The Universal Church

[Isaac14]

What part of this statement “highlighted” do you not understand?

“ This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future. ”

The highlighted section, shows the same disagreement is there and continues, with the Orthodox interpretation regarding papal primacy.

Why don’t you quote the sentence prior which says, “The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles?”

The bishops won’t disagree with the quotes given from the 1st 300 yrs of ECF quotes, East and West on papal primacy.

No one will disagree with quotes from the early church fathers, but the matter of interpreting their meaning is certainly up for discussion. Unless, that is, you bring the assumption that the Roman Catholic position is the correct and only interpretation.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

What part of this statement “highlighted” do you not understand?

“ This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future. ”

The highlighted section, shows the same disagreement is there and continues, with the Orthodox interpretation regarding papal primacy.

Why don’t you quote the sentence prior which says, “The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles?”

The bishops won’t disagree with the quotes given from the 1st 300 yrs of ECF quotes, East and West on papal primacy.

No one will disagree with quotes from the early church fathers, but the matter of interpreting their meaning is certainly up for discussion. Unless, that is, you bring the assumption that the Roman Catholic position is the correct and only interpretation.

You keep asking what do YOUR bishops say?

Count the names in these links. How many are bishops?

BTW they are ALL Catholic.

Re: Quotes from the time frame, about Papal Primacy in the 1st 300 yrs as understood by East and West. Some dates slip over into 400. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/primacy-of-rome , AND https://www.catholic.com/tract/peters-primacy , AND What the Early Church Believed: The Authority of the Pope | Catholic Answers

BTW, “ORTHODOX Church[es]” don’t exist at this time in history.

 

[MichaelP3]

I think I have your answer. You are either unable or unwilling to improve your understanding and knowledge of what you are actually posting against. At this very moment I am looking at a copy of the Catechism right beside my bed. I don’t believe in refusing knowledge. It is actually sad you need to refer to Trent which was such an utter embarrassment and stain upon Catholicism. It did a great job of anathematizing anyone and everyone. You are at least right on that part.

On Calvin I still think you will find him interesting. But you don’t even know anything about him except what you are told. You are falling into the very trap you warn against. You seem like an intelligent man. And you also like your references and arguments. He would have agreed with you.

 

[MichaelP3]

You certainly aren’t suggesting types like James White etc are you?

I have actually been wanting to ask? What exactly is your problem with Dr James White? You have referred to him in “this” way before as well.

 

[ziapueblo]

BTW, “ORTHODOX Church[es]” don’t exist at this time in history.

Hogwash! In Vatican II’s document UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO on the section titled, The Special Consideration of the Eastern Churches, we see written:

“Among other matters of great importance, it is a pleasure for this Council to remind everyone that there flourish in the East many particular or local Churches, among which the Patriarchal Churches hold first place, and of these not a few pride themselves in tracing their origins back to the apostles themselves.”

It goes on to say:

“Similarly it must not be forgotten that from the beginning the Churches of the East have had a treasury from which the Western Church has drawn extensively - in liturgical practice, spiritual tradition, and law. Nor must we undervalue the fact that it was the ecumenical councils held in the East that defined the basic dogmas of the Christian faith, on the Trinity, on the Word of God Who took flesh of the Virgin Mary. To preserve this faith these Churches have suffered and still suffer much.”

When the document speaks of the “East” they are speaking of the Orthodox, since this is a document on ecumenism.

The only Catholics I take seriously are Fr’s Hezekias and Sebastian along with Fr Deacon Daniel Dozier, who by the way, would have a pretty good laugh eating a nice bag of popcorn reading all you say about the Orthodox.

ZP

 

[mcq72]

Error has no rights:

Correct, not even tolerated existence back then…and error always has no authority to be followed.

 

[Isaac14]

BTW, “ORTHODOX Church[es]” don’t exist at this time in history.

Steve: direct yes/no question, since, in your mind the Orthodox Church didn’t exist, is the Ecumenical Patriarch deluding himself by tracing his Apostolic succession back to St. Andrew?

 

[mcq72]

this actually means that the East rebelled against Rome?

“Error has no rights”, including Rome’s papal jurisdictional understanding errors. Hence, no real rebelling by East, who otherwise are in full accord with Rome.

“then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, .”…Augustine. Libertas#10

"the right to command and to require obedience exists only so far as it is in accordance with the authority of God,

But when anything is commanded which is plainly at variance with the will of God, there is a wide departure from this divinely constituted order, and at the same time a direct conflict with divine authority; therefore, it is right not to obey". Libertas #30

“As it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights”…Libertas #34

Of course these postulations deal with civil authority yet Jesus makes cross reference to beware of bad doctrine of those in Moses seat. Indeed obey when in accordance to God’s intent otherwise no.

Furthermore, civil and church authority were very intertwined since 4th century, hence lending some credence to applying such words to church governance.

"Thus, it is manifest that man’s best and surest teacher is God, the Source and Principle of all truth;

“And they shall all be taught of God.”"(8) Libertas #26

Of course the above verse is that God himself teaches the individual not withstanding any magistetium. For He says neighbor will not need to teach his neighbor anymore, for God will teach.

Yet we have this in Libertas #24 dealing with with teaching:

“because the authority of teachers has great weight with their hearers, who can rarely decide for themselves as to the truth or falsehood of the instruction given to them.”

This seems contrary to #26.

Libertas 27 goes on to say the church is pillar of truth, without error.

So indeed God teaches thru the church infallibly. The CC acknowledges God also enlightens the individual to CC teaching. The rub is some of #24 is on lay people, that we are not dignified, qualified enough for Godly revelation as acorded more highly in clergy.

In my opinion, this abusive reasoning by church is self serving, setting up the old priesthood and intermediary teacher as in OT, before such widespread pouring out of His Spirit into, into saved flesh, and His baptism in the Holy Ghost took place, as if we have no better covenant.

Hence, those opposed to any CC understanding have no rights, according to darker times and decrees from CC .

http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html

 

[steve-b]

I think I have your answer. You are either unable or unwilling to improve your understanding and knowledge of what you are actually posting against. At this very moment I am looking at a copy of the Catechism right beside my bed. I don’t believe in refusing knowledge. It is actually sad you need to refer to Trent which was such an utter embarrassment and stain upon Catholicism. It did a great job of anathematizing anyone and everyone. You are at least right on that part.

Trent addressed the colossal heresies that came out of the Protestant revolt.

MichaelP3:

On Calvin I still think you will find him interesting. But you don’t even know anything about him except what you are told. You are falling into the very trap you warn against. You seem like an intelligent man. And you also like your references and arguments. He would have agreed with you.

The pillar and foundation of truth is NOT you nor is it me, it is the Church 1 Tim 3:15 . THAT Church is the only Church spoken of, which is the one Jesus said He builds on Peter Mt 16:18-19 and those in perfect union with Peter Jn 17:20-23. THAT is the Catholic Church.

Since you say you have the CCC by your bed, and are reading it, … keep reading

 

[steve-b]

Isaac14:

this actually means that the East rebelled against Rome?

“Error has no rights”, including Rome’s papal jurisdictional understanding errors. Hence, no real rebelling by East, who otherwise are in full accord with Rome.

“then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, .”…Augustine. Libertas#10

"the right to command and to require obedience exists only so far as it is in accordance with the authority of God,

But when anything is commanded which is plainly at variance with the will of God, there is a wide departure from this divinely constituted order, and at the same time a direct conflict with divine authority; therefore, it is right not to obey". Libertas #30

“As it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights”…Libertas #34

Of course these postulations deal with civil authority yet Jesus makes cross reference to beware of bad doctrine of those in Moses seat. Indeed obey when in accordance to God’s intent otherwise no.

Furthermore, civil and church authority were very intertwined since 4th century, hence lending some credence to applying such words to church governance.

"Thus, it is manifest that man’s best and surest teacher is God, the Source and Principle of all truth;

“And they shall all be taught of God.”"(8) Libertas #26

Of course the above verse is that God himself teaches the individual not withstanding any magistetium. For He says neighbor will not need to teach his neighbor anymore, for God will teach.

Yet we have this in Libertas #24 dealing with with teaching:

“because the authority of teachers has great weight with their hearers, who can rarely decide for themselves as to the truth or falsehood of the instruction given to them.”

This seems contrary to #26.

Libertas 27 goes on to say the church is pillar of truth, without error.

So indeed God teaches thru the church infallibly. The CC acknowledges God also enlightens the individual to CC teaching. The rub is some of #24 is on lay people, that we are not dignified, qualified enough for Godly revelation as acorded more highly in clergy.

In my opinion, this abusive reasoning by church is self serving, setting up the old priesthood and intermediary teacher as in OT, before such widespread pouring out of His Spirit into, into saved flesh, and His baptism in the Holy Ghost took place, as if we have no better covenant.

Hence, those opposed to any CC understanding have no rights, according to darker times and decrees from CC .

http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html

And the full context of that encyclical?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

BTW, “ORTHODOX Church[es]” don’t exist at this time in history.

Steve: direct yes/no question, since, in your mind the Orthodox Church didn’t exist, is the Ecumenical Patriarch deluding himself by tracing his Apostolic succession back to St. Andrew?

Andrew didn’t leave Peter.

 

[Isaac14]

Andrew didn’t leave Peter.

Can I infer, then, that your answer is “yes” the Ecumenical Patriarch is deluding himself in tracing his Apostolic succession back to St. Andrew?

 

[Isaac14]

You are either unable or unwilling to improve your understanding and knowledge of what you are actually posting against. At this very moment I am looking at a copy of the Catechism right beside my bed. I don’t believe in refusing knowledge.

I think you bring up an interesting comment Michael. I think both us Protestants and Orthodox would be willing to take Steve’s arguments more seriously if they came from a reading of primary sources rather than a Catholic distillation of such. I can’t even count how many times Steve has made an assertion about us that just doesn’t quite fit with our lived experiences or with our own self-understandings.

 

[gohjedrek]

Ecumenical Patriarch is regarded as the succession from St Andrew the Apostle, don’t see any issues with this.

 

[Isaac14]

Most reasonable people don’t, but when asked a (maybe slightly provocative worded) yes or no question, Steve won’t answer except to say “Andrew didn’t leave Peter”. I do like to understand what he means by that.

 

[mcq72]

And the full context of that encyclical?

Context is the CC is all it, infallible teaching, and all earthly institutions are best when aligned with her thereby being aligned with God. If not to one’s peril.

Actually some of it is good defending of the Gospel, Christianity, really the CC, against humanism, naturalism, even indifferentism etc…

While she is right to cite new (really old) follies in new world order and philosophy, she cites no weakness and folly in what can happen when state and church are in union. She indeed cites good ideals but fails in proper self assesment, in my amateurish opinion.

So like the finger of the hand that rightly points out error in others, wrongly fails to see the other fingers of same hand pointing back critiquingly. She fails to see the incongruities in some of her reasonings. For example in one place she says “error has no rights” yet in another admits God’s plan of allowing error and evil next to truth and righteousness in this earthly dispensation. I would say that qualifies error as having a Godly right to exist, and not to be coerced.

It is a Catholic response to a world going secular (1888), Rome having just giving up its last vestiges of real temporal power in Europe even Italy. The union with the civil sword in the Catholic church’s back pocket was finally gone.( P’s and I suppose O’s had to deal with their own version of this abuse).

Vat 2 was partial attempt to win hearts of men not by presumption of unconditional superior authority but like at the beginning, by reasonable word and deed.

 

[gohjedrek]

Apostolic succession is a part of theology that I am really interested in, when I was anglican, they claimed to have it, but the chain of succession was broken off after the reformation. So, I wanted to look into churches with legitimate apostolic succession.

 

[GKMotley]

If you believe that to be the case, you are correct to be seeking a Church with such succession.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

For example in one place she says “error has no rights” yet in another admits God’s plan of allowing error and evil next to truth and righteousness in this earthly dispensation. I would say that qualifies error as having a Godly right to exist, and not to be coerced.

Right not to be coerced ≠ “error as having a Godly right to exist”

#1 is in re to persons

#2 is in re to idea(s). God positively wills good but tolerates evil.

Please re-read Libertas which I posted earlier.

 

[gohjedrek]

One school of thought is that apostolic succession isn’t important and the other is that it is, and within the others, you have many that claimed to have the succession.