L
Do Anglicans believe that Christ founded the Church on Peter?
- Status
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
[Infallibility? Josie!
**For Catholics infallibility comes from the Revelation of Christ and the teaching and acceptance of the Holy Ghost’s guidance through an Ecumenical Council!
Of these there are seven generally accepted. In none of these is either the papacy mentioned or refered to. The Bishop of Old Rome is mentioned, this is when the Ecumenical Councils gave him authority to be Patriarch of the West, while the Bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, was made Patriarch of the East.
It was three hundred years before the Papal Claims surfaced. This was under Leo!
Of course, as we have seen on this thread, any action of the previous popes when simply doing their work as a diocesan bishop can be dragged up, I refer to Stephen, making a fool of himself over the eastern brothers and so on. There is no continuous application in the Catholic Church regarding the claims of the Papacy! Read S. Vincent of Lerins, a canonised saint of the Church, who warns against the reliance of catholic on individuals for teaching and goes on to say that teachings come from the Church through Bishops and Councils.[rough trans.]
**For Catholics infallibility comes from the Revelation of Christ and the teaching and acceptance of the Holy Ghost’s guidance through an Ecumenical Council!
Of these there are seven generally accepted. In none of these is either the papacy mentioned or refered to. The Bishop of Old Rome is mentioned, this is when the Ecumenical Councils gave him authority to be Patriarch of the West, while the Bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, was made Patriarch of the East.
It was three hundred years before the Papal Claims surfaced. This was under Leo!
Of course, as we have seen on this thread, any action of the previous popes when simply doing their work as a diocesan bishop can be dragged up, I refer to Stephen, making a fool of himself over the eastern brothers and so on. There is no continuous application in the Catholic Church regarding the claims of the Papacy! Read S. Vincent of Lerins, a canonised saint of the Church, who warns against the reliance of catholic on individuals for teaching and goes on to say that teachings come from the Church through Bishops and Councils.[rough trans.]
S
Spengler47
Guest
Only two popes have actually issued infallible dogmas: Pius IX in 1870, when he proclaimed the doctrine of papal infallibility itself, and Pius XII in 1954, when he declared the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven to be an infallible teaching. I think it’s significant that Saint Thomas Acquinas argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility. It’s also noteworthy that, since 1954, no pope has proclaimed an infallible dogma. I have to wonder if the popes themselves haven’t decided that the doctrine of papal infallibility is mistaken and are allowing it to fall into desuetude.
I think what Gurney Hallack and Josie L may be defending is the consensus fidelium: The Christian faith that St. Vincent of Lerins said was believed always, everywhere and by everybody (quod semper, quod ubique, quod am omnibus creditur est). That’s the position of Christian traditionalism. I do believe, however, that that consensus can permit the development of new understanding. Saint Augustine wrote early in the 5th century, that Christians only scandalize the faith when they refuse to accept valid findings of science. On the other hand, neither do we rush in to embrace new ideas simply because they’re novel or because they have gained widespread acceptance at one point in time, our own generation. Saint Paul wrote that we have to test the spirits to see if they be of God, and that’s the church’s task in every generation.
I think what Gurney Hallack and Josie L may be defending is the consensus fidelium: The Christian faith that St. Vincent of Lerins said was believed always, everywhere and by everybody (quod semper, quod ubique, quod am omnibus creditur est). That’s the position of Christian traditionalism. I do believe, however, that that consensus can permit the development of new understanding. Saint Augustine wrote early in the 5th century, that Christians only scandalize the faith when they refuse to accept valid findings of science. On the other hand, neither do we rush in to embrace new ideas simply because they’re novel or because they have gained widespread acceptance at one point in time, our own generation. Saint Paul wrote that we have to test the spirits to see if they be of God, and that’s the church’s task in every generation.
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
**The Catholic Faith, is that faith once ,'Revealed to the saints." {Ep. Jude.}
As such we believe that the Holy Scriptures are completed explained and interpreted by the Holy Fathers in the Seven Ecumenical Councils. These are Councils of Catholic Bishops whose teachings were guided by the Holy Ghost and accepted as such by the Catholic Church in its entirety!
Are we to assume that our Lord missed some article of faith out of His Revelation?
There is room for development, but it is by simple clarification and deeper understanding. I.E.The Ecumenical Councils defined that Mary was the Theotokos, the Mother of God, also ,that she was Immaculate `and Ever -Virgin. This is development from antiquity after a study of Catholic tradition. It is not to be imposed by a single communion or denomination , no matter how big. **
As such we believe that the Holy Scriptures are completed explained and interpreted by the Holy Fathers in the Seven Ecumenical Councils. These are Councils of Catholic Bishops whose teachings were guided by the Holy Ghost and accepted as such by the Catholic Church in its entirety!
Are we to assume that our Lord missed some article of faith out of His Revelation?
There is room for development, but it is by simple clarification and deeper understanding. I.E.The Ecumenical Councils defined that Mary was the Theotokos, the Mother of God, also ,that she was Immaculate `and Ever -Virgin. This is development from antiquity after a study of Catholic tradition. It is not to be imposed by a single communion or denomination , no matter how big. **
S
Spengler47
Guest
But that process of clarification involves dealing with the challenges to certain elements of Christian belief, arising over the centuries, from Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, etc. Obviously our Lord didn’t talk to his disciples about the structure of the solar system, the biological factors by which species evolve, quantum mechanics, general or special relatively, etc. nor did the early church fathers discuss those issues. They weren’t aware of them.
B
BHTech
Guest
Aren’t you guys tired of rehashing those lame excuses to deny the Papacy? There are several reasons why Launoy’s point holds no water to be used against the Catholic Church. Rather it eh … supports the Catholic Church teaching.
1) The Catholic Church has always said that Matthew 16 represents Peter profession of Faith AND the Rock on which Christ builds his church. Note the conjunction “AND”. This is clearly stated in the CCC in #424 and #552, showing that Rome regards both interpretations as being correct. The Catholic church has also said that Jesus Christ Himself is the rock in the sense that the church is apostolic in virtue of Christ. No incarnation, no Christ, no Christ, no Church.
In case you have not read it, from the CCC:
2) What you fail to tell the readers is that many ECFs saw multiple applications of the Matthew 16 passage as well, and in one sense Launoy ignored the double meanings. The reason being that many, many more than 17 ECFs saw Peter as being the Rock. See catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp and cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm.
3) Not one ECF has come out and flatly denied the Petrine ministry. Not one. Can you find one? As Steve Ray says the “silence speaks volumes”
God Bless
BHTech
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
B
BHTech
Guest
Friend I have never smoked a joint or seen magic mushrooms. I do know however that your comprehension of the English language leaves a lot to be desired. I have consistently used the words “The Catholic Church” and the lone place where I used Rome in my previous posting I meant “The Catholic Church”, thinking it was obvious what I was referring to. Apparently it was not that obvious.
CCC stands for the Catechism of the Catholic Church which has 22 rites in it with the largest rite being the Roman rite. Don’t confuse the Roman Catholic Church with the Catholic Church.
Nowhere have I said that the Catholic Church (all 22 rites!) does not rely on its Tradition. I know it does. It claims it does. I am merely pointing out to you a compiled document, the CCC, which codifies what has always been the Tradition of the Catholic Church and what it states about the Petrine ministry and “the Rock” in #424 and #552. Does it tell us everything? No it does not, but it clearly addresses and rebuts the specific point you first made. You like so many others have failed to address the points (3 of them) I raise instead resorting to Ad hominem arguments.
Has anyone ignored “SS Hilary, Nyssen, Chrysostom S. Cyril of Alexandra, etc”? NO. I simply gave you reasons why Launoy point which you had hoped to bash Catholics (all 22 rites) on the head with is a mute one, but rather agrees with the Catholic position. Your beef is one of pride. “I will not serve” you say and I disagree with your assessment that there is no base for the Petrine primacy. Leaders are needed friend.
God Bless
BHTech
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
B
BHTech
Guest
No probs on the magic mushrooms. I was not born in the country of your birth so the story is not familiar to me. You claim I am ignoring Tradition yet I say otherwise. If you are right then could you please explain to me the following few quotations and what do they mean:
“At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church.” Ambrose,Commentary on the Psalms,43:40(AD 397),in GILES,145
“Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church.” Basil,In Isaias,2:66(A.D. 375),in SPP,55
Cyprian of Carthage
“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 [Peter] 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?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Oh and please explain to me what is* “the bench of Bishops in Council”?*
Thank you.
God Bless
BHTech*
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
B
BHTech
Guest
S
Spengler47
Guest
The sees of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem are not vacant. Even though Constantinople was seized by the Turks in 1453 and renamed Istanbul, the Patriarch of Constantinople still resides there, in the Phanar district, and is the ecumenical head of the eastern orthodox churches. There are also orthodox patriarchs in Antioch and Jerusalem. The patriarch of Alexandria, Shenouda III, is the pope of the Coptic Christian Church of Egypt.
B
BHTech
Guest
This is true. Perhaps a bad choice of a word on my part. I accept that. Only people like us here at Catholic Forums and those students of theology and history know they even exist albeit with diminished power and influence, but everyone knows of the Pope. The point being they no longer hold a prominent place in the world stage.
Blessings
BHTech
S
Spengler47
Guest
I agree, the influence of the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem is strictly local. They live under Moslem oppression. I think the patriarch of Constantinople occupies a more prominent role as ecumenical head of all the orthodox churches, including Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, etc. The Roman Catholic popes have been cultivating the patriarchs of Constantinople in ongoing ecumencial dialogue for half a century now, starting with Pope John XXIII or Paul VI.
But a lot can change over time. The prominence of eastern orthodoxy could increase. Half a century ago, Latin America was almost entirely Roman Catholic. Since then, the Roman Catholic Church in that region has lost substantial ground to the Protestant evangelicals and charismatics. The Russian tsars always claimed at Moscow was the third Rome.
But a lot can change over time. The prominence of eastern orthodoxy could increase. Half a century ago, Latin America was almost entirely Roman Catholic. Since then, the Roman Catholic Church in that region has lost substantial ground to the Protestant evangelicals and charismatics. The Russian tsars always claimed at Moscow was the third Rome.
B
BHTech
Guest
Agreed. The subject of the head of the Orthodox churches deserves a thread all by itself, because IMHO they are not united because of nationalism and other issues that can be discussed till the cows come home.
On Latin American while RCs have lost ground due to the American phenomena of the Pentecostals and big evangelical groups, it has been observed that many are returning. Not as much as those leaving but they are discovering the emptiness in the Pentecostalism and the evangelical groups. That is to be expected in my opinion.
On the Muslims only Mary can convert them IMO, otherwise they will continue to oppress Christians!
Sorry for digressing
Blessings,
BHTech
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
**mind with Peter confessing his faith in Christ and the Rock on whitch the Church is built being Our Lord and Saviour. After all this is what the Old testament tells us in many places and if we study when the term Rock is used in the O/T, it is referring to God himself and used in a similar way, as a foundation on which to build.i.e.
“Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful and has forgotten God that formed thee,.” there is none holy as the Lrd; : or there is none beside thee, neither is there any Rock like our God.". More, " The Lord is my Rock and my Fortress and my deliverer; the God is my Rock,…for who is God save the Lord? And who is a Rock save our God.
[All from 1.Sam.11.2 then on to 2nd, Sam.
There are a whole host of such quotes and further, it is carried on to the New Testament. S.Paul writes,“They drank of that spiritual rock”. [S.Paul !.Cor,}
The point being is that whoever or whatever is meant in the Matthean Rock, quote, it wasn’t Peter and it definetly wasn’t the papacy. It was either Peter’s Faith in Christ or Christ Himself.
I am not a member by the way, of a denomination, that is for Protestants and some others, the Anglican Catholic Church of which I am a member is simply put, a Communion within the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church! As is indeed the Roman Communion and the Orthodox Churches.
B
BHTech
Guest
Really? Too bad your reformational church is falling apart.
Yet Launoy who you tried to use against me says that some of the ECFs (17) said Peter was the rock. When it suits you to use Launoy you use him, but by your own words you contradict him.
In my previous post I asked you to use avoid scripture, tradition and history to make your point and you ignored me. I can see this thread is winding down and we are getting nowhere. I graciously leave you with the words of St. John Chrysostom in his 88th Homily on the Gospel of John found at ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.iv.xc.html
Blessings
BHTech
PS. Have a second look at St. John Chrysostom writings in his 88th Homily on the Gospel of John.
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
**You did indeed ask that I avoid the use of,’ scripture, tradition and history,’ however I cannot do this, because as S.Vincent of Lerins shows us, it is the only defence the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ has against wreckers, even well meaning ones!
"The pitting of one Catholic apologist against another is in many ways a waste of time, but if we do not look at the teaching of the Fathers generally instead of looking for that small item that when dragged out of context suits our pleading we will never find even a semblance of the truth.
let us then look at what some other fathers thought about the leadership of the Church.
S.Chrysostom, said S.Paul.“is a chief and leader of the Choir of Saints. That,” the whole world had him for its apostle, and who had care not of a single household, but of cities and people and of the whole world." [S.Chrys., Horn xxx11.
He also tells us that S.John is , “The pillar of the Churches throughout the World” and ,"who has the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.
S.John Chrysostom goes further, he makes it plain whist S.Peter had some form of Chairmanship of the first council,
“There was no arrogance in the Church, after Peter, Paul speaks and none silences him;James waits patiently and does not start up. Great is the orderliness. No word speaks John here; no word the other apostles… Peter indeed speaks more strongly, but James more mildly, for thus it behoves the one in high authority to leave what is unpleasant for others… and he says well with authority,‘my sentence is.’”
Hesychius a Presbyter of Jerusalem for example, asks us quite firmly,"How shall I praise the Servant and brother of Christ, the Chief Captain of the New Jerusalem, the chief of the priests, the exarch of the apostles, the corypheus of the apostles, the one who surpasses in splendour the heights, who is superior amongst the stars.
The same man says of S.Andrew, “The first born of the Apostolic Choir, the first made pillar of the Church, the Peter before Peter, the foundation of the foundation, the beginning of the beginning.”
Heysychius,
- Status