W
Wesley7
Guest
Wow. That’s asking alot. What do other Christians say in response to reading this defintion?
. .
- Status
. .
W
Wesley7
Guest
Wow. That’s asking alot. What do other Christians say in response to this defintion?
. .
D
distracted
Guest
It is only logical that there would be One Church… One shepherd… one true Christian religion…
God is not the author of confusion…
V
Volodymyr
Guest
ORTHODOX VIEW
Православная Церковь учит, что 12 апостолов были совершенно равны между собой по своему достоинству, власти и благодати. Ап. Петра можно назвать, в известном смысле, первым, но первым между равными. Это учение подтверждается всей историей апостолов как она изложена в книгах Нового Завета, где неоспоримо доказано полное равенство апостолов между собой (напр., Мф. 4: 18-19; 10: 1, 40; 19: 28; 20: 24-27; 23: 8-11; Мк. 10: 35-37; 16: 15; Лк. 22: 22-30 и мн. др. ); многие места доказывают, что апостолы не только благодать апостольства, но и право действовать этой благодатью в Церкви получили непосредственно от Христа Спасителя, а не от ап. Петра (Мф. 4: 18-22; Мк. 1: 16-20; Лк. 9: 1-6; Ин. 20: 21-23, и мн. др. ), что все апостолы без исключения подлежат высшему суду - Церкви (напр. Мф. 18: 17).
translate: Orthodox church teaches that 12 apostes were competely equal among themselves by their worth, power and grace. Ap. Peter may be called, in a certain sense the first, but first among equals. This teaching is confirmed by entire history of the apostles and is laid out in the books of New Covnent where without argument is proven the complete equality of apostles among themselves (Mt 4:18-19, 10:1, 40; 19:28; 20:247-27, etc). Many places prove that the apostles not ony received directly from Christ the Savior and not from St. Peter the grace of Aposteship, and the right to act with this grace in the church. (Lu 9:1-6, Jo 20:21-23 etc) and that all apostles without exception are subject to the highest court -the Church.
NB: Church is Body of Christ, not the empire of Roman Bishop. Christ is head of his own church. Do Catholics not read the Brothers Karamazov and see how other Christians look at Inquisitor as symbol of Papalism?? Christ is not necessary to Catolics as long as have Bishop of Rome - sad fact that Dostoyevsky wrote of so well.
Православная Церковь учит, что 12 апостолов были совершенно равны между собой по своему достоинству, власти и благодати. Ап. Петра можно назвать, в известном смысле, первым, но первым между равными. Это учение подтверждается всей историей апостолов как она изложена в книгах Нового Завета, где неоспоримо доказано полное равенство апостолов между собой (напр., Мф. 4: 18-19; 10: 1, 40; 19: 28; 20: 24-27; 23: 8-11; Мк. 10: 35-37; 16: 15; Лк. 22: 22-30 и мн. др. ); многие места доказывают, что апостолы не только благодать апостольства, но и право действовать этой благодатью в Церкви получили непосредственно от Христа Спасителя, а не от ап. Петра (Мф. 4: 18-22; Мк. 1: 16-20; Лк. 9: 1-6; Ин. 20: 21-23, и мн. др. ), что все апостолы без исключения подлежат высшему суду - Церкви (напр. Мф. 18: 17).
translate: Orthodox church teaches that 12 apostes were competely equal among themselves by their worth, power and grace. Ap. Peter may be called, in a certain sense the first, but first among equals. This teaching is confirmed by entire history of the apostles and is laid out in the books of New Covnent where without argument is proven the complete equality of apostles among themselves (Mt 4:18-19, 10:1, 40; 19:28; 20:247-27, etc). Many places prove that the apostles not ony received directly from Christ the Savior and not from St. Peter the grace of Aposteship, and the right to act with this grace in the church. (Lu 9:1-6, Jo 20:21-23 etc) and that all apostles without exception are subject to the highest court -the Church.
NB: Church is Body of Christ, not the empire of Roman Bishop. Christ is head of his own church. Do Catholics not read the Brothers Karamazov and see how other Christians look at Inquisitor as symbol of Papalism?? Christ is not necessary to Catolics as long as have Bishop of Rome - sad fact that Dostoyevsky wrote of so well.
R
Rawb
Guest
BTW, The Catholic Church as a whole holds to this position, not just the Roman Rite, which is what you seem to be implying here.
I
inJESUS
Guest
Our saints submitted humbly, our monks submitted humbly, our nuns submitted humbly, and the Lord granted them endless graces during their lifetime and after their physical death. No matter what some think about it, our saints wouldn’t be saints if their pride manipulated their lives.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
I suggest you read the document in context, if I am posting the wrong document, then give a link to your quote, and let us know its source please.
Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter
We teach and declare that,
according to the gospel evidence,
a primacy of jurisdiction over the **whole church of God **
was immediately and directly
promised to the blessed apostle Peter and
conferred on him by Christ the lord.
[PROMISED]
It was to Simon alone,
to whom he had already said
You shall be called Cephas [42] ,
that the Lord,
after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God,
spoke these words:
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .
[CONFERRED]
And it was to Peter alone that Jesus,
after his resurrection,
confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44] .
To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
Therefore,
if anyone says that
blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that
it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
let him be anathema.
dailycatholic.org/history/20ecume3.htm
Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter
We teach and declare that,
according to the gospel evidence,
a primacy of jurisdiction over the **whole church of God **
was immediately and directly
promised to the blessed apostle Peter and
conferred on him by Christ the lord.
[PROMISED]
It was to Simon alone,
to whom he had already said
You shall be called Cephas [42] ,
that the Lord,
after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God,
spoke these words:
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .
[CONFERRED]
And it was to Peter alone that Jesus,
after his resurrection,
confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44] .
To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
Therefore,
if anyone says that
blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that
it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
let him be anathema.
dailycatholic.org/history/20ecume3.htm
S
SIA
Guest
It is completely faulty in all regards. You cannot change truths no matter who you are or whatever you call it.
R
ricko
Guest
Found in the Catholic library of New Advent:
- Well known are the terms of Vatican Council’s solemn definition: "Relying on the open testimony of the Scriptures and abiding by the wise and clear decrees both of our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, and the general Councils, We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, by virtue of which all the faithful must believe that ‘the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Roman Pontiff himself is the Successor of the blessed Peter and continues to be the true Vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church, the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him is the blessed Peter our Lord Jesus Christ committed the full power of caring for, ruling and governing the Universal Church…’
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
and it has not changed from the begining.
“[T]he Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,’ on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly.It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts… But since the word Ecclesia is applied to different things (as also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians, And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the Assembly), and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God (for it is written, As Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it, and all the rest,) and is a figure and copy of Jerusalem which is above, which is free, and the mother of us all; which before was barren, but now has many children.”
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,18:23,26(A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VIII:139-140
found here
cin.org/users/jgallegos/catholic.htm
“[T]he Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,’ on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly.It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts… But since the word Ecclesia is applied to different things (as also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians, And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the Assembly), and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God (for it is written, As Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it, and all the rest,) and is a figure and copy of Jerusalem which is above, which is free, and the mother of us all; which before was barren, but now has many children.”
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,18:23,26(A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VIII:139-140
found here
cin.org/users/jgallegos/catholic.htm
C
cathopologist
Guest
It is a work that explores the existence of God from a deist’s perspective. However, the book does implicate the brothers source of religious influence from Russian Orthodoxy - hence the bias attitude towards the Bishop of Rome and its not-so-nice remarks.
Its as good as asking the Russian Orthodox to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Even then, it does not make bad comments on its Orthodox brethren. Perhaps another reason why other Orthodox churches have better relations with the Catholic Church, save the Russian Orthodox.
W
Wesley7
Guest
I’ve read sections of the book. *The Brothers Karmazov *by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
W
Wesley7
Guest
I borrowed the quote from a discussion in this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=257536&page=3
V
Volodymyr
Guest
Dostojevskij is not really subject of thread. However, he was a deepy believing orthodox Christian who bases Starets Zosima after Amvrosij of the Optin Pustin and aso bases character Aljosha Karamazov after famous Russian Orthodox catholic sympathizer Vladimir Sergjejevich Solovjov. I would expect American Catolics to have read Dostojevskij books - especially Brothers Karamazov, Crime Punishment and Demons. These are classics of world literature as Catkechism Catolic Church is not. Encyclopedia Britannica says of Brothers Karamazov:
- Since its (Brothers Karamazov) publication, it has been acclaimed all over the world by thinkers as diverse as Sigmund Freud[2] and Albert Einstein[3] as one of the supreme achievements in world literature.*
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Without authority from Christ to Whom the whole creation belongs, the Church can have no mission to any part of the world (which is part of that creation).
If you want the mission of Christ to be continued in the days after His Ascension, His Church needs the same authority as that by which He acted. How can it do His works, & proclaim His Gospel, without His authority ? He is sent to the whole world, so it is sent to the whole world. The authority of the Church is limited to part of the world, only if His sending by the Father, & His own Gift of the Spirit, are equally limited. A universal Church with universal authority over the entire human race is what you get if the Church is not limited to the Jews alone, but is for all mankind.This is blasphemous only in the sense that the work of Christ in forgiving sins was blasphemous. Accept the blaspheming Christ, & the blaspheming Church follows as a matter of course.
From another POV, the scandal of the Church is a form of the “scandal of particularity” - if Christ confers authority, someone is going to be its recipient.
- Status