Catholics "R" Wrong

[mommamia]

Defend all you want good sir, but i tell you this; what we believe is the Truth. And sometimes the truth hurts.

Actually, the truth is a beautiful thing! Doesn’t hurt at all, in fact truth does just the opposite of hurt. Truth is freedom and light.

Now…why would I be a “sir” with a username like “mommamia”? First time I’ve ever been mistaken for a sir.

 

[Newsy]

Actually, the truth is a beautiful thing! Doesn’t hurt at all, in fact truth does just the opposite of hurt. Truth is freedom and light.

I can think of times when the bolded part of your statement is wrong. Truth can bring freedom and enlighten us. It can bring us tremendous joy, but it can cause us to examine and change ourselves, this can be a painful process. For example, a heroin addict is killing himself by using the drug. He needs to be shown the truth, that heroin is bad and can be deadly. To stop using heroin is a painful detox. In a very real way, in this example coming to the truth hurts.

I think bballer was using “the truth hurts” as a way of expressing that truth us not dependent on our accepting it. The truth remains the truth whether we accept it or not. I could be wrong about bballer’s usage.

 

[mommamia]

I can think of times when the bolded part of your statement is wrong. Truth can bring freedom and enlighten us. It can bring us tremendous joy, but it can cause us to examine and change ourselves, this can be a painful process. For example, a heroin addict is killing himself by using the drug. He needs to be shown the truth, that heroin is bad and can be deadly. To stop using heroin is a painful detox. In a very real way, in this example coming to the truth hurts.

I think bballer was using “the truth hurts” as a way of expressing that truth us not dependent on our accepting it. The truth remains the truth whether we accept it or not. I could be wrong about bballer’s usage.

I stand by what I said. Obviously, while detox may cause physical discomfort for a short time, it does not hurt you.

As for the rest, I believe I am right, you believe you are right. I doubt I’ll change your mind, and you’re not going to change mine.

I just don’t like being thought of as a sir

 

[Cavaradossi]

Multiple patriarchs having equal authority vs one leader in authority. It seems to me that in the OT, there was one leader at a time (until the nations of Israel and Judah were at odds). Come to think of it, the EO and the CC kind of remind me of that scenario… sort of.

That is a misrepresentation of Orthodox ecclesiology. We admit that there is primacy within the Church, to which Apostolic Canon 34 bears witness. We do not, however believe that primacy is divinely established. Following the ecclesiology of Cyprian and other pre-nicene Christians, we recognize that all bishops are ontologically equal (as Cyprian says, all bishops derive their authority from Peter), and that the hierarchy above the rank of bishop exists only for the good order of the Church. As I mentioned earlier, there is no inconsistency with the Old Testament: Christ is our high priest, and the bishops are also high priests, as the image of Christ, temporally manifesting the heavenly and eternal Church in the local diocese.

 

[Vouthon]

That is a misrepresentation of Orthodox ecclesiology. We admit that there is primacy within the Church, to which Apostolic Canon 34 bears witness. We do not, however believe that primacy is divinely established. Following the ecclesiology of Cyprian and other pre-nicene Christians, we recognize that all bishops are ontologically equal (as Cyprian says, all bishops derive their authority from Peter), and that the hierarchy above the rank of bishop exists only for the good order of the Church. As I mentioned earlier, there is no inconsistency with the Old Testament: Christ is our high priest, and the bishops are also high priests, as the image of Christ, temporally manifesting the heavenly and eternal Church in the local diocese.

And that has legitimate basis in the Early Church but so does the Roman Catholic view

The issue is, the Church was still united despite Orthodox popes who are still saints in the Orthodox Church believing that they had a unique lineage and authority from Peter and a divinely established role of primacy in the Church.

This difference goes very deep, almost to the very beginning of the Roman and Eastern Churches in the early second century.

 

[Bballer32]

Then the protestants broke off from the Catholic Church…because and already broken institution is open to further breakage.

mommamia… sorry for calling you a sir i just thought the mommamia was used as an expression sorry…

But here i quote this part because you stated above that an already broken institution continues to break.

Well, let’s look at this…

There are six Orthodox churches that are not in communion with the autocephalous churches.

Included are=
Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, so-called “Matthewites”
Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, so-called “Florinites”
Orthodox Church of Greece (Holy Synod in Resistance), so-called “Cyprianites”
Old Calendar Romanian Orthodox Church
Old Calendar Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Russian Orthodox Church in America

There are “Old Believers” that do not accept liturgical change carried out by Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century

Included are=
Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church (Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy)
Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite Church (Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy)
Russian Old-Orthodox Church (Novozybkovskaya Hierarchy)
Pomorian Old-Orthodox Church (Pomortsy)

There are also churches with unresolved canonical status that have episcopal consecrations outside of the norms of canon law or because the bishops have been excommunicated by one of the autocephalous churches.

Included are=
Belarusian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Bulgarian Alternative Synod
Holy Orthodox Church in North America
Macedonian Orthodox Church
Montenegrin Orthodox Church
Orthodox Church in Italy
Russian True Orthodox Church
Turkish Orthodox Church
Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kiev Patriarchate)
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church Canonical
Croatian Orthodox Church

This sounds quite a bit like Protestantism breaking from the Church Maybe not to you but i bet other’s would say the same thing.

 

[Bballer32]

Nonsense, what feature of the Orthodox Church cannot be found prefigured in the Old Testament? The Eucharist? Bishops? Baptism? Chrismation? Christ? I want to see one specific difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, where the Catholic feature may be found in the Old Testament while the Orthodox feature cannot be found.

Well, let me try a shot

This involves papal infallibility…which you don’t believe in.

Luke 10:16: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Now, Jesus spoke this to his disciples. Was Peter a disciple? Of course, so he knows the truth. Then, Jesus gave HIM the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose. Well, with this GOD-GIVEN gift, Peter’s knowledge of the truth becomes doctrinal because of this power. If the president declares a law and it passes, it stays. Same with the pope, for the pope is guided by the Holy Spirit no matter how off he may be, God has him as the Head of His Church for a special reason…

Wheeew

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well, let me try a shot

This involves papal infallibility…which you don’t believe in.

Luke 10:16: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Now, Jesus spoke this to his disciples. Was Peter a disciple? Of course, so he knows the truth. Then, Jesus gave HIM the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose. Well, with this GOD-GIVEN gift, Peter’s knowledge of the truth becomes doctrinal because of this power. If the president declares a law and it passes, it stays. Same with the pope, for the pope is guided by the Holy Spirit no matter how off he may be, God has him as the Head of His Church for a special reason…

Wheeew

Where was it said that the keys to the kingdom of heaven confer infallibility? Where was it said that only one bishop succeeds Peter? The bishops of the Church all succeed the apostles and act as the type of Peter, so those words of Christ apply to all bishops, that whosoever hears their evangelism accepts Christ and he who rejects them, rejects Christ.

 

[Nicea325]

Lmao are you refering to Corinth back in Clement I?
Greece was part of the Roman Patriarchate back in the day.

LMAO more than you! Ah no, refering to a bishop from Alexandria!

 

[Nicea325]

Where was it said that the keys to the kingdom of heaven confer infallibility? Where was it said that only one bishop succeeds Peter? The bishops of the Church all succeed the apostles and act as the type of Peter, so those words of Christ apply to all bishops, that whosoever hears their evangelism accepts Christ and he who rejects them, rejects Christ.

And where was it said that the keys to the kingdom of heaven do not refer to infallibility? Where was it said that more than one bishop (first among equals) succeeds Peter?

 

[Cavaradossi]

And where was it said that the keys to the kingdom of heaven do not refer to infallibility? Where was it said that more than one bishop (first among equals) succeeds Peter?

Cyprian and Pope Leo both said so.

 

[Bballer32]

And where was it said that the keys to the kingdom of heaven do not refer to infallibility? Where was it said that more than one bishop (first among equals) succeeds Peter?

hahahaha oh my i was just going to say that… great minds think a like

 

[Bballer32]

Cyprian and Pope Leo both said so.

Ok… since everyone always says this i might as well too…

Sources would be nice

 

[Bballer32]

The bishops of the Church all succeed the apostles and act as the type of Peter, so those words of Christ apply to all bishops, that whosoever hears their evangelism accepts Christ and he who rejects them, rejects Christ.

They can act as a type of Peter, BUT they all obeyed peter’s commands.

Now, here are some interesting facts…

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the “whole Church” offered “earnest prayers” for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ok… since everyone always says this i might as well too…

Sources would be nice

Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith.

Cyprian, epistle XXVI, to the lapsed
newadvent.org/fathers/050626.htm

It will take me a while to verify that the translation Pope Leo’s quote is a good one. If you just happen to be able to read Latin, you can find a few lines about how the type of Peter is proposed to all pastors of the Church in his sermon IV.

 

[Bballer32]

Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established** in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith.**
​

Ok, to get the obvious out of the way, the Church was run by the apostles and their successors. Peter was also an apostle but was given special authority as you have just clearly pointed out in this passage.

Now, for the highlighted part…

The Church is established through the bishop, the clergy, and all who have faith, but let me ask you this;

In heaven, their are the faithful angels; all 9 spheres. The angels that live near the throne of God (seraphim, cheribum, and thrones) all act as bishops of the kingdom of heaven. But, does that mean that there still isn’t one who rules over them? No, Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit still oversee the kingdom. They have given this authority to Peter and his successors on earth for the earthly kingdom (the Catholic Church).​

 

[Bballer32]

Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith.

Cyprian, epistle XXVI, to the lapsed
newadvent.org/fathers/050626.htm

It will take me a while to verify that the translation Pope Leo’s quote is a good one. If you just happen to be able to read Latin, you can find a few lines about how the type of Peter is proposed to all pastors of the Church in his sermon IV.

Here is a little OT lesson. We all believe in parallels between the OT and NT right? Well, the story of Joseph is a reflection of the life of Christ. Until you get to the part I have written.

In Genesis 41 Joseph, the youngest of the 12 sons that was sold to Egypt, has to interpret the dreams of Pharoh, which he does very well i must say.

In Genesis 41:33-36, Joseph tells Pharoh that he will need to choose a man with wisdom and insight to put in charge of the country=(parallel Church).

In Genesis 41:37-41, Pharoh says these exact words, "38: and he said, ‘We will never find a better man than Joseph, a man who has God’s spirit in him.’ The king said to Joseph,'God has shown you all this,so it is obvious that you have greater wisdom and insight than anyone else. I will put you in charge of my country (parallel, Pope heading the Church!!!) and all my people will obey your orders. Your authority will be second only to mine. I now appoint you govenor of all Egypt. (parallel, Peter and popes recieve authority and all will listen to them but Jesus is the higher in command)

So, as you see here, the Old testament, which came before the Church which came before the New Testament, was indeed insighting what Jesus was going to do!!

Jesus=King like Pharoh
Peter=Governer, 2nd authority, like Joseph.

I’ve got more proof if you need more

 

[Cavaradossi]

They can act as a type of Peter, BUT they all obeyed peter’s commands.

Now, here are some interesting facts…

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles

These are all non-issues when you realize that you’re not debating with a Protestant. The Orthodox don’t deny that Peter was special.

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the “whole Church” offered “earnest prayers” for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching

This is called an eisegesis. Nobody for a thousand years ever read Acts 15 in this manner. St. John Chrysostom, a great doctor of the Church, taught that James was vested with the authority to make the judgment (which he does, notice that Peter does not make any judgment) as bishop of Jerusalem, not Peter.

The problem is that your interpretations are colored by what is called Peter syndrome. Whenever you see the name Peter, you automatically associate him with Rome, when in fact, the earliest Christian writers, like Cyprian, associated Peter with the episcopacy in general. This is what caused one Easterner to make a quip that the Italians have “made him who was teacher of the world into bishop of one city”. The Eastern Christians just never saw Peter as being exclusively the property of Rome. This, for example, is why references to Peter as being the leader of the apostles still remain to this day in our hymns, because we see no conflict between that idea and with being out of communion with Rome.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ok, to get the obvious out of the way, the Church was run by the apostles and their successors. Peter was also an apostle but was given special authority as you have just clearly pointed out in this passage.

Now, for the highlighted part…

The Church is established through the bishop, the clergy, and all who have faith, but let me ask you this;

In heaven, their are the faithful angels; all 9 spheres. The angels that live near the throne of God (seraphim, cheribum, and thrones) all act as bishops of the kingdom of heaven. But, does that mean that there still isn’t one who rules over them? No, Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit still oversee the kingdom. They have given this authority to Peter and his successors on earth for the earthly kingdom (the Catholic Church).

Firstsly, we do not know if noetic beings like angels have bishops. Let’s not venture into speculation.

Secondly, if you read that passage again, it should be clear that Cyprian is making a parallel. He says that the Church is built upon the Bishops, right after saying that the Church is built upon Peter. In his mind, the bishops each succeed Peter.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Here is a little OT lesson. We all believe in parallels between the OT and NT right? Well, the story of Joseph is a reflection of the life of Christ. Until you get to the part I have written.

In Genesis 41 Joseph, the youngest of the 12 sons that was sold to Egypt, has to interpret the dreams of Pharoh, which he does very well i must say.

In Genesis 41:33-36, Joseph tells Pharoh that he will need to choose a man with wisdom and insight to put in charge of the country=(parallel Church).

In Genesis 41:37-41, Pharoh says these exact words, "38: and he said, ‘We will never find a better man than Joseph, a man who has God’s spirit in him.’ The king said to Joseph,'God has shown you all this,so it is obvious that you have greater wisdom and insight than anyone else. I will put you in charge of my country (parallel, Pope heading the Church!!!) and all my people will obey your orders. Your authority will be second only to mine. I now appoint you govenor of all Egypt. (parallel, Peter and popes recieve authority and all will listen to them but Jesus is the higher in command)

So, as you see here, the Old testament, which came before the Church which came before the New Testament, was indeed insighting what Jesus was going to do!!

Jesus=King like Pharoh
Peter=Governer, 2nd authority, like Joseph.

I’ve got more proof if you need more

Can you back up your exegesis with a Church father?

It doesn’t really make a difference in the end, however, because I’m not disputing that Peter was first of the Apostles. Our hymnography confirms as much, so I don’t know why you’re wasting your time arguing against a position that I’m not supporting.