How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[qui_est_ce]

1. I find it fascinating that Ratzinger admits to development of the papacy. Must be a Newman fan. This cant play well with those who see a modern papacy in the book of acts.

Why is this so fascinating? What part of Acts does not support the Papacy as we know it today?

1. Won’t force others to accept the primacy? Yet traditionalists claim there is no salvation without submission to the Roman Pontiff and the “true church”

Where does the Church teach that one must submit to “Rome” in order to be saved? The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by God’s Grace ALONE.

The Catholic Church concerns herself with teaching Truth, inconvenient as that may be to some. God gave us free will. We can either accept or reject him.

 

[kaycee]

Why is this so fascinating? What part of Acts does not support the Papacy as we know it today?

I think the real question is why does the Pope think it NOT nessesary for everyone to submit to him. AND why does he see a papacy that is different in the last 150 years than the 1st millenium, The Orthodox did not see a Roman primacy in the 1st mill. and that is what he is shooting for? This certainly cuts the legs out from under the traditionists.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I think the real question is why does the Pope think it NOT nessesary for everyone to submit to him.

That one does not have to be Catholic in order to be saved is surprising to you? What one should do and what is necessary is not the same thing. Only God can presume why a person cannot do what is necessary.

AND why does he see a papacy that is different in the last 150 years than the 1st millenium,

What is different? What was the 1st millenium like? There have been times when Rome has overmanged some dioceses. On the other hand, there have been times when dioceses have overstepped their authority, teaching heresy and/or negatively affecting the entire Universal Church, necessitating intervension by the Bishop of Rome. Church Teaching on Faith and Morals remains infallible and unchangeable.

The Orthodox did not see a Roman primacy in the 1st mill. and that is what he is shooting for? This certainly cuts the legs out from under the traditionists.

Your proof? The Scriptural and historical evidence that Peter and his successors were given primacy among the bishops is overwhelming. The Eastern Chruch recognized this, for the most part. However, that does not mean that, at various points in history, Rome did not overstep its role. Historically, this balance between the role of “captain” and “fellow player” has been the source of much of the division between East and West. Pope John Paul II and Pope, Benedict XVI have moved to provide more autonomy to the Bishops. They have worked hard to restore goodwill.

iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/14/europe/EU-REL-Vatican-Orthodox.php

**VATICAN CITY: A Vatican-Orthodox commission working to heal the 1,000-year split between the Catholic and Orthodox churches has agreed the pope has primacy over all bishops but disagrees over just what authority that primacy gives him.…
The Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue reached the agreement during talks last month in Ravenna, Italy, according to a document about the commission’s findings to be published Thursday.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches had been united until the Great Schism of 1054, which was precipitated largely by disagreements over the primacy of the pope.

Pope Benedict XVI has said that uniting all Christians and healing the split is a “fundamental” priority of his pontificate.

The theological commission said it agreed in Ravenna that Rome occupied the “first place” in canonical order of the ancient seats of bishops — including Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

The commission said it agreed “that the bishop of Rome was therefore the ‘protos’ (first in ancient Greek) among the patriarchs.”
“They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as ‘protos,’” the commission’s document said.**

 

[Gofer]

I see qui est ce has replied, but here’s my take:

1. I find it fascinating that Ratzinger admits to development of the papacy…

Why a modern papacy? (A “papacy” with the Pope being no less than other patriarchs, in terms of actual powers, isn’t a papacy).

1. Won’t force others to accept the primacy? Yet traditionalists claim there is no salvation without submission to the Roman Pontiff and the “true church”

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void… Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

All the future Pope is saying is there is a primacy, and there’s more than one way for Popes to exercise said primacy.

I think the real question is why does the Pope think it NOT nessesary for everyone to submit to him.

Everyone must submit to Christ, and in the fullest form of this statement this entails being with the church with the bishop of Rome as its head. So if one “submits” to that bishop one submits to Christ.

AND why does he see a papacy that is different in the last 150 years than the 1st millenium

I would say our fellow poster mardukm (Eastern Catholic) explains the true role of the Pope well: forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=1726570

 

[kaycee]

iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/14/europe/EU-REL-Vatican-Orthodox.php

VATICAN CITY: A Vatican-Orthodox commission working to heal the 1,000-year split between the Catholic and Orthodox churches has agreed the pope has primacy over all bishops but disagrees over just what authority that primacy gives him.…
The Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue reached the agreement during talks last month in Ravenna, Italy, according to a document about the commission’s findings to be published Thursday.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches had been united until the Great Schism of 1054, which was precipitated largely by disagreements over the primacy of the pope.

Pope Benedict XVI has said that uniting all Christians and healing the split is a “fundamental” priority of his pontificate.

The theological commission said it agreed in Ravenna that Rome occupied the “first place” in canonical order of the ancient seats of bishops — including Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

The commission said it agreed “that the bishop of Rome was therefore the ‘protos’ (first in ancient Greek) among the patriarchs.”
“They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as ‘protos,’” the commission’s document said.

Sure the Roman church had a primacy off honor based on Peter and Paul’s Martrydom and on its importance as the capital city of the empire. It was not based on theological reasons. History shows that when the Bishop of Rome attempted to foist universal rule, it was not accepted. These attempts were also fairly late in the early church (500 years on) and previously unknown thus giving rise to Cardinal Newmans development theory.

 

[Gofer]

Sure the Roman church had a primacy off honor…

More than honor. Without any concrete power such a “primacy” is all pretty words.

…based on Peter and Paul’s Martrydom and on its importance as the capital city of the empire. It was not based on theological reasons.

I’d say their martyrdoms are part of the theological reasons along with them founding it, and Peter in its see.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Sure the Roman church had a primacy off honor based on Peter and Paul’s Martrydom and on its importance as the capital city of the empire. It was not based on theological reasons. History shows that when the Bishop of Rome attempted to foist universal rule, it was not accepted. These attempts were also fairly late in the early church (500 years on) and previously unknown thus giving rise to Cardinal Newmans development theory.

This is simply incorrect, please reread the posts which provided you with the facts. Even President Bush greeted the Pope as the person who sits on the chair of Peter.

 

[SCALCO]

This is simply incorrect, please reread the posts which provided you with the facts. Even President Bush greeted the Pope as the person who sits on the chair of Peter.

If President Bush says it, it must be true!

Sorry, that was just funny.

 

[qui_est_ce]

If President Bush says it, it must be true!

Sorry, that was just funny.

It kind of shocked me when I heard him say it. I wonder if he’ll convert like his brother did.

 

[Mickey]

I Everyone must submit to Christ, and in the fullest form of this statement this entails being with the church with the bishop of Rome as its head.

The head of the Church is Jesus Christ. There was no such thing as papal supremacy/infallibility in the early Church. “Seeds of Development” is a poor justification to retroactively fit the modern day papacy into the early Church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mickey,

I have been reading the posts with growing interest and hope that maybe the developmental aspects will get a little more attention. So, let me try another view.

There is no record of Christ ever having built a building, having gone to Rome or doing a PowerPoint presentation on the organizational structure He planned for His Bride, the Chruch. Not one recorded instance of Him even writing anything down … except some apparent doodling He did in the dirt with a bunch of guys standing around with stones in their hands ready to dispatch a prostitute.

So, in the absence of written evidence, we are forced to look at what actually happened. On Pentecost Sunday, the Holy Spirit took a group of rather cowardly individuals and filled them with the Love of God - and they went out and faced those who would deny Christ as the Messiah and preached boldly. The Holy Spirit, however, did not deliver a book or an organizational chart for the group to follow. The Apostles were with Christ and Peter when Peter was put in charge of the group that was to an on-going organization. The Early Church Fathers - both Latin and Greek looked to Rome for the final resolution to any matter brought before the one sitting on Peter’s Chair.

Horses, carts and walking were the ways of getting around during the time of Christ. Would anyone really expect today’s Church to be using such methods of travel today? Why then, would we expect the Church to remain stagnant in the way it travels, communicates, preaches and embraces the faithful and those who yearn to hear Christ’s message of salvation.

In my opinion, this is not really the type of item that can be resolved with logic, history or rhetoric. It really requires prayerful Faith and a confident Hope that Christ did not abandon His Bride to the folly of men. Charity comes in the way we address and learn form one another.

Best wishes,

 

[JRKH]

Hi, Mickey,

I have been reading the posts with growing interest and hope that maybe the developmental aspects will get a little more attention. So, let me try another view.

There is no record of Christ ever having built a building, having gone to Rome or doing a PowerPoint presentation on the organizational structure He planned for His Bride, the Chruch. Not one recorded instance of Him even writing anything down … except some apparent doodling He did in the dirt with a bunch of guys standing around with stones in their hands ready to dispatch a prostitute.

So, in the absence of written evidence, we are forced to look at what actually happened. On Pentecost Sunday, the Holy Spirit took a group of rather cowardly individuals and filled them with the Love of God - and they went out and faced those who would deny Christ as the Messiah and preached boldly. The Holy Spirit, however, did not deliver a book or an organizational chart for the group to follow. The Apostles were with Christ and Peter when Peter was put in charge of the group that was to an on-going organization. The Early Church Fathers - both Latin and Greek looked to Rome for the final resolution to any matter brought before the one sitting on Peter’s Chair.

Horses, carts and walking were the ways of getting around during the time of Christ. Would anyone really expect today’s Church to be using such methods of travel today? Why then, would we expect the Church to remain stagnant in the way it travels, communicates, preaches and embraces the faithful and those who yearn to hear Christ’s message of salvation.

In my opinion, this is not really the type of item that can be resolved with logic, history or rhetoric. It really requires prayerful Faith and a confident Hope that Christ did not abandon His Bride to the folly of men. Charity comes in the way we address and learn form one another.

Best wishes,

Nicely Stated:thumbsup:

Peace
James

 

[Mickey]

On Pentecost Sunday, the Holy Spirit took a group of rather cowardly individuals and filled them with the Love of God - and they went out and faced those who would deny Christ as the Messiah and preached boldly

Amen.

The Early Church Fathers - both Latin and Greek looked to Rome for the final resolution to any matter brought before the one sitting on Peter’s Chair.

When it was requested, the bishop of Rome acted as a mediator of sorts being the bishop of the pre-eminent Church of early Christianity. He was not a supreme/infallible pontiff who could proclaim dogma on his own–apart from an Ecumenical Council.

Why then, would we expect the Church to remain stagnant in the way it travels, communicates, preaches and embraces the faithful and those who yearn to hear Christ’s message of salvation.

The RC “stagnant” apologetic is often against Holy Orthodoxy. It is a poor apologetic. What you see as stagnant, I see as ancient Apostolic Tradition. What you see as development, I see as innovation.

It really requires prayerful Faith and a confident Hope that Christ did not abandon His Bride to the folly of men.

He surely did not abandon His Church.

Slava Isusu Christu!
Slava Na Viki!

 

[Always_For_Him]

In my opinion, this is not really the type of item that can be resolved with logic, history or rhetoric. It really requires prayerful Faith and a confident Hope that Christ did not abandon His Bride to the folly of men. Charity comes in the way we address and learn form one another.

Christ promised that he would continue to guide his Church - and he has! Do Protestants think that Christ didn’t establish a Church with Peter and the Apostles (although, that is what he said he was doing)? Or, is it that they believe that he abandoned his Church (although he said he wouldn’t)?

 

[Always_For_Him]

Amen.
When it was requested, the bishop of Rome acted as a mediator of sorts being the bishop of the pre-eminent Church of early Christianity. He was not a supreme/infallible pontiff who could proclaim dogma on his own–apart from an Ecumenical Council.
The RC “stagnant” apologetic is often against Holy Orthodoxy. It is a poor apologetic. What you see as stagnant, I see as ancient Apostolic Tradition. What you see as development, I see as innovation.
He surely did not abandon His Church.

Slava Isusu Christu!
Slava Na Viki!

What did Jesus mean when he told Peter he had the power to bind and loose? Jesus put Peter in the supreme position over the other apostles. The Apostles then knew it. It wasn’t questioned by them. Surely, if it that is NOT what Jesus meant, it would have been corrected and explained. It wasn’t, because they knew that Jesus established Peter as the head of His Church. If all early Church fathers looked to Rome for final authority to any matter, then they believed in the authority of the successor of Peter - the one at that time sitting in Peter’s Chair. Why, at some point, did that change for the EO? It was firmly believed and in practice for hundreds of years before the EO separated from Catholocism. What pontiff proclaimed his own dogma on his own - apart from an Ecumenical Council? What was the new dogma? The only “changes” made were by those who left the Catholic Church to found their own.

“What you see as stagnant, I see as ancient Apostolic Tradition. What you see as development, I see as innovation.”
You have twisted that out of it’s original context. He wasn’t saying Apostolic Tradition was stagnant. As with any institution, there is development. There were developed roles and offices - heirarchy - in the OT. The establishment of roles and offices was nothing new. Jesus followed that Tradition. The Catholic Church didn’t "invent’ it as you claim the Catholic Church innovated heirarchy. The Catholic Church - the Early Church - followed Jesus’ establishment. Jesus established Peter as the head of His Church - that is the Catholic Church.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Amen.
When it was requested, the bishop of Rome acted as a mediator of sorts being the bishop of the pre-eminent Church of early Christianity. He was not a supreme/infallible pontiff who could proclaim dogma on his own–apart from an Ecumenical Council.

Do you not agree with your own church?

iht.com/articles/ap/2007/…n-Orthodox.php

"*VATICAN CITY: A **Vatican-Orthodox **commission working to heal the 1,000-year split between the Catholic and Orthodox churches **has agreed the pope has primacy over all bishops **but disagrees over just what authority that primacy gives him…
The Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue reached the agreement during talks last month in Ravenna, Italy, according to a document about the commission’s findings to be published Thursday.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches had been united until the Great Schism of 1054, which was precipitated largely by disagreements over the primacy of the pope.*"

 

[qui_est_ce]

As with any institution, there is development. There were developed roles and offices - heirarchy - in the OT. The establishment of roles and offices was nothing new. Jesus followed that Tradition.

Mark 4:30-31
*The Parable of the Mustard Seed
30Again he said, “What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? 31It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground. 32Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade.”

The Church is the Kingdom of God on Earth. For Jesus said:
Matthew 29-17
" I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father." ***

John 19:30 *
"When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.” And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit. "*

 

[Mickey]

If all early Church fathers looked to Rome for final authority to any matter, then they believed in the authority of the successor of Peter

The majority of Church Fathers viewed the equal authority of all bishops.

Why, at some point, did that change for the EO?

It did not.

It was firmly believed and in practice for hundreds of years before the EO separated from Catholocism.

It was not.

What pontiff proclaimed his own dogma on his own - apart from an Ecumenical Council?

Can the Pope proclaim doctrine today–ex cathedra–apart from an Ecumenical Council?

The Catholic Church didn’t "invent’ it as you claim the Catholic Church innovated heirarchy.

They invented doctrine–including papal infallibility.

Jesus established Peter as the head of His Church - that is the Catholic Church.

Jesus Christ is the Head of His Church.

 

[Mickey]

"*VATICAN CITY: A Vatican-Orthodox commission working to heal the 1,000-year split between the Catholic and Orthodox churches has agreed the pope has primacy over all bishops **but disagrees over just what authority that primacy gives him…***The Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue reached the agreement during talks last month in Ravenna, Italy, according to a document about the commission’s findings to be published Thursday.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches had been united until the Great Schism of 1054, which was precipitated largely by disagreements over the primacy of the pope."

 

[JRKH]

Mikey and others,
I would just like to thank everyone for this intersting discussion re: East v West.
qui est ce’s post about the discussions in Rome and reading through these wonderful posts really should demonstrate to all of us how tricky and difficult these talks must be for those, on both sides, who are charged with exploring these issues.

May we all join our prayers to one another that the Holy spirit will guide the Church (Both Lungs) into greater understanding and a more full and perfect union.

Peace
James