The Universal Church

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I didn’t say that.

What are you, Steve, saying? Nothing of what you quote (with proper references) reflects your own opinion? And this was not the first time in this thread you quoted scripture to make that implication.

I was quoting scripture, showing scripturally, properly referenced, where division /separation etc, appears and WHO separation, division, dissension etc in the Church, comes from

You’ve been quite clear in your properly referenced quotes, that you believe Satan is the cause of division, and that the Orthodox are divided. What other conclusion am I supposed to reach?

And it’s particularly shocking to see that, when Pope Francis himself calls the Orthodox his brothers and sisters who share the same faith grounded in the resurrection of our Lord.

Irenaeus is a Catholic bishop. He’s one man in time, from (Bp Polycarp) , who was a direct disciple of John. Irenaeus gave his sources when making his points. He names, 12 bishops in succession from Peter in Rome down to his day.

You’ve said this already, many times, but that doesn’t change the fact that immediately prior to listing the bishops of Rome, St. Irenaeus states he doesn’t have the time (or presumably ink and scrolls) to write out all the bishops of all the churches, but says rather that since everyone knows of Rome, a listing of these will as an example to demonstrate his point regarding the entire church.

Further, since you think “preeminent authority” is an early reference to the primacy/supremacy of Rome, I think it is incredibly important to ensure that “preeminent authority” is a good translation of the Latin “potiorem principalitatem” which is a translation of the now lost original Greek. You’re depending on a translation of a translation to prove your point.

When Adam and Eve first sinned there was no sin. Who opposed God’s orders, and instigated / tempted , A & E to commit the first sin?
Looking forward, THAT is who gets the blame for ALL temptation.

AND

One either succumbs or they reject temptation… true? THAT applies to EVERYBODY…true?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I didn’t say that.

Technicalities again. But of course you didnt say that. You said scripture says that.

Soooooo what does THAT say to you?

 

[Isaac14]

When Adam and Eve first sinned there was no sin. Who opposed God’s orders, and instigated / tempted , A & E to commit the first sin?
Looking forward, THAT is who gets the blame for ALL temptation.

AND

One either succumbs or they reject temptation… true? THAT applies to EVERYBODY…true?

Steve, what are you saying? That the Orthodox have given into temptation by Satan? How does Pope Francis then call us brothers and sisters in Christ?

Also, you ignored the question of Irenaeus’ translations and meaning.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

Said another way

To be deep in history is to be Catholic

That saying in your other way, to be Catholic, might fit Newman’s beliefs.

I see it as meaning that to be deep in history, to be apostolic (can’t go deeper than that), is to drop names like Orthodox or Protestant, even Roman Catholic or even Catholic , that came after apostles. The deepest historical name we have is “Christian”.

Interesting that the furthest we can go into the future that same name will be standing in His kingdom to come.

History shows the name of the Church Jesus established on Peter is the Catholic Church,.

 

[Isaac14]

History shows the name of the Church Jesus established on Peter is the Catholic Church,.

And to be clear, Acts 9:31 is not one of those instances of proof…

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

When Adam and Eve first sinned there was no sin. Who opposed God’s orders, and instigated / tempted , A & E to commit the first sin?
Looking forward, THAT is who gets the blame for ALL temptation.

AND

One either succumbs or they reject temptation… true? THAT applies to EVERYBODY…true?

Steve, what are you saying? That the Orthodox have given into temptation by Satan? How does Pope Francis then call us brothers and sisters in Christ?

Separated brethran explains it.

Is being separated OK?

Isaac14:

Also, you ignored the question of Irenaeus’ translations and meaning.

I answered it. He built his point on 12 bishops of Rome in direct succession from Peter in Rome.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

History shows the name of the Church Jesus established on Peter is the Catholic Church,.

And to be clear, Acts 9:31 is not one of those instances of proof…

There is no other Church but the one Jesus builds.

AND

Jesus tells us who He builds His Church on.

Simon who Jesus changes his name to Rock, Peter.

AND

Jesus expects perfect unity. Not just a squishy one but perfectly one. Jn 17:20-23

 

[Isaac14]

Separated brethran explains it.

Is being separated OK?

Help me understand how. You said division and schism are of Satan, yet Pope Francis calls us brothers and sisters. How does “separated brethren” bridge this gap?

answered it. He built his point on 12 bishops of Rome in direct succession from Peter in Rome.

Yes, and I’ve already responded by saying immediately before listing the bishops of Rome, the Saint says he should also include the names of all the bishops of all the churches, but that Rome will have to serve as an example. And you haven’t addressed the if “preeminent authority” is the best translation of the Latin which itself is a translation of the now lost original Greek. Simply asserting that a list of 12 bishops of Rome proves the point doesn’t actually do so.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

History shows the name of the Church Jesus established on Peter is the Catholic Church,.

And to be clear, Acts 9:31 is not one of those instances of proof…

Says who?

kata holos ekklesia = Catholic Church in English

Where does kata holkos ekklesia appear in scriptue?

ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Acts 9:31

ekklesia
kata
holos

 

[Isaac14]

“So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” is proof for today’s Catholic Church?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Separated brethran explains it.

Is being separated OK?

Help me understand how. You said division and schism are of Satan, yet Pope Francis calls us brothers and sisters. How does “separated brethren” bridge this gap?

Problem is, and always will be, when you don’t read what is written.

answered it. He built his point on 12 bishops of Rome in direct succession from Peter in Rome.

Isaac14:

Yes, and I’ve already responded by saying immediately before listing the bishops of Rome, the Saint says he should also include the names of all the bishops of all the churches, but that Rome will have to serve as an example. And you haven’t addressed the if “preeminent authority” is the best translation of the Latin which itself is a translation of the now lost original Greek***.*** Simply asserting that a list of 12 bishops of Rome proves the point doesn’t actually do so.

You read into the document what you want it to say.

AND

Other bishops I have linked to, [East and West] say similar sentiments as Irenaeus. But you won’t read them either.

 

[Isaac14]

Problem is, and always will be, when you don’t read what is written.

So when it comes to it you fold?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Problem is, and always will be, when you don’t read what is written.

So when it comes to it you fold?

hardly

 

[Isaac14]

Rather than answer my questions, you would rather accuse me of not reading your links. Go and see how many times they’ve been opened. I’ve read the majority. So you think I haven’t read them because I don’t come to the same conclusion as you?

 

[steve-b]

Rather than answer my questions, you would rather accuse me of not reading your links. Go and see how many times they’ve been opened. I’ve read the majority. So you think I haven’t read them because I don’t come to the same conclusion as you?

If you read THEM, then you would be criticizing THEM.

 

[Isaac14]

If you read THEM, then you would be criticizing THEM.

But are you not interpreting the meaning of what you quote to make a specific point?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

If you read THEM, then you would be criticizing THEM.

But are you not interpreting the meaning of what you quote to make a specific point?

I’m using THEIR words NOT mine. I’m quoting THEM not me. Do you get that?

 

[Isaac14]

I’m using THEIR words NOT mine. I’m quoting THEM not me. Do you get that?

Obviously I’m not. Are you not trying to make a point with what you quote? I’m questioning whether what you quote makes the point that you assert that it makes.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I’m using THEIR words NOT mine. I’m quoting THEM not me. Do you get that?

Obviously I’m not. Are you not trying to make a point with what you quote? I’m questioning whether what you quote makes the point that you assert that it makes.

The people I quote have authority.

 

[Isaac14]

The people I quote have authority.

So you are hiding behind someone else’s authority, thinking that their words need no explanation and the point is fully clear?

Yet when I ask you simple questions like how is Acts 9:31 a reference to the Catholic Church organization, or how do we know “preeminent authority” the best translation of “potiorem principalitatem” which itself is a translation of the lost original Greek, or how can the Pope call Orthodox his brothers and sisters who share the same faith in our Lord, while you claim the sources say Orthodox are in schism due to Satan, what am I supposed to think?

All you do is respond by saying I’m not reading your “properly referenced” quotes and to remind me that they are not your words. Yet you, Steve, must be trying to make a specific point about what you believe to be true about the Catholic Church (and what you think everyone else needs to know about the Catholic Church) to keep copy/pasting the same quotes over and over again. What are you trying to say to me and everyone else here?