Can Christianity survive without the Pope?

[Albion]

My answer is simple. I would want to do whatever God asked of me.

Are your answers similiar?

Of course. But I would actually go by "whatever God asked of me."

In your earlier post you only said "if God wanted...."

Which of those do you intend to be guided by? What he's asked of us or what someone says he wants?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

what if Christ was actually the head of His own Body as scripture says?

Hmm. What dost thou make of that "head" in Reve 13:3?

Reve 5:6 And I saw and behold! in midst of the throne and of the four living-ones and in midst of the elders a lamb-kin/N standing, as having been slaughtered/esfag-menon <4969> (5772) N,

Reve 13:3 And one/F, out of the heads/F of it, as having been slaughtered/esfag-menhn/<4969> (5772)F into death, and the blow/stripe of the death of it was healed. And marvels whole the land behind of the beast.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Of course. But I would actually go by "whatever God asked of me."

In your earlier post you only said "if God wanted...."

Which of those do you intend to be guided by? What he's asked of us or what someone says he wants?

I never said "what someone says he wants".

 

[Albion]

I never said "what someone says he wants".

That's right...and I never said you did. Why does the question make you so uneasy?

You said: "What if God wanted a Pope for His church and for you to follow His church?" Then you changed to whatever God asked...."

For myself, I'd do what God asked. I answered what I'd do, so what would you do in the case of God asking? Would you do what someone said God wanted but not what we know he asked?

 

[MamaZ]

If we are Christ body why would a man be the head of this body? For we are not peters Body nor are we the popes body. We are Christs body.. Christ is the head of His church. HE is the head and we His people are the body

 

[Albion]

If we are Christ body why would a man be the head of this body? For we are not peters Body nor are we the popes body. We are Christs body.. Christ is the head of His church. HE is the head and we His people are the body

I think we all know this, but there's still a question about the Earthly administration of Christ's church. That wouldn't really be the "head" in the ultimate sense, but almost every church body has some senior administrator, and we can ask if it is the kind of leader God meant for there to be.

However, I took Jack the Catholic's question to be more practical than theological. If there were no pope, he asks, would not Christianity go into a tail spin. My answer is that there is no reason to think it would, but anyone else could see it differently. If that is so, I'd be curious to know why not having a Pope of one denomination around would mean chaos when half of the Christian world doesn't follow him as it is.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

If we are Christ body why would a man be the head of this body? For we are not peters Body nor are we the popes body. We are Christs body.. Christ is the head of His church. HE is the head and we His people are the body

No one has said any one else besides Jesus is the Head.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No one has said any one else besides Jesus is the Head.

Then you will pardon me if I don't make your Pope of Rome my head.

Reve 13:3 And one out of the heads of it as having been slaughtered into death, and the blow/stripe of the death of it was healed. And marvels whole the land behind of the beast.

 

[Heber]

Originally Posted by MamaZ

what if Christ was actually the head of His own Body as scripture says?
​

Are you saying or implying that He isn't?

 

[onwingsaseagles]

By the way Catholicism is not christianity.

I'm not a Catholic but on what grounds do you make this judgement (even with a small 'c' for His name)?

Catholicism is a religion nothing more. True Christianity is about having a real relationship with Jesus Christ, not about religion.

There could be a catholic Christian, but catholicism itself is not synonymous with Christianity.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Catholicism is a religion nothing more. True Christianity is about having a real relationship with Jesus Christ, not about religion.

There could be a catholic Christian, but catholicism itself is not synonymous with Christianity.

The 3rd Bishop of Antioch who was appointed by Peter (the Apsotle) and taught by John (the Apostle) wrote a letter that disagrees with this around the time John the Apostle was still alive.

His name is Ignatius and he wrote:

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Ancient history, and do ya mind saying [c]atholic

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Ancient history, and do ya mind saying [c]atholic

Actually, I do mind. It is Catholic.

 

[Albion]

The 3rd Bishop of Antioch who was appointed by Peter (the Apsotle) and taught by John (the Apostle) wrote a letter that disagrees with this around the time John the Apostle was still alive.

His name is Ignatius and he wrote:

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

What does this have to do with whether Christianity can survive without a Pope?

BTW, Ignatius was not speaking of the Church of Rome but of authentic Christianity ("Catholic"), as opposed to heretics, etc., and he didn't identify any particular diocese or bishop. You are putting an idea into Ignatius' comments that he didn't have in mind, merely because your church uses the word "Catholic" as part of its usual name. To do this is like saying everyone who baptises with water is ipso facto a 'Baptist,' or if you have bishops, you are an 'Episcopalian,' because that's the strict meaning of those words.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What does this have to do with whether Christianity can survive without a Pope?

BTW, Ignatius was not speaking of the Church of Rome but of authentic Christianity ("Catholic"), as opposed to heretics, etc., and he didn't identify any particular diocese or bishop. You are putting an idea into Ignatius' comments that he didn't have in mind, merely because your church uses the word "Catholic" as part of its usual name. To do this is like saying everyone who baptises with water is ipso facto a 'Baptist,' or if you have bishops, you are an 'Episcopalian,' because that's the strict meaning of those words.

As I stated in our other thread, "you would benefit from some education on the Early Church Fathers". Then you would know that this post of yours is false.

 

[Albion]

As I stated in our other thread, "you would benefit from some education on the Early Church Fathers". Then you would know that this post of yours is false.

Well, it's the truth, and widely known, even if you didn't know it. And it's about time that you stop with the gratuitious insults at every opportunity.

And you can't deny with a straight face that all Ignatius did was use the word and say that it applies to bishops and the Eucharist. He doesn't link it to Rome in any way, so you are reading what you want between the lines and, once again, it didn't work.

But if you think differently, trot out the ECFs for us--all of them--and show what you think Ignatius was saying if it's not what he actually is recorded as having said.

 

[Rick Otto]

As I stated in our other thread, "you would benefit from some education on the Early Church Fathers". Then you would know that this post of yours is false.

School us, bro.

 

[Rick Otto]

The 3rd Bishop of Antioch who was appointed by Peter (the Apsotle) and taught by John (the Apostle) wrote a letter that disagrees with this around the time John the Apostle was still alive.

His name is Ignatius and he wrote:

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

How do you know Ignatius wasn't just trying to centralize power "for church survival's sake" in the chaos of transitioning from an outlaws'-to-emperor's religion under the pressure to define itself in a way that allow keeping a lid on sectarian influences? If the church didn't demonstrate the ability to police itself, it was vulnerable to policing by the state. His intentions were good, but he overplayed his hand, having what I like to describe as a "nicolaitane" effect (nico=conqueror+laity=people) creating an exaggerated division a la "clergy/laity".

There is a reason his stuff isn't scripture, Jack.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

School us, bro.

If I thought for even a second you were serious about reeceiving an education on this I would start posting. But I know you too well Rick.

 

[onwingsaseagles]

The 3rd Bishop of Antioch who was appointed by Peter (the Apsotle) and taught by John (the Apostle) wrote a letter that disagrees with this around the time John the Apostle was still alive.

His name is Ignatius and he wrote:

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

We both know that the world 'catholic'' does not mean then what it does now. What it meant when he wrote that was universal, there was no such thing as what we now know as the catholic church when this was written.