Council of Nicaea 2.0? In 2025: Roman Catholics & Eastern Orthodox Christians to go back to Nicaea.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Every group is self interested, even a collection of citizens increasing, rightfully, their own "power".

So?
Are money-gouging corporations better at determining how your country is run, than the people who have to actually live with that government?

Your last sentence suggests to me that your anti-religious, which is fine with me . . .

No, I am not "anti-religious".
I am "anti" giant religious institutions having civil authority to determine how everyone is supposed to think philosophically.
Especially if the main candidate for an institution being given such authority has a very long and consistent history of abusing any power that it has ever been given.

. . . however, the removal of all influence of religion has resulted in a nothing more than a power change

Change to what?
No one has "removed" their power.
People in general have lost interest in giving that particular institution such power as they once had.
"Religion" in general is not even the subject.
No one is saying to stamp out religion.
Not having the Pope as supreme dictator is not the same as saying all religion must be outlawed.

Once again, I don't support middle age power levels, but some influence to say "wait a minute" to the other "power groups", and that includes the unthinking "people", might give some balance.

People who want to have someone like a Pope tell them what to think, can take advantage of that now, without the Pope having the authority to make then think that.
What you are implying is that those who do not automatically agree with the Pope are stupid and need to be forced to agree, for their own good.

Your "degenerate and false religion" has been replaced with degenerate and false alternates...even less workable than the religious ones.

"Workable" on what way?
What are you calling false alternatives?
A religious institution that is given power to rule civilly over countries and people, could only be given that position by the members of that religion if they were believers in a degenerate religion that thinks that they need to be whipped like dogs in order to be able to practice that religion.

a reply to: jmdewey60 Wow, your rebut\ is coming across as...I don't know...scattered. No one is a supreme dictator in Christianity. Hasn't been for centuries. Get over it!!

The workability of Christianity is its' MORAL CODE. You know, don't lie, don't steal, be faithful...stuff like that. Ever hear of them?? Sheesh.

If you don't see the correlation between the diminishing of that moral code in the west and the floundering of this civilization then you have blinders.

I prefer a religious society. NOT a society run by religion. There is a difference.

Please tell me you understand what I'm saying. It seems we are talking two different languages. LOL

a reply to: nwtrucker

be faithful...stuff like that

That's a personal thing and you should do that your own self.
I don't want some power over me telling me what I need to be "faithful" to, such as that huge religious institution that claims it controls the church of the entire world.
If you want to grovel and kiss the ring, then you are free to do that, no one is stopping you.
Why do you want me to be forced to do it too?

a reply to: jmdewey60

This is very off topic but I will say this to close it out. Faith is choice, not enforced. A moral code, ultimately is also "choice". Even with "enforcement". I could care less whether you adopt, ignore or rebel against any code...unless it messes with me and mine. Therefore, I'm not "forcing" you into anything.

I get the idea that someone forced you into religion or perhaps overused force on you in your youth?

Trust me on this, no one forces me to do anything. Ever. I may choose to make a strategic retreat, but it's not forgotten...

You can-and should-freely choose your belief system, codes and life as well as pay the price, if any, when those choices cross swords with the group's current version.

Civilization cannot exist without agreed upon or enforced codes. Hopefully, more agreed upon than enforced (enlightened?).

My bottom line is the codes that allowed us to have ANY civilization were developed within religion. Nowhere else.

They haven't been improved upon in any way by anarchists, secular humanists and certainly not the psych crowd. They have been subverted by individuals within religions and continue to be.

At least within Christianity, those days are apparently long past. Others have yet to learn the error of their ways. This thread is a reaching out, an increased dialogue between sects. Nothing bad about that that I can see.

a reply to: nwtrucker

My bottom line is the codes that allowed us to have ANY civilization were developed within religion. Nowhere else.

Civilization existed for a long time before the Catholic Church had a Pope demanding that all religion must conform to his wishes.
Why should we now want to empower his desire by giving him authority to enforce his will on every person on earth?
People naturally mostly have one sort of religion or another, so civilization is not in danger of going away.

a reply to: jmdewey60

sigh.

Is there any weight to the notion that, any religion, no matter what brand, isn't really the sum of its parts? Meaning, Christianity/Christendom in this case, is a large yet fractured and divided house. It can be strengthened (politically) by working out dogmatic differences.

a reply to: MarkusMaximus

It can be strengthened (politically) by working out dogmatic differences.

You are talking about basically private corporations just calling themselves "the church".
Why would we want to "strengthen" that?
I say, "burn them all down".
All we need is truly charitable institutions motivated by a shared faith in Jesus.
"Doctrine" is an individual's prerogative and freedom of thought should not be infringed for any reason whatsoever, amen.

Nicaea 2.0 (not to be confused with the Second Council of Nicaea 787 AD en.wikipedia.org... ) is absolutely necessary step if Christianity is meant to go further beyond the current stalemate.

At the time of Nicaea 1 there were 3 Christian communities or churches recognized: Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.

At the time of Nicaea 2.0 there will be more planets recognized as Christian. Those who already accepted and served Jesus Christ for all 1980 years after His Ascension, or even before that.

The first contact until 2025 is inevitable to occur. May be much earlier.

Jesus Christ Himself said at the last Supper (John) that the Holy Spirit will tell us more things with the time.

a reply to: MarkusMaximus

At this point of time, the old Christendom is non existent.There are secular states and laws in the old Christendom.

The problems of today's Christianity in all its branches are NOT problems of dogmatic character.

Apostolic succession will survive, not necessarily all obsolete human-made structures and rules.

The moves of pope Francis are moves in 11:59 hour. Hope he will succeed in that.

a reply to: 2012newstart

Apostolic succession will survive . . .

"Apostolic succession" is a myth that was invented a couple hundred years after the fact, so they had to make up fake records, once the concept became popular, to show how bishops were one of a longer line of bishops, to make it look like it could possibly go back to the Apostles.
Even if there was a such thing as a succession, it would have come to an end during the war on"Arianism."
So much of the clergy was killed off as "heretics" that they were forced to enlist recruits from the pagan priesthood just to find people who could read and write.

originally posted by: jmdewey60

Even if there was a such thing as a succession, it would have come to an end during the war on"Arianism."
So much of the clergy was killed off as "heretics" that they were forced to enlist recruits from the pagan priesthood just to find people who could read and write.

that is interesting. could you give more details or sources?

The churches of today should admit the gross errors in the past in order to go to the future. Don't know how many of them or what percentage f them will make it.

a reply to: 2012newstart

that is interesting. could you give more details or sources?

That comes from decades of studying early church history and the lives of the saints.
I'm not sure if there is a single source that puts it all together.
One book that I read recently that makes these sorts of comments is Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity by Birger A. Pearson , but pretty technical academic type stuff that does not make for good casual reading.
It makes a good case for "Apostolic Succession" being a tool to stamp out Gnosticism, and how it was invented for that purpose.
There is a Kindle version (which is what I have) so is not expensive, and for people who can work their way through that kind of material, I recommend it.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: MarkusMaximus

Any thoughts on this? Whatever their intentions, the possible social/political ramifications could be huge.

Probably an attempt to put Vladimir Putin under the control of the "western" Pope, if you could get the Pope in charge of all the churches, including the Russian Church.

I think what they are going to do, together with Putin, is a much better plan than the american new world order plan or the german EU plan.

a reply to: Ove38

. . . better plan than the american new world order . . .

For some reason, when I think of Putin, I am reminded of Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor of NYC.
Despite his faults and how much you may disagree with him on individual issues, you have to say that he was better for the city than the earlier mayors, some who were complete disasters.

a reply to: jmdewey60

I hope such kind of knowledge will abound for the benefit of non-suspicious common faithful. They have the right to know the truth.

I wonder will Francis make it, after John Paul 2 tried hard to change people's minds in post-communist era. Wish the pope success, and wish it to happen SOONER.

The world cannot afford 8 more years after which he may decide to resign as Benedict did, and leave the mess we have now. It is absurd we lost so much time, missed so many occasions, one of which was the jubilee year 2000. With half-hidden Fatima etc.

If the Catholic and Orthodox churches want to greet the arrival of "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord", they should obviously put aside centuries old controversies. Today those controversies are forgotten to all except for theologians. A meeting between pope Francis and the Russian patriarch Kirill is not impossible, rather likely. Kirill has already met popes, as his previous office was the foreign relations man (something like the secretary of state in the Vatican). I forgot exactly who of the recent popes he met personally, but he definitely met one of them.

If the ET contact is imminent, then the churches would do better to have one and positive position. Patriarch Kirill already said in a televised interview-lecture on a Russian TV channel posted also on youtube, www.youtube.com... (I do not quote exactly, pls refer to the Russian original if you want an exact quote) that in his view if the ET exist they would come in a big public appearance and meeting with humanity, not in flying saucers in the night to frighten people. Although he speaks against the UFO in that interview. Here you have one of the conservative leaders of worldwide Christianity, that of the second biggest church on earth, speaking of such possibility even if only theoretically.

It is a time for the churches to come together and close dark pages of history that are not their glorious moments. God forgives everyone, and surely will forgive His own if they are willing to make the turn, from all sides of Christianity. In fact it is already made if we hear things like that. It is only not announced to the public yet.

Last year, the new Coptic Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria en.wikipedia.org... met pope Francis in the Vatican.

For everyone who seeks to raise old controversies and to present them as if they exist today on the table between the common people from all the churches, or between their quite erudite and sane leaders, I'd say he acts as outdated soldier of the past, serving a cause that was meaningful in the inglorious moments of those churches.

Today the reality is different. We have one good way forward and we'd better find it.

Today on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, the pope's mass in St Peter's basilica attended the representative of Ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, metropolitan Joan (John). The choir from Moscow was sent by the patriarch of Russia Kirill. The choir sang among other pieces "Tu es Petrus" (you are Peter). Pope Francis prayed together with metropolitan Joan at the tomb of St Peter. Finally, pope Francis invited metropolitan Joan to walk side by side with him at the closing procession. Remarkable signs showing the will of unity!

On the day of the holy martyrs Peter and Paul, how many martyrs are there with their names completely forgotten or never known? Why aren't they venerated anymore in the calendar? They are all "image of Jesus" each one of them, and they won innumerable graces that we don't have touched in our times. Let alone the modern martyrs of 20th century and even today. It is a time we get back to the roots of Christianity in first centuries.