N
Nine_Two
Guest
You’re in a discussion that revolves around history, yet you’ve expressed your disdain for this field. This may very well be a factor as to why you’re having trouble understanding something that should be clear-cut.
- Status
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
By accepting a latin king and patriarch the pope made implied d sacking of constantinople was right, even though he condemned it. Now how does that sound straight?, we can go on and on about this, i believe this is just an attempt to make innocent III and d roman church reponsible for what happened in constantinople.
If we keep living in the past i fear for the future.
Ubenedictus
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Pretty worn out CD isn’t it? 
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
History? Ok here’s History…
Pretty much all comes back to those KEYS doesn’t it. No-where does it say UPON YOU GUYS, YOU ALL, etc…Its says UPON YOU PETER. Upon YOU I will build my Church, the Keys of Kingdom were given to Peter…ALONE!!!
“Can you show from the Fathers…where it says that only St Peter received the keys?”
Yes its called THE BIBLE- the Quasi Unanimous testimony of the ECFs which is inerrant. Can you show where the “KEYS” were given to EVERYONE in the Bible? Fact is they went from David to Jesus to St. Peter…PERIOD.
Binding and Losing is “BESIDES” the point. Obedience is what we call it in the CC. Its the call to Communion with Rome as Jesus Prayed for when HE built His church upon St Peter…the ROCK. Really its as simple as that. No-one has to like it, but yes ya do have to do it. We pray for all our disobedient children daily.
Then 300 years later Rome decided to expand to Constantinople. Course it wasn’t even the first choice Alexandria was. Then we “invented” the name Patriarch around what the 5th century???. And so went the story.
Jesus Christ made no error …men did. Still are evidently. Only History we need be concerned with is the First 300-Years. Once Constantine arrived so did the “problems” or temporal rulers. So it goes with temporal rulers. Temporal Ruler after Temporal Ruler and error after error.
AND the CC…Still in Rome, in fact the persecution never stopped, the more it came, the more the church GREW!!! And those Temporal Rulers? All GONE:shrug:
Everyone wants to rule Christs Church…We insist we leave that to the Chair of Peter as Christ stated. Pope Benedict XVI presently holds that seat in a unbroken line of Apostolic Succession.
While we may not agree with “everything” …obedience becomes the only word one need apply! Prayer and Sacrifice becomes the path.
And thats HISTORY. History starts at the begining not at 314.
Much Love ALL:thumbsup:
Pretty much all comes back to those KEYS doesn’t it. No-where does it say UPON YOU GUYS, YOU ALL, etc…Its says UPON YOU PETER. Upon YOU I will build my Church, the Keys of Kingdom were given to Peter…ALONE!!!
“Can you show from the Fathers…where it says that only St Peter received the keys?”
Yes its called THE BIBLE- the Quasi Unanimous testimony of the ECFs which is inerrant. Can you show where the “KEYS” were given to EVERYONE in the Bible? Fact is they went from David to Jesus to St. Peter…PERIOD.
Binding and Losing is “BESIDES” the point. Obedience is what we call it in the CC. Its the call to Communion with Rome as Jesus Prayed for when HE built His church upon St Peter…the ROCK. Really its as simple as that. No-one has to like it, but yes ya do have to do it. We pray for all our disobedient children daily.
Then 300 years later Rome decided to expand to Constantinople. Course it wasn’t even the first choice Alexandria was. Then we “invented” the name Patriarch around what the 5th century???. And so went the story.
Jesus Christ made no error …men did. Still are evidently. Only History we need be concerned with is the First 300-Years. Once Constantine arrived so did the “problems” or temporal rulers. So it goes with temporal rulers. Temporal Ruler after Temporal Ruler and error after error.
AND the CC…Still in Rome, in fact the persecution never stopped, the more it came, the more the church GREW!!! And those Temporal Rulers? All GONE:shrug:
Everyone wants to rule Christs Church…We insist we leave that to the Chair of Peter as Christ stated. Pope Benedict XVI presently holds that seat in a unbroken line of Apostolic Succession.
While we may not agree with “everything” …obedience becomes the only word one need apply! Prayer and Sacrifice becomes the path.
And thats HISTORY. History starts at the begining not at 314.
Much Love ALL:thumbsup:
M
Mickey
Guest
We get much of our Scriptural interpretations from the holy Fathers. They tell us that all the Apostles hold the keys.
Matt 18:18
Not at all. It is crucial to the receiving of the keys.
He built His Church upon St Peter’s confession of faith…and all the Apostles and prophets…with Christ as the Cornerstone.
But of course…we’ve been through all this before.
A
adoglover1956
Guest
Sorry if I’ve missed the answer to this by not reading far enough along.
If I am in an absolute position of authority and person A kills person B I should be punishing person A. Instead I tell person A…hey I don’t like what you did…but since person B is now dead you can go live in his house and take everything he owns…I think I would be validating the crime of person A.
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
this analogy hardly describes the situation, you are judging the past with lens of d present. Now what would u want d pope to do? No one really had a claim to d throne of constantinople and a latin patriarch around that time was a sign that there was still hope for unity. The pope should declear the latin king dethroned and watch the fight for d throne all over again (fight 4 d throne was d cause of d mess in d first place) or maybe reject the latin guy and forget any hope of healing? Or send the works of art back to an unstable country (it fell shortly after) or excommunicate crusader who thought they were acting under the popes orders? Atlast the blame will fall on d bishops reponsible, only d pope had a say in that matter. So i dont see how accepting d result meant that he agreed with the atrocities he had earlier condemned.
And lastly agrueing the pasts is boring, doesn’t appeal to me.
Ubenedictus
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
i dont think so, i guess u also avioded the arguement.
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
History? Ok here’s History…
Pretty much all comes back to those KEYS doesn’t it. No-where does it say UPON YOU GUYS, YOU ALL, etc…Its says UPON YOU PETER. Upon YOU I will build my Church, the Keys of Kingdom were given to Peter…ALONE!!!
“Can you show from the Fathers…where it says that only St Peter received the keys?”
Yes its called THE BIBLE- the Quasi Unanimous testimony of the ECFs which is inerrant. Can you show where the “KEYS” were given to EVERYONE in the Bible? Fact is they went from David to Jesus to St. Peter…PERIOD.
Binding and Losing is “BESIDES” the point. Obedience is what we call it in the CC. Its the call to Communion with Rome as Jesus Prayed for when HE built His church upon St Peter…the ROCK. Really its as simple as that. No-one has to like it, but yes ya do have to do it. We pray for all our disobedient children daily.
Then 300 years later Rome decided to expand to Constantinople. Course it wasn’t even the first choice Alexandria was. Then we “invented” the name Patriarch around what the 5th century???. And so went the story.
Jesus Christ made no error …men did. Still are evidently. Only History we need be concerned with is the First 300-Years. Once Constantine arrived so did the “problems” or temporal rulers. So it goes with temporal rulers. Temporal Ruler after Temporal Ruler and error after error.
AND the CC…Still in Rome, in fact the persecution never stopped, the more it came, the more the church GREW!!! And those Temporal Rulers? All GONE:shrug:
Everyone wants to rule Christs Church…We insist we leave that to the Chair of Peter as Christ stated. Pope Benedict XVI presently holds that seat in a unbroken line of Apostolic Succession.
While we may not agree with “everything” …obedience becomes the only word one need apply! Prayer and Sacrifice becomes the path.
And thats HISTORY. History starts at the begining not at 314.
Much Love ALL:thumbsup:
good post
A
adoglover1956
Guest
Sorry…but as a Catholic I disagree. What has happened in Catholicism are changes that make it less recognizable as the original Church. I do believe the Pope speaks universally on matters of morals and faith…but there is too much power that has been “inherited” through self pronouncements. While the Church is not democratic…I believe the Orthodox are more in line with the historical position of the Pope as first among equals. Sorry but that is very much in line with history.
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
i guess you meant it is very must the similar to the past. The pope as you say is first among equal and the symbol and the bond of unity say cyprian. Adoglover while i may seem or want to agree with your opinion, i thinks is show a stagnant theology, that which was has to be developed. It is not develop through self pronouncement as you errornously claim but instead through the application of biblical principles and in line with the teaching passed down to us through the early fathers.
Ubenedictus
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
How exactly, pray tell, does theology become “stagnant”? How often must new doctrines be innovated in order to prevent the stagnation of theology? Once every one hundred years? fifty years? Where in the holy fathers or the holy Scriptures may I read of the need to innovate doctrines in order to prevent the stagnation of theology? Indeed, where may I hear of the need to develop doctrine at all from the faith of the apostles, once delivered?
Do Catholics believe that the faith of the apostles was transmitted imperfectly to the apostles by Christ, that we should have to innovate upon it on order to perfect it? Is there, therefore, a set goal, after which we shall stop developing doctrine, and stagnation will be a good thing? Will faith never be perfected, so that it must instead be developed forever? What then of the Apostle’s warning that should any man or even an angel from heaven preach to us another gospel that he should be accursed? Surely, this idea of the development of doctrine was unknown to the fathers, apostles and martyrs of the Church and must therefore be rejected as a great impiety, lest we should reproach the faith of the apostles, once delivered, and unwittingly put in its place a faith which is counterfeit and accursed.
H
Hesychios
Guest
We need not discuss the ecclesiology of Saint Cyprian here (and I would prefer not to go into it again) but if you insist on it we will go over the subject, and everyone will see that the saint did not support anything like a modern Papacy and you are misquoting him by saying he believed this about the Pope.
He was referring to his own See (and all orthodox Sees) in that quote. In other words, for saint Cyprian all bishops are Peter, but for Roman Catholics as soon as the read ‘Peter’ they think ‘Pope’ and thereby quite often misread the man.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Theology that saved Christians in the time of Christ is sufficient to save today.
It would not be right to assert that what was taught in Antioch in the first century or Rome in the fourth century, or in Seville in the eight century was in any way inadequate. It is the received faith, from Christ through the Apostles. To make this claim (that somehow today you know better, or imply that Catholics in the future will know even more) you have to condemn your own origins and sever your ties to the Apostolic past.
The faith of the past simply must be recognized and regarded as more than sufficient.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Hey Michael what is the document in question? De Unitate Ecclesiae thus Unity of the Church?
In all fairness first off I believe we have to conclude the document is definately authentic. Howvever I’ll give you this, their are many variations to its translation, for sure. The issue I see with it, depending on who is doing the translating… is the main issue.
The best translation in all fairness to the EO and the guys here is this one. And if you want to see the entire document I could post it, however I will paste the relevant Chapter Four to this question. The rest is all known No Salvation various concepts consistant with both churchs.
Chapter four.
If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.” Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?”
I would say in all fairness its the best translation I have read, and there are some absolutely ridiculous translations. The actual language could be read also. Now this document I see no sense debating the intricates of it.
The issue really come back around to basically where the two churchs are at today.
Peace
S
Schism_hater
Guest
The passage couldn’t be clearer (and there are other passages where St. Augustine says the same thing): the whole Church received the keys. Practically the only ones in the early Church, east and west, who claimed otherwise were the popes.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Practically dosen’t mean conclusive. There are those who concluded otherwise. I posted them on the other thread no sense being redundant with it.
Where are St Augustines writtings to see where he states otherwise? Peter received the Keys for sure, and St Augustines have been posted. Here are the works.
Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
Origen
“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . .a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
Ambrose of Milan
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
Pope Innocent I
“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).
Augustine
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
Council of Ephesus
“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).
Now if their is an issue with one I’m open? They come off the CAF Forum in question to Peters Primacy.*
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Gary, you are doing exactly what Hesychios said above. Whenever you see Peter, you automatically assume that to mean Rome. Notice for example that only two of your mined quotes are actually talking about the city of Rome, the one from pope Damasus and three one from pope Innocent, both of whom had a vested interest in trying to promote the idea that their see of diminishing importance was the head see. Even then, there is a huge problem with the quote by Pope Innocent because he confirms that all bishops are the successors of Peter, claiming that the episcopacy flows from Peter.
Problematic too is that some of the quotes have no context and are heavily edited. Look for example at the quote written by St. Jerome. Notice how some of it has been cut out?
Here is a fuller version of the same quote: And yet John, one of the disciples, who is related to have been the youngest of the Apostles, and who was a virgin when he embraced Christianity, remained a virgin, and on that account was more beloved by our Lord, and lay upon the breast of Jesus. And what Peter, who had had a wife, did not dare ask, John13:25 he requested John to ask. And after the resurrection, when Mary Magdalene told them that the Lord had risen, John20:4 they both ran to the sepulchre, but John outran Peter. And when they were fishing in the ship on the lake of Gennesaret, Jesus stood upon the shore, and the Apostles knew not who it was they saw; the virgin alone recognized a virgin, and said to Peter, It is the Lord. Again, after hearing the prediction that he must be bound by another, and led whither he would not, and must suffer on the cross, Peter said, Lord what shall this man do? being unwilling to desert John, with whom he had always been united. Our Lord said to him, What is that to you if I wish him so to be? Whence the saying went abroad among the brethren that that disciple should not die. Here we have a proof that virginity does not die, and that the defilement of marriage is not washed away by the blood of martyrdom, but virginity abides with Christ, and its sleep is not death but a passing to another state. If, however, Jovinianus should obstinately contend that John was not a virgin, (whereas we have maintained that his virginity was the cause of the special love our Lord bore to him), let him explain, if he was not a virgin, why it was that he was loved more than the other Apostles. But you say, Matthew*16:18 the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them, John*14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, and, He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all, would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We maybe sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord’s passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men. Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle— the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future.
newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm Shockingly, in this passage, St. Jerome is arguing that virginity is better, because St. John, a virgin, was the most-beloved of the apostles by the Lord. He then goes on to argue that even though Peter was appointed head, this was only for good order and because Peter was the oldest of the apostles. He even says that all of the apostles were given the keys! He then goes on to show how much more special John the apostle and evangelist is than Peter, who is merely an apostle. Look then at how dishonestly that quotation was edited, when in fact, it says just the opposite of what it was edited to say. How many of those other quotations then, perhaps say something else other than what they have been edited to say? Unless more context is provided, we simply cannot know, and that a fuller context was not included with those quotes, I find to be very dishonest.
Edit: for clarity, Gary did not compile those quotes, and this has nothing to do with Gary’s integrity. Somebody else compiled them.
Problematic too is that some of the quotes have no context and are heavily edited. Look for example at the quote written by St. Jerome. Notice how some of it has been cut out?
Here is a fuller version of the same quote: And yet John, one of the disciples, who is related to have been the youngest of the Apostles, and who was a virgin when he embraced Christianity, remained a virgin, and on that account was more beloved by our Lord, and lay upon the breast of Jesus. And what Peter, who had had a wife, did not dare ask, John13:25 he requested John to ask. And after the resurrection, when Mary Magdalene told them that the Lord had risen, John20:4 they both ran to the sepulchre, but John outran Peter. And when they were fishing in the ship on the lake of Gennesaret, Jesus stood upon the shore, and the Apostles knew not who it was they saw; the virgin alone recognized a virgin, and said to Peter, It is the Lord. Again, after hearing the prediction that he must be bound by another, and led whither he would not, and must suffer on the cross, Peter said, Lord what shall this man do? being unwilling to desert John, with whom he had always been united. Our Lord said to him, What is that to you if I wish him so to be? Whence the saying went abroad among the brethren that that disciple should not die. Here we have a proof that virginity does not die, and that the defilement of marriage is not washed away by the blood of martyrdom, but virginity abides with Christ, and its sleep is not death but a passing to another state. If, however, Jovinianus should obstinately contend that John was not a virgin, (whereas we have maintained that his virginity was the cause of the special love our Lord bore to him), let him explain, if he was not a virgin, why it was that he was loved more than the other Apostles. But you say, Matthew*16:18 the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them, John*14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, and, He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all, would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We maybe sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord’s passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men. Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle— the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future.
newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm Shockingly, in this passage, St. Jerome is arguing that virginity is better, because St. John, a virgin, was the most-beloved of the apostles by the Lord. He then goes on to argue that even though Peter was appointed head, this was only for good order and because Peter was the oldest of the apostles. He even says that all of the apostles were given the keys! He then goes on to show how much more special John the apostle and evangelist is than Peter, who is merely an apostle. Look then at how dishonestly that quotation was edited, when in fact, it says just the opposite of what it was edited to say. How many of those other quotations then, perhaps say something else other than what they have been edited to say? Unless more context is provided, we simply cannot know, and that a fuller context was not included with those quotes, I find to be very dishonest.
Edit: for clarity, Gary did not compile those quotes, and this has nothing to do with Gary’s integrity. Somebody else compiled them.
T
twf
Guest
Yes, the keys were given individually to St. Peter, and yes the successors of Peter, the popes, do exercise the power of the keys in a unique manner to ensure the unity and orthodoxy of the Church universal, but the Catholic Church has always taught that the entire Church exercises the keys in a more general sense. Surely as a Catholic you have heard the expression “submit it to the keys”? This expression refers to confessing individual sins to a priest in the sacrament of the confessional…thus every Catholic knows and lives the fact that all priests, let alone bishops, exercise the power of the keys. The Church teaches that the Pope together with the bishops in union with him constitutes the supreme authority of the Church - a supreme authority that can be exercised by an ecumenical council (that is, the entire college of bishops) and not merely by the Pope. All bishops exercise the power of the keys and all bishops are vicars of Christ.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
From a distance.
- Status