Hi RoJ,Well, technically, the Pope is the head of all Christendom, whether you like him or whether you consider him so, or not. Just as people have said Obama isn't my president or Trump isn't my president, well, honestly, in either case, he is.
Logically and technically, it is the case. Jesus instituted one Church. We believe the Pope is the head of the one Church. We do not claim, as some do, that all other churches aren't valid, but are held under the umbrella of the one Church. Therefore, the Pope is the head of all Christendom. That is not to say all Christians follow him or obey him.No. That's not the case, technically or in any other way. Your church's ecclesiology is its own, not shared by others and not an organic development from that of the early church, or in any way a preservation of it.
Except that the Church is universal, Obama's country or Trump's country is not.If Pope Francis is like Obama or Trump, then the patriarchs of the non-Catholic churches are more like the presidents or prime ministers of other countries: they don't say anything about his own status as 'president', but he's not the leader of their countries. He only leads his own.
I don't know about the first part, but totally agree with the second part.This pope acts very much like a Freemason. Freemasonry and Christianity are not compatible.
Never said Christ wasn't the head of His Church. Nor did I say the Pope is Jesus. The pope is Christ's vicar, his visible representative. And as I said to a previous poster, some people here in the US would tell you that Trump isn't their president, and yet he is, whether they like it or not, whether they follow or obey him, or not. Ergo, the Pope, appointed as the vicar of Christ, does represent all Christendom, whether or not the agree with him or follow him. Heck Joe Biden claims to be Catholic, but disagrees with the pope when politically expedient. There are lots of Catholics who didn't like or obey this pope or that pope.Hi RoJ,
thank you for counting me in. However, Francis is not my head. He doesn't speak in my name.
Bible explains who is really the head of the Christian body: it's Jesus himself - Ephesians 1:22. The pope is not Jesus, please.
Regards, Thomas
However, that's not Bible.The pope is Christ's vicar,
John 16:10 - 13 explains what Christians count on the moment they didn't see Jesus anymore: The Holy Ghost. He is enough, who is in need of any such representative you are speaking of.his visible representative
Matthew 16:18-20 says otherwise. Christ said he would leave a human representative when He rose, too.However, that's not Bible.
Bible frankly states who is the head: Jesus. Just as frankly Bible says who is his helper: it's the Holy Ghost. John 16:13. He came when Jesus went.
In short: the position as a head of Christian people: taken.
The position of His helper when he went to the father: also taken. Since there is a helper, no need for a vicar.
I hope you won't be too disappointed .
John 16:10 - 13 explains what Christians count on the moment they didn't see Jesus anymore: The Holy Ghost. He is enough, who is in need of any such representative you are speaking of.
I'm a Christian but the pope does not represent me, can you accept this?
Jesus said His church was built upon truth of the Father, not of man. Any institution of man, especially one calling itself Christian that would abandon the Kingdom to partner with the secular government of man (accepting the offer of the Tempter that Jesus refused in the desert) is not of the Kingdom, but does serve a purpose to God in forwarding scriptures by use of the enemy. Gospel of the Kingdom hidden in plain sight in a religion that worships messenger but not message (the governance of God over the governance of man, not man using God to justify itself but changing to suit the will of God).Therefore, the Pope is the head of all Christendom.
Where did I say the Church was built on a man? The Church was built on Christ, but upon the Rock of Peter.Jesus said His church was built upon truth of the Father, not of man. Any institution of man, especially one calling itself Christian that would abandon the Kingdom to partner with the secular government of man (accepting the offer of the Tempter that Jesus refused in the desert) is not of the Kingdom, but does serve a purpose to God in forwarding scriptures by use of the enemy. Gospel of the Kingdom hidden in plain sight in a religion that worships messenger but not message (the governance of God over the governance of man, not man using God to justify itself but changing to suit the will of God).
I'm sorry,, that is your belief.But the previous verse clearly said the rock His church would be built upon was truth from the Father but not from man. But yes, Peter spoke a truth from the Father but not from man as the others had done when asked the question by Jesus.Where did I say the Church was built on a man? The Church was built on Christ, but upon the Rock of Peter.
As mentioned the biggest betrayal to the Kingdom of God was the church uniting with the world of man officially 1700 yrs ago (but long before that also), in direct opposition to what was taught in the Gospel of the Kingdom.I can agree that, through history the Church has gotten too close to secular government, but I'm not a member of that secular Church. I'm a member of the faith Christ taught, through the Catholic Church
Agreed, there are two opposing forces within the church. One intent on carrying on the traditions of man, and the other practising what Jesus commanded like putting the will of God ahead of man's will and loving all, including enemy as self, perhaps what Francis is trying to do..I think it's funny how often people will criticize the Catholic Church because of the actions of those who aren't acting Catholic. Even the hierarchy.
Christian values. Things like "making peace" "having a mutual understanding" doesn't sound like blasphemy to me.“mutual understanding between the world’s Christians and Muslims in order to build peace and justice.”
That's a tale (if you're referring to one human). There is no Bible verse indicating this. Matthew 16:18 talks about a rock that Jesus would build his church opon. There's no representative mentioned by ths verse.Christ said he would leave a human representative when He rose, too.
I beg to differ. You seem to keep on wanting to tell me who my boss is, I beg to post my opinion on it, too.This has become a highjack of the OP's post. Can we get back on topic?
Logically and technically, it is the case.
Jesus instituted one Church.
We believe the Pope is the head of the one Church. We do not claim, as some do, that all other churches aren't valid, but are held under the umbrella of the one Church. Therefore, the Pope is the head of all Christendom. That is not to say all Christians follow him or obey him.
Except that the Church is universal, Obama's country or Trump's country is not.
My opinion is that because Roman Catholicism basically claimed western Europe and the United States (more recently). By doing that, the western world under Rome only accepts the Roman Bishop's Rule so in essence "the world" really meaning the western world which in many ways considers itself as "the whole world" because most westerners don care about or recognize anything in the East. That is why the attempted power grabs split the Church. The East was saying you were never the authority here and never will be while Rome was saying to the east come to heel or you are out of the "real church" because I am now the #1 Pope of all churchesNone of this matters. Again, stating your ecclesiology as though it exists independently of the very clear and obvious historical trajectory of the See of Rome, which only began espousing this ecclesiology in the fifth century (see, e.g., Pope Leo's letter in 445 to HH St. Dioscorus -- essentially, adopt these practices that Rome does, so that Rome and Alexandria may be "one in all things"), is a strange way of arguing. I could just as easily lean heavily on the Bishop of Alexandria's role in fixing the date of Easter (many centuries before Rome claimed the title of 'Pope' in any exclusive sense) by which he is called "Judge of the Universe", but that doesn't mean anything like what Rome claims for itself.
Put simply, there is no universal jurisdiction, and never has been, and never will be. This is one of Rome's very prominent ecclesiological heresies.
The Western nations did circumnavigate the world.My opinion is that because Roman Catholicism basically claimed western Europe and the United States (more recently). By doing that, the western world under Rome only accepts the Roman Bishop's Rule so in essence "the world" really meaning the western world which in many ways considers itself as "the whole world" because most westerners don care about or recognize anything in the East. That is why the attempted power grabs split the Church. The East was saying you were never the authority here and never will be while Rome was saying to the east come to heel or you are out of the "real church" because I am now the #1 Pope of all churches
It's a working theory anyway
That's right, and right along with them, was the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Church did not do as much exploring from my understanding. It spread more organically.The Western nations did circumnavigate the world.