a Question for our non-CATHOLIC BRETHREN

[Gabriel_of_12]

[Again, I’m not trying to convince you to change your mind about anything Patrick. I’m just letting you know on what I base my point of view.**

That’s an interesting view of history; Except it lacks the historical facts existing within the whole Church Pre-CONSTANTINOPLE. Your only view of the history of the church appears to be lacking when the Patriarch’s of Constantinople never existed. When the bishop’s of Rome was recognized as possessing the Chair of Peter, as Pre-eminent for all other Church’s to follow.

Not to mention your view of history does not reveal the cause and effects of the Pagan, heretical Eastern Emperor’s sided with the Patriarch’s of Constantinople to try and usurp a pre-Constantinople Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome that already existed pre-Constantinople. This is True Orthodoxy, Pre-Constantinople before any Patriarch of Constantinople ever existed, yet the Bishop’s of Rome (Popes)pre-exist any Patriarch’s of Constantinople.

Your history, thou well stated is lacking pre-Constantinople Church history that makes your post-Constantinople history secular and one sided that has hidden political interferences with the Pope’s, not to mention the Heresies coming from these Eastern Patriarch’s which the Pope’s and the Patriarch’s in full communion with him had to defeat or required the Pope’s approval.

Apart from the History existing pre-Constantinople and post-Constantinople when the Pope’s had to fend for themselves apart from the secular “powerful Patriarch of Constantinople”. Who never existed until 400 years later after apostolic times, while the bishop’s of Rome sufferred the most brutal persecutions from the Emperor’s of Rome beginning with Peter crucified upside down and Paul beheaded in Rome.

Here is an update “for today”. The Bishop’s of Rome are once again free from all secular powers as Peter was. We are living once again as in the apostolic times when Peter is free from secular powers, yet persecuted. Where does that leave the Orthodox? without a head today.

p.s. each of your history points lacks the full truth of reality. **How can one gage the history of the Whole Church with out the History of the Popes that predate the Patriarch’s of Constantnople?**and judge? Learning this true Church history, reveals the promises of Jesus upon Peter and His Church as being Rock, when the gates never prevailed against this apostolic see, when all the others failed. Peter’s apostolic see, suffered, but the gates of hell never prevailed against her, thus Jesus promises to Peter are made known through the history you reveal.

p.p.s Peter and Paul never founded any Church please be aware, that it was Jesus Christ himself that founded the Church upon Rock=Peter.

Tennis anyone?

Peace be with you

 

[Taurks]

I’ll let 1tim respond to the rest if she chooses - I’m not sure our differing opinions on this topic are reconcilable - but about this:

Not to mention your view of history does not reveal the cause and effects of the Pagan, heretical Eastern Emperor’s sided with the Patriarch’s of Constantinople to try and usurp a pre-Constantinople Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome that already existed pre-Constantinople. This is True Orthodoxy, Pre-Constantinople before any Patriarch of Constantinople ever existed, yet the Bishop’s of Rome (Popes)pre-exist any Patriarch’s of Constantinople.

The eastern Catholic Churches (in communion with you) venerate Constantine as a Saint - he cannot be called a pagan and a heretic.

 

[dzheremi]

Can I ask here why RCs often have trouble with the elevation of Constantinople via the council of 381 (what I’m assuming all this emphasizing of the fact that “this was PRE-CONSTANTINOPLE” is really about), when the churches it actually ‘demoted’, as I’ve sometimes heard Catholics put it, Alexandria and Antioch, accept it? The third canon disputed by Rome says “The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.” Meaning, Rome still retains her same place as she did before the elevation of Constantinople.

 

[Tzimisce]

I wonder - there are a few instances in the Bible where Jesus involves the Gentiles (specifically the Romans) as if there was no distinction. I was always under the impression that it made no difference to him what nationality or ethnicity one was:

It obviously made a difference because all of the disciples were Jewish.

 

[Tzimisce]

This is but one of the mistakes that Tzimisce has in his post, but you are correct.

St. Paul says it explicitely:
Ga 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Ro 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

Jesus was always chiding his disciples for not understanding his teachings.

I’m sure you could quote the Apostles and Saints and Theologians and Philosophers on all kinds of interpretations to Jesus’s words.

But that isn’t necessarily what Jesus taught. If the men that knew and lived and laughed and hung out with him didn’t always get it, how can someone who lived after Jesus be sure?

That said: Jesus taught his followers to obey the law. When he said “law”, he meant the Old Testament. He was so committed to following the old law, that even when it told him to suffer and die a humiliating death he did it.

But then he wandered off into the desert and suddenly all the old rules went out the window? That’s strange.

I think Jesus would have told anyone who wanted to follow him to become Jewish.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Gabriel of 12, your use of the “Pre-Constantinople” confuses me a little.

Are you referring to the fact that the city Byzantium, in which the Apostle Andrew, St. Peter’s older brother, founded the Church in centuries Before the Emperor Constantine moved the Capitol of the Roman Empire to and then change the name of it from Byzantium to Constantinople - this same city that in modern times is called Istanbul and yet despite the 2 name changes over the centuries, none the less still maintains uninterrupted Apostolic Succession back to St. Andrew… In other words do you mean Byzantium when you use that term?

Are you under the impression that because there has been name changes of that city that somehow that invalidates it’s Church’s Apostolic Succession?

 

[Taurks]

It obviously made a difference because all of the disciples were Jewish.

It is true, they were, but to me that makes sense by necessity - the Jews were expecting a Messiah and the Romans weren’t: their culture had no expectation for that. It would be like the Dalai Lama reincarnating in 1800s American society - nobody would understand him or the alleged signs that his tradition uses to recognize him. But as soon as Jesus came on the scene, though, he said a Jew is the same as a Roman (both can be “children of Abraham”, i.e. no privilege through cultural heritage is to be given to either one)

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry dear lady, just trying to get to grips with my new Apps. I actually thought that I had tacked it onto the end of Tomyris’s post as follows:-

Okey dokey, then.

Still not sure why it would be tacked on to the end of Tomyris’ post, but I will just let this drop.

I hope that you are keeping well PR.

Protector.

Thank you. I am well and hope that you are, too.

 

[NoWings]

Dear friend,

Is there one issue in particular that is holding you back from the Catholic Church?

God Bless you,
Patrick

No. There are lots of issues holding me back. Though, I’m not sure if I’m allowed to post in this thread. Isaiah, do I have your permission to post in this thread, or are you going to troll me again? I guess I better make sure non-Christians are welcome in this thread… I don’t want to be oppressing anyone again.

 

[Kliska]

It obviously made a difference because all of the disciples were Jewish.

“To the Jews first” is the refrain. There were to be twelve Jewish disciples to represent the twelve tribes of Israel. When Jesus was crucified and then rose again, the game changed. They, as a nation, rejected their Messiah, but He wasn’t done yet.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’ll let 1tim respond to the rest if she chooses - I’m not sure our differing opinions on this topic are reconcilable - but about this:

The eastern Catholic Churches (in communion with you) venerate Constantine as a Saint - he cannot be called a pagan and a heretic.

Constantine is pagan until his baptism on his death bed by an Arian (heretic) Priest, Let the facts fall were they lay.

Constantine’s recognized Saint hood is not brought into question by me. Constantine’s recognized authority by the Patriarch’s from the East over the Church’s is never welcomed by all the Patriarch’s who left their post’s into the desert, these later will become recognized Saints by both the East and Western Catholic Church as One.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12, your use of the “Pre-Constantinople” confuses me a little.

Are you referring to the fact that the city Byzantium, in which the Apostle Andrew, St. Peter’s older brother, founded the Church in centuries Before the Emperor Constantine moved the Capitol of the Roman Empire to and then change the name of it from Byzantium to Constantinople - this same city that in modern times is called Istanbul and yet despite the 2 name changes over the centuries, none the less still maintains uninterrupted Apostolic Succession back to St. Andrew… In other words do you mean Byzantium when you use that term?

Are you under the impression that because there has been name changes of that city that somehow that invalidates it’s Church’s Apostolic Succession?

I never question the apostolic succession. What I question is how pre-Constantinople Church history reveals the bishop’s of Rome having supremacy and pre-imenence over the Church when it is one for all other apostolic see’s are to follow. When you introduce a Change of history post-Constantinople that aquires a language of being “Raised” to something that is contrary to Andrew’s apostolic successor that did not need to be raised. Secular political powers infecting this “raised” position that vied for authority that it never had, yet attained it not by God, but by popular support in the East with Imperial political power.

In other words, the authority of Peter’s Chair is well documented from the first apostolic see’s pre-Constantinople. Post-Constantinople the authority of the apostolc see’s come into question, usurped and compete with the authority from the bishop’s of Rome from the Patriarch’s of Constantinople.

Insert this change of Patriarchial Imperial political power from Constantinople which the bishop’s of Byzantine never had pre-Constantinople into your history. Then the Truth is more telling and not one sided.

I just hoped to shed some light on your view of history that is all. The many points you mention become off topic to the OP to address. And a respectable response to each requires an in depth reasonable view of history, that removes this thread from the OP. That is all.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It obviously made a difference because all of the disciples were Jewish.

Correction; Luke was a Gentile, Timothy was a half Jew, who became disciples of Jesus. The first 12 chosen were all Jewish and one of these possessed a devil.

The 12 Jewish Tribes remained but there was one Jewish tribe that was lost and that Jewish Tribe was Dan.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

The OP asked me, a non-Catholic, 1 issue holding me back from becoming Catholic and my answer was that the 1 issue holding back is History. Nothing I’ve posted has gone outside that scope.

I encourage any one, Catholic or not, to read each of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I did. It opened my eyes as previously I’d held a skewed vision of history and what had been taught.

Two of many examples:

1. I had been under the false impression that the Pope Rome was the one who called together the Bishops for the Ecumenical Councils - reading the Councils themselves, I learned each were actually called by an Emperor or Emperess.
2. I had been under the false impression that never in history had a Pope of Rome ever been condemned for heresy - trading the Councils themselves, I learned that Pope Honorius of Rome had indeed been condemned for a heresy concerning Christ Himself in an Ecumenical Council and fell under anathema.

I never question the apostolic succession. What I question is how pre-Constantinople Church history reveals the bishop’s of Rome having supremacy and pre-imenence over the Church when it is one for all other apostolic see’s are to follow. When you introduce a Change of history post-Constantinople that aquires a language of being “Raised” to something that is contrary to Andrew’s apostolic successor that did not need to be raised. Secular political powers infecting this “raised” position that vied for authority that it never had, yet attained it not by God, but by popular support in the East with Imperial political power.

In other words, the authority of Peter’s Chair is well documented from the first apostolic see’s pre-Constantinople. Post-Constantinople the authority of the apostolc see’s come into question, usurped and compete with the authority from the bishop’s of Rome from the Patriarch’s of Constantinople.

Insert this change of Patriarchial Imperial political power from Constantinople which the bishop’s of Byzantine never had pre-Constantinople into your history. Then the Truth is more telling and not one sided.

I just hoped to shed some light on your view of history that is all. The many points you mention become off topic to the OP to address. And a respectable response to each requires an in depth reasonable view of history, that removes this thread from the OP. That is all.

Peace be with you

 

[Tzimisce]

“To the Jews first” is the refrain. There were to be twelve Jewish disciples to represent the twelve tribes of Israel. When Jesus was crucified and then rose again, the game changed. They, as a nation, rejected their Messiah, but He wasn’t done yet.

See there’s the sticking point. The Christians always say “God loves us all equally”. But he holds the Jews in higher regard?

 

[Kliska]

See there’s the sticking point. The Christians always say “God loves us all equally”. But he holds the Jews in higher regard?

Rather, they were chosen for a purpose. The Messiah, the Son of God, had to come out of some people group, since He had to be human.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

See there’s the sticking point. The Christians always say “God loves us all equally”. But he holds the Jews in higher regard?

The Jews are his chosen people. Where do you get high regard?
**
****Proverbs 3:34 Toward the scorners he is scornful, **but to the humble he shows favor.

Salvation is available to all through Jesus Christ.

---

 

[PJM]

Tzimisce;

Jehovah is the God of the Jews. The Old Testament is solely about the Jews.

First allow me to welcome you to the Forum. As a self -appointed “pagan” your quite informed.

An FYI: The term “Jehovah” is not a common Christian term. Yahweh in the OT and Jesus Christ in the NT are the norm.

Jesus came. He was a Rabbi. He had twelve disciples [Apostles Mt.10:2]. They were all Jews. Judas killed himself. Jesus replaced him with another Jew.

Actually Jesus was not a Rabi. That is part is why His teaching were so powerful and meaningful. He was considered a “teacher” by many and a Prophet by a few. And Peter not Jesus replaced Judas. Acts 1: 15-26

I don’t believe that Jesus came for the Gentiles. He might have spoken about them or made vague references too them. But he wasn’t here for them

Here you’re wrong. READ Mt . 10: 1-10, which supports this position; BUT then read Mt. 28:16-20 and see at the last moment Jesus changes the mandate from teaching only the “Jews”; to cf. The ENTIRE World.” Also Paul was chosen by Christ to preach top the gentiles. And 2 Cor.5:15 affirms that Christ came “for all.”

After Jesus disappeared into the desert, his disciples tried to continue his work. They went into the Synagogues because they were Jews. And the Rabbis in those temples threw them out into the streets. So the disciples began to preach outside the Synagogues.

I’m not sure of your source here; but it too is incorrect. Jesus ascended BACK into heaven. [Jn. 20:17] The persecution was twofold: The Pharisees and Sadducees & the Roman Govt.

The people in the streets were Gentiles. Only then did the mass conversion begin.

Not a huge point but the Mission from Christ Mt. 28:16-20 & Mk. 17: 14-15 is to the “entire WORLD” and takes place just prior to Christ Ascension into heaven.

It didn’t take long for the Gentiles to start to outnumber the Jews. This caused a problem for the new Christian movement. How can non-Jews be a part of Jesus’s movement? Jesus was a very devote Jew

Again this is at best incomplete. Jesus was an “Obedient” Jew; but not in His Ministry a “devout Jew.” He Obeyed His Own Commandments; but not the 603 additional man added rules.Mk. 2:27 & Jn. 9:14 verify this.

One of the disciples (John I think) argued that Jesus had created a new covenant with God. Thus - some of the old rules like circumcision didn’t apply anymore. The argument won out and thus Christianity was created

The OT had as its goal to lead to Christ [the Messiah] in the NT. The NT completed; improved and even perfected the OT. So Circumcision which was for the males only; and females were hrafted in through their fathers and husbands was perfected with Sacramental Baptism, and applied to all in the New Covenant. Jn. 3:5

I don’t believe this. Jesus was a practicing Jew up till the day he disappeared. Christians who want to be like him should hold Saturday as the Sabbath day. They should stop eating pork. They should be circumcised - just like Jesus was

Sunday has been selected by the Church who are empowered by God to make that call. Mt.16:18-19; Jn.17:18 & Jn.20:21 all prove this. More recently the Church Fathers have added Saturday evening Mass also. As for the Pork; READ Mt. 15: 11-18 & on the Covenant READ
Heb. 8:6-13

The Bible only makes sense if someone looks at it from the Jewish perspective. The “Angry God” of the Old Testament and the “Loving God” of the New Testament is very consistent if looked at from the Jewish perspective

There is but One true God. Judith 5:9 & Mk. 12:29, Yahweh and Jesus are the SAME God. Mt. 3: 13-17; The “Angry God” is the “Fair and Just God”, angered by man’s sins.

Even the Catholics themselves refer to the Jews as “God’s Chosen people”

OK, and that was then and this is now “My Church” Mt 16:18 [singular] too.

I don’t reject the God of the Jews. I don’t deny the God of the Jews. I’ve just never been included in his covenants, his history, his promises{/QUOTE]

Why SURE you are. As a FYI: Space is limited on the FORUM so my response is brief.

God Bless you;
Patrick PJM} on CAF

 

[PJM]

=Taurks;11754583]Dear Brother,
While it is impossible to solve 1000 years of history and theological debate in a short message, I would just simply say (with humility and with no ill-will) that the Orthodox have reasons to hold their position. At the council of Ephesus, the Church declared in its seventh canon there may be no future changes to the Nicene Creed, or to issue a new one:

“When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith (ἑτέραν πίστιν) as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa. But those who shall dare to compose a different Creed (ἕτερον σύμβολον), or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.”

THANK YOU For sharing that.

As a FYI; I THINK that is a matter of church practice not a dogmatic or Doctrine so it would have been changeable:thumbsup:

God Bless you Brother!

 

[PJM]

=1Tim215Mommy;11754949]**Dearest Patrick,

I understand that from the modern Catholic point of view, it was the Orthodox Church that left Catholicism and not the other way around. And from your post, this seems to be the point of view that you have as well.

I’m not responding to your post to change your point of view…but simply to express mine.**

My point of view is based on my reading the 7 Ecumenical Councils and also the Church Fathers on both sides of the isle of two issues behind the eventual ex-communication in 1054 of Rome by Patriarch of Constantinople (this ex-communication of the Church of Rome was ultimately upheld by the other 3 Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria & Jerusalem in addition to Constantinople):

1. The changes to the Creed formulated by the Councils of Nicea & Constantinople.

1. Papal Supremacy

The First Issue argued by the West & the East** though it was originally argue by the West (local council of Toledo, Spain & the Franks) against the West (Patriarch of Rome)** : was the Nicean-Constantinoplian Creed

This issue encompassed both the making of the changes to the Creed by the West & also the content of one of the two changes made by the West.

The 1st Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (as well as confirmed by subsequent Ecumenical Councils) had issued an Anathama against any Christian who dared to believed or teach another Creed & on any Christian who changed the Creed so much as an iota.

The content added by the West was 2 separate phrases: “God from God” (Jesus is God from God the Father) besides falling under the multiple Anathamas - this phrase wasn’t an issue of Faith since the Creed already read “True God from True God” which conveys the same Truth, BUT the 2nd phrase added “And the Son” (The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from both the Father & the Son) - this is was a huge issue!!! Because not only did it fall under the multiple Anathamas, it was an issue of Faith since this phrase contradicted what had always been taught from the beginning of the Church.** This phrase “And the Son”, in Latin “Filioque”, was originally promoted by a local council in Spain & the Franks, but condemned as heretical by the Patriarchs (Popes) of Rome. It was eventually accepted by a later Patriarch (Pope) of Rome - some historians record that the eventual acceptance of the change to the Creed by Rome was a concession made in order for Rome to gain the power to coronate Charlemagne.**

The Second Issue was of Papal Supremacy (Note: It wasn’t Papal Infallibility - that idea hadn’t even entered the imaginations of anyone yet).

A few things:

1. Per an Ecumenical Council, Rome held a special place in the Church - specifically the Patriarch of Rome was given the title of First Among Equals. The Ecumenical Council detailed that it was because Rome (Old Rome) had been the Imperial City and Constantinople held 2nd place as it was the New Rome/New Imperial City. The point to be stressed here is that all Bishops are Equals.
2. Over the centuries, as Rome continued to become isolated from the other 4 Patriarchs not only by location but also by language - the rest of the Church continued to use Greek while Rome had changed to use Latin - and was under consistently attack by the barbarians. Rome became the Mecca of the West and began to see themselves the whole enchilada, so to speak, with a jurisdiction not only of Rome but of the whole world.
3. Later their writings began to included references to their importance being based on St. Peter founding the Church in Rome to back up their claims - forgetting perhaps that it was both Sts. Peter & Paul who jointly founded the Church in Rome AND forgetting perhaps that St. Peter first founded the Church in Antioch before ever going to Rome. Both the Patriarchs of Church of Antioch & of the Church of Rome have authentic Apostolic Succession back to St. Peter - yet Antioch wasn’t named 2nd to Rome by the Ecumenical Council, Constantinople was - a confirmation that Rome’s importance wasn’t due to the person or office of St. Peter.
4. History shows that the Church always recognized all Bishops as being equal in authority - including Metropolitans & Patriarchs, while Bishops of the largest cities were called Patriarch. Over the centuries, as the Orthodox Church has grown, new Patriarchates have been named as such - like Moscow - based on their size & secular importance.

Again, I’m not trying to convince you to change your mind about anything Patrick. I’m just letting you know on what I base my point of view.

Sincere THANKS for such an effort.

I’m 69 and quite a few years ago do read and study ALL of the Council documents. I have forgotten much more than I recall. However that is NOT the ISSUE FOR ME.

Rather I looked first at OT history and traditions of God having always chosen One man to lead His people: Noah; Abraham; The Judges, David and Jacob; the Prophets; John the Baptist, then Jesus who followed suit by choosing 12 men and PETER as their leader.

I have a bible-document that shows 50 “Peter First” and that is the basis for my, and the RCC position of date.

Again following the OT Model of One God; only One Faith and Through Only One Church.

Mt. 28:19-20; Mt. 16:15-20; Jn.17:14-20; Jn. 17:18 & Jn. 20:21 are very precise and specific, if read carefully.

I LOVE the Orthodox Worship; but that is not the issue either. WHAT IS GOD"S WILL? And Christ assured us that the Gate of Hell shall not prevail…That my bother IS thee issue for me.

Continued Blessings,
Patrick