worship - Fundamentalists must expect to be accused of idolatry, such as Bible-worship. Make one accusation - & get one free.

There is so much wrong with the Bible anyway. Your reasoning against the Pope may rule him out; but it also rules out the Bible. Only inconsistency knocks out Pope, Bishops, Church, Doctrine & Sacraments, while sparing the Bible. The Bible is not a moral agent, so it cannot sin, unlike a person - but it is sinful in other ways: so by that analogy, objections to the ministers to God's ministers because of their sinfulness, are, if decisive, equally decisive against the Bible, which is a storehouse of sin. If the Bible is God, then it can't be ruled out. But only if it is God can it escape being a created means of grace. Are there Christians who think God is the Bible, & the Bible, God ? I don't know.

Me neither. When ya find out, let us know

 

[Philothei]

]##What God could do =///= What God has done.

As matters have in fact been arranged, God has entrusted the salvation of the world to secondary causes, through which He always works. He is always at work - through them not least.

yeah but ONE MAN is not more important than other in God's salvation plan... or then we are not all created equal...

Some people's salvation will depend on the Bible - they may have no other means of knowing of God. Yet the Bible is less important than the Pope, because the Pope is made in the image of God, & the Bible is not.

ONLY the Pope is created in the image of God?? strange statement to say the at least *scratches head*... The Bible is NOT made in the image but is regardless the word of God written by men who are created in the image of God...*
So again men are all important

Abstractly speaking, the Bible is superfluous - this follows from your own reasoning. Why bother with a book, when God is so much better & more important ? Even Fundamentalists don't believe in salvation by the ink of Exodus, or justification by the grace of Acts 21. They believe - or say they believe - in Christ. If Catholics are idolaters, as Fundamentalists insist, Fundamentalists are Bibliolaters: they adore a book instead of the One to Whom it is meant to point. If Fundamentalists can get away with accusing Catholics of Pope-worship - Fundamentalists must expect to be accused of idolatry, such as Bible-worship. Make one accusation - & get one free.

I am afraid both are wrong for sure but having the Patriarch of Rome as the only Despote of the Church is not exactly a "dogma" that can be easily supported historically... So... if you have 5 Patriarchates (Antioch, Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria and Constantinople) and ONE Patriarch denying to join the other 4 why is He the one who is "superior" to the others? Since from the beginning all Apostles were not equal? Furthermore why would the Patriarch of Rome made into an infallable Patriarch while all others (who were as prominent) are lessen to him? Is only the Pope "imago deo"? That comes in contradicition to all men created equal. Christ cannot have a "representative" on earth or then Christ is replaced and that cannot be. The seat of Christ is for Christ alone and no one in heaven or on earth can replace Him. The body of the Church always knew that thus the creation of councils... If ONE Patriarch was enough there would be no need for the Church to convey Councils

There is so much wrong with the Bible anyway. Your reasoning against the Pope may rule him out; but it also rules out the Bible. Only inconsistency knocks out Pope, Bishops, Church, Doctrine & Sacraments, while sparing the Bible. The Bible is not a moral agent, so it cannot sin, unlike a person - but it is sinful in other ways: so by that analogy, objections to the ministers to God's ministers because of their sinfulness, are, if decisive, equally decisive against the Bible, which is a storehouse of sin. If the Bible is God, then it can't be ruled out. But only if it is God can it escape being a created means of grace. Are there Christians who think God is the Bible, & the Bible, God ? I don't know.

Where is the wrong in the Bible? You mean wrong interpretation maybe ??

The bible cannot be an instument of "wrong" maybe fallible people who interpret it can be off ....and thus lead others astray...That can be hapenning and true to our days and throught christian history. Many were lost as they did indeed "mixed" the message with other religions etc. And indeed the Church did hold the faith as the community of the faithful did come to terms with heresies such as Arius etc.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Where is the wrong in the Bible? You mean wrong interpretation maybe ??

The bible cannot be an instument of "wrong" maybe fallible people who interpret it can be off ....and thus lead others astray...That can be hapenning and true to our days and throught christian history. Many were lost as they did indeed "mixed" the message with other religions etc. And indeed the Church did hold the faith as the community of the faithful did come to terms with heresies such as Arius etc.

Because of the font size and color that hairy used I had a tough time reading that dialogue between you two.
All people are fallible in one way or another, but if that is the case, why would the Holy Spirit allow that to happen in the Christian Church?