For those who left the Catholic Church

[Montalban]

John Cassian

But what are the other words which follow that saying of the Lord’s, with which He commends Peter? “And I,” said He, “say unto thee, that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Do you see how the saying of Peter is the faith of the Church? He then must of course be outside the Church, who does not hold the faith of the Church. “And to thee,” saith the Lord, “I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” This faith deserved heaven: this faith received the keys of the heavenly kingdom. See what awaits you. You cannot enter the gate to which this key belongs, if you have denied the faith of this key. “And the gate,” He adds, “of hell shall not prevail against thee.” The gates of hell are the belief or rather the misbelief of heretics. For widely as hell is separated from heaven, so widely is he who denies from him who confessed that Christ is God. “Whatsoever,” He proceeds, “thou shalt bind on earth, shalt be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shalt be loosed also in heaven.” The perfect faith of the Apostle somehow is given the power of Deity, that what it should bind or loose on earth, might be bound or loosed in heaven. For you then, who come against the Apostle’s faith, as you see that already you are bound on earth, it only remains that you should know that you are bound also in heaven. But it would take too long to go into details which are so numerous as to make a long and wearisome story, even if they are related with brevity and conciseness."

“On the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius”

Book III

Chapter XIV “How the confession of the blessed Peter is the faith of the whole Church.”
shepherd…
Acts 20:28

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

(note more than one overseer of the flock!)

Even Peter exhorts others to feed the flock

1 Peter 5:2

Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind

Even Pope Leo the Great stated that there are many shepherds.

Many shepherds…
“…though He has delegated the care of His sheep to many shepherds, yet He has not Himself abandoned the guardianship of His beloved flock.”

Leo the Great “Sermon III”. (On His Birthday, III: Delivered on the Anniversary of His Elevation to the Pontificate, Chapter II)

Hey, at least you’ve not pressed me to discuss a position on the veracity of Ignatius’ texts based on some unknown person’s comments on them!
This is not the place for these discussions however as we’re hijacking this thread.

 

[Nella]

No. It’s accepting the RC church has sepeated itself from the church through the pride of Popes
“In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”
Ignatius -
“The Epistle to the Trallians”, Chapter III
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.iv.iii.html

Clearly you need to brush up on history because in 1054 your church formally broke away, but the rejection of Papal authority is much older.

Only your Pope, for no matter what he does you must remain in communion with him.

Not Peter alone, for the whole of the Apostles are the foundation.
Not one rock. Not one who holds the keys. Not one shepherd.
rock
Ephesians 2:20
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
keys
In in Matthew 18:18 the other Apostles were given the powers of binding and loosing. How do you ‘bind and loose’ without any keys? It would be a hollow power if they didn’t have the keys too. Here’s what the Church fathers say.
Augustine notes that the keys are given to the whole church

“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven”

“On Christian Doctrine”

Book I, Chapter 18.17

and again…

“…the keys that were given to the Church,”
A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists

Chapter 10.45

and

"How the Church? Why, to her it was said, “To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”

“Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John”
Homily X.10

Cyprian

Cyprian acknowledges, of course, that Peter was the first to get the keys, but then adds

“Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.”

On the Unity of the Church Treatise I.4

con’t…

Very interesting post!!

 

[fellowChristian]

God created Abram. Yes?
God changed Abram’s name to Abraham. Yes?
God promised Abraham would be a father of a great nation. Yes?

God created Jacob. Yes?
God changed Jacob’s name to Israel. Yes?
Jacob was a father of 12 sons who later became the ancestors of the Tribes of Israel. Yes?

God created Simon. Yes?
God changed Simon’s name to Peter. Yes?
Peter became a father. Pope=Pappa

Do you see the pattern?
God did not change all the Apostles names.
Only one.
He was not better then the others. He was just left in charge.
Like the others.

Like when you leave someone your keyes to your house while your gone. They don’t “own” your house. They were just left in charge.

Jesus left the keyes to Peter.

But all that aside the bible the New Testament came from the Catholic Church.
When the East and West were one.
This post was for those who are non-Catholic.
But the title of my post is

“for those who left the Catholic Church”…

So we (East and West) agree that the bible was written by and for the Catholic Church?

For more click here
scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

 

[Montalban]

Very interesting post!!

Thanks.

I won’t comment any further because I don’t believe this is the place for it. But I’ve debated this topic many many times on this fora… but under Eastern Christianity, or the general Apologetics threads

 

[Nella]

I would love to know more about the Orthodox church. My priest (Anglican) actually attended an Orthodox church in high school years before going through seminary and becoming an Anglican priest. He does cross himself from right to left though and I started doing that as well right after I converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism. This is the original way the sign of the cross was made in the early church so I believe this is how I should cross as well.

 

[Montalban]

I would love to know more about the Orthodox church. My priest (Anglican) actually attended an Orthodox church in high school years before going through seminary and becoming an Anglican priest. He does cross himself from right to left though and I started doing that as well right after I converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism. This is the original way the sign of the cross was made in the early church so I believe this is how I should cross as well.

Come on over to the Eastern Christian threads. Seek out Fr.Ambrose; brilliant mind

By the way, that way of crossing oneself is just another area where Catholics changed.

 

[Pons]

By the way, that way of crossing oneself is just another area where Catholics changed.

If true, does it matter?

 

[Montalban]

If true, does it matter?

When I was little I crossed myself with my left hand. My religious teacher told me it was a sin.

This is just what I was told.

Maybe it too doesn’t matter for Catholics?

 

[Delraek]

John Cassian

But what are the other words which follow that saying of the Lord’s, with which He commends Peter? “And I,” said He, “say unto thee, that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Do you see how the saying of Peter is the faith of the Church? He then must of course be outside the Church, who does not hold the faith of the Church. “And to thee,” saith the Lord, **“I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” **This faith deserved heaven: this faith received the keys of the heavenly kingdom. See what awaits you. You cannot enter the gate to which this key belongs, if you have denied the faith of this key. “And the gate,” He adds, “of hell shall not prevail against thee.” The gates of hell are the belief or rather the misbelief of heretics. For widely as hell is separated from heaven, so widely is he who denies from him who confessed that Christ is God. “Whatsoever,” He proceeds, “thou shalt bind on earth, shalt be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shalt be loosed also in heaven.” The perfect faith of the Apostle somehow is given the power of Deity, that what it should bind or loose on earth, might be bound or loosed in heaven. For you then, who come against the Apostle’s faith, as you see that already you are bound on earth, it only remains that you should know that you are bound also in heaven. But it would take too long to go into details which are so numerous as to make a long and wearisome story, even if they are related with brevity and conciseness."

Sorry about the “hijacking”, but I feel the need to reply to this comment.

The apostles that witnessed Jesus’ giving Peter the “keys to the kingdom” would have understood perfectly what Jesus meant. Back in OT times, kings would appoint some kind of “chief steward” or “prime minister” to oversee the kingdom. Joseph, in the OT, was one such person after he was able to interpret the pharoah’s dreams. This passage taken from Isaiah 22 describes this “office”:
“ Go, proceed to this steward,
To Shebna, who is over the house, and say:
16 ‘ What have you here, and whom have you here,
That you have hewn a sepulcher here,
As he who hews himself a sepulcher on high,
Who carves a tomb for himself in a rock?
17 Indeed, the LORD will throw you away violently,
O mighty man,
And will surely seize you.
18 He will surely turn violently and toss you like a ball
Into a large country;
There you shall die, and there your glorious chariots
Shall be the shame of your master’s house.
19 So I will drive you out of your office,
And from your position he will pull you down.[a]
20 ‘ Then it shall be in that day,
That I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah;
21 I will clothe him with your robe
And strengthen him with your belt;
I will commit your responsibility into his hand.
He shall be a ***father ***to the inhabitants of Jerusalem
And to the house of Judah.
22 The key of the house of David
I will lay on his shoulder;
So he shall open, and no one shall shut;
And he shall shut, and no one shall open.
23 I will fasten him as a peg in a secure place,
And he will become a glorious throne to his father’s house.

24 ‘They will hang on him all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the posterity, all vessels of small quantity, from the cups to all the pitchers. 25 In that day,’ says the LORD of hosts, ‘the peg that is fastened in the secure place will be removed and be cut down and fall, and the burden that was on it will be cut off; for the LORD has spoken.’”

 

[Montalban]

Sorry about the “hijacking”, but I feel the need to reply to this comment.

Unfortunately, that means I’ve got to reply

The apostles that witnessed Jesus’ giving Peter the “keys to the kingdom” would have understood perfectly what Jesus meant.

Indeed. You just assume that whatever that was, was what you already believe

Back in OT times, kings would appoint some kind of “chief steward” or “prime minister” to oversee the kingdom. Joseph, in the OT, was one such person after he was able to interpret the pharoah’s dreams. This passage taken from Isaiah 22 describes this “office”:

Show me what Church Fathers linked Isaiah 22 with the verses from Matthew.

Check out this thread I think you’ll find that only very recently have some converts to Catholicism linked these two passages - because they’ve nothing to do with each other, otherwise !

 

[Delraek]

Unfortunately, that means I’ve got to reply

Indeed. You just assume that whatever that was, was what you already believe

Show me what Church Fathers linked Isaiah 22 with the verses from Matthew.

Check out this thread I think you’ll find that only very recently have some converts to Catholicism linked these two passages - because they’ve nothing to do with each other, otherwise !

Recent? I think not! My Bible contains a footnote on Mt 16 pointing to Is 22, and I’ve had this Bible for many years! I suggest you check the footnotes in yours.

Your opinion states that they have nothing to do with each other, but you give no explanation. Jesus was appointing Peter to be the “chief steward” of His kingdom until he returns. The parallels are obvious!

 

[Deconi]

*((No. It’s accepting the RC church has sepeated itself from the church through the pride of Popes
“In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”
Ignatius -
“The Epistle to the Trallians”, Chapter III)) *

The Epistle to the Trillians was over the lineage of hierarchal authority, to guard against what the Protestants have amply demonstrated for us; don’t take matters into your own hands and split off and start your own churches. The rest of that Epistle has a ‘warning tone,” but you already know that since you cite it!

You’re starting to quote “snippets” out of context to suit your argument, just like the Protestants do.

There are many things that Popes do and have done that Catholics question. We are free to do so! The difference is that, we do not have the authority to then wrench the church from his leadership and trot off to do as we wish.

But since the lineage of Popes was in existence when The Orthodox decided they didn’t need a Pope anymore, your position is that The Catholic Church departed from that line?? That requires a certain amount of ignorance.

(( Clearly you need to brush up on history because in 1054 your church formally broke away, but the rejection of Papal authority is much older.))

Until the formal departure from the lineage of the Papacy, ‘rejection’ was a point of dialogue and does not count! See your cited Epistle as an example.

• Only your Pope, for no matter what he does you must remain in communion with him.*

Because we cannot depart from Christ!

He commenced the lineage. He established The Papacy by making Peter His Vicar! He promised Peter His protection and ALL THE APOSTLES were taught and understood what that means!

Do you see The Apostles arguing against Peter’s Seat? Do you see The Apostles arguing that Peter wasn’t practicing what they had all been taught? The ones who were alive after Peter was martyred, do you see them tell Linus and Clements off for being Popes and reject the Seat of Peter? You can research all you like, but you won’t find any such thing. Perhaps you think Our Lord got it wrong, or worse, He lied!? Perhaps your position is that The Catholic Church got it wrong and “reinterpreted” things to legitimize the Papacy?!

Again, ALL THE APOSTLES do not seem to know that, since they remained silent on the issue! Even John who lived well past these events did not mention a whisper AGAINST the Papacy!?? I thought they had Divine guidance?!

Perhaps you should brush up on your historical research. If it will make it easier, remove “Catholic” from your research since it was first coined by St Ignatius to refer to The Church that he had always known as the one established by Our Lord. What you will find are the musings of men, several centuries removed from the establishment of The Church, who then turn it around and say The (Catholic) Church are the “musings” of men!

False Popes! Bad Popes! Wrong Popes! Weak Popes! The accusations and examples are many! Objectively, there must be such cases! Our Lord placed a sinner as His Vicar! Not His Holy Mother who is free of sin! What does that exemplify for you? ALL POPES are human beings like you and me, and have the same trials and weaknesses we have. They can have erroneous opinions as you or I. But as sinful as they are, and as weak as they can be, NOT ONE of them has ever taught error from that Seat in regards faith and morals for our salvation!

Everywhere Christ is found, the Devil must be snapping in the shadows, just as light must necessarily have darkness to differentiate it. Where then do you think the Devil spends most of his time? Throughout history, has the secular and religious world objected to Catholicism or Orthodoxy? Which one is the most prominent for criticism? The one out front ‘as a house on a mountain’ for all to see, or the ones in the shade in the relative safety of ‘obscurity,’ per se? Is your voice, as an Orthodox, raised to defend The Orthodox schism from Protestantism or is it in communion with Protestantism against The Catholic Church? Does Catholicism and Protestantism unite against the Orthodox (Eastern) Rite? What do you see?

 

[Deconi]

• Not Peter alone, for the whole of the Apostles are the foundation.
  Not one rock. Not one who holds the keys. Not one shepherd.
  rock
  Ephesians 2:20
  built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. *

keys
In in Matthew 18:18 the other Apostles were given the powers of binding and loosing. How do you ‘bind and loose’ without any keys? It would be a hollow power if they didn’t have the keys too. Here’s what the Church fathers say.
Augustine notes that the keys are given to the whole church

“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven”

“On Christian Doctrine”

Book I, Chapter 18.17

and again…

“…the keys that were given to the Church,”
A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists

**Sadly, having already exercised poor judgment in leaving Home, you now resort to ‘polemics and semantics’ to find some support for your error. Well done! It should be indicative to you why your supporters are “Protestants” **

 

[Montalban]

Recent? I think not! My Bible contains a footnote on Mt 16 pointing to Is 22, and I’ve had this Bible for many years! I suggest you check the footnotes in yours.

Recent as per the church being 2,000 years old. I asked you to cite any Church Father, and you haven’t. You’ve no evidence.

Your opinion states that they have nothing to do with each other, but you give no explanation. Jesus was appointing Peter to be the “chief steward” of His kingdom until he returns. The parallels are obvious!

It’s not just my opinion, but you obviously don’t care about evidence. Check out the thread I suggested, or cite the Church Fathers. See how ‘obvious’ it was for them

The appeal for incredulity of yours shows this.

 

[Montalban]

The Epistle to the Trillians was over the lineage of hierarchal authority,

Exactly. Asides from the levels of church he lists, there are no others. No bishop of bishops!

to guard against what the Protestants have amply demonstrated for us; don’t take matters into your own hands and split off and start your own churches. The rest of that Epistle has a ‘warning tone,” but you already know that since you cite it!

And where’s the Papacy in that?

You’re starting to quote “snippets” out of context to suit your argument, just like the Protestants do.

That’s your opinion that I have done this.

There are many things that Popes do and have done that Catholics question. We are free to do so! The difference is that, we do not have the authority to then wrench the church from his leadership and trot off to do as we wish.

More emotive stuff devoid of real debate. I suggest you go over to the appopriate threads and start a topic.

 

[Montalban]

**Sadly, having already exercised poor judgment in leaving Home, you now resort to ‘polemics and semantics’ to find some support for your error. Well done! It should be indicative to you why your supporters are “Protestants” **

More appeal to incredulity:shrug:

 

[Isa_Almisry]

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour;** the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans**, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” **Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110). **

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but** one flock **which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256

“You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.” **Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367). **

"…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” **Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375). **

Letters of the Early Church Fathers
newadvent.org/fathers/

Your last letter is interesting: Jerome is asking which Patriarch of Antioch to support, both he and Rome bet on the wrong horse.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2724014&highlight=Meletius#post2724014

St. Peter continues in Patriarch Ignatius IVthrough St. Meletius, condemned by Rome, but who presided over the opening of the Second Council (the one which gave us our Creed).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Very interesting post!!

If you think that’s interesting…check out the Eastern Christianity forum.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

*((No. It’s accepting the RC church has sepeated itself from the church through the pride of Popes
"In like

There are many things that Popes do and have done that Catholics question. We are free to do so! The difference is that, we do not have the authority to then wrench the church from his leadership and trot off to do as we wish.

But since the lineage of Popes was in existence when The Orthodox decided they didn’t need a Pope anymore, your position is that The Catholic Church departed from that line?? That requires a certain amount of ignorance.

(( Clearly you need to brush up on history because in 1054 your church formally broke away, but the rejection of Papal authority is much older.))*

Until the formal departure from the lineage of the Papacy, ‘rejection’ was a point of dialogue and does not count! See your cited Epistle as an example.

• Only your Pope, for no matter what he does you must remain in communion with him.*

Because we cannot depart from Christ!

He commenced the lineage. He established The Papacy by making Peter His Vicar! He promised Peter His protection and ALL THE APOSTLES were taught and understood what that means!

Do you see The Apostles arguing against Peter’s Seat? Do you see The Apostles arguing that Peter wasn’t practicing what they had all been taught? The ones who were alive after Peter was martyred, do you see them tell Linus and Clements off for being Popes and reject the Seat of Peter? You can research all you like, but you won’t find any such thing. Perhaps you think Our Lord got it wrong, or worse, He lied!? Perhaps your position is that The Catholic Church got it wrong and “reinterpreted” things to legitimize the Papacy?!

Again, ALL THE APOSTLES do not seem to know that, since they remained silent on the issue! Even John who lived well past these events did not mention a whisper AGAINST the Papacy!?? I thought they had Divine guidance?!

Perhaps you should brush up on your historical research. If it will make it easier, remove “Catholic” from your research since it was first coined by St Ignatius to refer to The Church that he had always known as the one established by Our Lord. What you will find are the musings of men, several centuries removed from the establishment of The Church, who then turn it around and say The (Catholic) Church are the “musings” of men!

False Popes! Bad Popes! Wrong Popes! Weak Popes! The accusations and examples are many! Objectively, there must be such cases! Our Lord placed a sinner as His Vicar! Not His Holy Mother who is free of sin! What does that exemplify for you? ALL POPES are human beings like you and me, and have the same trials and weaknesses we have. They can have erroneous opinions as you or I. But as sinful as they are, and as weak as they can be, NOT ONE of them has ever taught error from that Seat in regards faith and morals for our salvation!

Everywhere Christ is found, the Devil must be snapping in the shadows, just as light must necessarily have darkness to differentiate it. Where then do you think the Devil spends most of his time? Throughout history, has the secular and religious world objected to Catholicism or Orthodoxy? Which one is the most prominent for criticism? The one out front ‘as a house on a mountain’ for all to see, or the ones in the shade in the relative safety of ‘obscurity,’ per se? Is your voice, as an Orthodox, raised to defend The Orthodox schism from Protestantism or is it in communion with Protestantism against The Catholic Church? Does Catholicism and Protestantism unite against the Orthodox (Eastern) Rite? What do you see?



Just in brief (this should be on the Eastern Christianity Forum):

In 1054 the stated problem was the filioue (which Pope Leo III refused to insert in 809 in the Creed at Rome). You changed.

There were other issues: unleavened Eucharist (you changed), mandatory clerical celibacy (you changed).

As for your line of Popes: Pope Leo II anathematized Pope Honorius and this anathema was incorporated into the papal oath of the Liber Diurnis which was said until the 11th century by every pope of Rome.

You changed.

 

[Montalban]

Just in brief (this should be on the Eastern Christianity Forum):

I agree, but Delraek is content to appeal to incredulity, rather than debate/discuss this.