Orthodoxy and Catholicism

[Mickey]

Does that mean they were better? Not in and of itself

Thank you. You answered my question.

Peter was the spokesman for the twelve. Does that mean anything to you?

Yes–that St Peter was oftentimes the spokesman for the twelve.

If they were all equals, why did Pete do the talking? WHy when it was just Peter and John did Peter talk?

St Peter often spoke for the Apostles–but not always. It surely does not mean that the Pope of Rome is the supreme infallible pontiff as set forth by Pius IX in 1870.

DO you want Jesus to say "Peter, you are in charge, you are Pope?

He would never say that. Here is what Jesus Christ did say:

But they held their peace, for in the way they had disputed among themselves, which of them should be the greatest. And sitting down, he called the twelve, and saith to them: If any man desire to be first, he shall be the last of all, and the minister of all. And taking a child, he set him in the midst of them. Whom when he had embraced, he saith to them:
Whosoever shall receive one such child as this in my name, receiveth me. And whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
Mark 9: 33-36

 

[ralphinal]

Thank you. You answered my question.
Yes–that St Peter was oftentimes the spokesman for the twelve.
St Peter often spoke for the Apostles–but not always. It surely does not mean that the Pope of Rome is the supreme infallible pontiff as set forth by Pius IX in 1870.
He would never say that. Here is what Jesus Christ did say:

But they held their peace, for in the way they had disputed among themselves, which of them should be the greatest. And sitting down, he called the twelve, and saith to them: If any man desire to be first, he shall be the last of all, and the minister of all. And taking a child, he set him in the midst of them. Whom when he had embraced, he saith to them:
Whosoever shall receive one such child as this in my name, receiveth me. And whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
Mark 9: 33-36

So why did Jesus single those three out? Why was Peter almost always the spokesman?
When did the EO split from Rome? Or the other way

 

[Mickey]

So why did Jesus single those three out?

Umm–probably because St Peter was the spokesman, St John was the beloved, and St James was the “brother of the Lord”. But this does not mean he raised them above all others as supreme infallible pontiffs.

When did the EO split from Rome? Or the other way

The official date is 1054. But Rome was separating Herself from Holy Orthodoxy long before that. It was a sad and gradual process.

 

[SimonArizona]

So why did Jesus single those three out? Why was Peter almost always the spokesman?
When did the EO split from Rome? Or the other way

In the 11th century, after the Roman empire was split into two capitals (east and west), the Two Catholic bishops (east and west) met and infuriated and excommunicated each other. They are both valid successors of Peter, both validly ordained.

 

[SimonArizona]

The official date is 1054. But Rome was separating Herself from Holy Orthodoxy long before that. It was a sad and gradual process.

God established a living Church, and as a living Chuch should She grows ever deeper in the revelation God has given her.

“I have much more to tell you, when the Spirit of Truth comes He will lead you into all truth.”-Jesus Christ

The Roman Catholic Church hasn’t separated Herself from Orthodoxy, but has continued ever deeper in the leading of the Holy Spirit as Jesus said, and this is evidenced by the fact that She has never reversed Her doctrines once. Infallible.

 

[ralphinal]

Umm–probably because St Peter was the spokesman, St John was the beloved, and St James was the “brother of the Lord”. But this does not mean he raised them above all others as supreme infallible pontiffs.

But WHY was Peter the Spokesman? Jesus never made him such. WHy was John beloved? Besides, I am not trying to establish supremacy or infallibility, only primacy. If all are equal, no one has primacey.

The official date is 1054. But Rome was separating Herself from Holy Orthodoxy long before that. It was a sad and gradual process.

Then what occured in 1850 is not important.

 

[pr_catholic]

Jesus Christ asks St Peter three times if he loves Him. There is a triple affirmation here to make amends for St Peter’s triple denial.
St Peter was about to deny Him three times. Jesus Christ new that St Peter would repent and weep bitterly over this denial and be an example of repentance for the other Apostles.

There is nothing in your two Scriptural examples that points to a supreme infallible pontiff of Rome.

Well, I want to add two points to this debate: 1) Why would Jesus want for peter to amend for he denieing him before the passion ? If so why does he not want to make amends with the other apostles since they were worse than peter by leaving him alone to face the Sanehdrin alone? And just like you said about peter being a example for the other apostles you would have to ask yourself then why did Jesus most of the time always seem to confer with peter than with the rest of the apostles? This argument is not logical, especially coming from the Divine Logos.

And 2) that’s as convinient as the petra/petros argument from the protestants.

PS: My point wasn’t to point out papal infallibility but to possibly show papal supremacy among other bishops.

 

[Peter_J]

Rome split from Holy Orthodoxy.

Yes yes, you can go back and forth all day. Just try not to be too loud, since some of us will want to get some sleep tonight.

It was a sad and gradual process.

I agree.

 

[cazayoux]

And 2) that’s as convinient as the petra/petros argument from the protestants.

PS: My point wasn’t to point out papal infallibility but to possibly show papal supremacy among other bishops.

Is it also worth mentioning that it was Peter that walked on the water with Jesus.
In his doubt he started sinking, and Jesus helped him so he wouldn’t sink.

I liken this to Peter’s failing (denying Christ), and his redemption (Christ asked him to feed/tend/feed his sheep and prayed for him).

Anyway … isn’t it also significant that it was Peter on the water with Jesus?

michel

 

[StMarina303ad]

Is it also worth mentioning that it was Peter that walked on the water with Jesus.
Anyway … isn’t it also significant that it was Peter on the water with Jesus?

michel

St. Mary of Egypt walked on water too? So does that mean we ought to consider her a Pope? Yeah, didn’t think so.

 

[rad]

St. Mary of Egypt walked on water too? So does that mean we ought to consider her a Pope? Yeah, didn’t think so.

Thats Funny ha ha ha…but peter being fallible person loses his faith and sinks… didn’t The lord raised him back up…no infallibility there…what does that say…

 

[PJM]

I didn’t realize that among Catholics there were different doctrines.

Which Catholics don’t agree that the pope has supremacy?
Which Catholics don’t agree that Jesus is one person with a human and a divine nature (100% both)?
Which Catholics don’t agree that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son?

Which Catholics don’t agree that the pope, when speaking on faith and moral from the chair of Peter to the whole church, is doing so infallibly?

Help me to these Catholics that don’t agree on Catholic Doctrine.

michel

Dear fellow Catholic,

Awesome Post!

I’ve got your back!

What the heck is being peddled here? Does not sound like any RCC teaching that I have ever come across:blush:

Share the truth, fess up and tell us what your talking about. 12 different “catholic” Church’s. Hmmmm

God bless, PJM m.c.

 

[PJM]

So then you believe that Papal infallibility was always contained in the Deposit of Faith.

Okay.

Hi,

The factual answer is Yes (perhaps)

If we understand that in saying yes, it is a “Qualified Yes.” The following conditions must be met.

1. From the Pope as a Teaching for the Entire world
   2 On Matter of Faith and or Morals only
2. To be Binding on all

However what a Great number of none - Catholic as well as some Catholics either do not know, or do not accept, or choose to ignore is the following teaching, as articulated in our Code of Canon Law: After all we are in time of "self-righteousness… If I don’t hink it’s wrong, then it aint wrong…PERIOD!

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

We see a foundation for this teaching in Early Church Councils.

The Council Of Chalcedon - 451 A.D.

The Council asserted that Constantinople should be on an equal basis with Rome ecclesiastically. Vigorously opposing this and Eutyches, Pope Leo determined in his Dogmatic Epistle of October 10, 451 that the See of Peter in Rome is and always shall be the Seat of Primacy with no equal and that Eutyches was a heretic. Leo was proclaimed the ‘Soul of Chalcedon’ and the Council agreed unanimously that through Leo, Peter had spoken and Eutyches was condemned.

Second Council of Nicaea In 787 A.D.

Pope Saint Leo II continued it, approving the decrees of past Councils and taking to task one of his predecessors Pope Honorius I for not keeping the heresy of Monothelites in check, specifically not challenging the Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius who was spreading the heresy. St. Leo’s actions set a precedence for calling into question error by previous Pontiffs and confirmed that a Pope can be in error when not speaking from the Chair of Peter - ex cathedra.

The reason one does not see earlier specific definement of the issue, is because the Power was always there and clearly understood. “I Jesus” give you (Peter) "the keys to the kingdom of heaven,’ to “you Peter.” That is specific and clear.

God bless, PJM m.c.

 

[Matariel]

Excellent post, PJM.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Thats Funny ha ha ha…but peter being fallible person loses his faith and sinks… didn’t The lord raised him back up…no infallibility there…what does that say…

I take it as a great sign. Hey if God saved Peter, then there is hope for me too! Peter seemed to be a loud mouth…always had something to say…was opinionated…hey, he had a personality like me:newidea: .

 

[Matariel]

I take it as a great sign. Hey if God saved Peter, then there is hope for me too! Peter seemed to be a loud mouth…always had something to say…was opinionated…hey, he had a personality like me:newidea: .

Yeah, St. Peter was a bit of a Sanguine, and always seemed to find a way to put his foot in his mouth. And yet God still used him to be the first Bishop of Rome and the Rock upon which the Church is built.

Got to love God’s sense of humour.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Yeah, St. Peter was a bit of a Sanguine, and always seemed to find a way to put his foot in his mouth. And yet God still used him to be the first Bishop of Rome and the Rock upon which the Church is built.

Got to love God’s sense of humour.

God does have a sense of humor…agreed!

BUT the Rock on which the Church is built is Christ and the correct understanding in who Christ is: 2nd Person of the Most Holy Trinity and the Son of God the Father, not on the person of St. Peter…disagreed!

 

[Matariel]

God does have a sense of humor…agreed!

BUT the Rock on which the Church is built is Christ and the correct understanding in who Christ is: 2nd Person of the Most Holy Trinity and the Son of God the Father, not on the person of St. Peter…disagreed!

Sorry, that seems to be reading into it. I tried to read it that way, and… I just can’t see it that way.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Sorry, that seems to be reading into it. I tried to read it that way, and… I just can’t see it that way.

Prayer and Fasting may take away those scales which are blinding you. You’re welcome to join us for the Nativity Fast which recently started: No wine, no olive oil, no meat or meat products, no fish, no dairy and no dairy products. The Fast ends on the Nativity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Meanwhile, I will be praying for you!

 

[pr_catholic]

St. Mary of Egypt walked on water too? So does that mean we ought to consider her a Pope? Yeah, didn’t think so.

Was she a bishop? I don’t think so since I’ve never heard of women being bishops. Nice try at humor there. And the discussion is wether Peter was conferred primacy among all the apostles? Now back to the topic please.

PS: Sorry if my posts on this thread are a little harsh on anyone but it gets absurd when some orthodox christians make the same claims protestants say aout how we became apostate left the truth etc, since oriental orthodox could make the same claims about how the rest of the bishops left them in heresy etc. Luckily we are making amends and progress at the episcopate level.

Reconciliation between Orthodox & Catholic Church in my prayers.