Christian Forums

While commissioned as leader of the Catholic Church His Holiness holds the title VICARIUS FILII DEI. It is believed by Catholics and ordained in the Catheism that when a man assuemes this position he, among other things, becomes infallible when discussing doctrine and stands in place of Christ as Head of the Church. I would like to dispute this as false in a debate supported by scripture. The Catholics Ive met dont usually tend to read alot of bible for themselves but are pretty smart. The Catholics on this forum seem just as smart and pretty well read in the scriptures so this should make fr an interesting topic.

1st Timothy 3:15

5 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The Pope must be infallible on matters of faith and doctrine if the Church is to be the pillar and ground of the truth. But there is a common misconception that the Pope is infallible alone. That he can pull things out of mid air and they are never wrong. That is not the case. I pulled this next part off of another site because it explains it better than I can.

Even the most staunch defenders of the Papacy and of the Roman Catholic Church understand that infallibility applies to teachings of the Pope only when he is speaking ex cathedra, that is, on behalf of the whole church and in ways that are consistent with its councils, and with the collective wisdom of its cardinals and bishops as the truth has been revealed to them over time.

Further, infallibility applies only when the Pope is speaking about matters of faith or morals. For example, when the Vatican press office issues a statement of the Pope concerning a hotly contested, political issue, such statements are not regarded as being infallible, or even authoritative for all Christians.




As to your second point, the title "Vicar" implies one serving as a substitute or agent; specifically : an administrative deputy. He does not replace Christ, no one can do that. This next part, again, from another site - The first record of the concept of the Vicar of Christ is mentioned in the Epistle to the Magnesians of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, an alumnus of St. John, probably commanded by Peter, with a pastoral sense, written between the years 88 and 107 AD "your bishop presides in the place of God (...)". Although Ignatius did not explicitly use the term Vicar of Christ, he clearly sets out the concept. Currently the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that all bishops are vicars of Christ.

That Epistle was written around the same time frame as the Gospels. So the concept, if not the name, predates the Bible.

Quote from: Rob, PGK on Tue Apr 06, 2010 - 10:34:22


1st Timothy 3:15

5 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The Pope must be infallible on matters of faith and doctrine if the Church is to be the pillar and ground of the truth. But there is a common misconception that the Pope is infallible alone. That he can pull things out of mid air and they are never wrong. That is not the case. I pulled this next part off of another site because it explains it better than I can.

Even the most staunch defenders of the Papacy and of the Roman Catholic Church understand that infallibility applies to teachings of the Pope only when he is speaking ex cathedra, that is, on behalf of the whole church and in ways that are consistent with its councils, and with the collective wisdom of its cardinals and bishops as the truth has been revealed to them over time.

Further, infallibility applies only when the Pope is speaking about matters of faith or morals. For example, when the Vatican press office issues a statement of the Pope concerning a hotly contested, political issue, such statements are not regarded as being infallible, or even authoritative for all Christians.




As to your second point, the title "Vicar" implies one serving as a substitute or agent; specifically : an administrative deputy. He does not replace Christ, no one can do that. This next part, again, from another site - The first record of the concept of the Vicar of Christ is mentioned in the Epistle to the Magnesians of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, an alumnus of St. John, probably commanded by Peter, with a pastoral sense, written between the years 88 and 107 AD "your bishop presides in the place of God (...)". Although Ignatius did not explicitly use the term Vicar of Christ, he clearly sets out the concept. Currently the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that all bishops are vicars of Christ.

That Epistle was written around the same time frame as the Gospels. So the concept, if not the name, predates the Bible.

Actually the gospel and all it contains predates the cannons and even the epistles. What was first taught by word of mouth was already written upon the hearts of the apostles. The actual written gospels and the epistles that make up our New testament are a record of what was taught. the bishops that succeeded the apostles are subject to true doctrine of the apostles   Therefore since the apostles New Christ more than anyone else, were led to preserve their teaching for all generations.

There will allway be misuse and abuse of authority and teaching.Where there is authority and government apostasy,worldliness and corruption is inevitable even personal apostasy within the church until Jesus comes   But the word that is written is always pure and contains no error so it is the only thing we have that is infallible. an anchor of truth. It will judge all men, leaders and the body alike. An indictment for good or evil.

God bless 

Quote from: mclees8 on Tue Apr 06, 2010 - 14:50:12

Quote from: Rob, PGK on Tue Apr 06, 2010 - 10:34:22


1st Timothy 3:15

5 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The Pope must be infallible on matters of faith and doctrine if the Church is to be the pillar and ground of the truth. But there is a common misconception that the Pope is infallible alone. That he can pull things out of mid air and they are never wrong. That is not the case. I pulled this next part off of another site because it explains it better than I can.

Even the most staunch defenders of the Papacy and of the Roman Catholic Church understand that infallibility applies to teachings of the Pope only when he is speaking ex cathedra, that is, on behalf of the whole church and in ways that are consistent with its councils, and with the collective wisdom of its cardinals and bishops as the truth has been revealed to them over time.

Further, infallibility applies only when the Pope is speaking about matters of faith or morals. For example, when the Vatican press office issues a statement of the Pope concerning a hotly contested, political issue, such statements are not regarded as being infallible, or even authoritative for all Christians.




As to your second point, the title "Vicar" implies one serving as a substitute or agent; specifically : an administrative deputy. He does not replace Christ, no one can do that. This next part, again, from another site - The first record of the concept of the Vicar of Christ is mentioned in the Epistle to the Magnesians of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, an alumnus of St. John, probably commanded by Peter, with a pastoral sense, written between the years 88 and 107 AD "your bishop presides in the place of God (...)". Although Ignatius did not explicitly use the term Vicar of Christ, he clearly sets out the concept. Currently the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that all bishops are vicars of Christ.

That Epistle was written around the same time frame as the Gospels. So the concept, if not the name, predates the Bible.

Actually the gospel and all it contains predates the cannons and even the epistles. What was first taught by word of mouth was already written upon the hearts of the apostles. The actual written gospels and the epistles that make up our New testament are a record of what was taught. the bishops that succeeded the apostles are subject to true doctrine of the apostles   Therefore since the apostles New Christ more than anyone else, were led to preserve their teaching for all generations.

There will allway be misuse and abuse of authority and teaching.Where there is authority and government apostasy,worldliness and corruption is inevitable even personal apostasy within the church until Jesus comes   But the word that is written is always pure and contains no error so it is the only thing we have that is infallible. an anchor of truth. It will judge all men, leaders and the body alike. An indictment for good or evil.

God bless 

Your very argument against the Church nullifies your dependence on the Bible. Look, since men in the Church are subject to abuse of authority and corruption  and what not, then so are the people that interpret and transcribe the Bibles that we use, words could have been changed, meanings altered, etc.

It all boils down to faith, you have faith that God would not allow the Bible to be corrupt by man, I have faith that God would not allow the Church to teach the wrong things. Either way, both of us are putting our faith in the same place.

Quote from: Rob, PGK on Tue Apr 06, 2010 - 15:04:46

Quote from: mclees8 on Tue Apr 06, 2010 - 14:50:12

Quote from: Rob, PGK on Tue Apr 06, 2010 - 10:34:22


1st Timothy 3:15

5 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The Pope must be infallible on matters of faith and doctrine if the Church is to be the pillar and ground of the truth. But there is a common misconception that the Pope is infallible alone. That he can pull things out of mid air and they are never wrong. That is not the case. I pulled this next part off of another site because it explains it better than I can.

Even the most staunch defenders of the Papacy and of the Roman Catholic Church understand that infallibility applies to teachings of the Pope only when he is speaking ex cathedra, that is, on behalf of the whole church and in ways that are consistent with its councils, and with the collective wisdom of its cardinals and bishops as the truth has been revealed to them over time.

Further, infallibility applies only when the Pope is speaking about matters of faith or morals. For example, when the Vatican press office issues a statement of the Pope concerning a hotly contested, political issue, such statements are not regarded as being infallible, or even authoritative for all Christians.




As to your second point, the title "Vicar" implies one serving as a substitute or agent; specifically : an administrative deputy. He does not replace Christ, no one can do that. This next part, again, from another site - The first record of the concept of the Vicar of Christ is mentioned in the Epistle to the Magnesians of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, an alumnus of St. John, probably commanded by Peter, with a pastoral sense, written between the years 88 and 107 AD "your bishop presides in the place of God (...)". Although Ignatius did not explicitly use the term Vicar of Christ, he clearly sets out the concept. Currently the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that all bishops are vicars of Christ.

That Epistle was written around the same time frame as the Gospels. So the concept, if not the name, predates the Bible.

Actually the gospel and all it contains predates the cannons and even the epistles. What was first taught by word of mouth was already written upon the hearts of the apostles. The actual written gospels and the epistles that make up our New testament are a record of what was taught. the bishops that succeeded the apostles are subject to true doctrine of the apostles   Therefore since the apostles New Christ more than anyone else, were led to preserve their teaching for all generations.

There will allway be misuse and abuse of authority and teaching.Where there is authority and government apostasy,worldliness and corruption is inevitable even personal apostasy within the church until Jesus comes   But the word that is written is always pure and contains no error so it is the only thing we have that is infallible. an anchor of truth. It will judge all men, leaders and the body alike. An indictment for good or evil.

God bless 

Your very argument against the Church nullifies your dependence on the Bible. Look, since men in the Church are subject to abuse of authority and corruption  and what not, then so are the people that interpret and transcribe the Bibles that we use, words could have been changed, meanings altered, etc.

It all boils down to faith, you have faith that God would not allow the Bible to be corrupt by man, I have faith that God would not allow the Church to teach the wrong things. Either way, both of us are putting our faith in the same place.

Not exactly. I do not believe for one moment that the apostles were corrupted when writing the scriptures. But  I do believe very strongly  that apostasy and corruption filtered  into the church not long after the apostles were martyred. Even before corrupters were trying to work their way in

By the time the bishops of Rome some 400 hundred years later secured their authority over the church and became the religious  political power of the empire apostasy and corruption were in full bloom. Of course there is no evidence as to exactly when but I suspect the Nicolaitans may have been a good start.  The exalting of the clergy above the laity. This is the platform of the RCC magisterial. also there is the political ambition of the papacy, which as never of Christ. This changed the course of the church away from the Church origionally founded by Christ. While claiming to be the true church and its sole authority on earth they were far away from it. They wore only a cloak of righteousness. Again when the scriptures became known after the reformation the corruption could no longer hide the truth.

Scripture is what can not be defiled  but it can be corrupted by false teachers. who are clever enough to fool the very elect.

You are putting your faith in men and i am putting my faith in Christ and his word alone.

   

But men are the ones that have transcribed that Bible that you believe is not corrupt. The  same process that applies to the Church, applies to the Bible.

You can't have faith in God that he would keep the Bible pure for 1700 years, but not keep an eye on the Church.

Quote from: Rob, PGK on Wed Apr 07, 2010 - 11:02:54
But men are the ones that have transcribed that Bible that you believe is not corrupt. The  same process that applies to the Church, applies to the Bible.

You can't have faith in God that he would keep the Bible pure for 1700 years, but not keep an eye on the Church.

It is not the Bible that is corrupt but men God has his eye on the church and knows the evil from the good. the great testing of the church is yet to come. he will separate the sheep from the goats. But all shall be judged by his word whether it is good or bad. this covers all Christianity.

My main question for the Catholic Church is how do you equate the Church that is referred to as the pillar and bulwark of truth to your organization? The Catholic organization didnt happen until years after this revelation was given to men and even still the mass of christianity didnt reorganize in its entirety in Rome in the first place. The Eastern Orthodox is just as old and was organized by those who didnt wish to be subject to Roman rule.

Clarify how this scripture is pointed at the Catholic Church.

OFF THE RECORD.

There seems to be some hostility building up here so I just want to say that it when I made my two threads I did not do so with the thought in mind to tear down my opponent's faith. Im just trying to have educated debates wiyth educated followers not fight some doctrinal war. So with that in mind I request that those who post on threads that I start to do so with a guarded heart but an open mind.

BACK TO ACTION.

Quote from: LightHammer on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 09:31:44
My main question for the Catholic Church is how do you equate the Church that is referred to as the pillar and bulwark of truth to your organization? The Catholic organization didnt happen until years after this revelation was given to men and even still the mass of christianity didnt reorganize in its entirety in Rome in the first place. The Eastern Orthodox is just as old and was organized by those who didnt wish to be subject to Roman rule.

Clarify how this scripture is pointed at the Catholic Church.

In the beginning there was the Church. No name, just the Church. Before the Bible was even canonized, the Coptics split from this Church over a disagreement on the nature of Christ. In 1054 the East and West parts of the Church, that had political problems for quite a while, finally split. The East became known as the Eastern Orthodox, the West, the Roman Catholic Church.

One of the reasons we believe that we are the Church pointed at in scripture because there are no other Churches that qualify as old enough to have a claim at it besides us, the Orthodox, and the Coptics. It's one of us 3, that's the only argument that is acceptable. Of course the Catholics believe that they are the one, the Orthodox believe that it is them, and the Coptics believe it's them. 1 of them is right, I'm Catholic, I believe it's the Catholic's, but it can only be one of the 3 listed.

Quote from: LightHammer on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 09:38:05
OFF THE RECORD.

There seems to be some hostility building up here so I just want to say that it when I made my two threads I did not do so with the thought in mind to tear down my opponent's faith. Im just trying to have educated debates wiyth educated followers not fight some doctrinal war. So with that in mind I request that those who post on threads that I start to do so with a guarded heart but an open mind.

BACK TO ACTION.

No hostility here, I enjoy a good debate, and can only strengthen my faith by having to defend it.

Quote from: Rob, PGK on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 09:45:42

Quote from: LightHammer on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 09:31:44
My main question for the Catholic Church is how do you equate the Church that is referred to as the pillar and bulwark of truth to your organization? The Catholic organization didnt happen until years after this revelation was given to men and even still the mass of christianity didnt reorganize in its entirety in Rome in the first place. The Eastern Orthodox is just as old and was organized by those who didnt wish to be subject to Roman rule.

Clarify how this scripture is pointed at the Catholic Church.

In the beginning there was the Church. No name, just the Church. Before the Bible was even canonized, the Coptics split from this Church over a disagreement on the nature of Christ. In 1054 the East and West parts of the Church, that had political problems for quite a while, finally split. The East became known as the Eastern Orthodox, the West, the Roman Catholic Church.

One of the reasons we believe that we are the Church pointed at in scripture because there are no other Churches that qualify as old enough to have a claim at it besides us, the Orthodox, and the Coptics. It's one of us 3, that's the only argument that is acceptable. Of course the Catholics believe that they are the one, the Orthodox believe that it is them, and the Coptics believe it's them. 1 of them is right, I'm Catholic, I believe it's the Catholic's, but it can only be one of the 3 listed.

Ive actually never heard of the Coptics that sounds like something interesting. However I have to be honest in saying that you really didnt answer my question. I already knew that no other organized church besides the Eastern Orthodox and now apparently the Coptics contended against you but you didnt explain what set you apart from them.

The Coptics, also known as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, was founded by St. Luke. We had a disagreement on the nature of Christ, it's not something I can explain because I don't really understand the full argument, not am I smart enough to understand the nature of Christ. Basically, they believed that he was fully God and not man, we believe that we was both fully God and fully man.

The Coptics claim to have the Arc of the Covenant in Ethiopia, fyi. Really interesting stuff, if you want to read up on it.

As far as what sets us apart. This subject is better left to a book or series of books than to a message board, but I will try.

Bottom line.

There was 1 Church. It was ran mostly like the Catholic Church is ran today.

The Coptics left over a disagreement.

The Orthodox rejected the primacy of the Pope after accepting it for 1000 years.

That left just the Catholic Church.

I don't know what else you are trying to get at. Both the Catholic and the Orthodox can trace all of their Priests and Bishops back to the original 12 apostles through laying on of hands. No other Churches can say that. 

Quote from: Rob, PGK on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 11:43:14
The Coptics, also known as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, was founded by St. Luke. We had a disagreement on the nature of Christ, it's not something I can explain because I don't really understand the full argument, not am I smart enough to understand the nature of Christ. Basically, they believed that he was fully God and not man, we believe that we was both fully God and fully man.

The Coptics claim to have the Arc of the Covenant in Ethiopia, fyi. Really interesting stuff, if you want to read up on it.

As far as what sets us apart. This subject is better left to a book or series of books than to a message board, but I will try.

Bottom line.

There was 1 Church. It was ran mostly like the Catholic Church is ran today.

The Coptics left over a disagreement.

The Orthodox rejected the primacy of the Pope after accepting it for 1000 years.

That left just the Catholic Church.

I don't know what else you are trying to get at. Both the Catholic and the Orthodox can trace all of their Priests and Bishops back to the original 12 apostles through laying on of hands. No other Churches can say that. 

What Im getting at is that if Christ did indeed place authority in Peter and if that authority did indeed carry on through the generations via Apostolic Succession and if the current Apostolic Successors and leaders at the time werent united in organizing in Rome and forming the RCC how can the Catholic Church call itself the one true Church?

Quote from: LightHammer on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 12:17:07

Quote from: Rob, PGK on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 11:43:14
The Coptics, also known as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, was founded by St. Luke. We had a disagreement on the nature of Christ, it's not something I can explain because I don't really understand the full argument, not am I smart enough to understand the nature of Christ. Basically, they believed that he was fully God and not man, we believe that we was both fully God and fully man.

The Coptics claim to have the Arc of the Covenant in Ethiopia, fyi. Really interesting stuff, if you want to read up on it.

As far as what sets us apart. This subject is better left to a book or series of books than to a message board, but I will try.

Bottom line.

There was 1 Church. It was ran mostly like the Catholic Church is ran today.

The Coptics left over a disagreement.

The Orthodox rejected the primacy of the Pope after accepting it for 1000 years.

That left just the Catholic Church.

I don't know what else you are trying to get at. Both the Catholic and the Orthodox can trace all of their Priests and Bishops back to the original 12 apostles through laying on of hands. No other Churches can say that. 

What Im getting at is that if Christ did indeed place authority in Peter and if that authority did indeed carry on through the generations via Apostolic Succession and if the current Apostolic Successors and leaders at the time werent united in organizing in Rome and forming the RCC how can the Catholic Church call itself the one true Church?

But they were united. They were united for over 3 hundred years before the Coptics left. If you want to count them out, they were united for over 1000 years before the East/West split. If you want to discount the Orthodox (which you can't do), they were united for over 1500 years before Martin Luther got too big for his britches.

The Orthodox claim to be the one true Church as well. In my personal opinion, those two Churches are the only ones that truly have any claim whatsoever. Every other Christian Church is an offshoot of one of those Churches and the majority of them didn't start until well after the 1500's.

Quote from: LightHammer on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 12:17:07
What Im getting at is that if Christ did indeed place authority in Peter and if that authority did indeed carry on through the generations via Apostolic Succession and if the current Apostolic Successors and leaders at the time werent united in organizing in Rome and forming the RCC how can the Catholic Church call itself the one true Church?

The Catholic Church is the Church that Christ built because it is the oldest Christian church.  And of all the Christian denomination, the Catholic Church is the only one that became a nation just like Israel.  In Exodus 19:6, Moses told a group of Hebrew slaves that they will be a "priestly kingdom and a holy nation".  Later, the descendants of those Hebrew slaves who came out of Egypt became the nation of Israel.  The Apostle Peter made a similar prophecy (1 Peter 2:9).  St. Peter told the Christians while he was in Rome that they will be "a kingly priesthood and a holy nation."  The descendants of these Christians also became a nation called "Vatican City."  Vatican City is a nation and the Pope is a Head of State just like the Prime Minister of Israel.  

Quote from: LightHammer on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 12:17:07
What Im getting at is that if Christ did indeed place authority in Peter and if that authority did indeed carry on through the generations via Apostolic Succession and if the current Apostolic Successors and leaders at the time werent united in organizing in Rome and forming the RCC how can the Catholic Church call itself the one true Church?

You are assuming presumptions that are false.  Earlier you stated that the Orthodox or Copts have a earlier claim, in essence, but that is something that even they would make no claim of.  They do not believe that the Catholic Church started some time after they did.  They believe, that we, (Cath., Ortho, Copt...) are all part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church but that we went into schism with each other marked by the rather arbitrary date of AD 1054 or AD 451 for the Copts.  The nature of our separation with them and the Copts is different then it is with Protestantism.  We acknowledge their Apostolic Succession and the validity of their sacraments, yet we remain in schism, separated, for the time being.  It is not a question of "who was first" with them.  

Quote from: Rob, PGK on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 12:52:39

Quote from: LightHammer on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 12:17:07

Quote from: Rob, PGK on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 11:43:14
The Coptics, also known as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, was founded by St. Luke. We had a disagreement on the nature of Christ, it's not something I can explain because I don't really understand the full argument, not am I smart enough to understand the nature of Christ. Basically, they believed that he was fully God and not man, we believe that we was both fully God and fully man.

The Coptics claim to have the Arc of the Covenant in Ethiopia, fyi. Really interesting stuff, if you want to read up on it.

As far as what sets us apart. This subject is better left to a book or series of books than to a message board, but I will try.

Bottom line.

There was 1 Church. It was ran mostly like the Catholic Church is ran today.

The Coptics left over a disagreement.

The Orthodox rejected the primacy of the Pope after accepting it for 1000 years.

That left just the Catholic Church.

I don't know what else you are trying to get at. Both the Catholic and the Orthodox can trace all of their Priests and Bishops back to the original 12 apostles through laying on of hands. No other Churches can say that.  

What Im getting at is that if Christ did indeed place authority in Peter and if that authority did indeed carry on through the generations via Apostolic Succession and if the current Apostolic Successors and leaders at the time werent united in organizing in Rome and forming the RCC how can the Catholic Church call itself the one true Church?

But they were united. They were united for over 3 hundred years before the Coptics left. If you want to count them out, they were united for over 1000 years before the East/West split. If you want to discount the Orthodox (which you can't do), they were united for over 1500 years before Martin Luther got too big for his britches.

The Orthodox claim to be the one true Church as well. In my personal opinion, those two Churches are the only ones that truly have any claim whatsoever. Every other Christian Church is an offshoot of one of those Churches and the majority of them didn't start until well after the 1500's.

No they werent united?

During the first of Council of Nicea there were 1800 bishops of christianity. It is historical fact that when Constantine invited all 1800 leaders a lesser number attended. Now hold it. Im going to talk as if I accept the theory of Apostolic Succession. Jesus Christ delegated authority over the Church on Earth to Peter and the Twelve. Once the Holy Spirit chose Mathias to replace Judas he was endowed with the same collective authority. Now the authority of the Twelve exist as a collective. Just like in a democracy majority rules however ties are decided by whoever presides over the democracy(Peter at the time).

First off not all of the leaders who were chosen through Apostolic Succession attended the Council and there's no record I can find of who presided over the Church at the time as Peter did to settle the fault of those who did not attend. This is where the foundation of the Catholic organization bears its roots. The Apostolic Successors didnt unify under Rome. So how is this unity?

Quote from: desertknight on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 23:49:08

Quote from: LightHammer on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 12:17:07
What Im getting at is that if Christ did indeed place authority in Peter and if that authority did indeed carry on through the generations via Apostolic Succession and if the current Apostolic Successors and leaders at the time werent united in organizing in Rome and forming the RCC how can the Catholic Church call itself the one true Church?

You are assuming presumptions that are false.  Earlier you stated that the Orthodox or Copts have a earlier claim, in essence, but that is something that even they would make no claim of.  They do not believe that the Catholic Church started some time after they did.  They believe, that we, (Cath., Ortho, Copt...) are all part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church but that we went into schism with each other marked by the rather arbitrary date of AD 1054 or AD 451 for the Copts.  The nature of our separation with them and the Copts is different then it is with Protestantism.  We acknowledge their Apostolic Succession and the validity of their sacraments, yet we remain in schism, separated, for the time being.  It is not a question of "who was first" with them.  

Then I revoke the part of my evidence for my claim that says otherwise. I was unfourtunately not as well read as I thought over that specific piece. Thank you for the correction. I just remember debating this topic before with the two strongest leaders in the dispute being this like stupid smart Catholic girl and an Eastern Orthodox who was alos ridiculously intelligent. The knowlegde they had was like unrivaled so naturally I was motivated to go out and study in an attempt to surpass my friends.lol Im kindof in love with the history of my faith so I have a sort of competitive spirit whenit comes to meeting people who are more knowledgable than I am.

But check my latest post over the unity of the Apostolic Successors unifying under Rome. Its another strong point of mine thats more of historical rather than scriptural. Just try not to hand it to me again.lol

Loving this debate.

Your last post to Rob is a little confusing to me.  I'm not sure what you are stating there.  Could you clarify?  I'm taking it to mean that because only a minority of bishops attended that the council was invalid?  If that is your argument I would point out that there are only a minority of bishops who attend any given ecumenical council.  It is that the decisions of a given council are accepted by the Church as a whole and are orthodox is all that is important. 

Quote from: LightHammer on Fri Apr 09, 2010 - 09:53:04



Im kindof in love with the history of my faith so I have a sort of competitive spirit whenit comes to meeting people who are more knowledgable than I am.

You need to meet Ryan

QuoteNo they werent united?

Quick history:

We have to recognize that what we read in Holy Scriptures starting in Acts is the community of believers under the Apostles.  This is without doubt for the letters written to the communities were known by the Apostles and are often addressed personally to the overseers or elders (will address this too) of the community with the charge that what is written in those epistles be implemented as correctives and serve to strengthen the community in question.  Also, we have to recognize that those epistles mention scripture and when doing so "scripture" at that time was in regards to the Old Testament.  

The other thing we have to recognize is the liturgical reality that existed and still exists that serve to put those epistles in context for us modern readers. However, because of language, cultural and theological dispositions of the myriad of translators many of those liturgical realities have become somewhat invisible.  And in the worst cases words have even been changed to reflect modern perspectives rather than preserve the reality that was present in those letters.  That reality aids in our understanding the context and meaning of given passages.  

For example: the word paradosis means "tradition".  But in many translations this word is translated into different English words.  The reason these different English words are used are to reflect not what the texts read but to massage the text into a presupposed theological stance.  So in the the NIV whenever the word, "paradosis" is used in a negative sense the word is properly translated as "tradition".  However, whenever this word is used in the positive sense the word is translated as "teachings".  So when Jesus says to the Pharisees that their tradition usurps the commandment of God the modern reader will echo their denominations interpretation that "tradition" is bad but when St. Paul says to stay away from the ones that reject the traditions that the Apostles delivered to them the reader doesn't read, "tradition" at all but "teaching".  Then they believe that the teaching they received from their modern "teachers" is what St. Paul is talking about here.  This then solidifies the believer that they have received that which the Apostles delivered.  

Why the liturgical references are so important is that we have to know that the Apostles served liturgically and so use liturgical terms and phrases in the Holy Scriptures.  This isn't obvious by looking at modern catholic sects understandings of liturgy and then walking backward to the terms and phrases in question.  It's obvious when you study the Jewish liturgical realities and then walking forward to the terms and phrases used by the Apostles.  

We have to recognize that in books like Acts and those after Acts that they read like travel journals or diaries.  They don't address every little reality going on in the community but instead serve as correctives and encouragements of practices, rites, rituals and beliefs ALREADY in place.  This is vital.  The life of The Church according to the whole is already in full swing.  The letters are sent AFTERWARD.  

Example:

Let's look at confession and also Overseers and Elders.  Now, we know from Acts that the first Christians didn't see themselves as Christians per-say but Jews.  We know this because they still observe the hours of prayer and worship in the temple but also break bread in the Eucharistic outside of the temple.  The reason they didn't see themselves as Christian in the modern separate from Judaism sense then was because they believed that what they believed or I should say that in who they believed was in all actuality the truest expression of Judaism.  

Now we know from the baptismal rites of both John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus Christ and also the ablution rites and practices of Jews that when they were baptized they confessed their sins.

*(read Hebrews 5-6 wherein they discuss plural "baptisms" as being "elementary teachings of Christ" which also shows that some kind of tradition was already in place otherwise they wouldn't be call "elementary".  Also notice that those elementary teachings need to be taught "all over again".  Again?  This reveals the implication that these things were known to have already been taught.  By what book of the bible do we read what those teachings were?  In which book does it clearly define a list of direct and exhaustive teachings on those elementary things?  There is none because why write something that is already in place and able to be delivered without the need of a letter. Also take note that the list of elementary teachings were not teachings in and of themselves but that in all reality ARE teachings OF CHRIST.)

So we also read that the Christian communities were called to confess their sins to one another.  Now, you have to see this in a liturgical setting.  Imagine, say, ten people confessing their sins openly to one another as the entire group is gathered together.  However, what we don't see is the liturgical offices and the functions of those offices.  We already have overseers and elders and deacons etc.  Each have specific functions but because of these are the first days of building the foundation of the communities in question many of the offices/functions overlapped and were elastic enough to be able to address the unforeseen issues that were about to rise against them.  

Enter confession as a prime example.  Let's say this group of ten people are confessing to one another and there are those who are new to the faith entering in daily and they must, like in Hebrews, be instructed in the faith and they are confessing their sins openly to one another. Well, suddenly we have one of the fellows saying that he has had an impure thought about another man's wife and that man just so happens to be standing next to him.  Now of course this man would now confess that he has the urge to punch the guy that just confessed and so on.  It's a mess.  

Now what happened was that they looked at their liturgical structure of offices and functions.  If you look at the roots or the literal words used in words such as "minister" you will see that in all reality a minister is a "liturgist".  Now, the liturgist is basically the one that leads the community in worship.  The liturgist however, in function and office simply a representative of the community.  That is to say, when the liturgist would offer bread and incense and other sacrifices to God he did so not in himself as an individual but on behalf of all for all.  So!  the good elders and overseers were led by the Holy Spirit to hear the confessions of the people. Again, not as an individual but as a representative on behalf of all for all.  More than this you have to realize that when public confession was in the liturgical context the liturgist would then lead a call and response worship act asking for forgiveness of all.  The entire body acted as a witness to the individual.  The liturgist would then as a representative of "all" offer the prayers of absolution back to the people FROM God.  

Again, we can see that this ability to forgive is not in the person in and of themselves but in the office and function.  God acts "thought" this office and function because He said that He would do so.  An excellent illustration of this is found in the story of Jacob and Esau's wrestling for God's blessing through their earthly father.  Because the earthly father is the father of the family he is the "priest" or presbyter (in the purest sense) of his family.  When Isaac offers God's first-born blessing to Jacob and Esau (the first born) desires it, Isaac does not have the right or power or authority to overturn that which as a representative of the presbyter God established.  Jacob receives from God through Isaac that which biologically belonged to Esau.  

I hope that by the above examples that I've shown a very important distinction in the way that the more ancient Christian faiths view Holy Scripture in the context that they do.  Where we run into problems with protestants looking from the outside in is that for the protestants they see scripture as an end within itself.  Whereas in the ancient faiths they see the reality of the LIFE within the Church as authoritative.  A protestant will look at the bible and read that we are to surely confess our sins to one another although the vast majority of protestants don't actually practice this on any kind of organized front and then look at the catholic practices and can't connect the dots and accuse them of being "extra" biblical.  They only see a man forgiving another and believe that this "forgiveness" is "by" the priest or presbyter.  They then read that Christ is our One true mediator, quickly forget that we are to confess to one another or patch up the gap by creating a theological "band-aid" explanation as to how "confessing sins to one another" means x,y or z and they feel justified in their judgment against the catholic practice.  

However, for the catholic Orthodox, Romans and Coptics they recognize God's authority through the functions and offices WITHIN the LIFE of The Church and sees continuity in the present practice in not only those that came before them but even with those that began their ministry within Judaism prior to being called "Christian" by the gentiles.  

This brings us to the circumcision sect followed by "catholicism".  

I'll try to be super brief.  

The circumcision sect thought to keep the established Jewish way and at the same time "keep" the faith in Jesus as messiah.  However, already do we begin to feel the tearing apart of "The True Israel" the "Christ's Church" and the Jewish "way" of being God's "called out people".  

Notice that the Apostles AND the elders decide upon the issue of circumcision and do "what seems right both to them AND the Holy Spirit".  It is is here that the fabrics of The Church become manifest and distinct from that of what we today consider to be "Judaism".  

A Patriarchate is a jurisdiction given to the oversight of an elder or overseer.  In the case told to us in the book of Acts this Patriarchate is in Jerusalem.  So it is St. James! who has the office and functions within this jurisdiction.  This is why we see him in the role he plays here.  This is still standard practice and I will address this when I talk about the council of Nicea and who "presided" over that council.  There are actually two people who presided over it, both from different jurisdictions. But back to the circumcision sect.  

After their "decision" on circumcision and other "Jewish" related issues in regards to the gentiles they sent messengers to deliver their decisions to the churches so that they can be obedient to them.  Now, this again is where protestants sort of see scripture as an end in themselves and look at catholics suspiciously.  Prior to the written account, this decision was authoritative and delivered and established.  To reject the authority would put you outside of the authority of those Christ calls to be part of His Church.  Try not to juxtapose your definition of "church" onto the word church when I say church here.  Ask yourself if the circumcision sect was obedient to the decision that "seemed right to both "us" and the Holy Spirit".  The answer is of course no otherwise they would not be called the circumcision sect.

More than this and I won't get into this, it shows that the Holy Scriptures we recognize in the NT today had a place only within the context of The Church. That is to say, the community of those obedient and under the instructions of God THROUGH His Apostles.  The circumcision sect would not accept the decision of the Apostles, elders and Holy Spirit let alone the account in acts wherein they recount the reality of their decision.  

This is vital because for protestants not to acknowledge The Church as authoritative in it's visible and tangible life throughout history is to reject not only The Church but also work of the Holy Spirit in the life of The Church.  The NT scriptures can not be an end in themselves because Christ himself says the following verses and if "The Church" is merely an individual believer then The Church becomes a subjective and pluralistic community that oppresses the "Truth" in its diversity of contradictory and conflicting beliefs and practices.  

Matthew 18:17-18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Now, in regards to "catholic".  We know that St. Ignatius is on scene early on.  St. Ignatius, an overseer or elder of Antioch who was probably only the second or third following in the footsteps of St. Paul who was first overseer of that Patriarchate.  When I say footsteps here I of course refer to Christ as the actual maker of those footsteps for as St. Paul himself said, it is not me that lives but Christ within me.  

So St. Ignatius uses the word "catholic".  There are of course different definitions for the word "catholic" and the one I believe is the most accurate render is, "according to the whole".  St. Ignatius uses this term to distinguish The Church that has continuity with those in the NT through the Apostles from those outside of The Church such as the circumcision sect and the gnostics etc.  We can't assume that St. Ignatius just made this term up.  The fact is that this term was probably in use prior to him being overseer even.

It's not unlike when all cars came in two colors.  You had black cars and black cars.  Now, there is no reason to call a black car, black if the only color a car comes in is black.  It's ridiculous and repetitive.  But let's say there are many colors. Of course now you have to designate what color you are referring to and so you say that you would like to purchase a "black" car.  The same is true of the way in which the word, "catholic" was used.  It wasn't that "catholics" were innovated and were this "group" unrelated to the Apostles but that they were The Church community that we read about in the Holy Scriptures.  

Now this is also true of the ladder "names" we hear.  The reason Roman Catholics are called, "Roman" is because of the Patriarchate from which those "catholics" come from.  They belong to the jurisdiction of "Rome".  Hence, Roman Catholics.  Now before the schism you had other patriarchates as well.  You have Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Constantinople.  When the schism occurred those belonging to the Roman "catholic" jurisdiction called themselves Roman Catholic and those that remained on the other side of the issues, the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople, called themselves "Orthodox".  Sometimes we say, "Eastern" Orthodox catholic to designate that while Rome is in the West, we are in the East.  Again, these are just ways of distinguishing ourselves from the other.  

I'll address more about the "unity" prior to the council of Nicaea when I address your comments on the council and Apostolic succession in another reply.  

I always feel that I have left loads out but I do hope that I have expressed some of the things that might baffle you as to why the more ancient faiths do as they do, believe as they believe against the modern protestant traditions.  


P.S.  I'll also touch on the "vicar" of Christ thing and how even though I am Orthodox I don't necessarily see this as problematic but the issue at hand, as Rob noted is in what we believe "primacy" means.  That history is in itself interesting.  I am hesitant to say too much as the last thing I want to do is fuel someone's presuppositions against Rome because I believe that people's strong and knee-jerk reaction against Rome is often what paralyzes them into embracing their subjective, pluralistic and modern expressions of protestant traditions that are often rooted in the "age of reason", "enlightenment era philosophy and world view", Lockean philosophy and practice, and even extreme logical conclusions and practices based on Augustinian theologies.  It goes on and on, all the various roots of protestant belief and practice but that's because it's like talking about each piece of Frankenstein and the person whose flesh and bone went into whatever chunk of Frankenstein-like protestantism that we are talking about.  







Christ is risen


God bless
ICXC

Like I said, you need to meet Ryan.

QuoteDuring the first of Council of Nicea there were 1800 bishops of christianity. It is historical fact that when Constantine invited all 1800 leaders a lesser number attended.

318 Bishops were in attendance, each of them was allowed to bring 2 Priests 3 deacons and this is where the 1800 count comes from.  However, there were also many of the layman that showed up, traveled with. 

You also have to recognize that all of those that showed up were in fact "catholic" otherwise the Nicene creed would have been a point of contention.  I only say this because you say that, "there were 1800 bishops of christianity".  The door you leave open here is the idea is that we had all sorts of various "denominations" there representing their own doctrines. 

That there were those who had differences is true but the differences here is that in the truest sense of "catholicity" they actually had the courage to seek what seemed right to both them and the Holy Spirit.  Why?  Because we are called to seek to be the fulfillment of Christ's prayer to obtain "complete unity" in the faith.  To be of One mind.  One Faith. 

In other words they didn't just get together and reduce the truth in the name of sentimentalism.  They tackled Arius' assertions and though he would return later they wind up kicking him to the curb and eventually soundly refuted him.  They didn't say, "let's all just agree to disagree.  I'll do me and you do you.  Have it your way."  The bible often lends itself to this disposition in many ways.  We see St. Paul commanding the overseers and elders to make so and so not teach unsound doctrine.  And he's not referring to a violation of sola scriptura as if the fellow in question just wasn't backing up his opinion with his opinion on what bible verses mean to say where and when.

Should also point out that there had been counsels on the local level prior to Nicaea.  However, there wasn't really councils in the sense that they bound all Churches to their decrees and that's what makes Nicaea so wonderful.  It was a time to synthesize that which they have been taught and also decided upon on the local level and bring it to the Authority according to the whole. 

Jurisdiction joined by jurisdiction instead of within the forced vacuum of limited locality and experience created by the strong persecutions that God was saving them through.   

This is important because it helps us realize that the Christian "body" in question here already was bound by certain elements that they rooted out of their past and put into the creed.  This alone helped to further distinguish themselves from folks not unlike the circumcision example posted above.  God approves one over the other and so heresies are among us.  Because in God's generosity we will then have the benefit of looking back in retrospect at those God "approved" and imitate their faith.   Who was considered approved when the Apostles and elders went up against the circumcision sect?  Retrospectively we can say with confidence - duh

We believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church became a statement that revealed that which was ALREADY present with their community.  In their community this reality had already existed and now that they had gathered this statement was merely a magnification of that which had already been true even back in the days when the epistles were sent out to The Churches.   This is what unified them. 

Though they had kinks to work out they were eager and now had much broader geographical strokes and luxuries wherein they could attain to the unity of the faith.  And just as we witness in the account of the fabric of Christ's Church bearing torn out from what the circumcision sect believed the purest expression of Judaism to be, so to do we continue to watch and participate in further tearing. We see Arius and his followers ripped out of those who should be called, The Church. 

QuoteNow hold it. Im going to talk as if I accept the theory of Apostolic Succession.

Jesus Christ delegated authority over the Church on Earth to Peter and the Twelve. Once the Holy Spirit chose Mathias to replace Judas he was endowed with the same collective authority. Now the authority of the Twelve exist as a collective. Just like in a democracy majority rules however ties are decided by whoever presides over the democracy(Peter at the time).

Rome at this time was the epicenter of sound theology and many saw Rome as having enjoyed this because it became the most dramatic transformation and witness of the good news.  It was under the oppression of Rome that the Jews wished to escape and it was in Christ that this opportunity in the truest sense of "being freed from oppression" was actualized.  And it was under Rome that Christ was crucified.  And it was Rome that persecuted most savagely the faithful. 

But it was Rome that was now being slowly transformed and "Christianity" was now to solidify the faith and traditions that they've retained since their encounters with the Apostles and since all roads led to Rome, it was a place where a myriad of Christian cultures and backgrounds gathered to "assimilate" the faith amongst themselves.  There were some really wonderful Saints in Rome that became champions In Christ and really appear to have "saved" The Church in many respects.  I say this with trepidation only because don't let me be misunderstood.  It is CHRIST in them that they have accomplished what was accomplished at all.   

The Pope or Bishop of Rome was in the Orthodox perspective the first among equals.  It was the jurisdiction of Rome as the successor of St. Peter that enjoyed the honor to arbitrate and act as a sort of appeals court.  The problem between Orthodox and the Roman Catholics is that Orthodox don't believe that the "reach" and amount of "authority and power" that Rome believes is implied in their primacy is as humble and modest as it had been in the past. 

And then later down the road once we tried to come together we found that our doctrines were quite different, drastically so in some cases and add in wars and really aggressive Muslim* attacks and basically the sacking of the entire European/Eastern World by those pesky Turks and you wind up not really being able to tackle your differences.  But that's all I'm gonna say.

QuoteFirst off not all of the leaders who were chosen through Apostolic Succession attended the Council and there's no record I can find of who presided over the Church at the time as Peter did to settle the fault of those who did not attend.

St. Alexandria of Alexandria, Pope of Alexandria was ranking Patriarch and presided over the council.  But because he was the main dood accusing Arius and that was a hot issue of contention he stepped down because it was a conflict of interest.  St. Osios of Cordova stepped up and replaced him. 

I think you might misunderstand "apostolic succession".  It's not necessarily something that only the Bishop has within himself (paradox alert) though he does obtain the wholeness of that apostleship within his office and function.  We have to also remember that we are images of our bishops in a lot of ways just as we are images of our priests and just as our bishops are images of Christ.  This is where I'll just touch on the Vicar thing. 

Christ is our One mediator between man and the Father and through the Holy Spirit he is with us and testifies concerning Him.  Now, the Apostles were given by Christ, who is the Logos, the Logos themselves that through them all might believe.  More than this, they deposited The Faith as given to them by Christ himself to that organism we call The Church.  It literally retained not only scripture and teachings but the trophies of the various conquests against certain heresies that rose up from both the outside and from within.  So the Apostles delivered those teachings and all their traditions to both the Bishops and Priests who then dispensed that which was given to them to the laypeople.  The lay people often despite troublesome priests and bishops were able to preserve that which you hope to be preserved in the Bishop but that's how the cookie crumbles. 

The Apostles surround Christ.  The Bishops the Apostles.  The Priests the Bishops.  The people the priests.  And everyone basically surrounds the Bishops who are the sort of last visible person one bumps into before we get into the Invisible Church (that is in complete unity with the Visible one that we read about in Matt 18).  The doorway between both the visible and invisible is probably the Eucharist, no?  (thinking out loud on that last one)

Anyway I have no problem with the Vicar of Christ comment in that I realize that all bishops are vicars just as we are vicars.  Name one human being that is not made in His image.  More than this if we are to find the image of Christ in even our enemies then how much more so in the faithful and how much more so who God has entrusted to act on behalf of all for all according to the true office and function of Authority. 



ICXC

QuoteWhile commissioned as leader of the Catholic Church His Holiness holds the title VICARIUS FILII DEI. It is believed by Catholics and ordained in the Catheism that when a man assuemes this position he, among other things, becomes infallible when discussing doctrine and stands in place of Christ as Head of the Church. I would like to dispute this as false in a debate supported by scripture. The Catholics Ive met dont usually tend to read alot of bible for themselves but are pretty smart. The Catholics on this forum seem just as smart and pretty well read in the scriptures so this should make fr an interesting topic.

I am surprised at the acceptance by the Catholics on this board, of the title VICARIUS FILII DEI for the Pope.  Many Catholics deny this title was ever an official title of the Pope. 

Quote from: Selene on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 23:36:20

Quote from: LightHammer on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 12:17:07
What Im getting at is that if Christ did indeed place authority in Peter and if that authority did indeed carry on through the generations via Apostolic Succession and if the current Apostolic Successors and leaders at the time werent united in organizing in Rome and forming the RCC how can the Catholic Church call itself the one true Church?

The Catholic Church is the Church that Christ built because it is the oldest Christian church.  And of all the Christian denomination, the Catholic Church is the only one that became a nation just like Israel.  In Exodus 19:6, Moses told a group of Hebrew slaves that they will be a "priestly kingdom and a holy nation".  Later, the descendants of those Hebrew slaves who came out of Egypt became the nation of Israel.  The Apostle Peter made a similar prophecy (1 Peter 2:9).  St. Peter told the Christians while he was in Rome that they will be "a kingly priesthood and a holy nation."  The descendants of these Christians also became a nation called "Vatican City."  Vatican City is a nation and the Pope is a Head of State just like the Prime Minister of Israel.  

dear Selene A holy nation and a kingly priesthood refers to the whole body of Christ,in this verse not to Vatican city or the papacy This was not a prophesy for papal Rome We are all priests and kings in this verse.

the christian church knows no boundaries. It is all believers. to say the church of Rome is the oldest Christian church is a misnomer of sorts. Christ knows no denomination or RCC. He will determine his bride  out of all the confusion of me.

God bless

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Apr 12, 2010 - 09:29:17

Quote from: Selene on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 23:36:20

Quote from: LightHammer on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 12:17:07
What Im getting at is that if Christ did indeed place authority in Peter and if that authority did indeed carry on through the generations via Apostolic Succession and if the current Apostolic Successors and leaders at the time werent united in organizing in Rome and forming the RCC how can the Catholic Church call itself the one true Church?

The Catholic Church is the Church that Christ built because it is the oldest Christian church.  And of all the Christian denomination, the Catholic Church is the only one that became a nation just like Israel.  In Exodus 19:6, Moses told a group of Hebrew slaves that they will be a "priestly kingdom and a holy nation".  Later, the descendants of those Hebrew slaves who came out of Egypt became the nation of Israel.  The Apostle Peter made a similar prophecy (1 Peter 2:9).  St. Peter told the Christians while he was in Rome that they will be "a kingly priesthood and a holy nation."  The descendants of these Christians also became a nation called "Vatican City."  Vatican City is a nation and the Pope is a Head of State just like the Prime Minister of Israel.  

dear Selene A holy nation and a kingly priesthood refers to the whole body of Christ,in this verse not to Vatican city or the papacy This was not a prophesy for papal Rome We are all priests and kings in this verse.

the christian church knows no boundaries. It is all believers. to say the church of Rome is the oldest Christian church is a misnomer of sorts. Christ knows no denomination or RCC. He will determine his bride  out of all the confusion of me.

God bless

OOPS! Forget the of me  Error

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Apr 12, 2010 - 09:29:17

Quote from: Selene on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 23:36:20

Quote from: LightHammer on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 12:17:07
What Im getting at is that if Christ did indeed place authority in Peter and if that authority did indeed carry on through the generations via Apostolic Succession and if the current Apostolic Successors and leaders at the time werent united in organizing in Rome and forming the RCC how can the Catholic Church call itself the one true Church?

The Catholic Church is the Church that Christ built because it is the oldest Christian church.  And of all the Christian denomination, the Catholic Church is the only one that became a nation just like Israel.  In Exodus 19:6, Moses told a group of Hebrew slaves that they will be a "priestly kingdom and a holy nation".  Later, the descendants of those Hebrew slaves who came out of Egypt became the nation of Israel.  The Apostle Peter made a similar prophecy (1 Peter 2:9).  St. Peter told the Christians while he was in Rome that they will be "a kingly priesthood and a holy nation."  The descendants of these Christians also became a nation called "Vatican City."  Vatican City is a nation and the Pope is a Head of State just like the Prime Minister of Israel.  

dear Selene A holy nation and a kingly priesthood refers to the whole body of Christ,in this verse not to Vatican city or the papacy This was not a prophesy for papal Rome We are all priests and kings in this verse.

the christian church knows no boundaries. It is all believers. to say the church of Rome is the oldest Christian church is a misnomer of sorts. Christ knows no denomination or RCC. He will determine his bride  out of all the confusion of me.

God bless

Mike, this was a similar prophecy that Moses said to a group of slaves who came out of Egypt.  And we know that they became a nation. 

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Apr 12, 2010 - 09:29:17


the christian church knows no boundaries. It is all believers.

This is a Protestant innovation.  It is not historical.   If the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (I Tim 3:15), how can the church be only individuals?   No one thought this for 1500 years.  Why the change?  Protestant fathers had to find a way to be in the church, so they invented this idea.  Those written in the Book of Life are saved but collectively are  not the church.

Quote
to say the church of Rome is the oldest Christian church is a misnomer of sorts. Christ knows no denomination or RCC.

Wouldn't it make sense for at least one church to have the whole truth?  If doctrines separate churches (which they do), then only one church has the truth.   Truth by his nature is binary. 

Quote
He will determine his bride  out of all the confusion of me.

Why would you assume that God would allow all these churches and none of them have the truth?
That would be confusing and God is not the author of confusion.


Something to consider.

[/quote]

Quote from: Selene on Mon Apr 12, 2010 - 16:59:08

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Apr 12, 2010 - 09:29:17

Quote from: Selene on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 23:36:20

Quote from: LightHammer on Thu Apr 08, 2010 - 12:17:07
What Im getting at is that if Christ did indeed place authority in Peter and if that authority did indeed carry on through the generations via Apostolic Succession and if the current Apostolic Successors and leaders at the time werent united in organizing in Rome and forming the RCC how can the Catholic Church call itself the one true Church?

The Catholic Church is the Church that Christ built because it is the oldest Christian church.  And of all the Christian denomination, the Catholic Church is the only one that became a nation just like Israel.  In Exodus 19:6, Moses told a group of Hebrew slaves that they will be a "priestly kingdom and a holy nation".  Later, the descendants of those Hebrew slaves who came out of Egypt became the nation of Israel.  The Apostle Peter made a similar prophecy (1 Peter 2:9).  St. Peter told the Christians while he was in Rome that they will be "a kingly priesthood and a holy nation."  The descendants of these Christians also became a nation called "Vatican City."  Vatican City is a nation and the Pope is a Head of State just like the Prime Minister of Israel.  

dear Selene A holy nation and a kingly priesthood refers to the whole body of Christ,in this verse not to Vatican city or the papacy This was not a prophesy for papal Rome We are all priests and kings in this verse.

the christian church knows no boundaries. It is all believers. to say the church of Rome is the oldest Christian church is a misnomer of sorts. Christ knows no denomination or RCC. He will determine his bride  out of all the confusion of me.

God bless

Mike, this was a similar prophecy that Moses said to a group of slaves who came out of Egypt.  And we know that they became a nation. 

That is true Selene. In fact the Lord said it more than once. You will find he spoke it at least five times in the Old testament.  Here are three + Peter

Peter Said in 1st Peter 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar# people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God:#
He said as believers we all represented a Holy priesthood Just as the children of Israel were as a priest hood of God separated from the world and nations of it' to honor God alone.

Lets look at the word peculiar. It is used five times in the old testament and 2 times in the New Testament.  It refers to a people purchased of God to be  separate and different from all other people of the world.  As a Holy nation.  This idea is portrayed from Genesis to Revelation. From Abraham until the second coming of Christ

Look at Exodus 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:#

Lets look at  Deut 14: 2  2 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth#

Also Deut. 26: 18   And the LORD hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments; 19 And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God, as he hath spoken.

A  peculiar people a Holy nation separated not like any other nations or peoples of the world. We will also recall in this separation that the children of Israel were to utterly drive out the other inhabitants that were in the promised land. They were not to cohabitate with them or be like them or be influenced by their idolatries. Of course they did not live up to this. Much like it is today
Lets look at the word nation in these verses. Nation refers to Gods chosen people ( the nation of Israel ) The same as Christians represent a nation of believers in Christ and they are now through out the world. Yet the principle of separation still applies as Peter said. Like Jesus also said while we are in the world do not be of it. We are not as unbelievers. And our hope is not of this world. Separation from the world is capital commandment for believers.  Love not the world neither the tings of it. Put no faith in it or its governments and religious systems. The world is the world  with all its lusts and idolatry. Judgment awaits all this
This is not like the papacy and the Vatican which sleeps with the world and its politics and agendas.

god bless








 

And haven't you noticed that the only people whom God refers to as a "holy nation" is only to those who actually became a nation.  Of course, we are set apart because the Church that Christ built was not part of this world.  As a Catholic, I believe that I am not of this world.  Even the Catholic Church teaches this.  Our Church calls itself the "Mystical Body of Christ" because it is not of this world.  We always say that the Church is pure because she is part of Christ's body and not of this world.  It is only the churchMEN who are sinners. 

Ok Im back. Sorry about the long absence my friends it's finals week back home so I had to tak a few days off. Now Im going ot try and catch p and answer all that I can.

LightHammer Out

Quote318 Bishops were in attendance, each of them was allowed to bring 2 Priests 3 deacons and this is where the 1800 count comes from.  However, there were also many of the layman that showed up, traveled with. 

I may be misreading this but I think you're misundestanding my math. There were originally twelve Apostles but at this time those sccessors grew to 1800. If only 318 Bishops out of 1800 showed up, how is the Council valid?

QuoteBut it was Rome that was now being slowly transformed and "Christianity" was now to solidify the faith and traditions that they've retained since their encounters with the Apostles and since all roads led to Rome, it was a place where a myriad of Christian cultures and backgrounds gathered to "assimilate" the faith amongst themselves. 

This is also another point why I find it hard to accept that the entire authority of the Church consildated in Rome. After the revelation of St. John on the island of Patmos many considered Rome to be the Beast of pophecy. That number only grew after that psychopath Nero was made Emperor. His persecuton of the Church was so vile that he even eaned the nickname "The Beast".

I just dont believe that the entity of chistian leadership would accept Constantine's call. But we debate with histoy and facts not opinions so Im always willing to keep and open mind.

Trifecta

QuoteThis is a Protestant innovation.  It is not historical.   If the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (I Tim 3:15), how can the church be only individuals?   No one thought this for 1500 years.  Why the change?  Protestant fathers had to find a way to be in the church, so they invented this idea.  Those written in the Book of Life are saved but collectively are  not the church.

Well first of CHRIST HIMSELF literally destroyed this idea upon His death on the cross and His ressurection. He clearly told the Pharisees that He would destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days. Then He went further to say that the Helper (Holy Ghost) will descend from heaven and be the giver of truth. The bible says that the church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth. Well the Holy Spirit is the only who bears testimony to what the truth is! If Christ spoke of the Temple, which is where the Holy Spirit resides, as the body of the true believer then the entirety of believers is collectively the pillar and bulwark of the Truth and the True Church. And whatever guy said that although all true believers go to heaven, that does not necessarily mean that they are apart of the Church owes me a TON of scripture to back up such a contradiction.

QuoteWouldn't it make sense for at least one church to have the whole truth?  If doctrines separate churches (which they do), then only one church has the truth.   Truth by his nature is binary.

THE HOLY SPIRIT HOLDS THE TRUTH. The twelve were meant to guide the masses on what He who truly holds all the truth revealed to them, not be presented as anything else.

QuoteWhy would you assume that God would allow all these churches and none of them have the truth?
That would be confusing and God is not the author of confusion.


Something to consider.

Just because God allows something doesnt make Him the author of it. Just throwing that fact out there.

LightHammer,

Thank you for your reply.  Thought my point would get lost in all the posts here.

Quote from: LightHammer on Thu Apr 15, 2010 - 14:49:43

Well first of CHRIST HIMSELF literally destroyed this idea upon His death on the cross and His ressurection. He clearly told the Pharisees that He would destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days.

No disagreement here 

Quote
Then He went further to say that the Helper (Holy Ghost) will descend from heaven and be the giver of truth. The bible says that the church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth. Well the Holy Spirit is the only who bears testimony to what the truth is!

Okay, but your last sentence is straying from the sentence before.  (see below)

Quote

If Christ spoke of the Temple, which is where the Holy Spirit resides, as the body of the true believer then the entirety of believers is collectively the pillar and bulwark of the Truth and the True Church.

This is too much of stretch.  But it is not a stretch to say that using your logic the church does not exist.  If we are collectively gathered but not together -no reality exists.   

Again, this was not the way the historic church thought.  The church needs physicality because Christ himself is both physical and spiritual.   Human beings are made in his image, for sure, but the sum of believing human beings as no physicality in and of itself.  The church is real.

QuoteAnd whatever guy said that although all true believers go to heaven, that does not necessarily mean that they are apart of the Church owes me a TON of scripture to back up such a contradiction.

Does Scripture say that those written in the Book of Life are the church?  No.  Does it say that every baptised church person is saved? No. Was the thief on the cross in the church? No, yet he was saved.

Quote

QuoteWouldn't it make sense for at least one church to have the whole truth?  If doctrines separate churches (which they do), then only one church has the truth.   Truth by his nature is binary.

THE HOLY SPIRIT HOLDS THE TRUTH.

But if the Holy Spirit is in the true church, there is no contradiction. The Holy Spirit resides in my church (the Orthodox Church).  Assuming I am correct, the Holy Spirit is in the church testifying of its truth.  That is why the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

But the Protestant model wants to change this by making the church you and me and all believers.  A key problem is who speaks the truth when we disagree?  There is no mechanism for resolving this in Protestantism, but there is in the historic church.

Quote

Just because God allows something doesnt make Him the author of it. Just throwing that fact out there.

which is why Protestantism is a flawed concept.  There is a problem when your religion is split into 20,000 denominations.   God allows them to exist (to your point), and he even may love many of them, but none are the true church. 

Thanks for reading.