Papacy Refuted . . .

[ArmyMatt]

The Pascha is the Passover. Easter and Pascha is not the same is it?

for us they are. Christ is our true Passover. and it is true Pascha and Passover mean the same, Easter is simply the Anglicized Germanic name for the Feast.

 

[Alicia Schout]

for us they are. Christ is our true Passover. and it is true Pascha and Passover mean the same, Easter is simply the Anglicized Germanic name for the Feast.

So ArmyMatt, this means that everytime when we
celebrate Holy Communion, we are celebrating
Easter, the Anglicized Germanic name for the Feast?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So ArmyMatt, this means that everytime when we
celebrate Holy Communion, we are celebrating
Easter, the Anglicized Germanic name for the Feast?

to a small degree, yes

 

[Alicia Schout]

The Pascha is the Passover. Easter and Pascha is not the same is it?

The Pascha is the Passover. Easter and Pascha is not the same is it?

In 1 Corinth. 16:9 mentioned about Pentecostal and not the Passover.

 

[ArmyMatt]

In 1 Corinth. 16:9 mentioned about Pentecostal and not the Passover.

that was not the verse that was referenced

 

[anna ~ grace]

Forgive and pardon me my sins. I beg the pardon, peace, and forgiveness of any and all persons have have read my posts and are presently reading this particular thread. O God, be merciful to me, a sinner.+

God bless you, man. Christ bless you. Take care of yourself, Virgil.

I'm of the opinion that Peter is the rock, and that there is a case to be made for Peterine primacy using Scripture. But I also know that there are Protestant and Orthodox Christians out there a thousand times better than myself, and better people over all. God be merciful to both of us and make us worthy of the promises of Christ.

 

[ArmyMatt]

God bless you, man. Christ bless you. Take care of yourself, Virgil.

I'm of the opinion that Peter is the rock, and that there is a case to be made for Peterine primacy using Scripture. But I also know that there are Protestant and Orthodox Christians out there a thousand times better than myself, and better people over all. God be merciful to both of us and make us worthy of the promises of Christ.

we don't dispute that Peter being the rock is an ancient interpretation of the Scripture. it is, however, Rome's conclusions from that interpretation that we disagree

 

[anna ~ grace]

we don't dispute that Peter being the rock is an ancient interpretation of the Scripture. it is, however, Rome's conclusions from that interpretation that we disagree

I know; just as a Catholic-in-my-heart just saying; Shalom.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I know; just as a Catholic-in-my-heart just saying; Shalom.

I gotcha, just keeping it clear because we absolutely believe that one can argue for Peterine supremacy, the question is what does that mean?

 

[Alicia Schout]

In 1 Corinth. 16:9 mentioned about Pentecostal and not the Passover.

It's someone else mentioned Corinth 16:9 no not you.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well, Anastasia the Resurrection should be remembered by keeping the Holy Communion.
The Lord says that: do this in remembrance of me.
I see nothing wrong in remembering His birth, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (the birth of the Church) and other celebrations as Ascension Day. I agree with your opinion regarding to pagan celebrations. But if Christian celebrates focussing on what God has done for us, it's no problem with me.
I want to do what God loves and hates that which God hates.

Hi, Alicia, glad to see you made it over here. Welcome to TAW!

We do celebrate a number of holy days through the year. They serve as constant reminders of events through Christ's life, for example, and lead us in a rhythm of repentance and joyous celebration of Christ's birth, and especially resurrection, for example.

And I see as other have answered, we just keep the ancient terminology of Pascha, which is called in other places Easter.

We have a minor weekly cycle too, in addition to the yearly cycle. We remember the crucifixion on Fridays, for example, and yes, every Sunday is a reminder of Christ's Resurrection. We usually do have Holy Communion every Sunday, but it can also be on other days as well.

 

[Alicia Schout]

Hi, Alicia, glad to see you made it over here. Welcome to TAW!

We do celebrate a number of holy days through the year. They serve as constant reminders of events through Christ's life, for example, and lead us in a rhythm of repentance and joyous celebration of Christ's birth, and especially resurrection, for example.

And I see as other have answered, we just keep the ancient terminology of Pascha, which is called in other places Easter.

We have a minor weekly cycle too, in addition to the yearly cycle. We remember the crucifixion on Fridays, for example, and yes, every Sunday is a reminder of Christ's Resurrection. We usually do have Holy Communion every Sunday, but it can also be on other days as well.

Thanks for your answer. How can I pay for a monthly Fee of 5,00 USdollar to remain a member of this Christian Forum?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks for your answer. How can I pay for a monthly Fee of 5,00 USdollar to remain a member of this Christian Forum?

You will be a member as long as you like without paying. Paying will get you a premium membership though which includes no ads, access to a supporter-only forum, and a supporter badge. It is greatly appreciated by CF I'm sure. (I'm just a volunteer).

Actually, I've just looked around. I can't find a link, possibly because I'm already a supporter by being an Ambassador.

You can ask here though: Questions about CF - about that, or any questions about how the forums work or technical questions.

 

[Alicia Schout]

You will be a member as long as you like without paying. Paying will get you a premium membership though which includes no ads, access to a supporter-only forum, and a supporter badge. It is greatly appreciated by CF I'm sure. (I'm just a volunteer).

Actually, I've just looked around. I can't find a link, possibly because I'm already a supporter by being an Ambassador.

You can ask here though: Questions about CF - about that, or any questions about how the forums work or technical questions.

Okay Anastasia, I don't need any premium membership. It's a bit annoyant seeing that amount of 50,00 USdollar on the screen for life long premium membership.

 

[Light of the East]

I gotcha, just keeping it clear because we absolutely believe that one can argue for Peterine supremacy, the question is what does that mean?

Okay.....now I'm totally confused. You state that one can argue for Peterine supremacy, so what does that exactly mean and how does it differ from the current Roman understanding of that office?

 

[FireDragon76]

Okay.....now I'm totally confused. You state that one can argue for Peterine supremacy, so what does that exactly mean and how does it differ from the current Roman understanding of that office?

The Roman understanding of the Church is heavily juridical, institutional, and hierarchical, which means primacy must come with judicial-type power. The idea of the Church as a communion of bishops based on love is secondary to institutionalism and clericalism.

I think a fair comparison would be like the Archbishop of Canterburry. He's a figurehead, he's respected by Anglicans as a spiritual authority, but he doesn't have juridical power in the Anglican world. Past Anglican archbishops have made it clear that to be in communion with them is not essential to Anglican identity. Likewise, being in communion with a particular bishop is not essential to Orthodox identity, even though its the historic norm to be in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, that is not an absolute requirement.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Okay.....now I'm totally confused. You state that one can argue for Peterine supremacy, so what does that exactly mean and how does it differ from the current Roman understanding of that office?

that the Pope was the head within the episcopate, only not above it. as such, he was the first commemorated, the first consulted at a council (or his delegation), the final arbiter of disputes before a council is held, a symbol of our unity to the non-Orthodox world, sits in the highest honored See, etc. so in that sense, he did have a supremacy. what that does not mean is he has direct authority over the universal Church, infallibility, etc. only Christ has that authority.

remember in the ancient Church and in Orthodoxy today, meaning is what matters more than word choice.

 

[Light of the East]

This is really the final bridge I have to hurdle, and it may take a while.

If there is not a single point of unity and authority on earth, then we are left with chaos. It is well and good to say that Christ has that direct authority over the universal Church, it is well and good to say that only He is infallible in regards to truth, but we as people do not see Him, we do not hear His voice, and therefore, it would seem almost essential to have a visible representation of His authority and doctrinal precision on earth.

This is what I struggle with now. I struggle with it now because of what has happened within the Roman Church in the last 1,000 years. I listen to AFR and the concerns they have over certain dogmatic statements are understandable. But at the same time, I look to the East and as I am studying more and more of the history of the East, I see that left to themselves, the bishops of the East are wont to subvert themselves to the power and despotic rule of the emperors (for instance, the Monophysite controversy) or to become entrenched in error. It was Athanasius alone, with the support of the Bishop of Rome, who stood as a lone beacon of orthodoxy against the Arian heresy. This does not speak well for the independence of each episcopal see.

Where furthermore is the "unity of the Church" when the Eastern patriarchs were fighting among themselves (and are still doing so today) over who is the "New Rome" with each on trying to establish himself as the prime locus of the Church? That is hardly a good look either in regards to humility and unity.

There simply must be a voice that is the final arbiter of orthodoxy in the Christian faith, and it appears from history that individual patriarchs, who often bowed to the commands of heretical emperors, or individual bishops, are simply not that voice.

I am not writing this to be contentious. I am here, and will remain so, to learn. You need to know what I am struggling with. Rome certainly offers me no prize package, and the most cursory look at the behavior there, not only of some of the wicked popes, but the Church in general, makes me scratch my head and go "HUH" in regards to their Christian behavior in general. In short, all they have done in respect to those with whom they disagree (for instance, the martyrdom of St. Peter the Aleut) is a very, VERY poor witness to being orthodox in one's moral praxis.

Anyhow, that's where I am this morning.

 

[~Anastasia~]

the final arbiter of disputes before a council is held,

This part seems key for me. I'm not overly familiar with how disputes or issues were handled in the early Church, but I take it that Rome would have been consulted in an ATTEMPT to provide an answer when it reached that late stage? Yet Rome was not the final authority. If Rome's answer did not satisfy, a council of all would be necessary, at which Rome would preside and speak first, but with no authority to press her judgements on everyone else, if it was seen that another answer was more in accord with the faith.

Is this correct then?

Whereas Rome today, in the person of the Pope, expects that the word of that individual will have binding and final authority over all, no matter what? And as can be seen by the very point that there ever WAS any council, this is obviously not how the early Church viewed Rome and her authority.

This would be the difference on that particular count?

 

[Light of the East]

Anastasia~, post: 72251164 =

This part seems key for me. I'm not overly familiar with how disputes or issues were handled in the early Church, but I take it that Rome would have been consulted in an ATTEMPT to provide an answer when it reached that late stage? Yet Rome was not the final authority. If Rome's answer did not satisfy, a council of all would be necessary, at which Rome would preside and speak first, but with no authority to press her judgments on everyone else, if it was seen that another answer was more in accord with the faith.

Is this correct then?

Whereas Rome today, in the person of the Pope, expects that the word of that individual will have binding and final authority over all, no matter what? And as can be seen by the very point that there ever WAS any council, this is obviously not how the early Church viewed Rome and her authority.

This would be the difference on that particular count?

And that is very problematic, as we are seeing right now with Pope Francis and some of his declarations. What happens if he, without consultation to a council, decides that one of his thoughts on some subject has divine imprimatur and he is going to make a "ex cathedra" declaration?