Help - Why stay Catholic vs. moving to Eastern Orthodoxy?

[steve-b]

where is your proof? Show me when the first time, in history, “Orthodox Church” appears in writing, properly referenced of course.

Vonsalza:

For the umpteenth time, why would you expect it to exist in near-ancient texts that were written before the various divisions of Christianity?

Demanding to see ancient texts citing “Eastern Orthodox Church” is as stupid as demanding to see ancient texts that cite "Roman Catholic Church".

• I gave you history from writings properly referenced, that gave Catholic Church history from the 1st century to the 4th century. I did that condensed history because of space requirements per post.
• The official name of the Church is the Catholic Church. Headquartered in Rome, Peter’s last see, and Pope Francis is at the Helm, 266th successor to St Peter

Here’s the information I gave you all properly referenced. . All you had to do is open the links. Which you don’t do. What does that say about you.

“Trail of Blood” Baptist link 1

“Trail of Blood” Baptist link 2

 

[Vonsalza]

Here’s the information I gave you all properly referenced. . All you had to do is open the links. Which you don’t do. What does that say about you.

“Catholic Church” as a proper noun doesn’t appear in scripture, Steve. Your analysis of it in Luke is misdirected.

Literally everyone claims to be a part of the “complete church”. Everyone, Steve.

Take Eastern Orthodoxy. From the article in Britannica-

“Eastern Orthodoxy , official name Orthodox Catholic Church , one of the three major…”

Everyone.

 

[steve-b]

Vonsalza:

You mentioned Clement, which references “the Church at Rome” rather than the papacy.

You’re the one who has the issue with Rome. Since Rome is Peter’s last see, and Peter was over the entire church, what’s exactly your issue?

Vonsalza:

You mentioned Irenaeus, who rejects your pro-papal view by identifying Rome as being founded by both Peter and Paul and identifies the church there as an arbiter.

Both apostles built Rome.
Re: Irenaeus, are you by chance referring to “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

Vonsalza:

You need to be more specific. You’ve never asked me once for a reference on anything specific, to my recollection.

Here’s a few times.
Here
Here.
Here
Here
Here

steve-b:

Show me where I have to prove faith in this definition? Hebrews 11:1-3 RSVCE - The Meaning of Faith - Now faith is the - Bible Gateway

Vonsalza:

Amen brother. Now stop your resistance and come to Orthodoxy. Or Anglicanism. Or Methodism. ect. ect.

So you’re into not only schism but heresy as well?

We’re done.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Here’s the information I gave you all properly referenced. . All you had to do is open the links. Which you don’t do. What does that say about you.

“Catholic Church” as a proper noun doesn’t appear in scripture, Steve. Your analysis of it in Luke is misdirected.

Neither is Trinity. What’s your point?

I didn’t mention Luke.

Vonsalza:

Literally everyone claims to be a part of the “complete church”. Everyone, Steve.

Take Eastern Orthodoxy. From the article in Britannica-

“Eastern Orthodoxy , official name Orthodox Catholic Church , one of the three major…”

Everyone.

One who is NOT “in” the Catholic Church, is NOT Catholic. No matter WHAT THEY claim.

 

[Vonsalza]

You’re the one who has the issue with Rome. Since Rome is Peter’s last see, and Peter was over the entire church, what’s exactly your issue?

My issue is with folks who lazily equate references to “The Church at Rome” to “the papacy”, particularly pre Leo.

Both apostles built Rome.
Re: Irenaeus, are you by chance referring to “…Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;… …For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

Yup. Same guy, pointing to the Church founded by both Peter and Paul.

There’s no argument for papacy, here. You’re just reading it in as a matter of faith.

Here

Isaiah shows that the keys can also pass. No argument for papacy here.

Here.

Paul is right, schism is a sin. The Catholic Church should revert the power of the papacy to it’s far more limited (if even extant) “ministry” and return to the bosom of Christ.

Here

The fact that you even mention Augustine given his direct challenge to Petrine primacy written near the end of his life in his Retractations is indicative of your deliberately skewed view of Church fathers on the papacy…

Here

And again, Paul is right. If you refuse to see your errors, I should stop admonishing you.

Here

Peter is to feed and shepherd (as other translations give it) his sheep. The primacy of the Roman papacy is not challenged. Claims of supremacy is. No argument for papacy here.

steve-b:

Show me where I have to prove faith in this definition? Hebrews 11:1-3 RSVCE - The Meaning of Faith - Now faith is the - Bible Gateway

Then why do you keep referencing your arguments and demanding references in turn if not in a futile effort to “prove faith”?

We’re done.

Bye, Steve!

 

[Vonsalza]

One who is NOT “in” the Catholic Church, is NOT Catholic. No matter WHAT THEY claim.

I thought you were done?

Anyway, it’s interesting that “Roman Catholic” and “Greek Catholic” appear to have arisen at around the same time.

Maybe it’s because both Churches post-schism claim to be the representative of the “Catholic Church” that existed before such added identifiers like “Roman” and “Greek” became necessary?

Hmmm…

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

We’re done.

Bye, Steve!

See to it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

steve-b:

We’re done.

Bye, Steve!

See to it.

I won’t keep your oaths, Steve. That’s all you, sir.

 

[AlNg]

The official name of the Church is the Catholic Church.

But i read that the official name of the Orthodox Church was the Orthodox Catholic Church. When you are a member of the Orthodox Catholic church, you are both Orthodox and Catholic. Isn’t it better to be both Orthodox and Catholic instead of just Catholic alone?

 

[Roguish]

Anyway, it’s interesting that “Roman Catholic” and “Greek Catholic” appear to have arisen at around the same time.

That is interesting. But where do you get this idea? I thought you wrote earlier in this thread that the term “Roman Catholic” appears first in 1208. Do you know of any document of that same period that mentions the Greek Catholic for the first time?

 

[dochawk]

You’re an inmate at a prison hospital yet you have internet access to a forum?!?

This is typical of the posts in the thread at the point . . .

 

[Roguish]

"I have said in a certain place of the Apostle Peter, that [p. 585] it was on him, as on a rock, that the Church was built. but I know that since that I have often explained these words of the Lord, “Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church,” as meaning upon Him whom Peter had confessed in the words, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God;: and so that Peter, taking his name from this rock, would represent the Church, which is built upon this rock. For it is not said to him, Thou art the rock, but, “Thou art Peter.” But the rock was Christ, [1 Cor 10:4] whom because Simon thus confessed, as the whole Church confesses Him, he was named Peter.

I know you quoted this only as context for Dr. Carroll’s rebuttal, but I find Augustine’s words more convincing than the answer.

I’ve always felt that Matthew 16:18 is a weak defense of Petrine supremacy. A good defense may be possible, but not based on this verse. See, if Jesus had clearly wanted to single Peter out, He would have said: “and on you I will build My Church.” But He doesn’t say that. He says he will build His Church on “this rock”. Why use equivocal language if Peter was to understand that he was personally to be the foundation of the Church? As I see it, Christ is only making the point that he founds his Church on something unshakeable, i.e. rock, and that Peter has been named after that. A good semantic translation would be: “You are Rocky, and on such rock I will build my Church.” The idea that Peter is the sole embodiment or possessor of the unshakeable principle (“rock”) is just not present in either the Latin or the Greek.

And more generally, why would Christ make the future of the Church hinge on a single individual anyway? It doesn’t make sense, and the rest of the NT does not give the impression that it all depended on Peter.

A defense of the Roman papacy may be possible, but Matthew 16:18 is not the way to go.

 

[Learner1969]

You’re an inmate at a prison hospital yet you have internet access to a forum?!?

I am currently in a psychiatric hospital not prison where I am treated like a human being unlike in prison, anyway this is off topic.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Anyway, it’s interesting that “Roman Catholic” and “Greek Catholic” appear to have arisen at around the same time.

That is interesting. But where do you get this idea? I thought you wrote earlier in this thread that the term “Roman Catholic” appears first in 1208. Do you know of any document of that same period that mentions the Greek Catholic for the first time?

“Greek Catholic” has a similar problem as “Catholic Church” - when did it become a proper noun identifying a specific Church?

Pre-schism, “Greek Catholic” was someone in the Catholic Church (likely a Byzantine) who performed the liturgy and read scripture in Greek (as opposed to Latin, like the western Church).

Post-schism, “Greek Catholic” was someone who followed Constantinople rather than Rome.

From the wiki - “Thus, the Eastern Church came to be called “Greek” Orthodox in the same way that the Western Church is called “Roman” Catholic.”

It’s a problem akin to dating the schism. It happened at different times for different Churches.

 

[steve-b]

That is interesting. But where do you get this idea? I thought you wrote earlier in this thread that the term “Roman Catholic” appears first in 1208. Do you know of any document of that same period that mentions the Greek Catholic for the first time?

steve-b:

He has no references. Just his opinions backed up by his opinions

Roguish,

To add to my previous response,

Early on ( early 2nd century) there was a heresy (Gnosticism) that appeared. Bp Irenaeus, originally from Smyrna (Turkey) relocated to Lyon (France). His famous work “Against Heresies” was written specifically to address this heresy and those in it. Irenaeus is a Catholic Bishop. He called the Church the “Catholic Church” in his work Bk 1 Chapter 10 paragraph 3 Irenaeus was taught by Bp Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp was also a direct disciple of John the apostle. Making Irenaeus in succession as a bishop, one man away from an apostle. Irenaeus further teaches all must agree with Rome on account of its preeminent authority. As in every Church regardless of who they say they came from… And just so therter is no confusion which Church he’s talking about, he names 12 bishops by name from Peter in Rome down to his day which is ~a.d. 180. Bk 3, Chapter 3, paragraphs 2-3 Irenaeus did that because there were heretics(the Gnostics) trying to convince Catholics that THEY were the Church. So Irenaeus made it crystal clear THE CHURCH he was talking about that all must agree with.

Did Irenaeus invent the name Catholic, or Catholic Church? Nope!

Backing up to the 1st century.

Bp Ignatius of Antioch. Ordained by apostles ~a.d. 68. Ignatius was a direct disciple of John the apostle.

Ignatius is a Catholic Bishop. He wrote 6 letters to the Church in 6 locations in ~a.d. 107 on his way to be thrown to the lions in the coliseum for his faith.

Ignatius refers to the Church as being the Catholic Church in (ch 8). From his Epistle to the Smyrnæans

AND

schismatics (those who leave the Catholic Church ) won’t be saved. Ch 3 in Epistle to the Philadelphians

One could ask where did Ignatius learnTHAT.

He obviously learned it from the apostles who he knew.

Where?

Here’s Paul

Galatians 5:19-21 Gal 5:19-21 RSVCE - Now the works of the flesh are plain: - Bible Gateway depending on one’s translation they use, this is the Greek word in that passage, [διχοστασίαι,] for the English translation for [διχοστασίαι,] dissension / division /schism And the consequence for that sin if one won’t return to the Catholic Church? [Gal 5:21] Paul says “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God”. IOW they go to hell when they die

 

[Roguish]

All of that noted, Steve, but I don’t recall asking for any of that. Am I wrong to sense that you’re a man in need of an audience?

 

[steve-b]

All of that noted, Steve, but I don’t recall asking for any of that.

You were asking him for his references on the history (1st time) Catholic Church appears Here …correct? Looked to me like you weren’t buying his conflicting answer … correct?

Think of it also as a rebuttal to your post Here

 

[steve-b]

I know you quoted this only as context for Dr. Carroll’s rebuttal, but I find Augustine’s words more convincing than the answer.

I’ve always felt that Matthew 16:18 is a weak defense of Petrine supremacy. A good defense may be possible, but not based on this verse. See, if Jesus had clearly wanted to single Peter out, He would have said: “and on you I will build My Church.” But He doesn’t say that. He says he will build His Church on “this rock”. Why use equivocal language if Peter was to understand that he was personally to be the foundation of the Church? As I see it, Christ is only making the point that he founds his Church on something unshakeable, i.e. rock, and that Peter has been named after that. A good semantic translation would be: “You are Rocky, and on such rock I will build my Church.” The idea that Peter is the sole embodiment or possessor of the unshakeable principle (“rock”) is just not present in either the Latin or the Greek

In extension to my previous answer

From Augustine’s retractations

“I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.’ This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: ‘When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.’ But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church’, to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him Peter confessed when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and as meaning that Peter having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not ‘Thou art rock’, but ‘Thou art Peter’. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom(even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose.”

Augustine suggests one is to choose between the interpretations as to which one is more likely to be correct. not that both interpretations are correct.

Based on his writings, we know Augustine’s position.

Roguish:

And more generally, why would Christ make the future of the Church hinge on a single individual anyway? It doesn’t make sense, and the rest of the NT does not give the impression that it all depended on Peter.

Ever read the story of Job in the OT?

Job didn’t like the way God was running things. So Job challenged God. Here’s God’s answer back to Job
Where were YOU …

Quite illuminating don’t ya think?

Roguish:

A defense of the Roman papacy may be possible, but Matthew 16:18 is not the way to go.

Have you not seen the answer to that

 

[ziapueblo]

A defense of the Roman papacy may be possible, but Matthew 16:18 is not the way to go.

Matthew 16:18, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

No doubt that St. Peter is always singled out as head of the apostles and often speaks on their behalf. This is why I am Byzantine Catholic, I believe in the historical reasons for being in communion with Rome (and attend a very Orthodox parish that is in communion with Rome), but, this is not evidence of having supremacy over the entire Church. A special mission was given to him, yes, as can be witnessed in the writings of the early Church Fathers and historical evidence that appeals where made to the bishop of Rome from the East.

Matthew 16:19, “I will give you the keys to 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.”

I will give, not I give you now. It is not until Matthew 18:18, when speaking to them all, that Jesus does what he said he will do, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Again, Rome herself acknowledges that the Pope of Rome did not have canonical jurisdiction over the East.

ZP

 

[Vonsalza]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; you Byz-Cath boys are usually the smartest in the room.