The Universal Church

[Wannano]

Michael, I find you to be a very interesting person. No doubt you are a very deep thinker. You have researched all the different facets of Christianity and have become convinced that being a Catholic is the one and only right thing to be. I am not arguing with you but am wondering if you believe that if I join the Catholic Church and live according to her teachings and practice and can die without the stain of a mortal sin on my soul I will attain entrance into heaven?

 

[Michael16]

@Wannano,

Not a doubt in my mind. As in no unconfessed mortal sin and dying a repentant sinner. Not a doubt at all.

 

[Wannano]

Is your stance in complete harmony with the Church?

Does the Church teach that the basis of ultimate salvation is obtained by keeping the teachings of the Church?

 

[Michael16]

@Wannano, I see you’re looking for an opening.

Yes, my statement is, as far as I know; in complete accord with Church teaching.

The ultimate basis of justification IS by faith. What Luther misunderstood was that he thought that works is separate from faith. Works are an inherent part of faith. You can’t separate works from faith and call it good.

It’s a tragically unnecessary and unnatural distinction that the man made in his exegesis and to this day, Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants argue endlessly over an unfortunate mistake in reading comprehension.

Essentially, Luther’s mistake was that he mistook works of the law for works in general.

Everyone in the 50s AD knew that Saint Paul was saying the works of the Old Law is replaced by faith.

Belief+Works=Faith.

That’s salvation in a nutshell.

Let me illustrate the point a little better.

I believe in Jesus. By keeping faith with Jesus, I honor His Word and do His Word. When I’m intentionally unfaithful to His Word in a grave matter, I mortally sin. That’s not keeping faith with Jesus.

It’s kind of like the difference between being faithful or unfaithful to your wife.

This statement accords with what Saint Paul later says in Romans when he said that sin arose in me and I died. That’s losing your justification by mortal sin. Thus, we must go to Confession to restore our justification. That’s the states of grace and mortal sin.

This accords with what Jesus said: “ Those who DO the Father’s Will enter heaven. “ For Jesus judges the living and the dead by their deeds and the conduct of their lives.

If justification was by faith alone as Luther taught, the devil and his angels would be saved. They believe and shudder as Saint James tells us. Heck, they not only believe; but they know for a FACT.

But, they suffer eternal damnation because they’ll never repent and do good deeds.

We have that chance because Jesus was born, lived, suffered and died for us.

We’re not judged by what we believe; but by what we do.

For Saint John of the Cross said: “ In the evening of our lives, we are judged by our deeds. “

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I’d just say in this case, the elephant in the room, is the consequence that is there, at judgement, for EVERYONE, based on the decisions one makes on this side of eternity

again, agree and you are preaching to the choir…but again does not address the papal issue.

the papal issue? Peter doesn’t force anyone to follow Peter. Jesus doesn’t force anyone to follow Jesus. Jesus gave the consequence for one who disobeys His commands. His Church has stated what is doctrine. The Church in its official capacity, “teaches” as in it declares doctrine, truth, but doesn’t force anyone to believe truth. One needs to believe free of choice. If they don’t obey, they know they did this free of choice at judgement. THAT’S the Elephant in the room.

AND

No pope contradicted doctrine.

 

[mcq72]

the papal issue?

Yes, remember all the discussion on whether Peter is jurisdictionally above all others, being a divisive issue from early on, and as held by Orthodox and Protestants? …that elephant that you dogmatically dismiss?

Jesus doesn’t force anyone to follow Jesus

Again preachin to choir…nor does He force saints to go against their convictions and conscience and follow any leaven coming from Peter’s chair, such as his declared jurisdictional supremacy . Indeed do what is right from any chair, even Peter’s but beware of any bad doctrine (leaven) such as supremacy.

So to your point, yes beware to leave Peter, but the elephant says beware of Peter leaving you, as with a bad doctrine.

I say that as respectfully as one can, but it would also be disrespectful to Orthodox and Protestants not too.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

The basic point of papal primacy is based on that Rome, as the Apostolic See founded upon SS Peter and Paul; was in fact accepted all through the early Church. It had recognized auctoritas to confirm the synods in the exercise of their powers. It was recognized as the highest See in the whole Church and Protos over all of the bishops.

In other words: Synods could do nothing without the consent of Rome and Rome had to confirm the councils with her auctoritas.

In other words: Approval and validation of the decisions of the synods.

 

[mcq72]

The basic point of papal primacy is based on that Rome, as the Apostolic See founded upon SS Peter and Paul; was in fact accepted all through the early Church.

well the underlined is questioned, and again, it has been shown on this thread that for sure by fifth century it was questioned. Do you disagree that such jurisdictional was challenged at least by 5th century ? and if so, did they just all of a sudden rebel, or did they consider this to be “apostolic” understanding from first century also?

Are you suggesting that local synods, say in Antioch or Alexandria, had to go to Rome for final approval, even for appointment of bishops ?

Again , zero explicit scripture to show that though the apostles, especially Paul and Peter, founded many churches, appointed many bishops/presbyters, that they instructed their churches to obey their (Peter and Paul’S) last see (Rome) after their deaths.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

What’s your basis for saying Roman primacy was questioned by the fifth century?

In my talks with the Orthodox and studying their defenses against papal supremacy; they themselves don’t question that Rome was the highest See. None at all.

They recognized her as the Protos among the Patriarchs and the Protos of the whole Church and Archbishop of the Holy Synod of the Church.

Saint Peter only founded three Sees:

1: Antioch

2: Alexandria through Saint Mark

3: Rome

Rome was his final See and the site of SS Peter and Paul’s martyrdom and was the imperial capital.

All three reasons the whole Church accepted Rome’s primacy.

Rome has primacy of honor. That honor was auctoritas which means authority in Latin.

Rome’s auctoritas was given to confirm, ratifying; the synods in their decisions.

In the early Church, it wasn’t necessary for bishops of the other Sees to be approved by Rome. Although two or three bishops were required for the consecration of a new bishop. Each bishop, upon the accession to his chair; had to send letters of confirmation of faith and invitations to communion to the other bishops.

But, the basic thing is mcq72, that it was necessary for Rome to send legates to councils who pushed for Rome’s will and the councils would acquiesce to her will; as we saw at the Council of Chalcedon and the promulgation of the Tome of Pope Saint Leo.

The thing you and the other Protestants misunderstand about the ecclesiology of the early Church was that the Protos of a synod and his synod work together synergistically. Neither the Protos or the synod under him can act without regard for or consent of each other.

Which, when you take an honest look at Church councils like Vatican 1 and 2; the Holy Father doesn’t act autocratically. He acts in concert with his bishops and they with him.

The basic powers of papal supremacy is that the Holy Father has unlimited exercise of his primatial and pastoral duties to:

Ensure communion and good order in the Church as a whole and in the particular Churches, strengthen his brother bishops and teach faith and morals and maintain the Church’s independence from secular control. With universal, immediate and supreme jurisdiction. None, save God; is above the Holy Father.

There are practical limits to the powers of the Holy Father. He listens for the Holy Spirit in the Churches and the sensus fidei of the laity of the clergy.

Papal supremacy and infallibility were only defined in declared in 1870, so it’s anachronistic to see infallible ex cathedra statements and supremacy in the first millennium.

Prior to 1870, Church councils followed the early Church ecclesiology like in the Council of Trent. Just we didn’t have Eastern bishops in our councils for the most part after 1054.

As for Scripture references: Upon this rock I shall build My Church and Feed My lambs, tend My sheep. Only these things did Our Lord day to Saint Peter.

 

[ziapueblo]

as we saw at the Council of Chalcedon and the promulgation of the Tome of Pope Saint Leo.

An Orthodox understanding of the tome of Pope St Leo:

Was the Tome of Pope St. Leo Ex Cathedra? | Rebuttal to Catholic Apologist Erick Ybarra – Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia

Just we didn’t have Eastern bishops in our councils for the most part after 1054.

I’ve always wondered, born and raised RC and for almost 20 having been knee deep in RC apologetics, I had considered all Roman Councils to be “ecumenical” after the Second Council of Nicaea. But like you said, there was no Eastern representation until Vatican I (maybe some would say the Council of Florence). As I have journeyed East, I don’t believe these to be “ecumenical.”

Do you believe these Roman Councils to be “ecumenical” even though the East was not present? Indeed, Rome did not even begin calling its own general councils “ecumenical” until Robert Bellarmine began doing so, for anti-Reformation polemical purposes, in the 16th century.

ZP

 

[Michael16]

As for the Tome question, @ziapueblo:

That’s really a non sequitur as the Tome was orthodox Christology and the bishops had no reason to complain. Doesn’t shoot down papal primacy or supremacy.

The Council at Chalcedon did acquiesce to Rome, after all.

As for the ecumenical councils: You guys were excommunicated at the time and I’m not sure if you guys sought to be included in councils after 1054. So, yes; I believe the councils were ecumenical.

To be fair, I’m not sure why the post Schism councils were or were not called ecumenical until Saint Robert Bellarmine in the Counter Reformation.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

the papal issue?

Yes, remember all the discussion on whether Peter is jurisdictionally above all others, being a divisive issue from early on, and as held by Orthodox and Protestants? …that elephant that you dogmatically dismiss?

Gotta remember,

Jesus Himself settled this.

What does poimaino ἡγούμενος in Greek mean? Just open the link

shepherd, tend, rule, govern.

AND

poimaino ἡγούμενος is The same Greek word used in both Lk 22:26, and Jn 21:16 and that pertains directly to the authority of Peter.

So

Peter then, in his capacity as THE leader over all , the position/office/chair established by Jesus, says the following to those now being made leaders

HERE

SO

there really is no debate… except in the minds of some.

AND GIVEN

Jesus wants PERFECT ONENESS with His plan, not just a squishy understanding of unity

THAT’S WHY

We see in scripture, disastrous consequences for people who, after being shown the truth, still, deliberately and/or obstinately divide and/or remain divided from His Church. As Jesus said and Paul wrote, such as these , THEY won’t inherit the kingdom of God.

AND

While some will / do argue about this till their dying breath, in reality, what good is it for THEM?

Jesus doesn’t force anyone to follow Jesus

mcq72:

Again preachin to choir…nor does He force saints to go against their convictions and conscience and follow any leaven coming from Peter’s chair, such as his declared jurisdictional supremacy . Indeed do what is right from any chair, even Peter’s but beware of any bad doctrine (leaven) such as supremacy.

For clarification,

As I’ve shown multiple times, in quotes, So you know it’s NOT from me but from scripture and the Church,

THAT

After one receiving knowledge of the truth, and doesn’t remain in union with the Catholic Church and the chair of Peter, or refuses to unite , then, they can’t be saved. IOW they are not going to heaven.

 

[mcq72]

In my talks with the Orthodox and studying their defenses against papal supremacy; they themselves don’t question that Rome was the highest See. None at all.

So do they admit their disobedience then to the highest jurisdictional see…do they still think Rome is the highest see jurisdictionally today ?

 

[mcq72]

As I’ve shown multiple times (Rome’s jurisdictional supremacy), in quotes, So you know it’s NOT from me but from scripture and the Church,

“Again , zero explicit scripture to show that though the apostles, especially Paul and Peter, founded many churches, appointed many bishops/presbyters, that they instructed their churches to obey their (Peter and Paul’S) last see (Rome) after their deaths.”…previous post 773

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

As I’ve shown multiple times (Rome’s jurisdictional supremacy), in quotes, So you know it’s NOT from me but from scripture and the Church,

“Again , zero explicit scripture to show that though the apostles, especially Paul and Peter, founded many churches, appointed many bishops/presbyters, that they instructed their churches to obey their (Peter and Paul’S) last see (Rome) after their deaths.”…previous post 773

Paul was not the pope. Paul was not the leader of the apostles.

 

[mcq72]

What’s your basis for saying Roman primacy was questioned by the fifth century?

what was basis for her saying so in Chietti document ?

 

[ziapueblo]

You guys were excommunicated at the time . . .

Did not both Cardinal Humbert and Ecumenical Patriarch “excommunicate” each other? I think it’s unfair to say “you guys,” but of course, just about everything hinges on the Pope of Rome for “you guys.”

To be fair, I’m not sure why the post Schism councils were or were not called ecumenical until Saint Robert Bellarmine in the Counter Reformation.

I’m guessing in defense against the reformation:

V. PERI, Il numero dei concili ecumenici nella tradizione cattoli-ca moderna, in: Aevum 37 (1963) 430-501.

and

H. J. S IEBEN, Robert Bellarmin und die Zahl der Ökumenischen Konzilien, in: ThPh 61 (1986) 24-59.

As well as, On Councils: Their Nature and Authority by St Robert Bellarmine

ZP

 

[mcq72]

The thing you and the other Protestants misunderstand about the ecclesiology of the early Church was that the Protos of a synod and his synod work together synergistically. Neither the Protos or the synod under him can act without regard for or consent of each other.

yes understand this…just that I did no see all patriarchs then claiming their protos having to be under papal (Rome) protos, if i have my terms right.

your statement actually reflects a little bit of first amongst equals that you also balk at, and not quite a pryamid system.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

First off, you’re dodging the Scripture references I gave and that you haven’t quoted anything to provide evidence for your claim that papal primacy was questioned in the fifth century.

I’ve read the Chieti document and there’s no question of either papal primacy or contesting papal authority in the fifth century.

I asked for references that you have yet to provide.

As for your understanding of ecclesiology; you’re beginning to understand. But, if you read the article that ZP provided; you’ll see an early Church Council in action.

The Pope and his synod condemned Nestorius as a heretic and a Council was called. Rome sent legates with a papal letter expressing the Holy Father’s will to the council and the Tome. Roman legates pushed for the council to accept the Holy Father’s will and they accepted.

The Tome was acclaimed by the assembled bishops and was accepted after being studied before and during the council.

Which, if you examine the acts of Church councils; the assembled bishops under the Holy Father study, examine, and debate the issues and then vote. The assembled bishops in council aren’t rubber stamps like Nazi Germany’s Reichstag after 1933.

The basic Orthodox defense in the article that ZP posted was to argue on exact wording but, regardless of the exact wording; Rome’s will won in the end.

 

[Michael16]

I’m sorry, @ziapueblo that you feel that way. I’m not meaning to hurt you or to be unfair.

As for the lack of an Eastern presence in post 1054 councils, have you found any evidence that we or your bishops asked to be included?

Also, to be fair; I’ll admit that the Council of Florence was a railroad job that forced your delegates to accept things that they probably wouldn’t have if they had the freedom to deliberate honestly. I’m sorry for that too.

As for Saint Robert Bellarmine, if I remember right, he tried to set up or he was asked to participate in ecumenical actions with the Protestants. Or at least, draw up documents for Churchmen to use with them.

Maybe that’s why the Church began to call councils ecumenical?