Who speaks for the Christian Church/Churches?

[RickD]

Well, so long as IceMobster isn't being graded by this guy, I see no harm.

Who is IceMobster? Perhaps you're referring to LiceLobster?

[IceMobster]

Well, my theology professor is a main guy in desk of Church history on a theology university, so I'll take his words over yours when he says that pope is the supreme head of all Catholics which is why it would be preferred to say CC and not RCC (as written in the wiki link Rick linked: "To refer to all 24 autonomous churches (all of which are subject to the Pope) together, official church documents often use the term "Catholic Church" or, less frequently, the term "Roman Catholic Church".")

Well then, considering the supremacy of the Pope, maybe we should call it the Roman Catholic Cult? Ask your professor what he thinks of that.

Why would it be a cult just because it has a leader? I understand, because it says that the leader is infallible in his teachings, but I disagree with that, as well. Hell, even the CC addresses and points this out showing where in the history that point didn't stand (i.e. Saeculum obscurum).
Also, there is no need to be cocky as such. Forsake not the assembling of one another in Christ.

[RickD]

Well, my theology professor is a main guy in desk of Church history on a theology university, so I'll take his words over yours when he says that pope is the supreme head of all Catholics which is why it would be preferred to say CC and not RCC (as written in the wiki link Rick linked: "To refer to all 24 autonomous churches (all of which are subject to the Pope) together, official church documents often use the term "Catholic Church" or, less frequently, the term "Roman Catholic Church".")

Well then, considering the supremacy of the Pope, maybe we should call it the Roman Catholic Cult? Ask your professor what he thinks of that.

Why would it be a cult just because it has a leader? I understand, because it says that the leader is infallible in his teachings, but I disagree with that, as well. Hell, even the RCC addresses and points this out showing where in the history that point didn't stand (i.e. Saeculum obscurum).
Also, there is no need to be cocky as such. Forsake not the assembling of one another in Christ.

There IceMobster. Fify.

[IceMobster]

Well, my theology professor is a main guy in desk of Church history on a theology university, so I'll take his words over yours when he says that pope is the supreme head of all Catholics which is why it would be preferred to say CC and not RCC (as written in the wiki link Rick linked: "To refer to all 24 autonomous churches (all of which are subject to the Pope) together, official church documents often use the term "Catholic Church" or, less frequently, the term "Roman Catholic Church".")

Well then, considering the supremacy of the Pope, maybe we should call it the Roman Catholic Cult? Ask your professor what he thinks of that.

Why would it be a cult just because it has a leader? I understand, because it says that the leader is infallible in his teachings, but I disagree with that, as well. Hell, even the RCC addresses and points this out showing where in the history that point didn't stand (i.e. Saeculum obscurum).
Also, there is no need to be cocky as such. Forsake not the assembling of one another in Christ.

There IceMobster. Fify.

[Kurieuo]

Well, my theology professor is a main guy in desk of Church history on a theology university, so I'll take his words over yours when he says that pope is the supreme head of all Catholics which is why it would be preferred to say CC and not RCC (as written in the wiki link Rick linked: "To refer to all 24 autonomous churches (all of which are subject to the Pope) together, official church documents often use the term "Catholic Church" or, less frequently, the term "Roman Catholic Church".")

Well then, considering the supremacy of the Pope, maybe we should call it the Roman Catholic Cult? Ask your professor what he thinks of that.

Why would it be a cult just because it has a leader? I understand, because it says that the leader is infallible in his teachings, but I disagree with that, as well. Hell, even the CC addresses and points this out showing where in the history that point didn't stand (i.e. Saeculum obscurum).
Also, there is no need to be cocky as such. Forsake not the assembling of one another in Christ.

There are some core Catholic teachings that go against what I see Christ and the Apostles taught.

The Christian ecclesiology that developed in Rome was largely human-made, and imo was instituted by men wanting something "substantial" to rival Judaism which had its priests, rituals and rich ecclesiology. People, just seem to love the comfort of ritual and practice (works) rather than the grace and freedom we have in Christ through the power and reliance upon the Holy Spirit.

So, early on, you have the might of Rome which gave the Christians in Rome a higher standing especially under Constantine. The Roman Catholic Church gained (or is it more usurped) authority over the other Christian churches, even those in the east which initially reluctantly agreed to Rome's universal jurisdiction over Christian matters, that is, until the East-West schism in the 11th century.

Thankfully, Jesus' followers, the Apostles, were responsible for laying foundational teachings. Furthermore, they had spiritual gifts which no other since have had in same strength -- no Pope, no priest, no Christian. You need to dig into the Christian theology to understand why I'd deem the RCC a cult in that they wrongly usurp authority. In my opinion, I see not much difference between embracing The Watchtower or the RCC -- besides the Watchtower having less orthodox teachings -- the church authorities in Rome just set themselves up first.

Now, that's not withstanding I have a respect for Christian brothers and sisters who are nonetheless for whatever reason Catholic. Some are very intelligent and do understand their theology. However, given the RCC is quite contented for people to just have a relationship with the church, sees itself as the way people are patched through to Christ and God as such, then I see they are usurping Christ's authority and indeed that of the Holy Spirit.

Some corrupted Christian teachings include:

1) Apostolic succession: the Apostles laid the foundations, there is no longer need for additional foundation laying. Scripture contains the Apostles words in writing. Once the foundation is laid, there is no need for building the foundation out further right? Scripture nowhere says that the foundations will continue being laid through anything such as Apostolic succession (i.e., the Pope). Scripture is that foundation, Jesus' and the Apostles words and other teachings they gave the stamp of approval are that foundation. The NT books we have, rightfully form our Biblical canon, because they could be traced back to the Apostles and therefore they're granted foundational authority. Where Catholic teaching or tradition would contradict Scripture therefore, the Apostolic authority (Scripture) carries greater weight. More than that of any RCC declared Pope.

2) Priestly order: Jesus is and was the ultimate priest, the final and everlasting. There is no need for a priestly order. One does not need to go to a / the church for forgiveness. One is not saved on account of some church or religious authority. Despite whatever apologetic response Catholic theologians might give, these are great misunderstandings even amongst lay Catholics who see the Roman Church as the way to God, who believe their sins are absolved by priests and what-not, who see people as lost and non-Christian if they do not submit to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

How this differs to the teachings we find in Scripture, that is only through Christ we attain forgiveness and can approach God in anything. Christ is the final, eternal and perfect Priest (read Hebrews 10, esp. Heb 10:12,14). Christ is always the channel with which we come to God. Through Christ we pray and our prayers reach God's ears. We worship God through Christ. Christ is central in every way in our relationship with God. A person doesn't have Christ via the church, some leader or organisation -- but must be baptised personally into Christ and the Holy Spirit now teaches and guides that person. (Jer 31:31-34)

3) Saints: All of us who belong to Christ, have been called by God. We have been set apart, and made holy in Christ. (Rom 1:7) Sainthood isn't reserved for "special Christians" who display certain acts and miracles, but rather all who are in Christ are saints. Christians have ALL been called and we belong to Christ. We are holy -- (hagios, "set apart by (or for) God"). Those who belong to Christ, are the saints.

Here are just a few theological doctrines that really only skim the surface, and when worked out, lead to all manner of corruptions in ecclesiology, teachings and how people believe they come to God.

[IceMobster]

Well, my theology professor is a main guy in desk of Church history on a theology university, so I'll take his words over yours when he says that pope is the supreme head of all Catholics which is why it would be preferred to say CC and not RCC (as written in the wiki link Rick linked: "To refer to all 24 autonomous churches (all of which are subject to the Pope) together, official church documents often use the term "Catholic Church" or, less frequently, the term "Roman Catholic Church".")

Well then, considering the supremacy of the Pope, maybe we should call it the Roman Catholic Cult? Ask your professor what he thinks of that.

Why would it be a cult just because it has a leader? I understand, because it says that the leader is infallible in his teachings, but I disagree with that, as well. Hell, even the CC addresses and points this out showing where in the history that point didn't stand (i.e. Saeculum obscurum).
Also, there is no need to be cocky as such. Forsake not the assembling of one another in Christ.

There are some core Catholic teachings that go against what I see Christ and the Apostles taught.

The Christian ecclesiology that developed in Rome was largely human-made, and imo was instituted by men wanting something "substantial" to rival Judaism which had its priests, rituals and rich ecclesiology. People, just seem to love the comfort of ritual and practice (works) rather than the grace and freedom we have in Christ through the power and reliance upon the Holy Spirit.

So, early on, you have the might of Rome which gave the Christians in Rome a higher standing especially under Constantine. The Roman Catholic Church gained (or is it more usurped) authority over the other Christian churches, even those in the east which initially reluctantly agreed to Rome's universal jurisdiction over Christian matters, that is, until the East-West schism in the 11th century.

Thankfully, Jesus' followers, the Apostles, were responsible for laying foundational teachings. Furthermore, they had spiritual gifts which no other since have had in same strength -- no Pope, no priest, no Christian. You need to dig into the Christian theology to understand why I'd deem the RCC a cult in that they wrongly usurp authority. In my opinion, I see not much difference between embracing The Watchtower or the RCC -- besides the Watchtower having less orthodox teachings -- the church authorities in Rome just set themselves up first.

Now, that's not withstanding I have a respect for Christian brothers and sisters who are nonetheless for whatever reason Catholic. Some are very intelligent and do understand their theology. However, given the RCC is quite contented for people to just have a relationship with the church, sees itself as the way people are patched through to Christ and God as such, then I see they are usurping Christ's authority and indeed that of the Holy Spirit.

Some corrupted Christian teachings include:

1) Apostolic succession: the Apostles laid the foundations, there is no longer need for additional foundation laying. Scripture contains the Apostles words in writing. Once the foundation is laid, there is no need for building the foundation out further right? Scripture nowhere says that the foundations will continue being laid through anything such as Apostolic succession (i.e., the Pope). Scripture is that foundation, Jesus' and the Apostles words and other teachings they gave the stamp of approval are that foundation. The NT books we have, rightfully form our Biblical canon, because they could be traced back to the Apostles and therefore they're granted foundational authority. Where Catholic teaching or tradition would contradict Scripture therefore, the Apostolic authority (Scripture) carries greater weight. More than that of any RCC declared Pope.

2) Priestly order: Jesus is and was the ultimate priest, the final and everlasting. There is no need for a priestly order. One does not need to go to a / the church for forgiveness. One is not saved on account of some church or religious authority. Despite whatever apologetic response Catholic theologians might give, these are great misunderstandings even amongst lay Catholics who see the Roman Church as the way to God, who believe their sins are absolved by priests and what-not, who see people as lost and non-Christian if they do not submit to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

How this differs to the teachings we find in Scripture, that is only through Christ we attain forgiveness and can approach God in anything. Christ is the final, eternal and perfect Priest (read Hebrews 10, esp. Heb 10:12,14). Christ is always the channel with which we come to God. Through Christ we pray and our prayers reach God's ears. We worship God through Christ. Christ is central in every way in our relationship with God. A person doesn't have Christ via the church, some leader or organisation -- but must be baptised personally into Christ and the Holy Spirit now teaches and guides that person. (Jer 31:31-34)

3) Saints: All of us who belong to Christ, have been called by God. We have been set apart, and made holy in Christ. (Rom 1:7) Sainthood isn't reserved for "special Christians" who display certain acts and miracles, but rather all who are in Christ are saints. Christians have ALL been called and we belong to Christ. We are holy -- (hagios, "set apart by (or for) God"). Those who belong to Christ, are the saints.

Here are just a few theological doctrines that really only skim the surface, and when worked out, lead to all manner of corruptions in ecclesiology, teachings and how people believe they come to God.

Yeah, I agree with most, if not all, of the things you said here. I'll get back to you once I hear what other side has to say on the matter. But, in general, yeah, why should there be a intercessor in your connection with God is my biggest question. As if you are dumb enough to manage it yourself. Meh...
Well, even though I understand what you are saying (since I talked to a evangelics a lot) mind elaborating on all points? I don't know in what way. Any way.
Also, CC*.

Hmm, what about the sacred tradition? The oral tradition passed on through generations which the CC cherishes? What are the things protestants (looks like you are one, yeah?) leave out when they leave out this oral tradition? Teach me, senpai. Lol.

[Kurieuo]

Hmm, what about the sacred tradition? The oral tradition passed on through generations which the CC cherishes? What are the things protestants (looks like you are one, yeah?) leave out when they leave out this oral tradition? Teach me, senpai. Lol.

IceMobster, have a read of my essay I wrote some time ago now on sources of theology. I studied for a time within non-Evangelical colleges Uniting, Anglican and RCC (who had temporarily come together to form the one college).

I'm not sure it is oral tradition necessarily what is claimed. Rather, it is Tradition in and of itself which may or may not encompass word of mouth. Nonetheless, the foundations of this tradition, by which future tradition and beliefs can be corrected is found in the Apostles teachings -- which are recorded in our NT Scripture.

There's really no contradiction in embracing Scripture and Tradition when correctly understood what they are. Furthermore, tradition is very important to Christianity as a source of exposition and a theological well of knowledge to be drawn from.

Consider science for example. Someone could just ignore the immense scientific understanding humanity has built regarding physics off the back of Newton, Einstein and the like. Right? What a foolish person they would be, if they would only pay and attention and read such ideas then they might push scientific understanding further.

Same for theology and rich Christian thinkers we have throughout history, many of whom would have identified as Roman Catholic. Many early Christian thinkers were of Eastern Christian origin and not Western. Augustine is perhaps the most well known early Christian thinker of Western origins, but he was on the scene rather late in the mid 4th-5th centuries.

As for oral tradition in particular. Consider the game Chinese whispers -- one person whispers to another, and to another, and to another and by the end the message half resembled what was originally spoken... how do we know? Because the first person is then asked what they originally whispered, and it is often quite different to the end result.

Scripture, is like hearing the original message of the first person who whispered something in writing. It is rightfully foundational to Christian tradition, and given the authority it has of the Apostles, it will always serve as a corrective norm by which all Christian tradition/theological exposition -- no matter if Catholic, Protestant or some offshoot -- is measured against. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

Unless there are further foundations to be laid beyond the Apostles, then everything we need to know ought to be found in Scripture. And really, I see all we need to know central to humanity, Christ and God is found in Scripture.

[PaulSacramento]

Well, my theology professor is a main guy in desk of Church history on a theology university, so I'll take his words over yours when he says that pope is the supreme head of all Catholics which is why it would be preferred to say CC and not RCC (as written in the wiki link Rick linked: "To refer to all 24 autonomous churches (all of which are subject to the Pope) together, official church documents often use the term "Catholic Church" or, less frequently, the term "Roman Catholic Church".")

Well then, considering the supremacy of the Pope, maybe we should call it the Roman Catholic Cult? Ask your professor what he thinks of that.

Or ask any Old Catholic or Eastern Orthodox catholic.
But anyways...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church

[PaulSacramento]

There are some core Catholic teachings that go against what I see Christ and the Apostles taught.

The Christian ecclesiology that developed in Rome was largely human-made, and imo was instituted by men wanting something "substantial" to rival Judaism which had its priests, rituals and rich ecclesiology. People, just seem to love the comfort of ritual and practice (works) rather than the grace and freedom we have in Christ through the power and reliance upon the Holy Spirit.

So, early on, you have the might of Rome which gave the Christians in Rome a higher standing especially under Constantine. The Roman Catholic Church gained (or is it more usurped) authority over the other Christian churches, even those in the east which initially reluctantly agreed to Rome's universal jurisdiction over Christian matters, that is, until the East-West schism in the 11th century.

Thankfully, Jesus' followers, the Apostles, were responsible for laying foundational teachings. Furthermore, they had spiritual gifts which no other since have had in same strength -- no Pope, no priest, no Christian. You need to dig into the Christian theology to understand why I'd deem the RCC a cult in that they wrongly usurp authority. In my opinion, I see not much difference between embracing The Watchtower or the RCC -- besides the Watchtower having less orthodox teachings -- the church authorities in Rome just set themselves up first.

Now, that's not withstanding I have a respect for Christian brothers and sisters who are nonetheless for whatever reason Catholic. Some are very intelligent and do understand their theology. However, given the RCC is quite contented for people to just have a relationship with the church, sees itself as the way people are patched through to Christ and God as such, then I see they are usurping Christ's authority and indeed that of the Holy Spirit.

Some corrupted Christian teachings include:

1) Apostolic succession: the Apostles laid the foundations, there is no longer need for additional foundation laying. Scripture contains the Apostles words in writing. Once the foundation is laid, there is no need for building the foundation out further right? Scripture nowhere says that the foundations will continue being laid through anything such as Apostolic succession (i.e., the Pope). Scripture is that foundation, Jesus' and the Apostles words and other teachings they gave the stamp of approval are that foundation. The NT books we have, rightfully form our Biblical canon, because they could be traced back to the Apostles and therefore they're granted foundational authority. Where Catholic teaching or tradition would contradict Scripture therefore, the Apostolic authority (Scripture) carries greater weight. More than that of any RCC declared Pope.

2) Priestly order: Jesus is and was the ultimate priest, the final and everlasting. There is no need for a priestly order. One does not need to go to a / the church for forgiveness. One is not saved on account of some church or religious authority. Despite whatever apologetic response Catholic theologians might give, these are great misunderstandings even amongst lay Catholics who see the Roman Church as the way to God, who believe their sins are absolved by priests and what-not, who see people as lost and non-Christian if they do not submit to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

How this differs to the teachings we find in Scripture, that is only through Christ we attain forgiveness and can approach God in anything. Christ is the final, eternal and perfect Priest (read Hebrews 10, esp. Heb 10:12,14). Christ is always the channel with which we come to God. Through Christ we pray and our prayers reach God's ears. We worship God through Christ. Christ is central in every way in our relationship with God. A person doesn't have Christ via the church, some leader or organisation -- but must be baptised personally into Christ and the Holy Spirit now teaches and guides that person. (Jer 31:31-34)

3) Saints: All of us who belong to Christ, have been called by God. We have been set apart, and made holy in Christ. (Rom 1:7) Sainthood isn't reserved for "special Christians" who display certain acts and miracles, but rather all who are in Christ are saints. Christians have ALL been called and we belong to Christ. We are holy -- (hagios, "set apart by (or for) God"). Those who belong to Christ, are the saints.

Here are just a few theological doctrines that really only skim the surface, and when worked out, lead to all manner of corruptions in ecclesiology, teachings and how people believe they come to God.

Well said my friend.

[Christian2]

Is there some kind of control over Christians making sure they interpret Scriptures correctly?

I would think the Pope would oversee the Roman Catholic Church, but what about the others?

Thanks.

It is every believers responsibility to make sure they are being taught sound doctrine according to the word of God. The bible warns us alot about false teachers,false prophets,false doctrine,etc.I know that alot of believers seem to rely on their preacher, a minister,ministry,etc and just trust their biblical knowledge,but ultimately it is every person's responsibility to make sure they are being taught sound Christian doctrine that lines up with God's word. This applies to everybody too really, even non-believers.

I agree. In order to do this we must have a good knowledge of Scriptures and it is our responsibility to study them.

I have disagreed with some commentary in my Study Bible as well as my Pastor and some top notch theologians. If I disagree with a theologian, I email them to talk further. I disagreed with one, emailed him. He said I could be right, but he thought he was more right than I was. So, I emailed Daniel B. Wallace since he is the king of Greek and he agreed with me.

[PaulSacramento]

It's why I started studying Theology and eventually got my degree.