Where did the Church first go wrong?

[Meowzltov]

Perhaps you would like to put yourself up for election? See how far that gets you? Jesus' Kingdom accepts you not only as you are but also immediately elevates you position above the angels and allows you to talk with Him in person whenever you like.

I'm no better qualified to be the Pope than I am to be the King of England or the President of the United States. I don't have the education, I don't have the gender, I don't have the wisdom, and I can't handle that much stress.

I am Christian just as I am an American.

The Position of the Pope is that of a Servant. Make no mistake. I wouldn't want his job if it were the last one on the earth. It kills you.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

So in effect what your saying is that God does not get involved in this selection process, nor Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit are, together with the Father, one God.

And no, that is not what I am saying. Rather, I am saying that in contrast to your argument, the system used to elect the Roman Pope is not the same system as that used by the Apostles to select St. Matthias, and by the Coptic church to select its Pope.

It's just for the boys to decide who gets in or not.

Please do not refer to the bishops of the Orthodox and Catholic churches as "the boys." Please be respectful of our Christian heritage.

Great system that.

Given that the Orthodox have used it since the first century, and have not had an Inquisition or some of the problems that plagued the Roman church during the Middle Ages, yes, I think we can say it is a great system.

Although I personally prefer the casting of lots used by the Apostles to select St. Matthias and by the Coptic Church to select the Pope of Alexandria.

Sound remarkably like the Mason's system.

No, because:

• Freemasonry dates from the 18th century.
• Freemasonry has historically opposed the Roman Catholic Church and has sought to undermine it (and vice versa).
• Freemasons are elected by secret ballot (white balls and black balls, or black cubes), and then elect their leadership either by secret or open ballots, whereas Cardinals are ordained bishops by at least three other bishops, openly, later promoted to the rank of cardinal by the Pope, and later, elect the Pope's replacement (in a secret ballot). Orthodox Holy Synods may or may not use secret ballots to elect their respective Patriarchs.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Our cardinals do NOT cast lots. When has voting EVER been casting lots?

Indeed.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Our cardinals do NOT cast lots. When has voting EVER been casting lots?

Well a secret ballot for only those in the elite is just as bad imo.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Jesus and the Holy Spirit are, together with the Father, one God.

And no, that is not what I am saying. Rather, I am saying that in contrast to your argument, the system used to elect the Roman Pope is not the same system as that used by the Apostles to select St. Matthias, and by the Coptic church to select its Pope.



Please do not refer to the bishops of the Orthodox and Catholic churches as "the boys." Please be respectful of our Christian heritage.



Given that the Orthodox have used it since the first century, and have not had an Inquisition or some of the problems that plagued the Roman church during the Middle Ages, yes, I think we can say it is a great system.

Although I personally prefer the casting of lots used by the Apostles to select St. Matthias and by the Coptic Church to select the Pope of Alexandria.



No, because:

• Freemasonry dates from the 18th century.
• Freemasonry has historically opposed the Roman Catholic Church and has sought to undermine it (and vice versa).
• Freemasons are elected by secret ballot (white balls and black balls, or black cubes), and then elect their leadership either by secret or open ballots, whereas Cardinals are ordained bishops by at least three other bishops, openly, later promoted to the rank of cardinal by the Pope, and later, elect the Pope's replacement (in a secret ballot). Orthodox Holy Synods may or may not use secret ballots to elect their respective Patriarchs.

A robust argument at last. I still think there's something fishy going though. The Devil's in the detail.

But it still doesn't address the OP.

 

[Meowzltov]

Well a secret ballot for only those in the elite is just as bad imo.

So the ballots that elected George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Adams, et al., were all as bad as casting lots?

 

[Meowzltov]

A robust argument at last. I still think there's something fishy going though. The Devil's in the detail.

So you say, but you don't bother to point it out.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

So the ballots that elected George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Adams, et al., were all as bad as casting lots?

Okay you can have you papal electoral system but the casting of lots for Matthias was still a mistake that lead to all the denominational wars since then.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

So you say, but you don't bother to point it out.

Because it's not the OP.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I'm not being anti-Catholic although I do see them as the Laodicean Church.

No, the Laodicean Church is a part of the canonical territory of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. The current Patriarch, His Beatitude John X Yazigi, was born in Laodicea, or Latakia, as it is now known. There is also a Maronite Catholic Bishop of Latakia, as there are some Maronites there.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

I believe sin is without form and void; in this, the dispensation of the grace of God.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

No, the Laodicean Church is a part of the canonical territory of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. The current Patriarch, His Beatitude John X Yazigi, was born in Laodicea, or Latakia, as it is now known. There is also a Maronite Catholic Bishop of Latakia, as there are some Maronites there.

So you think the geographical locations of the 7 churches of revelation is the 'literal' interpretation of Revelation?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Okay you can have you papal electoral system but the casting of lots for Matthias was still a mistake that lead to all the denominational wars since then.

That is a non-sequitur. In no sense can you attribute any of the schisms of the church to the election of Matthias, which was entirely uncontroversial.

The first schism involved Simon Magus claiming to be an Apostle after having been shunned by St. Peter for attempting to buy his way into ordination.

Subsequent schisms involved Gnosticism, the denial of the humanity or the divinity of our Lord, et cetera.

The enduring schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy dates from 1054, and in my opinion is primarily the result of meddling in the affairs of the Roman church by Charlemagne centuries earlier. The controversy between Catholics and Protestants exists largely as an overreaction to problems specific to the Roman church in the middle ages and early Renaissance, which never plagued the Eastern churches.

There are some schisms in the East, but no history of "denominational wars" on the scale of, say, the Wars of Religion of the 17th century.

And you cannot link any of this in any logical way to the election of St. Matthias. There is no demonstrable causal relationship.

In your zeal to attempt to find a culprit for problems in the Roman Catholic church, you managed to needlessly disparage St. Matthias, St. Peter and the other ten Disciples, and St. Luke, when in fact the Catholic church doesn't even use that system. I would urge you to retract your claim in the OP completely, since it rested on a false premise, and caused you to call into question the intelligence, moral character and godliness of the eleven good disciples, including St. John the Beloved Apostle and St. Matthew the Evangelist, in addition to that of St. Matthias the Apostle, and of St. Luke the Evangelist.

And by extension, you called into question St. Mark, since his successors in Alexandria were always chosen by the same system as St. Matthas.

So that is all four Evangelists, and all twelve Apostles, that you have effectively blamed for various problems specific to the Roman Catholic Church, which never happened elsewhere, and which they were in no respect culpable for (in particular, given that all of these problems of the RCC involved corrupt clergy ignoring the specific instructions from our Lord conveyed by the four Evangelists in their Gospels, and in Acts, and by St. Peter, Jude and John in their Epistles).

 

[Guide To The Bible]

I believe sin is without form and void; in this, the dispensation of the grace of God.

Genesis
1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty (innocent), darkness (Satan) was over the surface of the deep (waiting), and the Spirit of God (The Holy Spirit) was hovering over the waters (also waiting).

 

[Paul Yohannan]

So you think the geographical locations of the 7 churches of revelation is the 'literal' interpretation of Revelation?

Yes. These were lettere with specific instructions sent to seven historic churches in Asia Minor, in response to historic problems in those churches which are documented elsewhere (for example, the nature of the Nicolaitan cult is discussed by the second century heresiologist and bishop St. Irenaeus of Lyons).

 

[Kenneth Redden]

The chronological format of the KJV Bible may be found in the scriptural threading of the letters in the Word of God.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

That is a non-sequitur. In no sense can you attribute any of the schisms of the church to the election of Matthias, which was entirely uncontroversial.

The first schism involved Simon Magus claiming to be an Apostle after having been shunned by St. Peter for attempting to buy his way into ordination.

Subsequent schisms involved Gnosticism, the denial of the humanity or the divinity of our Lord, et cetera.

The enduring schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy dates from 1054, and in my opinion is primarily the result of meddling in the affairs of the Roman church by Charlemagne centuries earlier. The controversy between Catholics and Protestants exists largely as an overreaction to problems specific to the Roman church in the middle ages and early Renaissance, which never plagued the Eastern churches.

There are some schisms in the East, but no history of "denominational wars" on the scale of, say, the Wars of Religion of the 17th century.

And you cannot link any of this in any logical way to the election of St. Matthias. There is no demonstrable causal relationship.

In your zeal to attempt to find a culprit for problems in the Roman Catholic church, you managed to needlessly disparage St. Matthias, St. Peter and the other ten Disciples, and St. Luke, when in fact the Catholic church doesn't even use that system. I would urge you to retract your claim in the OP completely, since it rested on a false premise, and caused you to call into question the intelligence, moral character and godliness of the eleven good disciples, including St. John the Beloved Apostle and St. Matthew the Evangelist, in addition to that of St. Matthias the Apostle, and of St. Luke the Evangelist.

And by extension, you called into question St. Mark, since his successors in Alexandria were always chosen by the same system as St. Matthas.

So that is all four Evangelists, and all twelve Apostles, that you have effectively blamed for various problems specific to the Roman Catholic Church, which never happened elsewhere, and which they were in no respect culpable for (in particular, given that all of these problems of the RCC involved corrupt clergy ignoring the specific instructions from our Lord conveyed by the four Evangelists in their Gospels, and in Acts, and by St. Peter, Jude and John in their Epistles).

You are trying to skillfully deflect the argument but I will bring it back to the OP (original point). You say there is no link between the election of St. Matthias and Catholic Church but there clearly is. If Peter had of simply waited as instructed and just let Jesus choose Paul in His own good time. AND then continued to let Jesus work through the Church without feeling the need to create an ongoing leadership team, then non of the denominational fighting and arguing and corruption that has lead to some of the most disgusting and evil acts ever carried out by so called Christians would never have happened, with in what non-Christians think of as the Church. I could list some for you but I find it too sickening to do so. The problem is that people feel the need for something physical that they can cling onto, I'm no different in this respect but the only physical thing I believe we need as Christians is the Bible. (and clothes, food, housing, schools, hospitals, etc but not the church in it current form). What I am irked about I suppose is poor leadership. Like when Peter decide it was a good idea to draw lots.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Yes. These were lettere with specific instructions sent to seven historic churches in Asia Minor, in response to historic problems in those churches which are documented elsewhere (for example, the nature of the Nicolaitan cult is discussed by the second century heresiologist and bishop St. Irenaeus of Lyons).

I may have mis-understood I thought you meant they related to churches that are now in that locality?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

You are trying to skillfully deflect the argument but I will bring it back to the OP (original point).

No, because your OP was predicated on the idea of the casting of lots as leading to successive generations of failed leadership, based on the experience of the Papacy, but we have refuted that on the grounds that the Eastern churches never had the problems the Roman church had, and the Popes of Rome were not elected in that manner.

You say there is no link between the election of St. Matthias and Catholic Church but there clearly is. If Peter had of simply waited as instructed and just let Jesus choose Paul in His own good time.

St. Peter was nowhere instructed by our Lord to not appoint a replacement for Judas Iscariot immediately. Nothing in the Bible says that St. Paul was supposed to hold the office of St. Matthias. The two had different roles. The conversion of St. Paul came much later; St. Paul was persecuting the Church which by that time was well established, thanks to the work of the Twelve Apostles and their Deacons, including St. Matthias.

Had St. Matthias not been appointed, it is entirely possible that the other eleven Apostles would not have been able to organize the church on the scale that they did, that Saul would not have persecuted them, and thus been converted on the road to Damascus to become the Apostle to the Gentiles.

AND then continued to let Jesus work through the Church without feeling the need to create an ongoing leadership team, then non of the denominational fighting and arguing and corruption that has lead to some of the most disgusting and evil acts ever carried out by so called Christians would never have happened, with in what non-Christians think of as the Church. I could list some for you but I find it too sickening to do so. The problem is that people feel the need for something physical that they can cling onto, I'm no different in this respect but the only physical thing I believe we need as Christians is the Bible. (and clothes, food, housing, schools, hospitals, etc but not the church in it current form). What I am irked about I suppose is poor leadership. Like when Peter decide it was a good idea to draw lots.

The "on-going leadership team" you complain about wrote the Bible. Or rather the New Testament. St. Peter and the other ten surviving Disciples did not have a New Testament. They had merely their own memory of our Lord and his instructions.

Their actions, in ordaining St. Matthias, in ordaining the seven deacons, in ordaining St. Paul, and the other Seventy Apostles, and the Evangelists Mark and Luke, allowed for the words and actions of our Lord and His apostles to be recorded for posterity in the New Testament.

That same leadership team preserved the New Testament by making copies of it over the following centuries.

And when, in the fourth century, due to the problem of the proliferation of Gnostic apocrypha, the decisions had to be made about which books were the authentic writings of the Apostles, and which ones were not, the same leadership team established by St. Peter and the other ten disciples, when they ordained St. Matthias, made the neccessary decisions, under the guidance of the Spirit, about which books were to be included in the Bible as inspired Scripture, and which ones were to be rejected.

So without that leadership team, that you object to, you would not have the Bible. You would simply have the Old Testament.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I may have mis-understood I thought you meant they related to churches that are now in that locality?

No, I mean they were instructions given by our Lord to the leaders of those seven churches, at that time. Laodicea is one of the few among them which is still active; most of them became devoid of parishioners as a result of the Turkish genocide of Pontic Greeks, Armenians and Syriac Christians, in 1915.