The Universal Church

[mcq72]

Soooooo what does THAT say to you?

To me? That CC should repent of her causing division. That Protestants should repent for her part of any division…etc.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The people I quote have authority.

So you are hiding behind someone else’s authority, thinking that their words need no explanation and the point is fully clear?

I respect their authority. I don’t hide from it.
Issac14:

Yet when I ask you simple questions like … “preeminent authority” … how can the Pope call Orthodox his brothers and sisters who share the same faith in our Lord, while you claim the sources say Orthodox are in schism due to Satan, what am I supposed to think?

1. until separation is actually corrected schism still exists. Therefore, separated brethren, means what it says. Brothers that are separated, not together in a way that is meant to be together.
   Since I don’t make the rules, nor define, consequences for that sin of (schism), nor do I exercise the penalty for that sin… I merely quote the sources, for all that information, then leave it at that.
2. Scripture shows, Satan is the origin of sin in the world. He is the tempter. From Adam and Eve to the LAST Adam and Eve… Satan is and will be, the tempter. When the apostles were in an argument over who is the greatest among THEM, who did Jesus say is behind that sifting? Satan. AND the apostles fell for it.

AND

Jesus wants perfect unity, Jn 17:20-23 So Jesus said Satan is behind the sifting. Lk 22:31=32

Which is what Paul said about this sin διχοστασίαι context Rom 16:17-20 and who did Paul say at the end of his point, was prompting that sin? Satan

SO

As far as kata holos ekklesia being translated as Catholic Church,

Where do you think

Two 1st century ECF’s, Ignatius and Polycarp, both get the name in writing, the Church they are in and write about , is the Catholic Church.?

AND

Where is the push back to that name if it is not true?

After THEM,

came a whole host of writers who also identified the Church as the Catholic Church. Not to mention in the 4th century, At the Council of Nicaea, believing in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, is made an article of faith EVERYWHERE.

So

Going back to the 1st century, show me IN WRITING, properly referenced, where there was ANY disagreement from ANYONE on the use of this name Catholic Church ?

Don’t dodge that question.

Re: quotes

I quote to show where the authority comes from that I defend

Since

Believe = faith …true?

AND

When I say at Mass,

I Believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church,

THEN

I’m merely demonstrating by using key references, from great sources, what that faith means

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Soooooo what does THAT say to you?

To me? That CC should repent of her causing division. That Protestants should repent for her part of any division…etc.

1 of many examples of the pope apologizing for past sins

St. JPII the Great, apologizes to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I for the sacking of Constantinople , in 1204 , by Catholic Crusaders. Bartholomew accepts the apology News Features | Catholic Culture

That said

While Bartholomew was standing there, where was his apology for 22 years earlier in 1182, in Constantinople for the Byzantine Massacre of Latins in Constantinople

Silence. Dead silence.

As an aside

The crusaders were NOT supposed to do ANYTHING to Constantinople. They got drawn into a foolish agreement to put the deposed past leader of Constantinople back into power for a large sum of money which he didn’t pay. Ergo the sacking of Constantinople took place. NOTHING there was approved by the Church.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

If you read THEM, then you would be criticizing THEM.

But are you not interpreting the meaning of what you quote to make a specific point?

I think it more like, you don’t want to accept the obvious points that THEY make

 

[Isaac14]

I think it more like, you don’t want to accept the obvious points that THEY make

In essence you’re saying I’m not smart enough to comprehend plain English and ask questions of others to ensure we’re all interpreting correctly. Got it.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I think it more like, you don’t want to accept the obvious points that THEY make

In essence you’re saying I’m not smart enough to comprehend plain English and ask questions of others to ensure we’re all interpreting correctly. Got it.

Is that what this is about? You have trouble understanding English?

 

[Isaac14]

Is that what this is about? You have trouble understanding English?

Wow…just…wow.

No Steve, this is about you assuming that there is only one possible interpretation what you quote and dismissing anyone that may read the texts differently

 

[mcq72]

1 of many examples of the pope apologizing for past sins

Well, that could be like me apologizing or explaining for one of thirty thousand divisions, with twenty nine thousand plus more to go.

As bad as poor practices and deeds are in sins of division, the context more often of division is one of doctrine. That is the bigger game for Satan as you rightly point out, and bigger need for repentance as I point out.

By the way, couldn’t help but notice your post kind of said the pope apoligized, yet the church did nothing wrong, while the Orthodox patriarch did not apologize…still seems like you can not escape the us vs them in dealing with one’s church’s sin…like always have to remain one up, first string etc.

But thank you for pointing out an important apology of that time.

 

[Isaac14]

1. until separation is actually corrected schism still exists. Therefore, separated brethren , means what it says. Brothers that are separated, not together in a way that is meant to be together .
   Since I don’t make the rules, nor define, consequences for that sin of (schism), nor do I exercise the penalty for that sin… I merely quote the sources, for all that information, then leave it at that.
2. Scripture shows, Satan is the origin of sin in the world. He is the tempter. From Adam and Eve to the LAST Adam and Eve… Satan is and will be, the tempter. When the apostles were in an argument over who is the greatest among THEM, who did Jesus say is behind that sifting? Satan. AND the apostles fell for it.

AND

Jesus wants perfect unity, Jn 17:20-23 So Jesus said Satan is behind the sifting. Lk 22:31=32

Which is what Paul said about this sin διχοστασίαι context Rom 16:17-20 and who did Paul say at the end of his point, was prompting that sin? Satan

All I will say is that Pope Francis has stated it is a grave sin to proselytize the Orthodox. That being the case, I have a hard time believing Satan is behind the schism of the Orthodox. Behind the obstinate folks in BOTH churches who maintain the schism, perhaps.

As far as kata holos ekklesia being translated as Catholic Church,

Where do you think

Two 1st century ECF’s, Ignatius and Polycarp, both get the name in writing, the Church they are in and write about , is the Catholic Church.?

AND

Where is the push back to that name if it is not true?

I have consistently asked whether these references are naming the INSTITUTION (i.e. the church organization), or whether they are describing the NATURE of the church (e.g. stating the Church contains the fullness of faith). No more, no less. No one argues that the term “Catholic Church” appears in the writings of these saints. Having read the examples you’ve provided from Sts. Irenaeus and Igantius, the context does not make it clear which is the case.

When I say at Mass,

I Believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church,

THEN

I’m merely demonstrating by using key references, from great sources, what that faith means

The Orthodox state and believe the exact same thing.

 

[MichaelP3]

I think it more like, you don’t want to accept the obvious points that THEY make

So you think it is all “OBVIOUS”? Is that at least an opinion from you that you can admit to?

 

[mcq72]

When the apostles were in an argument over who is the greatest among THEM, who did Jesus say is behind that sifting? Satan. AND the apostles fell for it.

Actually we still fall for it whenever one claims jurisdiction to rule over more than to serve, when we establish a kingdom and key holders living in palaces that the King Himself never had while serving. Jesus said we would not be like the worldly princes who benefit from the people to show their pomp and glory.(folks from a few churches have done this)

While you correctly site Peter as being specifically sifted and restored, as he was the unproclaimed leader, all the apostles were sifted and restored, and all would sit and judge in the kingdom to come upon His second return. (Jesus did not say Peter would have a better seat.) That is when our Lord will sit in a palace, and we should not do so now even if we claim to stand for Him in His absence. That is falling for that same “who is the greatest” trap again (by the way, a kissing cousin is the “preeminence” term). This can happen in any church.

But, you claim the CC insists Jesus made Peter the greatest, and only his successors, and that it is posited in scripture and tradition. Others insist that this is wrestling scripture and tradition to the destruction of at least unity.

When we see someone acting like Pentecost Peter, or Paul no more Saul, indeed we should follow their example and teaching.The apostles had teaching authority in such office enough, without adding to it, or establishing, mimicking the world.

 

[Wannano]

steve-b:

When the apostles were in an argument over who is the greatest among THEM, who did Jesus say is behind that sifting? Satan. AND the apostles fell for it.

Actually we still fall for it whenever one claims jurisdiction to rule over more than to serve, when we establish a kingdom and key holders living in palaces that the King Himself never had while serving. Jesus said we would not be like the worldly princes who benefit from the people to show their pomp and glory.(folks from a few churches have done this)

While you correctly site Peter as being specifically sifted and restored, as he was the unproclaimed leader, all the apostles were sifted and restored, and all would sit and judge in the kingdom to come upon His second return. (Jesus did not say Peter would have a better seat.) That is when our Lord will sit in a palace, and we should not do so now even if we claim to stand for Him in His absence. That is falling for that same “who is the greatest” trap again (by the way, a kissing cousin is the “preeminence” term). This can happen in any church.

But, you claim the CC insists Jesus made Peter the greatest, and only his successors, and that it is posited in scripture and tradition. Others insist that this is wrestling scripture and tradition to the destruction of unity.

When we see someone acting like Pentecost Peter, or Paul no more Saul, indeed we should follow their example and teaching.The apostles had teaching authority in such office enough, without adding to it, or establishing ,mimicking the world.

I think what you have been inspired to write here sums up exactly what has transpired in Christendom through the centuries.

“Even so, come Lord Jesus.”

 

[mcq72]

I think what you have been inspired to write here sums up exactly what has transpired in Christendom through the centuries.

“Even so, come Lord Jesus.”

thank you…encouraging words you have…and if we bicker amongst ourselves, then let every man be a "liar’’ (off the mark somehow), and only God be true, His name not besmirched ever.

PS…i had just read Calvin’s commentary on Luke 22 and so some inspiration came to him first on this, or at least before me

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

1 of many examples of the pope apologizing for past sins

Well, that could be like me apologizing or explaining for one of thirty thousand divisions, with twenty nine thousand plus more to go.

As bad as poor practices and deeds are in sins of division, the context more often of division is one of doctrine. That is the bigger game for Satan as you rightly point out, and bigger need for repentance as I point out.

By the way, couldn’t help but notice your post kind of said the pope apoligized, yet the church did nothing wrong, while the Orthodox patriarch did not apologize…still seems like you can not escape the us vs them in dealing with one’s church’s sin…like always have to remain one up, first string etc.

But thank you for pointing out an important apology of that time.

To your points

In Protestantism , NO ONE speaks for your belief system. So I understand that you can’t wrap your head around primacy of authority that Jesus established

OTOH

The pope speaks for all Catholics world wide. You have no concept of that unity. But that is the unity Jesus wants and prayed, for His Church.

AND

to your other point

The Crusaders went off the rails. They had no authority from the Church to do what they did. In fact THEN pope Innocent, when he got the news of what the Crusaders did, he excommunicated all the crusaders who participated in that event.

So yes, pope St JPII the Great, apologized for an event the Church did NOT approve of. That said, the Crusaders by definition represented the Church. They weren’t a bunch of non Catholic individuals, they were Catholics, and they were supposed to represent the Church. And they didn’t. So the pope apologized for their actions.

AND

What the Crusaders did in sacking Constantinople, was in fact, a fraction of the offense the Byzantines did to Latins in Constantinople, 22 yrs earlier.

SO

Did the Byzantines in Constantinople in 1182, murdering 50,000 Latins, speak for all the Orthodox ? NO
THEY did THAT on their own.

Yet

Bishop Ware, an Orthodox bishop, in that link provided, said an Orthodox apology was in order.

However

in the Orthodox system, the EP Can’t speak authoritatively for all the Orthodox unless he takes a vote among all the divisions within Orthodoxy and THEY agree with what is to be said.

AND

The optics would have been good for the EP to apologize for that event in 1182…even though the title 1st among equals, which he has, doesn’t carry such authority for him to do that unless he has the vote

 

[steve-b]

1. until separation is actually corrected schism still exists. Therefore, separated brethren , means what it says. Brothers that are separated, not together in a way that is meant to be together .
   Since I don’t make the rules, nor define, consequences for that sin of (schism), nor do I exercise the penalty for that sin… I merely quote the sources, for all that information, then leave it at that.
2. Scripture shows, Satan is the origin of sin in the world. He is the tempter. From Adam and Eve to the LAST Adam and Eve… Satan is and will be, the tempter. When the apostles were in an argument over who is the greatest among THEM, who did Jesus say is behind that sifting? Satan. AND the apostles fell for it.

AND

Jesus wants perfect unity, Jn 17:20-23 So Jesus said Satan is behind the sifting. Lk 22:31=32

Which is what Paul said about this sin διχοστασίαι context Rom 16:17-20 and who did Paul say at the end of his point, was prompting that sin? Satan

Isaac14:

All I will say is that Pope Francis has stated it is a grave sin to proselytize the Orthodox.

Pope Francis is opposed to proselytism. He is NOT opposed to evangelization

How does he identify proselytism?
Key: tactics to avoid,
Deception, Force, coercion, emotional manipulation, threats, bribery
Or another inappropriate tactics
Don’t Violate free choice
Using motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel;

If one doesn’t use the above tactics they aren’t proselytizing​

From: Pope Francis on “Proselytism” | Catholic Answers

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

When the apostles were in an argument over who is the greatest among THEM, who did Jesus say is behind that sifting? Satan. AND the apostles fell for it.

Actually we still fall for it whenever one claims jurisdiction to rule over more than to serve, when we establish a kingdom and key holders living in palaces that the King Himself never had while serving. Jesus said we would not be like the worldly princes who benefit from the people to show their pomp and glory.(folks from a few churches have done this)

While you correctly site Peter as being specifically sifted and restored, as he was the unproclaimed leader, all the apostles were sifted and restored, and all would sit and judge in the kingdom to come upon His second return. (Jesus did not say Peter would have a better seat.) That is when our Lord will sit in a palace, and we should not do so now even if we claim to stand for Him in His absence. That is falling for that same “who is the greatest” trap again (by the way, a kissing cousin is the “preeminence” term). This can happen in any church.

But, you claim the CC insists Jesus made Peter the greatest, and only his successors, and that it is posited in scripture and tradition. Others insist that this is wrestling scripture and tradition to the destruction of unity.

Jesus most certainly made Peter the greatest among the other apostles.

ALL the writings of the ECF’S writing about this issue, were writing against heretics of their day who didn’t believe Jesus set up His hierarchy with Peter as head.

mcq72:

When we see someone acting like Pentecost Peter, or Paul no more Saul, indeed we should follow their example and teaching.The apostles had teaching authority in such office enough, without adding to it, or establishing ,mimicking the world.

Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. Jesus gave Peter his office. Just as Judas was replace when he died, so Peter was replaced when he died, Peter and his successors, THEY are the leader over all. The Catholic Church can show that continuous succession

 

[Isaac14]

Pope Francis is opposed to proselytism. He is NOT opposed to evangelization

Although he uses the term proselytize, to me he seems to be speaking more broadly:

“But what should I do with a friend, neighbor, an Orthodox person? Be open, be a friend. ‘But should I make efforts to convert him or her?’ There is a very grave sin against ecumenism: proselytism. We should never proselytize the Orthodox! They are our brothers and sisters, disciples of Jesus Christ.”

Am I understanding you correctly that the Pope here is saying but you should still evangelize the Orthodox?

 

[mcq72]

In Protestantism , NO ONE speaks for your belief system. So I understand that you can’t wrap your head around primacy of authority that Jesus established…The pope speaks for all Catholics world wide. You have no concept of that unity. But that is the unity Jesus wants and prayed, for His Church…

Well, I could ask if a Catholic can wrap their head around a theocracy, such as Israel had, before they wrapped their head around having a visible king, as is very popular in worldly terms? I mean I often hear Catholics ask how one (P’s and O’s) can get along without a visible head bishop, as if otherwise we would all be wandering and even orphaned.

Again, i think we have all experienced a top down hierarchy in one form or another in this world to understand Catholic papacy.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Pope Francis is opposed to proselytism. He is NOT opposed to evangelization

Although he uses the term proselytize, to me he seems to be speaking more broadly:

“But what should I do with a friend, neighbor, an Orthodox person? Be open, be a friend. ‘But should I make efforts to convert him or her?’ There is a very grave sin against ecumenism: proselytism. We should never proselytize the Orthodox! They are our brothers and sisters, disciples of Jesus Christ.”

Am I understanding you correctly that the Pope here is saying but you should still evangelize the Orthodox?

Objectively speaking, we are talking about schism

Q’s:​

Is schism NOW, in our day and age, any different than schism has always been represented and described in scripture and Tradition?

Is schism now, no big deal anymore? Just forget about it? Do NOTHING about it? Say nothing about it?

AND

If that is the case…NOW

WHY the ONGOING discussions/dialogues the CC has had over the last 1000 yrs with the Orthodox over ecclesiastical / theological matters with the intent/purpose of reunity not just sharing ideas.?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

In Protestantism , NO ONE speaks for your belief system. So I understand that you can’t wrap your head around primacy of authority that Jesus established…The pope speaks for all Catholics world wide. You have no concept of that unity. But that is the unity Jesus wants and prayed, for His Church…

Well, I could ask if a Catholic can wrap their head around a theocracy, such as Israel had, before they wrapped their head around having a visible king, as is very popular in worldly terms? I mean I often hear Catholics ask how one (P’s and O’s) can get along without a visible head bishop, as if otherwise we would all be wandering and even orphaned.

Again, i think we have all experienced a top down hierarchy in one form or another in this world to understand Catholic papacy.

Who set up the office of Peter? Who gave Peter the keys to the kingdom? What is the purpose of the keys? Who said this kingdom. that is being built, not even the gates of hell will prevail against it?

It’s Jesus who establishes this. And it’s NOT going away