Well I was going to post other quotes from St. John Chrysostom to dispute your “take” on his opinion but there are just too many and I found that someone else did this before me so I have decided to just put a url of SJC hereSure.
Chrysostom clearly speaks against the bishop or Rome or Peter himself being the ruler over the entire Church.
He speaks of the bishop of Antioch, referring to him as another Peter. Where all bishops have the authority of Peter.
"In speaking of S. Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me, the common father and teacher, who has inherited his prowess, and also obtained his chair. For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome. Or rather we did retain him to the end, for though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter (On the Inscription of the Acts, II. Cited by E. Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), p. 168. Cf. Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, p. 96)."
In the modern Roman Catholic reckoning, is any other bishop besides the Roman one to be considered “another Peter” or equal to Peter?
I think Chrysostom referred to the bishop of Antioch as another Peter because he was the successor of Peter, AND all bishops and apostles had the keys as possessed by Peter. Observe what he wrote about John.
“For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence…” (NPNF Vol. XIV, p. 1)
All apostles and bishops have the keys are can be considered the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, and not the Pope alone.
Read what Chrysostom writes about the Council of Jerusalem:
“This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last…There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. And after that they had held their peace, James answered. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly; for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part…” (NPNF Vol. XI, p. 205, 207)
BTW no Pope claims to be universal bishop if that is what you mean. As to infallibility do you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God? If so, why?
Annie
Maybe not as a specific title, no. But they do claim to have universal immediate jurisdiction over the entire church as well as infallibility. I believe this is false doctrine.BTW no Pope claims to be universal bishop if that is what you mean.
Many reasons. It has been validated historically and archeologically, it claims to be of divine origin, the church for centuries testifies to its validity, it has accurate and fulfilled prophecies etc.As to infallibility do you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God? If so, why?
Sounds like satan was working you over against the Catholic Church. Just like Martin Luther. Martin Luther couldn’t understand some things the Church taught and instead of obediently taking them in faith (as Christ taught), He broke away and gave his own interpretation of things, created his own theology to work with his private interpretation. You have formerly left the Church Jesus Christ Himself created and left for the world to join a man made religion that teaches heresies and is not in communion with Christ’s Church. It lacks apostolic succession. It is not of God.I left for lots or reasons all amounting to I didn’t believe any of the distinctive Catholic dogmas anymore. I was raised non religious but became Christian and Catholic in college. I was drawn to its history and intellectual tradition. There were a few things I couldn’t quite accept but on direction from my spiritual advisor he told me to practice the faith and those things would fall into place. They never did. Ten years later I was trying to practice my faith that was getting more dead and moribund by the day. I was going through the motions and getting more and more resentful of the church. Yet my resentment was making me terrified of my salvation. I laid awake at night terrified that my contrition was not perfect or if I even had it at all. I did confession because it was an obligation. It gave me no comfort. I went to mass because I was obligated and it gave me no comfort. I bought every book Catholic Answers put out and read all their tracts. I went and crossed swords with Protestants in real life and online. I was not trying to convince them, I was trying to convince myself. I realized all my “answers” were pathetic.
I started to hate all the obligations of the church. I hated going to mass. I hated going to confession. I pretended to be on the same page as everyone else. Even though they looked as miserable as me. They all ran out of the church so fast after mass that you would think the building was on fire. My dismal and dead faith offered me no peace, no comfort. It became a source of pain in my life. I was in a state of spiritual torture and agony, I had to make it stop.
All this coupled with some very negative experiences at my local parish, where I was a lector and my wife a Eucharistic minister. I finally told her on the way home from church that I wanted to check out somewhere else. I related all this to a coworker who was feeling very bad about his Reformed baptist church. We both decided to check out a local tiny confessional Lutheran parish in my town. The pastor told me the Lutheran Law Gospel distinction. He offered to baptize my daughter free of charge with no strings attached. Folks actually stayed after church and enjoyed each other’s company. It was like coming up for air. I recently moved and found a new small confessional lutheran parish similar to the first. I was confirmed in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod late last year.
Working with my pastor I have let go of my anger towards my former church. Turns out I may have something called scrupulosity. Something that my hero Luther also may have had. His writings on the issue felt so close to home. I can relate. Now I actually respect my former church more now than a year ago and half ago. I believe that the Catholic Church preaches the word and administers the sacraments, I believe it is a legitimate coequal, co blessed by God, beloved Christian Church home to many Christians. But its simply not for me.
No they do not claim universal bishop in fact they deny it. If they claimed to be universal bishops they would be denying the other bishop’s authority. They don’t in fact I believe it was Pope Gregory the Great who first specifically denied this title. It’s too late in the evening for me to look that little thing up but I’m pretty sure.Maybe not as a specific title, no. But they do claim to have universal immediate jurisdiction over the entire church as well as infallibility. I believe this is false doctrine.
Many reasons. It has been validated historically and archeologically, it claims to be of divine origin, the church for centuries testifies to its validity, it has accurate and fulfilled prophecies etc.
Annie, did you read what I posted earlier? I’m looking forward to reading your thoughts.You don’t confess to a priest. You confess to a Lutheran minister.
Then maybe a Roman Catholic could explain what the RCC catechism means when it says the pope has “full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”No they do not claim universal bishop in fact they deny it. If they claimed to be universal bishops they would be denying the other bishop’s authority. They don’t in fact I believe it was Pope Gregory the Great who first specifically denied this title. It’s too late in the evening for me to look that little thing up but I’m pretty sure.
I guess I’ll have to look up the doctrine of the Wisconsin Synod. As an LCMS Lutheran I never heard it called a “Mass”. What is sacrificed in your service (mass?)The sacrifice of the Mass.
From the laying of of hands of bishops and presbyters in ordination going back to Jesus and the apostles, and from the call of the local congregation to be a normal minister of the word and sacraments to that local congregation.
Oh he has that power but he is not the universal bishop.Then maybe a Roman Catholic could explain what the RCC catechism means when it says the pope has “full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
I thought that I had already replied to that. Perhaps not, maybe I just thought about it and decided to opt for another. I’ll see if I can get to it sometime but its getting late here.Annie, did you read what I posted earlier? I’m looking forward to reading your thoughts.
It is the supposed power that we consider false doctrine, whatever the title.Oh he has that power but he is not the universal bishop.
Annie
On what authority do you base your opinions?Erhm… It is the action that we consider false doctrine.
No they do not claim universal bishop in fact they deny it. If they claimed to be universal bishops they would be denying the other bishop’s authority. They don’t in fact I believe it was Pope Gregory the Great who first specifically denied this title. It’s too late in the evening for me to look that little thing up but I’m pretty sure.
So is Philemon included in the books of the bible? If so why? If I write a book and claim that it is of divine origin and my descendents attest to this for centuries would that therefore make them of divine origin?
Annie
They might deny the title but they claim said authority.No they do not claim universal bishop in fact they deny it. If they claimed to be universal bishops they would be denying the other bishop’s authority. They don’t in fact I believe it was Pope Gregory the Great who first specifically denied this title. It’s too late in the evening for me to look that little thing up but I’m pretty sure.
The book Philemon appears in all my bibles that I own catholic and Protestant so yes it is included. No, the book has to be accepted by the church.So is Philemon included in the books of the bible? If so why? If I write a book and claim that it is of divine origin and my descendents attest to this for centuries would that therefore make them of divine origin?
It is called “Mass” in our Confessions and throughout the Book of Concord. Did you read our confessions when you were LCMS? Our mass is a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus. Where Jesus body and blood are present that we can take and eat.I guess I’ll have to look up the doctrine of the Wisconsin Synod. As an LCMS Lutheran I never heard it called a “Mass”. What is sacrificed in your service (mass?)
Sure. In our synod we don’t call them “bishops”, its a holdover from anti catholic sentiments a few hundred years ago. But we have the same position we call district president. My particular district president is named Jon D. Buchholz.May I have the name of your Bishop? My Bishop is Thomas Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix, Arizona.
That’s not true. I am still part of Christ’s church just as much as I was before I joined and after I left the Roman Catholic Church. It is in apostolic succession and is of God as much as the RCC and any other Christian church.Sounds like satan was working you over against the Catholic Church. Just like Martin Luther. Martin Luther couldn’t understand some things the Church taught and instead of obediently taking them in faith (as Christ taught), He broke away and gave his own interpretation of things, created his own theology to work with his private interpretation. You have formerly left the Church Jesus Christ Himself created and left for the world to join a man made religion that teaches heresies and is not in communion with Christ’s Church. It lacks apostolic succession. It is not of God.
Who decides what a Christian church is a oneness Pentecostal or a Mormon would claim that they are ChristianThat’s not true. I am still part of Christ’s church just as much as I was before I joined and after I left the Roman Catholic Church. It is in apostolic succession and is of God as much as the RCC and any other Christian church.
We don’t always agree but thanks for countering the misinformation from some of our Catholic brethren.That’s not true. I am still part of Christ’s church just as much as I was before I joined and after I left the Roman Catholic Church. It is in apostolic succession and is of God as much as the RCC and any other Christian church.
The early church attests that the true faith is expressed in the creeds. That’s why we profess them every Sunday. Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals adhere not to the creeds or the biblical faith that expresses the Trinity, therefore they are not apostolic, nor Christian.Who decides what a Christian church is a oneness Pentecostal or a Mormon would claim that they are Christian
When you refer to “the church” that is sounds like an ambiguous term. Would you be more specific? To whom do you refer when you say “church” can you name names?They might deny the title but they claim said authority.
The book Philemon appears in all my bibles that I own catholic and Protestant so yes it is included. No, the book has to be accepted by the church.
So, at some point in time the word “bishop” disappeared from your denomination. Who changed it and why? Did a one time bishop just stop using that word but still had apostolic succession wherein some actual bishop consecrated him. If so what was that bishop turned district prisident’s name?It is called “Mass” in our Confessions and throughout the Book of Concord. Did you read our confessions when you were LCMS? Our mass is a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus. Where Jesus body and blood are present that we can take and eat.
Sure. In our synod we don’t call them “bishops”, its a holdover from anti catholic sentiments a few hundred years ago. But we have the same position we call district president. My particular district president is named Jon D. Buchholz.
I don’t know the answer to those questions. I couldn’t tell you specifically when our bishops became district presidents. It doesn’t matter much to me as they fulfill the same role and are ordained in apostolic succession. Maybe someday we will go back to calling them bishops.So, at some point in time the word “bishop” disappeared from your denomination. Who changed it and why? Did a one time bishop just stop using that word but still had apostolic succession wherein some actual bishop consecrated him. If so what was that bishop turned district prisident’s name?