H
holdencaulfield
Guest
I have been unable for the last month to discern whether Orthodoxy or Catholicism is correct. I would like to have a discussion here later when I have more time.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
rpp
Guest
Both are valid (generally), but Orthodoxy represents a break from the central, single Church which Christ established. The theology is subtly different, but for most people, these differences to not affect their everyday lives. Or their salvation, for that matter.
Personally, I think you would be better served if you remain in a Church which is in Communion with Rome. If you find the Latin Rite somehow not fulfilling, consider the other rites like the Maronite, Byzentine, or Chaldean Rites, among others, which are in communion with Rome.
Personally, I think you would be better served if you remain in a Church which is in Communion with Rome. If you find the Latin Rite somehow not fulfilling, consider the other rites like the Maronite, Byzentine, or Chaldean Rites, among others, which are in communion with Rome.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
I enjoy the Latin Rite, however I cannot find early evidence of the Papacy. At least not how it exists today.Both are valid (generally), but Orthodoxy represents a break from the central, single Church which Christ established. The theology is subtly different, but for most people, these differences to not affect their everyday lives. Or their salvation, for that matter.
Personally, I think you would be better served if you remain in a Church which is in Communion with Rome. If you find the Latin Rite somehow not fulfilling, consider the other rites like the Maronite, Byzentine, or Chaldean Rites, among others, which are in communion with Rome.
R
rpp
Guest
Can you find early evidence for the Immaculate Conception of Mary? When was the Holy Trinity first taught? What about the canon of scripture?I enjoy the Latin Rite, however I cannot find early evidence of the Papacy. At least not how it exists today.
God is not a God of chaos; He would clearly need an authority on Earth to ensure His teaching remain clear. One cannot ignore the fact that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter and called him the rock upon which He would build His Church.
There were many teachings that developed over time. Some were clear right from the beginning, other took centuries to unfold, still others took more than a millennium.
J
JMBNH
Guest
What about the Papacy as it relates to the Eastern Catholic Churches? I agree that the Papacy’s role with relation to the Latin Rite Churches has modified over time (legally within Church rules), though it’s always been higher than over the East but disagree that it has changed with relation to the Church as a whole (just there’s far fewer Eastern Catholics since the schism and hence relatively there’s a higher role)I enjoy the Latin Rite, however I cannot find early evidence of the Papacy. At least not how it exists today.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Are you open to early evidence of the Papacy? How early is early? Is your difficulty having to do with a basic belief in the Primacy of Peter (which the Orthodox also believe) or does it have to do with the “way” the Papacy exercises its authority in today’s church?I enjoy the Latin Rite, however I cannot find early evidence of the Papacy. At least not how it exists today.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You can’t find evidence of Peter being called the Rock, upon which the Church was built, and being given the Keys to the Kingdom and the power to loose and bind?I enjoy the Latin Rite, however I cannot find early evidence of the Papacy. At least not how it exists today.
You can’t find evidence of Peter setting aside the Dietary Laws and baptizing gentiles?
You haven’t read the Epistle of Clement (the 4th Pope) to the Corinthians?
You haven’t heard of St. Ignatius’ epistle to the Romans? Or of Irenaeus’ famous comment, “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled?”
M
mercygate
Guest
Of course you can see the papacy. You have to be trying not to see it in order not to see it.I enjoy the Latin Rite, however I cannot find early evidence of the Papacy. At least not how it exists today.
As it exists today? No. The papacy, because of being embedded in history, has had to develop in order to maintain its purpose: to be the visible sign of unity on earth.
Scripture speaks of Peter as being the point-man for Christ. Christ builds his Church on all of the Apostles, but in singling out Peter as the keeper of the keys, and “THE” rock, Jesus makes it pretty clear that HIS Church is not going to be found APART from Peter.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
The way it currently exists.Are you open to early evidence of the Papacy? How early is early? Is your difficulty having to do with a basic belief in the Primacy of Peter (which the Orthodox also believe) or does it have to do with the “way” the Papacy exercises its authority in today’s church?
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
But St. Paul condemned St. Peter in Galatians 2:11-13. What about this. How does this relate. Was St. Peter still correct?You can’t find evidence of Peter setting aside the Dietary Laws and baptizing gentiles?
G
Genesis315
Guest
Exists, it is the same. What you are looking for is to how it was exercised. The authority is exercised differently depending on the situation, the needs of the Church, the limitations of communication, other prudential reasons, etc.The way it currently exists.
For example, in his commentary on Acts, St. John Chrysostom explains that St. Peter could have chosen a successor to replace Judas of his own authority, but for prudential reasons and to avoid the appearance of favoritism, he let the decision be made in common (as to the two candidates) and then by lot as to the final decision.
St. John Chrysostom:
newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htmThen why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself: what was the motive? This; that he might not seem to bestow it of favor. And besides, he was not yet endowed with the spirit.
As an aside, the EO system of Patriarchs actually did not exist at one point.
G
Genesis315
Guest
He didn’t condemn him, he rebuked him. No one claims the leaders of the Church can’t sin. St. Catherine of Siena rebuked a Pope for acting contrary to divine law as well, for example.But St. Paul condemned St. Peter in Galatians 2:11-13. What about this. How does this relate. Was St. Peter still correct?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Paul didn’t “condem” Peter – he didn’t send him to Hell.But St. Paul condemned St. Peter in Galatians 2:11-13. What about this. How does this relate. Was St. Peter still correct?
Peter was human and flawed like all of us – there are several instances in the Gospels and Acts where Peter is weak. In the instance you mentioned, he was uncomfortable around Gentiles – no surprise, since as a devoted Jew, he’d been brought up to avoid them.
Nevertheless, he was chosen by Christ, he is clearly the head of the 12 after Pentecost, he is clearly the man who put aside the dietary laws, and so on. And clearly the leading Christians of the First and Second Centuries regarded his successors as holding his special position on Earth.
K
kms123
Guest
I think the answers you seek lie with early Church fathers. If you watch EWTN Journey Home, quite often they have converts that were pastors, one was philosophy professor that say they converted because they found answers in writings of the church fathers. I am posting link I hope is a good source.I have been unable for the last month to discern whether Orthodoxy or Catholicism is correct. I would like to have a discussion here later when I have more time.
earlychurchfathers.org/
Also I have this video, its very good. One part I remember it talks about Peter in Antioch, Syria/Turkey at the time, being the bishop and baptizing Ignatius there. He then went to Rome. They also site Paul and others “consulting” Peter for decisions.
shop.catholic-convert.com/Product.asp?ID=68
Have fun discovering the Church. I am!
K
kms123
Guest
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
So St. Peter was not acting Infallibly.He didn’t condemn him, he rebuked him. No one claims the leaders of the Church can’t sin. St. Catherine of Siena rebuked a Pope for acting contrary to divine law as well, for example.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Not on that occasion. His personal behavior was hypocritical. In your Galatians passage, he was eating with Gentiles (which in Old Covenant Jewish custom was a no-no), but when James’ cohorts arrived, he withdrew because he didn’t want Jews to see him eating with Gentiles.So St. Peter was not acting Infallibly.
Paul scolded him to continue eating with Gentiles. Peter was not making any declarations on faith or morals, nor was he speaking from his holy office.
Heck, Jesus had given him the keys to the kingdom in Mt. 16:19 and by the end of chapter 26, he was denying Jesus in public.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Papal infallibility is rarely exercised – perhaps once every thousand years or so. Peter, when he neglected the Greek Christians and associated with the Jewish Christians was not promulgating doctrine, nor making a pronouncement.So St. Peter was not acting Infallibly.
You seem to want to equate “perfection” with “infallibility.”
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Thanks guys that makes more sense.Papal infallibility is rarely exercised – perhaps once every thousand years or so. Peter, when he neglected the Greek Christians and associated with the Jewish Christians was not promulgating doctrine, nor making a pronouncement.
You seem to want to equate “perfection” with “infallibility.”
- Status
- Not open for further replies.