Are catholics their own worst enemy??

[josie_L]

Yes, your claim is funny! Orthodox never did and never will “follow” the Pope, not even if we become in some way reconciled to each other.

The modern papacy came a lot later, to the west only. It is in historical terms a novelty.

The Orthodox never " broke off in 1054… ". That has already been debunked as something of a myth, an urban legend, which you persist in spreading around, confusing people.

The “modern” papacy did not come a lot later, and it is no more a historical novelty than the holy trinity is (which was delineated throughout the several centuries preceding the birth of the church). Peter’s authority over the church is seen in scripture quite clearly, for example, in John 21: 15-19 Peter was told to tend (in greek the word “tend” also means “to govern”) and feed the sheep, as well as “strenghten the brethren.” This was only said to Peter by Jesus, also, “Jesus says, “Feed my sheep” three times, because in ancient Israel the rabbis customarily used a formula of words repeated three times in the act solemnly transferring authority to someone in the community of faith.”

Then there is Matthew 16:13-20 which shows that Peter was the first to recognize Jesus has the Son of God through the Father (he was the first because he is the first to recognize truth), with Jesus saying “blessed are you Simon son of Jonah”. Jonah translates literally to “dove” in hebrew, so Simon is the son of dove, as this is a symbol of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was alluding to Simon Peter as the “son of the Holy Spirit”. Then we have the name change of Simon to Peter, the “rock”, which is significant.

“Names were very significant to the ancient Jews, and a change in name often signified a change in role. In the ancient Semitic world, a name indicated a being’s innermost nature or destiny. To give something a name, then, or to change its name meant to be able to know its inner nature, to govern it accordingly, and to determine its destiny.”

Timing is also important as Simon’s name was changed to “rock” right at the moment that he is given the keys to the kingdom. The keys have great significance as it represents a power to loose and bind that is final.

“I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open” Isaiah 22:22

Furthermore, this power was given only to one person. In Isaiah, Eliakim is prime (the first and highest in authority) minister and it is to him that the keys are given (as opposed to the other ministers in the cabinet). The prime minister in the OT is a foreshadowing of the pope’s role, that is, like the prime minister the pope is the right hand man to the King of Israel in the House of David. If you read more of the Catholic perspective on the matter you will see how fittingly the OT flows into the NT on matters of the papacy and ecclesiastical structuring.

Christ’s church is built on Peter, the rock.

" I tell you that you are Peter and on this Peter I will build my Church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

p.s. When did the first patriach of Constantinople appear?

 

[erikd]

If you care to be specific someone here will address them, if not me.

Council of Nicaea 325AD

Council of Constantinople I (381AD) II (533-534AD) III (680-681AD) IV (869-870AD)

Council of Carthage (419AD)

You will learn a lot by reading the archives, which I invite you to do.

I looked through this thread and did not see your comments on the issue of the Schism in 1054. Did I miss it? Was there not a schism? Did it not happen in 1054? Was it not a result of several disagreements between the East and the West? Did not our Popes and your Patriarchs make several attempts at full reconciliation?

If I missed it please point me to the appropriate post. Otherwise, please explain as your original post requires a little explanation and clarification.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Thank you my fellow Catholics. I don’t know why Heychios insists his history is correct when in fact it is INcorrect.

 

[josie_L]

Thank you my fellow Catholics. I don’t know why Heychios insists his history is correct when in fact it is INcorrect.

 

[PJM]

Thanks for the links Eucharisted.

I’ve just read Humanae Vitae.

On first reading there’s a lot I disagree with. It also seems to be contradictary. I realise I’ll be told it isn’t.

Seems like it’s saying periods of abstenance is good for the couple, but at the same time to deliberately abstain in fertile periods without good reason is morally wrong.

I guess it’s about intent again, but it does seem to be tying itself in knots in places.

***Perhaps further insite can be gotten from reading JP II’s “Gospel of Life” on the same topic?

1 Cor. 7: 4 For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. 5Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again*, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. 6 I say this by way of concession, not of command.**

***As is evident from the above text, St. Paul taught that a freewill abstainance from intercourse between husband and wifes for the purpose of growing closer to God is a “good but not mandatory practice.”

The furtile period abstainance however could be a form of “birth control” wherein the objective to is to supercede the way God made us, with the specific entent and purpose of prohibiting a pregnancy. This is equal in Moral Effect to using conterceptive sexual practice, and as such is Greviously sinful*.**

***The purpose of married sex is two-fold. Procreative and Unitive. While it is to be enjoyed, it is to be done so in accord to God’s plan with always at least the possibility of pregnancy. NFP is therefore the Churches and God’s responce to right reason and right use.

Love and prayers,***

 

[Sword_Brethren]

The issue over birth control is way overblown.

The Roman Catholic church is not the last word on the meaning of sex in a marriage, and it approves of birth control using the rhythm method, which completely contravenes the stated theory of Humanae Vitae that essentially says sex is solely for the purpose of creating life.

NFP is not the same as condoms, the pill, etc, etc. The pagan world has nothing to do with NFP because NFP is not birth control. The Catholic Church is the last word on the meaning of sex in marriage and she stands against the world when other churchs do not.
People will often retort, “C’mon! That’s splitting hairs! What’s the big difference between rendering the union sterile yourself and just waiting until it’s naturally infertile? End result’s the same thing.” To which I respond: What’s the big difference between a miscarriage and an abortion? End result’s the same thing. One is an act of God. In the other, man takes the powers of life into his own hands and tries to make himself like God (cf. Gen. 3:5).

The difference is cosmic. NFP enables a couple to maintain respect for incarnate love. Such respect is the very raison d’etre of NFP. Contraception “dis-incarnates” love and, by doing so, “strikes at God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person” (FC 32)."

 

[Hesychios]

Council of Nicaea 325AD

Council of Constantinople I (381AD) II (533-534AD) III (680-681AD) IV (869-870AD)

Council of Carthage (419AD)

So what exactly are you saying about these councils?

 

[Hesychios]

NFP is not the same…

So can you answer the questions?

1] What if a couple choose not to have sex (when they desire it) because it is a fertile time period? Are they sinning?

If it is a sin, is it a sin unto death?

2] Why is it called family planning?

3] Who first called it that?

 

[erikd]

So what exactly are you saying about these councils?

In post 98 I replied to your post 95. This is just a continuation of that question.

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve been reading about catholicism for years along with Orthodoxy and other beliefs.

I regularly attend a catholic church to pray there because I like the atmosphere.

I also attend an orthodoxy liturgy as I love the music.

However, there is something stopping me from taking that step over the threshold to more formally explore the catholic faith.

My personal experience is that, if you are not yet ready to enter the Church, even the smallest things will keep you out - the look on someone’s face if they happen to look in your direction while experiencing gas pains, or a strange remark made here or there that probably means nothing, but it stings your heart for some reason, and you dwell on it for weeks, and it keeps you out.

But when you are ready to enter, not even the Devil will be able to keep you out- not the world’s worst homily, and not people dress up as clowns at Mass, and not even the most crazy people doing the most crazy things.