The Papacy and Its Unholy State

[OrthodoxyUSA]

We were on that list long before anybody else.

Take a look at history.

The Church of Jerusalem is the first Church... shes Orthodox, established 33AD with James as the first Bishop.

The Church of Antioch was second, year 34AD... shes Orthodox, with Peter as her first Bishop.

The Church of Constantinople is number three, est. year 38AD, with Mark as her first Bishop.

You get down to Church number four... and that The Church of Rome est 42 AD ... now shes Catholic... and no longer associates herself with the others... saying that we are defective.

Number five would be Alexandria, in 43AD, shes still Orthodox too.

Thats all five of the Churches of the first 1000 years of the Churches existance.

Each of these had many Parish Churches throughout the land.

If any one of the others is the True Church then the Church did not start at Jerusalem in 33AD... or The Church at Jerusalem, and all the other Churches who are in communion with her, are no longer in the Chruch but have failed.

Do you have any scriptural evidence that The Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Contstantinople or Alexandria have failed or will? I don't see any letters of warning to them.

Forgive me...

 

[livingword26]

Well now livingword, I suppose you think this somehow proves something. I hate to break it to you, but on this line of reasoning, you can't be sure Christianity is true, since most every world religion claims to be the true one.

Indeed, claims of any kind don't make a true Christian, but the Spirit of God inside him does.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Your excused from the table now.

Come back when you have more polite questions.

Forgive me...

 

[livingword26]

Your excused from the table now.

Come back when you have more polite questions.

Forgive me...

I would be curious as to what you think of these verses:

Joh 3:5-8
(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
(7) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
(8) The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I would be curious as to what you think of these verses:

Joh 3:5-8
(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
(7) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
(8) The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

I think they are beautiful scripture from the book of St. John.

Forgive me...

 

[authiodionitist]

I would be curious as to what you think of these verses:

Joh 3:5-8
(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
(7) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
(8) The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Father Alexander Schmemann wrote a book on that. It's called Of Water and the Spirit: A Liturgical Study of Baptism.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I have to say, despite the many good criticisms of the legitmacy of the contemporary concept of the Papacy, I cannot stand the "the RCC replaces the Head, Christ, with a new head, the Pope" argument. I'd LOVE to see ONE quote from a Catholic source that proves that they don't believe Christ is the Ultimate Head of the Church or that they believe that the Pope REPLACES Him (remember, "represents" by no stretch of the imagination means "replaces").

John

 

[paleodoxy]

What they've effectively done is to replace Christ as the head of the Church. What they say in self defense is no surprise...

 

[buzuxi02]

My concern is not whether the Pope replaces Christ, we can conclude that he does not.

But on the other hand does he replace the Holy Spirit? Christ said he will send another helper. Who will guide the Church to all truths and bring things to remembrance. By teaching papal infallibility and that the bishop of Rome is above councils, he has usurped the authority of the Holy Spirit.

The roman dogma of the Immaculate Conception pronounced "ex cathedra" was not bringing to rememberance a forgotten tradition but an innovation, yet this is precisely what rome levels against Orthodoxy. That Rome insinuates it was always believed in the East but forgotten and replaced in Orthodox theology. Replaced by claiming that the Theotokos became sinless at the Annunciation (once again not an official Orthodox position).

The papal supremacy encroaches on the role of the Holy Spirit

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

All of this is very troubling from many different levels.

While I am please to discuss the "problems" within The Church of Rome, I have attempted to rid myself of the venom that seems to be imparted by the OP's article.

Honestly, I still have many sins of my own that need to be dealt with, and Rome simply is not my problem.

Pardon me while I prepare for 1st hour.

Forgive me...

 

[helenofbritain]

But on the other hand does he replace the Holy Spirit? Christ said he will send another helper. Who will guide the Church to all truths and bring things to remembrance. By teaching papal infallibility and that the bishop of Rome is above councils, he has usurped the authority of the Holy Spirit.

Not to debate, but I'd just like to share a different take on this...

I would see this in the reverse. We believe the pope is only infallible through a charism of the Holy Spirit. We believe that without the Holy Spirit, the pope could not be infallible - making Him much more important than the pope.

But we think God - Father, Son and Spirit - is much more important that the pope as a matter of course. God is God and popes is people.

God bless!

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Not to debate, but I'd just like to share a different take on this...

I would see this in the reverse. We believe the pope is only infallible through a charism of the Holy Spirit. We believe that without the Holy Spirit, the pope could not be infallible - making Him much more important than the pope.

But we think God - Father, Son and Spirit - is much more important that the pope as a matter of course. God is God and popes is people.

God bless!

But Helen, that makes our job of creating theories in our home offices as to why the Papacy is bad much more complicated. Can't you just let us entertain ourselves with half-baked offensive and uninformed theories about your Church? If you keep throwing chinks in our chain like this, we might actually have to take a deeper and more honest look at what the Catholic Church actually believes about the Pope and how you view the Trinity in the life of the RCC. That's asking much too much and, quite frankly, isn't very fun. Soundbites are fun! Studying is for geeks!

So, stay out of it, please.

Anyway, has anyone noticed that Rome sits upon a hill and that in Revelations it speaks of...

 

[Xpycoctomos]

What they've effectively done is to replace Christ as the head of the Church. What they say in self defense is no surprise...

Again:

I'd LOVE to see ONE quote from a Catholic source that proves that they don't believe Christ is the Ultimate Head of the Church or that they believe that the Pope REPLACES Him (remember, "represents" by no stretch of the imagination means "replaces").

 

[paleodoxy]

Xpycoctomos...

You've missed my point entirely.

Of course they don't say that the Pope has replaced Christ as the head of the Church on earth. That's what I just acknowledged above.

What the papacy has done is to have that precise effect. What do you think the filioque controversy was all about? In other words, the fact that Roman Catholics argue that the papacy is compatible with the headship of Christ doesn't make it so.

Unless you really think that the Roman church can come up with a valid argument for this. But then, if that's the case, what are you doing in the Orthodox Church?

Please...inquiring minds would very much like to know.

 

[paleodoxy]

Not to debate, but I'd just like to share a different take on this...

I would see this in the reverse. We believe the pope is only infallible through a charism of the Holy Spirit. We believe that without the Holy Spirit, the pope could not be infallible - making Him much more important than the pope.

But we think God - Father, Son and Spirit - is much more important that the pope as a matter of course. God is God and popes is people.

God bless!

Xypoctomos, you had to think about this one?

Well, let's see. The Pope's creed is at variance with the ecumenical creed. Whose Holy Spirit are we discussing?

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Xpycoctomos...

You've missed my point entirely.

Of course they don't say that the Pope has replaced Christ as the head of the Church on earth. That's what I just acknowledged above.

What the papacy has done is to have that precise effect. What do you think the filioque controversy was all about? In other words, the fact that there are Roman Catholics who argue that the papacy is compatible with the headship of Christ doesn't make it so.

Unless you really think that the Roman church can come up with a valid argument for this. But then, if that's the case, what are you doing in the Orthodox Church?

Please...inquiring minds would very much like to know.

The burden of proof lies on you completely becuase your claioms are completely unsubstantiated.

John

 

[helenofbritain]

But Helen, that makes our job of creating theories in our home offices as to why the Papacy is bad much more complicated. Can't you just let us entertain ourselves with half-baked offensive and uninformed theories about your Church? If you keep throwing chinks in our chain like this, we might actually have to take a deeper and more honest look at what the Catholic Church actually believes about the Pope and how you view the Trinity in the life of the RCC. That's asking much too much and, quite frankly, isn't very fun. Soundbites are fun! Studying is for geeks!

So, stay out of it, please.

Anyway, has anyone noticed that Rome sits upon a hill and that in Revelations it speaks of...

 

[paleodoxy]

The burden of proof lies on you completely becuase your claioms are completely unsubstantiated.

John

John, what claims are those? You'll have to be specific, because several Orthodox posters in this thread have made varying claims. Better yet, please quote me directly to avoid confusion.

 

[paleodoxy]

BTW, are you possibly suggesting that one of these "unsubstantiated claims" relates to the filioque? Because you failed to address the relevance of this historical reality in light of the Pope's flippance toward the work of the Spirit in the divinely guided and inspired Creed.

 

[DarkNLovely]

o.k.! I wanna throw in my two cents in a minute, but first I have to ask something:

The Orthodox Church believes that Catholic Church defected from it, but does the CATHOLIC cHURCH BELIEVE THAT THE oRTHODOX cHURCH DEFECTED FROM THEM? Sorry for the caps, but I'm too lazy to change it!