The Universal Church

[Isaac14]

I have no problem with with Iranaeus, as i think Orthodox dont either. We do not see any slam dunk evidence for justifying papal supremacy jurisdictionally except by misinterpretation or anochronistically.

Exactly this!

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Paul’s letter to the Romans, was written to the Church of Rome .

He also wrote to other churches like Ephesus, Corinth, Galatia, and Thessalonica . Are they any less Catholic than the Roman church?

Well out of the 5 mentioned

Rome & Thessaloniki still exist

As far as the Catholic Church?

There are Catholic Churches in Thessaloniki .

lanman87:

Sola Roma, Rome Alone was not apostolic teaching. It was developed over centuries.

Jesus made Peter the leader of the apostles therefore leader of the Church. Peter’s see and last see was Rome. THAT is where pope Francis resides, 266th successor to St Peter.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

When Paul wrote His letter to the Church of Rome, in ~55 a.d., this Church had not only already been there, but it’s reputation, Paul had been touting for yrs.

I agree, but he also hadn’t yet visited Rome and was not one of the people who “founded and organized” the church at Rome. I wonder how Irenaeus got it wrong?

When Paul comes to Rome, he expands the Church members as he works. Therefore it can be said, he becomes a founder for what he increases. Not to mention, if his people who came to faith under Paul go to Rome, that also was as a result of Paul’s doing

 

[Isaac14]

Therefore it can be said, he becomes a founder for what he increases.

By whose authority can this be said?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Therefore it can be said, he becomes a founder for what he increases.

By whose authority can this be said?

Interesting question you ask.

You were Protestant and are now Orthodox. BOTH have authority issues.

SO

what’s your answer?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

No one forces you to be divided. That is your personal choice that you make voluntarily.

Well thank you for the obvious, because it has not been always so free in the past, for both of us to lay out division.

There is a time to follow and a time to get thee out. We follow the better part that you had but have forgotten, laid aside, choked out, befuddled.

HuH?

 

[Isaac14]

Interesting question you ask.

You were Protestant and are now Orthodox. BOTH have authority issues.

SO

what’s your answer?

And an interesting dodge on your part.

My question for you, stated differently, is how does increasing numbers turn one into a founder?

While I was lay leader of my mission parish (in between assigned priests (at least assuming you think Orthodox Priests are valid priests)), the parish grew in part through my active leadership. Does that make me a founder of the mission even though I wasn’t there when it was founded?

 

[mcq72]

You were Protestant and are now Orthodox. BOTH have authority issues

This is false accusation. We all are built to follow authority, and we all do.

You simply have a problem with what we don’t follow, the pope. You also misunderstand what we do follow. You also don’ t see the problem with what you follow, your “authority”, thus having your own authority problem.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Irenaeus was from the East. Smyrna, his home town, is in today, Turkey. Same as Bp Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of St John the apostle. Bp Ignatius was from Antioch, that is in Syria, which as you know is in the East. Ignatius was also a direct disciple of John the apostle. Irenaeus came West and became bishop of Lyon, (France). This East / West division we see later, wasn’t the issue THEN .

I aggree with this, as I read his origins and places of ministry. True east/ west wasnt a thing yet, not even politically yet. What was political was Rome being the center of civilazation, power,influence etc . Tough to push this aside by saying it didnt affect the church in its power jurisdictional plight.

The Church for 300 yrs was under massive attack from the state (Rome)

Most of the popes for 300 yrs were martyred along with untold rank and file Catholics .

The persecution ended when Constantine ended it.

mcq72:

I mean is it coincidence that when civil Rome split east / west the church began to also? Are we reading into Iranaeus a bit more to this Rome supremacy beyond Peter and Paul having founded the church (which they did not)? Is Iranaeus buying into or using to his advantage against empire spread gnosticism the glory that was Rome? Certainly a temptation, and one that would bear out later in history.

The split came over authority issues. As Jesus said back in the upper room, to His apostles, that Satan demanded to sift you (all of them) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singular) Simon, that YOUR faith won’t fail, when you recover from your testing, strengthen your brothers.

Satan was up to his old tricks. He got the Eastern bishops into an authority push. THEY think they become equal to the chair of Peter.
mca72:

One must also not be so narrow to only an east west dynamic, for there were certainly more than just two patriarchs that developed ( 4?).

Card Ratzinger, under JPII, wrote Re: First among Equals

1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. 4. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

[Isaac14]

Most of the popes for 300 yrs were martyred along with untold rank and file Catholics .

Were any Christians martyred or was it just Catholics?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Most of the popes for 300 yrs were martyred along with untold rank and file Catholics .

Were any Christians martyred or was it just Catholics?

Then, if they were Christian, they were Catholic

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Interesting question you ask.

You were Protestant and are now Orthodox. BOTH have authority issues.

SO

what’s your answer?

And an interesting dodge on your part.

My question for you, stated differently, is how does increasing numbers turn one into a founder?

While I was lay leader of my mission parish (in between assigned priests (at least assuming you think Orthodox Priests are valid priests)), the parish grew in part through my active leadership. Does that make me a founder of the mission even though I wasn’t there when it was founded?

In the beginning,

Peter and Paul specialized in their ministry
Paul had difficulties with Jews who tried to kill him, so he focused on Gentiles.

 

[Isaac14]

It shows the first time the name Catholic Church appears in writing , and by whom said it,

But you have yet to prove that this particular use of the term “Catholic Church” by Sts. Irenaeus & Ignatius is synonymous with today’s Roman Catholic Church.

Before you say it, yes, I have read your links. Multiple times. I suspect you assume I haven’t read them because I don’t immediately change my mind and agree to your opinion on what these two Saints are saying.

 

[Isaac14]

In the beginning,

Peter and Paul specialized in their ministry
Paul had difficulties with Jews who tried to kill him, so he focused on Gentiles.

But that doesn’t answer the question of how “increasing the numbers” makes one a founder of something that already exists.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

In the beginning,

Peter and Paul specialized in their ministry
Paul had difficulties with Jews who tried to kill him, so he focused on Gentiles.

But that doesn’t answer the question of how “increasing the numbers” makes one a founder of something that already exists.

Jesus dies in 33 a.d.

If Paul writes to the Church of Rome in ~55 a.d. That’s only 22 yrs after the Church EVERYWHERE is started.

point being, the Church is in it’s absolute infancy EVERYWHERE

So

Where ever, Paul works, he’s a founder.

 

[mcq72]

Satan was up to his old tricks. He got the Eastern bishops into an authority push. THEY think they become equal to the chair of Peter.

Yes, we understand this age old Catholic stance.

I also think you understand the opposing stance, that “Satan was up to his old tricks. He got the” western
“bishops into an authority push. They think they” are above the other patriarchs.

 

[mcq72]

Where ever, Paul works, he’s a founder

"Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:

“This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you.”… because he was preaching where none had gone before, not where they had already heard (Rome).

You totally go agaisnt Paul’s specific words.

 

[lanman87]

Who told you that? Reference?

Greek NT Manuscripts - Biblical Manuscripts - ResearchGuides at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Irenaeus was a Catholic Bishop. He was in full communion with the chair of Peter. Peter’s last see was Rome. Therefore, THAT is the context of Irenaeus mentioning Rome. Because that is where Peter’s succession comes from, for the bishops who follow Peter.

Unless of course, he didn’t actually write what is attributed to him.

Irenaeus was from the East.

Irrelevant, can you show any of his contemporaries who repeat or expound on what he is being attributed as saying?

 

[lanman87]

So

Where ever, Paul works, he’s a founder.

Nice wordplay. He wasn’t there for 22 years but he is still a founder. Founder means, one who establishes or starts something. You can’t start or establish something that is 22 years old.

 

[ziapueblo]

Jesus made Peter the leader of the apostles therefore leader of the Church.

Saint Irenaeus is writing to refute the teachings of the Gnostics. Do you know why? Because the Gnostics were boasting that they had a more perfect knowledge of truth. So, Saint Irenaeus, in order to disprove their claims, appealed to the “tradition which is of the Apostles, which is guarded by the successions of Presbyters in the Churches”
He goes onto say that the “tradition of the Apostles is made manifest throughout the world in EVERY CHURCH, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these . . . For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up THEIR OWN PLACE OF GOVERNMENT to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.”

ZP

continued . . .