Catholics "R" Wrong

[PJM]

=JonNC;9141336]Hi Pat.

1. Universal jurisdiction of the pope

1. Nicea canon 6.

Unless, of course, the rest of the patriarchs agree to the designation, then I will admit I am wrong.

Jon

Hi Jon

Let’s bypass for the monent the patriachs have to say [there is prejudice] and look at what the Bible says in Matt. 16;15-19… and in Mt. 28:16-20.

Then lets look at what 'The fathers had to say

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
[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]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose
and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

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, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him 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. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. 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 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus
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 — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa 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]).

Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Nicea was not a World-wide [by participation] council and does not overrule what the BIBLE and God directly commands and Ordains. The Eastern Churches remained as PART of the RCH until the GREAt Schism.

God Bless,
Pat:thumbsup:*

 

[Vouthon]

I smell eisegesis, myself.

The papacy and a hierarchy are not the same thing, nor is the Papacy the same thing as the OT hierarchy - in which, incidentally, Moses had no successor.

Wasn’t the prophet Joshua the successor to Moses? Oops sorry I see someone’s already said!

Clearly though Jesus did refer to the “Chair of Moses” and it was actually held by the Pharisees I believe in the time of Christ ie “the scribes and the Pharisees sit in the chair of Moses”.

Interestingly enough the Chair is “plural” not “singular” which might be interesting if one takes into consideration the Eastern Orthodox view from Cyprian of all bishops sharing in the authority of Peter (which the Roman Catholic Church in essence accepts too, although we assign a special Petrine descent and authority to the Pope as the unique See of Peter).

 

[JPeter]

I think what unites us is far more than what divides us. However, I think the Roman Catholic Church has been the more divisive in this matter. There understanding of the Universal Catholic Church is basically are you under the Papacy or not. Many of the Early Church Fathers interpreted the “Rock” in Matthew 16:18 to mean Peters confession of faith and Jesus Christ. This includes but is not limited to Augustine, Chrysostom, Origen, the Bede, Hilary, and Cyprian. Are all of these fathers of the Church heretics for rejecting the Primacy of the Pope? Furthermore even the Fathers who believed Peter was the “Rock” did not imply this meant the institution of the Papacy. St. Peter may be regarded as the Rock but he was their leader not their Lord. He was/is Para Inter Primus (First among equals). The Fathers lay great stress on the equality of the apostles. And throughout the NT other apostles are also considered foundations of the Church. Besides that Rome has a tendency to dogmatize things that are more assumed than actually know. I believe the Bible contains everything necessary for salvation as Gods written word and nothing should be dogmatic that cannot be proven thereby. The Bible should be interpreted in the light of the early church fathers though. This helps us guide Orthodoxy as out interpretations are not infallible.

 

[JonNC]

Are we reading the same Acts, Jon? Peter does the first miracle in Acts, He converts the first gentiles in Acts, He alone speaks when there is a question as to who is going to succeed Judas, Peter declares the first excommunication of Ananias and Sapphira, etc. etc. etc.

And how does any of this become universal jurisdiction?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon

Let’s bypass for the monent the patriachs have to say [there is prejudice] and look at what the Bible says in Matt. 16;15-19… and in Mt. 28:16-20.

Then lets look at what 'The fathers had to say

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
[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]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose
and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

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, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him 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. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. 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 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus
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 — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa 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]).

Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Nicea was not a World-wide [by participation] council and does not overrule what the BIBLE and God directly commands and Ordains.* The Eastern Churches remained as PART of the RCH until the GREAt Schism.

God Bless,
Pat:thumbsup:

Hi Pat. god’s blessings during this solemn Holy Week be with you, as well.
Nicea was World -wide accepted. And Nicea authoritative in that way. I agree that Nicea is not equal to scripture, and scirpture does not indicate a supremacy of Rome of the entire Church. christ tells the disciples not to set a pecking order, as it were. Paul clearly does not view Peter as his superior.
Certainly, the centrality of the Church, as indicated by what the ECF’s say here, can be considered in Rome. But that is not the same as supremacy.

Jon

 

[Sparrowhawk1161]

OK. What are you doing? The question is R Catholics wrong?

And all I see is hoopla ha.

This verses that verse and this verse that…

I see verses and verses and what is the question? Are Catholics Wrong in what they do? IS there a better church out there? Yet, I see nothing to answer the question on why Catholism is a great faith. Why go to a Catholic Church.

Imagine that you are a person wondering about God and who he is? YOu want to know where you should go to find out about this? Are you going on a computer to do research? No. There are churches all around. Let’s say you see or are closest to ma catholic church. What will make you find Catholism you area to start you devotion to the Lord and become a devote christian?

I bet there is a bunch of people who look at this site. Not everyone are Catholics on this site like I am… Some are just had Protestants who are just wondering where you come from.

When you put down something like why are CATHOLICS ARE WRONG! Protestants ho… hey… Catholics are wrong… I know that! So, what is this thread about! I want to find out about catholics who are wrong… because I beleive it. I ahve no idea why…l. nbut I am not catholic… so they are wrong… you are all wrong… stupid people…

The idea of someone who has no idea. Not everyone…many people have open minds and this doesn’t apply to them… but what if it happened on this site? A die hard ant-catholic looking to “play” with you?

And, all they see is hoopla ha! It doesn’t say anything about why Protestants have the upper hand and why Catholics cower down to the the “R” in statement that puts the tail between there legs… “I am Wrong.”

Catholic answers are catholics to understand why they do what they do and help them know what they do makes a difference in there lives and in the lives of others as they praise God, worship him and give thanks that the almiughtly Lord gave his Son to be OUR sacrifice… the sacrifice of everyone who was, is, or will ever be, in his GOd-like ability to put himself in that area so everlating life is ours.

But, Protestants come here two. They wonder about what you do and why you do it… mostly looking for loop wholes to make the Catholic Church look like they have no idea what they are doing with their rituals and stuff.

I was Lutheran… became Methodist which was so more personal… Became Catholic to see just a ritual. Just a ritual…worse than Lutheranism… just a bunch of people going in… saying prayers… maybe some hyms and communion… then out…

I used to say to my friend, "The sheep go in to the barn, get milked and go out to watch football. See they go out quickly to cathch the sorts game. They can’t stay for the rest of God’s service… spaorts is more important. Let’s watch how many leave halfway through the service… there they come… halfway, shouting to their kids to get into the car and leave. Watch how the rest who decided to stay for the whole service honk their horns out of there… only to try to leave as fast as trhey can to get… no where… really… just to get out of there…

"If you are wrong? Why? Just say how you are wrong! You told them that. Do it.

I watch my own church and see it like a barn. That’s sad. No bible studies… no teen studies… nothing. I asked my church about what you do for highschool and college parishiners. The priest just said… they just don’t come… that’s it!

Can you believe that? The middle school, teen and college people who live in the area should be nurtured. This wa a Lutheran Church I had once belongs to. If I go back to Chicago, and go back to my Lutheran Church you wilo find 5 devoted members, who really want to know the Lord. They ask me questions and I help them. These people were special and were great adults to be and I knew they would be there to find all they wanted, no matter what happened, great Christians, and I would be there for them and they would be there for me…

But, now… it’s all gone…and I found Catholism… But no one answers the question…

“Catholics “R” Wrong?”

I studied before I went from Lutheran to Methodist to Catholism… it is not wrong.

Catholism is ancient… meaning “Universal” It’s been around so long… Everything they do is a response to something… during the early trying times to the present, everything you see in the Catholic Church is a response to one thing. Keeping the faith. Keeping the fath during persuction, keeping the faith during polythesism, keeping the faith during the the inability to write, keeping the faith during times of adversity and conflict… the ever going trials to keep the faith.

Protestantism and Catholism have so much in common… do you know? I hope you do? Our holy Father John Paul II, solidified this. We are conected… Are Catholics wrong, just as Christian fatith is in manyways… let’s find the difference and show the protestants how much they have and the love we have for them…

The are our brothers and sisters after all!

 

[BrJuniper]

1. How
2. WHY?

Individual Catholics are often do wrong through ignorance or choice.

Because they are human.

I am often mistaken, sometimes incorrect but never wrong. (think abut it)

 

[septimine]

I smell eisegesis, myself.

The papacy and a hierarchy are not the same thing, nor is the Papacy the same thing as the OT hierarchy - in which, incidentally, Moses had no successor.

Moses didn’t have successors, but Aaron did. The structure of the priesthood in OT was such that there was always a high priest and priests under the high priest.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Moses didn’t have successors, but Aaron did. The structure of the priesthood in OT was such that there was always a high priest and priests under the high priest.

And do you know who the high priest is? It is of course Christ, and by extension, his bishops who also serve as high priests. In fact, in Greek, one of the names for bishop is archierefs, meaning literally, high priest.

 

[CopticChristian]

Did Moses have universal jurisdiction, in the OT Church?

What is your understanding of the OT Church?

 

[CopticChristian]

Catholics are not wrong in their faith in Jesus Christ, their Creator as the Father, and their searching for the Holy Spirit to fill them up.

Catholics know that sin is evil and must be repented of.

What can be examined and questioned is the “church” itself with it clergy/laity (spirit of Nicolaitians); Maryism; the notion of a real purgatory rather than the Judgement Seat of Christ; a need for penance;and the uncertainity of salvation.

There are remnants of what used to be “pagan” practices but I would suggest that the paganic influence is lost in the vast time passed, it no loger matters. I am still calling it Easter and I am still gonna have a Christmas Tree.

I will say that I cannot see the Roman Catholic Church as the one and only true church.Sorry. Wrong on that.
**
The true church are people from all walks of life and various stylies of worship of Jesus Christ./**QUOTE]

Reconcile this notion with the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, the mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known by which Gentiles are fellow heirs with Christ. Take your time.

 

[CopticChristian]

Moses didn’t have successors, but Aaron did. The structure of the priesthood in OT was such that there was always a high priest and priests under the high priest.

If the Church is headed by Christ the Priest King where in the Old Testament do you see a Priest King with a kingdom that might be considered the OT Church?

 

[JPeter]

Doxiemom;9142479:

Catholics are not wrong in their faith in Jesus Christ, their Creator as the Father, and their searching for the Holy Spirit to fill them up.

Catholics know that sin is evil and must be repented of.

What can be examined and questioned is the “church” itself with it clergy/laity (spirit of Nicolaitians); Maryism; the notion of a real purgatory rather than the Judgement Seat of Christ; a need for penance;and the uncertainity of salvation.

There are remnants of what used to be “pagan” practices but I would suggest that the paganic influence is lost in the vast time passed, it no loger matters. I am still calling it Easter and I am still gonna have a Christmas Tree.

I will say that I cannot see the Roman Catholic Church as the one and only true church.Sorry. Wrong on that.
**
The true church are people from all walks of life and various stylies of worship of Jesus Christ./**

QUOTE]

Reconcile this notion with the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, the mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known by which Gentiles are fellow heirs with Christ. Take your time.

This is wonderful! Your a credit to your Church.

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Pat.

1. Universal jurisdiction of the pope
2. Nicea canon 6.

Unless, of course, the rest of the patriarchs agree to the designation, then I will admit I am wrong.

Jon

1. And universal jurisdiction was also never considered heretical, false or seriously rejected in the early church
2. The East would also be guilty of violating canon 6 and no mention of “first among of equals” in the early church as the norm.

 

[Nicea325]

 

[Nicea325]

That’s an interesting statement. It is in the early centuries that we have a unified Church, without universal jurisdiction of any one bishop, and matters were resolved in councils. Its the model of the early Church. The curious thing is we have never had a unified Church under the universal jurisidiction of the Bishop of Rome.

That’s not the issue. Heresy is prevented by councils. The pope may very well be the visable head, but that is not universal jurisdiction, and it is certainly not infallibility ex cathedra.

No one is arguing for multi-Christian Churches. The early Church was one Church, without universal jurisdiction.

Jon

Unfortunately my friend,the church was also not unified at all times without universal jurisdiction. The church was still divided after Nicaea because many folks were still following the heretical Arian. And simply because the church was not unified under universal jurisdiction does not prove it did not exist or function. We are dealing with humanity here,not the angels of heaven.

More important, the issue I have with those against universal jurisdiction is why do people believe Jesus left behind a “democratic” church with no visible head? Jesus preached the Kingdom of Heaven and all one has to do is read the OT. If one visible head were such an issue I am sure Jesus would have mentioned it as a serious issue.

 

[JReducation]

Did Moses have universal jurisdiction, in the OT Church?

First problem:

There was no OT Church. I should know, I’m Jewish. The very idea of a church is foreign to Jewish faith.

You cannot have jurisdiction over that which does not exist. Any Jew will tell you this.

Israel is a people, not a Church or an ecclesial community either.

Well of course they aren’t the same thing silly. And of course the Papacy isn’t the same thing as the OT hierarchy; however the OT hierarchy could be said to be a prefigurment of the new Church’s hierarch -the Catholic Church’s hierarchy- and that Moses’s role then is similar to the Popes role now. Chair of Moses - Chair of Peter.

What about Joshua?

Actually, not. Moses foreshadows Christ himself. From the earliest times in the Christian Church, Christ is hailed as the New Moses. Moses does not foreshadow Peter.

The person who foreshadows Peter in the OT is Noah and the Ark foreshadows Peter’s bark, the Church.

Catholics are not wrong in their faith in Jesus Christ, their Creator as the Father, and their searching for the Holy Spirit to fill them up.

Catholics know that sin is evil and must be repented of.

What can be examined and questioned is the “church” itself with it clergy/laity (spirit of Nicolaitians); Maryism; the notion of a real purgatory rather than the Judgement Seat of Christ; a need for penance;and the uncertainity of salvation.

All of these are misunderstandings of what the Catholic Church believes. More people reject what they think it Catholic belief than what is truly Catholic belief.

Clergy and laity: Taken from the early Church itself. The Acts tell us of the Apostles and the faithful who gathered around them. There was always a leadership of Heiros, which is Greek, for priest. Hence the term, hierarchy.

Maryism: The is no such thing. If you mean by this that:

Mary is the Mother of God – True. John tells us that Jesus was with God and is God. Mary is his mother. There is a big difference between this and saying that she is the mother of the God-Head. That is what many people think Catholics are saying, which they are not. She is the mother of the 2nd person of the Trinity, who is truly God.

Mary is ever virgin – True again. There is no historical evidence to the contrary. Secondly, this was part of the faith handed down to us from the first generation Christians. Third, this takes nothing away from Christ. On the contrary, it speaks about Christ. God’s son was preserved from all human weaknesses, even from the moment of conception.

Mary’s was conceived without Original Sin – True again. This is the Father’s gift to the Son. It was appropriate that the Father preserve the Son from contact with sin. Therefore, it was appropriate that the mother in whose womb he would be conceived, would be free from the sin of Adam. It was possible for God to do it, because nothing is impossible for God. So, he did it. He created a human being free of sin. How? Easy. The Cross and merits of Christ’s death extend beyond a single hour and day in Jerusalem. It spans eternity. Therefore, Mary is redeemed by the Son, before she is conceived. This too is possible for God.

Purgatory – does not deny the judgment seat of God. This is a misunderstanding. Even Jews believed that there is a transition between this life and the next, where even those who are saved must make retribution. If I steal $100 dollars from my neighbor, sorrow and contrition are good. But in justice, I must repay my neighbor. If I sin against God, sorrow and contrition are necessary for forgiveness. But God is also owed justice. Purgatory is about justice, not about taking anything from the judgment throne of God.

A need for penance – that was taught by the Apostles themselves. Conversion involved penance for one’s sins. It began with the profession of faith, but was followed by fasting and abstinence. Dates back to the early Church.

Uncertainty of salvation – only for those who deny that salvation is possible. Otherwise, there is no uncertainty taught in Catholic theology. Not sure where you got this one. Even Luther agreed that faith was necessary for salvation and that without faith, there was no salvation possible. As Augustine said, “The God who created you without your help cannot save you without your cooperation.” God does not impose salvation. He offers it. We see this very clearly in the difference between the two men crucified with Christ. The one asks for salvation and receives the promise from Christ himself. To the other, who challenges and questions Christ, Jesus makes no such promise. It’s not that salvation is uncertain. Salvation is very certain. What is uncertain is man’s cooperation with salvation.

 

[JReducation]

There are remnants of what used to be “pagan” practices but I would suggest that the paganic influence is lost in the vast time passed, it no loger matters. I am still calling it Easter and I am still gonna have a Christmas Tree.

Most pagan practices are God’s shadow passing through human history. God tries to reveal himself to mankind. Man fails to see. Therefore, he takes what are signs of God’s presence and misinterprets them and uses them incorrectly. Christianity corrects that.

I will say that I cannot see the Roman Catholic Church as the one and only true church.Sorry. Wrong on that.

The fact that you don’t see it, does not mean that it’s not. Unless you’re claiming to be infallible. Otherwise, it gets the benefit of the doubt. You can only be that sure, if you’re sure that it’s impossible for you to be in error.

The true church are people from all walks of life and various stylies of worship of Jesus Christ.

The is a difference between believers and Church. At the end of the day, there are many non-Christians who are also covered under the umbrella of the Church, because they do what they know best to find God. They’re not Church, but they are believers to one extent or another.

Church is that which has apostolic succession. Only the 23 Catholic Churches and the 13 Orthodox Churches have apostolic succession. Only they can trace their origins to the apostles. The Reformation Communities trace their origins to the Latin Catholic Church. Even non Catholics can see this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cavaradossi]

1. And universal jurisdiction was also never considered heretical, false or seriously rejected in the early church
2. The East would also be guilty of violating canon 6 and no mention of “first among of equals” in the early church as the norm.

Do you even know what Canon 6 says? It simply establishes that the bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, and of the other provinces, are to have a certain metropolitan jurisdiction over certain geographical areas (as metropolitan sees), as was already the established custom, and then establishes a rule that no bishop should be ordained without the consent of the metropolitan, but if there is disagreement within the province, then the majority opinion should prevail.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

 

[John_Q_Sinner]

First problem:

There was no OT Church. I should know, I’m Jewish. The very idea of a church is foreign to Jewish faith.

You cannot have jurisdiction over that which does not exist. Any Jew will tell you this.

Israel is a people, not a Church or an ecclesial community either.

Actually, not. Moses foreshadows Christ himself. From the earliest times in the Christian Church, Christ is hailed as the New Moses. Moses does not foreshadow Peter.

The person who foreshadows Peter in the OT is Noah and the Ark foreshadows Peter’s bark, the Church.

Thank you for the corrections, Br. JR. Do you know of any books or sites that explain how persons or things in the OT were a prefigurement of persons and things in the NT?