The Universal Church

[steve-b]

steve-b:

he validates that the CC wants an end to schism, however schism is still in place.

And he made the point, which you ignore, that the schism is within the church which rather than one party from another.

Well,

I can also show

1. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned. (20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.

from UR :http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Notice, the apostles condemned such division

Why didn’t you respond to this?

Isaac14:

What is the relevance? We’re talking about the Catholics and Orthodox, not matters internal to the respective churches.

Wait a minute Are you kidding?

WHO were YOU lecturing , when you said So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy. ”

THEN

I showed you YOUR schism
For some context on schism

According to the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Press Service, Archbishop Yevstratiy claimed that Orthodox Christians must choose whether to follow the Russian Orthodox “into schism” or “remain in unity with the Ecumenical Patriarch (Bartholomew I of Constantinople) through the Local Ukrainian Church.” .

internally Excerpted From: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople

AND

You put my name on this statement, when it was YOUR statement. So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy.

AND

@MichaelP3 saw that quote and took it as me saying that. And he commented to me about that statement.

I wonder what MichaelP3 says to you when he finds out it was you not me who said that?

BTW your statement So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy. ” was out of line.

Isaac14:

Feel free to report me, but I stand behind it.

I go directly to the person I need to correct. After that it is up to Them

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

BTW your statement So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy. ” was out of line.

Steve-b. I am really perplexed that YOU would think that.

That was from Isaac14 NOT me.
I called Isaac out on that HERE

Here is where he first said it HERE

Now you know

 

[mcq72]

After all the scripture conversations and history we’ve been through? Yeah I think you know.

Shall I say like Jesus who at the Samaritan well said, " We know what we worship…and in Spirit and truth".

In Spirit and in truth I know that Jesus Christ did not make the Roman Catholic Church necessary for my salvation, as sometimes stated by CC.

I have been miraculously set free from that particular sectarian quagmire, with many more things to be set free from though.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

After all the scripture conversations and history we’ve been through? Yeah I think you know.

Shall I say like Jesus who at the Samaritan well said, " We know what we worship…and in Spirit and truth".

In Spirit and in truth I know that Jesus Christ did not make the Roman Catholic Church necessary for my salvation, as sometimes stated by CC.

I have been miraculously set free from that particular sectarian quagmire, with many more things to be set free from though.

That is your decision.

 

[Isaac14]

You put my name on this statement, when it was YOUR statement. So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy.

AND

@MichaelP3 saw that quote and took it as me saying that. And he commented to me about that statement.

I wonder what MichaelP3 says to you when he finds out it was you not me who said that?

Steve, please point me to where I “put your name on the statement”. I made the statement HERE (post #1950). Your initial response is HERE. You further brought up this statement HERE. I was finally able to respond and provided additional context as to what my “classy” statement meant HERE - read the last paragraph.

@MichaelP3 is welcome to correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe he was reacting to your response to my statement, not assuming that my “classy” statement was made by you.

Again, feel I invite you to report me, though I should point out you have accused me of claiming you made a statement that I never claimed. I clearly stated I made the “classy” statement and provided context for why I said what I did.

THEN

I showed you YOUR schism

Thanks. I’m fully aware of disputes within the Orthodox Church. These dispute are not directly relevant to the Ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church, any more than the existence of sede vacantists has no relevance to that same Ecumenical Dialog.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Re: ziapueblo’s response, AND “UR” , he validates that the CC wants an end to schism, however schism is still in place. So my links I used are still current, in spite of all the personal opinions

No doubt the CC wants an end to the separation between East and West, which, as you state “UR” speaks too. However, CC also acknowledges that the separation is mutual (Rome and the East). These are not my PERSONAL OPINIONS but the OPINION of the CC.

I am just presenting documentation properly referenced and others may do what they wish with it.

ZP

AND

as I’ve shown

The schism is identified, FROM NOT within the Catholic Church,

1. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned. (20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.

from UR :http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

SO

I’ve quoted many times since 04 when I joined CA, the passages from scripture that pertain to that activity and the consequences for those who do it, or keep it going.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You put my name on this statement, when it was YOUR statement. So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy.

AND

@MichaelP3 saw that quote and took it as me saying that. And he commented to me about that statement.

I wonder what MichaelP3 says to you when he finds out it was you not me who said that?

Steve, please point me to where I “put your name on the statement”. I made the statement HERE (post #1950). Your initial response is HERE. You further brought up this statement HERE. I was finally able to respond and provided additional context as to what my “classy” statement meant HERE - read the last paragraph.

@MichaelP3 is welcome to correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe he was reacting to your response to my statement, not assuming that my “classy” statement was made by you.

Again, feel I invite you to report me, though I should point out you have accused me of claiming you made a statement that I never claimed. I clearly stated I made the “classy” statement and provided context for why I said what I did.

THEN

I showed you YOUR schism

Thanks. I’m fully aware of disputes within the Orthodox Church. These dispute are not directly relevant to the Ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church, any more than the existence of sede vacantists has no relevance to that same Ecumenical Dialog.

I was clear in what I said HERE

If you don’t open links, not to mention what followed, you won’t see the point.

In extension, how can you lecture anyone on schism, when the Orthodox themselves, are in major schism from each other.

 

[MichaelP3]

I sometimes wonder why your responses never really correspond to what you are responding to but I think I am starting to understand the problem.

I know perfectly well who made what comment. I was very clearly referring to you thinking it was “out of line” that placed me in a perplexed state. Your lack of understanding that explains almost 2000 posts in this thread.

 

[steve-b]

I sometimes wonder why your responses never really correspond to what you are responding to but I think I am starting to understand the problem.

I know perfectly well who made what comment.

Isaac14, can say that and it is ok, ?

 

[Isaac14]

I was clear in what I said HERE

Yes you were. However, I responded to this later post of yours in which you falsely accuse me of attributing a statement to you that I clearly have owned as my own and have provided additional context as to why I said what I did. You have chosen to ignore that. I have read the entire thread here multiple times.

 

[MichaelP3]

Steve-b. What transpired after my first post on this matter is a prime example that you do not try and understand what is posted and go on an exstensive “posting rampage” to address a “perceived” matter that wasn’t even remotely insinuated in the first place. The way you handled what you perceived to be the situation is telling.

On your question, can you be more specific what you feel was not “ok” as Isaac14 stated what he stated? What specific offence do you feel?

 

[MichaelP3]

Steve-b. You have adopted a style to deflect ponts. Some may fall for it but others see it clearly. We both know you have not in the least even attempted to reply to the point and we both also know as soon as I reply to your deflection (which is the same 4 points you have copied and pasted so many times) that you will attempt to change the focus.

So it is not hard. Just as a human being take some time and reflect on the point and I await your reply. And leave your CAF “reply folder” out in this one. We have seen it all.

 

[ziapueblo]

The schism is identified, FROM NOT within the Catholic Church,

1. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned. (20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.

Sorry, but we Orthodox are part of the one and only Church of God. The separation of East and West is from within the Church, not outside of it. If you choose not to see it, that’s up to you, I just distribute properly referenced material and others can do what they like with it.

ZP

 

[Isaac14]

And in that quote, it says “men of both sides were to blame” further emphasizing it is schism within and not from.

 

[steve-b]

On your question, can you be more specific what you feel was not “ok” as Isaac14 stated what he stated? What specific offence do you feel?

His statement was
So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy.

That comment coming from Isaac14 who knows the Russian Orthodox, who make up ~70% of Orthodoxy, is in schism from Constantinople. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople . And he lectures the CC for the 1000 yr old schism that exists between E Orthodoxy from the CC?

Back in 2002, Cardinal Kasper, then head of ecumenical dialogues for the CC, made this assessment about the Orthodox. It’s interesting that 16 yrs later , that point actually came true, when the Russians boycotted the Pan Orthodox meeting (Link provided above).

Kasper said

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”
From https://zenit.org/articles/the-crisi...rdinal-kasper/

So for Isaac14, to make the statement he made, about the CC, is quite out of line.

 

[steve-b]

Steve-b. You have adopted a style to deflect ponts. Some may fall for it but others see it clearly. We both know you have not in the least even attempted to reply to the point and we both also know as soon as I reply to your deflection (which is the same 4 points you have copied and pasted so many times) that you will attempt to change the focus.

Re: deflection

You just described yourself.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The schism is identified, FROM NOT within the Catholic Church,

1. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned. (20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.

Sorry, but we Orthodox are part of the one and only Church of God. The separation of East and West is from within the Church,

The quote says
" large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church"

an action “the apostle” condemned.

particulars to follow

ziapueblo:

not outside of it. If you choose not to see it, that’s up to you, I just distribute properly referenced material and others can do what they like with it.

It says "separated from full communion with the Catholic Church".

As UR stated That action was condemned by the apostle

"3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.

Which apostle condemned it? Paul. I’ve quoted him tons of times where he says that, on these forums

So

to fix that, what is the apostle saying?

those who are separated FROM the CC, need to return.

 

[mcq72]

Which apostle condemned it? Paul. I’ve quoted him tons of times where he says that, on these forums

Apples and oranges. Paul dealt with realities of his time. You presume future hypotheticals for Paul.

Paul did not deal with those who might not see Peter and the church at Rome as the chosen ones to lead forever. In fact Paul said schism would mean not being in union with himself and all the apostles.

Furthermore he seems to also indicate the foolishness of esteeming one over the other. The CC even recognizes that those churches in " schism" over headship of Rome were really only following apostles who were affiliated with their church, or that they otherwise were very apostolic .

It is very understandable for some to believe that given Paul’s writings, he would abhor and condemn Rome’s claim’ s, much less using his name in the process, as some do.

Rome needs to repent from her power paradigm, in mine,and others better than me, opinion.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Which apostle condemned it? Paul. I’ve quoted him tons of times where he says that, on these forums

Apples and oranges. Paul dealt with realities of his time. You presume future hypotheticals for Paul.

If that is your answer then throw away the entire NT. THAT was then this are NOW. Is THAT your answer?

mcq72:

Paul did not deal with those who might not see Peter and the church at Rome as the chosen ones to lead forever. In fact Paul said schism would mean not being in union with himself and all the apostles.

AND

Jesus prayed for THIS

Jn 17:
20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

It couldn’t be clearer.

1. The apostles are to be perfectly one with Peter as the head, just as Jesus established
2. The Church is to be perfectly one behind that plan as well
3. ZERO division, PERFECT unity, like Jesus and the Father

mcq72:

Furthermore he seems to also indicate the foolishness of esteeming one over the other. The CC even recognizes that those churches in " schism" over headship of Rome were really only following apostles who were affiliated with their church, or that they otherwise were very apostolic .

It is very understandable for some to believe that given Paul’s writings, he would abhor and condemn Rome’s claim’ s, much less using his name in the process, as some do.

Rome needs to repent from her power paradigm, in mine,and others better than me, opinion.

You obviously don’t agree with the meaning of Jesus giving Peter the keys
You obviously don’t agree with Jesus telling Peter in singular tense, to “ ποίμαινε’my sheep" … byproduct of the Keys Peter will get from Jesus

Jesus Speaking to Peter directly there.

Does Jesus restrict which sheep He means for Peter to shepherd, tend, rule, govern? NO

 

[Isaac14]

His statement was
So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy.

@steve-b - your response here is beyond the pale. Let me clearly make a few points and ask you some very direct questions:

• You have falsely accused me of attributing a statement to you that I clearly did not. You have not apologized for, much less even acknowledged, your false accusation. Do you think it is acceptable to bear false witness against another?
• In post number 1968 I provided context for my statement that you have claimed is so offensive. My statement only reflects the Catholic Church’s view of the Orthodox and is not at all directly impacted by any dispute internal to the Orthodox Church. Your only response is to DEFLECT from my claim.

I have stated very clearly that two things can not simultaneously be true:

1. The Catholic Church has no objection to Orthodox Christians receiving Catholic Eucharist per both Canon 844 and the USCCB statement.
2. The Catholic Church considers Orthodox to be guilty of the mortal sin of schism and thus ineligible to receive the Eucharist.

Why would the Catholic Church make the offer in statement 1 if the only means by which an Orthodox Christian can partake is to cease to be an Orthodox Christian (i.e. repent and submit to the Pope). This makes absolutely no sense, which leads me to believe that statement 2, which I have understood is correct based on the properly referenced sources you, Steve, have provided, is in actuality incorrect. Again I ask, have I misinterpreted the properly referenced information you have provided? I have asked this many times of you to ensure I am interpreting correctly and you have never told me I was mistaken. Please also avoid your common deflection in this discussion as the relationship between Russian and Constantinople has absolutely bearing on statements 1 or 2.

So for Isaac14, to make the statement he made, about the CC, is quite out of line.

I’ve said before, and I’ll repeat now, that I fully stand behind my statement. If you continue to think it is out of line, please report me.