http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/biblical-support-for-the-popeThat is not scripture, please quote chapter and verse not church history.
Upvote
0
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/biblical-support-for-the-popeThat is not scripture, please quote chapter and verse not church history.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/biblical-support-for-the-popeEither you can point to scripture or you can't. This is not a matter of what I would probably see or won't. It is either there or it is not.
Either you can point to scripture or you can't. This is not a matter of what I would probably see or won't. It is either there or it is not.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/biblical-support-for-the-pope
BTW, please give me the scripture that tells us which books are scripture. Also, where it says that scripture is the only authority and that we should not listen to Church councils or tradition. Finally, how do we know whose interpretation to use, and of which translation. After all, translations are quite different in their emphasis.
That is your obsession, of your religion, not the pinnacle of mine. The thread is about ecumenism.
That link shares scriptures that include elders and apostles are given a certain authority. This is something no one denies nor argues. But there is no reference to a single man being the vicar, or pope, or sole head of the church. Jesus is the head of the church.
Scripture that tells us not to add or take away.
Rev 22:18
¶
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
No I am not obsessed. My focus is my savior Jesus and what he said and did and instructed. Yes this is about ecumenism and that is my point.
Let us accept the primacy of scripture.
It is a failure from the start.
Let us accept the primacy of scripture. Thus, obviously, we can add interpretations and new doctrines. HOWEVER, they cannot be in conflict with Scripture.
Your point, then, is that ecumenism is not possible with you. You come at Christianity from a certain perspective: you insist that, if people are going to speak with you about religion, they have to jump through your hoops and show you where things are written in your Bible.
No. Not in an ecumenical context. Ecumenism also includes speaking with Muslims, Hindus, etc.
So, let's accept the primacy of the Koran, then, so we can talk to Muslims.
Or, among Christians, let's accept the primacy of Scripture: the Ethiopian Canon is the longest, and therefore is the one we should use. Enoch is Scripture.
Etc.
No, we cannot accept the primacy of Scripture, any more than Communists and Americans can have diplomatic relationships on the basis of first accepting the primacy of Das Kapital.
Rather, we must first accept the primacy of cooperation - that cooperation with each other is what we seek, and that means that we are not going to argue about where our religions differ. Because where they differ, obviously everybody with a different opinion is wrong. And then where are we?
We have to simply accept that we are not seeking to convert other people, at all, with ecumenism. We are seeking peace among people, and cooperation to the greatest extent possible between Catholics AS CATHOLICS, and Muslims AS MUSLIMS, and Hindus AS HINDUS, and Baptists AS BAPTISTS.
Ecumenism is not a subterfuge for a new angle at conversion, it is a lysistrata - a truce in battle to tend to the wounded, heal the sick, etc., to be humans as humans, not to be primarily religious humans.
Ecumenism temporary elevates our shared humanity above the demands of our respective gods. To see what how far along we can get in cooperating and not fighting IN SPITE OF the fact that everybody else is a heathen or a heretic. Can heathen, heretic and Catholic sit together at table and eat, and work together on humanitarian projects, and keep the peace.
The ecumenical idea says "Yes". The religious fanatic says "No" - and feels holy about it.
So no, we cannot accept the primacy of Scripture.
Matthew 20
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
A bishop is a servant of the people. The head bishop is also a servant of the people.
fair enough
The word "ecumenism" has been used in two different ways. One way to include all of the world's major religions (not necessarily including various cults). In this sense, we need to understand our common ground, which is considerable. For example, we can learn much from the Buddhist approach to human to behavior and toward life.
I apologize. I thought that we were discussing Christian ecumenism, which is a different discussion. We are one church. We were once one visible Church.
My point is ecumenism is simply not possible in the fact that we can't be unified in error can we.
This is why secularism triumphs everywhere. Huge numbers of religious people of all religions seem to be unable to cooperate because their gods demand they don't. The seculars do not have such complications and therefore cooperate more easily with people who are very strange to them.
Net result: over time religion fades, and the more cooperative form of human existence flourishes. If we don't want religion to fade, we have to do a better job at cooperating with those with whom we religiously disagree.
Ecumenism works just great! There are all sorts of Christian churches working together, and working with Jews, and even with Muslims and Hindus, all over the place. The extroverted Christians, and Jews and Muslims and Hindus who want peace and amity with their fellow men manage to do it.
Even introverts who want peace manage it.
There are SOME Christians for whom their own doctrines are so all consuming that they cannot play in the sandbox with other people. Ecumenism isn't possible with them.
You have to give everybody a try. When you find kindred spirits,
But when you find combatants you just need to leave them be, because you're never going to be able to build anything with them, or do anything other than bicker, and who needs it?