Catholics "R" Wrong

[Cavaradossi]

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

Well, the most specific one is confession and the prayers of absolution. This power of priests has been connected with the keys and the power to bind and lose in the past. We would also contend, at least in the East, that a bishop’s monarchy within his diocese is derived from the authority of St. Peter and the keys.

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?

This was totally foreign to the apostolic church, and even to the post-nicene Church. That’s not to say that we haven’t done it too, calling the bishop who resides in Damascus the bishop of Antioch, but then again, the bishop of Antioch doesn’t claim to have a special font of unity somehow attached to the physical location of Antioch, so I suppose the move to Damascus, while definitely stretching the limits of what is canonical, is a bit less of a problem.

My question is, if the charism of unity is not attached to the physical location of Rome, as that quote suggests, but to some special type of succession, then does this succession make the bishop of Rome different from a regular bishop (i.e., a higher order of bishop), and if so, how is this succession passed on?

 

[Marybeloved]

My question is, if the charism of unity is not attached to the physical location of Rome, as that quote suggests, but to some special type of succession, then does this succession make the bishop of Rome different from a regular bishop (i.e., a higher order of bishop), and if so, how is this succession passed on?

Rome refers to a Bishopric, a see, the one in Rome, where Peter was said to hand it over to Linus and the others. I may misunderstand you, but you seem to be saying that a physical location (Rome) just arbitrarily is what is being referred to. That’s wrong. The church referred to the Bishops of Rome as successors of Peter, uniquely so. It’s Peter’s handing over his bishopric there instead of other sees that makes Rome what it is. Not just because Rome is special, but Rome as the seat of Peter and his successors. It does not matter where the Pope spends his days- He is the Bishop of Rome.

Yes, the charism is not attached to a particular location but a particular Bishop- The Bishop of Rome.

Also, the Bishops cannot bind the church without this unity of Peter and his successors- That’s Catholic teaching.

 

[rinnie]

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.

Nope, not according to the word of God. The Church is the Pilar of All Truth. I do not see people from all walks of life and various styles of worship the Pilar of All Truth.

The Church is ran today the same as when Christ started it over 2000 years ago. It does matter and it will always matter.

The RCC will not change. Christ leads it, and we will listen. It is led by the Holy Spirit the Spirit of truth today as yesterday. Truth does not change.

 

[rinnie]

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.

St Augustine said its 2 different issues.

Bishops who were consecrated in direct Apostolic Succession although heretics could still exercise valid Sacraments.

Since when was it ever taught that separation from the Roman Church makes direct Apostolic Succesion false?

 

[Cavaradossi]

St Augustine said its 2 different issues.

Bishops who were consecrated in direct Apostolic Succession although heretics could still exercise valid Sacraments.

Since when was it ever taught that separation from the Roman Church makes direct Apostolic Succesion false?

We’re not talking about apostolic succession per se here. The question is on how we should understand St. Cyprian’s ecclesiology. If there is no episcopacy outside of the chair of Peter, why then does the Catholic Church hold that all bishops ordained with proper form and intent by other validly ordained bishops are true bishops, regardless of their communion with Rome, unless the Catholic Church does not teach that the episcopacy is ontologically rooted in the see of Peter, in which case, the discrepancy I am seeing is a non-issue.

 

[Marybeloved]

Well, the most specific one is confession and the prayers of absolution. This power of priests has been connected with the keys and the power to bind and lose in the past. We would also contend, at least in the East, that a bishop’s monarchy within his diocese is derived from the authority of St. Peter and the keys.

I have read that CC and EO have different ecclessiologies, one based entirely on Eucharist and another on one body. To me, even a heretic bishop with valid orders can access the sacramental grace and confer it in the sacraments, because he’s part of the church though not fully so. Just like a pagan can baptize validly. But he (the Bishop) is not fully Catholic if he cuts himself off from the point of unity, the one chair established by Christ in Peter.

If Christ wanted he could have established a chair in all the Apostles without p(name removed by moderator)ointing none of them in particular, and simply told them that they **ALL **held to a single chair with one power and constituted a single foundation for the church together. That would be enough in the kind of ecclessiology that needs no visible head among the collegiate- And it is consistent, too. Like how you say that all bishops hold to the one chair. Why the need to establish it in Peter? If they (Apostles) needed it to be done that way to establish a center of unity among them, why should it cease with them?

It seems to me to make a type of mystical Peter who resides forever in the Church like the risen Christ, and the Bishops are united to him. To me this is strange, because all these roles were made for a need in the church and cannot be said to leave the visible church after the death of the Apostles. Surely if the church needed a visible unity then, it needs one now.

My question is, if the charism of unity is not attached to the physical location of Rome, as that quote suggests, but to some special type of succession, then does this succession make the bishop of Rome different from a regular bishop (i.e., a higher order of bishop), and if so, how is this succession passed on?

Hadn’t noticed this question before. What do you mean higher bishop? To me that is like asking if St.Peter’s special election by Christ and status among the Apostles made him an Apostle of a higher order?- He’s the point of unity in a body or college of Apostles.

 

[Marybeloved]

We’re not talking about apostolic succession per se here. The question is on how we should understand St. Cyprian’s ecclesiology. If there is no episcopacy outside of the chair of Peter, why then does the Catholic Church hold that all bishops ordained with proper form and intent by other validly ordained bishops are true bishops, regardless of their communion with Rome, unless the Catholic Church does not teach that the episcopacy is ontologically rooted in the see of Peter, in which case, the discrepancy I am seeing is a non-issue.

What do you mean ‘episcopacy’ outside of Peter? Do the 12 Apostles derive their place in the church from Peter or is Peter elected as the seat of unity among them? I guess I’m asking: Does the power of Christ come from God to Peter and then from him to the other Apostles, per your understanding? Or, say when Christ told them “Receive the Holy Spirit…Whosoever’s sins you forgive…” Did he give the power to Peter and then the other Apostles got it from him?: Or please explain a bit more what you mean by ‘episcopacy’. Don’t just assume that we understand the terms- Personally, I really don’t.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What do you mean ‘episcopacy’ outside of Peter? Do the 12 Apostles derive their place in the church from Peter or is Peter elected as the seat of unity among them? I guess I’m asking: Please explain a bit more what you mean by ‘episcopacy’.

Please don’t just assume that we understand the terms- Personally, I really don’t.

St. Cyprian writes some very curious stuff about there being only one episcopacy shared by all bishops. The Orthodox understanding is that this one episcopacy is associated with his writings on the one see of Peter, where the unity of the Church is found. In other words, the Orthodox reading of St. Cyprian suggests that there are no bishops outside of the see of St. Peter, while the Catholic understanding seems to imply that there are.

 

[Marybeloved]

St. Cyprian writes some very curious stuff about there being only one episcopacy shared by all bishops. The Orthodox understanding is that this one episcopacy is associated with his writings on the one see of Peter, where the unity of the Church is found. In other words, the Orthodox reading of St. Cyprian suggests that there are no bishops outside of the see of St. Peter, while the Catholic understanding seems to imply that there are.

Sorry, I edited my post while you were crafting this one. But isn’t that understanding subordinating the Apostles to Peter rather than Christ?

 

[Marybeloved]

St. Cyprian writes some very curious stuff about there being only one episcopacy shared by all bishops. The Orthodox understanding is that this one episcopacy is associated with his writings on the one see of Peter, where the unity of the Church is found. In other words, the Orthodox reading of St. Cyprian suggests that there are no bishops outside of the see of St. Peter, while the Catholic understanding seems to imply that there are.

Sorry, I edited my post while you were crafting this one. But isn’t that understanding subordinating the Apostles to Peter rather than to Christ?

Edit: What I’m trying to say is: Did Christ really establish only one bishop (Peter) from whom the other 12 derive their legitimacy?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Sorry, I edited my post while you were crafting this one. But isn’t that understanding subordinating the Apostles to Peter rather than Christ?

Well, not in any way that Peter alone receiving the keys or the “feed my sheep” passage subordinates the other apostles to Peter. On the role of the other Apostles, I think Cyprian seems somewhat silent, although I have not fully read through his many letters and treatises to be able to make that judgement with confidence yet.

 

[Marybeloved]

Well, not in any way that Peter alone receiving the keys or the “feed my sheep” passage subordinates the other apostles to Peter. On the role of the other Apostles, I think Cyprian seems somewhat silent, although I have not fully read through his many letters and treatises to be able to make that judgement with confidence yet.

Well, to me, receiving the keys and the command to feed the sheep don’t mean one see or bishopric. Clearly they give him a special status- but it is not the source of the bishoprics of the other twelves, but the center that unites them in one voice such that they can speak and rule the church as one.

I have to admit, this feels quite strange to me, because for the first time it feels as if a Catholic is arguing for a lesser role for Peter in the church than an Orthodox !

 

[rinnie]

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.

Well think about it, Jesus said to Peter what YOU bound on earth is bound in heaven and what you loose is loose.

Now with that said How can it not be infalibility? The true word of God. God said he stands by Peters decision. If the Pope bounds us we are bound here the same as in heaven.

What really is the difference between having the power to speak in the name of Christ here on earth, or bound or loose in his name. What is the difference??

 

[rinnie]

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.

Wonder why the Early Aposltes had no problem with Peter being the choice made by Christ.

Why do you think when he stood up at Pentecost and spoke they did not say anything. Wonder why when he made the decison to replace Judas they did not buck him?

Too many places in scripture that prove the authority of Peter.

Wonder why when St Paul was to make his conversion he headed straight to St Peter for instruction?

Too much proof in the N.T. on the side of the Roman Church.

 

[Nicea325]

Wonder why the Early Aposltes had no problem with Peter being the choice made by Christ.

Why do you think when he stood up at Pentecost and spoke they did not say anything. Wonder why when he made the decison to replace Judas they did not buck him?

Too many places in scripture that prove the authority of Peter.

Wonder why when St Paul was to make his conversion he headed straight to St Peter for instruction?

Too much proof in the N.T. on the side of the Roman Church.

Likewise, Peter’s change of name also has significance as was in the OT when God changed one’s name. Why no complaints there about the OT?

 

[Newsy]

Well, not in any way that Peter alone receiving the keys or the “feed my sheep” passage subordinates the other apostles to Peter. On the role of the other Apostles, I think Cyprian seems somewhat silent, although I have not fully read through his many letters and treatises to be able to make that judgement with confidence yet.

Could it be possible that Cyprian is being given too much authority? You keep referring to Cyprian and the Orthodox interpretation of him, what about the other Church Fathers? Not trying to be offensive, but there are other ECF’s besides Cyprian.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Could it be possible that Cyprian is being given too much authority? You keep referring to Cyprian and the Orthodox interpretation of him, what about the other Church Fathers? Not trying to be offensive, but there are other ECF’s besides Cyprian.

Yes, but how many pre-Nicene Church fathers wrote a treatise titled “On the Unity of the Catholic Church”?

St. Cyprian is important because he gives us a good snapshot, so to speak, of how the Church was understood in the third century. With the integration of Christianity into the Roman Empire, things changed over several centuries into a more hierarchical model, which was fueled by the need for a stable state religion. That is not to say that a hierarchical model does not have its upside, but we on the Orthodox side recognize it to have been a gradual development, not something that was there from the very beginning. A hierarchy for good order is perfectly acceptable, but I don’t think you’ll ever get the Orthodox to buy into the claim that the papacy was divinely established.

If we are to buy into the idea that the Chalcedonian schism and the East-West schism broke the unity of the church (without any sort of branch theory), but are serious about trying to achieve reconciliation without the “your Church must convert to our Church” mentality, we’re going to have to make a rather concerted effort to reexamine just what terms like ‘catholic’, ‘church’ and ‘unity’ meant to these earliest fathers, who had no universal ecclesiology (our different understandings of which seem to be the root of the problem) to speak of.

 

[Newsy]

Yes, but how many pre-Nicene Church fathers wrote a treatise titled “On the Unity of the Catholic Church”?

St. Cyprian is important because he gives us a good snapshot, so to speak, of how the Church was understood in the third century. With the integration of Christianity into the Roman Empire, things changed over several centuries into a more hierarchical model, which was fueled by the need for a stable state religion. That is not to say that a hierarchical model does not have its upside, but we on the Orthodox side recognize it to have been a gradual development, not something that was there from the very beginning. A hierarchy for good order is perfectly acceptable, but I don’t think you’ll ever get the Orthodox to buy into the claim that the papacy was divinely established.

If we are to buy into the idea that the Chalcedonian schism and the East-West schism broke the unity of the church (without any sort of branch theory), but are serious about trying to achieve reconciliation without the “your Church must convert to our Church” mentality, we’re going to have to make a rather concerted effort to reexamine just what terms like ‘catholic’, ‘church’ and ‘unity’ meant to these earliest fathers, who had no universal ecclesiology (our different understandings of which seem to be the root of the problem) to speak of.

Unity will come from above. We must all pray for unity and be willing to follow where He leads us.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Unity will come from above. We must all pray for unity and be willing to follow where He leads us.

May the will of the Father be done!

 

[jlhargus]

Wonder why the Early Aposltes had no problem with Peter being the choice made by Christ.

Why do you think when he stood up at Pentecost and spoke they did not say anything. Wonder why when he made the decison to replace Judas they did not buck him?

Too many places in scripture that prove the authority of Peter.

Wonder why when St Paul was to make his conversion he headed straight to St Peter for instruction?

Too much proof in the N.T. on the side of the Roman Church.

Also Peter acted on his own authority in baptizing the first Gentiles in Cornelius’ household without circumcission or consulting the others.

Another point; [Mt17:24 When they came to Capernaum **the collectors of the half shekel tax went up to Peter and said Does not your teacher pay the tax? 25 He saith Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? 26: Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. 27 notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for ME and THEE.

The collectors recognize Peter as spokesman in Christ’s group, they went to Peter, to ask if his teacher will pay the tax. The miracle, of the tax money the one coin, shekel, paid the half shekel each for Christ and Peter only.