C
Cavaradossi
Guest
These days, baptist is becoming a pseudonym for non-denominational
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
I asked you first.
Most nd’s subscribe to believer’s baptism and “symbolic only” Lord’s supper…in addition to most other baptist reformed beliefs.
M
Mickey
Guest
These days, baptist is becoming a pseudonym for non-denominational
1
1beleevr
Guest
Most being the operative word here. I grew up in a Baptist home, met many people from different religions, got turned off by the catholics I met back then(never could get used to the idea of calling a MAN holy father), and decided most religions were too legalistic. Better off being a follower of Christ, enjoying a personal relationship with Him. You know, loving everyone, feeding the hungry, helping the poor, evangelizing…
1
1beleevr
Guest
And I answered you! I mean, I figure if you asked the question, you must know the answer. But then again, you don’t know me, so you would be assuming that I subscribe to the same things as Baptists!
Let me ask you, truthfully, when Jesus said,“This is my Body,” was He being symbolic? And the wine as His “blood?” Oh, and just to keep in line with the thread question, the pope is the head of the catholic church to me, nothing more nothing less.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Thread radically prunned.
I HIGHLY suggest charity in the discussion.
I HIGHLY suggest charity in the discussion.
A
andrewstx
Guest
And may I add. Orthodoxy accepts the primacy of the Patriarch of Rome, but not his supremacy.
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
Why will the pope be interested in suppressing the eastern liturgies? Are those litugies not a cultural and spiritual heritage of those who practice them? And removing bishops, i think there are laws guiding that, so why will he want to remove bishops(i may not understand this point, i never heard or see it)?
Lastly, i will ask where should we draw the line? My bishop only complys with teaching and discipline and lastly matters reserved to the holy see. Will yon call this micro managing.
Ubenedictus
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
That is a question no one asks. Its funny in a sad way really how people make claims about Papal Supremacy in a way that makes the Pope seem like a ruthless dictator rather than the Vicar of Christ.
Yes, its not only the culture but also the prevailing school of thought of where the understanding of the faith developed. Greek philosophy is different from Latin, that is why there is a difference between East and West. And of course the Orientals have a different way of understanding as well.
I’ve also never seen the Pope do it for non-RC bishops. Which also why I wonder why some would assert the Pope can do this, but it has never happened.
Well, Eastern Catholic Churches aren’t called sui juris for nothing. I think the name says it all.
H
Hesychios
Guest
For the greater good of the church, of course!
Ok, I was being somewhat facetious, but that is the actual reason.
For a long time (and perhaps once again at a future time) conformity was valued more highly than diversity. Thus historically the Celtic, Ambrosian, Gallic and Mozarabic churches and their liturgies were suppressed. * These were valid liturgical rites and the cultural patrimony of their people.
Today, the Mozarabic rite and the Ambrosian rite are permitted in just two or three locations each (the others are dead), and these two have been greatly modified to resemble the Rome rite.
Also, at various points in Europe the Byzantine rite was also suppressed in favor of the Latin rite. This happened in Czech-Moravia, Hungary, southern Poland, Croatia, Slovakia, southern Italy and Sicily. Also some Byzantine rite congregations in Palestine-Israel were suppressed in favor of the Latin rite as that church was being built up in the Holy Land under the new Latin patriarchs.
So basically, it has already happened in many places.
In those places where the Eastern liturgies had not yet been absorbed there were usually intermediate steps in the process. For the Byzantine-Slavonic tradition the Synod of Zamosc was an important step in that direction. Usually we describe these intermediate steps in the process of absorption with the term ‘Latinization’ [thankfully a practice that has presently fallen into disrepute].
Early in the history of the American Catholic church (1852) the Plenary Council of Baltimore declared this:
#3 The Roman Ritual, adopted by the First Council of Baltimore, is to be observed in all dioceses, and all are forbidden to introduce customs or rites foreign to the Roman usage…
#4 The Baltimore “Ceremonial” is to be used all through the country.
(Later the Baltimore catechism was introduced and required of the Eastern Catholics to use it.)
These conditions were approved by the Pope when the decrees were presented to him. Thus, when Eastern Catholics began to arrive in greater numbers on the shores of the United States they were forbidden to practice Eastern Catholicism in the tradition and patrimony of their churches.
This in spite of* specific guarantees* made by the Supreme Pontiff to the Orthodox people who agreed to become under the Pope at Rome.
So this kind of thing can and does happen.
I will agree that it is a hypothetical question, and I never make it myself, but in fact the whole justification for many Papal prerogatives is based upon hypothetical ‘what ifs’, in that the value as well as the threat of a Papacy with universal jurisdiction is in what it can do in the future under hypothetical circumstances.
So it is a simple question that should have a simple and direct answer.*
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
I repeat the key is link to and goes over and beyond the power of binding and loosing. I think u misinterprete Augustine in the above quote, he was respond to a heresy that taught that peter received, used and died with the power to forgive sins, he explained that the power was delegated (given) to peter for the church, so that power remains with the church hence the dicussion above. He doesnt deny the primacy of peter.
Ubenedictus
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
This is very funny ‘a body with two head is a monster’. This is what happen when we use a literal ‘scale’, cyprian of cathage has a better idea he say christ establish ‘one chair’ and made it ‘a source, a intrisic of unity’ and goes on to ask ‘can one say he is in the church when he doesnt hold to the chair of peter?’.
And may I add. Orthodoxy accepts the primacy of the Patriarch of Rome, but not his supremacy.
Lastly the vatican council say that a ‘supreme’ pastor doesnt in anyway derogates the lawful power posessed by the bishops but instead ‘maintains, confirms and defends it’, a sybol of unity, reminds me of cyprian. That council talks of great power but no body wakes up and usurps anothers lawful position. Rome has ‘alway’ interferd in uncertain matters even outside the Roman diocese (peter has spoken thru the pope was the usually responds).
Ubenedictus
M
Mickey
Guest
No. He is very clear.
N
Nicea325
Guest
In reference to what? As to who solely has the keys?
M
Mickey
Guest
As to the inextricable link between the keys and “binding and loosing.”
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
It is linked to i dont understand your use of the word ‘inextricable’. Well look what another church father say
he shows that peter not everyone received the key, cyprian says christ established one chair and made it a source of unity. Pope leo 1 understood that and while acknowledging that all bishop are equal he also notes difference in honor, rank and administrative power and he says christ made peter a source of unity to the church like cyprian explained before him.
Maybe u should look thru my previous explaination and tell me where i got it wrong.
Ubenedictus
Tertulian
he shows that peter not everyone received the key, cyprian says christ established one chair and made it a source of unity. Pope leo 1 understood that and while acknowledging that all bishop are equal he also notes difference in honor, rank and administrative power and he says christ made peter a source of unity to the church like cyprian explained before him.
Maybe u should look thru my previous explaination and tell me where i got it wrong.
Ubenedictus
M
Mickey
Guest
I have shown from the Fathers…and can show more…where the keys are inextricably linked to binding and loosing. Can you show from the Fathers…where it says that **only **St Peter received the keys?
M
mardukm
Guest
I think the Catholics here have not expressed themselves very well. I believe they should be agreeing with you that having the keys refers to binding and loosing. What they should be proposing is that the act of binding and loosing refers not only to the forgiveness of sins, but also to the government of the Church (to propose or relax the rules of the Church).
There are many. There are several that say that the other Apostles possess or hold the keys, but only St. Peter received them. Pope St. Leo explained that the other Apostles (and by virtue of Apostolic Succession, all the bishops) also POSSESS the keys because Peter SHARED the keys with them, as the bishop of Rome who is the successor of Peter also SHARES them with his brother bishops.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Mickey
Guest
Thank you.
- Status