Catholics "R" Wrong

[Wisely]

No one disputes that the Apostles established churches, they were all part of** the Church.** Rome loved the most? Rome was the center because that is where Peter, with his special role, resided and was martyred. Rome was the place where many were martyred, including Paul. I don’t think it had anything to do with loving the most.

Isn’t your Eucharist the same as ours?
This has nothing to do with the questions I asked you. I guess you are losing me.

Thats the problem, thinking that the church can be divided in “parts”.
The other problem is that I’m bad at explaining things

In ancient times Rome was the Church that “presided in Love”. Not because Peter nor Paul nor because it was the capital.

The thing is that we think the Church as the Eucharist (Eucharistic Ecclesiology).
In the Mass, the priest takes a big Eucharist (Full Christ) and breaks it in parts. When you recieve our part, you recieve the full Christ not a part of Christ.

It’s the same with the Church. Take all the Churches worldwide, then take off a diocese (Full Church) and you have now 2 full Churches. 1 Full Church + 1 Full Church = 1 Full Church.

Catholics don’t analize the Trinity in parts. Father (Fully God) + Son (Fully God) + Holy Spirit (Fully God) = 1 Full God —> 1+1+1=1 or 1-1=1

It’s the same principle.

 

[Bballer32]

Thats the problem, thinking that the church can be divided in “parts”.
The other problem is that I’m bad at explaining things

In ancient times Rome was the Church that “presided in Love”. Not because Peter nor Paul nor because it was the capital.

The thing is that we think the Church as the Eucharist (Eucharistic Ecclesiology).
In the Mass, the priest takes a big Eucharist (Full Christ) and breaks it in parts. When you recieve our part, you recieve the full Christ not a part of Christ.

It’s the same with the Church. Take all the Churches worldwide, then take off a diocese (Full Church) and you have now 2 full Churches. 1 Full Church + 1 Full Church = 1 Full Church.

Catholics don’t analize the Trinity in parts. Father (Fully God) + Son (Fully God) + Holy Spirit (Fully God) = 1 Full God —> 1+1+1=1 or 1-1=1

It’s the same principle.

Ehhhh good explanations but it’s nothing at all like that… see idk the exact answer to this one yet but i’m pretty sure someone else can help me out here… still a young one… haven’t been confirmed yet

 

[Cavaradossi]

And why you ignore it and cannot comprehend a parallel comparison is beyond me? Perhaps it is a dodge or you cannot see it? Angels have ranks-yes or no? The church is also based on rank: Christ, bishops, priests, deacons and laity. Someone is always first and above all others, so why you cannot see it is beyond me. And why you trying to convey “democratic” church which in itself is already a dangerous position.

You are putting words into my mouth. I never advocated a democratic Church. I wrote not to speculate on such matters because such speculation is spiritually dangerous, and can easily lead one into error. I refuse to engage in it.

 

[Newsy]

Thats the problem, thinking that the church can be divided in “parts”.
The other problem is that I’m bad at explaining things

In ancient times Rome was the Church that “presided in Love”. Not because Peter nor Paul nor because it was the capital.

The thing is that we think the Church as the Eucharist (Eucharistic Ecclesiology).
In the Mass, the priest takes a big Eucharist (Full Christ) and breaks it in parts. When you recieve our part, you recieve the full Christ not a part of Christ.

It’s the same with the Church. Take all the Churches worldwide, then take off a diocese (Full Church) and you have now 2 full Churches. 1 Full Church + 1 Full Church = 1 Full Church.

Catholics don’t analize the Trinity in parts. Father (Fully God) + Son (Fully God) + Holy Spirit (Fully God) = 1 Full God —> 1+1+1=1 or 1-1=1

It’s the same principle.

I like your Eucharist analogy, but I don’t think we are speaking on the same level. Maybe some questions could help us clarify the subject.

Were the afore mentioned churches a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Why did Paul travel to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles there?

What was Rome the capital of, that made it special to the early Church?

If each individual church observed a hierarchy, why wouldn’t that pattern continue with the entire Church?

I hope these questions will help to further our discussion. I would very much like to understand the Orthodox viewpoint, perhaps some official statement would help.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I like your Eucharist analogy, but I don’t think we are speaking on the same level. Maybe some questions could help us clarify the subject.

Were the afore mentioned churches a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Why did Paul travel to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles there?

What was Rome the capital of, that made it special to the early Church?

If each individual church observed a hierarchy, why wouldn’t that pattern continue with the entire Church?

I hope these questions will help to further our discussion. I would very much like to understand the Orthodox viewpoint, perhaps some official statement would help.

Read the history of things like the Easter Controversy. A clear-cut hierarchy is not really visible until the Romans started integrating Church and state, up until then, we hear about ‘Rome presiding in love over other Churches’, but find no real example of Rome applying jurisdictional power over the other Churches without their compliance.

 

[Nicea325]

You are putting words into my mouth. I never advocated a democratic Church. I wrote not to speculate on such matters because such speculation is spiritually dangerous, and can easily lead one into error. I refuse to engage in it.

I understand & I apologize, it is not my intention my brother in Christ.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I understand & I apologize, it is not my intention my brother in Christ.

I apologize if we’ve exchanged harsh words. I hope you’ve had a blessed Easter. Christ is risen!

 

[Nicea325]

I apologize if we’ve exchanged harsh words. I hope you’ve had a blessed Easter. Christ is risen!

It is okay,not a problem and yes my Easter was great. God Bless

 

[Newsy]

Read the history of things like the Easter Controversy. A clear-cut hierarchy is not really visible until the Romans started integrating Church and state, up until then, we hear about ‘Rome presiding in love over other Churches’, but find no real example of Rome applying jurisdictional power over the other Churches without their compliance.

Presiding in love, sounds like leadership to me.

I assume they were compliant because they saw a clearly given leadership role. If they understood the “Chair of Peter” to be a leadership role, then why would they choose to obstruct it’s authority?

As far as clear cut Authority, I find it quite clear when Jesus said, “Feed my sheep”. Oh, and also the whole Keys to the Kingdom thing.

I do not understand the Orthodox viewpoint, that is why I asked for it a few posts back. I might better understand the Schism, if somebody would explain the Orthodox point of view. I keep asking questions without response. I really want to understand the EO point of view. Keep in mind, I may not agree with it, but I would like the chance to hear it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Presiding in love, sounds like leadership to me.

I assume they were compliant because they saw a clearly given leadership role. If they understood the “Chair of Peter” to be a leadership role, then why would they choose to obstruct it’s authority?

As far as clear cut Authority, I find it quite clear when Jesus said, “Feed my sheep”. Oh, and also the whole Keys to the Kingdom thing.

I do not understand the Orthodox viewpoint, that is why I asked for it a few posts back. I might better understand the Schism, if somebody would explain the Orthodox point of view. I keep asking questions without response. I really want to understand the EO point of view. Keep in mind, I may not agree with it, but I would like the chance to hear it.

The Orthodox view is that all bishops are the successors of Peter. This is the centerpiece of our understanding of Cyprian’s ecclesiology. That is why the Orthodox do not object to Cyprian’s idea that there is one see of Peter and the unity of the Church is rooted in it, because they understand it to be associated with the ‘one episcopacy’ which Cyprian writes about. The Orthodox criticism of the Roman Catholic interpretation of Cyprian’s ecclesiology, is that their association of the see of Peter with one bishop, the bishop of Rome, means also that there is an association of the one episcopacy with him, making him effectively the only bishop in the world at one given time, with all other ‘bishops’ merely serving as his vicar.

These differences in interpretation have lead to differences in our ecclesiology, where in the Roman Catholic Church, the bishop of Rome has immediate jurisdiction (albeit extraordinary) over the entire world. The Orthodox, by contrast do not grant bishops immediate jurisdiction outside of their own diocese. The most a bishop can possibly do in another diocese without the consent of the bishop of that diocese is to break communion with him, or to arrange for his deposition by a synod (that is to say that schism is the most extreme action that a bishop may take against another bishop). That is how it is, in theory, at least, although in practice there are bound to be aberrations.

 

[T_More]

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

So why not become Orthodox if you’re convinced of this?

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

So why not become Orthodox if you’re convinced of this?

Orthodoxy is much more than Catholicism minus papal supremacy.

 

[T_More]

Orthodoxy is much more than Catholicism minus papal supremacy.

I understand, Mark. I meant no disrespect.

 

[Newsy]

The Orthodox view is that all bishops are the successors of Peter. This is the centerpiece of our understanding of Cyprian’s ecclesiology. That is why the Orthodox do not object to Cyprian’s idea that there is one see of Peter and the unity of the Church is rooted in it, because they understand it to be associated with the ‘one episcopacy’ which Cyprian writes about. The Orthodox criticism of the Roman Catholic interpretation of Cyprian’s ecclesiology, is that their association of the see of Peter with one bishop, the bishop of Rome, means also that there is an association of the one episcopacy with him, making him effectively the only bishop in the world at one given time, with all other ‘bishops’ merely serving as his vicar.

These differences in interpretation have lead to differences in our ecclesiology, where in the Roman Catholic Church, the bishop of Rome has immediate jurisdiction (albeit extraordinary) over the entire world. The Orthodox, by contrast do not grant bishops immediate jurisdiction outside of their own diocese. The most a bishop can possibly do in another diocese without the consent of the bishop of that diocese is to break communion with him, or to arrange for his deposition by a synod (that is to say that schism is the most extreme action that a bishop may take against another bishop). That is how it is, in theory, at least, although in practice there are bound to be aberrations.

Finally, an answer! Thank you.

Would it be fair to say, the Catholic Church sets up the Pope as a Father and the Orthodox sets up all Bishops like brothers? What keeps the Bishops from “bickering” with one another? Who is the final authority between Bishops?

 

[JonNC]

So why not become Orthodox if you’re convinced of this?

Because, simply, either direction I would go in is in schism with the other. For now, I am content to confess Augsburg, but if the EO and Rome were to be in full communion, I would see that as an irresistable movement of the Holy Spirit.

Jon

 

[Cavaradossi]

Finally, an answer! Thank you.

Would it be fair to say, the Catholic Church sets up the Pope as a Father and the Orthodox sets up all Bishops like brothers? What keeps the Bishops from “bickering” with one another? Who is the final authority between Bishops?

That’s where the hierarchy, as apostolic canon 34 details, comes in. The bishops are organized into synods with a metropolitan (who is usually seated in the regional capitol city) at their head, and those metropolises, depending on geography, may be organized into greater hierarchical structures like patriarchates, which are headed by patriarchs. The bishop of Rome at one point may have enjoyed what might be called a universal primacy along this model (admittedly, this is a point which is still under dispute in Orthodoxy), but that primacy has always been understood in the East, like all other forms of primacy, as a functional thing implemented by man for the good of the Church.

It was natural then, when the bishops of Rome started claiming to have an immediate and universal jurisdiction (which they claimed to have by virtue of being Peter’s only successor), that the East went into schism with the bishops of Rome, because they found their claims to be unreasonable, for they did not understand primacy of any sort to involve any immediate jurisdiction outside of one’s particular diocese, nor did they understand Peter to be limited to one particular geographical location.

 

[Marybeloved]

Just wanted to say, the idea that the primacy of Rome was because of it being the Capital was categorically rejected by St. Methodius who said it was actually by Divine Grace and connected it with St.Peter being told to feed the sheep.

"It is not true, as this canon (Canon 28 of Chalcedon) states, that the holy fathers gave the primacy to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire; it is from on high, from Divine grace, that this primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles, was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself: ‘Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep’. That is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first See. That is why the leges of old Rome are eternally immovable, and that is the view of all the Churches" ( – Methodius – N. Brian-Chaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).

Also, the teaching of the Catholic Church is not that the Pope alone holds Peter’s chair but that all the Bishops do hold this same chair (therefore there is unity in the one Church, for there is only one chair in the church, not twelve chairs or any other number). The Popes’ primary purpose is unity in the Church. The thing is, the chair is grounded/attached irrevocably with the successor of Peter in the church of Rome. It is situate in the successors of Peter in the church of Rome. The Bishops’ authority in the chair of Peter derives from their unity with the principle church in Rome. They cannot simply bypass it and find some other means of attaching themselves to Peter or his chair.

Peace.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Just wanted to say, the idea that the primacy of Rome was because of it being the Capital was categorically rejected by St. Methodius who said it was actually by Divine Grace and connected it with St.Peter being told to feed the sheep.

"It is not true, as this canon (Canon 28 of Chalcedon) states, that the holy fathers gave the primacy to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire; it is from on high, from Divine grace, that this primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles, was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself: ‘Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep’. That is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first See. That is why the leges of old Rome are eternally immovable, and that is the view of all the Churches" ( – Methodius – N. Brian-Chaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).

Also, the teaching of the Catholic Church is not that the Pope alone holds Peter’s chair but that all the Bishops do hold this same chair (therefore there is unity in the one Church, for there is only one chair in the church, not twelve chairs or any other number). The Popes’ primary purpose is unity in the Church. The thing is, the chair is grounded/attached irrevocably with the successor of Peter in the church of Rome. It is situate in the successors of Peter in the church of Rome. The Bishops’ authority in the chair of Peter derives from their unity with the principle church in Rome. They cannot simply bypass it and find some other means of attaching themselves to Peter or his chair.

Peace.

Then how come valid orders exist outside of union with the bishop of Rome? If communion with the bishop of Rome determines if one possesses the authority of Peter’s chair, then why are there bishops outside of communion with Rome with the authority to ordain valid bishops and valid presbyters who are capable of validly confecting the eucharist, administering confession (exercising the authority to bind and loose), etc.?

And if what Saint Methodius writes is true, what happened when the papacy left for Avignon, remaining the bishop of Rome only in name? That seems like it would be a problem.

 

[Marybeloved]

Then how come valid orders exist outside of union with the bishop of Rome? If communion with the bishop of Rome determines if one possesses the authority of Peter’s chair, then why are there bishops outside of communion with Rome with the authority to ordain valid bishops and valid presbyters who are capable of validly confecting the eucharist, administering confession (exercising the authority to bind and loose), etc.?

How does administering the sacraments pertain to binding and loosing? Is holy orders and the power of the keys the same?

And if what Saint Methodius writes is true, what happened when the papacy left for Avignon, remaining the bishop of Rome only in name? That seems like it would be a problem.

Who cares where the pope resides?- The question is, is the rightful Bishop of Rome, succeeding all the bishops of Rome all the way to St. Peter?

 

[Marybeloved]

Then how come valid orders exist outside of union with the bishop of Rome? If communion with the bishop of Rome determines if one possesses the authority of Peter’s chair, then why are there bishops outside of communion with Rome with the authority to ordain valid bishops and valid presbyters who are capable of validly confecting the eucharist, administering confession (exercising the authority to bind and loose), etc.?

How does administering the sacraments pertain to binding and loosing? Is holy orders and the power of the keys the same?

And if what Saint Methodius writes is true, what happened when the papacy left for Avignon, remaining the bishop of Rome only in name? That seems like it would be a problem.

Who cares where the pope resides?- The question is, is he the Bishop of Rome, succeeding all the bishops of Rome all the way to St. Peter?