The Universal Church

[steve-b]

@steve-b and @(name removed by moderator),

Yes, we’ve been the Catholic Church from the beginning and the Orthodox have been part of the Church from the same beginning as well.

In the West, we can’t just simply identify as the Church or Christian. We have to identify as Roman Catholic or Eastern Catholic because of the Protestants.

We are Catholic.

Roman is a rite. It happens to be the biggest of all the rites. As in ~98%.

For context HERE

Michael16:

If we don’t specify our identity; people will just get confused because Protestants will often call themselves simply Christian.

Remember: The Protestants will recite the Creed in their services; calling themselves the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. When they’re not in the Church.

It’s sad.

Protestants are one of the heresies in history The Great Heresies | Catholic Answers

 

[Michael16]

@steve-b,

There is no doubt that we’re Catholic.

Since you mentioned Rite; then you must remember that most Western Catholics are Latin Rite Catholics. Of which, I am one. Who also deeply respects and appreciates the Eastern Tradition.

As for the nature of Protestantism as a heresy of the Latin Church; I fully agree.

However, for the sake of mutually reasonable and calm discussion with them; I think we must refrain from stating as such as part of being polite.

 

[PickyPicky]

You’re speaking of different systems and each system’s rules for operation

You’re talking ecclesiology, I’m talking semantics. You may be right about Peter; you are not right about the meaning of First Among Equals.

 

[steve-b]

@steve-b,

There is no doubt that we’re Catholic.

Since you mentioned Rite; then you must remember that most Western Catholics are Latin Rite Catholics. Of which, I am one. Who also deeply respects and appreciates the Eastern Tradition.

As for the nature of Protestantism as a heresy of the Latin Church; I fully agree.

However, for the sake of mutually reasonable and calm discussion with them; I think we must refrain from stating as such as part of being polite.

I would just say, facts of history, might be uncomfortable, but shouldn’t be ignored OR overstated/distorted OR rewritten… true?

 

[Michael16]

@steve-b, true. Facts shouldn’t be overlooked or rewritten.

But: It doesn’t mean we have to beat the Protestants over the head with it. We have to be charitable to them.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You’re speaking of different systems and each system’s rules for operation

You’re talking ecclesiology, I’m talking semantics. You may be right about Peter; you are not right about the meaning of First Among Equals.

For clarity,

I quoted the point made by then Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the doctrine of Faith, in addressing a historical points (1st among equals, & Pentarchy) , while under and approved by, then Pope John Paul II.

And I properly referenced the source.

 

[Michael16]

@steve-b,

What I mean by being charitable with the Protestants is that we don’t want to say things or act in ways that put them on the defensive and unreceptive to our side of things.

I’m saying that we should understand them, showing respect that they are Christians with faith in Jesus and that they teach faith alive with works; and then we help them understand where they misunderstand.

 

[steve-b]

@steve-b,

What I mean by being charitable with the Protestants is that we don’t want to say things or act in ways that put them on the defensive and unreceptive to our side of things.

Here’s an example I think of when discussing the faith

Ezekial describes 4 scenerios.

Using Ez 3:17-21 ,

Let’s say A=Catholic, B = anyone doing wrong, Life=heaven, Death=hell,

here’s 4 potential scenarios Ezekiel describes(emphasis mine)

1. If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand.” . IOW A gives B no warning. A & B are both screwed. Both die
2. But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life.” . IOW A gives B warning. B ignores the warning. A lives B is screwed.
3. if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand.” . IOW A gives B no warning. A is screwed. B is being B and is screwed and ALSO, his good works are not remembered
4. "Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning; and you will have saved your life.” . IOW A warns B and B listens and changes, A & B live

SO

putting this as God sees it, as a result of the instruction and consequences information, I would do all I can to be in scenarios 2 & 4 and avoid #s 1 & 3 like the plague.

But that’s me.

 

[mcq72]

quoted the point made by then Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the doctrine of Faith, in addressing a historical points (1st among equals, & Pentarchy) , while under and approved by, then Pope John Paul II.

What does he mean by “east”… is that eastern Catholics or is that Orthodox ?

“The whole idea of Pentarchy, and 1st among equals, started in the East. No pope ever accepted that.”…Ratzinger

I believe i then posted the east has never accepted Rome’s primacy ( though Ratzinger claims evidence became known by fifth century, not surmising anything sooner). You objected to " never", then cited canon 43 of east and west as holding to primacy, which to me contradicts Ratzinger, unless one qualifies what they ( Ratzinger and Canon 43) mean by " east"…

So again I believe the East did not accept primacy of Rome jurisdictionally from the beginning, as Catholics. Ratzinger affirms this to be true from fifth century on and the Cietti document seems to agree to beginning. Not sure when the term “orthodox” or “orthodox catholic” came into use. I also understand some in the east came to believe in primacy and are simply Catholic or Eastern Catholic.

 

[Michael16]

@steve-b,

I respect that you’re trying to save yourself and others.

With my approach, I’m laying seeds. I’ve found in my previous apologetics approach with my Lutheran family, that I would preach and pretty much say everything they believe is wrong. That made them not so much anti Catholic; but anti me.

So, I’ve laid off the preaching and criticism and took an approach of meeting them where they’re at and helping them understand where they misunderstand as things arise naturally.

With that approach, one of my sons is discerning the Faith and my other son, who’s Lutheran and has tried telling me I should be Lutheran; has said to me this morning: “ Dad, if I become Catholic; can I go back to being Lutheran? “

So, basically I’m not attacking their belief system. I’m correcting misunderstandings and trying to help them in their sanctification and avoid sin.

Make sense?

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72: I think he was speaking about the Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Catholics already accept papal authority in full.

In my talks with the Eastern Orthodox; I know they accept papal primacy. They don’t question papal primacy at all.

Their position is that the Holy Father doesn’t have universal and immediate jurisdiction over the internal affairs of the other Churches. In this concept: The Pope is the Head of the Church; but he doesn’t have jurisdictional authority to intervene in the affairs of the bishops outside of the Latin Church.

 

[mcq72]

think he was speaking about the Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Catholics already accept papal authority in full.

I think so also…again Ratzinger ( post 628?) just says the “East” began using first amongst equals term, as Catholics.

 

[Michael16]

Here’s the thing, @mcq72:

When we Catholics speak of “ the East “, generally we’re talking about the Eastern Orthodox.

Honestly, I’m not sure where they’re getting the idea of the Holy Father being first among equals. I know that several Church Fathers spoke and written about it. Saint Cyprian comes to mind.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

quoted the point made by then Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the doctrine of Faith, in addressing a historical points (1st among equals, & Pentarchy) , while under and approved by, then Pope John Paul II.

What does he mean by “east”… is that eastern Catholics or is that Orthodox ?
“The whole idea of Pentarchy, and 1st among equals, started in the East. No pope ever accepted that.”

They were Catholics to begin with. And as we’ve seen historically, heresies and schisms, always point back to authority issues of those who go off the rails.

Isn’t that what Paul warned, when writing to the Church of Rome?

Rm 16:
17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites,[b] and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. 19 For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; 20 then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.[c]

 

[Michael16]

@steve-b and @mcq72,

I agree that heresies begin with authority issues. Heretics get their ideas and don’t listen to authority correcting them.

 

[PickyPicky]

For clarity,

I quoted the point made by then Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the doctrine of Faith, in addressing a historical points (1st among equals, & Pentarchy) , while under and approved by, then Pope John Paul II.

And I properly referenced the source.

For clarity:

I have said that I wish to make no argument about the rôle of Peter or the proper powers of the Pope. I have not argued against the Pope Emeritus, the CDF, or St John Paul II, and I do not intend doing so.

You’re speaking of different systems and each system’s rules for operation

Indeed, that is what I spoke of, and intentionally, because I am not arguing that “First Among Equals” is an appropriate description of what the Pope’s rôle should be — and I have made that clear from the start. I gave examples of rôles where such a description is appropriate, in order to show that such a description is not “nonsense”.

 

[mcq72]

They were Catholics to begin with. And as we’ve seen historically, heresies and schisms, always point back to authority issues of those who go off the rails.

Correct, as when pope gregory corrected/chastised a patriarch who decided he was supreme pontiff/patriarch…never intimating that he was himself.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

They were Catholics to begin with. And as we’ve seen historically, heresies and schisms, always point back to authority issues of those who go off the rails.

Correct, as when pope gregory corrected/chastised a patriarch who decided he was supreme pontiff/patriarch…never intimating that he was himself.

reference?

 

[steve-b]

Here’s the thing, @mcq72:

When we Catholics speak of “ the East “, generally we’re talking about the Eastern Orthodox.

Honestly, I’m not sure where they’re getting the idea of the Holy Father being first among equals. I know that several Church Fathers spoke and written about it. Saint Cyprian comes to mind.

I’m not recalling that. Can you give a quote? Thanks in advance

 

[Michael16]

Sorry, @steve-b.

I don’t have a specific quote handy. I know that one of the Orthodox guys here said that Saint Augustine, late in his writings; wasn’t too strong on papal authority and Saint Cyprian had a view of first among equals.

I suggest you ask @ziapueblo, @Isaac14, @George720 and others for specifics. I believe they’d know.

Remember: The Orthodox don’t question papal primacy. They reject papal supremacy.