Anglican Holy Orders

[luckyfredsdad]

luckyfredsdad;5993338:

Just when and where did this happen? You’re making it up
Is it not rather arrogant for a member of a catholic sect,to decide what the Catholic and Apostolic Church should either do or not do?

Gabriel of 12;

Need not give you a history lesson here, the reality is where does the Anglican Church stand with the Pope? Is she in full communion with the Pope or not today? If you check reality the Anglican is not in full communion with the Chair of Peter present day Pope, you thank your Anglican King who placed himself above the Church.

**Had you read my previous posts, as would be mannerly before you comment, you would find that I have answered a lot of the points you raise . **

There is no need to vent your negative innuendos about the Catholic Church. For example there is no need to introduce new invented accusations about the Catholic church by labeling the body of Jesus Christ as a “sect”.

I have never accused the ,‘Catholic Church,’ of being a sect. You should re appraise my contributiion.I accused the Roman Church of this folly. A totally different thing.The Roman Church in my estimation, stemming from both studying and teaching Church History ,is that The Roman Church is made up of two entities A. The Bishopric of Rome.Plus the Suburbicarian Churches whose care was given to her by various Emperors and the Church.
B. ****Those Churches whose Bishops surrendered their Catholic responsibilities on to the popes shoulders at the Council of Trent. That is when these two groups made a new sect. ****
.

The decisions of the Catholic church are God given authority, from Jesus himself, placed these Keys of authority and the office of binding and loosing upon His Kingdom on earth to Peter and his apostles. King Henry disobeyed the authority of Peter and was given an annulment by his own church and by his own authority.

So I have been told and I’m willing to accept the teaching if I find it in Christ’s revelation, or Holy Tradition, or indeed from yourself if you can find it!

It needs to be mentioned here that at one time King Henry VIII was a great defender of the Catholic Church when he was in full communion with the Pope. I believe because the Anglican priests were threatened by death, torture, and or confiscation of property if the Bishops and priests disobeyed King Henry, that the Catholic Pope can have leniency and made possible for Anglican Priests and Bishops back into full communion with Peter’s Chair and Apostolic succession. Including the 2000 year old understanding of “universal” term “Catholic” to define the body of Jesus Christ, not a “Sect” which becomes a heretical term if used by catholics.

I have no wish to offend you, but when the Bishop of Rome takes upon himself various responsibilities, such as Jurisdiction and Infallibility and lays what I have been taught to believe are unjust criticisms upon that Communion I am responsible to, I cannot stand to one side.

In summary, I have responded earlier to the OP about valid Anglican Holy Orders, from King Henry’s time, you apparently have many posters here at a disadvantage when you confuse the timeline of the events from history to today’s status of the Anglican Church. Please make the distinction. It may save you alot of needless anxiety.
Peace be with you

I have already made clear my distaste for the present policies or beliefs allowed and taught by the Anglican Communion! I no longer believe that these people, especially at the top, as it were, are Catholics. In that case it follows that they cannot, to my mind be Anglicans as Anglicanism is simply the Cathollic Church in England.
In short I am a Continuing Catholic. Not I hast to point out a member of the TAC. My apologies for any hurt my remarks cause you, yet you will appreciate I have very little choice!

 

[grandfather]

One of thse daft people was my relative. A Catholic priest. He was arrested, imprisoned. Sentenced to death for no crime. Dragged on the ground behind horses through the streets to Tyburn through mobs of gouls who spat and hit at him, jeering. There he was hanged but cut down before he was dead. While he was still alive they bound him and cut open his abdomen and pulled out his intestines but left them still attached to his body when they trew his intestines into a fire. He could watch them burn and feel them burning. They beheaded him then. And chopped his body into four quarters and boiled eachh quarter in oil. His head they placed on a spike and the quarters of his body they hung up here and there.
But he knew he would die like this if he was caught, he was a Catholic priest and his job was to tend to his Catholic friends wherever he found them. If you mean he was too daft to come in out of the rain he would dissagree with you I think. He would not follow your logic of abandoning his friends nor would he abandon his faith, in the face of danger.
You may keep your Anglican Church.

And now those who come after the persecutors and haters of Catholics, insist they are Catholic.

You can be sure that your ancestor intercedes for his murderers and their progeny, and his prayers are being heard in part. Many will return to Rome, the true Church that will prevail against the gates of hell, but the obstinate will remain apart and continue to wither and die rejecting not only the Catholic faith, but the morals of all of our and their holy forebears.

 

[JaMc]

Why is it the English Reformation 1533/34?

That’s when Henry VIII declared himself the “Supreme Head of the Church of England,” severing the C of E from the authority of Rome.

The English Reformtion is still going on, what do you think is the trouble today?

You could argue that it is still going on today, but, with female and (open and practicing) homosexual Priests and Bishops; liberal attitude toward moral issues, such as abortion, divorce and re-marriage, same sex relations, etc.; and somewhat shabby treatment of Anglican Traditionalists, it is questionable whether it is moving in the right direction. Before I get jumped on, I know this isn’t the case in all Anglican provinces or the Traditional Anglican Communion - I’m just talking about the C of E.

Rome had a splendidly Catholic attitude towards her opponents, real or imagined! The Auto-Da-Fe, the whip, the galleys and just plain downright murder such as the S. Bartholomew Massacre in 1570. It took the best of 200 yrs to bring the French reformers to boot. All with mental and physical cruelty, or chiefly!
But in England, the Church that you jeer at so easily used the tactics of the Cross, they took their opponents in to the Church and sought to teach them the faith! It didn’t work, we had Roman seperatists on one side and protestant ones on the other!
You should drop thee fantasies and read up your history!

Many Catholics were martyred under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. While, in history, there is no denying that there was violence against Protestants and non-Christians in the name of Catholicism, there was also violence against Catholics in the name of Anglicanism. “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” The Church of England didn’t simply send friendly and helpful missionaries to try and gently persuade the Catholics that the King, rather than the Pope, should be in charge of the Church of England - it was either acknowledge that the King was Supreme Head of the Church of England or face gruesome execution as a traitor.

This is not even mentioning the legal discrimination against Catholics which lasted right up until the 19th Century.

 

[grandfather]

This is not even mentioning the legal discrimination against Catholics which lasted right up until the 19th Century.

I read something of interest in the India Times yesterday. Remember that India was brutally surpressed by the Empire and they remain somewhat interested in things British, polo and such. It said there is a proposal to eliminate the law against Catholics being able to inherit the thone, and forbidding the throne from being inherited by someone married to a Catholic. The idea is that this prohibition is outmoded and is no longer necessary.

The Prime Minsiter of England is promoting this and it is interesting for a couple of reasons.

First, the law bans “Catholics” from the throne or those married to a Catholic. But Anglicans now claim they are Catholic.

The second point is future related. If the change is made it opens the doors to a Catholic king or queen. That sneaky old pope will accomplish his nefarious mission of gaining political control of the country and the Church of England. I sure hope not though.

I get the impression that the royals are kind of tired of being heads of their church. Liz and Chick are really not that interested and it has become such an embarrasment. They tolerate it. It comes with the palaces and crowns, but it is uncomfortable at best.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

First, the law bans “Catholics” from the throne or those married to a Catholic. But Anglicans now claim they are Catholic.

As far as I know, the law doesn’t ban ,‘Catholics,’ from the throne, or those married to them. It wouldn’t be bad if you ever got anything aright. What the Law bans, unless I’m mistaken is Roman Catholics, a vastly different thing. Catholics are OK! This is because Roman Catholics in the 17th, and 18th, century were looked upon as monsters. Think of the burnings in Spain and the inquisition in Italy. the two hundred years war in France that didn’t end till 1715. This is to say nothing of the 80yrs war the Dutch people fought for their independence against Spain. Independence and freedom of religion.

By the way, please don’t try the wit angle, doesn’t come off. Try juggling instead,as a comedian you don’t come across at all well…
Funnily, enough, the last Roman Catholic King was thrown out with a force of soldiers paid for by papal money! The pope preferred a Protestant/Calvinist to a Roman Catholic King! It was the Anglicans who tried to get him restored for some 88yrs.
As for these ,‘royals,’ I hope they join Rome, in all the years the family have been here they have bled the country white and have done nothing at all for the Church! In fact to my mind, ‘Rome,’ deserves them.

I get the impression that the royals are kind of tired of being heads of their church. Liz and Chick are really not that interested and it has become such an embarrasment. They tolerate it. It comes with the palaces and crowns, but it is uncomfortable at best.

Could very well be, let’s hope so!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

**Had you read my previous posts, as would be mannerly before you comment, you would find that I have answered a lot of the points you raise . **

Gabriel of 12;
Forgive me, but my original post was addressed to the O.P, but thank you for your response.

Luckyfredsdad;
I have never accused the ,‘Catholic Church,’ of being a sect. You should re appraise my contributiion.I accused the Roman Church of this folly. A totally different thing.The Roman Church in my estimation, stemming from both studying and teaching Church History ,is that The Roman Church is made up of two entities A. The Bishopric of Rome.Plus the Suburbicarian Churches whose care was given to her by various Emperors and the Church.
B. ****Those Churches whose Bishops surrendered their Catholic responsibilities on to the popes shoulders at the Council of Trent. That is when these two groups made a new sect. ****

Gabriel of 12:
Your quote here “Is it not rather arrogant for a member of a catholic sect,to decide what the Catholic and Apostolic Church should either do or not do?” causes much confusion for me. But then again I am not used to hearing Protestants reference themselves as catholics.

I am still not clear who you are referencing as a sect? In any case, let me clear somethings up here. The Roman Catholic Church consists of all Bishops world wide in communion with the Pope who resides in Rome as the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome by himself is an equal to all Bishops and Patriarchs worldwide. The Bishop of Rome presides over Rome he is never infallible by himself, only in the collection with the college of Bishops successors to the Apostles world wide with the Pope when a Bishop is infallible. The Pope is infallible meaning protected by the Holy Spirit from error on faith and morals.

The Pope who is the Bishop of Rome which authenticates his Apostolic Episcopal office, oversees the entire flock of Jesus entrusted to him by Jesus (See Matthew 16:14-19) The Pope being successor from St. Peter has been prayed for by Jesus to bring back his brethern who have fallen away. (Luke 21:31-32, John 21:15-19), but “those who reject you reject me”, says Jesus himself.
.
In short, when discussing the Church’s history, please no the difference between “give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar, and give to God what belongs to God”. In other words dont confuse what Catholic Kings did by their own authority and group their history by blaming it all on Holy Mother Church. If you did a correct reading of Church History you will find Catholic Kings acting outside of the restraints of Holy Mother Church for self gain and power. These Kings acted upon their own authority, or over excerted their governance for self gain. What you do find is the Pope and the magisterium spilling their blood to protect the innocent, and bring back sinners to repentance. Yes this even happened in the inquistions.

It is easy to paint history with a broad paint brush, but it is not fair to those Catholic Bishops, Priests, and laypersons who went out to put water on the flames at the expense of their own lives. By your comments, you have never been instructed of the Whole Truth, only what tickled your ears. Truth is.

Peace be with you

 

[grandfather]

What do you call someone who hates royals, but whose church was established by the king who claimed to be its head and whose religious leaders recognize royalty as the only fitting object of earthly worship?

An Epsicopalian, maybe?

What do you call someone whose religious leaders embrace royalty and whose church was established by the king who claimed to be its head and whose religious leaders recognize royalty as the only fitting object of earthly worship?

An Anglican, possibly?

What do you call someone whose church’s head bishop is a woman and the majority of its other bishops believe men can marry men?

An Episcopalian, definitely.

What do you call someone who believes men marry women, rejects royalty as the head of his church, and who hates Catholicism while claiming to be Catholic?

This is a multiple choice question folks:

A. A Protestant
B. A non-denominational Bible believing Protestant Christian
C. A disaffected Episcopalian
D. Lost and confused
E. Angry lost and confused
F. All of the above

 

[RevDrNorth]

What do you call someone who hates royals, but whose church was established by the king who claimed to be its head and whose religious leaders recognize royalty as the only fitting object of earthly worship?

An Epsicopalian, maybe?

What do you call someone whose religious leaders embrace royalty and whose church was established by the king who claimed to be its head and whose religious leaders recognize royalty as the only fitting object of earthly worship?

An Anglican, possibly?

What do you call someone whose church’s head bishop is a woman and the majority of its other bishops believe men can marry men?

An Episcopalian, definitely.

What do you call someone who believes men marry women, rejects royalty as the head of his church, and who hates Catholicism while claiming to be Catholic?

This is a multiple choice question folks:

A. A Protestant
B. A non-denominational Bible believing Protestant Christian
C. A disaffected Episcopalian
D. Lost and confused
E. Angry lost and confused
F. All of the above

Are you for real? For every silly piece of hyperbole you can through out anyone could sit there and point out issue after issue with the Catholic Church (gay Bishops and clergy, gay Bishop who ordained male lover in AZ (?), cover up and moving of pedophile priests that created even more victims and so on). Do you really want someone to create the same dialogue only with the RCC as the butt of the joke.

In other words give the silly hyperbole a rest. Churches are filled with sinful and misguided human beings. I agree with the fact there are issues with the Episcopal Church (huge ones). Lack of respect for biblical authority on any number of issues, horrible unchristian law suits to deprive congregations of their property and so on. But the RCC is full of its own very embarrassing issues.

The RCC will need a long time to recover from the self damage over its own permissive culture that allowed sexual sin to flourish among its leadership. We need the RCC"s leadership so I pray for Benedict XVI and his successor that they may continue the restoration of the RCC as a moral and religious institution shining God’s love throughout the world. Go Papal Rottweiler (love that nickname).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Unfortunately Anglicanism in the Global South is largely very evangelical and anglo-catholics have no influence or presence in that part of the world. If you follow the current trends there you’ll see women’s ordination is catching on; more and more African bishops are permitting W.O. It is not a good sign that Anglicanism is dying in England and is polarized and full of civil war and infighting as well as chaotic theology abounds in North America. Canterbury used to be the gold standard for Anglicanism long ago but in the last twenty years it is totally irrelevent. There is no unity in Anglicanism as it is a loose confederation of provinces that have little in common save for a prayer book. Lay ordinations, homosexual ‘marriage,’ abortion, divorce/remarriage and the ticking timebomb of women’s ordination have done their damage on the Anglican Communion. There are overlapping dioceses with bishops claiming one another’s dioceses, and attendance numbers are down all over the place in England and North America. What you’re seeing, as you said, is growth in Africa but really nowhere else of any sizable number. And with women’s ordination tainting African ecclesiology it is only a matter of time before African Anglicanism is as watered-down as it is here. Africans by nature of their culture tend to be more conservative whether it is African Catholics, African Lutherans, or African Anglicans. Anglicanism tends to mold its values around the populace’s values, not by an objective moral criterion. It’s no surprise that Anglicans in my area of Central California are very conservative. This is a highly Republican, conservative agricultural, traditional part of California. It’s also no surprise that Anglicans are more conservative in Forth Worth, TX, the heart of conservative living, or in Africa. But even these places are succumbing to worldly secular ideas like women’s ordination and remarriage after divorce. I don’t see Africa’s sizable Anglican numbers as a sign that Anglicanism will survive.

grandfather,

While I tend to agree about the issue of the Episcopal Church and the Cof E dying, Anglicanism is actually vibrant and growing. It is growing by leaps and bounds among conservative Anglicans in the global south. There they are orthodox, on fire for Christ and on the move. This is why they sponsored Anglican Communion groups in the US and Canada.

Anglicanism will not likely die by a long short but the days of being centered in Canterbury are likely coming to an end. Anglicanism will be centered in Africa and elsewhere in the southern hemisphere.

 

[RevDrNorth]

Unfortunately Anglicanism in the Global South is largely very evangelical and anglo-catholics have no influence or presence in that part of the world. If you follow the current trends there you’ll see women’s ordination is catching on; more and more African bishops are permitting W.O. It is not a good sign that Anglicanism is dying in England and is polarized and full of civil war and infighting as well as chaotic theology abounds in North America. Canterbury used to be the gold standard for Anglicanism long ago but in the last twenty years it is totally irrelevent. There is no unity in Anglicanism as it is a loose confederation of provinces that have little in common save for a prayer book. Lay ordinations, homosexual ‘marriage,’ abortion, divorce/remarriage and the ticking timebomb of women’s ordination have done their damage on the Anglican Communion. There are overlapping dioceses with bishops claiming one another’s dioceses, and attendance numbers are down all over the place in England and North America. What you’re seeing, as you said, is growth in Africa but really nowhere else of any sizable number. And with women’s ordination tainting African ecclesiology it is only a matter of time before African Anglicanism is as watered-down as it is here. Africans by nature of their culture tend to be more conservative whether it is African Catholics, African Lutherans, or African Anglicans. Anglicanism tends to mold its values around the populace’s values, not by an objective moral criterion. It’s no surprise that Anglicans in my area of Central California are very conservative. This is a highly Republican, conservative agricultural, traditional part of California. It’s also no surprise that Anglicans are more conservative in Forth Worth, TX, the heart of conservative living, or in Africa. But even these places are succumbing to worldly secular ideas like women’s ordination and remarriage after divorce. I don’t see Africa’s sizable Anglican numbers as a sign that Anglicanism will survive.

Yes women’s ordination is a huge issue AND you are correct that African Anglicanism tends to be conservative but evangelical. I think Anglicanism will survive and thrive (south) but the TEC and the Cof E are dying. The damage done by the TEC means that the likelihood of the Anglicanism ever having the influence or size it once had is not great. though it (Anglicans) may still be a significant denomination. Besides, everyone (including the RCC) are loosing people to so called non denominational churches.

 

[grandfather]

Are you for real? QUOTE]

Calm down Reverend Doctor.

The future of Anglicanism is hanging in the balance here. Rowan is in a tough spot trying to hold it all together. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think he is up to it.

You all have some difficult calls to make. If you were Catholic you could call on Rome for help, but having none of that, you have to deal with some serious disorder. It is all coming unglued.

Don’t worry about the Catholics. They will get through their difficulties. It is not your problem, but truly thanks for your prayers.

Everyone affiliated with the CofE truly needs to do some soul searching. They have to figure out for themselves where they will go, or with whom they will go.

Those dominating the American group are so far gone that remaining in that affiliation is not an option for the sane. There difference between them and the English is marginal at best. All Rowan wanted to do was postpone the radical agenda. This group has truly lost faith.

Some others will make their final escape and accept the welcome extended by Rome.

A third group will become affiliated with the Africans. But what will they call themselves? Will they say they are Anglican and debate over who is truly Anglican? Will they be Afro-Anglo-Catholics, Afro-Anglo-Catholics-in America?

The same hurricane afflicts all. Peter’s boat will be storm tossed, but it will never break up and sink. The same evils of the day attack all. Our only hope is divine protection. God will not abandon His Church and all are welcome aboard. The rest will founder.

 

[JaMc]

Are you for real? For every silly piece of hyperbole you can through out anyone could sit there and point out issue after issue with the Catholic Church (gay Bishops and clergy, gay Bishop who ordained male lover in AZ (?), cover up and moving of pedophile priests that created even more victims and so on). Do you really want someone to create the same dialogue only with the RCC as the butt of the joke.

The major difference is, though, that the Episcopal Church, Church of England, and Anglican Church of Canada openly allow homosexual clergy and bishops, whereas in the Roman Catholic Church such clergy and bishops managed to “slip through” despite a clear moral position that such relationships are wrong.

As for the old sex abuse scandal canard, I would bet dollars to doughnuts the exact same thing has gone on in Anglican dioceses over the years.

In other words give the silly hyperbole a rest. Churches are filled with sinful and misguided human beings. I agree with the fact there are issues with the Episcopal Church (huge ones). Lack of respect for biblical authority on any number of issues, horrible unchristian law suits to deprive congregations of their property and so on. But the RCC is full of its own very embarrassing issues.

The RCC will need a long time to recover from the self damage over its own permissive culture that allowed sexual sin to flourish among its leadership. We need the RCC"s leadership so I pray for Benedict XVI and his successor that they may continue the restoration of the RCC as a moral and religious institution shining God’s love throughout the world. Go Papal Rottweiler (love that nickname).

Agreed. While Humanae Vitae made it clear that Paul VI wasn’t taking us down the same road as the left wing of the Anglican Communion (and the reception of Humanae Vitae in the West showed Paul VI that many, up to that point, thought he was…), the “smoke of Satan” that entered the sanctuary still needs to be cleared out. Pope Benedict, through his “reform of the reform,” seems to be doing a good job so far. Let’s just pray that, like Leo XIII, he hangs in there long enough to get the job done.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Are you for real? For every silly piece of hyperbole you can through out anyone could sit there and point out issue after issue with the Catholic Church (gay Bishops and clergy, gay Bishop who ordained male lover in AZ (?), cover up and moving of pedophile priests that created even more victims and so on). Do you really want someone to create the same dialogue only with the RCC as the butt of the joke.

In other words give the silly hyperbole a rest. Churches are filled with sinful and misguided human beings. I agree with the fact there are issues with the Episcopal Church (huge ones). Lack of respect for biblical authority on any number of issues, horrible unchristian law suits to deprive congregations of their property and so on. But the RCC is full of its own very embarrassing issues.

The RCC will need a long time to recover from the self damage over its own permissive culture that allowed sexual sin to flourish among its leadership. We need the RCC"s leadership so I pray for Benedict XVI and his successor that they may continue the restoration of the RCC as a moral and religious institution shining God’s love throughout the world. Go Papal Rottweiler (love that nickname).

Gabriel of 12;

Amen, Amen Jesus words come to pass when he promised Peter, the gates of hell will come against you, but they will NEVER PREVAIL. Thus 2000 years of successors to Peter in the Popes and Bishops to successors to the Apostles, God’s Word remains faithful in season and out of season. “Praise be Jesus Christ both now and forever”

 

[luckyfredsdad]

luckyfredsdad;5997082:

. The Roman Catholic Church consists of all Bishops world wide in communion with the Pope who resides in Rome as the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome by himself is an equal to all Bishops and Patriarchs worldwide

I wouldn’t argue with the above. I agree totally, my argument, born out by the Fathers is that Rome is not the Catholic Church , The Body of Christ. It is a sect , the offspring of a Robber Council, in 1564, or thereabouts
**You ignore two essential points to my mind!
!. Vincent of Lerins’s strictures regarding General Councils," Seek the authority of General Councils,this where such have been held. Their decision s come first as authorised and final interpreters of scriptures"
2. The instructions of the Council of Trent. Which are, or were till recently, obligatory on all ecclesiatsics and converts,‘who promise and swear that they will continue in obedience to the Church of Rome and then continues regarding scripture,] nor will I ever understand or interpret it , except according to the unanimous consent of the holy fathers.’ **

**With both the Councils and fathers, the pope is given only a place of honour and rank. He is Patriarch of the West and First amongst equals.
He is not mentioned in Scripture or Tradition, in fact as he is a creature of the papacy’s own creation!
**

The Bishop of Rome presides over Rome he is never infallible by himself, only in the collection with the college of Bishops successors to the Apostles world wide with the Pope when a Bishop is infallible. The Pope is infallible meaning protected by the Holy Spirit from error on faith and morals.

**Within the Catholic Church, as far as I can see Infallibilty is the prerogative of the Holy Fathers in Council, [Seven Ecumenical Councils,] and that after the fact of acceptance by the whole Church!
The whole magisterium, or authority, lies within the Episcopal College which is, led by the Holy Ghost, through the same Councils.
**

The Pope who is the Bishop of Rome which authenticates his Apostolic Episcopal office, oversees the entire flock of Jesus entrusted to him by Jesus (See Matthew 16:14-19) The Pope being successor from St. Peter has been prayed for by Jesus to bring back his brethern who have fallen away. (Luke 21:31-32, John 21:15-19), but “those who reject you reject me”, says Jesus himself.

**The sayings of Christ are to be looked at through the interpretation of the Fathers, Launoy, a jesuit, when studying this question found that only 17 fathers thought that Christ refered to Peter as the Rock, whilst 44, Fathers thought Christ was refering to Peter’s Faith! 16 other fathers thought the reference was to Christ Himself. Origen, said,‘On this rock, that is to say on all men who have the same faith.’

.**

It is easy to paint history with a broad paint brush, but it is not fair to those Catholic Bishops, Priests, and laypersons who went out to put water on the flames at the expense of their own lives. By your comments, you have never been instructed of the Whole Truth, only what tickled your ears. Truth is

Truth is through scripture and interpreted by the fathers with the aid of the Holy Ghost.Truth is ,as you rightly say!

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;5998895]
Quote:
. The Roman Catholic Church consists of all Bishops world wide in communion with the Pope who resides in Rome as the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome by himself is an equal to all Bishops and Patriarchs worldwide

luckyfredsdad;
I wouldn’t argue with the above. I agree totally, my argument, born out by the Fathers is that Rome is not the Catholic Church , The Body of Christ. It is a sect , the offspring of a Robber Council, in 1564, or thereabouts

Gabriel of 12;
Can you define how you would conclude that “the body of Jesus Christ is a sect”, please? No one argues that Rome is the Catholic Church. As a Roman Catholic I believe the Catholic Church is the body of Jesus Christ, what you introduce here is never believed or stated as you present here. An early Church father once recoded “where Peter is, there is the Catholic Church”

luckyfredsdad;
You ignore two essential points to my mind!
!. Vincent of Lerins’s strictures regarding General Councils," Seek the authority of General Councils,this where such have been held. Their decision s come first as authorised and final interpreters of scriptures"
2. The instructions of the Council of Trent. Which are, or were till recently, obligatory on all ecclesiatsics and converts,‘who promise and swear that they will continue in obedience to the Church of Rome and then continues regarding scripture,] nor will I ever understand or interpret it , except according to the unanimous consent of the holy fathers.’

With both the Councils and fathers, the pope is given only a place of honour and rank. He is Patriarch of the West and First amongst equals.
He is not mentioned in Scripture or Tradition, in fact as he is a creature of the papacy’s own creation!

Gabriel of 12;
Here are a few early Church Father quotes and early councils that conflict with your views here; Whether or not your Orthodoxy recognizes these historical figures and councils, one cannot deny the fact that Peter’s successors in the Line of Popes is recognized as having supreme authority authenticated by Jesus himself, and was believed in.

Tatian the Syrian
“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

The Clementine Homilies
“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Origen
“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

**Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

“There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly * in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another” (ibid., 66[69]:8). **
Firmilian
“But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

cont.**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

“[Pope] Stephen * . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (ibid., 74[75]:17).

Ephraim the Syrian
“[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).

Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

**Council of Ephesus
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]). **

Sechnall of Ireland
“Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not” (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).

Pope Leo I
“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).

cont;*

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

**Council of Chalcedon
“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]). **

Gabriel of 12;
It is easy to paint history with a broad paint brush, but it is not fair to those Catholic Bishops, Priests, and laypersons who went out to put water on the flames at the expense of their own lives. By your comments, you have never been instructed of the Whole Truth, only what tickled your ears. Truth is

luckyfredsdad;
Truth is through scripture and interpreted by the fathers with the aid of the Holy Ghost.Truth is ,as you rightly say!

Gabriel of 12;
Truth is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ built his Church upon Peter (Rock) this Truth is revealed from history in every age of the builiding of the Church and Popes taking the Church to new worlds and new peoples in every age, she did not remain idle in her orthodoxy of language and culture when she first recieved her gospel message, the Popes taught the gospels to every people, tongue and nation.

Jesus gave Peter the keys to his kingdom to bind and loose on earth, and Jesus will bind and loose in heaven what ever Peter bound and loosed. This Truth from Jesus is revealed from history and has come to pass, that the Popes have bound heresies, heretics, apostates on earth from the body of Jesus Christ, then the Popes and the successors to the apostles in the Bishops and Patriarchs defined the apostolic faith in council when contested upon by heretics, that the Pope loosed the apostolic faith to her members so as her members are to remain faithful to the defended apostolic faith or be excommunicated if anyone rejects them, Jesus bound and loosed just as Peter loosed the Gentiles into the church, so did the Pope in loosing new people, new nations into the body of Jesus Christ.

Truth is Jesus told Peter to feed and tend his flock, the Popes in every age from history is recorded as feeding Jesus flock and tending his flock by their matyred blood, calling the brethren to council to clarify the apostolic faith to a new humanity of understanding and knwoledge. Jesus has never left his Church nor did he ever leave Peter in his successors in the ministry of binding and loosing.

History proves the Truth of Jesus Christ words to Peter and his authority with the Keys to the Kingdom of God being excercised in every Pope in every age, including the bad popes, who lost their way, but Jesus prayed for Peter (Pope) and when he returned he was to “stregthen his brethren”. History records all these biblical Truth’s from Jesus Christ in Peter and his successors in the Popes.

Peace be with you

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Gabriel of 12;5998895]

. The Roman Catholic Church consists of all Bishops world wide in communion with the Pope who resides in Rome as the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome by himself is an equal to all Bishops and Patriarchs worldwide

B] I would put it thus, on terms of equality with all other bishops. i.e. One amongst many! Albeit a powerful one because of the political position of Rome in the early Empire!

Gabriel of 12;

Can you define how you would conclude that “the body of Jesus Christ is a sect”, please? No one argues that Rome is the Catholic Church. "As a Roman Catholic I believe the Catholic Church is the body of Jesus Christ, what you introduce here is never believed or stated as you present here. An early Church father once recoded "where Peter is, there is the Catholic Church

And why not? Peter was a prominent servant and apostle of Our Lord and Saviour! He was a leader of the Church and a prominent member of the College of the Apostles. But the same can apply to the other members of College. He wasn’t on his own and the catholic Church is not simply Rome, but those Churches,/ People who hold to the Deposit of Faith,which Rome doesn’t do!.

As a Roman Catholic I believe the Catholic Church is the body of Jesus Christ, what you introduce here is never believed or stated as you present here. An early Church father once recoded "where Peter is, there is the Catholic Church

This is not quite true! At the reformation,the cry to the new church was, “where was your Church before Trent?”
If you read John Evelyn’s Diary,Jan,1688. He refers to the New Church of tremt. The idea was that the servants of the papacy had engineered a coup detat at that Council! The bishops there, aquiescing
the takeover because of political pressure. You have got to realise that all previous General Councils of note [7] had been called by the Emperors, not the pope! He called it, sent his men to run it, he told them who to accept,[it wasn’t free,] though a free council had been called for and on his instructions his followers disallowed any criticism of the papacy! When attendance fell dangerously low he paid the suburbicarian bishops of Italy to attend .At the discussions those people who did attend were split in to two groups who were not allowed to converse one with the other and had to take separate votes. Finally, when the charade ended, thee vote wasn’t taken beforee the Pope had given his approbation.
Thus it is claimed that the Bishops of Northern Europe had surrendereed their freedom and responsibilities as Catholic Bishops on to the shoulders of one man, the Bishop of Rome!

With both the Councils and fathers, the pope is given only a place of honour and rank. He is Patriarch of the West and First amongst equals.
He is not mentioned in Scripture or Tradition, in fact as he is a creature of the papacy’s own creation!

Gabriel of 12;

Here are a few early Church Father quotes and early councils that conflict with your views here; Whether or not your Orthodoxy recognizes these historical figures and councils, one cannot deny the fact that Peter’s successors in the Line of Popes is recognized as having supreme authority authenticated by Jesus himself, and was believed in.

Many of the fathers believed that all bishops were successors of the apostles and indeed they were and are now, providing they keep the apostolic faith and Succession!
Regarding Peter’s successors, apart from Peter actually visiting Rome, which is not proven, it is in the memory of the Church, but there is no proof. Further, I have already said that as a Romanist you are bound by one of your Creeds to judge the scriptures through the writings of the fathers and the majority of the fathers disagree with the Roman interpretation of Matt.16/20.

Tatian the Syrian
“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

B]This must be one of the very few Fathers to think this way! It certainly isn’t what Augustine of Hippo, Nyanzen, Tertullian, Chrysostom or indeed Origin and Cyril Of Alexandria thought.Neither did Archbishop kenrick when he wrote for the 1st, Vatican!

Tertullian
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

**He is simply asking the question regarding Peter?
Was he suggesting that the rest of the College were left short of knowledge? Do you think they were so limited? Paul, James or John?
**
"

cont;

 

[luckyfredsdad]

**

**Council of Chalcedon
“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]]
**

**The language and tone, used by the fathers of Chalcedon to Leo, were the language and tone used in everyday Episcopal Conversation, between Bishops and their seniors. That it was used to Leo was simply everyday politeness. Beyond that it doesn’t mean a thing!
**

Gabriel of 12;

It is easy to paint history with a broad paint brush, but it is not fair to those Catholic Bishops, Priests, and laypersons who went out to put water on the flames at the expense of their own lives. By your comments, you have never been instructed of the Whole Truth, only what tickled your ears. Truth is

---

Truth is come at through, revelation and scripture as interpreted by the fathers with the aid of the Holy Ghost.Truth is ,as you rightly say!
How-and-ever, you do yourself little credit by accusing me of bad faith!;****

Truth is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ built his Church upon Peter (Rock) this Truth is revealed from history in every age of the builiding of the Church and Popes taking the Church to new worlds and new peoples in every age, she did not remain idle in her orthodoxy of language and culture when she first recieved her gospel message, the Popes taught the gospels to every people, tongue and nation.

What Jesus gave to Peter he gave to all the other apostles, but even then, we cannot assume that the Petrine Priviliges, if such there were
passed on to any others, than the College of Bishops of course!
[Shaw Kerr.H/B.]

Jesus gave Peter the keys to his kingdom to bind and loose on earth, and Jesus will bind and loose in heaven what ever Peter bound and loosed. This Truth from Jesus is revealed from history and has come to pass, that the Popes have bound heresies, heretics, apostates on earth from the body of Jesus Christ, then the Popes and the successors to the apostles in the Bishops and Patriarchs defined the apostolic faith in council when contested upon by heretics, that the Pope loosed the apostolic faith to her members so as her members are to remain faithful to the defended apostolic faith or be excommunicated if anyone rejects them, Jesus bound and loosed just as Peter loosed the Gentiles into the church, so did the Pope in loosing new people, new nations into the body of Jesus Christ.

**The Bishop of Rome is and was, no more than a Bishop within the Catholic Church. He started off with several assets, not least the fact that Rome was capital city of the Empire. In fact one philospher desribed the papacy as, “the ghost of the Roman Empire sitting on its own tomb.” Hobbes.] His See was founded by two apostles whilst he had as a parishioner the Emperor. It was from this great asset that Rome’s bishops derived their authority! The Emperors tired of being **pestered with Christian Bishops seeking answers to their problems gave authority to the Bishop of Rome, his own parish priest! For two or three hundred years the Bishop of Rome was no more than a dept, of state. Under Leo, he had so much authority that he had the local Roman Stasi, have S.Hilary brought over the Alps,for even questioning Leo’s policy! The authority was given by Gratian and the two Valentinian Emperors Under succeeding monarchs it was simply the existing law… [Montalembere Hist.Pap.vol1 pge300.]

Truth is Jesus told Peter to feed and tend his flock, the Popes in every age from history is recorded as feeding Jesus flock and tending his flock by their matyred blood, calling the brethren to council to clarify the apostolic faith to a new humanity of understanding and knwoledge. Jesus has never left his Church nor did he ever leave Peter in his successors in the ministry of binding and loosing.

**Further the popes and their servants were not above using forgeries to gain their ends. I.e. using forged Nice Canons to mislead the African Bishops at the Council of Carthage. There are more instances, but the one I’ve quoted is the one usually referred to.
**

Peace be with you**