2
2ndGen
Guest
![Confused :confused: :confused:](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png)
Is this belief “in” The Holy Bible?
There you go again, pointing me to a library instead of just showing me the book.Yes. Read Acts, and Galatians.
Your church dedicated a whole feast to this fact on February 22.
Your three bishops of Antioch (and presumably the fourth Vatican II did away with) all claim to succeed Peter
“Some” Christians believe that Peter is the creator of their Church and state that Peter established The Catholic Church (not “a” Catholic Church) in Antioch and that he ruled The Church from Antioch.Didn’t Peter establish the church at Antioch then leave it in the hands of another, a successor, there when he went to Rome? So what is the big deal? Paul did the same thing; he established churches and left them to successors. He also was in Rome but wasn’t the bishop of Rome.
Peter ended up at Rome where he was bishop until he died. His ‘primacy’ didn’t remain at Antioch when he went to Rome did it?
What am I missing?
That brought about a point. If “where” Peter preached is how one measures “where” The Catholic Church was headquartered, then wouldn’t Jeruselum be the headquarters and “not” Antioch (Turkey)?His ‘primacy’ didn’t remain at Antioch
Actually it did.Peter ended up at Rome where he was bishop until he died. His ‘primacy’ didn’t remain at Antioch when he went to Rome did it?
What am I missing?
It has not been established that where Peter preached has anything to do with it.That brought about a point. If “where” Peter preached is how one measures “where” The Catholic Church was headquartered, then wouldn’t Jeruselum be the headquarters and “not” Antioch (Turkey)?
As it happens, Jerusalem is also a Patriarchal See.Isn’t it in Jeruselum where Peter “first” preached post-ressrurection?
Actually it did.
Primacy is functional throughout the church, at every level there is a protocol routinely followed. Antioch is one of the five core Primatial Sees.
Then primacy is not the term I mean. Westerners use the word in a different sense I think.Actually it did.
Primacy is functional throughout the church, at every level there is a protocol routinely followed. Antioch is one of the five core Primatial Sees.
Primacy does not mean what most Roman Catholics interpret it to mean today. The bishopric of Rome came later, and was not an office of control over the other patriarchal churches. What is called primacy by Roman Catholics today is something new, which is best described as Supremacy. The early church did not know anything about this.
This would be abundantly clear if the average Roman Catholic referenced the ancient canons of the church, or read the seven Ecumenical Councils.
It’s not the fault of the average Roman Catholic, I think, because they are not taught these things. So misconceptions abound.
Michael
Of course.Then primacy is not the term I mean. Westerners use the word in a different sense I think.
I mean,Jesus gave Peter the keys and told him to feed my sheep. This office (maybe a better term?) of key-keeper and chief shepherd attached to the person of Peter wherever he went. After Peter became what westerners would call bishop of Rome, his successor in Antioch would still have looked to Peter as first among the apostles, wouldn’t he?
Definition #3 is unique to the Roman catholic church, and only from modern times.Hmmm…let’s see what the generallys accepted definition of “primacy” is worldwide:
pri·ma·cy
–noun,
- the state of being first in order, rank, importance, etc.
- Also called primateship. English Ecclesiastics. the office, rank, or dignity of a primate.
- Roman Catholic Church. the jurisdiction of a bishop, as a patriarch, over other bishoprics, or the supreme jurisdiction of the pope as supreme bishop.
That is fine as far as Rome alone is concerned (it had primacy over central Italy), but that does not demonstrate the bishop of Rome had authority over Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem et al.Read this: “You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter;…”
Optatus
The Schism of the Donatists 2:2
A.D. 367
That’s pretty clear to me.
Yes, definitely.Then primacy is not the term I mean. Westerners use the word in a different sense I think.
All bishops are the heirs of all the apostles. All are heirs of Paul, Peter, the Sons of Thunder, Thomas and the rest. Real bishops do shepherd their flocks, and have the authority to bind and loose, without recourse to the central office.I mean,Jesus gave Peter the keys and told him to feed my sheep. This office (maybe a better term?) of key-keeper and chief shepherd attached to the person of Peter wherever he went. After Peter became what westerners would call bishop of Rome, his successor in Antioch would still have looked to Peter as first among the apostles, wouldn’t he?
Your coreligionist Gen is going around the boards trying to pick fights with Orthodox.From what I read here, it seems there is a lot of vehemence between the Orthodox and the Roman churches. Please tell me this is not so.
I have to admit I’m curious… I always have been about our split, but I’d better brush up on a few things before I can enter this conversation. I’ll have some questions shortly.Your coreligionist Gen is going around the boards trying to pick fights with Orthodox.
CAF has ruled that Orthodox are not Catholics, according to their definition.
We love you all, and I for one especially so, but this does not really demonstrate the same love for Holy Orthodoxy that you seem to have.
I will always answer your questions truthfully, as long as I am able. I mean no offence, but if you ask me something, I will either give you the facts as I know them or my honest opinion, if that is what you want to know.
I am not here to pick fights.
Definition #3 is unique to the Roman catholic church, and only from modern times.
I’m with you a hundred percent.I’d like to know why we’re arguing like this? One of the things I’ve always held dear is the fact that the Catholic Church is great and universal. From what I read here, it seems there is a lot of vehemence between the Orthodox and the Roman churches. Please tell me this is not so. By virtue of our schism, I attempt to go to Mass at Roman rite churches, but understand that I may also attend Orthodox Masses if a Roman rite is not available. I cherish the fact that the Orthodox are our brothers and that we share valid holy orders and can each offer the Body and Blood of Christ.
Can someone please bring this back to earth for me so that I don’t go to bed tonight with this foul taste in my mouth?
:ehh:
You’d think we’re debating the Great Apostasy!!!
RAR
But Jerusalem was under St. James, and had been, according to St. Clement since after the Ascension. Acts (and Galatians) testifes to this.“Some” Christians believe that Peter is the creator of their Church and state that Peter established The Catholic Church (not “a” Catholic Church) in Antioch and that he ruled The Church from Antioch.
I was just hoping to see if they had some historical proof or maybe even if they could quote one of The Church Fathers as stating this.
That brought about a point. If “where” Peter preached is how one measures “where” The Catholic Church was headquartered, then wouldn’t Jeruselum be the headquarters and “not” Antioch (Turkey)?
Isn’t it in Jeruselum where Peter “first” preached post-ressrurection?
Well, then. Who did the sending in 11:22 (with the result in verse 26)? Peter was still in Jerusalem. Peter leaves in 12:17, St. Paul is ordained by someone in 13:3 in Antioch.There you go again, pointing me to a library instead of just showing me the book.
“Where” in The Book of Acts does it state that Peter established The Catholic Church in Antioch?
Would your nameless experts care to specify said beliefs?The Russians, Greeks and Arabs (one a Princeton Theologian) I’ve dealt with over the past couple of days have all told me that the beliefs espoused here are not those of the common Orthodox Christian and have called these individual fanatics that are out of touch with the true nature of the Orthodox Church.
.Again, it must be because of their “Americanism” more than of their “Orthodoxy”. Orthodox Christians from other countries don’t have the slightest qualms about Catholics, matter of fact, as long as we’re not non-Christians, they seem to “not” care about our Catholicism. They’ve shown me a lot of respect and were very content to hear of me. Very nice people indeed. True Christians