Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

Trento said:

Your opinion.


I can make claims as an amateur historian too, but the difference is that I back them up with scholars,

Click to expand...

You do NO such thing, you continually peel them so far from their context that it is offensive...You do the same with what you claim are your church fathers...

TraderJack said:

Is that those lists are unreliable, having been altered, changed and composed by Roman Catholics during the medieval period to appear to validate Rome's claims.

In short, they are spurious and not reliable at all.

Click to expand...

Trento said:

Your opinion.
I can make claims as an amateur historian too, but the difference is that I back them up with scholars, and almost all Protestant ones, lest I be accused of Catholic bias. No one cares what I think because I am not a scholar. But they should care about the informed opinions of the experts in the field. The choice we face is clear, and I urge readers to ponder the manifest absurdity of the "case" you are making.

Click to expand...

Good idea, here is a starting point.
Evidently it's not just TJ's opinion.

Forgery in Christianity Pg 242

Trento said:

HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
§ 51. Chronology of the Popes.

Click to expand...

Trento said:

HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
§ 51. Chronology of the Popes.

Click to expand...

My friend and unseparated, equal brother....

Quoting the retroactively created list of whom is regarded as the bishop of the diocese of Rome is jsut that: the retroactively created list of whom is regarded as the bishops of the diocese of Rome. It "proves" absolutely nothing except who is regarded as bishops of the diocese of Rome. You keep posting it (for over 3 years now) as if it has some significance beyond that: it doesn't.

I could list all those who are regarded as presidents of the USA, from Washington through Obama (and it would be a FAR more historic list) - but how would that prove that Jesus founded the USA or that Obama is infallible/unaccountable, or that we should listen to the USA and accept whatever it says "with docility" or that it alone is the only true country? Friend, the list of those regarded as Presidents of the USA would be a list of those regarded as Presidents of the USA. Nothin' more.


And we all know (and love) that you quote from these 2 or 3 "historians" whom none of us have heard of. Nice. Thank you. But their opinions are just that - opinions; I don't recall you EVER quoting from them any substantiative support for such, and you seem to want us to draw some implied conclusion from the snippets you quote from these mysterious men - but if that conclusion was implied, they wouldn't be Protestants, would they, so OBVIOUSLY they are NOT making the conclusion you are.


Now, let's see if we can discuss the very interesting and articulate points of this Orthodox ARCHBISHOP of North America....





.

CJ,

It is obvious to me we are talking past each other and, unless we head into a new direction, may soon hit the point of diminishing returns. However...I will make one more stab at it...

... as far as I know from history or Scripture, there was no institutional denomination (RCC or otherwise) for some 300 years.

Click to expand...

Here is an example of us talking past each other.

You speak of "institutional" and "denomination". Let's chat about about each of these one at a time.

Regarding "institutional":

You make what is to me a stunning and baseless claim: that there was no "institutional" aspect to the very early Church...whereas I would claim that the institutional aspect has always existed since the very beginning (which is probably a stunning and baseless claim from your POV).

Let's step back a moment and define our terms here. When I use the term "institution" - what exactly do you think I mean by that? I suspect we are defining the term differently, and then are getting frustrated with each other because we are talking past each other.

As for me, it CAN mean something very formal and legal...like a BANK, for example. When we speak of "financial institutions" we have images of these solid buildings made of granite with button-down conservative guys in suits going about their business with tons of rules, regulations, and ledger sheets. This is the stereotype image the term "financial institution" evokes.

But is that the only way we can use the word "institution", in the same sense that we would refer to a bank?

No.

Is that the way I am using the word?

Waaaay no.

There are other senses of the word. I don't always like to use Webster's to define terms we use in *theological* discussions...but in this case I think it will be helpful. Here is their definition of "institution":

a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture <the institution of marriage> ; also : something or someone firmly associated with a place or thing <she has become an institution in the theater> b: an established organization or corporation (as a bank or university) especially of a public character

Click to expand...

So was the Christian Church in the Apostolic era and beyond (before 300 AD) a "significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture"? I dare you to say "no." Of course it was significant (in many ways) as a practice, and as a relationship, and as an organization. If it was...then the Christian Church was an "institution" from the very beginning - even if it lacked large granite buildings with folks in business suits and ledger sheets. It needn't be a LEGALLY recognized entity complete with permanent physical locations for it to be an institution.

Was it "an established organization"? Well...2,000 years later we can safely say "yes" - UNLESS you want to argue that the Christian Church was not organized (which begs the question why they made such a big deal about laying on hands and obeying elders and things like that if there was no real organization or structure) - but it is certainly true that Christianity became "established" from Pentecost onward.

And was Christianity prior to 300 AD "of a public character"? Well - yes and no. While it existed for the most part as an illegal and underground organization (and so in that sense it operated somewhat under the legal radar screen, or at least tried to when necessary), by the same token its mission could not have been more of a public character. After all, if you want to "teach the nations" that sounds pretty public to me.

Was it a "corporation" or some kind of a legally recognized entity? No.

So the bottom line here is that, for me, the early Church was (and still is) an institution in nearly every sense of the definition except the legal corporation type of institution (like a bank).

But if someone wants to define the word using a strict, narrow, legalistic sense, like a corporation or a bank, then "no" - the Church was not a LEGALLY recognized organization until after 300 AD.

How do YOU define the term? How do you think I WAS defining the term in my previous posts?

Until we understand how we are using our words, we will talk past each other.

Regarding "denomination":

How are you defining "denomination"?

Let's say for argument's sake we overcome our difficulty with defining "institution" - and we can agree that given what I stated above that the Christian Church was, in a certain sense, an "institution" (even though it was illegal and underground).

How, then, would such an "institution" be considered a "denomination"? If it is ONE institution, can it be a denomination? If non-heretical schismatics break off and form their own independent institution, does that make both institutions "denominations" - or is only the schismatic second one a denomination? What about if a heretical movement breaks away from the institution we will generically call "the Christian Church" and starts their own institution which decidedly contradicts the original Christian institution (for example, the Mormons of today - or Arians back in ancient times)...and if they (the heretics) call themselves "Christian" even though they contradict orthodoxy...do we call BOTH institutions by the word "denomination" or one of them, or neither of them?

Where are you coming from?

For us, the Church Christ founded was ONE and it was (and is) a universal institution. A "denomination" is seen by us as something broken away and apart from the whole. To us, the word denotes a sect or something divided from the original whole. Furthermore, the Bible strictly warns us against sectarianism, division, and - by extension - denominationalism (cf. Rom 16:17, 1 Cor 1:10-13, 1 Cor 3:3, 1 Cor 11:18-19, 1 Cor 12:25, Rom 13:13, 2 Cor 12:20, Phil 2:2, Titus 3:9, Jas 3:16, 1 Tim:3-5, and 2 Pet 2:1).

Therefore, for us, that ONE insitution founded by Christ is still there. It still exists (as Christ promised it would) - and its God-given Divine mission is to teach the nations Truthfully (without error) while remaining united. One. Holy. Catholic (or Universal - take your pick). Apostolic.

Of course, we also believe that the Catholic Church is that same Church - but we can leave that aside for the moment. We don't need to be sidetracked by that discussion for the time being.

So IF the Christian Church existed prior to 300 AD as a divinely instituted organization - an institution (however loosely that might be define from a legalistic standpoint) - and if its Four Marks (One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic) remained intact and was not corrupted with error (which is a whole other discussion, of course)...on what basis can we call THAT institution a "denomination"? Can there be a denomination of one? We would say "no" to that question.

When you make the comment that "there was no institutional denomination for some 300 years"...well...given our definitions (which you are obviously not using) the comment doesn't make sense to us since the Church was an institution from the beginning - plus there were no "denominations" for some 1500 years - not 300 years. To us, the Church's mere legalization by the Roman Empire in the early 300s did not make it an institution - nor did it make the Church a denomination. All that it did was to make it a legally recognized institution instead of an illegal underground institution.

There were no such things as "denominations" until the Protestant Reformation. Denominationalism is your tradition and your heritage - not ours.

But, yes, there was the one holy catholic church/ the communion of saints/ the mystical union of all believers.

Click to expand...

Right - but there was ALSO a STRUCTURE and a hierarchy (it's a "both/and" not an "either/or"). A believer was not free just to "split off" a new church and thumb their noses at the hierarchy. If they did that - they would have been considered schimatics at best and heretics at worst. But they will have put themselves outside of the One Church founded by Christ on the Apostles. And that institutional structure started IMMEDIATELY. It didn't wait 300 years.

The union was (and is) one of faith in Christ (add, if you like, blessed by Baptism), not because all were formally registered in congregations legally associated with a single denomination (by any name).

Click to expand...

Formally registered? Legally associated? How legalistic can you get? Just because the NT Church did not have formal enrollment and was not listed as a 501c non-profit organization does not mean they there wasn't a real authoritative structure, complete with a hierarchy. You don't need legalities and formal enrollments to exist as a Church with an institutional aspect and a mystical aspect.

[Paul to Titus] "Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you." Titus 2:15 (ESV)

All authority. But Titus wasn't an apostle; he was a bishop. So there it is: a bishop holds authority from the apostles. And so the missing puzzle piece falls into place. There was an institutional structure with AUTHORITY and a hierarchy. It's in the Bible - way before 300 AD.

Yes, we were (and still are) under the one Shepherd - Jesus Christ, who is, was and always will be Lord of the Church.

Click to expand...

Of course Christ is the Shepherd, and He passed that role along to Peter:

A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." John 21:16

Click to expand...

Peter (and the Pope) is a shepherd ONLY because THAT is what Jesus made him. All power and authority comes from Christ alone to carry on His Incarnational ministry on earth until His return in Glory.

Again you put things in a false either/or dichotomy as if either Jesus can be our Shephard or Peter, but not both.

... interesting how all discussions with Catholics very quickly boil down to the RCC's claims for the RCC....

Click to expand...

Only because THAT is what you are insisting we talk about.

Me before in response to your comment that Christian people are the church catholic:

Yes - but again there was not division, sectarianism, or denominationalism either.

Click to expand...

You:

... thanks for taking the Protestant position. But, I'm at a loss to know how it strengthens your arguement about the Catholic

Click to expand...

denomination and it's Pope. Lost me, my respected friend....

Click to expand...

I am not taking "the Protestant position." I am merely stating a fact. The Church we see in the New Testament lacks the division, sectarianism, and denominationalism we see today in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. The Bible LOUDLY condemns this. And I have no interest whatsoever in "strengthening" an argument in favor of a Catholic "denomination." The very word is insulting to me. If I wanted to belong to a sect or a denomination I would have remained Protestant.

I will comment more on the rest of your post 153 when I have more time.


God's Peace,

NewMan

I am not taking "the Protestant position." I am merely stating a fact. The Church we see in the New Testament lacks the division, sectarianism, and denominationalism we see today in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. The Bible LOUDLY condemns this. And I have no interest whatsoever in "strengthening" an argument in favor of a Catholic "denomination." The very word is insulting to me. If I wanted to belong to a sect or a denomination I would have remained Protestant.

Click to expand...

I remember awhile back when CF changed some of the boards around, the RCs raised a big "stink" about it

http://www.christianforums.com/t7230052/
Apparently --Catholics are now a "Denomination"

At least here in the friendly land of CF2.....dang I wish we had a rolls eyes smiley...

NewMan99 said:

CJ,It is obvious to me we are talking past each other and, unless we head into a new direction, may soon hit the point of diminishing returns. However...I will make one more stab at it...

Click to expand...

NewMan99 said:

... as far as I know from history or Scripture, there was no institutional denomination (RCC or otherwise) for some 300 years.


Here is an example of us talking past each other.

You speak of "institutional" and "denomination". Let's chat about about each of these one at a time.

Regarding "institutional":

You make what is to me a stunning and baseless claim: that there was no "institutional" aspect to the very early Church...whereas I would claim that the institutional aspect has always existed since the very beginning (which is probably a stunning and baseless claim from your POV).

Let's step back a moment and define our terms here. When I use the term "institution" - what exactly do you think I mean by that? I suspect we are defining the term differently, and then are getting frustrated with each other because we are talking past each other.

As for me, it CAN mean something very formal and legal...like a BANK, for example. When we speak of "financial institutions" we have images of these solid buildings made of granite with button-down conservative guys in suits going about their business with tons of rules, regulations, and ledger sheets. This is the stereotype image the term "financial institution" evokes.

But is that the only way we can use the word "institution", in the same sense that we would refer to a bank?

No.

Is that the way I am using the word?

Waaaay no.

There are other senses of the word. I don't always like to use Webster's to define terms we use in *theological* discussions...but in this case I think it will be helpful. Here is their definition of "institution":

a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture <the institution of marriage> ; also : something or someone firmly associated with a place or thing <she has become an institution in the theater> b: an established organization or corporation (as a bank or university) especially of a public character
​

So was the Christian Church in the Apostolic era and beyond (before 300 AD) a "significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture"? I dare you to say "no." Of course it was significant (in many ways) as a practice, and as a relationship, and as an organization. If it was...then the Christian Church was an "institution" from the very beginning - even if it lacked large granite buildings with folks in business suits and ledger sheets. It needn't be a LEGALLY recognized entity complete with permanent physical locations for it to be an institution.

Was it "an established organization"? Well...2,000 years later we can safely say "yes" - UNLESS you want to argue that the Christian Church was not organized (which begs the question why they made such a big deal about laying on hands and obeying elders and things like that if there was no real organization or structure) - but it is certainly true that Christianity became "established" from Pentecost onward.

And was Christianity prior to 300 AD "of a public character"? Well - yes and no. While it existed for the most part as an illegal and underground organization (and so in that sense it operated somewhat under the legal radar screen, or at least tried to when necessary), by the same token its mission could not have been more of a public character. After all, if you want to "teach the nations" that sounds pretty public to me.

Was it a "corporation" or some kind of a legally recognized entity? No.

So the bottom line here is that, for me, the early Church was (and still is) an institution in nearly every sense of the definition except the legal corporation type of institution (like a bank).

Click to expand...

I don't THINK I said that there were no institutions among Christians until the 4th century. I THINK I said (or at least I meant to say) that there is no evidence that there was an institutional DENOMINATION before then: something we could call "The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod" or "The United Presbyterian Church of the USA" or "The Catholic Church" or "The Greek Orthodox Church." Thus, it seems pressing to ME to say that Jesus founded the Catholic Church - especially in the light that there's no evidence such even existed within centuries of when Jesus' earthly ministry concluded (not to say He couldn't come back for that purpose, as our Mormon friends insist).

My degree is not in early Christian history, but from what little I know, Christianity was an illegal, underground MOVEMENT for nearly all of those 300 years you and I are discussing. Whatever tendencies there MIGHT have been for a formal, institutional, pan congregatonal denomination (and I sincerely doubt any such tendency existed), such would have been difficult (and probably not prudent) in that environment. All that changed - quite abruptly - when ROME legalized the religion and then, in essense, made it a state religion. If there's one thing ROME obsessed about, it was centrality, power, authority, lordship, ruling, unity - and yes, institutions. Bob, I'm NOT making any value judgements about all that; what is is. All I'm noting is that seems to have been the situation. So, The Catholic Church - that specific institutional denomination with its HQ in Rome, it's leader being the current bishop of the diocese of Rome, with all the structures, systems, policies, etc. thereof, THAT can be traced no further back than the 4th century (and I'm pretty sure our Orthodox friends would insist the proto denomination of the 4th century was ORTHODOX, not RCC - a closely related but separate topic).

Now, if you want to argue that The United States of America existed 10 million years ago because the dirt was here and in the sense of DIRT the USA is ten million years old - then I don't think that's the meaning typically used there. Or if you want to argue that the specific nation known today as the USA with Obama as its president was founded in the 8th Century BC in Rome by two gods because the USA was once a part of England and England was once a part of the Roman Empire and the Roman Empire is an extension of the city of Rome and the legend (without historical affirmation) is that Rome was founded by two gods (am I remembering that right? LOL) - therefore, the USA was founded by two Roman gods - well, that's not what I mean. Friend, it seems misleading to ME to say "Jesus founded The Catholic Church but the denomination known today as Catholic Church was not founded by Jesus."

Friend, MY view is that Christians are all PEOPLE and the oikos, the mystical union, the communion of such is PEOPLE - thus, the church is PEOPLE. ALL of us. Together. Across the centuries and the continents. As Protestants stress, "it's Jesus and WE - not Jesus and ME!" I think this is a fundamental way in which Protestants and the RCC (and a couple of other denominations) differ: To us, Christianity is not a denominational IT, a legal/political/economic institution as is the Catholic Church or Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod - wonderful and blessing as they are. The church is US. You, me, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, Pope Benedict, Billy Graham, my grandfather.... TOGETHER. Now, did Jesus found the one holy catholic church - the communion of saints - the mystical union of believers? IMHO, yes. Did He specificly found The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and only such as it is incorporated in the State of Wisconsin and headquartered in Milwaukee? No. To say, "Jesus founded the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod" is to say He did.

Now, did CHRISTIANS form institutions? Yes. For centuries, probably only congregations - and even that may have been pretty informal. Paul penned some of his epistles to some of these. Some are mentioned in Acts and Revelation. But, no denomination(s) are mentioned. Certainly the RCC isn't. The first we see any denomination is in the 4th century, and that seems to be more a desire of the Roman government than especially and particularly of Christians (as indeed Church Councils, etc.).


More follows vis-a-vis other points in your post.....
I'm hoping we can get back to the issue of the thread here.

CJ,

Define the word "denomination" for me. Until you do that we will just talk in circles.

Thanks.

God's Peace,

NewMan

I remember awhile back when CF changed some of the boards around, the RCs raised a big "stink" about it

http://www.christianforums.com/t7230052/
Apparently --Catholics are now a "Denomination"

At least here in the friendly land of CF2.....dang I wish we had a rolls eyes smiley...

Click to expand...

NewMan99 said:

CJ,

Define the word "denomination" for me. Until you do that we will just talk in circles.

Thanks.

God's Peace,

NewMan

Click to expand...

That has been discussed ad-nauseum on the GT board

http://www.christianforums.com/t7306593/
What is the meaning of Denomination today

http://www.christianforums.com/t2406658/
What is a Denomination?

.

NewMan99 said:

Regarding "denomination":

How are you defining "denomination"?

Click to expand...

http://www.christianforums.con/t2406658/

NewMan99 said:

Let's say for argument's sake we overcome our difficulty with defining "institution" - and we can agree that given what I stated above that the Christian Church was, in a certain sense, an "institution" (even though it was illegal and underground).

Click to expand...

NewMan99 said:

How, then, would such an "institution" be considered a "denomination"?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty lost, my unseparated brother....

Let's say 52 congregations in Santa Barbara, CA (all institutions, let's argue....) decide they want to form a denomination, so that there will be one institution above their individual institutions: "The United Correct Church of Santa Barbara" is the moniker they agree on. Well, I suppose in ONE sense their decision (probably a legal vote) "creates" it - at least in their desire or will or heart. But it would need to get incorporated and there would be a number of things that would need to get settled: constitution/by-laws, you know - all those things that the RCC and all other denominations have.

I'm a bit lost what this has to do with the Archbishops comments about the papacy, I confess....

If non-heretical schismatics break off and form their own independent institution, does that make both institutions "denominations" - or is only the schismatic second one a denomination?

Click to expand...

Um, you'd then have two denomination. Just like if First Baptist Church has a split, and a number of Christians start, "Second Baptist Church," you'd have two institutions, two congregations in that case. First Baptist Church and Second Baptist Church. Now, they MIGHT both belong to the same denomination, SBC for example, but First Baptist Church and the new Second Baptist Church would probably be two separate institutions.

BTW, we are using the word "church" is two very different ways (just as the Bible does). Church typically refers to CHRISTIANS, to people. But it can refer to a local assembly of such (in a given place/time) and the institution they create. First Baptist Church is using that term in the secondary sense; don't confuse thus with the primary sense. There are literally millions of churches but only one church. It's less confusing, IMHO, if we use the technical terms of "Congregation" "denomination" and "church catholic" just to make our discussions less confusing.

the Bible strictly warns us against sectarianism, division, and - by extension - denominationalism (cf. Rom 16:17, 1 Cor 1:10-13, 1 Cor 3:3, 1 Cor 11:18-19, 1 Cor 12:25, Rom 13:13, 2 Cor 12:20, Phil 2:2, Titus 3:9, Jas 3:16, 1 Tim:3-5, and 2 Pet 2:1).

Click to expand...

Some comments:

1. I do not agree that denominations are against Scripture. You are standing with the non-denoms who argue against The Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, The United Methodist Church, etc. and that all congregations (all millions of them) MUST be autonomous, independent, etc. I disagree. I rather embrace community, accountability and cooperation. While I don't regard the non-denom as WRONG, my OWN view is that it's good when congregations bond together, work together, help each other, hold each other accountable, etc. I think you'll find that the great majority of Protestants AGREE with the RCC that denominations are a good thing, as opposed to a minority of Protestants that argue for autonomous non-denominationalism. But then, I'm pretty big on community and VERY uncomfortable with anything or anyone going it alone.

2. I think what the Bible is speaking of is a unity of heart and mind - not of denominations. Frankly, I doubt Jesus could care less how many congregations or denominations or colleges or monistaries there are - no more than He cares about whether Bank of America and Chase bank merge into one bank. Now, read the next point...

3. Friend (and take this with no offense because none is implied or meant), the RCC is AT LEAST as "separate" and "divided" as ANY denomination - and more than most. The reality is (and you know it, my friend), The Catholic Church is "united" with only one: itself. There is only one denomination, of the 35000 many of our Catholic friends here insist exists, with which The Catholic Church is in agreement: itself. Alone. Solely. Now, the WORSE that can be said of the other 34,999 denominations is that they are in exactly the same position in this regard as is the RCC. But actually, most are in a better position. The Catholic Church is no more "united" than any other of the 34,999 denominations - and considerably less than many. It's just the reality, no "judgment" implied. Now, I realize that the RCC is in current and official agreement with the RCC in all matters that the RCC currently regards as good for a denomination to agree upon, but then the same is true for the other 34,999 denominations, too. Same/same. So, if UNITY is what you are speaking of, then we're all in the same "boat" (well, none is a worse place in that boat than the RCC). IMHO, any finger pointed at my denomination would be at least one pointed back at your own.

But, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Archbishops' statements...

Of course, we also believe that the Catholic Church is that same Church - but we can leave that aside for the moment.

Click to expand...

OH, BUT THAT IS THE POINT!!!!

There were no such things as "denominations" until the Protestant Reformation. Denominationalism is your tradition and your heritage - not ours.

Click to expand...

My respected friend, you can't have it both ways. You can't argue, "Jesus founded The Catholic Church but The Catholic Church didn't exist until 1521 when it excommunicated Luther." If Jesus founded IT, then IT had to exist - or Jesus didn't found IT.

Again, IF you are trying to say, "Jesus founded the one holy catholic church - the communion of saints - the mystical union of believers, and such still exists" then we are in agreement. But that has nothing to do with your denomination or mine - and certainly nothing to do with the subject of this thread. IF you are trying to say, "Jesus founded a movement, a community, a ministry - and those so Called and committed eventually created a myriad of institutions to assist in this - and eventually one known today as The Catholic Church was among these millions of institutions" then we aren't disagreeing with each other - but that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Formally registered? Legally associated? How legalistic can you get? Just because the NT Church did not have formal enrollment and was not listed as a 501c non-profit organization does not mean they there wasn't a real authoritative structure, complete with a hierarchy. You don't need legalities and formal enrollments to exist as a Church with an institutional aspect and a mystical aspect.

Click to expand...

[Paul to Titus] "Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you." Titus 2:15 (ESV)

All authority. But Titus wasn't an apostle; he was a bishop. So there it is: a bishop holds authority from the apostles. And so the missing puzzle piece falls into place. There was an institutional structure with AUTHORITY and a hierarchy. It's in the Bible - way before 300 AD.

Click to expand...

Of course, this authority exists in all congregations and denominations. You just insist it doesn't count unless it's in your singular, particular, individual, institutional denomination. Now, friend, I know where you are going with this - for you, this has to do with Tradition and especially vis-a-vis heresy (oh how Catholicism is one HUGE ball, lol). Now, I agree - there WAS a day (long, long, ago) when disputes were handled in an ecumencial, biblical manner. I applaud that - and I WISH such were still the case. Some of us are TRYING to work toward that (it sure feels like moving the sand - one grain at at time - on the beach). I have ENDLESS posts about that. But here's what happened, CENTURIES before Luther was born - in fact, before the EO and CC excommunicated each other. Denominations limited REAL authority to itself. Institutionalism took over. And, IMHO, that wasn't the invention of Luther but of The Catholic Church, and it wasn't even primarily over heresy but a result of a power struggle between the Roman bishop and the East. I DO lament that. BUT, the point is, I have a pastor too. And a bishop. And yes, they were ordained by the ordained - all the way back to the Apostles EXACTLY as was your pastor and bishop. Friend, it's just not as easy as each denomination insisting, "But I myself alone am the sole authority - infallible and unaccountable" Not even if self claims Jesus founded self (as any conversation with a Mormon reminds us). The RCC is as "un-united" as ANY of the 35,000 denominations (worse than most). IF we are going to work this out (and I've become pretty pessimistic in my old age), we're going to have to get past the ME-ism, the institutionalism, the accountability-evading self-claims of self alone for self alone, the "just docilicly agree with ME and then we'll all agree" place where we are "at." And (sorry, but it IS my view): it's the RCC that dug this hole and got us "stuck." LONG before Luther was born. And no one seems insistant upon this, no one promotes this, even today, than does the RCC. Of course, you disagree.

Josiah said:

We were (and still are) under the one Shepherd - Jesus Christ, who is, was and always will be Lord of the Church.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Of course Christ is the Shepherd, and He passed that role along to Peter:

Click to expand...

Read the opening post....

Friend, take no offense, but it's just a circular argument.

Now, my unseparated and equal brother, I do NOT question your faith here. No more than I question the Mormon's faith that "other sheep" means American Natives or that Jesus entrusted all this to His Apostle Joseph Smith. It's hard to argue issues of pure articles of faith. But we all know the "interpretation" of the RCC on this singular verse. No other but the RCC agrees with it, and it does seem pretty self-serving just on the face of it. And frankly, without a LONG,LONG chain of assumptive leaps based on this particular interpretation of self for self, it doesn't "work" anyway. I think we both know that. Again, I KNOW and appreciate the sincerity of your faith here. And I KNOW (I honestly do!) that the ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH - all of it, all rests on this. I know that. So, I would be shocked if you didn't make this point right here.

A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." John 21:16

Click to expand...

Peter (and the Pope) is a shepherd ONLY because THAT is what Jesus made him. All power and authority comes from Christ alone to carry on His Incarnational ministry on earth until His return in Glory.[/quote]


I just don't have the energy, but you already know. I realize the argument that the Pope has been using for centuries now in the effort to justify all the division, power-grabs, control, etc. Sorry, but IMHO, it's totally baseless. All Jesus is telling him is to feed his sheep. It's what all pastors are to do. And it has nothing to do with Pope Benedict (wonderful man that he is) or with ANY denomination or with ANY diocese. I wish we could get past all the obsession with ME, IT, control, power, authority, lordship of men over men. Jesus said, "You know how the gentiles lord it over each other, how their men exercise authority. It shall not be so among you." Well, Christianity moved into the gentile world and..... Yes, my friend, we all know how the RCC "supports" what it has done. And I know you believe it so. I'll need to say to you what I say to my Mormon friend when we have this exact same conversation (only the names and denominations change): we're just going to have to leave it at that.



More follows....




.

Originally Posted by NewMan99 Regarding "denomination":

How are you defining "denomination"?

Click to expand...

http://www.christianforums.con/t2406658/

http://www.christianforums.con/t2406658/

Click to expand...

Hi CJ. I couldn't get the link to work so I just bumped up the thread for ya

http://www.christianforums.com/t2406658/
What is a Denomination?

To add to CJ's Peter and the shepherd point, even if it is granted that Jesus made Peter the shepherd, Peter himself turns around and appoints the ELDERS (plural) in Asia Minor to be NEXT IN LINE to be the shepherds.

1 Peter 5:1-2 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as {your} fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to {the will of} God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;

So, Jesus gave the authority to Peter who gave it to the elders of Asia Minor.

LIKEWISE, Paul did the same:

Acts 20:17-28 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. ... "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

So, from Jesus to Paul and from Paul and the Holy Spirit to the elders in Asia Minor.

Now, where it went from there is a different thread.

My question is what happened exactly at Rome between Linus and others and Paul and Peter?

Good grief. I have a meeting tonight and won't be back for awhile. It's just as well...this is obviously going nowhere but in circles.

Not like the classroom that's for sure.

.

NewMan99 said:

I am not taking "the Protestant position." I am merely stating a fact. The Church we see in the New Testament lacks the division, sectarianism, and denominationalism we see today in the wake of the Protestant Reformation.

Click to expand...

Some comments....


1. Again, my degree is not in early Christianity, but from what I know, never in all Christian history was there less doctrinal unity and definition than before the 4th century.


2. IMHO, it was primarily the RCC that created the division, institutionalism, denominationalism, authoritarism, etc. of which you decry. CENTURIES before Luther was born.


3. I know that the specific, singular Catholic Church is officially and currently in agreement with itself in all things it thinks good to agree on. It has a unity of one: itself with itself. Now, IF you call that "unity" then the same is true for the other 34,999 denominations our Catholic friends around here insist exist. The WORSE that can be said is that there are other denominations as "bad" in this regard as the RCC is (although most not).


4. That those 16th Century Christians failed so miserably is something I have OFTEN decried here at CF and elsewhere. PERHAPS, if the RCC had not dug itself soooooooooo deep into the pit of me-ism, insititutionalism, authoritarianism, protectionism, lordship. Perhaps if Luther had been more skilled in politics, less polemic, more patient. Perhaps if all this wasn't against a HUGE political mileau that Luther never understood and often ruled the say - MAYBE, MAYBE all it would have turned out differently. Well, Trent put the nail in that. In anycase, what is is. The RCC has continued down that path, continued to declare additional things as dogmas, continue to build wall after wall and burn down bridge after bridge. I think it's all sad. But here's where we differ: The RCC just says, "Accept all the power I claim to have and docilicly accept whatever I say, become under my control - and then we'll agree." Frankly, I'm not so sure self demanding such for self is the best way to pursue truth. And truth matters. IMHO, Luther ENCOUNTERED the problem - he didn't create it. The amazing thing is he survived to die of natural causes. Now, I don't know whether if the Reformers had handled things better would have made any difference or not - a moot question since there are no answers to "what if's." And yes, in too many ways, Protestantism tends to reflect our parent - the RCC, and we need to recognize that. But, IMHO, we aren't going to get anywhere till we get out of the hole that. IMHO, the RCC dug LONG before Luther came along (it started with Constintine). Can it be done? I doubt it. I actually fear that worse days are ahead, but that's another post for another day and thread.



I'd like to get back to the Archbishops points someday....


Pax!


- Josiah





.

NewMan99 said:

Good grief. I have a meeting tonight and won't be back for awhile. It's just as well...this is obviously going nowhere but in circles.

Click to expand...

Don't these kind of threads always do

CaliforniaJosiah said:

.






1. Again, my degree is not in early Christianity, but from what I know, never in all Christian history was there less doctrinal unity and definition than before the 4th century.


2. IMHO, it was primarily the RCC that created the division, institutionalism, denominationalism, authoritarism, etc. of which you decry. CENTURIES before Luther was born.

Click to expand...

And history proves that "division, institutionalism, denominationalism, authoritarianism" created by the RCC started early, with the Quartodeciman controversy in which Roman bishops tried to force their date for celebrating the Pascal Feast on all the Eastern churches, which was rightly rejected by the Eastern churches.

NewMan99 said:

Good grief. I have a meeting tonight and won't be back for awhile. It's just as well...this is obviously going nowhere but in circles.

Click to expand...

Hey NewMan99.

I hope you have stopped in to OBOB. Your knowledge and understaning would probably be more useful there where it should be welcomed.

I am glad and surprised to see you around.