Christian Discussion Thread III

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Yes. You are a heretic to the Christian faith. You are, indeed, a heretic. Does this call your propensity for loving Christ into question? No. Does this call your salvation into question? No. It simply means that you hold theological views that are not dogmatically Christian. Our two approaches to faith do overlap in certain areas, but central to the Christian faith is humility before the physical Church that Christ created (among other pillars). Protestantism writ large denies the value of the physical Church in favor of a spiritual church. This is calling Christ a liar at worst or, at best, calling Christ naive. For that, you are a heretic.

What physical Church? I'm not aware that he set forth any doctrine determining the way the Church in his absence would be built. This is something I'm honestly interested to hear, because I have never been made aware to such a physical Church. I do know that there is the Catholic Church (which isn't what you support), I am aware of the Church of Latter Day Saints (The Mormons) and the Jehovah's Witness, but I know nothing of a physical breathing Church beyond the one I feel which is the full sum of those in the Christian Faith

Just to jump in here. It seems to me, You really aught to spend more time reading scripture instead of defending it, for the outline of the Physical Church is everywhere in the NT. Starting in Mathew 16, where Christ names Simon bar Jonah, Peter, and makes him a very physical foundation of the Church, and forerunner of the Popes. Paul and the disciples also give outlines and instructions on church structure and purpose.

Also, the Mormon Church is a separate church from the Christian Church(on purpose). Joseph Smith intended for it to be a "New Church".
Jehovah's witness have no church, they have an assembly.

Dystuzio, you are also wrong. The Church is very much a spiritual connection as much as it is physical. Just as you are both physical and spiritual, so is the Church. The Church is a collection of physical churches joined in one spirit to make one Church.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well, first of all it is important to note that although we revere the words of the saints and consider them always worthy of study and careful reflection, we don't assume that they are right about everything. In fact they can't be, since different saints and Fathers of the Church sometimes directly disagreed with each other, so it's not possible for all of them to be right about everything at the same time. Both the Catholics and the Orthodox accept the writings of the saints as valuable, but fallible and sometimes opinionated. Thus, one possible response is simply "St. Cyprian was wrong about that", just as the Catholics believe that certain commonly-recognized saints were wrong about other things.

Another response is that yes, Christ set aside a special role for St. Peter, but said nothing about a monarchical line of succession. The Orthodox Church does not regard the bishops of Rome as being the only successors of St. Peter, pointing out that St. Peter also ordained bishops in many other places besides Rome, and was himself for a long time the head of the church in Antioch. In a sense, we believe that the "line of succession" from St. Peter has been intermingled with the lines of succession from all the other Apostles, such that it makes no sense to point to any one see or any one bishop as THE successor to St. Peter. All bishops are successors of St. Peter, and all bishops are successors of all the other Apostles as well.

As for the quote from St. Cyprian which mentioned "the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source", I would have to read the entire letter in context, not just a few excerpted sentences, in order to respond. For example, was he implying that Rome is "the chief Church" of the world, or "the chief Church" of a region, like Italy for example, or the Western Mediterranean? In the latter case we would agree with him. In fact, we may even agree that Rome had the right to be "the chief Church" of the world if by "chief" is meant a position of honour - i.e. the most respected Church, the one whose opinion is most valuable - and not a position of authority.

In most of the religious controversies of the 1st millennium, the Orthodox Church actually believes that the Pope of Rome was correct. Among the various major bishops of the early Christian world, the bishop of Rome was the most reliable, the most likely to hold the orthodox position. What we believe about the Popes of Rome is basically that they were the greatest bishops of Christianity and then fell into heresy out of pride.

I'd also like to note (again, as I did some pages ago) that there was at least one Pope of Rome which is considered a heretic even by the Catholic Church itself. And there were many disputed papal elections, periods when multiple people claimed to be Pope, etc. So to claim that the Popes "enjoy a special divine protection from heresy" - in the sense that they cannot be heretics - is nonsense, and untenable even by Catholic standards. Popes were highly unlikely to be heretics in the 1st millennium, but certainly not completely immune to heresy. The assumption that because you have a great track record you cannot be wrong is precisely the kind of deadly pride I was talking about.

Tagged for epic rebuttle forth coming, when I have time.

[The Flood]

I wish I could see a day when the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church were reunited.

[DrakoLand]

I wish I could see a day when the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church were reunited.

Why?

[Constantinopolis]

Tagged for epic rebuttle forth coming, when I have time.

You already wrote one, remember? These are some points that we already discussed in this very thread about a month ago. In fact, if I remember correctly, it was you who had the last word in that debate (so far), because our posts had grown to epic lengths and I just never got around to replying to the last one you wrote.

So, if anything, we could just get back to that debate...

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Tagged for epic rebuttle forth coming, when I have time.

You already wrote one, remember? These are some points that we already discussed in this very thread about a month ago. In fact, if I remember correctly, it was you who had the last word in that debate (so far), because our posts had grown to epic lengths and I just never got around to replying to the last one you wrote.

So, if anything, we could just get back to that debate...

You made some interesting points that I feel warrant "clarrification" on my part.

[Distruzio]

Dystuzio, you are also wrong. The Church is very much a spiritual connection as much as it is physical. Just as you are both physical and spiritual, so is the Church. The Church is a collection of physical churches joined in one spirit to make one Church.

Of course. Forgive me if my emphasis on the Church as a physical entity suggested I denied her spiritual existence as well. Quite right to critique my argument here.

[Distruzio]

I'm only responding to certain points of yours because the majority of our exchange has devolved into a declaration of doctrinal differences with no hope of continuation. When I enter a conversation, I do so with the mentality that discussion stems from the desire to converse. When you posit your position and I posit my own, and the two have no possibility of reconciliation. Essentially, we're both saying, "no, you're wrong" (although not, necessarily, in an antagonizing manner as I've yet to detect any hostility from you and hope that I've yet to present that quality on my own). What I'm saying is that, as far as I am concerned, certain aspects of our conversation cannot go any further because the foundations of our perspectives are too disparate. You value the Bible as your sole source of legitimacy. I do not. So were you to cite scriptural "evidence" to support your position, nothing but frustration or exasperation could arise from any of my responses as I do not consider the Bible to be the sole authority on Christianity.

Yes. You are a heretic to the Christian faith. You are, indeed, a heretic. Does this call your propensity for loving Christ into question? No. Does this call your salvation into question? No. It simply means that you hold theological views that are not dogmatically Christian. Our two approaches to faith do overlap in certain areas, but central to the Christian faith is humility before the physical Church that Christ created (among other pillars). Protestantism writ large denies the value of the physical Church in favor of a spiritual church. This is calling Christ a liar at worst or, at best, calling Christ naive. For that, you are a heretic.

What physical Church? I'm not aware that he set forth any doctrine determining the way the Church in his absence would be built. This is something I'm honestly interested to hear, because I have never been made aware to such a physical Church. I do know that there is the Catholic Church (which isn't what you support), I am aware of the Church of Latter Day Saints (The Mormons) and the Jehovah's Witness, but I know nothing of a physical breathing Church beyond the one I feel which is the full sum of those in the Christian Faith.

The Imperial Church. The one that, eventually, splintered into the Roman Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches. That is the one true Church. It is the one Church that has existed since pentecost. No Protestant and no Gnostic church can realistically say the same unless they call Jesus a liar or deny the progress of history.

It doesn't put us on terms with the Creator. It puts the Creator on terms with us. Throughout this exchange you have highlighted the doctrinal differences between Christianity and Protestantism: the Christian views God as humble beings that only seek to be reunited with their Creation while the Protestant views God as the ultimate judge upon whose feet we must all prostrate ourselves out of fear of damnation.

Such a view isn't, necessarily, invalid. On the contrary, it's what makes Protestantism so viable a faith. I rather think you Protestants do yourselves a great disservice by insisting that you are the same as us. You aren't. Not by any stretch of the imagination is the Protestant concept of God, worship, dogma, and approach to faithful doctrine similar.

I'm sorry, but I actually shudder in response to that notion, "It puts the Creator on terms with us." It is almost like you're saying," Hey God, I did this, so now listen to me, because you're on terms with me now."

You misunderstand. That statement is an acknowledgement of God's great humility. It isn't a celebration of Mans great arrogance.

God never fell out of terms with us, we fell out of terms with him.

Indeed. And He still humbled Himself enough to suffer as a human being. How else would we have been reconciled with him?

Also, why do you think God cannot be both the (I refuse to use the word humble for there is no reason to use it for a being like God to be humble except perhaps when one considers Jesus's own humility, but that was before the will of God to show what we should do likewise) gentleness of the Lamb, yet also the fierceness of the Lion. He has shown that He is indeed that ultimate judge like you say, but He also has shown a great love and grace that shows His desire to be in a relationship with His creation.

Because God does can not act outside His nature. The reason that God cannot create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it is because to do so would violate the standards of His existence. Doing so would be just plain silly. Similarly, God cannot be both the "Lamb" and the "Lion" because He cannot act outside His nature.

Will there not indeed be a reckoning at the end of time when God will see to it that all whom have violated His will are punished bar those who believed in the promise of His Son?

No. There will be a reckoning at the end of time when God will see that all who have violated His will are repentant including those who believed in His promise. Again, sin is the violation of relationship. All are sinners, including the Christian.

That definitely appears to me as though he is indeed a great and ultimate judge. However was there not also a time when He called out to Man, in the Garden, to seek us out, to find us when we had hidden ourselves from Him? Though He knew already what had transpired, He still wished to see us in our moment of defeat, in our greatest moment of weakness, he showed grace, by sparing them. Not only that, He gave them clothing, and throughout the Bible we see Him constantly judging His people, but also we see Him constantly providing for them, and defending them. Here again I say that god is not one or the other, but both, to an extent we might never even fully comprehend.

Indeed. Which is precisely why, according to Christian doctrine, God isn't the guy handing out condemnations - He sought out Adam and asked what happened. He didn't demand it. It was a question. He then elaborated that, because of their actions, consequences would follow. He did not say, "I now cast you out..."

[Distruzio]

Up to now you have banged the drum that Prodestantism is a totally different religion from Christianity. Today, you call us 'Heretics'. That's illogical, Captain. Christianity started as a Jewish heresy and then it grew into a totally different religion.

I've always called Protestants heretics when the term suits my purposes. And yes, Christianity remains a Jewish heresy.

You can only be an Heretic if you are still part of the Original religion. By analogy, IMPO, Jehovah's Witnesses change lots of stuff and are a Christian Heresy; Mormons changed even more and are a different religion.

No. Not at all. You confuse schism with heresy. A schismatic remains part of the faith - such as the disparity between the Roman Catholics, the Anglican Communion, and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.

Heresy is something separate.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well, first of all it is important to note that although we revere the words of the saints and consider them always worthy of study and careful reflection, we don't assume that they are right about everything. In fact they can't be, since different saints and Fathers of the Church sometimes directly disagreed with each other, so it's not possible for all of them to be right about everything at the same time. Both the Catholics and the Orthodox accept the writings of the saints as valuable, but fallible and sometimes opinionated. Thus, one possible response is simply "St. Cyprian was wrong about that", just as the Catholics believe that certain commonly-recognized saints were wrong about other things.

The problem here, is simply saying "St. whoever is wrong about that" is too easy a thing to say, without substance, and makes wide the door for heresy. We uphold the early Church Fathers and Saints as having the "Benefit of the doubt" of when considering the correctness of their teachings. We assume for the most part that they are correct. However when it is evident they were incorrect, strict scrutiny is applied, and results in "St. So and so was wrong, and here's around 700 pages explaining why."

Another response is that yes, Christ set aside a special role for St. Peter, but said nothing about a monarchical line of succession. The Orthodox Church does not regard the bishops of Rome as being the only successors of St. Peter, pointing out that St. Peter also ordained bishops in many other places besides Rome, and was himself for a long time the head of the church in Antioch. In a sense, we believe that the "line of succession" from St. Peter has been intermingled with the lines of succession from all the other Apostles, such that it makes no sense to point to any one see or any one bishop as THE successor to St. Peter. All bishops are successors of St. Peter, and all bishops are successors of all the other Apostles as well.

I'm going to address this in reverse order.

You are conflating Apostolic Succession, with Positional Succession. They are separate, if they weren't than all Priests would be equal in Church order, and Patriarchs would not exist. We'd be, dare I say, how Evangelical Protestants are. Thankfully we draw the line. For instance when a new Patriarch is appointed, he does not inherit the Apostolic Succession of the Patriarch before him, as he already retains the Apostolic Succession of his Priesthood. What he gains is the Position of the Patriarch before him. The Popes of today do not necessarily have Apostolic Succession of St. Peter, they have his Positional Succession. It is true, that St. Peter appointed many lesser bishops, but they did not inherit his position as Arbiter and Steward of the Church, a position created by Christ himself, they only inherited his Apostolic Succession (if they did not have it already). More importantly the Popes are Separate from St. Peter in this regard. Catholics still name St. Peter as the Bishop even today. In our Prayers we still pray for "Peter our Bishop and the Pope." They are not Peter incarnate, they are simply those who are appointed by the Church to carry on his position.

Also, The Catholic Church does not uphold that the Bishop of Rome is the Pope, but rather Pope is also the Bishop of Rome. Being the Bishop of Rome and the Pope of the Church are separate but conjoined responsibilities. We place Rome as the seat of the Steward, because it was the seat of the Steward when St. Peter died. Yes, he was originally located in Antioch, but moved his seat when he founded the church in Rome, and was martyred there. The Bishop of Rome, does not technically have to be the seat of the Pope, but it is by Tradition. Any Bishop can be named Pope, but when they do they move to be the Bishop of Rome as well.

Now also to point out Peter and the Popes are not Monarchs. Christ is the Monarch. The Pope is the Steward and Vicar of Christ. St. Peter the first Bishop who was appointed by Christ himself to care for the Church and Speak in his absence, while at the hand of the Father, all the Popes afterwards who inherited this Position.
Lastly, while it is true that Christ did not explicitly mention successors to St. Peter when he appointed him, it is implicitly mandated by the nature of the Mission and Naming Christ gave to St. Peter.

17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was[f] the Messiah.[g]

I've already shown how the "fashioning of the keys" is the appointment of Peter's Stewardship, to which you agree as his "special purpose". It's two other parts that illustrate the successive nature of this position. Firstly, the name Peter or "Rock". In Jewish Tradition, Rock is a very important image, not just as a foundation but as an eternal foundation. God is described as the Rock of Israel all through the Psalms, and by Isaiah, and Habbakuk alike. When Christ established him as Peter, it just wasn't just for then but Eternally. His position as Steward wasn't just a singular one, but rather an Eternal Position.

Secondly, "and the Gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Hades, is not gone, and will not be until the End. In order for the Church to continue to withstand, it must be eternal. How is that to be eternal, if the Foundation and Position of Peter ended upon his death? It cannot be.

As for the quote from St. Cyprian which mentioned "the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source", I would have to read the entire letter in context, not just a few excerpted sentences, in order to respond. For example, was he implying that Rome is "the chief Church" of the world, or "the chief Church" of a region, like Italy for example, or the Western Mediterranean? In the latter case we would agree with him. In fact, we may even agree that Rome had the right to be "the chief Church" of the world if by "chief" is meant a position of honour - i.e. the most respected Church, the one whose opinion is most valuable - and not a position of authority.

Unfortunately the very words of what you quoted disagree with you. Chief is not simply, a position of "honour" but a position of authority, always has been, always will be. That is not to say those who are not "Chief" do not have authority and standing of their own, but the "Chief" is the 1st and foremost, and above all others, not primus inter pares.

Secondly, it's not a region he is referring to but the Church as a whole. "the chief Church [from] whence priestly unity takes its source" priestly unity is in reference to all priests, united in one Church, not just the priests of Italy. St. Cyprian, is holding up Rome, or more importantly the person seated in Rome, as the Chief of the entire Church. i.e, Da Popa.

In most of the religious controversies of the 1st millennium, the Orthodox Church actually believes that the Pope of Rome was correct. Among the various major bishops of the early Christian world, the bishop of Rome was the most reliable, the most likely to hold the orthodox position. What we believe about the Popes of Rome is basically that they were the greatest bishops of Christianity and then fell into heresy out of pride.

While possible for Popes to become Heretics, this is not the case in this instance, as the Primacy of "The Bishop" as seen by St Cyprian and Irenaeus of Lyon, the Primacy of the Bishop (Pope) was established before even the Edict of Milan. Which would in fact make the Orthodox Church, the Heretics, or Heterodox, out of Pride, by putting themselves above Christ's own appointed Steward.

I'd also like to note (again, as I did some pages ago) that there was at least one Pope of Rome which is considered a heretic even by the Catholic Church itself. And there were many disputed papal elections, periods when multiple people claimed to be Pope, etc. So to claim that the Popes "enjoy a special divine protection from heresy" - in the sense that they cannot be heretics - is nonsense, and untenable even by Catholic standards. Popes were highly unlikely to be heretics in the 1st millennium, but certainly not completely immune to heresy. The assumption that because you have a great track record you cannot be wrong is precisely the kind of deadly pride I was talking about.

Firstly, St. Cyprian's comments here are more one of logic than saying Pope's incapable of Heresy. For instance, If I'm the Head of a group of people who all follow what I say, if someone one disagrees with me, they are now heretics regardless of their correctness. For the nature of being of that people is predicated on following what I say, not what I say being right. Thus as the Pope's word is the expression of the unity of the church, to oppose it is to side against the unity of the Church.


The difference between Cyprian's comments on the Pope and the denounced Heretical pope, Is on the nature of Papal Infallibility (which is a misnomer). Church unity requires that Tradition, Scripture, and Magistarium, must all be in unity. One cannot proclaim something that violates the other. Papal Infallibility only holds up the Pope's words so long as they do not conflict with Scripture or Tradition. For instance the Pope can say, "On Friday all must abstain from meat and eat fish, cause fish is good for you and meat is getting pricey" (which is essentially what happened) and such a proclamation is not Heresy, because there is no scripture or Tradition that this violates. However, if the Pope were to say, "Same sex marriage is allowed" for instance, this would be Heresy, as both Scripture and Tradition are opposed.

In Cyprian's case, Carthoginian's didn't agree with what a Pope said. However, the Pope's proclamations were not against Church Scripture or Tradition, thus his Magistarium is upheld, and the Carthaginians were Heretics for going against it. In your Heretic Pope's case, he proclaimed things conflicting with Scripture or Tradition, which makes his words Heretical. As for the "multi-pope" intances and contested elections, those were and are political issues within the Church, and not a reflection of the Position's authority.

The Catholics do not believe the Pope is incapable of committing heresy, but rather that if he is true in his role and faith, the Holy Spirit would guide him in a way that prevents him committing Heresy. However, it is understood that Pope's are human, and are capable of turning from the Spirit as are we all.

[Distruzio]

I'm sorry, I missed this post.

I beg to differ. Certain sects fall into "that trap" moreso than others, certainly. But, by and large, the entire premise of Protestant theology (taken as a whole) creates the "trap".

You're going to have to be more specific than "Protestant theology." Are you talking Calvinist, Arminian, or Lutheran? From there, which aspect? Divine monergism?

I'm not targeting a specific schism within the Protestant approach to dogma.

First off, Protestants are not Christian. They are heretics. They are to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism.

You're free to believe this if you feel compelled to, but it does not speak to me that you are arguing in good faith when you assert it. I will not argue on your terms and will continue to address them as Christians. I ask that you refrain from beleaguering this point, as it is not relevant and your Church disagrees with you on the matter.

Fair enough. (as an aside, I'm well aware that my Church disagrees with me and, honestly, this causes me great distress. How can I think my perspective so correct and hers so wrong? Confession never seems to help as repentance never comes.)

Third, that is very much the approach Protestant theology advocates. Not only is sin the violation of a rule but, because all are guilty of breaking these rules in some way or another, in order to exonerate the individual sinner from culpability for the sin, the sin is artificially separated from them.

See, this is why you can't lump Protestants together like that:

But they contend that concupiscence is a penalty, and not a sin [a burden and imposed penalty, and is not such a sin as is subject to death and condemnation]. Luther maintains that it is a sin.

From the Apology to the Augsburg Confession

The point I was trying to make is that for the Lutheran-Anglican-Moravian, grace does not justify individual sins. Justification is the end, not a tool of exoneration along the way.

That makes a certain amount of sense, I dare say.

Sin isn't separate from our person. It's a disease. Like alcoholism.

Though I agree with you, your analogy actually supports you opponents' point; you might want to think of revising it for this reason:

The alcoholic consumes alcohol as a result of their alcoholism.
The sinner commits sin as a result of their sinfullness

Will do, thank you.

Quite the contrary. They do deny it.

Well, I don't know what to tell you. Let me again assure you that we really don't. If you have a specific example, that would help me see what you are referring to.

That the two are separate. That salvation comes from obeying a rule. That healing comes from perfection.

What? Who on earth told you Protestants believe that? You could maybe make the argument that the Arminians believe that but even that is stretching it.

I'll consult my notes and get back to you.

Salvation comes from healing and perfection comes from obedience - only that, for the Protestant, obedience is found in a collection of books separate from the One Church. For the Christian, obedience to the Church, the entity that created both Bible and religion, creates a more perfected being.

Both salvation and healing come from grace. That's it. Nothing else. It is grace that calls us to obedience to Christ alone, for one cannot be obedient to two masters.

...go on?

For the Protestant, obedience to the Bible creates perfection.

Again, where is this coming from? That's not what Protestants believe.

From the elevation of scripture to a position of superiority to the Church.

Forgive me. I failed to elaborate. The dichotomy is a confrontational one here. Where the individual and God are called into a struggle for supremacy. Such a struggle ignores the reality of the trinity, and Man's role in the trinity.

Once again, that might be an argument to be made against Arminian theology, but I fail to see how the other two major schools do this. Especially the Calvinists; to me, double predestination seems pretty much like the definition of "lack of human agency."

It's the logical conclusion of the Protestant approach to dogma.

That may well be, actually - that I allow my bigotry to cloud my judgement. It's a bigotrous perspective I've struggled with the entire time I've been active on NSG (and longer, honestly). While there are those active on this board that genuinely show me just how far I go (Tarsonis, Merchant Republics, and others), I'm afraid that I'm simply too damned stubborn to see the logic behind their perspective. I even go so far as to disagree with the Church, which states that the Protestants are Christian Heretics. I admit that that is way too far to go and it's a failure I acknowledge. But until I can find some compelling argument contradicting me other than (nope, your wrong) then how can I help but remain steadfast in my assertions? Even my bishop addresses my arguments with an appeal to grace. I simply don't have the grace necessary to accept heretics as brothers in faith. Cousins? Yes. But brothers? No. Not yet.

Although I am looking.

There's definitely something to be said for that. I often find myself falling into a similar mindset toward the Evangelical movement. They hijacked and secularized the Reformation to the point where the entire movement, which I firmly believe was rooted in a return to orthodoxy, gets summed up by "Have you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior?" It's immensely frustrating to me, and it further frustrates me that my mindset toward them hasn't improved despite my best efforts. I haven't found any on NSG yet, though I suppose I haven't been here very long. Hopefully I'll have positive interactions as you've had.

They're here. When I begin conversations about this subject with my priest, I always involve the discussions had in this thread. He usually speaks of moderation and grace but, sometimes, gives me a firm rhetorical kick for certain comments. He's always urging me to speak openly and candidly (though not arrogantly) about this issue I have and sees the Protestants I engage most often as the proper check on my radicalism. He says it's rather good for me to be rebuked.

I honestly agree with him.

[The Flood]

I wish I could see a day when the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church were reunited.

Why?

Because, there's only supposed to be one Church.

[Kassaran]

Just to jump in here. It seems to me, You really aught to spend more time reading scripture instead of defending it, for the outline of the Physical Church is everywhere in the NT. Starting in Mathew 16, where Christ names Simon bar Jonah, Peter, and makes him a very physical foundation of the Church, and forerunner of the Popes. Paul and the disciples also give outlines and instructions on church structure and purpose.

Ah, then there is where we part beliefs my friend, because though I know that the instructions on how to plant and maintain the Church was given, I do not recognize Peter as a Pope. Paul and his fellow Apostles and their writings I see as the instructions indeed on how to care for the Church, but I feel that to state explicitly that the Church is a physical thing can impede on the need to determine it as an actual spiritual entity, and I feel that the Bishop of Rome, or the Pope has the right to rule. Indeed Peter holds the keys to the Gate of Heaven, but I feel that there is no proof that supports him ever taking position as the total head of the church. If he had, I'm certain he would have died sooner than most of those lost in Acts, for the Jews would have targeted, and then killed him. No, I feel that logic and scripture state that while he was perhaps given charge over Jesus' flock, I do not feel that encompassed the whole of the Christian church, but rather the Church in Jerusalem, the first Church, and thus the first flock, that being Jesus' flock for they were the First Church gathered and founded by him. When a pastor/priest refers to their congregation, do they not often refer to them as their "flock"?

Also, at Distruzio, I would most certainly hope I have not come off as harsh or hostile. I know that as (indeed I will declare myself one because I believe I am one) a Christian, I am called to show love and compassion towards all, in spite of how they my feel for me (though I do at times struggle with this as I'm certain many of us do).

[Distruzio]

Why?

Because, there's only supposed to be one Church.

Well, technically, it remains "one" Church. It's just that we now begin to see the Church being divided into functioning organs of the same body. A single governing body was the creation of fallen men and it was fallen men that divided that governing body. This does nothing to dispel the reality of universality within the Church proper - as far as I can see. I, too, look forward to complete reconciliation but I'm not naive enough to suppose that could happen in the next century. It's a hope that I share with you, it seems. I wonder if, perhaps, the differing doctrinal approaches to dogma each of the divisions present are analogous to the several particular functions of the human body? Who says the Body of Christ doesn't merit specialized organs to sustain it?

[Chelta]

The difference between Cyprian's comments on the Pope and the denounced Heretical pope, Is on the nature of Papal Infallibility (which is a misnomer). Church unity requires that Tradition, Scripture, and Magistarium, must all be in unity. One cannot proclaim something that violates the other. Papal Infallibility only holds up the Pope's words so long as they do not conflict with Scripture or Tradition. For instance the Pope can say, "On Friday all must abstain from meat and eat fish, cause fish is good for you and meat is getting pricey" (which is essentially what happened) and such a proclamation is not Heresy, because there is no scripture or Tradition that this violates. However, if the Pope were to say, "Same sex marriage is allowed" for instance, this would be Heresy, as both Scripture and Tradition are opposed.

In Cyprian's case, Carthoginian's didn't agree with what a Pope said. However, the Pope's proclamations were not against Church Scripture or Tradition, thus his Magistarium is upheld, and the Carthaginians were Heretics for going against it. In your Heretic Pope's case, he proclaimed things conflicting with Scripture or Tradition, which makes his words Heretical. As for the "multi-pope" intances and contested elections, those were and are political issues within the Church, and not a reflection of the Position's authority.

The Catholics do not believe the Pope is incapable of committing heresy, but rather that if he is true in his role and faith, the Holy Spirit would guide him in a way that prevents him committing Heresy. However, it is understood that Pope's are human, and are capable of turning from the Spirit as are we all.

Maybe I misunderstand the Catholic position on this, but isn't the whole point of Magisterium to be a divinely-appointed infallible interpreter of scripture and tradition? Doesn't Magisterium tell the Catholic what scripture and tradition say in the first place?

My understanding of the Catholic conception of Magisterium is that it is analogous to the judiciary. The law is there in the statute books and in precedent for everyone to read, but you need the courts to tell you what the law actually means and how it applies because people can interpret the law differently. In the same way, my understanding was that scripture and tradition is accessible to all, but Magisterium is there to say how it is all to be interpreted coherently. In this way, Magisterium can thus never be wrong and can never be in conflict with scripture and tradition.

Am I getting this right?

[Kassaran]

-snip-

Maybe I misunderstand the Catholic position on this, but isn't the whole point of Magisterium to be a divinely-appointed infallible interpreter of scripture and tradition? Doesn't Magisterium tell the Catholic what scripture and tradition say in the first place?

My understanding of the Catholic conception of Magisterium is that it is analogous to the judiciary. The law is there in the statute books and in precedent for everyone to read, but you need the courts to tell you what the law actually means and how it applies because people can interpret the law differently. In the same way, my understanding was that scripture and tradition is accessible to all, but Magisterium is there to say how it is all to be interpreted coherently. In this way, Magisterium can thus never be wrong and can never be in conflict with scripture and tradition.

Am I getting this right?[/quote]
(I too thought this was the case, but never was certain if they directly said no or not.

[DrakoLand]

Because, there's only supposed to be one Church.

Well, technically, it remains "one" Church. It's just that we now begin to see the Church being divided into functioning organs of the same body. A single governing body was the creation of fallen men and it was fallen men that divided that governing body. This does nothing to dispel the reality of universality within the Church proper - as far as I can see. I, too, look forward to complete reconciliation but I'm not naive enough to suppose that could happen in the next century. It's a hope that I share with you, it seems. I wonder if, perhaps, the differing doctrinal approaches to dogma each of the divisions present are analogous to the several particular functions of the human body? Who says the Body of Christ doesn't merit specialized organs to sustain it?

Unification will never happen. Any unity between the churches would lead to one absorbing the other since none is willing (and shouldn't) alter their dogma.

[Kassaran]

Unification will never happen. Any unity between the churches would lead to one absorbing the other since none is willing (and shouldn't) alter their dogma.

Perhaps merging isn't what needs to happen through unity, but rather oneness of objective, to reach out to the rest of te world, to fulfill our Great Commission before Christ returns. While oneness of mind won't happen like you said, oneness of objective can. Though, I will say perhaps unity with restorationist cults shouldn't be endorsed. Just saying, and I apologize to those of you who are restorationists, but yeah. It's a generally considered doctrine that you guys aren't us. We love you though if it makes any difference.

[DrakoLand]

Unification will never happen. Any unity between the churches would lead to one absorbing the other since none is willing (and shouldn't) alter their dogma.

Perhaps merging isn't what needs to happen through unity, but rather oneness of objective, to reach out to the rest of te world, to fulfill our Great Commission before Christ returns. While oneness of mind won't happen like you said, oneness of objective can. Though, I will say perhaps unity with restorationist cults shouldn't be endorsed. Just saying, and I apologize to those of you who are restorationists, but yeah. It's a generally considered doctrine that you guys aren't us. We love you though if it makes any difference.

How exactly would you describe "working together towards the same objective" work? I'm kind of lost here

[Kassaran]

Perhaps merging isn't what needs to happen through unity, but rather oneness of objective, to reach out to the rest of te world, to fulfill our Great Commission before Christ returns. While oneness of mind won't happen like you said, oneness of objective can. Though, I will say perhaps unity with restorationist cults shouldn't be endorsed. Just saying, and I apologize to those of you who are restorationists, but yeah. It's a generally considered doctrine that you guys aren't us. We love you though if it makes any difference.

How exactly would you describe "working together towards the same objective" work? I'm kind of lost here

What's the basic thing one has to know to be saved. What is the universally accepted standard that everyone states should be the focus of any Christian/pseudo-Christian? This should be easy for you to get.

[DrakoLand]

How exactly would you describe "working together towards the same objective" work? I'm kind of lost here

What's the basic thing one has to know to be saved. What is the universally accepted standard that everyone states should be the focus of any Christian/pseudo-Christian? This should be easy for you to get.

Accept Jesus, love others and don't be a nosebone?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The difference between Cyprian's comments on the Pope and the denounced Heretical pope, Is on the nature of Papal Infallibility (which is a misnomer). Church unity requires that Tradition, Scripture, and Magistarium, must all be in unity. One cannot proclaim something that violates the other. Papal Infallibility only holds up the Pope's words so long as they do not conflict with Scripture or Tradition. For instance the Pope can say, "On Friday all must abstain from meat and eat fish, cause fish is good for you and meat is getting pricey" (which is essentially what happened) and such a proclamation is not Heresy, because there is no scripture or Tradition that this violates. However, if the Pope were to say, "Same sex marriage is allowed" for instance, this would be Heresy, as both Scripture and Tradition are opposed.

In Cyprian's case, Carthoginian's didn't agree with what a Pope said. However, the Pope's proclamations were not against Church Scripture or Tradition, thus his Magistarium is upheld, and the Carthaginians were Heretics for going against it. In your Heretic Pope's case, he proclaimed things conflicting with Scripture or Tradition, which makes his words Heretical. As for the "multi-pope" intances and contested elections, those were and are political issues within the Church, and not a reflection of the Position's authority.

The Catholics do not believe the Pope is incapable of committing heresy, but rather that if he is true in his role and faith, the Holy Spirit would guide him in a way that prevents him committing Heresy. However, it is understood that Pope's are human, and are capable of turning from the Spirit as are we all.

Maybe I misunderstand the Catholic position on this, but isn't the whole point of Magisterium to be a divinely-appointed infallible interpreter of scripture and tradition? Doesn't Magisterium tell the Catholic what scripture and tradition say in the first place?

My understanding of the Catholic conception of Magisterium is that it is analogous to the judiciary. The law is there in the statute books and in precedent for everyone to read, but you need the courts to tell you what the law actually means and how it applies because people can interpret the law differently. In the same way, my understanding was that scripture and tradition is accessible to all, but Magisterium is there to say how it is all to be interpreted coherently. In this way, Magisterium can thus never be wrong and can never be in conflict with scripture and tradition.

Am I getting this right?

Yes and no. Tradition, has been handed down since before scripture. Scripture itself is product of Tradition, but is codified and while intertwined with Tradition is also seperate. The Magiatarium is the Authoritative pillar, that hands down Tradition and Codified Scripture. They're all intertwined. The Magistarium cannot codify new scripture. They can create new Tradition, but they cannot overturn standing Tradition


Now, as for ultimate authority, yes, yes and then a resounding no, and a yes again. There are Dogmas, which are absolute truths held by the Church, that to be Catholic you must believe. Beneath that, there are Doctrines, which are teachings by the Catholic Church, but the laity are not necessarily required to accept, though encouraged. And beneath that, are opinions, which are not official teachings of the Catholic Church, but can provide guidance to the laity on certain subjects.

The Catholic Church is a heterogeneous group with multiple ideas.

[The Flood]

Because, there's only supposed to be one Church.

Well, technically, it remains "one" Church. It's just that we now begin to see the Church being divided into functioning organs of the same body. A single governing body was the creation of fallen men and it was fallen men that divided that governing body. This does nothing to dispel the reality of universality within the Church proper - as far as I can see. I, too, look forward to complete reconciliation but I'm not naive enough to suppose that could happen in the next century. It's a hope that I share with you, it seems. I wonder if, perhaps, the differing doctrinal approaches to dogma each of the divisions present are analogous to the several particular functions of the human body? Who says the Body of Christ doesn't merit specialized organs to sustain it?

What do you think would have to happen in order for the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church to reunite?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well, technically, it remains "one" Church. It's just that we now begin to see the Church being divided into functioning organs of the same body. A single governing body was the creation of fallen men and it was fallen men that divided that governing body. This does nothing to dispel the reality of universality within the Church proper - as far as I can see. I, too, look forward to complete reconciliation but I'm not naive enough to suppose that could happen in the next century. It's a hope that I share with you, it seems. I wonder if, perhaps, the differing doctrinal approaches to dogma each of the divisions present are analogous to the several particular functions of the human body? Who says the Body of Christ doesn't merit specialized organs to sustain it?

What do you think would have to happen in order for the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church to reunite?

Orthodox would have to accept the Pope, Catholics would have to give full Communion, none of this just the Host stuff. They'd have to agree to disagree on filioque and the use of unleavened vs leavened bread in the Eucharist

[Constantinopolis]

What do you think would have to happen in order for the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church to reunite?

Uh... basically the Catholics would have to become Orthodox in doctrine and administration (while keeping their liturgy and practices), or vice versa, the Orthodox would have to become Catholic.

That's why unity isn't really possible. I suppose a "middle ground" could be negotiated in which the combined Church would endorse Orthodox doctrine on some matters and Catholic doctrine on other matters (which is basically what Tarsonis suggests), but that's likely to simply get everyone angry and be condemned as heresy by large factions of both Churches, leading to further division, not unity.