S
sousley
Guest
Can you give an example?
- Status
D
dronald
Guest
The CC can trace it’s succession from Peter, while the Orthodox can trace theirs from Paul; I would like to see what Paul would write about such a thing.
C
CatholicServant
Guest
I thought that both the CC and Orthodox trace their apostolic succession from all of the apostles and that the CC traces is Papal succession through Peter and the Bishop of Rome’s successors?
D
dronald
Guest
Sure. And all it’s done is cause disputes; so what would Paul say about this?
S
sousley
Guest
You may be right, but I’ve never heard that before. I’m not exactly an expert on the subject, however my understanding is that the Schism was the result of a culmination of several issues over time as opposed to one issue; the contention of the Orthodox is that the papacy ceased to follow the teaching of the apostles at a point and are in schism of the true faith. I’m not aware of any dissension regarding the primacy of Peter, and certainly not one that divides Peter and Paul in a schismatic way. Perhaps someone better versed can offer greater insight.
C
CatholicServant
Guest
What would Paul say about this? Again, a Protestant’s worry… Jesus calls for our unity like he is one with the Father - that is who my heart breaks for. But, I wasn’t replying to answer to what I believe St. Paul would say about this, I was disputing your statement that the CC traces it’s apostolic line of succession solely through Peter whereas the Orthodox trace solely through Paul - I did not believe that to be an accurate statement.
S
sousley
Guest
I think he would say the same thing he said then, “One faith, One Lord, One baptism”
D
dronald
Guest
Forgive me if I’m wrong about the Orthodox claiming they can trace their succession to Paul. I remember reading that they do, but I could be wrong.
My question is this; the Orthodox do not claim that the primacy can be held by one man who succeeds Peter while the Catholics do. Now, what would Paul say about this argument?
C
CatholicServant
Guest
Nothing to forgive my Brother Dronald - I have read many of your posts and learn from them - I had just never heard that claim before.
As to what Paul would say - I cannot presume to know such a thing and would not even try, but I would suspect that he would be utterly shocked about the division and saddened that there is no longer only One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.
D
Della
Guest
Peter and Paul were not divided against one another. Indeed, Peter called Paul’s writing “scripture.” Peter was primary because Jesus called him to that office–as his vicar/steward/chamberlain on earth. It’s the office that is important not the person who occupies it. Nowhere in Paul’s writings did he ever challenge Peter’s office. As the Apostle to the Gentiles he had his hands full enough. It was Peter’s duty to hold the Church together, the task for which Christ had appointed him. It’s really as simple as that.
D
dronald
Guest
Thank you
I checked wiki and that’s definitely where I got it from. Tell me what you think of this:“The Orthodox Church traces its development back to the earliest church established by St. Paul and the Apostles, through the ancient Roman Empire and its continuation the Byzantine Empire.[20]”
I must have read that wrong and thought it was primarily through Paul.
I think Paul wouldn’t like the idea of putting such authority to anyone who succeeds Peter. In fact I think Paul would even call Peter “nothing” like he said about himself and Apollos. Paul also said that some follow Peter specifically and it has divided Christ.
I think this is one of the reasons Protestants grip to Paul when defending their Faith, is that he seemed so un-Catholic.
C
CatholicServant
Guest
Thank you for finding that - it appears the same idea we were discussing - succession through all of the Apostles, including Sts. Peter and Paul. I think Paul would say that as well just like Peter said of himself, “A fellow Presbyter” - humility is key = the Popes are to be servants of the Church. And though Paul might seem un-Catholic to a Protestant - he was Catholic through and through.Thank you
“The Orthodox Church traces its development back to the earliest church established by St. Paul and the Apostles, through the ancient Roman Empire and its continuation the Byzantine Empire.[20]”
I must have read that wrong and thought it was primarily through Paul.
I think Paul wouldn’t like the idea of putting such authority to anyone who succeeds Peter. In fact I think Paul would even call Peter “nothing” like he said about himself and Apollos. Paul also said that some follow Peter specifically and it has divided Christ.
I think this is one of the reasons Protestants grip to Paul when defending their Faith, is that he seemed so un-Catholic.
D
Della
Guest
None of us is anything apart from Christ, that’s not the point. Peter was appointed to the office of pope, with the charisms that go with that office. All the bishops have charisms from God upon their ordination, but none of them deserves to be a bishop or even pope because of personal attributes. Think of it this way, when we elect a president in the USA he now has certain powers and authority he didn’t have before. Is he any better as a human being because of that? Of course not, it’s simply that with the office comes certain rights and privileges he didn’t have as a senator, governor, representative or private citizen.Thank you
“The Orthodox Church traces its development back to the earliest church established by St. Paul and the Apostles, through the ancient Roman Empire and its continuation the Byzantine Empire.[20]”
I must have read that wrong and thought it was primarily through Paul.
I think Paul wouldn’t like the idea of putting such authority to anyone who succeeds Peter. In fact I think Paul would even call Peter “nothing” like he said about himself and Apollos. Paul also said that some follow Peter specifically and it has divided Christ.
You only think this way because you have never studied Paul and his writings from the Catholic perspective. Trust me, it’s quite enlightening.
C
CatholicServant
Guest
Paul also said that some follow Peter specifically and it has divided Christ.
I think this is one of the reasons Protestants grip to Paul when defending their Faith, is that he seemed so un-Catholic.
In that letter to the Corinthians Paul not only states that some follow Peter, but he specifically says that about himself and it has divided Christ:
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment. [R] +]
11 For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. [R] +]
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. [R] +]
13 **Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
**
I think this is one of the reasons Protestants grip to Paul when defending their Faith, is that he seemed so un-Catholic.
In that letter to the Corinthians Paul not only states that some follow Peter, but he specifically says that about himself and it has divided Christ:
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment. [R] +]
11 For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. [R] +]
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. [R] +]
13 **Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
**
S
sousley
Guest
???
I think you are referring the 1 Cor. 1. Starting at v10; Paul beseeches his brethren to speak the same thing, that there are no schisms among you, be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgement.
v11: he says that he has heard that there are contentions among them.
v12: they are all saying that they are of Paul, Apollo, Cephas, or Christ . It was the people that were dividing their loyalties in groups. Paul is not suggesting that He, Apollo, Cephas, or Christ is doing the dividing.
v13-21: He gives general instruction specific to this admonition
v23: But we preach Christ crucified…
it is important to note the inclusiveness of this statement, that the same message is preached by the aforementioned. v21 also mentions “our preaching”
Later in Chapter 3, Paul outlines his and Apollos roles in the “building project” being distinctive in the design of the master architect, Christ. Although he doesn’t specifically mention Peter this time, his message is consistent with his overall message about each distinctive member of Christ’s Body using their particular gifts to edify the whole.
D
dronald
Guest
Part of the separation between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is the primacy of Peter. It would be neat to see what Paul would write about it, although I believe he already did a couple of times.
C
CatholicServant
Guest
Yes, and we might be missing each others points here - I am not sure. I was responding to your blanket statement, without reference, that Paul said some are following Peter and it is dividing Christ. Without your reference, I assumed you were referring to First Corinthians where he writes that some were saying they were of various leaders and questioned if Christ is divided…Maybe that was not what you were referring to, but if it was, you had only stated that some were following Peter and that was dividing Christ. When in actuality he stated that some were saying they were of various leaders, himself included - and then specifically questioned, was Paul crucified for you, were you baptized in the name of Paul…If I found the wrong reference, I apologize, but it appeared to me that you had specifically identified Peter only.
A
Abu
Guest
The reality is that St Paul is chastising them for picking and choosing personalities and feeling superior rather than assenting to the faith:
“For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” [1 Cor 1:11-13].
po18guy
Well-known member
Finish your popcorn???
Truthfully, having no council, no central authority, protestantism relies heavily on the private interpretation of scripture. Yet, in the same scriptures, who is it whose words can be hard to understand, which the ignorant and restless twist and distort? (underlining mine)
A few fundamentalists are almost Pauline, rather than Christian. Some years back, I went back and forth here at CAF with a non-denominational who argued extensively from Paul. I noted that he did not quote Christ. What did Paul have to say about this?
D
dronald
Guest
That was one passage I was referring to. Paul was explicit that the leaders of the Church are nothing, and the argument of who has the proper authority caused the first division in the Church.
- Status