Orthodoxy makes the most sence. protestantism is just man made division. the question is latin or eastern Church?

[wisdomseeker]

Just as a side note, here are some examples of quotes getting taken out of context:
the-highway.com/Matt16.18_Webster.html
The article is about early church fathers view of the rock of Matthew 16:18.

Regardless of what you think of the article, there is a point to be made. The author reads the quotes of the fathers and still understands them in a different way than other Catholic apologists understands them, or at least in a different way than what the author says the other Catholic apologists understands them.

I’m just trying to prove a point that there are two different views on the papacy that have derived from the same quotes of the same church fathers.

And my main problem about the whole “quoting church fathers” thing is that I have seen numerous threads arguing for and against the present Catholic view on the papacy by quoting early church fathers. Then there’s someone who counter-quotes the last quote of the early church father to prove his view. Then there’s a counter-quote to that. And out of what seems to be 100s of threads I’ve seen that tried to argue for or against the Catholic view of the papacy using quotes from church fathers, I have never found anyone (including myself) that has been convinced of the other person’s interpretation of the father. I have just never seen it.

And I personally don’t care to try and show the correct context of any quote from the early church fathers that I have seen in any threads because 1) I probably don’t know the context, 2) I don’t think it’ll do any good at all and 3) I don’t want to deal with it.

But to answer your questions, Yes, I do believe the quotes have a grey area and Yes, I do think they need to show more context. I can read different quotes out of context from the entire bible to think that all one needs is faith and not works. Or maybe I’ll read other quotes and come to the conclusion that one needs works and not faith. But if you read the quotes dealing with these topics in light of the other scriptures and church tradition, you’ll come up with the correct view on this topic.

But with this topic, it seems to be 2 different church traditions so it’s not an easy answer to come across.

Anyway, there’s my rant on the subject of context

William Webster, who is he? some antiCatholic from the church of England? what do you expect he is going to say about the Cc?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Ok we have gone 10 pages, let me sum up what we have got so far.
LET ME KNOW IF I MISSED ANYTHING…OR IF I AM NOT BEING REASONABLE.

Scripture= there is no scripture that directly states anything about PAPAL infalibility, however there are scriptures that state its imposible for the whole Church to fall intio herasy. All we have to show us exactly HOW The Church is infalible is a Council held in the book of Acts which has the bishops coming to an agreement, it says nothing of one oppinion being over all others…it says nothing of there need for one particular person to ok the decision to make the council valid…diferent bible translations say diferent things as to when the assembly fell silent when people were speaking.

We have Jesus talking about building his Church on the rock, Jesus did not say exactly what that rock was but we have only 2 possible conclusions. The rock could be st.peter himself, if that was the case that WOULD make him the leader, and we could possible assume that some level of infalibility would automaticaly come with that…and any leader can chosse his succesor.

OR we can listen to the Orthodox side, and look at the whole context st.peter had just confesed Christ to be The Son Of God…so st.peters confesion, which was the whole topic of discusion at the time could have been the rock. Which would mean then that Jesus Christ is the rock on which The Church is built not any man. There are also a number of other scriptures that say God is a rock.

We have the scripture about the keys of the kingdom, the only problem is that it could mean
Anything. Dose it make him first among equals, do all apostles have the same keys?
Do all bishops have a share in the keys? Do they mean that The Church would be run like an earthly government? Christ said that the rulers of the nations lord it over eachother,but he said it would not be that way with them and he said they were all brothers…dose that mean they were all equal? I don’t know I still have to find out? This seems to be the Roman Catholics strongest position.

Quotes= both east and west can hurl quotes at eachother till the cows come home, but we never get anywhere.

Tradition= West says its part of tradition…East says its not…another tie.

To be blunt, I would truly join both churches…but its the churches themselves that won’t let me…so its not my fault I’m put in this confusing situation now is it?

The government in teh Church is a Kingdom. Israel functioned as a Kingdom. Jesus is a King. obviously He rules throught His Church which is the Kingdom. now just think how a Kingdom works. does it have a King? how many prime ministers do you think a kingdom has? how about the cabinet of the Kingdom? how about the people? how does it kingdom works in this earth, do you know?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Ok we have gone 10 pages, let me sum up what we have got so far.

LET ME KNOW IF I MISSED ANYTHING…OR IF I AM NOT BEING REASONABLE.

 

[josie_L]

Stop trying to make it seem like I am being unreasonable,or that my mind was made up before the thread. It took a lot for me to leave the Jehovahs witnesses…lots of study and solid proofs. There is no one here that couldn’t provide proof for any protestant that The Catholic Church has apostolic athority…or that the Eucharist is what Jesus said it was…
So why is it that papal infalibility has to be understood without the same evidence that you can give for ANY major teaching?

EVERY major teaching has got strong evidence…not contradicting quotes and a lot of assumptions. Dose it make me a sola scriptura because I need some testimony to offset the testimony of the Eastern Orthodox who are just as old?

Name me one bishop of Rome in the first millenia that taught and championed heresy (i.e., bound the peoples to heresy through a council) before the schism of East from West?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think you need to cool down, Ex, and realize people, including myself, are not trying to make you seem unreasonable and you need to get off the defensive. Right now you’re still a Roman Catholic, you’re on a Catholic message board, and people are just trying to support the papal/Catholic argument and pray you stay a Catholic. If we didn’t care about you we’d tell you to hit the bricks and stick a cork in it. I’m not saying that. I’ve spent considerable time, along with Wisdom, Josie, Gabriel, and many others, just trying to get the Catholic position across. I’m gratified to hear that you’re not a quick jumper and I think all of us here laud you for leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses for Catholicism. I personally find nothing wrong with your being a questioning soul who wants to make sure he knows the truth. God gave you that gift of seeking His truth. I think it’s wonderful. But often the Evil One uses our doubts and intellectual curiosity for ill just as he uses sexuality, which God gave us, for ill. Just take things slowly. Get off the sola scriptura, “where is infallibility in the Bible!!!?” agenda and do a lot more reading. You won’t find infallibility in the Bible explicitely anymore than you’ll find abortion in the New Testament or stem cell research or explicit use of the word “Eucharist” or explicit obvious statements about seven sacraments or explicit statements about the Filioque or chrismation or which types of baptism are valid or baptism of infants, on and on. There are a great many issues not solved by sola scriptura. I have to go to Mass now but I plan on addressing some of your statements later this afternoon. Mass is at 11:30 so I need to split!

Arguing against the papacy and the historicity of the Catholic Church can be humbling. Ask Josie about how I myself was sitting somewhat in the same position as yourself arguing against papal infallibility and jurisdiction last year doubting my own Catholicism and she and many others as well as websites and books I read made too much sense. I still struggle, friend, with a couple of Catholic teachings but I submit my intellect right now to the Catholic Church asking for understanding and praying for enlightenment really BECAUSE OF THE PAPACY!! I believe the papacy is the Rock, Peter, the foundation and source of Church unity so my own private opinions must humble themselves to the logic and truths of the Pope. May God bless you. I’ll post again later…gotta go!

Stop trying to make it seem like I am being unreasonable,or that my mind was made up before the thread. It took a lot for me to leave the Jehovahs witnesses…lots of study and solid proofs. There is no one here that couldn’t provide proof for any protestant that The Catholic Church has apostolic athority…or that the Eucharist is what Jesus said it was…
So why is it that papal infalibility has to be understood without the same evidence that you can give for ANY major teaching?

EVERY major teaching has got strong evidence…not contradicting quotes and a lot of assumptions. Dose it make me a sola scriptura because I need some testimony to offset the testimony of the Eastern Orthodox who are just as old?

 

[LionHeart777]

William Webster, who is he? some antiCatholic from the church of England? what do you expect he is going to say about the Cc?

Webster is a convert to Protestantism from Catholicism if I’m not mistaken, Wisdomseeker.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Webster is a convert to Protestantism from Catholicism if I’m not mistaken, Wisdomseeker.

i think he is a clergyman for the church of england.

 

[excaliber]

Name me one bishop of Rome in the first millenia that taught and championed heresy (i.e., bound the peoples to heresy through a council) before the schism of East from West?

I don’t understand why you ask this. IF infalibility is wrong then a lot of them did.
IF infalibility is wrong the filique could be another.

This is what I’m trying to figure out.

I know about the Pope that got excomunicated as a heritic.
I also remember hearing about when there were 3 popes at once.

Basicly we get into the discusion of what EXACTLY is teaching when we talk about the Pope that was called a heritic.

 

[LionHeart777]

i think he is a clergyman for the church of england.

“What you talkin about Mr. D”

This is the WW I had in mind:

christiantruth.com/

 

[excaliber]

excaliber,

I can relate to your East/West crossroads. I was coming from an Evangelical Theologocal point of view when I was at that crossroads. I would just pray and seek God and study of the issues is beneficial but don’t drive yourself “crazy” in the process. I believe that I’m heading where God wants me to be by entering the (lung of) the Church that is in communion with the successor of St. Peter; but I’m not infallible. It is a leap of faith. For me there is evidence of the Papacy outside of Scripture; albeit circumstantial. There is also evidence in Scripture IMO but not everyone takes those passages the same way: only the Catholic Church (including all different Rites I believe.) As I had stated, if it was a power grab than it was arguably an early one in my mind. Please just think long and hard before you break communion with Rome. Definately seek pastoral advice as I am not your pastor. Also, perhaps you might consider conversation with Eastern Catholics?

Also a couple of things:

1. re: St. Peter being the rock or his confession being the rock- I think that at least some Catholics view this as a “both/and” rather than an “either/or.”
2. re: St. Peter in Antioch. I believe he was a Bishop there, I can’t say whether he started it or not? I don’t know? But I would say that, at least in my admittedly limited reading of the ECF’s (in comparison to others), I don’t see the Bishop of Antioch acting as the Bishop of Rome did- I would say unilaterally in sees that aren’t his- if I’m not mistaken. I had the same ? about Peter and Antioch when I was at the East/West split. Unfortunately, it is a reality- that there is a schism

P.S. The courage and obedience I believe you displayed in your decision to leave the JW’s is admirable and commendable.

May God bless and guide you!

This is serious, I have heard that some Orthodox doubt the validity of latin Catholic sacraments…so its very important to have some solid support for my position.

So what information made you SURE of who was correct?

Right now I’m just looking for which side is safest until I figure it out.

 

[josephdaniel29]

This is serious, I have heard that some Orthodox doubt the validity of latin Catholic sacraments

The Orthodox Church does not “recognize” the grace of any sacraments performed outside the Church.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[wisdomseeker]

“What you talkin about Mr. D”

This is the WW I had in mind:

christiantruth.com/

sorry! groovy.

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is serious, I have heard that some Orthodox doubt the validity of latin Catholic sacraments…so its very important to have some solid support for my position.

So what information made you SURE of who was correct?

Right now I’m just looking for which side is safest until I figure it out.

yes, this is a tought one for you. it has to be between you and God.

if you dont accept the Fathers of the Church regarding the Church in Rome, i dont know what else to do for you. see if you can find fathers of the Church point to the Orthodox in Russian or in Greece or in Constantinople or in Jerusalem as being in authority as the Church in Rome. another thing is the Church is called Catholic and not Orthodox according to the Creed. the Church that is called Catholic is the Church in Rome. this could be a sign for you. see ST Augustine and others churche’s Fathers on the CC.

 

[ChestnutTree]

The Orthodox church makes the most sence to me for several reasons.

1. The latin church easily wins a debate against any protestant, because the protestant movment was such a major failure that the only reason to remain protestant is because YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF ORTHODOXY…and you don’t agree with Roman catholosism.

2)The idea of one bishop above all others is not logical…OR directly proclaimed in the bible…or Tradishion with a capitol “T”. If the Church needed ONE bishop to govern a global church, then Christ choosing 12 apostles makes no sence…he would have only needed ONE APOSTLE which would have been peter, the rest would have been diciples under peter.
Not 12 men with the same title…for example you don’t have 12 kings with one king over other kings…no you have one king…then all others have a completely different title and job function.

1. what one man has the wisdom to govern a global Church, or the moral conduct?
   Before the answer that God would give ONE man this wisdom…first find it in the bible where God states this…HE DOSENT…its just asumed that if something was told to one person to feed his sheep for example, that it wasent ment for all sheapherds…or a key to the kingdom was givin to one apostle…that it didn’t mean all apostles had this athority.
2. Peter had the same title…writings in the same bible with no more weight then any other apostle…peter was not in one city ruling over the lands converted by other apostles…he traveled just like all other apostles and died in rome…but had he not, he probably would have traveled somewhere else to spread the gospel…the whole idea is simply foreign to scripture unless certain scriptures are added to in order to get the papal idea from them.
3. The Church is divine, and dosent need a human head like man made companies.
   Again one man dose not even have the ability to sheapherd a global church…but one man can sheapherd his jurisdiction as a bishop. Just look at the latin Church today…there are liberal bishops, parishes becoming more protestant, huge problems in america as so many latin Catholics don’t know anything about there church because of a blatant problem with schools and RCIA…one man is not close to fixing half these problems.
4. haven’t we already proved that it dosent work anyway, which was the whole reason for the protestant revolt. If it wasent broke martin luther would have had no real valid issues…these were not issues of human imperfection, but actual wrong practises going on in a church that one man is supposed to stop from happening to begin with.
5. simply no point in having other bishops if one is needed,

Oh brother! I will never understand the desire or need that people have to justify their switch of church by attacking others. When I left the CC, I had no need to attack her at all. I did not justify me leaving. I am grateful for a lot that she taught me. Am I going to fall in the trap that so many ex catholic fall into of attacking their former church.

I have met many and you would not believe the arguments/debates I had with these people. The church that I attended even re-baptized me and coerced/pressured me to renounce anything and everything catholic. I remember that when I was renouncing i kept thinking " Catholics don’t believe that…I don’t believe that". Every other sermon was something anti-catholic. He needed to attack in order to built/justify his sermons. I didn’t last long with the evangelicals/pentecostal.

Go where you are most fulfilled spiritually.

Hank

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Orthodox Church does not “recognize” the grace of any sacraments performed outside the Church.

Yours in Christ
Joe

some of you also rebaptize the heretics, am i correct? do you still consider protestants heretics?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Oh brother! I will never understand the desire or need that people have to justify their switch of church by attacking others. When I left the CC, I had no need to attack her at all. I did not justify me leaving. I am grateful for a lot that she taught me. Am I going to fall in the trap that so many ex catholic fall into of attacking their former church.

I have met many and you would not believe the arguments/debates I had with these people. The church that I attended even re-baptized me and coerced/pressured me to renounce anything and everything catholic. I remember that when I was renouncing i kept thinking " Catholics don’t believe that…I don’t believe that". Every other sermon was something anti-catholic. He needed to attack in order to built/justify his sermons. I didn’t last long with the evangelicals/pentecostal.

Go where you are most fulfilled spiritually.

Hank

although i sympatize with you, my advice is seek where the Truth is, instead of what fullfills a person.

 

[ChestnutTree]

although i sympatize with you, my advice is seek where the Truth is, instead of what fullfills a person.

That is very true. I forgot to put truth in there. Thanks.

Hank

 

[LionHeart777]

sorry! groovy

that’s cool. sorry to be smart allecky

carry on, carry on

 

[josephdaniel29]

some of you also rebaptize the heretics, am i correct? do you still consider protestants heretics?

The Orthodox don’t re-baptize anyone. As to your second question, Protestants (and Catholics for that matter) certainly hold some heterodox beliefs. Very few if any have once accepted Orthodoxy and then rejected it. That being the case most Orthodox would be hesitant to call them heretics.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josie_L]

I don’t understand why you ask this. IF infalibility is wrong then a lot of them did.
IF infalibility is wrong the filique could be another.

This is what I’m trying to figure out.

I know about the Pope that got excomunicated as a heritic.
I also remember hearing about when there were 3 popes at once.

Basicly we get into the discusion of what EXACTLY is teaching when we talk about the Pope that was called a heritic.

But they never dogmatically proclaimed “infalliblity” before the first thousand years of Church history. Moreover, the pope to which you refer to (Honorius) never taught heresy, he was branded a heretic for not having done his duty to preserve the apostolic tradition, i.e., he was not condemned as a monothelite but rather found negligent. The apostolic Church, i.e., Rome was not in error of championing or promoting error, and to highlight the mportance of the pristine reputation it had, Pope Agatho, had this to say (the very same council which branded Honorius a heretic:

“Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord…the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has NEVER turned away from the path of truth in ANY direction of ERROR, whose AUTHORITY, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced…”

Agatho Pope,To Ecumenical Council VI at Constantinople,(A.D. 680),in NPNF2,XIV:328-339

Now, as for the multiple popes that was a result of political reasons and/or because of heretical movements (Arians) who attempted to steal and compromise the seat of Peter, which in the end they could not.

Edit: We say “proceeds from the father and the son” because when arianism raged throughout the Church denying the divinity of Christ, the West to clarify and ensure that it was understood Jesus was co-substantial with the Father used the word “and”. That is all there is to it, i.e., we believe like the Orthodox that the Holy Spirit proceeds principally and primarily from the Father and then through the Son.