Pope's Authority? Is it legit?

tz620q said:

This thread got me thinking about a future reunited Christianity and what it could be like. I started thinking through a Christianity based on the Orthodox model which seems to have the following features (please correct me, I see this as the start of a civil discussion, not a rigorous essay.)
1. No centralized authority
2. A loose episcopal hierarchy that seems normally purely administrative and regional in scope
3. Strong monastic influence in theological discussions
4. Close ties with national governments in most of the historically Orthodox countries
5. Counciliar method of combating heresy or division

If we used this model for a world church, it would be kind of a U.N. of autocephalous churches and the unity would be only in continuing dialog with little effective ability to regulate belief or combat heresy. The worst "punishment" would be to expel the offending church (assuming that a whole segment has apostatised) from the council, which would really only put them back to where they are today. So to me the true test of whether this would succeed is how this group decided to police itself. What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I know you didn't ask me, but I will chime in here. One it will not happen this way, because neither the Catholic or Orthodox Churches will accept anything like this, and I seriously doubt any Protestant church would accept this model either. And quite frankly, why would they? What would be the advantage? Unity in name only? That is all you will get.

Future unity among the Apostolic Churches will IMO similar to the current model used between the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches. Among the Protestant churches, I don't see any segregated unity, except maybe some form of ordinate, but the issue with that will be the gross differences between theology on serious matters such as the Sacraments of Ordination and the Eucharist.

ViaCrucis said:

Peter seems to often be the spokesperson for the Twelve, and as such I think it could be said he had a more figurative leadership role (but, this also seems to be because--at least in the Gospels--Peter is the mouthiest, and not always for the better).

What doesn't seem to be shown is that Peter had any sort of definitive role as the leader of the apostles.

As such it seems more appropriate to understand that while "you are the rock" does indeed apply to Peter personally, it does not exclusively reply to Peter. We later, of course, read that the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (plural), and that the Church itself is the pillar of the truth. All of this, of course, on Christ our cornerstone.

What is therefore said to St. Peter becomes the common apostolic possession, and therefore the possession of the Church as a whole.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Another example that we all read Scripture through the lens of our faith traditions, because when I read the book of Acts, I see Peter as being without a doubt the head of the early Church and he was treated as such.

Erose said:

I know you didn't ask me, but I will chime in here. One it will not happen this way, because neither the Catholic or Orthodox Churches will accept anything like this, and I seriously doubt any Protestant church would accept this model either. And quite frankly, why would they? What would be the advantage? Unity in name only? That is all you will get.

Future unity among the Apostolic Churches will IMO similar to the current model used between the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches. Among the Protestant churches, I don't see any segregated unity, except maybe some form of ordinate, but the issue with that will be the gross differences between theology on serious matters such as the Sacraments of Ordination and the Eucharist.

Click to expand...

That is my opinion too. I looked at a model using the current Catholic model with the following characteristics
1. Allowing diverse liturgies under different rites
2. Each rite having limited self-government.
3. Disputes are settled normally at the level they occur at
4. The magisterium and the pope can step in to offer a big picture solution
5. Calling a council is a final resort.

So a loose control of orthopraxis with a tight control of orthodoxy. What got me thinking about this is I asked myself the question, "If the Catholic and Orthodox churches were to reunite, which model would be best for the Orthodox side?" If the model adopted was the Orthodox model of counciliar control, a modern ecumenical council could be called but how would the representatives be decided upon. Would each side send a set number or would we take the more democratic approach and have a representative represent a certain number of Christians? If we take the democratic approach the council would be dominated by the larger Catholic side. If we have a set number from each side, we probably have a council that will be unable to decide a thing. This is when I started realizing that the early church called a council and agreed upon canons because they felt they had a common cause and a common destiny. I think that motivation is totally lacking today. To me that is the true sadness of any attempts at ecumenism.

tz620q said:

That is my opinion too. I looked at a model using the current Catholic model with the following characteristics
1. Allowing diverse liturgies under different rites

Click to expand...

That already occurs.

tz620q said:

2. Each rite having limited self-government.

Click to expand...

Limited? The particular churches of the Easter Catholic Churches, that are patriarchs, have full self-government (i.e. their own canon laws, and election of their own bishops, and their own traditions to determine a patriarch; I don't see that changing if there is unification with the Orthodox Churches.

tz620q said:

3. Disputes are settled normally at the level they occur at

Click to expand...

Ok.

tz620q said:

4. The magisterium and the pope can step in to offer a big picture solution

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what that would mean. The pope now pretty much is hands off when it comes to the Eastern Catholic Churches. It isn't that the Eastern Patriarchs don't already have a system and tradition in place. They are not the younger immature sibling that needs big brother to always step in and pull them out of a jam. The traditions have been around for centuries at least and many of them have been around as long as the Latin Church.

tz620q said:

5. Calling a council is a final resort.

Click to expand...

Perhaps.

tz620q said:

So a loose control of orthopraxis with a tight control of orthodoxy. What got me thinking about this is I asked myself the question, "If the Catholic and Orthodox churches were to reunite, which model would be best for the Orthodox side?" If the model adopted was the Orthodox model of counciliar control, a modern ecumenical council could be called but how would the representatives be decided upon. Would each side send a set number or would we take the more democratic approach and have a representative represent a certain number of Christians? If we take the democratic approach the council would be dominated by the larger Catholic side. If we have a set number from each side, we probably have a council that will be unable to decide a thing. This is when I started realizing that the early church called a council and agreed upon canons because they felt they had a common cause and a common destiny. I think that motivation is totally lacking today. To me that is the true sadness of any attempts at ecumenism.

Click to expand...

Ecumenical councils have never worked this way. Many of them have started off as local synods, but later their canons were made binding to the whole Church, thus they became considered Ecumenical. In all honesty local synods are called all the time to handle various issues, and I really don't see that changing.

Erose said:

The pope now pretty much is hands off when it comes to the Eastern Catholic Churches. It isn't that the Eastern Patriarchs don't already have a system and tradition in place. They are not the younger immature sibling that needs big brother to always step in and pull them out of a jam. The traditions have been around for centuries at least and many of them have been around as long as the Latin Church.

Click to expand...

While I agree that that is the boots on the ground reality of how the Catholic Church has worked for a long time concerning the Eastern Rites, I am not sure the Orthodox will buy into any type of system where the Pope has ultimate power, whether he uses that power or not. So for reunification to occur, there has to be a rethinking of the checks and balances. This to me is the hurdle that is being approached right now with dialog on what "first among equals" actually means. What are your thoughts on how to jump this hurdle?

Erose said:

Ecumenical councils have never worked this way. Many of them have started off as local synods, but later their canons were made binding to the whole Church, thus they became considered Ecumenical. In all honesty local synods are called all the time to handle various issues, and I really don't see that changing.

Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to negate the need for local synods in the future. I guess I was trying to come up with a workable method for the two churches to work out their differences. If you look at the current ecumenical talks, they try to represent all sides of Catholicism and Orthodoxy; but their intent is really to highlight areas of agreement and disagreement and not to create new canons. Obviously Papal decree will not work and local synods are not binding on the whole church. So it would seem the only viable method is a larger council populated with representatives from both sides.

The Bishop of Rome is one of the earliest patriarchs of the Church. He is the first among equal patriarchs, with all the authority and power that he had at the time of the last ecumenical council in 787, no more, and no less.

This was agreed to by the RCC and among most Orthodox (with the Russian patriarch not (present or represented).

Obviously, there are many point of disagreement, especially with regard to practices in 787. However, I think that this is reasonable approach. BTW, this is not officially accepted by anyone. Discussion continues.

tz620q said:

This thread got me thinking about a future reunited Christianity and what it could be like. I started thinking through a Christianity based on the Orthodox model which seems to have the following features (please correct me, I see this as the start of a civil discussion, not a rigorous essay.)
1. No centralized authority
2. A loose episcopal hierarchy that seems normally purely administrative and regional in scope
3. Strong monastic influence in theological discussions
4. Close ties with national governments in most of the historically Orthodox countries
5. Counciliar method of combating heresy or division

If we used this model for a world church, it would be kind of a U.N. of autocephalous churches and the unity would be only in continuing dialog with little effective ability to regulate belief or combat heresy. The worst "punishment" would be to expel the offending church (assuming that a whole segment has apostatised) from the council, which would really only put them back to where they are today. So to me the true test of whether this would succeed is how this group decided to police itself. What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

There would need to be an initial ecumenical council to "settle" certain issues that are considered essential. And there would need to be mechanisms for future councils.

And no, I would expect this to happen for another century. There are fundamental disagreements. There are American evangelicals who believe in no sacraments, no visible Church, no real presence, and individualism to be at the heart of the faith.

While I can certainly accept these folks as brothers and sisters in Christ, it is difficult to envision how they would be part of a universal Church that they don't believe in.

mark46 said:

There are American evangelicals who believe in no sacraments, no visible Church, no real presence, and individualism to be at the heart of the faith.

While I can certainly accept these folks as brothers and sisters in Christ, it is difficult to envision how they would be part of a universal Church that they don't believe in.

Click to expand...

I agree. Those who completely discount the need for a visible church and buy into a "where ever two or more are gathered, there is the church" mentality have adopted such a spirit of individualism that they see diversity in Christian belief as a good thing. They have bought into the modern paradigm, where it is not a burger; but an Angus burger. This sort of "Gourmet" Christianity appeals to the senses more than the intellect, to the ego more than the soul. We have a Non-Denom church near us that demands to see your last few years of income tax returns before you can join. The members are there for networking, coffee, and a rock concert. They would see any effort at reunification in Christianity as a cop out on their values.

<Staff Edit>
Careful here. Both Christian Forums site-wide rules and this sub-forum do not allow flaming / goading of individuals or groups of people in claiming that they are not Christians. Claiming that the RCC are the new Pharisees who Jesus called vipers, and that the pope and church are what Revelations calls the little horn certainly falls into that category.

I'm not Catholic myself, but I wouldn't think about even associating them with those derogatory descriptions. If you must do that, do that off the boards of Christian Forums, and certainly not in Traditional Theology.

For your benefit if you want to stay in good standing with CF, you should review the sitewide rules Community Rules:

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.

Click to expand...

Tiny Bible said:

You might avail yourself of the opportunity to read about the decrees made by the Council of Trent. Particularly their decree about faith.

<Staff Edit>

Click to expand...

I definitely agree and suggest reading the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent itself on salvation and justification.


Instead of reading about Trent from a secondary protestant source try reading the actual council documents themselves. Then read the biblical books it references particularly the Gospels of Matthew, and John, Romans, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, James, and Revelation.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm

Now I know its off topic here I think it would be fun to dialog one on one on any of these subjects because I think there is alot of biblical evidence for these things like Indulgences and purgatory and relics, and saints intercession. In fact they are all based on Jewish theology of which they came from and the principles of each can be found in old and new testament and quoted by the rabbi's themselves. I find this true especially on Jesus own teaching of the doctrine and concept of purgatory.

It seems Jesus himself teaching this concept in a very Jewish way(Jews also believed in purgatory and the rabbi's talked about it) in the Gospel of Matthew especially in 2 different places. I think you have a misunderstanding of purgatory and I would love to show you what I think you misunderstand and who knows maybe you can show me some stuff too.

Really I would love to dialog one one one with you about this or any of the other doctrines you may disagree with,. I think there is a ton of scripture and evidence you may be overlooking and if nothing else you can see just how Catholics see these things as biblical. Hit me up if you want to see how biblical I think these doctrines are and we can do a one on one dialog in the formal debate section. All I ask for is equal time to demonstrate how biblical and historical and Jewish these teachings are. You may be amazed. God bless you my sister in Christ!!

chevyontheriver said:

I know about the 'like' button but here's one case where I really wish there was a 'dislike' button too. I would have hoped that the TT forum would not slide into this kind of thing. I would have hoped that it would be a place where we could explore our similarities rather than attacking our differences. There are plenty of places in Christian Forums for anti-Catholic drivel. Does it have to be in TT as well?

Click to expand...

Well said. I feel the same way. At one time TT did not allow this type of anti-Catholic drivel but recently it has become more like GT unfortunately. That is why I always offer to do dialogs one on one when I see this kind of stuff so some civility can take place. But yes well said.

Athanasias said:

Well said. I feel the same way. At one time TT did not allow this type of anti-Catholic drivel but recently it has become more like GT unfortunately. That is why I always offer to do dialogs one on one when I see this kind of stuff so some civility can take place. But yes well said.

Click to expand...

The ethos of CF is essentially anti ancient churches not only anti Catholic Church. Catholics receive more negative attention because the Catholic Church is by far the largest Christian Church in our world. Yet the Orthodox also receive anti Orthodox Church commentary. Even some of the older Protestant denominations, such as the Anglicans, Lutherans, and the Reformed denominations receive negative commentary. The Liberal Protestant denominations receive negative commentary too. It makes for bad discussions.

MoreCoffee said:

The ethos of CF is essentially anti ancient churches not only anti Catholic Church. Catholics receive more negative attention because the Catholic Church is by far the largest Christian Church in our world. Yet the Orthodox also receive anti Orthodox Church commentary. Even some of the older Protestant denominations, such as the Anglicans, Lutherans, and the Reformed denominations receive negative commentary. The Liberal Protestant denominations receive negative commentary too. It makes for bad discussions.

Click to expand...

I know that the Orthodox would get stung by the sword of the same kind of folks that feel the need to impale Catholics. The only reason they get off easier at times is that the impalers often don't have a clue the Orthodox even exist. This should be a place of unity for Catholics and Orthodox and traditional Anglicans and traditional Lutherans and the rest of our ilk. To those who refuse to share in it, who attack those who share in it, go away. Attack from General Theology. Knock yourself out.

MoreCoffee said:

The ethos of CF is essentially anti ancient churches not only anti Catholic Church. Catholics receive more negative attention because the Catholic Church is by far the largest Christian Church in our world. Yet the Orthodox also receive anti Orthodox Church commentary. Even some of the older Protestant denominations, such as the Anglicans, Lutherans, and the Reformed denominations receive negative commentary. The Liberal Protestant denominations receive negative commentary too. It makes for bad discussions.

Click to expand...

I agree with you here. .

Admin Hat...

This thread has undergone a bit of a cleanup.

I ask visitors here to refrain from flaming and goading the traditional Churches. Those who's posts are missing or edited either violated the flaming rule, or quoted a post that did. For those of you who did violate the SoP, grace has been extended and no staff actions issued. Consider this hat your warning; next time, no grace; just the rules.

Stating or implying that members of these Churches are not or are less Christian will earn staff actions, some may amount to the suspension of access to CF.

Do we understand?

I ask regular posters here to exercise vigilance, and when appropriate, report posts that violate both the letter and the spirit of this forums Statement of Purpose. If we wish to maintain the civil tone that we all love, we need to take ownership and responsibility... so report.

Thanks,

Mark
CF Admini

Jews for Jesus: Vatican standpoint on Jewish Evangelism
http://jewsforjesus.org/publication...ounces-vatican-statement-on-jewish-evangelism

BABerean2 said:

Jews for Jesus: Vatican standpoint on Jewish Evangelism
http://jewsforjesus.org/publication...ounces-vatican-statement-on-jewish-evangelism

Click to expand...

Shame on you and the shame on the Jews for Jesus for not reading or understanding the actual document. I would expect this tripe from the secular media but not from other Christians and Jews.

Jimmy Akin a Catholic scholar and apologist explains:

"It acknowledges that Christians have a duty to evangelize and that this includes Jewish people.

Many in the media and the blogosphere got this wrong (big surprise) and reported that the Holy See was saying that Christians should not evangelize Jews, but the document says otherwise."

See Link here:
http://jimmyakin.com/2015/12/new-vatican-document-on-jews-salvation-and-evangelization.html

The Jews for Jesus ought to know that we are actively evangelizing Jews and having a high rate of success. My former professor in grad school Dr. Lawrence Feingold is part of the association of Hebrew Catholics who do work to show Jews how catholicism is a historical and biblical fulfillment of Judaism. Here is he website check it out if you do not thin the Catholic Church is active in that:

http://www.hebrewcatholic.net/

Here is Dr. Feingold 3 books on how Jewish the Catholic Church actually is:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mystery-Israel-Church-Vol/dp/0939409054

Senod2 said:

But i am just wondering what your opinions are?

Click to expand...

I've never read anything from the Pope. Is he a good writer?

Nope. It is based on forged document (Pseudo-Isidorian Decreetals) and unbiblical traditions. Jesus never established a Pope.

JoeP222w said:

Nope. It is based on forged document (Pseudo-Isidorian Decreetals) and unbiblical traditions. Jesus never established a Pope.

Click to expand...

Didn't know Matthew was a forged document.