"Whore of Babylon?"

[JonNC]

=Nicea325;9017355]
Which to a degree supports my argument: Then why take grave matters to Rome at all? Then that would make all sides guilty of disobeying a canon.

As I side, because the Bishop of Rome was highly respected, perhaps even viewed as first among equals. It would just make sense to do so.

.

Jurisdiction. As I said there are 50 NT verses clearly showing Peter having the primacy. I do not understand why universal jurisdiction would be against God’s will? Jesus preached the Kingdom of God,not the democracy of Heaven. Is not God universal? I believe God can set-up His Church any fashion regardless if many disagree with Him. Jesus chose the best office (papacy) for the man,not the best man for the office. To many want to convey Christ Church as being democratic in nature and structure. Why is it impossible or out of God’s character to establish the Bishop of Rome with primacy over His entire church?

Even I’m not saying its impossible. What I’m saying is that the councils - Nicea specifically - did not state that any one of the sees had primacy, or better, supremacy over the entire Church. It isn’t that God didn’t, its that in councils and scripture it doesn’t seem He actually did.

I am sorry my friend,but I would have to take a bit deeper than just pure admiration and trust. The words of those ECF’s convey more than just admiration.

Two points. Perhaps it is deeper, but how deep is it? Is it as deep as rome claims today?
Again, I see no evidence of this in the councils or scripture. As for the ECF’s, I’m not sure they would have spoken from a positionof knowing what Rome claims today, and as you and I both know, as wonderful and important a source as the ECF’s are, it was councils that set doctrine.

And as always…much appreciated and respected. God bless my friend

And mutually so!! It is always enjoyable and enlightening to chat with you. I consider you one of my good freinds here at CAF.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
=Nicea325;9017355]
Which to a degree supports my argument: Then why take grave matters to Rome at all? Then that would make all sides guilty of disobeying a canon

.

Jon:As I side, because the Bishop of Rome was highly respected, perhaps even viewed as first among equals. It would just make sense to do so.

But here is were “first among equals” is weak in writing,including Scripture. It seems like a mere assumption on many,thus to be presented as a historical fact and practice by the early church. Second, how can anyone be “first” among equals? Either one is “first” over others or all are equal? First means exactly what it means…first even if it refers to honor.

Quote:
Jurisdiction. As I said there are 50 NT verses clearly showing Peter having the primacy. I do not understand why universal jurisdiction would be against God’s will? Jesus preached the Kingdom of God,not the democracy of Heaven. Is not God universal? I believe God can set-up His Church any fashion regardless if many disagree with Him. Jesus chose the best office (papacy) for the man,not the best man for the office. To many want to convey Christ Church as being democratic in nature and structure. Why is it impossible or out of God’s character to establish the Bishop of Rome with primacy over His entire church?

Jon:
Even I’m not saying its impossible. What I’m saying is that the councils - Nicea specifically - did not state that any one of the sees had primacy, or better, supremacy over the entire Church. It isn’t that God didn’t, its that in councils and scripture it doesn’t seem He actually did.

Indeed,but it is impossible to even consider it may not had to be “scratched on stone” to make it valid? Perhaps a common belief and practice well known and accepted did not cross of the minds of the early church to even produce a document confirming it as common belief or practice? Consider the U.S. President? Is he not at times considered the most powerful man in U.S. government or is it all an exaggerationof the truth? Or does there exist some truth in the expression?

Quote:
I am sorry my friend,but I would have to take a bit deeper than just pure admiration and trust. The words of those ECF’s convey more than just admiration.

Jon:
Two points. Perhaps it is deeper, but how deep is it? Is it as deep as rome claims today?
Again, I see no evidence of this in the councils or scripture. As for the ECF’s, I’m not sure they would have spoken from a positionof knowing what Rome claims today, and as you and I both know, as wonderful and important a source as the ECF’s are, it was councils that set doctrine.

Deeper that none of the ECF I have read merely calls him “first among equals” based on a pure honor title. Unless one has called him with such a title?

Quote:
And as always…much appreciated and respected. God bless my friend

Jon:
And mutually so!! It is always enjoyable and enlightening to chat with you. I consider you one of my good freinds here at CAF.

Likewise!

God Bless

 

[Nicea325]

I am shocked this topic did not continue a bit longer?

 

[jmcrae]

Jurisdiction. As I said there are 50 NT verses clearly showing Peter having the primacy. I do not understand why universal jurisdiction would be against God’s will? Jesus preached the Kingdom of God,not the democracy of Heaven. Is not God universal? I believe God can set-up His Church any fashion regardless if many disagree with Him. Jesus chose the best office (papacy) for the man,not the best man for the office. To many want to convey Christ Church as being democratic in nature and structure. Why is it impossible or out of God’s character to establish the Bishop of Rome with primacy over His entire church?

Good point. At no time in recorded history has God ever set up a democracy. The people were always ruled by kings, or judges, or tribal chiefs. Leaders were always chosen by either the previous leader (Joshua chosen by Moses), or by the anointing of God by means of a trusted Prophet (David anointed by Samuel).

It makes sense that God’s Kingdom on earth, the Church, would also be ruled by a single ruler, whose word is law - whether or not he consults with others.

 

[Nicea325]

Good point. At no time in recorded history has God ever set up a democracy. The people were always ruled by kings, or judges, or tribal chiefs. Leaders were always chosen by either the previous leader (Joshua chosen by Moses), or by the anointing of God by means of a trusted Prophet (David anointed by Samuel).

It makes sense that God’s Kingdom on earth, the Church, would also be ruled by a single ruler, whose word is law - whether or not he consults with others.

Precisely! I have yet to meet one Christian regardless if he or she is Catholic,Orthodox,Coptic,Anglican,Lutheran,etc rebuking the OT kingdom hiearchal structures. However, Peter having primacy is such an issue? Why?

 

[SteveGC]

Precisely! I have yet to meet one Christian regardless if he or she is Catholic,Orthodox,Coptic,Anglican,Lutheran,etc rebuking the OT kingdom hiearchal structures. However, Peter having primacy is such an issue? Why?

Because it’s one thing to read about it, and quite another to be asked to submit to it. The U.S. is largely anti-authoritarian, out of touch with any concept of rule pre-Revolutionary War, especially kingdoms. America is founded on the rejection of such rule. Should be no surprise that today we still have most who reject any notion of a hierarchical kingdom, especially with regard to religion. Kingdom is simply a bad word in practice, unless you’re referring to the Kingdom of God, and directly equating it to someone’s life eternal, not temporal.

To many, I would imagine the Catholic Church looks to them like the British monarchy looked to a rebellious colonist. Sad but true.

 

[stewstew03]

As I’ve explained before, the Protestant “church” is the Harlot…

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Interesting that Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria were quoted , since their orthodoxy is doubted by many, both in antiquity and now. I don´t think the Pope or the Papacy is the antichrist, far from, instead, all does point to Nero, but quoting people like Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen always makes me laugh.

 

[jlhargus]

Unless you take the preterist view that states the WOB as Jerusalem prior to Titus’s attack in 70 AD.

Rv11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

 

[Nicea325]

Because it’s one thing to read about it, and quite another to be asked to submit to it. The U.S. is largely anti-authoritarian, out of touch with any concept of rule pre-Revolutionary War, especially kingdoms. America is founded on the rejection of such rule. Should be no surprise that today we still have most who reject any notion of a hierarchical kingdom, especially with regard to religion. Kingdom is simply a bad word in practice, unless you’re referring to the Kingdom of God, and directly equating it to someone’s life eternal, not temporal.

To many, I would imagine the Catholic Church looks to them like the British monarchy looked to a rebellious colonist. Sad but true.

Indeed,but is the same applicable to the Orthodox who reject the primacy as well. Very strange since those areas of the world had kings/emperors for centuries.

 

[BListon]

What about the “scarlet and purple” that the harlot is clothed in? Why do our Cardinals and Bishops wear specifically those two colors, isn’t that probably one of the things that lead to such accusations?

 

[Nicea325]

What about the “scarlet and purple” that the harlot is clothed in? Why do our Cardinals and Bishops wear specifically those two colors, isn’t that probably one of the things that lead to such accusations?

Probably,I would not rule it out.

 

[ryanoneil]

What about the “scarlet and purple” that the harlot is clothed in? Why do our Cardinals and Bishops wear specifically those two colors, isn’t that probably one of the things that lead to such accusations?

I doubt the colors are meant to be literal. It is a contrast with the white worn by the bride of Christ also identified as the New Jerusalem. The implication is that the woman (who is also identified as a city) is apostate old Jerusalem.

Yes Catholic clerical vestment can be purple and scarlet but the dominant color is overwhelmingly white. the justification for wearing the two colors can be found in God’s OT command for liturgical vestments of priests.

 

[Nicea325]

I doubt the colors are meant to be literal. It is a contrast with the white worn by the bride of Christ also identified as the New Jerusalem. The implication is that the woman (who is also identified as a city) is apostate old Jerusalem.

Yes Catholic clerical vestment can be purple and scarlet but the dominant color is overwhelmingly white. the justification for wearing the two colors can be found in God’s OT command for liturgical vestments of priests.

That is the issue for many, the failure to understand the OT.