Peter was never a bishop of Rome or at Rome, CC does not teach it anymore

[guanophore]

Thats why the Orientals (and Easterners) don’t care about “being in communion with the Pope” because it isn’t necessary.

It is amazing to me that any Christian would claim “it isn’t necessary” to be in communion with every other Christian. Did not the Lord desire that we all be One?

 

[Wisely]

It is amazing to me that any Christian would claim “it isn’t necessary” to be in communion with every other Christian. Did not the Lord desire that we all be One?

I meant it in the RC way. “It is absolutely necessary for salavtion that blah blah human being to be in communion with Roman Pontiff” We don’t believe that, so in THAT SENSE it isn’t necessary to be in communion with the Pope.

Of course it would be good that the RCC and the EOC reunited once again. But it can’t be, at least for now, because we don’t have the same faith.

 

[CopticChristian]

I meant it in the RC way. “It is absolutely necessary for salavtion that blah blah human being to be in communion with Roman Pontiff” We don’t believe that, so in THAT SENSE it isn’t necessary to be in communion with the Pope.

Of course it would be good that the RCC and the EOC reunited once again. But it can’t be, at least for now, because we don’t have the same faith.

Wisely,

Do you believe that Christ is King? The second person of the Trinity?
Do you believe in God the Father?
Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?
Do you believe that the central focus of Worship is the Eucharistic Mystery?
Do you believe that Baptism regenerates and is the means by which one is inorporated into the Body of Christ?
Do you believe in the Theotokos?
Do you believe in the Trinity?
Do you believe that Salvation is a lifelong process whereby you become more and more like Christ?
Do you believe in reverence towards Saints?
Do you believe that the Church in accord with Tradition interpret Scripture?

I do not need a full explanation…A simple yes or no.

 

[Wisely]

Wisely,

Do you believe that Christ is King? The second person of the Trinity?
Do you believe in God the Father?
Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?
Do you believe that the central focus of Worship is the Eucharistic Mystery?
Do you believe that Baptism regenerates and is the means by which one is inorporated into the Body of Christ?
Do you believe in the Theotokos?
Do you believe in the Trinity?
Do you believe that Salvation is a lifelong process whereby you become more and more like Christ?
Do you believe in reverence towards Saints?
Do you believe that the Church in accord with Tradition interpret Scripture?

I do not need a full explanation…A simple yes or no.

Sure.

Yes to all.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

1. John submitted to Peter? Nope, Equals don’t submit to equals.

John 20:
[2] So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.”
[3] Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb.
[4] They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first;
[5] and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there,** but he did not go in**.
[6] Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying,
[7] and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.
[8] Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed;

John submitted to Peter. Not only because Peter was far older, but because Peter was the head of the Twelve.

1. Peter got first to the tomb so what? It wasn’t a race.

I guess I was not clear enough. See above.

1. If Mark’s gospel is Peter’s it would be called Peter’s Gospel and not Mark’s. I know Mark wrote it using the info Peter told him. Still, Peter didn’t bothered to wrote it.

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”
St Irenaeus of Lyon, 'Against Heresies", bk 3 chpt 1

And as usual you are incorrect that because we say that Peter was the head of the apostles you jump to the conclusion that Peter MUST be a one-man-show. Its a non-sequiter.

1. Sure, Peter was an Apostle but Evangelist? Nope. And prophet? Maybe, but definitely not on John’s level.

Wisely, an evangelist is one who preaches the gospel. Peter was an evangelist. You’re so desperate to denegrate Peter’s position to oppose the Church that you’re doing violence to the truth. You’re bordering on intellectual dishonesty here.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Actually…you are so biased againt peter…here is some more you missed…

John…Peter

did not act…,.acted to protect the Lord at the Garden
chickened out after the arrest…followed to the courtyard after the arrest
not ready to stand up always…always at the ready to protect the Lord
not named specifically at the tomb after the resurrection…only apostle to be named specifically by the angel at the tomb…
Given no new name…given the name of Rock…
no temple tax paid for…the Lord paid for his temple tax
not given the keys…given the keys to the kingdom…

Let’s be careful not to go so far in protecting Peter’s integrity that we denegrate John. John was a very young man at the time(probabaly a teenager) and we can’t fault his psychological motives or use them as a hammer to hit people over the head with.

 

[Nicea325]

I meant it in the RC way. “It is absolutely necessary for salavtion that blah blah human being to be in communion with Roman Pontiff” We don’t believe that, so in THAT SENSE it isn’t necessary to be in communion with the Pope.

Of course it would be good that the RCC and the EOC reunited once again. But it can’t be, at least for now, because we don’t have the same faith.

The same faith? What God do you worship and pray to you? The last time I checked EO worship Jesus too.

 

[CopticChristian]

Sure.

Do you believe that Christ is King? The second person of the Trinity?
Do you believe in God the Father?
Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?
Do you believe that the central focus of Worship is the Eucharistic Mystery?
Do you believe that Baptism regenerates and is the means by which one is inorporated into the Body of Christ?
Do you believe in the Theotokos?
Do you believe in the Trinity?
Do you believe that Salvation is a lifelong process whereby you become more and more like Christ?
Do you believe in reverence towards Saints?
Do you believe that the Church in accord with Tradition interpret Scripture?

I do not need a full explanation…A simple yes or no

Yes to all.

Sounds like we share the same Faith.

 

[Wisely]

The same faith? What God do you worship and pray to you? The last time I checked EO worship Jesus too.

Evangelicals too, Nestorians too, Novatians too, Pope Michael too, some New Age too, Gnostics too. That doesn’t mean we have the same faith.

Sounds like we share the same Faith.

If you oversimplify it like that yes, it sounds.

But no, we don’t share the same faith. Florence would have succeded if what you say is true. We confess 2 different creeds!

 

[Marybeloved]

I meant it in the RC way. “It is absolutely necessary for salavtion that blah blah human being to be in communion with Roman Pontiff” We don’t believe that, so in THAT SENSE it isn’t necessary to be in communion with the Pope.

Are you saying that we cannot find similarly strong claims by E.O regarding the necessity of that church, as it sees itself (OHCAC) for salvation?

 

[CopticChristian]

Evangelicals too, Nestorians too, Novatians too, Pope Michael too, some New Age too, Gnostics too. That doesn’t mean we have the same faith.

If you **oversimplify it **like that yes, it sounds.

But no, we don’t share the same faith. Florence would have succeded if what you say is true. We confess 2 different creeds!

Wise,

Explain to me what it is to oversimplify.

What is the essence of the 2 creeds you believe are different?

 

[Marybeloved]

Florence would have succeded if what you say is true.

How so? What’s the logic behind this conclusion?

We confess 2 different creeds!

So do you consider the Eastern Catholics who recite the creed without the filioque to have a different faith? If so, then clearly the actual recital is not the issue here at all. The churches have already accepted that the only difference expressed in the Latin filioque is one of emphasis and semantics, not a different faith. So other than this filioque thing, how else is your faith in the creed different from ours? I’m not telling you everything is the same, I’m wondering what apart from the filioque you consider a different faith regarding the faith expressed in the creed (God and the incarnation).

 

[Wisely]

Wise,

Explain to me what it is to oversimplify.

What is the essence of the 2 creeds you believe are different?

Oversimplified because that is only the “core” of our faiths.There is a lot more.

Your creed says X and ours says Y. Therefore they are different, as simple as that.

How so? What’s the logic behind this conclusion? So do you consider the Eastern Catholics who recite the creed without the filioque to have a different faith? If so, then clearly the actual recital is not the issue here at all. The churches have already accepted that the only difference expressed in the Latin filioque is one of emphasis and semantics, not a different faith. So other than this filioque thing, how else is your faith in the creed different from ours? I’m not telling you everything is the same, I’m wondering what apart from the filioque you consider a different faith regarding the faith expressed in the creed (God and the incarnation).

1. Florence did not succeed becuase we didn’t have the same faith. St.Mark knew that, and thats why he didn’t sign the documents and stuff. The Byzantines (lays and clergy)knew that too, thats why the Bishops who signed the documents were deposed when they returned to Constantinople.
   The Bishops only signed because the Emperor told them to. The whole thing was a political alliance dressed as a council becuase the poor Emperor was afraid of the Turks.
2. Well… Not really. The filioque is an issue. It can be resolved, there are solutions for it. But as long as the RC continues to interpret it as the CCC does, it will be wrong.

Other than the filioque?

Ecclesiology.
Nature of the Primacy.
Soteriology.
Original Sin.
Post-1054 dogmas.
Painting of religious imagery contrary to canons. (We are guilty of this too, but no on your level)
Created grace.
Purgatory and Indulgences.
Novus Ordo mass.
Thomism.
The Sacrament of Marriage.
The order and timing of Baptism, Chrismation and Eucharist.

There are more I think but thats enough.

 

[Marybeloved]

1. Florence did not succeed becuase we didn’t have the same faith. St.Mark knew that, and thats why he didn’t sign the documents and stuff. The Byzantines (lays and clergy)knew that too, thats why the Bishops who signed the documents were deposed when they returned to Constantinople.
   The Bishops only signed because the Emperor told them to. The whole thing was a political alliance dressed as a council becuase the poor Emperor was afraid of the Turks.

That only shows that they believed it heretical- it does not even show that they were right in their assessment of it, even truly understood it. They were not the first to do it, the rejecting of Council teachings were the cause of schisms in the early church including what lead the Orientals to erroneously reject Chalcedon. It shows that the councils did not take enough care to teach the truths in the language that the whole Church would understand it, not necessarily the reasons of Heresy.

Also, the first Ec.Councils are often called political because of the emperor’s purpose in arranging them, which was to hold the unity of his empire intact through ensuring the unity of the then pre-dominant and nationalized faith. Does that mean that his political motives superseded the Holy Spirit’s Authority to teach us in those Councils or the truth of what they taught?

1. Well… Not really. The filioque is an issue. It can be resolved, there are solutions for it. But as long as the RC continues to interpret it as the CCC does, it will be wrong.

How? That Catholic interpretation that does not make God the Son the origin of the Spirit but only the person “through” whom he proceeds is what lead to the admission that it’s emphasis and semantics, not much else.

Other than the filioque?

Ecclesiology.
Nature of the Primacy.
Soteriology.
Original Sin.
Post-1054 dogmas.
Painting of religious imagery contrary to canons. (We are guilty of this too, but no on your level)
Created grace.
Purgatory and Indulgences.
Novus Ordo mass.
Thomism.
The Sacrament of Marriage.
The order and timing of Baptism, Chrismation and Eucharist.

There are more I think but thats enough.

None of these are in any creed that I’ve ever seen. You gave the creed as proof of different faiths, which is why I asked other than the Filioque, what constitutes different faiths regarding the truths professed therein (the creed)?

 

[Wandile]

For all who are interested… Please take a look at my new thread : Filioque : "who proceeds from the Father and the Son

I know it will be thoroughly interesting to hear Orthodox and Catholic views on this topic

 

[Wisely]

That only shows that they believed it heretical- it does not even show that they were right in their assessment of it, even truly understood it. They were not the first to do it, the rejecting of Council teachings were the cause of schisms in the early church including what lead the Orientals to erroneously reject Chalcedon. It shows that the councils did not take enough care to teach the truths in the language that the whole Church would understand it, not necessarily the reasons of Heresy.

Also, the first Ec.Councils are often called political because of the emperor’s purpose in arranging them, which was to hold the unity of his empire intact through ensuring the unity of the then pre-dominant and nationalized faith. Does that mean that his political motives superseded the Holy Spirit’s Authority to teach us in those Councils or the truth of what they taught?
How? That Catholic interpretation that does not make God the Son the origin of the Spirit but only the person “through” whom he proceeds is what lead to the admission that it’s emphasis and semantics, not much else. :shrug:None of these are in any creed that I’ve ever seen. You gave the creed as proof of different faiths, which is why I asked other than the Filioque, what constitutes different faiths regarding the truths professed therein (the creed)?

The political definitely superseded the Holy Spirit in that council like in all Robber Councils.
The creed is only 1 proof we believe different things. Of course the creed won’t contain the others because the creed only addresses the core of our faith.

 

[Nicea325]

Evangelicals too, Nestorians too, Novatians too, Pope Michael too, some New Age too, Gnostics too. That doesn’t mean we have the same faith.

If you oversimplify it like that yes, it sounds.

But no, we don’t share the same faith. Florence would have succeded if what you say is true. We confess 2 different creeds!

Nope! Gnostics denied Jesus humanity and Nestorians believed Christ’ two persons were loosely united and so on. That is not the same God we Catholics worship!

 

[Marybeloved]

The political definitely superseded the Holy Spirit in that council like in all Robber Councils.
The creed is only 1 proof we believe different things. Of course the creed won’t contain the others because the creed only addresses the core of our faith.

But I’m only asking for that difference of faith in the creed- not the others! Just the creed- How do we have different beliefs with regard to the creed?- Is it your admission that depending on how the filioque is interpreted, that we basically have the same faith expressed in the creed?

 

[Wisely]

Nope! Gnostics denied Jesus humanity and Nestorians believed Christ’ two persons were loosely united and so on. That is not the same God we Catholics worship!

The Muslims deny Jesus divinity yet your Catechism states that they believe in the same God as you do. So the same principle applies.

 

[Wisely]

But I’m only asking for that difference of faith in the creed- not the others! Just the creed- How do we have different beliefs with regard to the creed?- Is it your admission that depending on how the filioque is interpreted, that we basically have the same faith expressed in the creed?

Well yes. Interpret the filioque in an orthodox way an we have the same faith creed-wise.
The problem is that the RC doesn’t interpret it in the right way.

IIRC one of the Lateran Councils states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not from 2 principles but from 1.
This interpretation is wrong.

Anyways, the filioque still has to go away, even if interpreted correctly.