S
steve-b
Guest
Last edited:
- Status
V
Vonsalza
Guest
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
But remember the context: I don’t think either Catholic or Orthodox church believes that the true church can be conquered by error. “The gates of hell shall not prevail.”
For the divinely-established primacy to somehow end because it gets to out of whack with its true nature would seem to compromise the whole constitution of the church.
Sounds more like a Protestant critique.
For the divinely-established primacy to somehow end because it gets to out of whack with its true nature would seem to compromise the whole constitution of the church.
Sounds more like a Protestant critique.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Sure, but that doesn’t assert one claim as being more true than the other. Both Catholics and Orthodox invoke that passage in defending the enduring truth of their communions.
S
steve-b
Guest
catholic1seeks:
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
“supremacy” and “infallibility” are concepts with definitions that later evolved but are natural results of principles right within those centuries. Illustration: When Irenaeus in 2nd century says that churches throughout the world “must agree” with Rome, there is very reasonably an assumption that Rome is the final arbitrator on doctrine – in some sense. Just one example.
And yeah, I am Catholic, but I don’t blindly accept everything. That’s not what being Catholic means. I have studied the papacy and early Christianity, because frankly it’s one of my favorite topics… And I have a friend whom I respect who is becoming Eastern Orthodox. I tend to think I study these things often.
And yeah, I am Catholic, but I don’t blindly accept everything. That’s not what being Catholic means. I have studied the papacy and early Christianity, because frankly it’s one of my favorite topics… And I have a friend whom I respect who is becoming Eastern Orthodox. I tend to think I study these things often.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
No attack intended
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Have you become Orthodox or Catholic? Or what is your faith journey??
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Grew up Baptist, became reformed Baptist, flirted with secular atheism, agreed the Church is apostolic so it’s either Orthodox or Catholic, ultimately chose Catholic, birth control will probably drive me to Orthodoxy.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Orthodox are not totally set on their position on birth control, but aren’t they closer to Catholic side?
Also, I know this is an entirely different issue. But when it comes to the Catholic Church’s moral teachings, it’s best to remember that the Church’s intent is holding up ideals. It knows that following moral teaching can be difficult and complicated, but complexities and struggles shouldn’t bend the teaching. Lessen culpability? Yes. But we uphold the objective nonetheless.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
S
steve-b
Guest
I would suggest, if you are for birth control in the full sense of that meaning, you need to study the issue further, for your own soul’s sakecatholic1seeks:
Grew up Baptist, became reformed Baptist, flirted with secular atheism, agreed the Church is apostolic so it’s either Orthodox or Catholic, ultimately chose Catholic, birth control will probably drive me to Orthodoxy.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
My conscience bothers me not one bit. But let’s not change topics.Vonsalza:
I would suggest, if you are for birth control in the full sense of that meaning, you need to study the issue further, for your own soul’s sakecatholic1seeks:
Grew up Baptist, became reformed Baptist, flirted with secular atheism, agreed the Church is apostolic so it’s either Orthodox or Catholic, ultimately chose Catholic, birth control will probably drive me to Orthodoxy.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
But, as you recognize the church is apostolic, don’t you also recognize that the moral teachings that are “thought” to be objective are so — because they have in fact have been delivered to the Church? In other words, the magisterium doesn’t just make up teachings on a whim. It does not thereby have its “right” to do so. Church fathers do not agree with birth control as such either.
But anyway, if you end up Orthodox, that is to be celebrated if you spiritual life is enriched. Catholicism celebrates much of Orthodoxy, especially in recent decades. And nearly all Orthodox spirituality and liturgy is Catholic, as in, totally complementary.
I think the papacy is an important issue and worth reflecting some more over.
There are moral teachings of the church that have urged me to move away from Apostolic Christianity altogether. I’m gay, for example. Just to be brief with it. But I think I’m slowly learning that the church’s teachings are a road to authentic peace and happiness, even if I had struggled so much in previous years.
And, also, study of the papacy and early Christianity has compelled my mind to remain Catholic.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
While Catholics must acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome exercised real primacy in the early Church, it would be fool hearty to think that the Pope, assisted by the Roman Curia, actively managed the global Church in the manner that the modern “Vatican” does… that simply wasn’t the case. The Pope did not appoint bishops of far flung dioceses for most of Church history. The Pope did not issue a single, coherent code of canon law and bind the entire Church to it until relatively recent history. The Pope acted more as a final “court of appeal” for much of Church history, settling disputes as required.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Right, and I’m not sure of any knowledgeable Catholic who thinks the Pope of today is the same as it was in the 3rd or 2nd century.
Nothing in the church has remained the same.
Even the liturgy, the fundamental act of Catholic/Orthodox worship. Do we really think incense, icons, statues, priestly vestments, a complete Bible, all the songs and prayers, etc. were present in the first century? NO way!
But when it comes to the papacy, what is the central point is this: Christ wills there to be a visible head of the church for the sake of the church’s unity – both in “government” and teaching.
When Christ gave Peter the symbolic keys in Matthew 16, first century Jews would have picked up the reference to the Davidic Kingdom: The prime minister or royal steward held the keys in the Davidic household. He was under the king and represented him. Similarly, Peter is the new steward of God’s household. And this role is one of succession, since Peter is very well not alive on Earth today.
Nothing in the church has remained the same.
Even the liturgy, the fundamental act of Catholic/Orthodox worship. Do we really think incense, icons, statues, priestly vestments, a complete Bible, all the songs and prayers, etc. were present in the first century? NO way!
But when it comes to the papacy, what is the central point is this: Christ wills there to be a visible head of the church for the sake of the church’s unity – both in “government” and teaching.
When Christ gave Peter the symbolic keys in Matthew 16, first century Jews would have picked up the reference to the Davidic Kingdom: The prime minister or royal steward held the keys in the Davidic household. He was under the king and represented him. Similarly, Peter is the new steward of God’s household. And this role is one of succession, since Peter is very well not alive on Earth today.
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
And yet this, in itself, is very telling. For why should the bishop of Rome have this authority?
I say the very same principle that gave the bishop of Rome this authority is the same one that has allowed for other developments. Are these extensions always the most prudent? Maybe not. But they sure don’t negate the primacy that Christ willed for the Church. Jesus didn’t say how the primacy is to be exercised in every single instance. But we know several things from Jesus’ own words: Peter is the shepherd (John 21), he is the rock, he is the royal steward/prime minister in the new Davidic Kingdom–the Church (Matthew 16:18). Additionally, he is the spokesman for the Apostles (throughout Gospels, Acts 1-2, 15).
The Pope continues these essential characteristics today and throughout history:
(1) He is shepherd who “feeds” and “tends” Christ’s sheep.
(2) He is rock, the visible center of unity, just as Cyprian pointed out (as to the significance of “rock”).
(3) He is the steward of the church on Earth, having the “keys” which had previously been given to the steward in the old Davidic Kingdom, before Christ.
(4) He is spokesman: He leads and talks with the church’s fellow pastors, the bishops. But he gives voice to all of them by being the chief representative.
Last edited:
A
Agathon
Guest
Nope. Library : Peter in Rome | Catholic Culture
Some ancient sources (such as the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea) set his arrival at the year 42 (sources highlighted by Marta Sordi, cf 30DAYS No. 5, 1994) and calculate that the Apostle lived in Rome for 25 years from that date. But Peter is known not to have lived in Rome continually. For example, in the year 49 we find him in Jerusalem, according to the Acts of the Apostles, where he encounters Paul. His first departure from Rome could be linked though it might have been at some time previously - to the Emperor Claudius’ decree that same year, 49, as Svetonius recounts, expelling Jews from the city having been held responsible for causing serious unrest, “impulsore Chresto” - on the instigation of someone called "Chrestus.”
https://2fish.co/church/the-papacy/was-peter-ever-in-rome/
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Given Peter’s authority, Given him by Jesus, as leader of the apostles ergo leader of the Church as well, we can’t remove the Petrine seat from that example, any more than when Jesus referred to the chair of Moses we can remove that seat.steve-b:
That’s true; which made what was happening in Jerusalem pretty important as it came to precedent.
steve-b:
Well, Peter certainly spoke, but the council is generally considered to be hosted by James the Just (bishop of Jerusalem), Paul spoke in reinforcement and then the council issued letters, seemingly, in the name of the council; not the Petrine seat.
Re: Church structure:
When there was an argument among the apostles who was the greatest among THEM, Jesus gave this answer
Lk 22: 24
A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest μείζων. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest μείζων among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules ἡγούμενος http://bibleapps.com/greek/2233.htm like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen στήρισον your brothers.”
- Did Jesus confirm one of THEM is the greatest? Yes
- Did the one who is greatest lobby for the position? No. He was selected
- Did Jesus confirm this one would rule? Yes
- Did Jesus promise to pray especially for this one who would rule over the entire kingdom? Yes
- Who is this man who is to rule and have primacy over the entire Church? Peter is the only one Jesus mentions by name.
as an aside, who started their argument? Satan.
btw, one of the titles of the pope of Rome, successor to Peter, is “servant of the servants”
one could ask, where is the limit to “rule”
Last edited:
- Status