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

[Mickey]

So let me get this straight - when Catholics who are pro-papacy outline with no misgivings or nuance why they assert that the Church they are members of - in Mark’s case, joined as an adult convert - in an assertive fashion they are angry, rude and need to find peace?

No. When someone tells me that me or my Church “knows better than Jesus”, then I know that something is a little off.

The 8000+ posts you have on here engaged in strongly worded argument for Orthodoxy

And not once did I tell someone (or their Church) that they “know better than Jesus”. I would be reported if I made such a comment.

Yourself?

 

[Mickey]

You sure seem touchy.

I suppose I can get a bit touchy when strangers insult me and my faith. But it is a lesson in humility.

I don’t know why you would be so upset over what I wrote.

I would never dare to tell someone that “they know better than Jesus”. I think it is the height of arrogance to make such a comment.

You stated that the Catholic Church separated from Holy Orthodoxy. But I’m not going to throw a fit over it.

That is good to hear.

I know that is what you believe. It is my duty to attempt to demonstrate to you that you are wrong (and vice-versa).

I am very firm in my belief that Holy Orthodoxy is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. And I know that you feel likewise about Catholicism. It is not likely that we are going to change eachother’s minds. We can debate–and that is okay. But please attempt to refrain from insulting people–it is not good for your argument.

You need to relax.

You need to stop the insults.

I did not experience a whit of anger when I wrote what I did.

It did not come off as a polite brotherly comment.

Instead of ending the dialogue (which you can if you want to), try to demonstrate to me where my logic has gone wrong.

If you can refrain from insulting me and my Church, I may continue. However, these same debates have gone on with many of the same people for years–round and round. I am tiring of the grind. As simple sinner often likes to point out, I have thousands of posts here. I feel as if it may be time to move on–I do not know. Many of my Orthodox brethren have moved on (voluntarily or not). I have been spending much more time at an Orthodox forum (which I will not name because it may be against the rules). There are Roman/Eastern Catholics and Orthodox there. And I am not outnumbered 1000:1

Besides, even with an Ecumenical Council, the practice of the early Church was that there was a bishop who confirmed the proceedings - this was the bishop of Rome.

St James presided over the first Council of Jerusalem.

Popes did ratify the Great Councils–but they did not have the supreme/infallible authority to declare doctrine apart from the council.

P.S. I apologize if you feel insulted, but at the same time I would advise you not to take things too personally.

I ususally do not. But you insulted me in reference to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. That hurts this sinner very deeply.

I don’t have that anger anymore

I pray that you do not.

in the Catholic Church, there is an unspoken rule that we (east, Orient and West) don’t go around trying to tell each other who is wrong. We try to UNDERSTAND the differences and accept them.

We have an unspoken rule in the Holy Orthodox Church: Never compromise the truth.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!

 

[Mickey]

The EO folks are just sort of ‘out there’ somewhere.

…And we’re watching you. (insert music to twilight zone here)

 

[Mickey]

(notice what Cardinal Ratzinger now Benedict XVI writes)

He also said this:

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. 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. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

And this:

---

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. **(**Ibid)

 

[tqualey]

And we’re watching you. (insert music to twilight zone here)

Hi, Mickey,

The ‘out there’ was really based on my ignorance - no mischief or unkindness was intended.

Have a great day - and, may St. Mark pray for us all.

 

[Mickey]

Hi, Mickey,

The ‘out there’ was really based on my ignorance - no mischief or unkindness was intended.

Have a great day - and, may St. Mark pray for us all.

I know. That’s why I placed the laughing emoticon.

Peace be to you.

 

[mercygate]

He also said this:

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. 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. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

And this:

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. **(**Ibid)
Ya gotta love the guy!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

No. When someone tells me that me or my Church “knows better than Jesus”, then I know that something is a little off.

And not once did I tell someone (or their Church) that they “know better than Jesus”. I would be reported if I made such a comment.

Yourself?

If that is the difference with distinction that you need to play the "Is Outrage!" card, so be it.

All other shenanigans and matters of mockery vis. the papacy and the Catholic Church seem to be ok for a guy who spends a great deal of time debating Catholics (like this is a serious hobby or obsession)…

I am getting used to your stylings, hope by the next 8,000 post you can get used to ours.

 

[Mickey]

If that is the difference with distinction that you need to play the "Is Outrage!" card, so be it.

I call it like I see it. I am seldomly outraged. However, you seem a bit disturbed right now.

a guy who spends a great deal of time debating Catholics

The truth must be told!

hope by the next 8,000 post…

Hmmmm? For the umpteenth time you make reference to my post count. This seems to disturb you. Good thing you are not the forum post count police!

 

[Mickey]

Ya gotta love the guy!

I do like Pope Benedict very much!

 

[catholic1seeks]

I posted this in the “What’s false about Orthodoxy” forum, and I find it very relevant for this forum:

I still think it is as simple as the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to follow the structure Jesus had with his Apostles: Peter had primacey over the rest. In essence, there needed to be a person to follow in Peter’s footsteps. One person.

I see three main sources for the matter of
Peter’s successors:

Bible (pointing to the primacey of Peter among the disciples/other Apostles)
Early Church Fathers (recognizing the bishop of Rome continued to serve in Peter’s position)
Common Sense (gives us the idea that the Catholic structure is very similar to that of the N. T., and that the special authority given to Peter does not end with Peter)

And as for these sources, they greatly point
to the Catholic position on authority - the pope.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I call it like I see it. I am seldomly outraged. However, you seem a bit disturbed right now.

Classic Mickey - deflect by asessing my personality, concern or make a comment about my tone…

Hmmmm? For the umpteenth time you make reference to my post count. This seems to disturb you. Good thing you are not the forum post count police!

I couldn’t give a care if you want to spend as many hours in the future as you have in the past hanging out and arguing endlessly with Catholics at Catholic Answers Forums. As my mom would say “Hey, keeps ya off the streets!” So no, I am not the count police, I am not even obsessed with it… I just marvel at not only how much time you seem to spend on a forum dealing with your old church, but how surprised, shocked, or outraged you can claim to become (especially with all that experience) when someone meets your assertiveness with the same.

So it goes, Mickey! So it goes…

 

[tqualey]

Mickey and SimpleSinner,

Have I got news for you … 5PintLutheran posted are really good link that I just got around to. Here it is: catholicaudio.blogspot.com/search/label/SPEAKER%3A%20Peter%20Kreeft

Basically, the MP3 from Peter Kreeft I listened to on Ecumenism was very focused, direct and Christ-centered. Check it out. I think it will help to enliven (rather then enflame) your discussions, and energize (rather then enfeeble) the charity we all need to express to one another.

Best wishes,

 

[Mickey]

make a comment about my tone

I see. Tis fine to say I am playing “the outrage card”. But do not dare make an observation about simple sinner. ROTFL.

So no, I am not the count police

Thank goodness! :extrahappy: 8064 and counting!

I am not even obsessed with it

That is comforting.

I just marvel at not only how much time you seem to spend on a forum dealing with your old church…

It is no concern of yours how much time I have. Do not stress about it. I enjoy introducing my current Church. Many people are ignorant about Holy Orthodoxy.

I am happy to be in the fullness of truth.

May God bless you abundantly!

 

[qui_est_ce]

Mickey and SimpleSinner,

Have I got news for you … 5PintLutheran posted are really good link that I just got around to. Here it is: catholicaudio.blogspot.com/search/label/SPEAKER%3A%20Peter%20Kreeft

Basically, the MP3 from Peter Kreeft I listened to on Ecumenism was very focused, direct and Christ-centered. Check it out. I think it will help to enliven (rather then enflame) your discussions, and energize (rather then enfeeble) the charity we all need to express to one another.

Best wishes,

I It is no concern of yours how much time I have. Do not stress about it. I enjoy introducing my current Church. Many people are ignorant about Holy Orthodoxy.

I am happy to be in the fullness of truth.

May God bless you abundantly!

You would do well to PM your personal and off topic comments and adhere to tqualey’s advice about returning to the OP.

Thank you.

 

[guanophore]

How come Catholics seize on Peter being the rock when in the same passage Jesus calls him Satan?

Don’t you think that this is because Jesus put Satan behind Him, and the next verse is a prophesy about what He intends to do with Peter? Does it not make more sense to focus on what God is doing than how the devil is trying to thwart it?

How come the early church never clearly spelled out papal authority in the manner that today’s Catholics seem to claim for it?

I think that the role of the successor of Peter grew as the Church grew. It was not until some major heresies emerged that it became so critical.

 

[tqualey]

I would like to share a thought with the group. Now, as a general statement - this is neither scholarly, researched and may not even be valid! (How is that for a disclaimer?) But, I found it of interest and just wanted to share it.

Yesterday I was listening to a radio program of “Jewish Christians”(?) and the presentation was on the section about “…get behind me Satan…” Essentially, there may be confusion about Christ first recognizing Peter over the other Apostles and then demonizing him. According to the radio speaker, that is not really the best way look at this. Rather, this is reference to an old Jewish story that the Apostles and Christ ahd undoubtedly heard when they were small boys growing up. It base is the story of Abraham going to sacrifice Issac (Gen 22).

According to the sepaker (and not supported in any Bible I know of…) when God was speaking to Abraham, the Devil was also listening. As Abraham was traveling along the road to perform the sacrifice, the Devil appeared as an old man on the road and taunted Abraham about the needless waste of his son’s life and the mean-spiritedness of God to require this of him. Abrahma rebuffs the Devil The the Devil appears as a young man and tells Issac he will be murdered by his father and that he needs to escape to save his own life. Issac also rebuffs the Devil. Finally, the Devil appears as a small stream of water separating Abraham from his destination. Abraham and Issac begin to ford the stream and when they are half way, it suddenly becomes a raging river about the drown them both! Abraham tells Issac that this is no river but the Devil rying to get them to sin against God. Abraham then tells the Devil to ‘…get behind him…’ and the river vanishes.

The speaker went on to say that this term was to have Peter and the others recall the story and that it was Christ who was now the new Abraham and all of the distractions (e.g., Peter) were not going to derail the salvation event God would accomplish. Now, while this is not a complimentary remark towards Peter - neither is it a demonization of him. Rather, Peter needs to get with the program - and, apparently, he does.

Be sure you have your salt shaker handy… I am not sure if one ‘grain’ is going to be enough…

Hope everyone had a great weekend.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I would like to share a thought with the group. Now, as a general statement - this is neither scholarly, researched and may not even be valid! (How is that for a disclaimer?) But, I found it of interest and just wanted to share it.

Rather, Peter needs to get with the program - and, apparently, he does.

Be sure you have your salt shaker handy… I am not sure if one ‘grain’ is going to be enough…

Hope everyone had a great weekend.

I like the story! I think the point is Peter was not Satan, but that Satan was certainly working on Peter. The close on gets to God, the harder Satan works on that person. We know that Peter was very close to Jesus.

 

[kaycee]

He also said this:

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. 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. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

And this:

---

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. **(****Ibid)**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.

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”

Will this create more sedavacantists?

 

[mercygate]

I would like to share a thought with the group. Now, as a general statement - this is neither scholarly, researched and may not even be valid! (How is that for a disclaimer?) But, I found it of interest and just wanted to share it.

Yesterday I was listening to a radio program of “Jewish Christians”(?) and the presentation was on the section about “…get behind me Satan…” Essentially, there may be confusion about Christ first recognizing Peter over the other Apostles and then demonizing him. According to the radio speaker, that is not really the best way look at this. Rather, this is reference to an old Jewish story that the Apostles and Christ ahd undoubtedly heard when they were small boys growing up. It base is the story of Abraham going to sacrifice Issac (Gen 22).

According to the sepaker (and not supported in any Bible I know of…) when God was speaking to Abraham, the Devil was also listening. As Abraham was traveling along the road to perform the sacrifice, the Devil appeared as an old man on the road and taunted Abraham about the needless waste of his son’s life and the mean-spiritedness of God to require this of him. Abrahma rebuffs the Devil The the Devil appears as a young man and tells Issac he will be murdered by his father and that he needs to escape to save his own life. Issac also rebuffs the Devil. Finally, the Devil appears as a small stream of water separating Abraham from his destination. Abraham and Issac begin to ford the stream and when they are half way, it suddenly becomes a raging river about the drown them both! Abraham tells Issac that this is no river but the Devil rying to get them to sin against God. Abraham then tells the Devil to ‘…get behind him…’ and the river vanishes.

The speaker went on to say that this term was to have Peter and the others recall the story and that it was Christ who was now the new Abraham and all of the distractions (e.g., Peter) were not going to derail the salvation event God would accomplish. Now, while this is not a complimentary remark towards Peter - neither is it a demonization of him. Rather, Peter needs to get with the program - and, apparently, he does.

Be sure you have your salt shaker handy… I am not sure if one ‘grain’ is going to be enough…

Hope everyone had a great weekend.

I have an Orthodox Jewish friend who is deep into the Abraham/Isaac story. I’ll ask him if he knows this story.