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

[Roguish]

The papacy is a Church office. It was NOT an invented office by any apostle. Jesus established Peter’s office and it is to continue. And when an apostle their office (in that case bishop) was to continue. THAT’S why Peter called for Judas bishopric to be filled after Judas died. The same goes for the office Peter holds when he died. He had successors.

Again, you are appealing to scripture and history. I said: Can the papacy be defended on the basis of the merits it has now, without appeal to scripture and history. Do you really not understand the question?

P.S. If your answer involves Peter, it is obviously a scriptural/historical defense. Peter’s not around anymore, regardless of what his role was in the 1st century. Can you defend the papacy without invoking Peter? Sheesh…

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The papacy is a Church office. It was NOT an invented office by any apostle. Jesus established Peter’s office and it is to continue. And when an apostle their office (in that case bishop) was to continue. THAT’S why Peter called for Judas bishopric to be filled after Judas died. The same goes for the office Peter holds when he died. He had successors.

Again, you are appealing to scripture and history. I said: Can the papacy be defended on the basis of the merits it has now, without appeal to scripture and history. Do you really not understand the question?

We’re talking about the Church, the writer of the NT scripture “IN TIME” and an office in the Church. Of course I’m going to appeal to what the Church writes and her history

 

[Roguish]

We’re talking about the Church, the writer of the NT scripture “IN TIME” and an office in the Church. Of course I’m going to appeal to what the Church writes and her history

That’s a no then, to my question of whether you can defend it without an appeal to scripture and/or history. Thanks, I’m off now.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

We’re talking about the Church, the writer of the NT scripture “IN TIME” and an office in the Church. Of course I’m going to appeal to what the Church writes and her history

That’s a no then, to my question of whether you can defend it without an appeal to scripture and/or history. Thanks, I’m off now.

That’s like asking, defend you, but you’re not allowed to use logic in that defense

For those reading this, it was argued earlier, Peter is Not the Rock in Mt 16. Language was also brought up. Well…Jesus renames Simon to Rock Seven Reasons Why Peter is the Rock | Catholic Answers

 

[Roguish]

That’s like asking, defend you, but you’re not allowed to use logic in that defense

Logic is not limited to scripture and history. It is quite possible to argue for the papacy regardless of scripture and history. You’re not interested in that kind of argument. That’s fine. I am interested, because I think that’s the only possible basis for discussing it with the Orthodox.

 

[Vonsalza]

I don’t dismiss St. Peter’s primacy at all. I acknowledge it! I just don’t believe that primacy equals supremacy.

ZP

My view as well, quintessentially.

 

[Vonsalza]

Anyway, it’s the usual highly selective selection and interpretation of verses, mostly from Acts (of course). What is overlooked is that most of the NT corpus does not mention Peter. None of the Pauline epistles give any indication that the Christian communities addressed by Paul were to report to Peter, submit to him, keep in touch with him, or anything of the sort.

Maybe it’s in Paul’s lost epistle to Laodicea?

Arguments from silence/absence should never be intended to carry much weight, but I’ve always found it interesting that Christ’s naming of Peter only made it into one of the four gospels, if I’m not mistaken. The other writers seem to have felt it unworthy of mention.

 

[Vonsalza]

The massacre that the Orthodox seem to completely ignore. Have we ever heard from any of them about this?
Massacre of Latins in Constantinople by the Byzantines (Orthodox) 1182

As I’ve mentioned before, Steve’s source on this is a junk source. Unknown author, dubious webpage.

Barring something better, here’s the wiki. It provides a much less tilted view of the event and setting.

Massacre of the Latins - Wikipedia

 

[dochawk]

@vonsalza would you agree that the East-West schism basically began in the 9th century, reached its zenith in the middle of the 11th century, and was finally “ratified” in the 13th century after the Massacre of the Latins then the sack of Constantinople?

I’d agree with @vonsalza as to the earlier start, but I’d probably put the failed Council of Florence and its aftermath as the breaking point.

The Eastern Catholic Codes of Canon Law are primarily a Latin document.

I’ll take it a step further: they should not even exist, and are a breach of the terms of union.

I would, though, like to see, perhaps, the Melkite Patriarch, the UCC Patriarch, and a couple of others set up a “Congregation on Occidental Affairs” to micromanage the RCC :crazy_face:

The mentality of Eastern Catholics is the canons say what they say but as long as Rome doesnt interfere with us being who we are then there is no issue. Its definitely not a perfect communion.

Yes. A like isn’t enough, so have a

Can you defend the papacy without invoking Peter?

In all fairness, that cannot possibly done, as arguing that the bishops of Rome are his successors inherently invokes Peter.

Conversely, there is absolutely no dispute in the East of Peter’s own primacy; demonstrating that role has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the Roman bishops inherited his mantle.

hawk

 

[Vonsalza]

I’d agree with @vonsalza as to the earlier start, but I’d probably put the failed Council of Florence and its aftermath as the breaking point.

Fair point worthy of consideration.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The massacre that the Orthodox seem to completely ignore. Have we ever heard from any of them about this?
Massacre of Latins in Constantinople by the Byzantines (Orthodox) 1182

As I’ve mentioned before, Steve’s source on this is a junk source. Unknown author, dubious webpage.

Barring something better, here’s the wiki. It provides a much less tilted view of the event and setting.
Massacre of the Latins - Wikipedia

Wiki? Really? My source is junk?

ever read Wikis disclaimer Psalm 111:10 RSVCE - The fear of the LORD is the beginning - Bible Gateway

One statement among many, in their disclaimer is particularly troublesome

" Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information."

WOW!!! they don’t stand behind anything they write AND they admit it upfront.

What I wrote has been validated by all the sources in the article, one of the sources is Kallistos Ware, Orthodox Bishop. And I have posted other links that validate the information.