Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Busen]

Well then, given your apparently much more impressive knowledge of the relevant historical issues, you won't have any problem countering my post point by point so we can understand your objections to my argument.

I'm sure we all await your learned analysis with considerable anticipation.

Maybe you should start actually to present your argument detaly instead of using ad homines. People are losing credibility even more.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Yes, I know Menassa. I'm just saying I've not met many Messianics, they're not the largest of denominations. (By the way, it's been a while since we've spoken!)

We aren't a denomination. We are a nation.

You can't spell denomination without nation

[The Archregimancy]

Well then, given your apparently much more impressive knowledge of the relevant historical issues, you won't have any problem countering my post point by point so we can understand your objections to my argument.

I'm sure we all await your learned analysis with considerable anticipation.

Maybe you should start actually to present your argument detaly instead of using ad homines. People are losing credibility even more.

There are absolutely no ad hominems in my post. Not one jot or tittle (sarcasm, perhaps; ad hominems, no).

I merely invite you to offer your analysis of a post you've said you've read and aren't impressed by.

As such, you should have no difficulty offering us a more detailed outline of your specific objections, which - on the basis of your declaring yourself unimpressed - will no doubt be much more impressive than my original argument.

As I said, I'm sure we all await your analysis with considerable anticipation. Many of us will be genuinely interested.

Edit:

For reference, here are the two posts in question, just to help you on your way.

viewtopic.php?p=24021093#p24021093

viewtopic.php?p=23931336#p23931336

[Constantinopolis]

There is no such thing in the Bible. What Jesus said to Peter was "I will build My Church [upon you]".

That can be interpreted in several different ways. It certainly does not have to mean "I am giving you the right to codify dogmas, and this will get passed down to your successors in Rome, but not to your other successors ordained in other places." It's not quite so... precise, you know?

Ok, yes there is a point that you said but surely Jesus gave Peter some leadership in leading the Church. The main problem with this is that Peter has established two Churches. The one in Rome and the second in Antioch. Unfortunately, the Church in Antioch was conquered by arabs/muslims so this let only the Roman Chuurch as the main candidate.

Um... what? The Church of Antioch still exists, thank you very much. Click right here to have a look at their website. There are millions of Orthodox Christians belonging to the Patriarchate of Antioch, and until recently they were doing just fine. Today, of course, many of them are among the refugees that have been internally or externally displaced by the Syrian civil war. But our holy Church of Antioch has survived much worse things in the past.

Also, the Antiochian Orthodox have taken a leading role in Orthodox missionary activities in recent decades, so a large fraction of the recent converts to Orthodoxy in North America and Western Europe belong to the Antiochian Patriarchate.
Here is the website of the North American archdiocese: http://www.antiochian.org
And here is the website of the archdiocese of the British isles: http://www.antiochian-orthodox.co.uk

Oh, and Saint Peter was bishop of Antioch first, and only much later traveled to Rome.

But in any case, these were not the only two churches that Saint Peter established or presided over. He was a missionary, as were all the Apostles, and he established numerous smaller churches in all sorts of towns and villages. That's one of the major problems with the Catholic claim that Peter's successors are granted special authority: Which successors? There wasn't just one, and there weren't just two, either. There were dozens, maybe even hundreds.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Ah, very interesting. I've not met very many Messianic Jews before.

We can be a haughty bunch. But I mean who wouldn't be since we are the only Believers in Messiah who stay in covenant.


I've also heard that we've been called Messy-anic Jews or Messy-antics before?

Which covenant though? Christians have no trouble staying in the New Covenant. We have no reason to keep the Old Covenant

[Wintanceastre]

Yes, I know Menassa. I'm just saying I've not met many Messianics, they're not the largest of denominations. (By the way, it's been a while since we've spoken!)

We aren't a denomination. We are a nation.

I would disagree, i'm afraid. A denomination, by definition, is a distinct religious community identified by their structure, name, leadership, and doctrine. Messianic Judaism would fall into that definition, much like St. Thomas Christians who also maintain their Jewish identity (though not to the extent of Messianic Judaism).

[Luminesa]

Selective cherry-picking of my posts to facilitate rhetorical strawman grandstanding is hardly likely to impress me.

My thoughts on the development of monarchical episcopacy and the apostolic succession in early Christianity are outlined in other posts in this thread. If you want to know what I actually think, a quick search for 'Clement' and/or 'Ignatius' should point you in the right direction.

To be fair I search for your post and frankly it is not neither impressive nor it does not counter anything whatsoever that the Catholic Church is the only true Christian church and that the Pope is the only legitimate leader.

Is Arch pretty smart? Yes.
Do I agree with everything he says? Not always.
Do I HAVE to agree with everything he says? No.
Do I love my Catholic Faith? Yup!
Can we still be friends? I sure hope so!
(Do I sound like a suck-up? I hope not. )

[Murkwood]

To be fair I search for your post and frankly it is not neither impressive nor it does not counter anything whatsoever that the Catholic Church is the only true Christian church and that the Pope is the only legitimate leader.

Is Arch pretty smart? Yes.
Do I agree with everything he says? Not always.
Do I HAVE to agree with everything he says? No.
Do I love my Catholic Faith? Yup!
Can we still be friends? I sure hope so!
(Do I sound like a suck-up? I hope not. )

Lumensia and Arch, sitting in a tree! K-I-S-S-I-N-G! First comes Love, then comes Marriage, then comes a baby in a baby carriage!

Hey, the good part is that you could go to each other's churches and still fulfill your Sunday obligations.

[The Alexanderians]

Is Arch pretty smart? Yes.
Do I agree with everything he says? Not always.
Do I HAVE to agree with everything he says? No.
Do I love my Catholic Faith? Yup!
Can we still be friends? I sure hope so!
(Do I sound like a suck-up? I hope not. )

Lumensia and Arch, sitting in a tree! K-I-S-S-I-N-G! First comes Love, then comes Marriage, then comes a baby in a baby carriage!

Hey, the good part is that you could go to each other's churches and still fulfill your Sunday obligations.

I ship it

[Wintanceastre]

Is Arch pretty smart? Yes.
Do I agree with everything he says? Not always.
Do I HAVE to agree with everything he says? No.
Do I love my Catholic Faith? Yup!
Can we still be friends? I sure hope so!
(Do I sound like a suck-up? I hope not. )

Lumensia and Arch, sitting in a tree! K-I-S-S-I-N-G! First comes Love, then comes Marriage, then comes a baby in a baby carriage!

Hey, the good part is that you could go to each other's churches and still fulfill your Sunday obligations.

Not according to the Catholic Church. Catholics cannot participate in Holy Communion in Anglican or Orthodox Church services. Something about, "they're church isn't our church, so they don't have a valid Apostolic succession, so their communions aren't valid." Meanwhile, the Anglican (and I believe the Orthodox Church) says their members can participate in a Catholic communion (though, again, the Catholic Church says we can't because we're not Catholic, so we're not properly baptised, because Apostolic succession).

[The Alexanderians]

Lumensia and Arch, sitting in a tree! K-I-S-S-I-N-G! First comes Love, then comes Marriage, then comes a baby in a baby carriage!

Hey, the good part is that you could go to each other's churches and still fulfill your Sunday obligations.

Not according to the Catholic Church. Catholics cannot participate in Holy Communion in Anglican or Orthodox Church services. Something about, "they're church isn't our church, so they don't have a valid Apostolic succession, so their communions aren't valid." Meanwhile, the Anglican (and I believe the Orthodox Church) says their members can participate in a Catholic communion (though, again, the Catholic Church says we can't because we're not Catholic, so we're not properly baptised, because Apostolic succession).

So Catholic and Orthodox love is

[Murkwood]

Lumensia and Arch, sitting in a tree! K-I-S-S-I-N-G! First comes Love, then comes Marriage, then comes a baby in a baby carriage!

Hey, the good part is that you could go to each other's churches and still fulfill your Sunday obligations.

Not according to the Catholic Church. Catholics cannot participate in Holy Communion in Anglican or Orthodox Church services. Something about, "they're church isn't our church, so they don't have a valid Apostolic succession, so their communions aren't valid." Meanwhile, the Anglican (and I believe the Orthodox Church) says their members can participate in a Catholic communion (though, again, the Catholic Church says we can't because we're not Catholic, so we're not properly baptised, because Apostolic succession).

That's not true. Catholics can have Orthodox Communion: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/ ... on-at-them

[Murkwood]

Lumensia and Arch, sitting in a tree! K-I-S-S-I-N-G! First comes Love, then comes Marriage, then comes a baby in a baby carriage!

Hey, the good part is that you could go to each other's churches and still fulfill your Sunday obligations.

I ship it

I call godfather!

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Lumensia and Arch, sitting in a tree! K-I-S-S-I-N-G! First comes Love, then comes Marriage, then comes a baby in a baby carriage!

Hey, the good part is that you could go to each other's churches and still fulfill your Sunday obligations.

Not according to the Catholic Church. Catholics cannot participate in Holy Communion in Anglican or Orthodox Church services. Something about, "they're church isn't our church, so they don't have a valid Apostolic succession, so their communions aren't valid." Meanwhile, the Anglican (and I believe the Orthodox Church) says their members can participate in a Catholic communion (though, again, the Catholic Church says we can't because we're not Catholic, so we're not properly baptised, because Apostolic succession).

That is incorrect. The Orthodox wont let anyone take communion in their Church. The Catholics allow both Anglican and Orthodox to take communion.

[The Alexanderians]

Not according to the Catholic Church. Catholics cannot participate in Holy Communion in Anglican or Orthodox Church services. Something about, "they're church isn't our church, so they don't have a valid Apostolic succession, so their communions aren't valid." Meanwhile, the Anglican (and I believe the Orthodox Church) says their members can participate in a Catholic communion (though, again, the Catholic Church says we can't because we're not Catholic, so we're not properly baptised, because Apostolic succession).

That's not true. Catholics can have Orthodox Communion: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/ ... on-at-them

Though if memory serves I think Orthodox are unable to take communion at Protestant Churches (and Catholic), don't quote me on that though it's been a long time since I've had access to an Orthodox priest to ask these kinds of questions. (It's kind of getting ridiculous at this point, the college shuttle refuses to take me to the closest Orthodox Church since "it's not on the scheduled route" it's like 5 mins out of the way...)

[Tarsonis Survivors]

That's not true. Catholics can have Orthodox Communion: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/ ... on-at-them

Though if memory serves I think Orthodox are unable to take communion at Protestant Churches (and Catholic), don't quote me on that though it's been a long time since I've had access to an Orthodox priest to ask these kinds of questions. (It's kind of getting ridiculous at this point, the college shuttle refuses to take me to the closest Orthodox Church since "it's not on the scheduled route" it's like 5 mins out of the way...)

Yes the orthodox self regulate so that they can only take communion in their own Churches.

[The Alexanderians]

Though if memory serves I think Orthodox are unable to take communion at Protestant Churches (and Catholic), don't quote me on that though it's been a long time since I've had access to an Orthodox priest to ask these kinds of questions. (It's kind of getting ridiculous at this point, the college shuttle refuses to take me to the closest Orthodox Church since "it's not on the scheduled route" it's like 5 mins out of the way...)

Yes the orthodox self regulate so that they can only take communion in their own Churches.

I think they're are exceptions done for Eastern Catholics (like Ukrainian Catholics). Again I'm not sure.

[The Archregimancy]

Yes the orthodox self regulate so that they can only take communion in their own Churches.

I think they're are exceptions done for Eastern Catholics (like Ukrainian Catholics). Again I'm not sure.

Under the principle of economia (discretionary deviation from the letter of the ecclesiastical law in order to adhere to the spirit of the law and charity), we can and do make individual exceptions for Eastern Rite Catholics and non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox, especially where they have nowhere else to go.

For example, one of my past parishes (in the English East Midlands) allowed full communion to a non-Chalcedonian Eritrean Orthodox because, well, where else was he supposed to go?

Tarsonis is correct under the principle of akrivia, or strict adherence to the law, but economia and pastoral discretion do allow modification of standard practice; indeed, economia and pastoral discretion allow for far more flexibility in Orthodox practice than most people would typically associate with Orthodoxy.

[Angleter]

Now for some comic relief, David Cameron's Easter Message to Christians. As far as I'm aware, it isn't an April Fools' joke. My favourite part is where he slips off-message and just rattles off all the things he's done in office with no reference to either Easter or Christianity. Closely followed by where he declares that "Easter is all about remembering the importance of change, responsibility, and doing the right thing for the good of our children."

I can see it in a school Religious Studies textbook now. "Easter is the Christian festival of change, responsibility, and doing the right thing for your children. Christians celebrate Easter by giving each other chocolate eggs - the process of eating them represents change, the fact that they're an egg and will shatter if dropped represents responsibility, and the fact that they're made of chocolate (children's favourite food) represents doing the right thing for your children. Easter was invented in 1834 by Sir Robert Peel to promote the core Christian belief in trying to lift people up rather than count people out."

[The Creepoc Infinite]

I'm Christian now yo #Jesus4Life

[Efraim-Judah]

I'm Christian now yo #Jesus4Life

Well that is great!

[Efraim-Judah]

Now for some comic relief, David Cameron's Easter Message to Christians. As far as I'm aware, it isn't an April Fools' joke. My favourite part is where he slips off-message and just rattles off all the things he's done in office with no reference to either Easter or Christianity. Closely followed by where he declares that "Easter is all about remembering the importance of change, responsibility, and doing the right thing for the good of our children."

I can see it in a school Religious Studies textbook now. "Easter is the Christian festival of change, responsibility, and doing the right thing for your children. Christians celebrate Easter by giving each other chocolate eggs - the process of eating them represents change, the fact that they're an egg and will shatter if dropped represents responsibility, and the fact that they're made of chocolate (children's favourite food) represents doing the right thing for your children. Easter was invented in 1834 by Sir Robert Peel to promote the core Christian belief in trying to lift people up rather than count people out."

Easter isn't about any of that. Easter is a pagan holiday not associated with ANYTHING good, at all.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Now for some comic relief, David Cameron's Easter Message to Christians. As far as I'm aware, it isn't an April Fools' joke. My favourite part is where he slips off-message and just rattles off all the things he's done in office with no reference to either Easter or Christianity. Closely followed by where he declares that "Easter is all about remembering the importance of change, responsibility, and doing the right thing for the good of our children."

I can see it in a school Religious Studies textbook now. "Easter is the Christian festival of change, responsibility, and doing the right thing for your children. Christians celebrate Easter by giving each other chocolate eggs - the process of eating them represents change, the fact that they're an egg and will shatter if dropped represents responsibility, and the fact that they're made of chocolate (children's favourite food) represents doing the right thing for your children. Easter was invented in 1834 by Sir Robert Peel to promote the core Christian belief in trying to lift people up rather than count people out."

Easter isn't about any of that. Easter is a pagan holiday not associated with ANYTHING good, at all.

[Confederate Ramenia]

Now for some comic relief, David Cameron's Easter Message to Christians. As far as I'm aware, it isn't an April Fools' joke. My favourite part is where he slips off-message and just rattles off all the things he's done in office with no reference to either Easter or Christianity. Closely followed by where he declares that "Easter is all about remembering the importance of change, responsibility, and doing the right thing for the good of our children."

I can see it in a school Religious Studies textbook now. "Easter is the Christian festival of change, responsibility, and doing the right thing for your children. Christians celebrate Easter by giving each other chocolate eggs - the process of eating them represents change, the fact that they're an egg and will shatter if dropped represents responsibility, and the fact that they're made of chocolate (children's favourite food) represents doing the right thing for your children. Easter was invented in 1834 by Sir Robert Peel to promote the core Christian belief in trying to lift people up rather than count people out."

Lol

[Efraim-Judah]

Easter isn't about any of that. Easter is a pagan holiday not associated with ANYTHING good, at all.

If you would like to celebrate the resurrection of the messiah, that is perfectly fine, but please don't include things like decorating eggs or bunnies into it, please.