Reading the link I was reminded of the last installment of the Pirates of the Carribean. Remember when the needed to vote for a new pirate king…they couldn’t elect anyone because everyone always voted for themselves. Sort of gets you wondering what heresies would have flourished in the early church if their were 25-50-100 equals.
As far as what we believe, we don’t care about Luter either!
this is the second time a Lutheran has equated the confessions to scripture.
Bad analogy, as there’s quite a different mindset between a pirate and someone who is willing to be martyred for their faith. I don’t think the Bishops would have all voted for themselves, even if some of them had savvy political skills and speeches (i.e. St. Cyril of Alexandria).
But that’s exactly how it worked, and heresies did flourish in the first millennium. Did you just think that a heresy was ruled against by a council, and that was the end of the story? At one point, the Nestorian Church was even larger than the Chalcedonian Church (from which the Roman Catholic Church is historically descended). In fact, if it were a widely recognized tenet among early Christians that the bishop of the Roman Church was infallible on matters of faith and morals when speaking ex-cathedra, and that all legitimate episcopal jurisdiction stemmed from being in communion with the Roman pontiff, one would have expected for the heretics to have been far less successful than they were, since all of the faithful would have refused to recognize the legitimacy of a bishop who had broken communion with the bishop of Rome, since according to the teachings of the First and Second Vatican Councils, any bishop who performed such an act would cease to have legitimate episcopal jurisdiction.
Unless Lutheran logic is different from Catholic logic, connecting two things with the word “or” doesn’t mean equating them.
Lutherans say that the Confessions reflect Scripture - while we make no claim for inerrancy for the Confessions, but we think they’re pretty nifty.
Good luck with that.I’m getting to that, Jon. I’m waiting for a little of the knee-jerk reaction to die down.
Yep.
Huh? Human necessity not Divine order? Could you better explain what you are tying to say here.The Church was doing just fine without them. In fact, it was largely undivided until such time as they were imposed.
Well, considering the 40,002+ denominations that currently exist, exist largely due to the fact that 40,001 of those denominations disagree with those additions and obligations, I’d say ‘no.’
The good Bishop may retain his place of honor as the head of Christendom - so long as he recognizes that this is by human necessity, not Divine order.
And in all honesty having Primacy over or supermacy over what’s really the big difference in the word?I would also like to point out that when the Greek Church fathers talked about the Bishop of Rome they used the word “υπεροχή” which is the word for Primacy and Supremacy. This could point out the fact that there was actually no difference in the meaning of the word.
Just Saying
The Chair of Peter also sits with the Patriarchate of Antioch. I think the difference is that many do not accept the idea of a Pope having political power, to “lord it over them as the Gentiles do”. To meddle in the affairs of other churches is something that has always made the East uneasy. Many decisions do not have to be appealed to Rome, but can be concluded by local Bishops or even your own specific Patriarch of your jurisdiction.
Most can accept the idea of the Pope being a Father as any Bishop or priest is. However, that still does not solve long standing Church differences which have developed over the years. They both have become something ontologically different. Only through faith, hope, and charity can such differences be healed. Those differences have been hashed out over numerous threads, i.e. the filioque, Papal infallibility, what does “universal jurisdiction” or “supremacy” mean? How does it relate to the theological inheritance of the East as it was passed down to the Greeks and Slavs by their Church Fathers?; the Immaculate Conception; the Assumption. Orthodox accept that Mary died first before she was “assumed” in the feast of the Dormition.I would also like to point out that when the Greek Church fathers talked about the Bishop of Rome they used the word “υπεροχή” which is the word for Primacy and Supremacy. This could point out the fact that there was actually no difference in the meaning of the word.
Just Saying
Are you implying that the Eastern Orthodox did not agree with what was said at Chalcedon, regarding the nature of Christ?
The Eastern Orthodox are Chalcedonian, and view Chalcedon as an Ecumenical Council. Yes it was the Oriental Orthodox that disagreed with the wording and the decisions that were made. However, even they have produced amazing saints and the Holy Spirit can definitely be detected as active among them too in spite of the nearly 1,500 year separation.Are you implying that the Eastern Orthodox did not agree with what was said at Chalcedon, regarding the nature of Christ?
I thought only the Oriental Orthodox were the ones that dissented after this Council
Yes, the post came out that way for me. Thus, my question.