Last rites for John Paul II

[madame_zora]

Prep, Freddie pointed out in another thread that it is written in the Bible that "Many will know me by different names". While that quote has a familiar ring to me, I don't know where it comes from. I believe with all my heart that the many prophets of various religions represent the same one God. Just my opinion, but I can't help but believe that the Dalai Lama is referring to the same God as Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, et al. Maybe even Ghandi and Mother Teresa, I view them as holy. I can't believe in being religously right or wrong, what father would exclude the majority of his children for calling him "Dad" instead of "Father"?

To me, the value of a leader can be fairly well assesed by the quality of his life. When a man lives in humbleness and servitude, it makes more of an impact on me than one who preaches from on high. Whether one sees the Dalai Lama as a messenger of God or a man of great character, it is hard to overlook his dedication to others. He is not under attack because he attacks no one.

I think much of the Christian religion as it is being practised today resembles very much
the state the church was in when Jesus first came to town! People so easily forget how Jesus spent his time here.

 

[13788]

NelsonMuntz84:

Originally posted by prepstudinsc@Apr 7 2005, 02:27 PM
Driving through the crowd isn't the same as spending time with people.

[post=298031]Quoted post[/post]​

Neither does getting shot though and if todays leaders in the west walked about a City, I wonder how long it would be before one got bumped off.

Its just a fact that the higher you go up in the Church, the less you spend with the normal man on the street. Its also fair to say that before he became pope he spent alot of his time in poland with his people fighting against communism and didn't even had a church, were mass where held in a field.

I live in a country where people were letting off fireworks because of the death of the pope, burning photo's of him outside pubs, and singing no Pope in Rome. That will not have a minutes silence before football games because it will be booed, yet we had to have one for the Queen mother, 9/11 and countless others. Where the death of the leader of 1 billion people isn't reconised because it would show up the anti catholic feeling here, I certainly wouldn't go down and walk about the people as you put it here.

 

[surferboy]

Originally posted by prepstudinsc@Apr 7 2005, 07:27 AM
I think that Naughty wasn't dissing anyone...she was simply stating that she was respecting Nixxy's opinion, but totally disagreeing with it.

I disagree with Naughty's opinion of the Pope, however, and while he did take great interest in youth, he wouldn't have spent that kind of time with anybody. He doesn't (or didn't) spend hours with anyone except maybe the world's leaders and then it is to express HIS opinions about what they've done. No other church leader is allowed to go to meetings with heads of state and tell them what they've done is wrong--church leaders make speeches about it, write articles about it, etc.

In his defense, the Pope was probably not allowed to do a lot of the things that he wanted to do out of church protocol, but I just have a major problem with how the theocracy, the pomp and circumstance of the Catholic Church, not to mention the doctrinal issues that are not in the Bible--but that's just my reformation era Protestantism coming out.

[post=298005]Quoted post[/post]​

Dude, there's a huge difference in saying you disagree with someone's opinion, and saying that yer "trying to respect" someone's opinion. "Trying to respect" another's opinion means you don't. Yer sayin that you just can't respect it. Like when yer trying to climb a mountain. Doesn't mean you've succeeded.

 

[Freddie53]

Lesson Time:

The issue of the age of the Catholic Church.

St. Peter was the founder of the church at Rome. The Bible itself uses the term Bishop. St. Peter's title was Bishop of Rome. He was over all the congregations that met there in Rome. Since Christianity was new and the Roman Empire had put to death Christian leaders. The Roman church met in homes and there were many small congregations. St. Peter himself was put to death by the Roman Empire.

There were Bishops all over the Roman Empire. Now as far as official organization, I don't know exactly how it worked except that in the 300's AD Constintine made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. So a very specific and legal system was put into place.

There were five patriarchs. The Bishops of Rome, Contintinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. Since Rome was still the seat of the empire, The Bishop of Rome was the Chair of these five patriarchs. The word Pope is the Latin word for Patriarch which is a Greek term.

In time Antioch was destroyed never to be rebuilt. Jerusalem was leveled in 70 AD and rebuilt. But after the Muslim conquest the Jerusalem Patriarch disappeared as it had been known. Today there are several churches that have a patriarch in Jeruslaem. In the main church buildings the ancient churches share the administration of them. All those you named have a voice in keeping up the ancient sites of the birth and vacent grave of Jesus.

Alexandria is the seat of the Coptic Church which at some time became independent from the other churches.

Constantinople was a new city built during Contintine's rule. So the patriarch of Contantinople was rather new as compared to the bishops of the other cities. But because he became the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Byzantines considered the Patriarch of Contintinople to be equal to the Pope in Rome.


Around 1000 AD there was a theological division and the Roman and Contintinoople churches spilt. The Eastern Church centered in Constintinople became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church.

All of these churches believe that they go back to the apostles and in all of their creeds they say the believe in the apostolic and holy cathoolic church which means universal church.

Many Protestant churches including Anglican or Episcopal, Lutheran and Methodist churches also say that in their creed claiming their history goes back to the Protestant Reformation and then past that we were all one church in Europe.

Apostolic referes to a special part of the ordination service for clergy. There is the layining on of hands. Apostolic means that the 12 apostles laid their hands on their succesors and the succesors laid their hands on their sucessors and so on until the present age.

The Reformation wing of Proestant churches such as Baptist and Presbyterian and Reformed don't put that emphasis on Apostolic Succession.

And the Evangelical non denomination put no emphasis on that. Some don't even believe in ordination or the laying of of hands.

BOTTOM LINE TO THE POST: ALL OF THOSE CHURCHES YOU NAMED HAVE CLAIMS TO BE PART OF THE APOSTOLIC AND HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT HAS A CONTINUOUS LINE BACK TO THE APOSTLES.

In this I am in no way saying that the Reformation churches or non denominational chruches are not valid churches. They are. They just don't try to trace a direct historical line to the apostles like the liturgical Protestant, Catholic, Coptic and Orthodox Churches do There are other Catholic Churches besides the Roman Catholic Church and there as many Orthodox Churches that or lossely idenified as Eastern Orthodox and they have a strong connection but each Orthodox Church is technically independent.

Trying to write about church history which would cover hundreds of pages and also do it from memory from what I learned years ago is hard to write in just a few paragraphs.

And historians pretty much agree on what happened after 300 AD. There is less agreement about the first 300 years as Christianity was a banned underground religion much of that time and the organization was determined so much by what the Roman Empire was doing at the time. And of course those being killed didn't get to write all of their history for us to read.

 

[Freddie53]

AN EDITORIAL FROM THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH BISHOP OF ARKANSAS CHARLES CRUTCHFIELD

>The death of Pope John Paul II has touched deep and responsive chords in
>us all. The powerful witness of this man's life and ministry, even in its
>final hours, is deeply moving. He embraced life and its opportunities.
>Pope John Paul lived his faith with incredible honesty and courage. He
>did not shy from articulating theological and moral convictions and
>concerns, even when it caused controversy. Agree or disagree, one had to
>honor his integrity and faithfulness to the cause of Christ and the
>Kingdom of God. We shall miss him.
>
>We are mindful that from the day we are born we are moving relentlessly
>toward the day of our death. Death is a gift that cannot be denied or
>refused. It comes to us all. But John Paul's death is reminder that as
>Christians we believe our destiny is not finally death, but ultimately our
>destiny is life. We are made for life now and for life eternal. Death is
>but a brief episode in the long story of life.
>
>How will we spend life? What kind of stewards will we be of the gift of
>life so graciously given by God? Will we hoard the treasures of this
>world, or in the words of the hymn, will you and I "give, and give, and
>give again, what God has given thee"?
>
>What we do with life is important. None of us will have the same
>opportunities to touch and mold the world as John Paul did. Each of us,
>however, can give the gift of the life giving, life saving love of Jesus
>Christ to a neighbor in need, to a child in pain, to a young person in
>confusion. Each of us can strengthen the church by our prayers, presence,
>gifts and service.
>
>Our destiny is life. It is God's gift. What we do with that life is our
>decision.
>
>Faithfully,
>Charles Crutchfield

Bishop of the Arkansas Conference
The United Methodist Church

 

[prepstudinsc]

I have no problem with saying that there was one Christian church 2000 years ago, because that is truth. Saying it was the Roman Catholic church, I do have a problem with, because that simply isn't so. While there were several splinters from "The Church" before the schism of the Roman and the Orthodox churches in 1054, this was the major split that set the East from the West. The Roman church considers itself the one true church and thinks that the Orthodox churches are heretical (and vice versa) for their teaching on the filioque clause in the Creed. (regarding the Holy Spirit)

The concept of one Patriarch being higher than another is foreign to all the Eastern Orthodox churches. All the Partiarchs are viewed as equal working in tandem over their respective jurisdiction. The Roman Patriarch taking charge and continuing to rule to this day was not the way that the position was set up to be.

Most Non-liturgical Protestants don't believe in bishops, but some churches do have them. I played for the installation/ordination of a Bishop and it included the laying on of hands from another bishop. Supposedly they do have Apostolic sucession coming from Episcopal and into Methodist lines, then into the Holiness churches. However Presbyterians and most Baptists wouldn't believe in them, as that was one institution that Calvin protested (he was a Catholic priest).

 

[13788]

NelsonMuntz84:

Originally posted by surferboy@Apr 6 2005, 07:29 PM
Yah, the Dalai Lama is like, one of the most amazing people in the world. He didn't have to talk to us, but he spent 3 hours with me and my friend. He's so like, down to earth, which I doubt can be said about the Pope. Yah, he has Polish b-boys break dance for him, but like, I so dobt the Pope would talk to two high school boys for even 5 minutes, let alone 3 hours.

[post=297668]Quoted post[/post]​

Nixie you do know that the Pope helped the Polish underground and the Czech underground dont you ?

kept the catholic faith alive in fields when they weren't allowed a church.

He met his people and knew his people, okay not so much when he was pope on a personal level, but certainly when he was priest and a archbishop before he was pope, which was for 40 years.

Also your starting to give out opinion like it is fact, you have one cardinal as a nazi, when you obviously knew nothing of his life and the hardships he and his family faced.

You deem to know what the pope was like personally without meeting him and obviously know nothing about his life before he was pope.

Yet you want us to respect your believes and state your love for the Dalai Lama, but you couldn't be respectful enough to others to say nothing when it was a thread about the death of the Pope.

As Zora said there many ways to God, but I have respect for all the leaders, even though I'm not a follower of any other faith but my own, the teachings of the Dalai Lama would have you respect the faiths of everyone else, not for you to deem who is more in touch and who isn't, who is more worthy and who isn't, its for you to follow the man, practice what he teaches.

Respect is not a one way street, you cannot expect it for yourself if you will not give it to others, and by commenting on certain issues you dont know about, and basically out lining why the leader of your faith is better than the pope it stinks of saying my believes are better than yours.

You grandad may have thought his believes were worth more than yours which is wrong, but yours at the sametime are not worth more than mine.

I also think you misread naughtys post about yourself, and when you read through some of your comments on this thread, I dont think you should be trying to lambast anyone for lack of respect to others. I think your a nice guy but you have put your opinions and views above others on this thread, and I'm a bit fed up with it.

I'd also finish on this point, I respect the Dalai Lama alot, but he is hoping to lead his people out of tyranny, that is something the Pope already did for his people.

 

[13788]

NelsonMuntz84:

Originally posted by prepstudinsc@Apr 7 2005, 11:11 PM
I have no problem with saying that there was one Christian church 2000 years ago
The concept of one Patriarch being higher than another is foreign to all the Eastern Orthodox churches.  All the Partiarchs are viewed as equal working in tandem over their respective jurisdiction.  The Roman Patriarch taking charge and continuing to rule to this day was not the way that the position was set up to be.

[post=298164]Quoted post[/post]​

Thats not true, before the schism, the Patriarch of Rome was always seen as higher than the other 4, and seen as 'First among equals'

Also the Partiarch in Turkey is viewed as being higher now than the other 3 in the Eastern Church.

As for Calvinsm, if its the same over there as it is here, they are people who cannot attend a catholic funeral or have catholic friends. Its also the teachings that only the chosen few, even before they have lived there life will go to heaven. Its funny they have a problem with a Partiarch, yet dont have a problem telling people they are going to hell no matter what they do.

 

[13788]

hung_big:

Originally posted by Faeros@Apr 7 2005, 03:04 AM
*sits back and watches the show with some popcorn.*

[post=297967]Quoted post[/post]​

How constructive - don't post this crap. I'm sorry, but you have 14 posts and this is a political discussion and all you have to say is this? Choke on that popcorn - you are as bad as a troll.

Naughty: You said "I'm trying to respect your opinion, but...". That would mean you are attempting to, but do not respect Nixxy's opinion. If you supstituted "respect" with "understand" or "agree" etc. none of this would have ever happened. I know yer not that type of person though - this is just a misunderstanding. *Kiss*

Nixxy: Come on, don't be so critical. I don't think she meant to disresepect you. She's not that type of lady. Though I agree with her opinion (respecting the Pope) I hold your opinion in the highest esteem. But I wouldn't suggest making judgement calls on someone you haven't met. *Kiss*

*Hugz to you both* Love ya! Let's just Love!

 

[Faeros]

Originally posted by hung_big+Apr 7 2005, 05:50 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hung_big &#064; Apr 7 2005, 05:50 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Faeros@Apr 7 2005, 03:04 AM
*sits back and watches the show with some popcorn.*

[post=297967]Quoted post[/post]​

How constructive - don&#39;t post this crap. I&#39;m sorry, but you have 14 posts and this is a political discussion and all you have to say is this? Choke on that popcorn - you are as bad as a troll.

Naughty: You said "I&#39;m trying to respect your opinion, but...". That would mean you are attempting to, but do not respect Nixxy&#39;s opinion. If you supstituted "respect" with "understand" or "agree" etc. none of this would have ever happened. I know yer not that type of person though - this is just a misunderstanding. *Kiss*

Nixxy: Come on, don&#39;t be so critical. I don&#39;t think she meant to disresepect you. She&#39;s not that type of lady. Though I agree with her opinion (respecting the Pope) I hold your opinion in the highest esteem. But I wouldn&#39;t suggest making judgement calls on someone you haven&#39;t met. *Kiss*

*Hugz to you both* Love ya&#33; Let&#39;s just Love&#33;

[post=298183]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

Well, I&#39;m sorry you don&#39;t approve of my post...but then again that&#39;s not your place to approve of it, is it? And what about taking some of your own advice and "don&#39;t be so critical"? :lol:

 

[13788]

hung_big: Pfft...I didn&#39;t say that I had to approve. I just stated my opinion that your post was useless. There&#39;s animosity going on and you decide to just watch while eating popcorn .

Whatever...maybe I was a little harsh, but we have gotten so many trolls in the past who do nothing but bring crap to threads and make pointless statements. It ticks me off, because they attack such a wonderful site such as LPSG.

 

[Faeros]

Originally posted by hung_big@Apr 7 2005, 07:20 PM
Pfft...I didn&#39;t say that I had to approve. I just stated my opinion that your post was useless.

[post=298231]Quoted post[/post]​

Actually, you stated your opinion that I should die by the hand of my favorite movie food. And that I&#39;m an absolutely horrible person for posting what I posted.

 

[13788]

hung_big: Yes I did. Well...you aren&#39;t a bad person...but that was crap that you posted. And by "Troll" I mean a forum-related troll.

But I don&#39;t feel like argueing, especially on the boards.

 

[prepstudinsc]

Thats not true, before the schism, the Patriarch of Rome was always seen as higher than the other 4, and seen as &#39;First among equals&#39;

Also the Partiarch in Turkey is viewed as being higher now than the other 3 in the Eastern Church.

As for Calvinsm, if its the same over there as it is here, they are people who cannot attend a catholic funeral or have catholic friends. Its also the teachings that only the chosen few, even before they have lived there life will go to heaven. Its funny they have a problem with a Partiarch, yet dont have a problem telling people they are going to hell no matter what they do.

[post=298167]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]

Calvinism believes in predestination, which is a really tricky doctrine that God has predestined who will be saved and who won&#39;t. The fact is that Calvin was a priest and was reacting against a lot of his Catholic doctrines that he was taught.
I&#39;ve got one of my books on Calvinsim packed away, but it explains clearly how it all works--about the chosen and such. These days, most Presbyterians and Reformed people have tempered their views on the doctrine because it is harsh.
The fact is that only God can judge and we have no idea who is going to heaven or not. The early hardcore Calvinists wouldn&#39;t even have missionaries because they felt that spreading the Gospel wasn&#39;t necessary, as it was already determined who was going to heaven. Even the most conservative groups today would probably flinch at that, since it clearly goes against the words of Jesus to "go ye therefore into all the world making disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost."

For many years, Catholics couldn&#39;t attend Protestant services, so what&#39;s the difference. My grandparents and other relatives tell me about how they weren&#39;t allowed to go to funerals of friends back in the 1940&#39;s and 1950&#39;s, or even go to church services of other denominations. I think it was only relaxed after Vatican II.

I can understand why in somewhere like Northern Ireland it&#39;s just not safe to have friends of the opposite faith (Catholic vs. Protestant) or attend the other church, but in most other places it really shouldn&#39;t make a difference. Just because someone is of a different faith, being friends with them shouldn&#39;t matter. I don&#39;t have to be of the same faith as you to be your friend. I&#39;ve got Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Jewish, Pentecostal, Mormon, Catholic, Moravian, (and a handful of others too) friends. I don&#39;t care what they are as long as they are ethical, fun, smart. I probably wouldn&#39;t date someone who wasn&#39;t Protestant, however. There are just a lot of things that they would have to understand about
my beliefs and values and if someone came from a radically different faith tradtion, it would make things difficult.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by prepstudinsc@Apr 7 2005, 10:11 PM
The Roman church considers itself the one true church and thinks that the Orthodox churches are heretical

Not so. Pope Paul VI removed the excommunication of the Eastern Orthodox in Jerusalem in 1964. The Orthodox are allowed to receive communion in a Catholic Church today. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Orthodox view of the situation. Except for those Greek Orthodox under the jurisdiction of his All Holiness Bartholomaios, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the Eastern Orthodox congregations still view the Catholics as being heretics. Even in the dioceses under the Patriarch of Constantinople, a Catholic has to receive a special dispensation in order to share the Eucharist at an Orthodox liturgy.

The concept of one Patriarch being higher than another is foreign to all the Eastern Orthodox churches. All the Partiarchs are viewed as equal working in tandem over their respective jurisdiction. The Roman Patriarch taking charge and continuing to rule to this day was not the way that the position was set up to be.

Yes and no. Before the Great Schism, the Bishop of Rome held the place of honour as the primer inter pares (&#39;the first among equals&#39, even by the patriarchs of the East. Though the fact is largely ignored today, the Eastern Christians of the early Church deferred to the Pope. The bishops turned to the Pope to settle disputes rather than to their respective patriarchs. The Patriarch of Constantinople can trace his lineage back to Peter, as can the Patriarch of Antioch, but Rome was still the city of Peter and Paul, where they eventually met their martyrdoms. Today, the Eastern Orthodox Churches view Constantinople as the New Rome, and the Patriarch of Constantinople bears the title &#39;His All Holiness&#39;, unlike the other Easter Patriarchs who are called &#39;His Beatitude&#39;. Though they don&#39;t all agree with his opinions or fall under his jurisdiction, Eastern Orthodox Christians consider His All Holiness as today&#39;s primer inter pares among their ranks, and the deference is apparent during Pan-Orthodox synods. The idea of a head honcho among the ecclesiastical hierarchy is in no way foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy; the only change is that the Bishop of Rome no longer holds that position.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by hung_big@Apr 8 2005, 01:20 AM
There&#39;s animosity going on and you decide to just watch while eating popcorn

Nah ... it&#39;s not animosity. It&#39;s discussion, and discussion can be a healthy thing. I might not agree with Nix&#39;s view on the man I respected as my spiritual shepherd, but that doesn&#39;t mean I hate or bear any ill will towards him. Hell, I&#39;d give him a hug and a kiss right now&#33; :huh:

And if Faeros wants to eat popcorn, that&#39;s his business. He&#39;s a big boy and can judge the carbohydrate and fat content (if he&#39;s eating buttered popcorn) for himself.

 

[13788]

hung_big: LMAO&#33;

Good One Jacinto...but we&#39;ve settled this.

Hah...the only reason you&#39;d give Nixxy a kiss is because he&#39;s uber sexy

 

[Faeros]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+Apr 7 2005, 08:19 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; Apr 7 2005, 08:19 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-hung_big@Apr 8 2005, 01:20 AM
There&#39;s animosity going on and you decide to just watch while eating popcorn

Nah ... it&#39;s not animosity. It&#39;s discussion, and discussion can be a healthy thing. I might not agree with Nix&#39;s view on the man I respected as my spiritual shepherd, but that doesn&#39;t mean I hate or bear any ill will towards him. Hell, I&#39;d give him a hug and a kiss right now&#33; :huh:

And if Faeros wants to eat popcorn, that&#39;s his business. He&#39;s a big boy and can judge the carbohydrate and fat content (if he&#39;s eating buttered popcorn) for himself.

[post=298263]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


Eeew. Not buttered. Nono, i&#39;ts the healthy-ish white chedder popcorn, already popped. Damn good stuff.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by hung_big@Apr 8 2005, 02:45 AM
Hah...the only reason you&#39;d give Nixxy a kiss is because he&#39;s uber sexy

[post=298278]Quoted post[/post]​

No, it&#39;s not the only reason. I&#39;d kiss him because I consider him a friend. That he&#39;s über sexy is the reason I&#39;d slip him some tongue during that kiss. :loveya:

 

[13788]

hung_big: Oh sorry, I shoulda made myself clearer