the POPE said WHAT???!!!!

[Hope]

No one is saved through a church. Only through Jesus Christ. And all those who are truly saved, no matter what denomination they're from, or whether they're Catholic or Protestant, make up the Body of Christ, the true Church. Which, as Victor rightly pointed out, is an organic Body, not an organization.

 

[Quiddity]

No one is saved through a church. Only through Jesus Christ. And all those who are truly saved, no matter what denomination they're from, or whether they're Catholic or Protestant, make up the Body of Christ, the true Church. Which, as Victor rightly pointed out, is an organic Body, not an organization.

I think there is much we agree on, but I don't completely agree with what you said. I'm guessing by organization you intend to reduce Christianity to something that has no family context. It's more like "me, my bible, and Jesus"...I don't subscribe to that.
For us, it's more like "me, my family (the Church or instituation if you like), and Christ"...<---This is the simplified version but as I said we do agree on much.

 

[Hope]

I think there is much we agree on, but I don't completely agree with what you said. I'm guessing by organization you intend to reduce Christianity to something that has no family context. It's more like "me, my bible, and Jesus"...I don't subscribe to that.
For us, it's more like "me, my family (the Church or instituation if you like), and Christ"...<---This is the simplified version but as I said we do agree on much.

I'm confused....

I don't believe the Body of Christ is an organization. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me on this viewpoint??

 

[Quiddity]

I'm confused....

I don't believe the Body of Christ is an organization. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me on this viewpoint??

It depends, what's the difference between a body of believers who attend the same building and an organization?

 

[Hope]

I'm simply referring to the people. Not the buildings. I've always understood the true Church, the true Body of Christ, to have nothing to do with buildings or organizations. The true Body, the true Church (also the Bride of Christ), is a living organism, that transcends buildings, cities, countries, cultures, race, etc., etc. It is simply every believer, everywhere.

In light of that (or maybe in spite of that!), I agree with you that there is definitely some common ground shared by Protestants and Catholics.

 

[FFH]

thank you brother!

it feels good to have someone agree with one of my post. ( that seems to be very rare around here for me.):sad:

Your welcome.

Just noticed yesterday that you had T.D. Jakes as your avatar.

Cool...

 

[FFH]

I'm simply referring to the people. Not the buildings. I've always understood the true Church, the true Body of Christ, to have nothing to do with buildings or organizations. The true Body, the true Church (also the Bride of Christ), is a living organism, that transcends buildings, cities, countries, cultures, race, etc., etc. It is simply every believer, everywhere.

Yes, there is no middle ground, either one believes in Jesus Christ and strives to live his teachings or one does not...

Either one is in the body of Christ or one is not...

 

[Smoke]

Just noticed yesterday that you had T.D. Jakes as your avatar.

Cool...

I thought your avatar was T. D. Jakes!

I find the document somewhat amusing; I started the first thread on it. But I don't find it offensive. My Catholic grandfather often used to tell my Methodist mother she wasn't a Christian. It's all part of the fun of religion.

The Pope is pretty much bound by his office to take the position he does; each new pope doesn't get to disregard all precedent and start from scratch. And seriously, as a head of state and as head of a church that -- what with the child abuse scandals and the rise of Pentecostalism in South America -- is hemorrhaging members already, what's his incentive for saying you might just as well belong to the Assembly of God as the Roman Catholic Church?

Not that I like der Panzer-Papst, but what did you expect?

 

[Comprehend]

Not that I like der Panzer-Papst, but what did you expect?

I have actually appreciated this and the last Pope a great deal. They both stood strongly for their church values in a time when most people were relaxing their moral stances (no pun intended).

I don't hold his childhood against him, you fight for the country you belong to.

as far as the OP goes, I don't see this as a surprising thing for a religious leader to say. How many Muslim leaders do you hear saying that it doesn't matter if you are shia or sunni? Most churches believe theirs is the only true church. Mormons are the same way.

 

[Smoke]

I don't hold his childhood against him, you fight for the country you belong to.

They don't call him the Panzer Pope because he's German; the Germans call him that, too. It's his personality.

 

[James the Persian]

Apostolic succession has always puzzled me.

When the Romans set up the Church of Rome in Canterbury... they found that there were already Celtic Christian bishops, and monasteries.( before ad 200)
It was many years later that the two churches joined.
It is not known where these original Bishops came from, But it is suspected it was from Egypt. Would the Celtic bishops have had Apostolic succession or only the ones that came from Rome.?
Until they Joined together the Celts did nor recognise the Pope.

Yes, the Celts had Apostolic succession. Apostolic succession comes through succession from the Apostles, not from Rome (which is why we can quite easily claim Apostolic succession whilst none of our heirarchs are successors of Roman ones). You're right that nobody is sure where Celtic monasticism came from, but not about the church here as a whole. What happened is that the Church spread here in Roman times, was pretty sucessful amongst the Celts, remained with them after the Anglo-Saxons invaded and then percolated back into England via Iona and Lindisfarne in the north while the Romans evangelised the south. The Celts were a part of the Church even if they were kind of cut off and at that time no-one outside of the See of Rome recognised the Pope as their head (and clearly Britain was outside that See eeven though it expanded as the missionaries came in), so that was hardly unusual. The Celts didn't really recognise the Pope as their Patriarch until the Synod of Whitby and that only affected those in mainland Britain. The Irish considered themselves independent of direct Roman control until much later, after the Norman invasion.

James

 

[NoahideHiker]

Anyone who was offended by the Pope's comments about the churches besides the Mother Church being wrong and there is no salvation outside of the church; please remember your feelings the next time you tell someone they need to be "saved" by Jesus.

 

[James the Persian]

Anyone who was offended by the Pope's comments about the churches besides the Mother Church being wrong and there is no salvation outside of the church; please remember your feelings the next time you tell someone they need to be "saved" by Jesus.

The Pope didn't say that there was no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church, but I agree with your sentiment. Unsurprisingly the same people who are most likely to tell you non-Christians that you are damned without Christ are also those who are most upset at finding that Rome doesn't believe in the 'invisible church of all believers'. Why that should come as a surprise to anyone ios beyond me, though.

James

 

[sojourner]

Hubris and an overblown sense of entitlement has plagued Rome from very early on. That same poison has infected many branches of Western Protestantism, as well.

 

[Quiddity]

Hubris and an overblown sense of entitlement has plagued Rome from very early on. That same poison has infected many branches of Western Protestantism, as well.

Actually, it's nothing compared to what went on in the East. A read into the first Council and the matters that surrounded it shows you just how troublesome it got with Patriarchs and clergy in North Africa, Jerusalem, Constanople, etc. Priests ordaining other priest, Bishops holding their own local councils, and a number of other abuses. I'd actually argue that Hubris was mostly infecting the East. Just go back and read where most all the heretical teachings (to which both RC's and EO's now reject) were coming from. This isn't to say the West didn't, but it was nothing compared to what went on in the East. In fact, this is more then likely where most of the Christian developments were coming from as well.

 

[joeboonda]

A person is saved when they first trust Christ for salvation. There is no 'true church', forget 'apostolic succession'. The Bible says whoever believes in Jesus is saved and that we ALL have been baptised by one Spirit into the body of Christ. We ARE the church. Jesus commanded us to preach the gospel into all the world, and given us ALL spiritual gifts, including pastoring and evangelising. Salvation and being part of the body of Christ has nothing to do with sacraments, rituals, works, certain churches, traditions, or anything else but having believed on Christ. All who have believed on Christ, no matter who told them, are saved and are the body of Christ, the church.



Mark 16:15 Jesus commanded the disciples to;
"Go into all the world and preach the Good News to all creation." We are all to do that.

Mathew 27:57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:

All believers are Jesus Christ’s disciples:
2 Timothy 4:2 The Apostle Paul instructs Timothy;
"Be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke, and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction." That is for all of us.

All believers are instructed by the lord to be prepared, correct,rebuke, and encourage:

2 Timothy 4:5 "But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry."

All believers are instructed by the lord to carry his message to the world discharging his duties of his ministries:

1 Peter 2:9 We are a chosen Priesthood to declare the praises of God!
“But you are a chosen people, a royal Priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”

All believers are a chosen people, a priesthood that are to take the gospel to the world.


Is apostolic succession Biblical? (www.gotquestions.org)

Question: "Is apostolic succession Biblical?" ​

Answer: The doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed the apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing throughout the centuries, even unto today. The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the leader of the apostles, with the greatest authority, and therefore his successors carry on the greatest authority. The Roman Catholic Church combines this belief with the concept that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed Peter were accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. Apostolic succession, combined with Peter’s supremacy among the apostles, results in the Roman bishop being the supreme authority of the Catholic Church – the Pope.​

However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The Apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14). Yes, the Apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the Apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the Book of Acts records the Apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles). Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors.​

Catholics point to Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the 12th apostle in Acts chapter 1 as an example of apostolic succession. While Matthias did indeed “suceed” Judas as an apostle, this is in no sense an argument for continuing apostolic succession. Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders (such as Judas), with godly and faithful leaders (such as Matthias). Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles. The church does not need apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings of the apostles accurately recorded and preserved. And that is exactly what God has provided in His Word (Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; 4:2).​

In short, apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. The Roman Catholic Church claims that a lack of ongoing apostolic authority results in doctrinal confusion and chaos. It is an unfortunate truth (that the apostles acknowledged) that false teachers would arise (2 Peter 2:1). Admittedly, the lack of “supreme authority” amongst non-Catholic churches results in many different interpretations. However, these differences in interpretation are not the result of Scripture being unclear. Rather, they are the result of even non-Catholic Christians carrying on the Catholic tradition of interpreting Scripture in accordance with their own traditions. If Scripture is studied in its entirety and in its proper context, the truth can be easily determined. Doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says – not a result of there being no “supreme authority” to interpret Scripture.​

Alignment with Scriptural teaching, not apostolic succession, is the determining factor of the trueness of a church. What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the Word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared with (Acts 17:10-12). Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.​

 

[wizanda]

Mat 23:8-9
(8) But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even* Christ; and all ye are brethren.
(9) And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

*=The word &#8216;Even&#8217; is &#8216;O&#8217; in Greek with a dash, meaning it as a question&#8230;..so not &#8216;the&#8217; as is sometimes put.

Didn&#8217;t the Pope also say &#8220;he is the spiritual father to all its children?&#8221;

 

[athanasius]

will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station.
[20] In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,
[21] and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. ---Isaiah 22:19-21 wich is fullfilled in Mathew 16;13-19.

Also:

"For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel."--1 Cor 4:14-15.