Reasonable truth and simple understanding

[MoreCoffee]

You have a bible, 66 books for many, more for others, less for a few.

You read it, interpret it, form views about what is true and what is not.

You may reject priests, and embrace simple title-less leadership where all are brethren (sisters too). Simple worship without images and without numerous rites and ceremonies.

You look for simple truths that can be clearly communicated and are suspicious of other men taking authority and teaching as if their teaching had superior status. In the end you answer according to your own conscience.


Do you need the comfort of holy mother church?

Probably you think not.

Is this you?

 

[Josiah]

You have a bible, 66 books for many, more for others, less for a few.

You read it, interpret it, form views about what is true and what is not.

You may reject priests, and embrace simple title-less leadership where all are brethren (sisters too). Simple worship without images and without numerous rites and ceremonies.

You look for simple truths that can be clearly communicated and are suspicious of other men taking authority and teaching as if their teaching had superior status. In the end you answer according to your own conscience.


Do you need the comfort of holy mother church?

Probably you think not.

Is this you?

You raise the biggest problem with the RC Denomination....


I'm uncomfortable with the EXTREME individualism and denominationalism of the Roman Catholic denomination..... The foundational insistence of it itself exclusively for it itself individually that SELF is the ONLY authoritative and unaccountable interpreter of Scripture, and whatever IT ITSELF alone as a denomination says it "MEANS" is thus what it does - regardless of the words the Holy Spirit put on the page - and that God Himself must agree with the singular RC Denomination or God would be wrong (and that's unthinkable).


As a Protestant, I beleive that the church is US - the one, holy, catholic community of saints - the whole body of those given the Gift of saving faith in Christ - ONE body - of all believers spread out over all the centuries and continents. It includes Martin Luther and Pope Francis, it includes you and me. It is not primary SELF ALONE (whether "self" is a person, congregation, denomination or cult - whether "self" is the RCC speaking of itself or the LDS speaking of itself or the JW speaking of itself). I believe that God leads US (not just self - again "self" may be a given person, denomination, etc.... the RCC or LDS or LCMS)... and promises to teach US (not just one self - even if that self is the RCC or LDS or LCMS).. that God gave His Scriptures to US (not just to the LDS or Jim Jones or Pope Francis).... and that the task of interpreting and applying belongs to US. Which is why Lutherans study history, embrace the Creeds, hold in esteem the genuine Councils...).


I reject the OBSESSION the the RCC has with ITSELF individually, the OBSESSION it has with individualism (itself), the OBSESSION it has with lording it over others as the Gentiles do, the OBSESSION it has with insisting it itself ALONE is the infallible, authoritative, unaccountable Authority, THE singular, individual Mouth of God. Your denomination has MUCH that is good, but the issue you raise is it's downfall - and the reason many of us 30 million in the USA have left it. It needs to get over itself. It needs to replace this OBSESSION with power, individualism, denomination, egoism.... and embrace some humility, accountability, community. My Greek Orthodox friend is stronger in her rebuke of this aspect of your denomination but largely agrees and points out this didn't start in the 16th century, it's in the DNA of your denomination and resulted in the same problem for many, many centuries before Luther was born.



- Josiah




.

 

[Arsenios]

I reject
the OBSESSION...
the OBSESSION...
the OBSESSION...
the OBSESSION...
replace this OBSESSION...

Obsession is a worthy opponent...
Have you ever been obsessed?
I have...

My Greek Orthodox friend is stronger in her rebuke of this aspect of your denomination but largely agrees and points out this didn't start in the 16th century,

She speaks wisely...

it's in the DNA of your denomination

This is your interpretation of her...

and resulted in the same problem for many, many centuries before Luther was born.

And this is hers again...

The RCC is not your enemy...
Nor is its anathematization which you despise...
Our enemy is Death and sin...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Do you need the comfort of holy mother church?

I remember St. Mary of Egypt...
And the many Fathers who were solitaries...
How they received their Communion...
Some travelling to the Liturgy that served it...
Some from Angels - St. Herman of Alaska was one of these...

The Holy Saints normally cannot live among people all that well...
They tend to get mobbed...
St. Isaac the Syrian got snookered into being a Patriarch...
Did some writings...
Then fled back to the desert for fasting and prayer...

Others go into remote places...
Communities grow up around them...

Perhaps the Holy Fathers and Mothers ARE the Comfort of the Mother Church...

Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

I remember St. Mary of Egypt...
And the many Fathers who were solitaries...
How they received their Communion...
Some travelling to the Liturgy that served it...
Some from Angels - St. Herman of Alaska was one of these...

The Holy Saints normally cannot live among people all that well...
They tend to get mobbed...
St. Isaac the Syrian got snookered into being a Patriarch...
Did some writings...
Then fled back to the desert for fasting and prayer...

Others go into remote places...
Communities grow up around them...

Perhaps the Holy Fathers and Mothers ARE the Comfort of the Mother Church...

Arsenios

In the first post for this thread I was thinking that I have met many people who look for simplicity and a faith that is reasonable but the odd thing is that in seeking those things and rejecting the things I mentioned in the first post one is left with reasonable and simple faith as the authority created by one's self and given such great authority that holy mother church is rejected and self replaces her and one's own reason becomes supreme authority and so what is condemned in others - authoritative interpretation and and so on - is what self promotes self to be. What is bad about priests, images, sacraments, authoritative interpretation all is taken into self as final and absolute master of self's own religion.

Can a man or woman who has travelled that road say "I was mistaken"?

 

[psalms 91]

What I reject is the RCC and the infallibility of the pope, I also reject the idea that it is the only denomination that is christian

 

[MoreCoffee]

What I reject is the RCC and the infallibility of the pope, I also reject the idea that it is the only denomination that is christian

You have written those things before. I see that you still think they are true.

 

[psalms 91]

It is hard not to MC, I know you say they are misconceptions yet the RC at le4ast until recently viewed the pope as infallible and while the literature may say something in double speak to say that they accept other christian denominations you yourself have said that those outside the church were how did you put it, cant remember exactly but rather rebels or some such and thaty they are in grave error in danger of hell, if I misrepresent you then I apologize and you can correct me in this thread

 

[Arsenios]

In the first post for this thread I was thinking that I have met many people who look for simplicity and a faith that is reasonable but the odd thing is that in seeking those things and rejecting the things I mentioned in the first post one is left with reasonable and simple faith as the authority created by one's self and given such great authority that holy mother church is rejected and self replaces her and one's own reason becomes supreme authority and so what is condemned in others - authoritative interpretation and and so on - is what self promotes self to be. What is bad about priests, images, sacraments, authoritative interpretation all is taken into self as final and absolute master of self's own religion.

Can a man or woman who has travelled that road say "I was mistaken"?

I sure did...
I had even bemoaned the fact that Christians had usurped all the noble words of the soul...
I was an Ayn Rand Objectivist...
But I am not the standard...
Did I mention sociopathy?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

It is hard not to MC, I know you say they are misconceptions yet the RC at le4ast until recently viewed the pope as infallible and while the literature may say something in double speak to say that they accept other christian denominations you yourself have said that those outside the church were how did you put it, cant remember exactly but rather rebels or some such and thaty they are in grave error in danger of hell, if I misrepresent you then I apologize and you can correct me in this thread

I agree with you - MC is not a "normal" Roman Catholic... He is far more "Orthodox" than any you will find on, say, Catholic Answers Forum - He is an exceptional person whose esteem is my treasure... If it were up to MC and me, the two Churches would doubtless be united this afternoon... So small are our differences...

Not so with other Roman Catholics, not so!

And the same can be said for me - The Orthodox hardly know what to do with me, yet I am thoroughly Orthodox in my apprehension of the Faith...

So go figure - And we both are outposted in mission Churches - Probably because it is the outpostings where collateral damage can have a reasonable anticipation of containment...

Arsenios

 

[psalms 91]

Iagree that MC is a fine person and yes exceptional, also very intelligent and a wonderful representative for the RC. There is much to be admired for sure

 

[Arsenios]

What I reject is the RCC and the infallibility of the pope, I also reject the idea that it is the only denomination that is christian

Papal Infallibility appears to be under revision with the current Pope who is holding at least one heretical view that is giving the Curia some fits... Now instead of the Office of Peter, it is the Church of Peter that holds infallibility...

The Orthodox agree with this latter, for we look to the consistent concensus of the Church of 2000 years for our understanding of what is true and what is not...

Arsenios

 

[psalms 91]

I would agree that the true church (body of believers from all denoms), that is the case but every denomination has error, all of them

 

[MennoSota]

RC, the world's biggest cult...

You raise the biggest problem with the RC Denomination....


I'm uncomfortable with the EXTREME individualism and denominationalism of the Roman Catholic denomination..... The foundational insistence of it itself exclusively for it itself individually that SELF is the ONLY authoritative and unaccountable interpreter of Scripture, and whatever IT ITSELF alone as a denomination says it "MEANS" is thus what it does - regardless of the words the Holy Spirit put on the page - and that God Himself must agree with the singular RC Denomination or God would be wrong (and that's unthinkable).


As a Protestant, I beleive that the church is US - the one, holy, catholic community of saints - the whole body of those given the Gift of saving faith in Christ - ONE body - of all believers spread out over all the centuries and continents. It includes Martin Luther and Pope Francis, it includes you and me. It is not primary SELF ALONE (whether "self" is a person, congregation, denomination or cult - whether "self" is the RCC speaking of itself or the LDS speaking of itself or the JW speaking of itself). I believe that God leads US (not just self - again "self" may be a given person, denomination, etc.... the RCC or LDS or LCMS)... and promises to teach US (not just one self - even if that self is the RCC or LDS or LCMS).. that God gave His Scriptures to US (not just to the LDS or Jim Jones or Pope Francis).... and that the task of interpreting and applying belongs to US. Which is why Lutherans study history, embrace the Creeds, hold in esteem the genuine Councils...).


I reject the OBSESSION the the RCC has with ITSELF individually, the OBSESSION it has with individualism (itself), the OBSESSION it has with lording it over others as the Gentiles do, the OBSESSION it has with insisting it itself ALONE is the infallible, authoritative, unaccountable Authority, THE singular, individual Mouth of God. Your denomination has MUCH that is good, but the issue you raise is it's downfall - and the reason many of us 30 million in the USA have left it. It needs to get over itself. It needs to replace this OBSESSION with power, individualism, denomination, egoism.... and embrace some humility, accountability, community. My Greek Orthodox friend is stronger in her rebuke of this aspect of your denomination but largely agrees and points out this didn't start in the 16th century, it's in the DNA of your denomination and resulted in the same problem for many, many centuries before Luther was born.



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It is hard not to MC, I know you say they are misconceptions yet the RC at le4ast until recently viewed the pope as infallible and while the literature may say something in double speak to say that they accept other christian denominations you yourself have said that those outside the church were how did you put it, cant remember exactly but rather rebels or some such and thaty they are in grave error in danger of hell, if I misrepresent you then I apologize and you can correct me in this thread

It is not my purpose to correct you just to inform whenever I can. If it appears to be doublespeak then let me say this in plainspeak

• All who truthfully profess Jesus as their Lord are Christians
• Because all who do this are Christians they are all connected to holy mother Church (the Catholic Church) even if they are not formally members of any of her parishes
• When it was written that Outside the Church there is no salvation there was, in the thinking of the writer, only one Church available. Those words were written long before the reformation
  The original phrase, "Salus extra ecclesiam non est" ("there is no salvation out of the Church") comes from Letter LXXII of Cyprian of Carthage, who died in 258 AD.​
• Today the Catholic Church explains these words by saying "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body." this is modified from the original because circumstances differ now after the first schism (431 AD), the second schism (451 AD), the Great Schism (in 1054 AD), and the reformation (1521 AD)
  
  

 

[Albion]

I reject
the OBSESSION...
the OBSESSION...
the OBSESSION...
the OBSESSION...
replace this OBSESSION...

Obsession is a worthy opponent...
Have you ever been obsessed?
I have...



She speaks wisely...



This is your interpretation of her...



And this is hers again...

The RCC is not your enemy...
Nor is its anathematization which you despise...
Our enemy is Death and sin...

Arsenios

It has long been of interest to me how EO people take pains to say that the RCC is wrong on a host of issues. UNLESS, that is, a Protestant might chance to say it.

In that case, the RCs have no more enthusiastic advocates than their schismatic (and theologically malleable) cousins. :lol:

 

[MennoSota]

It is not my purpose to correct you just to inform whenever I can. If it appears to be doublespeak then let me say this in plainspeak

• All who truthfully profess Jesus as their Lord are Christians
• Because all who do this are Christians they are all connected to holy mother Church (the Catholic Church) even if they are not formally members of any of her parishes
• When it was written that Outside the Church there is no salvation there was, in the thinking of the writer, only one Church available. Those words were written long before the reformation
  The original phrase, "Salus extra ecclesiam non est" ("there is no salvation out of the Church") comes from Letter LXXII of Cyprian of Carthage, who died in 258 AD.​
• Today the Catholic Church explains these words by saying "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body." this is modified from the original because circumstances differ now after the first schism (431 AD), the second schism (451 AD), the Great Schism (in 1054 AD), and the reformation (1521 AD)
  
  

So...you trace yourself to the mother church at Jerusalem?
The church at Rome was one of the later churches to be formed, so it's clearly not the mother church. But, the believers at Jerusalem, where the first council convened can claim to be the first church.
No matter how you slice it...Rome is not the mother church...but that never stopped politicians from making false claims...

 

[MoreCoffee]

So...you trace yourself to the mother church at Jerusalem?
The church at Rome was one of the later churches to be formed, so it's clearly not the mother church. But, the believers at Jerusalem, where the first council convened can claim to be the first church.
No matter how you slice it...Rome is not the mother church...but that never stopped politicians from making false claims...

The Church in Rome was formed so early that it received a letter from saint Paul which is in your bible and mine under the name The Letter To the Romans. It is thought by some to be the most complete expression of saint Paul's thought and faith. But London, Geneva, and Wittenberg received no letters from any apostles and none are in your bible nor are any in mine.

Corinth was a Greek citity. Thessaloniki and Philippi were in Macedonia. Ephesus and Colossae were in the Roman province of Asia which is in what we call Turkey today. Galatia was a Roman province in what we today call Turkey. These all received apostolic letters from saint Paul and saint Peter wrote to the Roman provinces of Asia, Bithynia, Pontus, Galatia, and Cappadocia all of which were Roman provinces in what we call Turkey today. So there are no letters to the United States of America, nor to Australia or any places in which CH members currently live, unless some happen to live in the places mentioned above. So let's not pretend that Rome came late to the faith, it came quite early and it already had a Christian community before saint Paul wrote to them around 56 AD. There were Jews from Rome present at Pentecost in 33 AD, when the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples in the upper room, and the Roman Jews heard saint Peter preach on that day. And what was the message that they heard? It was "Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.". Doubtless some from Rome did repent and were baptised and returned to Rome and soon formed churches in their homes. Later, before saints Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome in 64 AD at the hands of pagans, the Church at Rome had become the home of saint Peter. His bones lie buried outside the walls of the ancient city on the hill that was in those days a cemetery and was called Vaticanus hill, not one of the seven hills of the ancient city all of which were within the wall, but just across the Tiber river outside the walls and today we call it in English The Vatican City which occupies a part of the Vatican hill. Saint Peter's church is built over the place where saint Peter's grave was, and his bones are preserved there - having been found towards the end of the second world war.

So even on the very first day of the Church's history, the day of Pentecost 33 AD, the gospel was ""Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." with repentance at the forefront and baptism following all as part of God's grace by which men (and women) are saved and through which they receive the Holy Spirit. So even in Rome and on Pentecost day in Jerusalem 33 AD the message was what saint James tells his readers; namely, a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. So we urge all men everywhere to repent, as saint Paul preached in Athens, and believe the gospel because the kingdom of God is at hand. There is no time to waste and no reason to procrastinate.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Papal Infallibility appears to be under revision with the current Pope who is holding at least one heretical view that is giving the Curia some fits... Now instead of the Office of Peter, it is the Church of Peter that holds infallibility...

The Orthodox agree with this latter, for we look to the consistent concensus of the Church of 2000 years for our understanding of what is true and what is not...

Arsenios

The wonderful thing about papal infallibility is that it attaches to statements of dogma and rulings about praxis but not to persons. No pope is infallible in his person and no pope ever has been infallible in his person. Thus we can say that the Dogma of the incarnation is infallible truth without implying that any person involved in its formal formulation was infallible in his person. No pope, no apostle, no prophet, no seer nor any other gifted person was made by God infallible in their person. God alone is infallible in person. The other wonderful thing about infallibility is that it attaches only to some statements and not to all. Many popes have held odd views and a few have been very immoral persons and no one thinks well of them as persons. The current pope, Francis (the first of that name thus far), is no doubt a decent man with much compassion in his heart and his homilies are often very inspiring and many think well of his person but no one can rightly think that every word that he writes or speaks is infallible truth. The Catholic Church has never proclaimed a dogma of infallibility that teaches every word from a pope is infallible. And if any individual Catholic says to you that the pope is infallible in his person and that everything he says is infallible truth then that Catholic is wrong. And I must say, for the record, it is always the Church that is infallible and the pope is infallible when he speaks for and to the Church as the pastor of all God's people; specifically, when the pope speaks ex cathedra (from the seat of saint Peter with all his authority) he speaks infallibly. It is rare for any pope to speak ex cathedra during his reign. The most common ex cathedra speech from any pope is the proclamation of a person as a canonical saint - I think that is considered an ex cathedra statement, it usually takes a form that fits.

 

[MennoSota]

The Church in Rome was formed so early that it received a letter from saint Paul which is in your bible and mine under the name The Letter To the Romans. It is thought by some to be the most complete expression of saint Paul's thought and faith. But London, Geneva, and Wittenberg received no letters from any apostles and none are in your bible nor are any in mine.

Corinth was a Greek citity. Thessaloniki and Philippi were in Macedonia. Ephesus and Colossae were in the Roman province of Asia which is in what we call Turkey today. Galatia was a Roman province in what we today call Turkey. These all received apostolic letters from saint Paul and saint Peter wrote to the Roman provinces of Asia, Bithynia, Pontus, Galatia, and Cappadocia all of which were Roman provinces in what we call Turkey today. So there are no letters to the United States of America, nor to Australia or any places in which CH members currently live, unless some happen to live in the places mentioned above. So let's not pretend that Rome came late to the faith, it came quite early and it already had a Christian community before saint Paul wrote to them around 56 AD. There were Jews from Rome present at Pentecost in 33 AD, when the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples in the upper room, and the Roman Jews heard saint Peter preach on that day. And what was the message that they heard? It was "Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.". Doubtless some from Rome did repent and were baptised and returned to Rome and soon formed churches in their homes. Later, before saints Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome in 64 AD at the hands of pagans, the Church at Rome had become the home of saint Peter. His bones lie buried outside the walls of the ancient city on the hill that was in those days a cemetery and was called Vaticanus hill, not one of the seven hills of the ancient city all of which were within the wall, but just across the Tiber river outside the walls and today we call it in English The Vatican City which occupies a part of the Vatican hill. Saint Peter's church is built over the place where saint Peter's grave was, and his bones are preserved there - having been found towards the end of the second world war.

So even on the very first day of the Church's history, the day of Pentecost 33 AD, the gospel was ""Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." with repentance at the forefront and baptism following all as part of God's grace by which men (and women) are saved and through which they receive the Holy Spirit. So even in Rome and on Pentecost day in Jerusalem 33 AD the message was what saint James tells his readers; namely, a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. So we urge all men everywhere to repent, as saint Paul preached in Athens, and believe the gospel because the kingdom of God is at hand. There is no time to waste and no reason to procrastinate.

Peter and all the Apostles had their counsel in Jerusalem. (Drop mic...walk off stage...)