The Early Church is the Catholic Church

[Anguspure]

Jesus only started ONE Church, and it was all embracing. All the apostles and their successors belonged to this one, Catholic Church. That Church still exists and it is still led by the successors of the apostles.

When do you think the Catholic Church changed into something else?

With respect, the church is led by Christ Jesus, by His Spirit, the Papal position is said to be vicarious of Christ, not itself in leadership apart from Him.
Those of us who are appointed as overseers by Christ (such as the apostle Paul) certainly have the authority of Christ to operate but the succession comes through Christ Jesus at His calling and His direction and is not fixed in concrete.
Clearly it can be seen that a person who no longer leads beleivers into Love expressing itself in Faith has departed from the way, is no longer listening to the Spirit, and should not be followed.
The problem with the Papal authority structure is that it places men in the position of the ressurected Christ and restricts or stifles the living and active Spirit of God in the body.

 

[rakovsky]

I understand that this is the teaching of the Roman Catholic division, I have used it before.
Where I have trouble with all denominilationism is in the breaking apart of the body of Christ in a given location, whether it be the church in Rome or the church in Wagawaga, on the grounds other than Christ Jesus crucified and risen from the dead.
The breaking apart of the body is in itself a deepest heresy, has nothing to do with faith expressing itself in Love, and needs to be addressed in the hearts of all beleivers whether that be those who remain or those who depart.

So many sheep without, so many wolves within.

- St Augustine

 

[Anguspure]

Jesus appointed the leaders of the Church and gave them his authority. He told the rest of us to obey those who are over us in the Lord.

In the Lord is the key here. Who is in the Lord?

At what point do you think it was OK to reject the successors of the apostles and to follow our own judgments and interpretations of scripture?

At the point where they are no longer expressing and leading in the way of Christ. At the point where they are no longer laying down their own lives for the sheep, irregardless of any theological or Biblical interpretations or understandings, the Way of Christ is the in the person of Christ and one who claims to be vicarious of Christ will be like Him.

 

[ToBeLoved]

That could be part of it, but it is also for sanctification.

Purgatory is the final sanctification that a Christian undergoes before seeing God. We must be holy to see God and most of us probably won't be completely sanctified at death. Indulgences help us with the process of sanctification.

Paul describes the process here:

1 Cor 3
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

So they are getting their works ready to be sanctified? But even with the loss of works, this verse says they will still be saved.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Jesus appointed the leaders of the Church and gave them his authority. ?

Who did Jesus choose Himself besides the apostles?

 

[Anguspure]

Who did Jesus choose Himself besides the apostles?

Quoting Paul: "Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."

It is Christ himself, His Spirit in the body, that appoints a person to a role within the body.

"Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.

Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.

From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work."

 

[Anguspure]

At what point do you think it was OK to reject the successors of the apostles and to follow our own judgments and interpretations of scripture?

As a proviso to my previous thought, it occurs to me that although a person might reject one who once led us in the Way of Christ, as a leader, this should not lead to the heresy of division within the body.

It is an expression of the Love of the Church that we bear with one another and lay down our lives for one another, and when a brother who has been given a role of leadership in a given location (the church in ... whatever place) falls or stumbles and there is uncertainty as to the direction to take, lest the body be torn apart, this should simply lead to an inertia where people continue to Love and live but makes no move that does not move them closer to Christ Jesus.

Look at sheep following a shepherd, if a leading one stops following, and stumbles off the path and down the bank, they don't go racing off in their own directions, rather they usually stop and stare at the one.
But as a group they don't do anything at all until they regain connection with the shepherd either through the one that stopped following or another one is appointed as leader.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Quoting Paul: "Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the ."

These are church offices and ministry.

 

[samir]

It clearly demonstrates that he was using authority.

But not papal authority if Clement wasn't the pope when he wrote his epistle. No Christian claims that Christian churches don't have authority.

For one thing, the Christians in Corinth consulted him for guidance and a decision.

No, they did not. They consulted the Church at Rome, not Clement.

For another, he clearly says that he is speaking for God and that they will be in grave danger if they disobey his instructions. Can't get much more clear than that.

No, Clement said he was writing on behalf of the church at Rome. Any bishop can speak to others what God has revealed. Whenever anyone writes something true that comes from God, those who disobey are going against God.

 

[samir]

The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as "the Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven."

All Christians believe Mary is the mother of God. One of the seven ecumenical councils declared it and anathematized anyone who didn't agree. Even Luther and other Protestant "reformers" believed it. If you don't agree, you are not a Christian.

So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation, we can see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible. Matthew 1:25 NAB tells us, "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus." He, Joseph, did not have sexual relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus." The meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55-56 NAB declares, "Is He not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters all with us?" Catholics claim, correctly, that the Greek terms for "brothers" and "sisters" in these verses could also refer to male and female relatives, not necessarily literal brothers and sisters. However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be Joseph's son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered sisters. Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning of the text to interpret “brothers” and “sisters” as "cousins" or "relatives" with the mentioning of Jesus' mother and father.

Matthew 12:46 NAB tells us, "While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him." See also Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14. All mention Jesus' mother with His brothers. If they were His cousins, or the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, why were they mentioned with Mary so often? The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be drawn from Scripture. It must be forced on Scripture, in contradiction to what the Scriptures clearly state.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

If the bible was so clear, why did an ecumenical council declare Mary ever virgin? The word "until" doesn't mean things changed later. It only means she was a virgin prior to the birth of Jesus.

 

[keltoi]

All Christians believe Mary is the mother of God. One of the seven ecumenical councils declared it and anathematized anyone who didn't agree. Even Luther and other Protestant "reformers" believed it. If you don't agree, you are not a Christian.

I think you just broker one rule of CF.

If the bible was so clear, why did an ecumenical council declare Mary ever virgin?

That fact in itself should indicate that it isn't in the Bible so the dogma that arose from teh council is man made not God inspired.

The word "until" doesn't mean things changed later. It only means she was a virgin prior to the birth of Jesus.

By that reckoning I could say "I didn't murder him until he hit me" and therefore plead in a court of Common Law that I did not murder anyone because the word "until" doesn't mean things changed later.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

Thread cleaned!

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not personally attack other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.
● Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.

Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic
Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.

Further rule violations shall result in permanent thread closure!

OFF!

 

[Anguspure]

These are church offices and ministry.

Yes they are, and it is the Spirit of Christ himself that appoints men to these offices. When men appoint other men to an role in the church without the leading of Christ (perhaps well intentioned but because of a lack of faith) then they step over the line and deny Christ His Lordship.
He is alive and active, and does not need men to usurp His role as the Lord of the Church.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

All Christians believe Mary is the mother of God. One of the seven ecumenical councils declared it and anathematized anyone who didn't agree. Even Luther and other Protestant "reformers" believed it. If you don't agree, you are not a Christian.

The phrase “mother of God” originated with and continues to be used in the Roman Catholic Church. One of the topics at the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 was the use of the Greek term Theotókos, or “God-bearer,” in reference to Mary. That council officially proclaimed Mary as the “mother of God,” and the doctrine was later included in the Catholic catechism. The idea behind calling Mary the “mother of God” is that, since Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is the mother of God.

The major problem with this logic is that the term “God” implies the totality of Yahweh, and we know that Yahweh has no beginning and no end (Psalm 90:2). First Timothy 6:15-16 says that God is immortal. Being immortal, God never was “born” and never had a “mother.” The second Person of the Trinity, Jesus, did have a beginning to His earthly ministry when he was conceived in Mary’s womb and was born, but from eternity past He had always been the Son of God.

Philippians 2:6–7 gives us a bit more insight on what transpired when Jesus left heaven to become man. The New Living Translation says, “Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being.” Jesus was already one with the Father, but He set aside His rights as Divinity and took the form of a baby (John 1:1). He went on to live the normal life of a Jewish boy, obeying His earthly parents (Luke 2:51).

A mother by definition precedes her child and at some point is more powerful than her child. So to call Mary the “mother of God” gives the misleading implication that Mary preceded and at one time was more powerful than the Lord God Almighty. Although Catholic doctrine tries to deny this implication, it is inescapable.

It is biblical to say that Mary was the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ during His incarnation on the earth. However, Catholics believe it is not enough to say that Mary was the mother of Jesus. Pope John Paul II, in a speech in 1996, encouraged people “not only to invoke the Blessed Virgin as the Mother of Jesus, but also to recognize her as Mother of God” (L'Osservatore Romano, 4 December 1996, p. 11). This is not biblical. The Lord God Almighty has no mother, since He has no beginning and no end (Genesis 1:1; Revelation 4:8).


Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[rakovsky]

The phrase “mother of God” originated with and continues to be used in the Roman Catholic Church. One of the topics at the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 was the use of the Greek term Theotókos, or “God-bearer,” in reference to Mary. That council officially proclaimed Mary as the “mother of God,” and the doctrine was later included in the Catholic catechism. The idea behind calling Mary the “mother of God” is that, since Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is the mother of God.

The major problem with this logic is that the term “God” implies the totality of Yahweh, and we know that Yahweh has no beginning and no end (Psalm 90:2). First Timothy 6:15-16 says that God is immortal. Being immortal, God never was “born” and never had a “mother.” The second Person of the Trinity, Jesus, did have a beginning to His earthly ministry when he was conceived in Mary’s womb and was born, but from eternity past He had always been the Son of God.

Philippians 2:6–7 gives us a bit more insight on what transpired when Jesus left heaven to become man. The New Living Translation says, “Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being.” Jesus was already one with the Father, but He set aside His rights as Divinity and took the form of a baby (John 1:1). He went on to live the normal life of a Jewish boy, obeying His earthly parents (Luke 2:51).

A mother by definition precedes her child and at some point is more powerful than her child. So to call Mary the “mother of God” gives the misleading implication that Mary preceded and at one time was more powerful than the Lord God Almighty. Although Catholic doctrine tries to deny this implication, it is inescapable.

It is biblical to say that Mary was the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ during His incarnation on the earth. However, Catholics believe it is not enough to say that Mary was the mother of Jesus. Pope John Paul II, in a speech in 1996, encouraged people “not only to invoke the Blessed Virgin as the Mother of Jesus, but also to recognize her as Mother of God” (L'Osservatore Romano, 4 December 1996, p. 11). This is not biblical. The Lord God Almighty has no mother, since He has no beginning and no end (Genesis 1:1; Revelation 4:8).


Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

This has been a huge controversy, because the OOS will say that denying mother of God is Nestorianism. They see protestants as neo Nestorianism when they deny this. I had huge discussions with them. Mother of God is a fine term once understood correctly, but I have also argued that it's opponents might not be heretics.

Let's use a different thread on the OO section to discuss it because OOS are the biggest opponents of denying it.

 

[rakovsky]

The phrase “mother of God” originated with and continues to be used in the Roman Catholic Church. One of the topics at the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 was the use of the Greek term Theotókos, or “God-bearer,” in reference to Mary. That council officially proclaimed Mary as the “mother of God,” and the doctrine was later included in the Catholic catechism. The idea behind calling Mary the “mother of God” is that, since Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is the mother of God.

The major problem with this logic is that the term “God” implies the totality of Yahweh, and we know that Yahweh has no beginning and no end (Psalm 90:2). First Timothy 6:15-16 says that God is immortal. Being immortal, God never was “born” and never had a “mother.” The second Person of the Trinity, Jesus, did have a beginning to His earthly ministry when he was conceived in Mary’s womb and was born, but from eternity past He had always been the Son of God.

Philippians 2:6–7 gives us a bit more insight on what transpired when Jesus left heaven to become man. The New Living Translation says, “Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being.” Jesus was already one with the Father, but He set aside His rights as Divinity and took the form of a baby (John 1:1). He went on to live the normal life of a Jewish boy, obeying His earthly parents (Luke 2:51).

A mother by definition precedes her child and at some point is more powerful than her child. So to call Mary the “mother of God” gives the misleading implication that Mary preceded and at one time was more powerful than the Lord God Almighty. Although Catholic doctrine tries to deny this implication, it is inescapable.

It is biblical to say that Mary was the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ during His incarnation on the earth. However, Catholics believe it is not enough to say that Mary was the mother of Jesus. Pope John Paul II, in a speech in 1996, encouraged people “not only to invoke the Blessed Virgin as the Mother of Jesus, but also to recognize her as Mother of God” (L'Osservatore Romano, 4 December 1996, p. 11). This is not biblical. The Lord God Almighty has no mother, since He has no beginning and no end (Genesis 1:1; Revelation 4:8).


Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

If you are going to take this view, my request is that you please research Theodore of Mopsuestia and get back to me on what you think of him. He was a major figure in our Eastern Church until arguments arose over his theology, which involved this question. He said that Christ has a hypostasis for the Word of God which is not born of Mary and a hypostasis of Jesus the man who was. His reasoning was like yours in that he was the leading figure who opposed Theotokos.

But this was a major scandal.
The Word is the second person of the Trinity and is God. And John says THE WORD BECAME FLESH. Hence the Word, God, has flesh, and he got it from a woman who birthed him.

Nowadays the official position is that Jesus and the Word are only one hypostasis and that Mary is the mother of god, and that Theodore M. who denied this and OOs' founders Dioscorus and Severus are all heretics. Theodore M. taught two hypostases and OOs teach one nature only. OOS are Theodore's strongest opponents, while Theodore is famous for denying the Mother of God.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

If you are going to take this view, my request is that you please research Theodore of Mopsuestia and get back to me on what you think of him. He was a major figure in our Eastern Church until arguments arose over his theology, which involved this question. He said that Christ has a hypostasis for the Word of God which is not born of Mary and a hypostasis of Jesus the man who was. His reasoning was like yours in that he was the leading figure who opposed Theotokos.

But this was a major scandal.
The Word is the second person of the Trinity and is God. And John says THE WORD BECAME FLESH. Hence the Word, God, has flesh, and he got it from a woman who birthed him.

I found an already existing thread on this topic in the Justin martyr section. I copied and pasted my post there. I am looking forward to their responses. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[rakovsky]

I found an already existing thread on this topic in the Justin martyr section. I copied and pasted my post there. I am looking forward to their responses. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

Ok. My main request to you on this topic is if you can please read about Theodore M. And tell me about him, because he was the main opponent of saying Theotokos or mother of god. But I have had trouble understanding the main features of his unique theology.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Ok. My main request to you on this topic is if you can please read about Theodore M. And tell me about him, because he was the main opponent of saying Theotokos or mother of god. But I have had trouble understanding the main features of his unique theology.

Roger.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[rakovsky]

Roger.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

There is an Orthodox Forum I sometimes post on which has a private section for EOs and OOs to discuss our respective theologies. Some OO scholars teach that at the Fourth Council we were teaching the beliefs of Theodore Mopsuestia, who it is true at one time was a leading theologian in the EO Church. He taught that Jesus and the Word were the same person, but that they each retained their two respective hypostases (without there being only one hypostasis) and so he concluded that one should not say "Mother of God", as God is uncreated. The OO Church left us and refused to accept Chalcedon (the Fourth Church Council) because they said that we were effectively teaching that Jesus was two divided separated people - a man and a God. This has been the biggest schism in the Eastern Church today even after 1500 years.
It became such a big issue that we decided that Theodore and the OOs' leaders (his opponents) were both heretics, while conservative OOs commonly still claim that Chalcedon teaches Theodore's beliefs.

Since I like to be ecumenical, I have tried to suggest that Theodore M. was not really a heretic, because he did openly say that Jesus and the Word were the same person, even though he denied "mother of God", which if understood correctly is a fine term. But I really need more help understanding his theology.

Here are threads on that EO-OO forum I post on, where I suggest that yo may be able to discuss what you come across :

Theodore of Mopsuestia
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37729.msg597484.html#msg597484

"Theodoreanism"?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21826.msg331633.html#msg331633