Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[sudy]

2 Timothy 3: 1-9 ‘You must understand this, that in the last days distressing times will come. For people will be lovers of themselves… boasters, arrogant… holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid them! For among them are those… who are always instructed and can never arrive at the knowledge of the truth.’

Matthew 15: 13-14 ‘Every plant that My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted, Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit.’

2 Timothy 2: 14 ‘Remind them of this, and warn them before God that they are to avoid wrangling over words, which does no good but only ruins those who are listening.’

We must remember that we are united in our love of God. We must all open our hearts to the Holy Spirit. God calls us to unity. We should be preaching to those who do not know God, not squabbling amongst ourselves.

Ephesians 1: 17-18 ‘I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation as you come to know Him.’

---

Just out of curiosity, how would you each answer these questions?

1 If the succession of Peter was not important, why did the Apostles appoint Linus?

2 Considering that Paul did most of the evangelizing to the Gentiles in the Bible, why did Jesus appoint Peter to feed His sheep?

3 What purpose did it serve Jesus to give the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to Peter?

4 Why did Peter declare at the Council of Jerusalem that God had made a choice among us, that Peter should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers?

I haven’t come here to look for an argument, I’m just curious at this point.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

As I see it, without rehashing pages of apologetics,

You are **looking for **inconsistencies. If you go looking for inconsistencies, you will always find them. Christianity asks for the benefit of the doubt. We use that phrase a lot: benefit of the doubt. What does that phrase mean?

It is the assent of faith. Even with your doubts (we all have 'em), you give the “yes” of your faith to something.other than your doubts. Hopefully that something becomes a someone. The assent of faith requires trust in things you can’t understand. The assent of faith asks you to lay aside your demand for pat answers and enter a relationship with Christ and his united body. (You can’t have one without the other.)

There will never be sufficient answers to pages of questions if you place your own doubts above trust.

Why do you presume that I am looking for inconsistencies? That is an unfair accussation.
Do I need to start reporting personal references?

Are you saying they are not there? Should they be ignored?

Are we not supposed to uphold the truth?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Oh I understand very well. This was a common theme in my sojourn amoung my separated brethren.

Where on earth did you come up with this drivel?

Yes, this is true because we Trust the Head, who has promised that He will guide us into “all Truth”.

I do apologize guanophore if you only have faith in some, not all, of the words written down by humans, and if you don’t take much of their words literally.

 

[daddyd]

As I see it, without rehashing pages of apologetics,

You are **looking for **inconsistencies. If you go looking for inconsistencies, you will always find them. Christianity asks for the benefit of the doubt. We use that phrase a lot: benefit of the doubt. What does that phrase mean?

It is the assent of faith. Even with your doubts (we all have 'em), you give the “yes” of your faith to something.other than your doubts. Hopefully that something becomes a someone. The assent of faith requires trust in things you can’t understand. The assent of faith asks you to lay aside your demand for pat answers and enter a relationship with Christ and his united body. (You can’t have one without the other.)

Don’t you mean enter a relationship with the pope. Isn’t he the vicar (one who takes the place of) Christ on earth?

 

[clem456]

Don’t you mean enter a relationship with the pope. Isn’t he the vicar (one who takes the place of) Christ on earth?

No that’s not what I mean That’s not what I said

This is the line:

enter a relationship with Christ and his united body.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Eastern Orthodox Theologians Agree: Peter is the Rock

Veselin Kesich

“It has long been noticed that Mt 16:17-19 has a Palestinian, Aramaic background. The form of Jesus’ reply to Peter’s confession appears Hebraistic. There are parallels to the Matthean text in the Qumran literature. The use of semitisms such as ‘gates of Hades,’ ‘flesh and blood,’ ‘bind and loose,’ and semitic parallelism again indicates an Aramaic environment…[Jesus] conferred upon Simon Bar-Jonah the title Peter, and promised that he would build his church upon him. ‘You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church (ecclesia).’ These words are spoken in Aramaic, in which Cephas stands both for petros and petra…The confession of Peter, therefore, cannot be separated from Peter himself. Petra or rock does not simply refer to Peter’s faith but also to Peter personally. There is a formal and real identity between Petros and petra. Jesus will build the church upon Cephas.” (Veselin Kesich, “Peter’s Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition” in The Primacy of Peter edited by John Meyendorff [St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992], page 47,48)

I want to highlight something in the passage just quoted from Kesich: the word “also”.

The “rock” of Mt. 16:18 refers not just to Peter’s confession but also to Peter personally.

This is “both/and” - not “either/or”.

And this approach - the “both/and” approach - explains why, IMO, some ECF’s speak of Peter as the rock while others speak of his confession as the rock and why BOTH of them are correct - provided that they do not deny the other interpretation, of course.

And just as there are important implications of the understanding that Peter’s confession is the rock (as any Protestant will happily explain), so there are important implications of the fact that Jesus promised to build His Church upon Peter personally.

If you are Orthodox or Protestant, the importance of Peter’s confession is rightly honored by you, and Catholics agree with all that interpretation entails. Undoubtedly, more could be done with this by us.

But the other very real truth - that Peter personally is the rock - has profound implications for understanding of how Jesus established the governance of His one Church, and this deserves your serious consideration.

 

[steve_b]

That’s incorrect. Antioch is also the See of Peter, where Evodius and Ignatius succeeded him.

1. 
   *]popes ordain lots of priests and bishops over their pontificate. It doesn’t mean they are his successors to his office.
   *]A bishiop’s see is where he is, NOT where he was. Peter left Antioch and went to Rome. Rome is Peter’s see, NOT Antioch. And Peter’s grave is under the altar of St Peter’s.
   
   If you want to make the case for the bishop of Antioch from the beginning down to today, holding that special authority as successor to Peter among the Catholic Church, then please do. Maybe start a new thread
   I:
   

   Also incorrect, I am united to the Church Universal by virtue of Baptism. The union is imperfect but it is union nonetheless.

   define union
   I:
   

   2 Timothy 4:3
   For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires,

   All who try and justify themselves for being divided from the Catholic Church and remaining divided, are guilty of that passage
   
   Paul also says it a bit differently in his letter to the Church of Rome, for those who divide from the Catholic Church Romans 16:17-20 . “Such people don’t serve Our Lord but themselves… by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent…” Paul goes on to say division is evil and from Satan, so don’t anybody do it.
   
   The word Paul used there for division is διχοστασίας. It’s the same word used in Gal 5:19.The consequences for that action by an individual is they will not inherit heaven if they die in that sin. There is no greater consequence for a sin than to be excluded from heaven for all eternity.
   
   The Eastern Orthodox regardless of stripe, are NOT Catholic. They are NOT the Catholic Church, because they are divided from the chair of Peter.
   I:
   

   But still a Non-Sequitur and irrelevant to the facts I’m presenting.

   When I asked you, " to be fair, looking at this historically, could you give me the first time IN WRITING, that we see “Orthodox Church”? Please give the reference(s) properly referenced of course."
   
   That is not a non sequitur. Jesus established ONE Church with Peter as the head. It’s ludicrous for one to think there is any other Church but the one Jesus founded and gave all His promises to, and rejects division from the Church He established, and that obviously means division from Peter and his successors…
   I:
   

   None of it proves supremacy, immediate, universal and ordinary jurisdiction for any one Bishop.

   Jesus already established that point for one bishop being the one to rule His Church and have universal jurisdiction. The passages and ECF’s quotes have been given ad nauseum. You’re either ignoring or rejecting all the evidence from scripture passages and Tradition of the Fathers, and the ongoing teaching majesterium of the Church that supporting the teaching of Peter as head of the Church, WITH complete supremacy and jurisdiction .
   I:
   

   Nor is it above the first 7 Ecumenical Church Councils of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

   The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church has had 21 ecumenical councils.
   
   Again I ask, when is the 1st time in history, in writing, that we see the name “Orthodox Church”? Please give the reference(s)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Isaiah45_9;12468988]This right here, along with other post-schismatic documents are the biggest obstacle to unification of the Whole Church.

Really? then how about one of your own councils proclaiming an anathema here PRE-SCHISM. That affects the salvation of other’s, such as your self.
**“This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!’” **(Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

In regards to the other quotes you presented. It is significant that regardless of the many heroes of the faith that sat in the Chair of Peter, no exception/waiver was provided by the Whole Church as demonstrated in over 14 centuries later

.

You did not read the official Church sources, because Pagan, heretics, Emperors, Saints, Eastern Council’s recognized Peter’s supremacy over all other Church’s are to follow. Secular laws were made by the Emperor recognizing the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, throughout the Roman Empire.

The Supremacy of Peter’s Chair over all Church’s and for all Church’s to follow is recognized beginning from Jesus revelation, quotes from 107, 189, 220, 381, 400 a.d. I provided for you official writings and documents and you overlooked them? And still maintain the whole world did no recognize Peter’s supremacy? Until 14 centuries later?

That is not an honest post Isaiah, considering a partial historical evidence presented conflict’s with your 14 centuries later.

What do you think St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles would say to such a travesty?

The same thing St. Peter told Annanias and his wife, who lied to Peter and the Holy Spirit, when Peter tells them himself death comes for them in their presence. recorded in the books of Acts of the Apostles. Peter also addresses the magician with such force, for trying to buy a gift from God. A Rock does not move by winds and doctrines made by men, nor does the Rock Jesus builds upon Peter shrink at the threat of death, when Peter knows it is only God who can destroy the body and the soul.

Do you think that St. Peter would say such a thing? If anything, His own life, letters and testimony are living witness of the contrary.

Peter set’s the example for all other Church’s to follow, when Peter condemns the couple to death for lie-ing. I don’t think you want to mess with St. Peter about the Faith Peter is depositing upon the faithful. Peter waste no time with protestants during his tenure on earth.

Honestly, Isaiah, I am not sure if your open to reason to such a discussion, because it appears you are holding to an opinion that is never yours to defend, when you have not professed to be a Orthodox. I can have such a discussion with the Orthodox who do not engage me on such topics, because in the past, we spoke clear about one another’s impact on Church history with the mind of the Church. I don’t find that in our discussion?

So, without inundating you with documents and quotes, I hope to expose you to a history that speaks from Church history, that most Orthodox resist to hear this Truth, because it exposes their prejudiced view against Peter’s Chair contrary to the way they present their denial of Peter’s primacy and supremacy.

You are welcome to bring your arguments to the Primacy and Supremacy thread. After all, I’m not arguing primacy.

Thanks, I am trying to find time to update myself on your thread so as to give a response.

Supremacy not only defines Peter is the Apostolic church for all other’s to follow, and when Peter speaks on faith and morals all believers listen and fall silent. This divine revelation has not changed for 2000 years in the Roman Catholic Church. Supremacy used by the Catholic Church like many other human terms do not take on the same definition from a carnal mind. She speaks in spiritual terms describing spiritual realities. So Please, when you refer to the Vatican documents or and ecumenical dialogue, we read these with the mind of the Church. Maybe if anything, this is something you learn from these discussions. The Ecumenical dialogue is far from what you think it is saying.

I only introduced one council here and some examples recognizing the Supremacy of Peter and His primacy.

Currently you have not revealed the Church’s teaching on Primacy and Supremacy nor your opinion of the two.

Peace be with you

 

[wmscott]

Well, verse 23 follows pretty quickly, does it not? That’s where Jesus called him Satan. Right after Peter does something that sounds authoritative. Sounds to me like Peter was being presumptuous and got strongly rebuked for thinking he was in charge.

Understanding what Jesus was saying is crucial.

From Haydock’s bible Commentary LINK
Ver. 23. Go after me, Satan.[4] The words may signify, begone from me; but out of respect due to the expositions of the ancient fathers, who would have these words to signify come after me, or follow me, I have put, with the Rheims translation, go after me. Satan is the same as an adversary: (Witham) and is here applied to Peter, because he opposed, out of mistaken zeal, Christ’s passion, without which the great work of man’s redemption could not be effected. Peter, however, unknowingly or innocently, raised an opposition against the will of God, against the glory of Jesus, against the redemption of mankind, and against the destruction of the devil’s kingdom. He did not understand that there was nothing more glorious than to make of one’s life a sacrifice to God. (Bible de Vence) — Thou dost not, i.e. thy judgment in this particular is not conformable with that of God. Hence our separated brethren conclude that Christ did not, in calling him the rock in the preceding verses, appoint him the solid and permanent foundation of his Church. This conclusion, however, is not true, because, as St. Augustine and theologians affirm, Peter could fall into error in points regarding morals and facts, though not in defining or deciding on points of faith. Moreover, St. Peter was not, as St. Jerome says, appointed the pillar of the Church till after Christ’s resurrection. (Tirinus) — And it was not till the night before Christ suffered that he said to Peter: Behold, Satan hath desired to have thee; but I have prayed for thee, that “thy faith fail not,” and thou being once converted confirm thy brethren. (Luke xxii. 31.) (Haydock)

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Really? then how about one of your own councils proclaiming an anathema here PRE-SCHISM. That affects the salvation of other’s, such as your self.
"This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

My “own” councils? I am trying really hard to maintain a level head.

Leo is rightfully sitting at Peter’s Chair and as Bishop of Rome he spoke. How you jump from there to supremacy escapes my mind.

You did not read the official Church sources, because Pagan, heretics, Emperors, Saints, Eastern Council’s recognized Peter’s supremacy over all other Church’s are to follow. Secular laws were made by the Emperor recognizing the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, throughout the Roman Empire.

The very same secular laws the Church fought so hard to separate herself from. Investitures, simonies, etc. You accuse me of not reading Church sources and yet you miss the documents where Rome is fighting secular influence to reach independence from them?

If this supremacy was so widely recognized, the letters of the Canons would certainly show their consistency with current teaching.

The Supremacy of Peter’s Chair over all Church’s and for all Church’s to follow is recognized beginning from Jesus revelation, quotes from 107, 189, 220, 381, 400 a.d. I provided for you official writings and documents and you overlooked them? And still maintain the whole world did no recognize Peter’s supremacy? Until 14 centuries later?

That is not an honest post Isaiah, considering a partial historical evidence presented conflict’s with your 14 centuries later.

Do you realize how hard you try to discredit me? As if discrediting an anonymous internet person would do anything to the actual documents?

The same thing St. Peter told Annanias and his wife, who lied to Peter and the Holy Spirit, when Peter tells them himself death comes for them in their presence. recorded in the books of Acts of the Apostles. Peter also addresses the magician with such force, for trying to buy a gift from God. A Rock does not move by winds and doctrines made by men, nor does the Rock Jesus builds upon Peter shrink at the threat of death, when Peter knows it is only God who can destroy the body and the soul.

Peter set’s the example for all other Church’s to follow, when Peter condemns the couple to death for lie-ing. I don’t think you want to mess with St. Peter about the Faith Peter is depositing upon the faithful. Peter waste no time with protestants during his tenure on earth.

Conversion by fear. Maybe I’ll update my religion to: Catholic by reason of fear. I wonder how that will change the reception of the arguments.

Honestly, Isaiah, I am not sure if your open to reason to such a discussion, because it appears you are holding to an opinion that is never yours to defend, when you have not professed to be a Orthodox. I can have such a discussion with the Orthodox who do not engage me on such topics, because in the past, we spoke clear about one another’s impact on Church history with the mind of the Church. I don’t find that in our discussion?

I am not holding to an opinion. I have questions. What do you think I am defending?
Have I presented anything other than Catholic sources and documents?

Why would I need to be Orthodox to present these arguments? Is that something exclusive for them? Is a Catholic not allowed to ask these questions? Not allowed to inquiry about problems that are observed in Church history?

So, without inundating you with documents and quotes, I hope to expose you to a history that speaks from Church history, that most Orthodox resist to hear this Truth, because it exposes their prejudiced view against Peter’s Chair contrary to the way they present their denial of Peter’s primacy and supremacy.

Can you not work without labels? Do I need to be Orthodox so you can use your checklist of things to bring up? Orthodox dirty laundry? Are you unable to engage a conversation for the face value of history and documents without a denomination in mind?

Supremacy not only defines Peter is the Apostolic church for all other’s to follow, and when Peter speaks on faith and morals all believers listen and fall silent. This divine revelation has not changed for 2000 years in the Roman Catholic Church. Supremacy used by the Catholic Church like many other human terms do not take on the same definition from a carnal mind. She speaks in spiritual terms describing spiritual realities. So Please, when you refer to the Vatican documents or and ecumenical dialogue, we read these with the mind of the Church. Maybe if anything, this is something you learn from these discussions. The Ecumenical dialogue is far from what you think it is saying.

Divine revelation has changed. Doctrines and dogmas are added to the faith in the name of Divine Revelation. You mean to tell me that you can read all these documents and reach the conclussion that it hasn’t changed?

Currently you have not revealed the Church’s teaching on Primacy and Supremacy nor your opinion of the two.

So all the documents I have presented are not Church teaching?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

1. 
   *]popes ordain lots of priests and bishops over their pontificate. It doesn’t mean they are his successors to his office.
   *]A bishiop’s see is where he is, NOT where he was. Peter left Antioch and went to Rome. Rome is Peter’s see, NOT Antioch. And Peter’s grave is under the altar of St Peter’s.
   
   If you want to make the case for the bishop of Antioch from the beginning down to today, holding that special authority as successor to Peter among the Catholic Church, then please do. Maybe start a new thread

1. 
   I can’t start another thread, I can barely keep up with these 2.
   
   So when a Governor has also been a Governor in another State — he has two successors, does he not?
   
   His last successor is determined by his last office. In this case, Peter’s last office is Rome. How can one office take away from the other?
   

   define union

   There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.
   

   All who try and justify themselves for being divided from the Catholic Church and remaining divided, are guilty of that passage.

   Anyone who divides himself our of a single bible passage is guilty of many more things.
   

   Paul also says it a bit differently in his letter to the Church of Rome, for those who divide from the Catholic Church Romans 16:17-20 . “Such people don’t serve Our Lord but themselves… by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent…” Paul goes on to say division is evil and from Satan, so don’t anybody do it.

   Herein lies the problem steve. Can you actually point out when, where and how the East and West separated?
   

   The word Paul used there for division is διχοστασίας. It’s the same word used in Gal 5:19.The consequences for that action by an individual is they will not inherit heaven if they die in that sin. There is no greater consequence for a sin than to be excluded from heaven for all eternity.
   
   The Eastern Orthodox regardless of stripe, are NOT Catholic. They are NOT the Catholic Church, because they are divided from the chair of Peter.

   So the only way the Church can be one is by submitting to the Chair of Peter?
   

   When I asked you, " to be fair, looking at this historically, could you give me the first time IN WRITING, that we see “Orthodox Church”? Please give the reference(s) properly referenced of course."
   
   That is not a non sequitur. Jesus established ONE Church with Peter as the head. It’s ludicrous for one to think there is any other Church but the one Jesus founded and gave all His promises to, and rejects division from the Church He established, and that obviously means division from Peter and his successors…

   Orthodox is not a denomination anymore than Catholic is a denomination. Orthodox means “right teaching” whereas Catholic means “universal”.
   
   I don’t know when was the first time the term “Orthodox Church” was used.
   

   Jesus already established that point for one bishop being the one to rule His Church and have universal jurisdiction. The passages and ECF’s quotes have been given ad nauseum. You’re either ignoring or rejecting all the evidence from scripture passages and Tradition of the Fathers, and the ongoing teaching majesterium of the Church that supporting the teaching of Peter as head of the Church, WITH complete supremacy and jurisdiction .

   This would make a lot more sense if Peter alone had the power of binding and losing. It is also absent in the first millennium.
   

   The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church has had 21 ecumenical councils.

   Well, I didn’t see that coming .
   

   Again I ask, when is the 1st time in history, in writing, that we see the name “Orthodox Church”? Please give the reference(s)

   Why ask the same question twice in the same post? Answer is above.
   
   And why is that relevant? The word Christian was used before Catholic, does that mean that Catholic is less valid?
   
   On a separate note: thank you so much for addressing the issues and not me. It was a breeze of fresh air replying to your post.

 

[YADA]

To our Orthodox brethren …I ask [as did Cyprian]

Q] If you desert the chair of Peter upon whom Jesus - our Lord and King - our God decided was the foundation upon which His Church was built, how can you still be confident that you are in His Church?

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? (Cyprian - The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

 

[pablope]

I .

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Why not understand the roots of the separation first? And Here you can see where the East used Rome’s supreme role when it was convenient…catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

Who then, in St. Optatus’ time, holds the Keys of the Kingdom? Repeatedly St. Optatus declares that the one holding the Keys must receive them from St. Peter. First, he points out that among all the Apostles, only St. Peter received the Keys. He writes:

When He * praises One, He condemns the others because, besides the one which is the true Catholc Church, the others amongst the heretics are thought to be churches, but are not such. Thus He declares in the Canticle of Canticles (as we have already pointed out) that His Dove is One, and that she is also the chosen Spouse, and again a garden enclosed, and a fountain sealed up. Therefore none of the heretics possess either the Keys, which Peter alone received, or the Ring, with which we read that the Fountain has been sealed.24

and that the purpose of this Cathedra was to preserve unity among all Christians, including even the other Apostles. He writes:*

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25

The problem is that there is no Eastern Bishop claiming supreme jurisdiction apart from Rome. The problem is Rome claiming supreme jurisdiction apart from the East.

Is there an Eastern Bishop claiming that Rome and all the other Sees be subject to him?

Are the Eastern Bishops not wanting to operate in the ancient faith and in the customs of the first 7 ecumenical councils?

There is no rising up against Rome. There was no supreme, immediate, absolute, ordinary jurisdiction from any one Bishop over the whole Church prior to the schism! That came about after the fact.

 

[guanophore]

Can you denominate from someone? Doesn’t denominate simply mean “name”? Isn’t a Christian denomination simply a group of Christians with a name?

All Protestant denominations have been born out of Roman Catholicism. They are defined by how much, and which parts, of the CC they reject. To take one’s name from also means that they are defined and have identity over and against that from which they denominate.

 

[guanophore]

That’s stretching way beyond what I actually said.

I apologize, then, I guess I just misunderstood.

G, Isaiah has been posting in these forums for three years. The same arguments over and over. Now, if you want to say that I’m not really interested in listening at this point, you’d be right. But hasn’t Isaiah had the opportunity to listen, as well? And to what effect?

You are right, of course, and though I don’t think any of your efforts will change his mind, I am sure that there are many lurkers that have benefitted.

True enough. So, are you conceding that Isaiah has found a valid argument against the Catholic Church? Should we all become Orthodox now?

No, I was just picking on you for your lack of interest in his sources.

I agree. I’m certainly not.

Well you certainly have done some very good work toward ecumenism, despite your lack of perceived calling for it.

True enough, I suppose. I have tried to bow out of multiple threads with Isaiah, and I have acknowledged that I have NOT studied the councils so I have nothing significant to offer. I have made that clear on more than one occasion, also.

I do hope and pray that you will find the fervency to study them, as it is clear from those things that you have studied have fortified you well.

But here’s the thing: numerous Catholics who ARE knowledgeable on these points have engaged Isaiah and other Orthodox posters whose names you are familiar with at length on multiple occasions over the past few years.

Yes. It appears that very little budging has occurred, but we cannot know how many people reading the threads may be moved. When you look at the stats for this thread, there are 18 times more readers than there are posters. This is a very wide reading.

Where’s the fruit, G? Is there really any wonder why these Catholics do not bother engaging in these discussion in these forums any longer? And, to be fair, Orthodox posters point out the exact same frustrations from their perspective.

It clarifies the issues, and calls us to pray for unity.

So, where are we? Well, I’m not sure. However, I don’t recall ever having been called out by you before, so that’s a bit disconcerting.

Please do not be disuaded or diminished in your apologetic efforts my brother, because you have planted good seeds in much soil and I am sure that good fruit will come of it.

Let this be a reminder to all of us to pray for the members of CAF, all those lurkers, as well as all who are participating. I have made a commitment to do this, and I hope that all who are reading the thread will join me in prayer and fasting that the Church of Christ be unified.

 

[guanophore]

You really don't think I listen? Seriously?

I do not think you would be here participating if you were not willing, but I do not think

Did I not come back to the Catholic Church? Talk to several Priests, fellow Catholics? Did I not give it my all to embrace the doctrines and dogmas of Catholicism?

Does it sound like I am on an emotional rampage?

Trust me, if it seemed so, I would be the first to comment. :sad_yes:

But it does seem like you have your mind made up already.

Not at all. I am presenting serious arguments that I can’t reconcile and what you and others have presented have not addressed those arguments but my person. This has nothing to do with me. This has to do with several inconsistencies in the development of doctrine.

I understand that it does not seem consistent to you. And believe me, there are several statements in the development of doctrine that I think have futher separated us from the East.

If anything I love the Catholic Church. I love Her so much, that I don't dare be dishonest and a hypocrite. I am not going to "pretend" to embrace doctrines that are inconsistent with Church history. I can honestly say, I tried.

I respect your honesty. It seems that you are wrestling with your conscience with integrity.

 

[YADA]

To our Orthodox brethren …I ask [as did Optatus]

Q] If you desert the chair of Peter upon whom Jesus - our Lord and King - our God decided was the foundation upon which His Church was built, the chair of unity - how is it you feel confident that you are in His Church and not schismatic?

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" (Optatus - The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

I apologize, then, I guess I just misunderstood.

You are right, of course, and though I don’t think any of your efforts will change his mind, I am sure that there are many lurkers that have benefitted.

No, I was just picking on you for your lack of interest in his sources.

Well you certainly have done some very good work toward ecumenism, despite your lack of perceived calling for it.

I do hope and pray that you will find the fervency to study them, as it is clear from those things that you have studied have fortified you well.

Yes. It appears that very little budging has occurred, but we cannot know how many people reading the threads may be moved. When you look at the stats for this thread, there are 18 times more readers than there are posters. This is a very wide reading.

It clarifies the issues, and calls us to pray for unity.

Please do not be disuaded or diminished in your apologetic efforts my brother, because you have planted good seeds in much soil and I am sure that good fruit will come of it.

Let this be a reminder to all of us to pray for the members of CAF, all those lurkers, as well as all who are participating. I have made a commitment to do this, and I hope that all who are reading the thread will join me in prayer and fasting that the Church of Christ be unified.

Peace upon you.

 

[KathleenGee]

For another thread…why was the Latin Church more vulnerable to people falling away into Protestantism vs the Orthodox. The Reformers went there to bring them along, and they refused…

I cannot oversee a thread but wonder if someone could do this…sorry…but we do have so many fragmented believers in America…