G
guanophore
Guest
I was disappointed because I have benefitted a great deal from Tomyris, but never have experienced such a degree of hostility.
- Status
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
‘Magisterium’ is a word that is found only in your branch of the Church. You won’t hear it being used in other branches.
The UMC Governing Body is comprised of the Council of Bishops, the General Conference (which is currently meeting), and the Judicial Council.
*Sola Scriptura * came out of the Reformation. It’s one of the Five Solas that were much later developed within Reformed beliefs. It is a very different concept than Prima Scriptura. Sola says ‘the Bible alone and in complete authority.’ Prima says that Scripture is taken with tradition and reason, but it holds to its primacy.
C
clem456
Guest
Of course! It’s all subject to interpretation.
Because Jesus was a ghost of a man, more an idea or a pious ethic than God made flesh.
He couldn’t have existed in flesh, in time, in space, with real people…eating, drinking, living, sleeping, touching, breathing.
That would mean he actually established something concrete and enduring. Something personal. Visible. Composed of other real people.
And I would have to admit it actually exists, somewhere, anywhere in the world for me to see.
If I can make Jesus a ghost, then what he started isn’t really real. “Jesus the great idea.”
And we all know ideas are indeed subject to interpretation, as you say.
On the other hand, persons are not subject to interpretation. Persons are. Persons objectively are.
(except of course when they are almost invisible, like in the womb or in the hospital bed. This is the dead end of the “interpretive” subjectivist philosophy…)
T
Tomyris
Guest
Well, thank you. There are a lot of times I think I do a lot more damage around here than good. I am really bummed out about the guy who accused me of ranting and what I said, although I think what I said was deserved. I hate confrontation, although I suppose people would be surprised to hear that. I am still upset. I wish he would wise up.
My comment you refer to does not apply to the majority of posters, certainly not to you. There is a tendency to copy quotes from other posters, it seems, who did not bother to check their sources either, but copied quotes from others, who copied, who copied…Some of this I think has been going on for hundreds of years. So someone can be using a killer quote that if they just checked the origin…And this is true of Protestants as well as Catholics.
A
Abu
Guest
False.
The authority from Christ is crystal clear:
All four promises to Peter alone
**“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18) **
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)
Sole authority to Peter alone
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
Later to the twelve also:
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.”
Christ founded only His Catholic Church with very specific essentials as above. Thus His teaching authority, so clearly defined, is simply the Magisterium. That is why no other sect has His authority.
The Dogmatic Constitution On The Church #8 (Vatican II) teaches that “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth His holy Church…(T)his is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Fr John Hardon, S.J., describes as “unequivocal” (= clearly defined), “for the first time in conciliar history — the Church is not one of many branches.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 213].
The grave error is in ignoring the reality that it is Christ’s Catholic Church which authorised and guaranteed the specific writings to be the Word of God and, as Christ’s Church, mandates that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium form one whole.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
1975, Doubleday, p 213].
The grave error is in ignoring the reality that it is Christ’s Catholic Church which authorised and guaranteed the specific writings to be the Word of God and, as Christ’s Church, mandates that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium form one whole.St. Peter went to Antioch first. Why would not the Orthodox bishop of Antioch be his successor?
A
Abu
Guest
How strange! You were shown this just Mar 12, '16, #48 in Do Catholics cherry-pick/read-meaning-into Scripture? in the Apol/Sacred Scripture Forum. You should try to save the facts so that you can become more knowledgeable.
As Dr Warren Carroll has pointed out in The Building of Christendom, 1987, (Vol. 2 of A History of Christendom), p 365, note 80: “There can be no reasonable doubt that St Athanasius as Patriarch of Alexandria and St John Chrysostom as Patriarch of Constantinople fully recognised and accepted Papal primacy (Chapters 1 & 3).”
"Eusebius wrote in *The Chronicle *(Ad An Dom 42), that Peter, after establishing the Church in Antioch, went to Rome where he remained as Bishop of Rome for 25 years. We know from other early writings that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome in 67 A.D. That date, minus 25 years would put him in Rome in the year 42, during the reign of Claudius. Again, this charge can be dismissed for the same reasons given already, that the Church was forced to practice the faith in an underground situation in order to avoid persecution. The Romans had a policy of hunting down and persecuting all of the Apostles.”
As Dr Warren H Carroll in A History of Christendom, *The Foundation of Christendom *Vol 1, testifies, in The Pontificate of St Peter, 30-67:
30-37 head of the Church in Jerusalem
42-49 first sojourn in Rome
49-50 in Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council
62-67 third sojourn in Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome
67 martyrdom in Rome and burial at the Vatican
St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, “The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my son, Mark.” All reputable scholars admit that the first Christians called pagan Rome Babylon on account of its vices. St. Peter, therefore, was writing from Rome.
It is simple history that St. Peter went to Rome about the year 43 A.D., went back to Jerusalem after a few years for a short time, and then returned to Rome until his death, save for very short absences. He died about the year 67, during the reign of Nero. Papias wrote, about 140 A.D., “Peter came and first by his salutary preaching of the Gospel and by his keys opened in the city of Rome the gates of the heavenly kingdom.” Lanciani, the eminent archaeologist, wrote, “The presence of St. Peter in Rome is a fact demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt by purely monumental evidence. [See “The Pope” in Vol 1]
Radio Replies | Catholic Apologetics Online | Rumble & Carthy
radioreplies.info/site-se…+in+Rome+&db=1
J
jmcrae
Guest
He could not leave an inheritance until after he died. He died in Rome, leaving his Papal Office to the Bishop of Rome.
P
PRmerger
Guest
None of that addresses my question.
I am proposing that Prima Scriptura is a novelty.
Actually, it’s not even a thing.
No Protestant Reformer ever conceived of such a principle.
But, if there is someone here that can prove me wrong, I’d be happy to examine her evidence, and if it is sound, I will retract the above assertion.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
So Peter was first head of the Church in jerusalem, before going to Rome?
Why would it not be credible for the Orthodox bishop of Jerusalem to claim that he succeeded Peter? Or for the Orthodox bishop of Antioch to claim that he has succeeded Peter? Even the Catholic Church says that the Orthodox Church has apostolic succession.
A
Abu
Guest
There was no “Orthodox” Church at the time of St Peter – there was only the Catholic Church (named by St Ignatius of Antioch in A.D.107 which came to mean universal and faithful to the teachings of Christ (orthodox). At the time of the eastern schism, finalised in 1054, those oriental Christians adopted the term “Orthodox Church” to identify themselves as distinct both from the Nestorians and from the Monophysites. [See Fr John A Hardon, S.J., *The Catholic Catechism, Image Books, 1975, p 217-8].
CATHOLIC. Its original meaning of “general” or “universal” has taken on a variety of applications in the course of Christian history. First used by St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107) (Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2), it is now mainly used in five recognized senses: 1. the Catholic Church as distinct from Christian ecclesiastical bodies that do not recognize the papal primacy; 2. the Catholic faith as the belief of the universal body of the faithful, namely that which is believed “everywhere, always, and by all” (Vincentian Canon); 3. orthodoxy as distinguished from what is heretical or schismatical; 4. the undivided Church before the Eastern Schism of 1054; thereafter the Eastern Church has called itself orthodox, in contrast with those Christian bodies which did not accept the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon on the divinity of Christ.
In general, today the term “Catholic” refers to those Christians who profess a continued tradition of faith and worship and who hold to the Apostolic succession of bishops and priests since the time of Christ. (Etym. Latin catholicus, universal; Greek katholikos, universal.)
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
T
Tomdstone
Guest
, Image Books, 1975, p 217-8].
CATHOLIC. Its original meaning of “general” or “universal” has taken on a variety of applications in the course of Christian history. First used by St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107) (Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2), it is now mainly used in five recognized senses: 1. the Catholic Church as distinct from Christian ecclesiastical bodies that do not recognize the papal primacy; 2. the Catholic faith as the belief of the universal body of the faithful, namely that which is believed “everywhere, always, and by all” (Vincentian Canon); 3. orthodoxy as distinguished from what is heretical or schismatical; 4. the undivided Church before the Eastern Schism of 1054; thereafter the Eastern Church has called itself orthodox, in contrast with those Christian bodies which did not accept the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon on the divinity of Christ.
In general, today the term “Catholic” refers to those Christians who profess a continued tradition of faith and worship and who hold to the Apostolic succession of bishops and priests since the time of Christ. (Etym. Latin catholicus, universal; Greek katholikos, universal.)
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.plThe question is whether or not you agree that the current Orthodox bishop of Jerusalem or the current Orthodox bishop of Antioch can claim apostolic succession from St. Peter who established a church there. Is their claim to apostolic succession valid in your opinion?
T
Tomyris
Guest
There were and are five cities that are recognized as apostolic: Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople. See -]orthodoxwiki.org/See/-] ugh the link doesn’t work even though I copied and pasted.
Rome was the seat of the patriarch of the West and popes were called that until recently. The four other cities have been conquered by Muslims, who have worked to limit their power and effectiveness. All are still recognized as apostolic.
In Orthodoxy Moscow and Istanbul (formerly Constantinople) are the two premier sees. I am not sure if Moscow is regarded as apostolic within Orthodoxy.
There is a lot of history involved here, of course, as you are dealing with nearly 2000 years of Church history.
T
Tomyris
Guest
On what grounds are you proposing that PS is a novelty? Let’s hear your argument. You also state that “No Protestant Reformer ever conceived…” Where is your proof?
I THINK it may have originated with Wesley, or even earlier as a counter to “Sola Scriptura”. The Reformed AFAIK don’t use the term.
S
steve_b
Guest
Ecclesiastically speaking,
Re: Antioch
- There is no argument Peter’s see is Rome. When a bishop moves, his see is where he is. Not where he was. If Peter remained in Antioch, and died there, then Antioch would be considered Peter’s see for all time. But that’s not how it was…
- Besides, Popes ordain bishops throughout their pontificate. Just look at how many bishops JPII ordained. It does NOT mean those bishops he ordained are automatically his successors, nor are they the pope. That’s an important point to remember.
BC (before Constantinople)
- Rome
- Alexandria
- Antioch
- Jerusalem
AC (after Constantinople)
THEN consider the time Byzantium’s name change to Constantinople in the 4th century. Look at the rankings THEN
- Rome
- -]Byzantium/-] becomes -]Constantinople/-] and eventually becomes Istanbul
- Alexandria
- Antioch
- Jerusalem
As Bp Ignatius **of Antioch **wrote in ~107 a.d. when writing to the Church of Rome in his salutation, " who holds the presidency"
Romans - English Translation by J.B. Lightfoot
Ignatius wrote 6 letters to the Church in 6 locations. No other Church did he say held the presidency.
A
Abu
Guest
steve b has covered the lack of authenticity.
Now we examine:
**Confronting the Claim of Eastern Orthodoxy to be the True Church
January 1, 2012 by James Likoudis (Homiletic and Pastoral Review)
**hprweb.com/2012/01/confronting-the-claim-of-eastern-orthodoxy-to-be-the-true-church/
Extract:
'For any Orthodox engaged in the search for truth, there is a fatal consequence to the denial of “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” He is not only left with no easily ascertained objective and visible mark by which the true Church can be easily identified, but the very visibility of the Church becomes obscured. It is her Catholic unity which distinguishes the Catholic Church from all other ecclesiastical bodies, for she uniquely possesses unity and Catholicity, as visible marks characterizing its presence throughout the world. Orthodox theologians’ inability to identify the Church-as-institution’s infallible teaching authority, external to the individual, puts the Church in grave danger of dissolving into a vague mysticism. The philosopher Vladimir Soloviev, acclaimed as the “Russian Newman,” has referred to his countrymen most opposed to reunion, as the “Anti-Catholic Orthodox”. In attempting to justify their rejection of Catholic doctrines, and adherence to the infallible Petrine office of the Bishop of Rome, they inevitably fall victim to all the vagaries of religious subjectivism and spiritual illuminism.
'It is not, however, the proper role of private judgment to determine the content of the doctrines of Christianity. It is rather to identify the true Church, which alone possesses the divine authority from Christ to be the teacher of truth (i.e., all the doctrines belonging to the deposit of faith). As noted, that true Church must at least claim to possess the attribute of infallibility. What should be stressed to any Catholic tempted to jump ship to Orthodoxy is that infallibility cannot possibly be the possession of an ecclesiastical body that has no identifiable visible, supreme authority acknowledged by its members as an infallible teacher of faith and morals. The patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow, nor any other grouping of Orthodox bishops, pretend to possess the charism of infallibility. How could anyone be certain that in adhering to their ecclesiastical communion, one has embraced the fullness of orthodoxy?
'Those, therefore, tempted to defect from Catholic unity must be encouraged to reflect on the truth that the oneness of the Church must be manifested in the hierarchical structure of the episcopate itself. This logically demands of those who would be truly Orthodox the acceptance of the Petrine Primacy of the Pope, which makes concrete the headship of Christ, and his supreme authority in the Church. If Christ be in truth, and not merely verbally, the head of the Church, his headship of the visible Church Militant, cannot be a purely spiritual and invisible affair. The seekers of the true Church must be brought to see the impossibility of the visible body of the Church being without a supreme visible head, and that a visible body without a visible head simply has no meaning.
‘As the Australian Orthodox Archbishop Stylianos Harkianakis wrote:” “The infallibility of the Church undoubtedly constitutes the most central article of faith in the Christian Church, the ‘articulus standis et cadentisEcclesiae’ ”. It is too bad under Protestant influence that many Orthodox no longer believe in the Infallibility of the apostolic episcopate. Those Orthodox who still do cannot defend the Infallibility of the Teaching Church that has severed its visible bond with the Rock of the Episcopate, the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, head and chief of the Apostles. Concerning the Infallibility of the Church (as in other matters), we see that todays Eastern Orthodox no longer possess Unity of faith and doctrine.’
T
Tomyris
Guest
This is ridiculous. Patently, thoroughly ridiculous. Somehow Protestants went back in time and started messing with Orthodox heads in 1054. And we are supposed to take this seriously. No backing, no documentation, just a straight-out bizarre connection.
The Orthodox have consistently rejected Protestant thought, going so far as to suspect each other of Protestant influence at times to ensure there is no contamination. See Pelikan’s *Credo.
I don’t think you can demonstrate that the Orthodox EVER believed in papal infallibility. It is a post-schism Western theological construct. They have consistently rejected papal supremacy for more than a few years,* and that is the groundwork for papal infallibility.
If someone short-sheets the Pope’s bed, some people have the mentality that it must be the ghost of Martin Luther.
A
Abu
Guest
False again – learn your history.
It’s interesting also that Arnold Lunn in Now I See, Sheed & Ward, 1955) could quote from the Anglican Vicar of Oddington, Rev S Herbert Scott, that St Peter and his successors were recognised as the supreme judges in matters of faith by a long succession of great Eastern saints, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Denys, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others.
Scott quotes from the Graeco-Slav Liturgy at the Council of Nicea addressing the Pope, St Sylvester, who was not himself present: “…thou didst appear as a pillar of fire, snatching the faithful from Egyptian error (sc. Arius) and continually leading them with unerring teachings to divine light.” [Op. cit. Lunn, p 218-9].
A most impressive tribute.
**
Catholic Apologetics Online**
radioreplies.info/radio-r…p?t=139&n=1255
1256. Did the Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church at any stage after the death of Christ recognize the Pope as supreme and infallible head of the Church?
We cannot speak of the “Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church” prior to the Greek Schism commenced by Photius in 867 A.D. Until then there were simply Patriarchs of Constantinople, presiding there and subject to the Pope. Dr. Orchard, when a Congregationalist, wrote, “An examination of the circumstances of the Great Schism shows that the Eastern Church did then repudiate a supremacy which it had previously been in the habit of conceding to the Roman Patriarchate.” The First Council of Constantinople in 381, which only Eastern Bishops attended, demanded that the Bishop of Constantinople should rank next after the Bishop of Rome, and before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given. A century and a half later Pope Gregory I. could still write, “Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” No one then doubted it; and no one disputed it until Photius came along in 867 to plunge the East into schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That formula contained these words, "We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion." Dean Milman writes, “Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world.” [My emphasis].
S
steve_b
Guest
To answer your points, can I first ask a question?
I’ve asked this question many times in many different ways over the last 12 years on these forums to lots of people. And no answer …yet. And many of those I’ve asked are Orthodox
Here’s the question. Maybe you know the answer. If not don’t feel bad. No one has answered this question yet.
When is the first time in history in writing, all properly referenced do we see the name “Orthodox Church”?
Now Re: infallibility
WHEN something is defined, does not mean that’s the first time it is first believed. When we speak of infallibility in general and papal infallibility in particular, there is a long historical pedigree for both beliefs
For example (all quick reads)
Papal Infallibility
How to Argue for Papal Infallibility
Identifying Infallible Statements
If a pope resigned, would he still be infallible in matters of faith and morals?
short 8 min video
Infallibility of the Pope
G
guanophore
Guest
That was really not about you, it was about him. It was an inappropriate accusation.
Besides, I find your rants rather enlightening!
Yes I did not discover this until I came to CAF but you are right.
- Status