The Universal Church

[mcq72]

Are you doubting Peter was bishop

No, I am only showing that you and others presume upon Iranaeus. Does Iranaeus call him bishop not apostle ?Does he make any distinction between him and Paul? Does he cite Peter as annointing any successor apart from Paul, or vice versa? Did it matter to Iranaeus?

Again, let Iranaeus speak for himself, not you or Eusebius, who says " they say".

It continues to this day this “they say”, and it indeed thank God that 2000 years of it has yielded some truth faithfully. But again, as I see the stretching of Iranaeus, so I can understand the stretching of some truth in the " they say" we hear today.

Never the less, Peter was an apostle and he himself said he was a “fellow presbyter (bishop)”, indeed a shepherd of the flock . As to his jurisdiction, I would not limit it to any particular city, and only tradition says he was such in Rome, a " they say". Irregardless, if he was in Rome, I would think he was of supreme authority as an apostle, but not over but as a servant.

Jurisdictionally, don’t know if he honored said leaders of Rome upon his arrival, as he honored James in Jerusalem. I would also think said leaders would honor Peter’s words and instruction as from the apostle, above and beyond any jurisdictional subleties we argue over today.

 

[mcq72]

Tim Staples quotes Calvin’s teaching. Quoting the very textbook you want ME to read.

Lol…I am not sure Calvinists always rightly represent or apply Calvin’s intent, much less one who comes to disagree with him like Staples.

But there are a few here who could better judge whether Staples rightly portrays Calvin while still disagreeing with him.

I am not even sure Calvinist is meaningful term, like earlier would one say they were Augustinian ( not the order), or an Aquinasist, or a Newmanist?

 

[MichaelP3]

You are missing the point. I know who Calvin is. I don’t need you to try and spruce him up.

Lol. Just because I am saying you would be able to relate to the man was in no way my intention to make it seem that I “spruce him up”.

And no! I am not missing the point as you clearly stated you do not read the man’s work which would be an easy primary source for anyone to have in order to say whatever they want to say about him. Fact is, you cannot properly reference a thing about his thoughts, beliefs or actions until you take a peek into a well known piece of work. What are you so afraid of? Banned books are no longer a thing, you should know that? In fact I believe Catholics are encouraged to learn these days. And like I said, this is not sprucing up but simply you failing at your own game!

 

[lanman87]

Do you say the same about sctipture

We aren’t talking about Scripture. We are talking about the writings and opinions (which may or may not have been altered) of a falliable man.

Irrelevant maybe in your mind.

One of the test of universal belief is that it was accept and taught in all the churches. You believe that Irenaeus spoke for the universal belief of all the churches of his time. It should be fairly easy then, to show that other bishops/theologians of his day had the same opinion concerning Rome.

 

[steve-b]

Main point in that analogy

I’ll just say,

Unlike Calvin,

Augustine and Cyprian didn’t leave the Church, nor cause heresy or schism with their teachings.

mcq72:

Well, the pope was wise enough to listen to Cyprian on occassion if I recall.

As for Augustine, i have heard he bowed to Rome enough to keep them happy, the thing being quite mutual.

Yet your stance is very unhistorical or at least laden with bias, that nothing changed in teaching or practice in a thousand years that elapsed up to Calvin, and insinuating Augustine and Cyprian would continue to " go along to get along"… And I wonder if CC anathemizes some of Calvins points even though some are quite foundationally Augustinian.

Calvin was no Augustinian https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-tiptoe-through-tulip

AND

Heresy is heresy. As scripture teaches, It is mortal sin.

mcq72:

I wonder to if the CC has its own version of indifferentism, that the main thing is dont rock the boat, teach what you want as long as it is not too controversial, even push the envelope , just remain Catholic and loyal to its power and heirarchy.

Rock the boat and a teaching that might have been tolerated as a Catholic is now anathemized?

As the old saying goes

When you’re in a hole, stop digging

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Do you say the same about sctipture

We aren’t talking about Scripture. We are talking about the writings and opinions (which may or may not have been altered) of a falliable man.

Re: Fallible vs infallible,

who wrote scripture?
Who identified the books of scripture?
Who canonized the books that would be called the bible?
Who removed 7 canonical books of scripture and that conclusion continues to this day?

etc etc

Irrelevant maybe in your mind.

lanman87:

One of the test of universal belief is that it was accept and taught in all the churches. You believe that Irenaeus spoke for the universal belief of all the churches of his time. It should be fairly easy then, to show that other bishops/theologians of his day had the same opinion concerning Rome.

Already answered.

Did Jesus set up restrictions on Peter as to which part of the Church he is NOT over?

NO​

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Re: Preeminent ?

THAT’s a pretty strong word. Especially in how Irenaeus used it.

Yes it is and I acknowkedged such, but when you stretch great to greatest, and Peter and Paul to just Peter, and many apostles and their church successions to only Rome’s, contrary to Iranaeus, one can’t help but ponder that you even stretch the strength and understanding of preeminence.

Peter got the keys from Jesus. Peter was given a particular and special office from Jesus. NO OTHER apostle got that office from Jesus.

 

[mcq72]

Peter got the keys from Jesus. Peter was given a particular and special office from Jesus. NO OTHER apostle got that office from Jesus.

Yes from Jesus. I dare say the problem now is the CC has not always acted, ordained, defrocked,anathemized as Jesus would have.

If presumption exists on just what Jesus implied with Peter and apostles, it quadruples on what he intended thereafter.

 

[mcq72]

As the old saying goes

When you’re in a hole, stop digging

Precisely. I would say Rome kept digging harder the more reformers sprang up.

 

[Wannano]

Yes, and before you ask the priest from both churches know I do… they also know I go to both churches.

I have been thinking about your statement here and would like clarification. Specifically, the Catholic priest at the Catholic church you attend knows and condones that you also receive the Eucharist at the Lutheran Church? I always thought that was not allowed but maybe if a priest says it is ok, then it is ok. Catholics here on CAF often tell people to go and discuss with the priest so I guess whatever he says you should do.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Peter got the keys from Jesus. Peter was given a particular and special office from Jesus. NO OTHER apostle got that office from Jesus.

Yes from Jesus. I dare say the problem now is the CC has not always acted, ordained, defrocked,anathemized as Jesus would have.

Jesus waits to lower the boom on people. But He does lower the boom. As in, in the end, He sends few to heaven and the rest He sends to hell.

mcq72:

If presumption exists on just what Jesus implied with Peter and apostles, it quadruples on what he intended thereafter.

His promises He keeps.

 

[ArchStanton]

Precisely. I would say Rome kept digging harder the more reformers sprang up.

I would go with ‘whatever you bind…’

 

[annad347]

Specifically, the Catholic priest at the Catholic church you attend knows and condones that you also receive the Eucharist at the Lutheran Church?

Yes, he tried to explain how they don’t believe in the real presence of Jesus, I told him that’s okay I do.

Besides he never would have know if I didnt tell him so how would it matter if he approved or not.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

As the old saying goes

When you’re in a hole, stop digging

Precisely. I would say Rome kept digging harder the more reformers sprang up.

OTOH

true reformers are from within. Councils, local and ecumenical is the proper way to handle reform.

However

reformers who are actually revolters , are unfortunately always there as well.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Specifically, the Catholic priest at the Catholic church you attend knows and condones that you also receive the Eucharist at the Lutheran Church?

Yes, he tried to explain how they don’t believe in the real presence of Jesus, I told him that’s okay I do.

Besides he never would have know if I didnt tell him so how would it matter if he approved or not.

I would have to let someone else give the Churchs answer to that. It is interesting to me though, for I know a non-Catholic neighbor very well who has a son married into the Catholic faith. When attending Mass with his son he partakes and is served the Eucharist even though the priest knows full well he is not Catholic.

 

[mcq72]

true reformers are from within.

Correct. True reformers did not come from Buddhism or Shintoism or Islam, but from within the church. The staus quo called them heretics.

Councils, local and ecumenical is the proper way to handle reform.

Yes. That is how CC handled many reformers, tossing out everything they suggested and bearing down harder on justifying, decreeing the dogmas in question.

How were the Lutheran proposals received? Did they even make it to council level?

who are actually revolters

That is, was, a whole other issue back then when there was no freedom for such reformed religion.

 

[mcq72]

I would go with ‘ whatever you bind…’

Yes, the CC understanding and teaching on said scripture is very instrumental for her, and yes His will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.

 

[mcq72]

His promises He keeps.

Just as He kept and will keep His promises toward Israel in ways unexpected, so to will He keep His promises to us in some unexpected ways.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You are missing the point. I know who Calvin is. I don’t need you to try and spruce him up.

Fact is, you cannot properly reference a thing about his thoughts, beliefs or actions until you take a peek into a well known piece of work. What are you so afraid of? Banned books are no longer a thing, you should know that? In fact I believe Catholics are encouraged to learn these days. And like I said, this is not sprucing up but simply you failing at your own game!

Calvin, Luther, Henry VIII, etc etc etc, were all anathematized by the Catholic Church at Trent.

So just speaking for myself,

I personally have no interest in reading Calvin’s works. If someone else wants to read it, that’s their choice. If Catholic’s of solid repute and reputation want to give quotes from Calvin etc, I’ll be happy to quote THEM

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

His promises He keeps.

Just as He kept and will keep His promises toward Israel in ways unexpected, so to will He keep His promises to us in some unexpected ways.

Jesus gives the Jews first right of refusal

When Jesus said the following to

Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

BTW

what made the sheep in the the house of Israel… lost? THEY are the first people of the covenant? Yet they are lost.

In the beginning, ALL the people, as in 100% of the Catholic Church were Jews.

Yet

No one is forcing anyone to join the Catholic Church. It’s a choice freely made. As it is to remain Catholic in the Church. It’s all a choice freely made and a choice continually made all life long…