What do you think is the biggest obstacle to unity between Catholic Christians and non–Catholic Christians?

[ferdie]

Primox;5240706]
I don’t reject the Pope as a man of authority on matters of faith and even a great benefactor of the faith – perhaps the greatest (there’s a surprise, huh?). But there is nothing, to me, necessary in that his authority should prevail over other Godly individuals. I just haven’t seen good evidence for believing it.

It is nice to know that you don’t reject the Pope as a man of authority.
Perhaps you should ponder some more on this:
"If he refuse to hear even to the Church, let hem be you as the heathen and the publican.
When other Godly individuals and leaders, and the Catholic Church do not agree on matters of faith and morals, who should we go to settle the difference? Who should be the final arbiter, who should we trust to be led by the Holy Spirit?
I personally know of Godly men who believes in abortion Godly men who believe in divorce, Godly men who do not believe in the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.Now putting into mind the words of St John the Apostle ‘not to trust any and every spirit but to test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for amongst those who have gone out into world there are many prophets, falsely inspired’.‘We (the early church bishops) belong to God and a man who knows God listens to us, while he who does not belong to God refuses us (the early church bishops) a hearing. That is how we distinguish the spirit of truth from the spirit of error’.

I’ve seen enough of it to believe that, with faith, those things are possible. What do you believe God does today?

I’m happy for you that you witness this kind of things, and you are right with faith those things are possible.

 

[twohumble]

Ferdie/Mick and others

I like Ferdies reasoning about Jesus’s teaching being infallible. She then reasons that since Jesus gave the Great Commission to his Apostles that they too taught infallibly. Yet, we know from scripture that was not true. Peter and Paul discussed, and even argued about certain points. Peter was fallling into line with the “Judeizers” and Paul rebuked him. Apollos was not quite right on his teaching and he was brought to the house of Pricilla and Aquilla and they set him straight.

I see no precedent in scripture to imply the Aposltes were ‘infallible’ except as a group, and except in their inspired writting.

What I mean by a group is this: God will protect his doctrines and teaching, and just as iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another.
Each man (apostle) was subject to his brother, as we are in the church. Each man was open to correction by scripture and Jesus’s teaching…(.in those days, it was present in eye witness form, by a host of people, and written letters later canonized were being circulated within a decade, or two after Jesus death). In Timothy we read that all scripture is perfect and useful for teaching, rebuking and generally correcting bad or improper understanding.
In using this line of thought, Peter was clearly rebuked by Paul about his ideas in some areas, and he agreed and changed his mind. He was not infallible.

Have you read your own history of how this doctrine came about?
Almost half of the Cardinals did not attend the Vatican meeting where the Pope brought this to a vote. Of those that did, close to half obstained. The rest voted for it. (they were the butt kissers).

You see, it was bad form, even before infallibility was coined, to disagree with the pope. So, almost 3/4’s of the Cardinals just didn’t show or obstained. An overwhelming number of the Catholic leaders of that time did not agree with this doctrine. Yet, the Roman Catholics are stuck, with yet another ball and chain to now justify and deal with.
It is a boon around the neck of the church, whether the church realizes it or not.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Ferdie/Mick and others

I like Ferdies reasoning about Jesus’s teaching being infallible. She then reasons that since Jesus gave the Great Commission to his Apostles that they too taught infallibly. Yet, we know from scripture that was not true. Peter and Paul discussed, and even argued about certain points. Peter was fallling into line with the “Judeizers” and Paul rebuked him. Apollos was not quite right on his teaching and he was brought to the house of Pricilla and Aquilla and they set him straight.

I see no precedent in scripture to imply the Aposltes were ‘infallible’ except as a group, and except in their inspired writting.

What I mean by a group is this: God will protect his doctrines and teaching, and just as iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another.
Each man (apostle) was subject to his brother, as we are in the church. Each man was open to correction by scripture and Jesus’s teaching…(.in those days, it was present in eye witness form, by a host of people, and written letters later canonized were being circulated within a decade, or two after Jesus death). In Timothy we read that all scripture is perfect and useful for teaching, rebuking and generally correcting bad or improper understanding.
In using this line of thought, Peter was clearly rebuked by Paul about his ideas in some areas, and he agreed and changed his mind. He was not infallible.

Have you read your own history of how this doctrine came about?
Almost half of the Cardinals did not attend the Vatican meeting where the Pope brought this to a vote. Of those that did, close to half obstained. The rest voted for it. (they were the butt kissers).

You see, it was bad form, even before infallibility was coined, to disagree with the pope. So, almost 3/4’s of the Cardinals just didn’t show or obstained. An overwhelming number of the Catholic leaders of that time did not agree with this doctrine. Yet, the Roman Catholics are stuck, with yet another ball and chain to now justify and deal with.
It is a boon around the neck of the church, whether the church realizes it or not.

** In Timothy we read that all scripture is perfect and useful for teaching, rebuking and generally correcting bad or improper understanding.**

and who do you think wrote this Scripture? when was this written? do you trust this to be True? if these men are fallible, what makes you think these Words are True?

how can you trust in SS at all, if you think all those who wrote them are all fallible?

** Never before has there been so much learning, and yet so little knowledge of the truth**.

 

[twohumble]

** In Timothy we read that all scripture is perfect and useful for teaching, rebuking and generally correcting bad or improper understanding.**

and who do you think wrote this Scripture? when was this written? do you trust this to be True? if these men are fallible, what makes you think these Words are True?

how can you trust in SS at all, if you think all those who wrote them are all fallible?

** Never before has there been so much learning, and yet so little knowledge of the truth**.

and who do you think wrote this Scripture? *Paul wrote it *

when was this written? 62 AD

do you trust this to be True? **Absolutely **

if these men are fallible, what makes you think these Words are True? because scripture is infallible, and when they wrote, it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. That does not mean at all times, or in all things they are infallible. Not even catholics claim this for the Pope

Why would you equate my believe in scriptural authority and infallibility with some notion that I believe these men infallible outside of of scriptural inspiration?

Since in Revelation we see ‘this is complete, nothing needs added, nor subracted, and to do so is anathema’, I reject modern apostles, like the LDS, or the idea of prophesy (not in the teaching sense of the word, but the ‘future prediction’ sense of the word) as some form of Holy Spirit driven revelation.

Does this make sense?

 

[Bob_McKissick]

When I was bouncing back and forth between born again fundamentalist churches, baptist church and the Iglesia Ni Kristo, I noticed one particular thing that was common to these churches I attended, they all have some kind of hatred against the Catholic Church, but you know what, I NEVER heard any member or leaders spoke against the Orthodox Church. So I put this in consideration when I was researching the Church History.
I too had a problem with Infallibility when I was reading Church History, it seems arrogant for the Church to claim that. It took me a while to accept it, but I was able to accept it. I reasoned this way:

1.Jesus sent His Apostles with full power to preach the gospel.

“As the Father has sent me, so I send you”.

“Make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

Jesus taught without error and He commanded the Apostles to teach until the end of the age. The only way they can teach all truth until the end of time is if they pass the same authority they received. It was physically impossible for the Apostles to preach to the whole world, so Jesus must have intended the authority to be passed down to the successors of the Apostles to the end of time.
The authority given to the Apostles and their successors came from Jesus whom he receive from the Father. That authority to teach all truth is guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by our Lord.

1. Jesus Christ said, " He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe shall be condemned."

“If he refuse to hear even to the Church, let hem be you as the heathen and the publican.”

“He who hears you hears me; and he who rejects you ejects me; and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

“And whoever does not receive you, or listen to your words- go forth outside and of the house or town, and shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that town”.

These are strong words for those who do not believe in the authority of people sent by Jesus. Our God is a just God who could not command men under penalty of damnation to believe what is not true. So the teaching of the Church must be infallibly true to lead men to salvation.

Saint John told us ‘not to trust any and every spirit but to test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for amongst those who have gone out into world there are many prophets, falsely inspire’.

He even told us how to test the spirits: ‘We (the early church bishops) belong to God and a man who knows God listens to us, while he who does not belong to God refuses us (the early church bishops) a hearing. That is how we distinguish the spirit of truth from the spirit of error’.

Very well said!!! bob

 

[SSTeacher]

Ferdie/Mick and others

I like Ferdies reasoning about Jesus’s teaching being infallible. She then reasons that since Jesus gave the Great Commission to his Apostles that they too taught infallibly. Yet, we know from scripture that was not true. Peter and Paul discussed, and even argued about certain points. Peter was fallling into line with the “Judeizers” and Paul rebuked him. Apollos was not quite right on his teaching and he was brought to the house of Pricilla and Aquilla and they set him straight.

I considered this point at some length. The Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility comes under the category of “development of doctrine” and therefore necessarily has to be retroactive. So I could see no way of aligning Saint Peter’s huge mistake with the notion that he had a gift of infallibility unless I were to allow that his mistake didn’t have anything to do with faith or morals. Since that clearly wasn’t the case I couldn’t see any way past the difficulty and so I had no option but to conclude that the doctrine of papal infallibilty was an infallible fallacy.

I see no precedent in scripture to imply the Apostles were ‘infallible’ except as a group, and except in their inspired writting.

What I mean by a group is this: God will protect his doctrines and teaching, and just as iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another.
Each man (apostle) was subject to his brother, as we are in the church. Each man was open to correction by scripture and Jesus’s teaching…(.in those days, it was present in eye witness form, by a host of people, and written letters later canonized were being circulated within a decade, or two after Jesus death). In Timothy we read that all scripture is perfect and useful for teaching, rebuking and generally correcting bad or improper understanding.

That’s a reasoned argument.

In using this line of thought, Peter was clearly rebuked by Paul about his ideas in some areas, and he agreed and changed his mind. He was not infallible.

I agree. Mind you, I think the Catholic response to this is that Saint Peter didn’t actually know he was the first pope. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26) and I think the term “Catholic” was first coined by Saint Ignatius of Antioch around 107 AD. If there was no formal papacy it follows that there could be no ex cathedra statement. If there is no ex cathedra stipulation a pope is as prone to human error as any other human being and can make a mistake on a question of faith and morals in his thinking, in his private conversations or even in a public statement. As I understand the doctrine, it is only when the papal utterance is formally stipulated to be an ex cathedra statement that it can correctly be referenced as such.

So, for a Catholic, Saint Peter’s mistake is no big deal. Any pope could have made the same mistake or one similar. Indeed, in theory, an average of a hundred thousand doctrinal mistakes in the life of every pope would never impinge upon the validity or veracity of the doctrine of papal infalliblity. That’s because if there is no ex cathedra stipulation there is no infallibility.

It seems to me, though, that the problem for non–Catholic Christians is that this is not the way most Catholics tend to understand the doctrine or argue in its defense. Generally, they seem to argue that the doctrine of papal infallibility is necessary because otherwise, “How can you be sure of anything?” It’s an effective argument until you push it a little whereupon you discover that in the minds of most Catholics, “infallibility” covers and describes absolutely everything they believe.

It’s an interesting phenomenon. Catholics argue that the doctrine of papal infalliblity is essential to certainty while totally ignoring the fact that the doctrine has been invoked by only one pope and on only one occasion since its promulgation. In other words, Catholics spread the notion of infallibility right across the apologetics board. Mix in a little ad hominem and you have a substantial obstacle to Christian unity.

As I see it, since Vatican 1, every Catholic belief – as far most Catholics are concerned, at any rate – seems to be covered with a subtle veneer of “infallibility.” Latter–day Catholics have been taught to make sense of the world in this way and once they have learned and embraced that mindset they cannot without a great deal of difficulty perceive how anybody could see things differently. And a realist should expect nothing else.

Have you read your own history of how this doctrine came about?
Almost half of the Cardinals did not attend the Vatican meeting where the Pope brought this to a vote. Of those that did, close to half obstained. The rest voted for it. (they were the butt kissers).

Indeed. Lord Acton is an interesting study in this context.

You see, it was bad form, even before infallibility was coined, to disagree with the pope. So, almost 3/4’s of the Cardinals just didn’t show or obstained. An overwhelming number of the Catholic leaders of that time did not agree with this doctrine. Yet, the Roman Catholics are stuck, with yet another ball and chain to now justify and deal with.
It is a boon around the neck of the church, whether the church realizes it or not.

It still is bad form for a Catholic to disagree with the pope. According to the Catholic theologian, Frank Sheed, the mark of a good Catholic is to do as the Catholic Church teaches. So a Catholic, particularly a Catholic clergyman, who publicly disagrees with the pope is definitely headed for difficulties. Look at what happened to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, for example.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[jmcrae]

I considered this point at some length. The Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility comes under the category of “development of doctrine” and therefore necessarily has to be retroactive.

Have you read Against the Heresies, by St. Irenaeus of Lyons? It was written in 180 AD, and he certainly shows the primacy of the Bishop of Rome - not as a new idea, but as if to say, "okay, here’s me stating the obvious, but if your Bishops disagree with one another, look to the Bishop of Rome, since obviously he is the pre-eminent Bishop, since he is the successor of Peter - " (I’m summarizing; the actual text is quite long) - and then goes on to give us the first list of the Successors of Peter, while emphasizing that the Bisohp of Rome - the Pope - is where the final authority of the Church resides.

So I could see no way of aligning Saint Peter’s huge mistake with the notion that he had a gift of infallibility unless I were to allow that his mistake didn’t have anything to do with faith or morals.

When teaching with authority to the people, he never promulgated any false doctrine. St. Paul’s problem was that St. Peter was not living according to the teaching that he himself had promulgated. Now, if St. Paul did not think that St. Peter’s teaching was infallible, why would he become so upset with him for not following it? If he was just giving a personal opinion that is of no more weight than any other opinion, then what’s the big deal?

It is only if St. Paul knows that St. Peter’s teaching is infallible (and thus, required to be followed by everyone who calls himself a Christian, including St. Peter himself) that he now has just cause to become upset with him and rebuke him to his face - just as St. Catherine of Sienna did, with Pope Gregory XI in 1377 - which was also several centuries before Papal infallibility was formally defined.

I agree. Mind you, I think the Catholic response to this is that Saint Peter didn’t actually know he was the first pope.

I think these must be the same people who assert that Jesus never realized that He was divine; otherwise He would have never turned over the tables in the Temple, or prayed to God, etc. :dts:

The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26) and I think the term “Catholic” was first coined by Saint Ignatius of Antioch around 107 AD.

We find it first in writing at that time, but it is not the first use of the term, since he doesn’t go out of his way to define it, which signifies that the term was familiar to his readers.

It seems to me, though, that the problem for non–Catholic Christians is that this is not the way most Catholics tend to understand the doctrine or argue in its defense. Generally, they seem to argue that the doctrine of papal infallibility is necessary because otherwise, “How can you be sure of anything?” It’s an effective argument until you push it a little whereupon you discover that in the minds of most Catholics, “infallibility” covers and describes absolutely everything they believe.

There are at least three degrees of infallibility; Papal, Magisterial, and Sensus Fidelium. There is also a fourth, but I am not remembering what it is, at the moment. The infallibility of the writers of the Scriptures was Magisterial; not Papal. But without Papal infallibility, the rest of them cannot exist.

 

[SSTeacher]

Have you read Against the Heresies, by St. Irenaeus of Lyons? It was written in 180 AD, and he certainly shows the primacy of the Bishop of Rome - not as a new idea, but as if to say, "okay, here’s me stating the obvious, but if your Bishops disagree with one another, look to the Bishop of Rome, since obviously he is the pre-eminent Bishop, since he is the successor of Peter - " (I’m summarizing; the actual text is quite long) - and then goes on to give us the first list of the Successors of Peter, while emphasizing that the Bisohp of Rome - the Pope - is where the final authority of the Church resides.

When teaching with authority to the people, he never promulgated any false doctrine. St. Paul’s problem was that St. Peter was not living according to the teaching that he himself had promulgated. Now, if St. Paul did not think that St. Peter’s teaching was infallible, why would he become so upset with him for not following it? If he was just giving a personal opinion that is of no more weight than any other opinion, then what’s the big deal?

It is only if St. Paul knows that St. Peter’s teaching is infallible (and thus, required to be followed by everyone who calls himself a Christian, including St. Peter himself) that he now has just cause to become upset with him and rebuke him to his face - just as St. Catherine of Sienna did, with Pope Gregory XI in 1377 - which was also several centuries before Papal infallibility was formally defined.



I think these must be the same people who assert that Jesus never realized that He was divine; otherwise He would have never turned over the tables in the Temple, or prayed to God, etc. :dts:

We find it first in writing at that time, but it is not the first use of the term, since he doesn’t go out of his way to define it, which signifies that the term was familiar to his readers.

There are at least three degrees of infallibility; Papal, Magisterial, and Sensus Fidelium. There is also a fourth, but I am not remembering what it is, at the moment. The infallibility of the writers of the Scriptures was Magisterial; not Papal. But without Papal infallibility, the rest of them cannot exist.

I appreciate your taking the time to comment but I’ve already made my decision. The Orthodox Church has existed since 33 AD without papal infalliblity and it’s within that Church that I’m going to make my home.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[wisdomseeker]

I considered this point at some length. The Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility comes under the category of “development of doctrine” and therefore necessarily has to be retroactive. So I could see no way of aligning Saint Peter’s huge mistake with the notion that he had a gift of infallibility unless I were to allow that his mistake didn’t have anything to do with faith or morals. Since that clearly wasn’t the case I couldn’t see any way past the difficulty and so I had no option but to conclude that the doctrine of papal infallibilty was an infallible fallacy.

That’s a reasoned argument.

I agree. Mind you, I think the Catholic response to this is that Saint Peter didn’t actually know he was the first pope. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26) and I think the term “Catholic” was first coined by Saint Ignatius of Antioch around 107 AD. If there was no formal papacy it follows that there could be no ex cathedra statement. If there is no ex cathedra stipulation a pope is as prone to human error as any other human being and can make a mistake on a question of faith and morals in his thinking, in his private conversations or even in a public statement. As I understand the doctrine, it is only when the papal utterance is formally stipulated to be an ex cathedra statement that it can correctly be referenced as such.

So, for a Catholic, Saint Peter’s mistake is no big deal. Any pope could have made the same mistake or one similar. Indeed, in theory, an average of a hundred thousand doctrinal mistakes in the life of every pope would never impinge upon the validity or veracity of the doctrine of papal infalliblity. That’s because if there is no ex cathedra stipulation there is no infallibility.

It seems to me, though, that the problem for non–Catholic Christians is that this is not the way most Catholics tend to understand the doctrine or argue in its defense. Generally, they seem to argue that the doctrine of papal infallibility is necessary because otherwise, “How can you be sure of anything?” It’s an effective argument until you push it a little whereupon you discover that in the minds of most Catholics, “infallibility” covers and describes absolutely everything they believe.

It’s an interesting phenomenon. Catholics argue that the doctrine of papal infalliblity is essential to certainty while totally ignoring the fact that the doctrine has been invoked by only one pope and on only one occasion since its promulgation. In other words, Catholics spread the notion of infallibility right across the apologetics board. Mix in a little ad hominem and you have a substantial obstacle to Christian unity.

As I see it, since Vatican 1, every Catholic belief – as far most Catholics are concerned, at any rate – seems to be covered with a subtle veneer of “infallibility.” Latter–day Catholics have been taught to make sense of the world in this way and once they have learned and embraced that mindset they cannot without a great deal of difficulty perceive how anybody could see things differently. And a realist should expect nothing else.

Indeed. Lord Acton is an interesting study in this context.

It still is bad form for a Catholic to disagree with the pope. According to the Catholic theologian, Frank Sheed, the mark of a good Catholic is to do as the Catholic Church teaches. So a Catholic, particularly a Catholic clergyman, who publicly disagrees with the pope is definitely headed for difficulties. Look at what happened to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, for example.

Cordially,
Mick

your argument here is that you dont believe in absolute Truth. how many truths do you think exists. because if there is not one Truth than the Truth could be anything that anybody can come with. if the Catholic Church cannot defend what is True, do you have anybody else who can? which Church? that is why is said to be infallible. because it cannot be nothing but the Truth. not because the pope himself cannot say or do something wrong, but when it comes to Doctrines, the Church cannot err because Jesus has given her the Spirit of Truth, therefore she is protected from teaching error.

**

Never before has there been so much learning, and yet so little knowledge of the truth.**

 

[SSTeacher]

your argument here is that you dont believe in absolute Truth.

No, it isn’t.

how many truths do you think exists.

I have concluded that the Orthodox Church contains the fullness of truth.

because if there is not one Truth than the Truth could be anything that anybody can come with.

A statement that could be applied to both Catholics and to Non–Catholics, depending upon the presuppositions embraced by the speaker.

if the Catholic Church cannot defend what is True, do you have anybody else who can?

Yes, the Orthodox Church, which has been telling the truth since 33 AD.

which Church?

The Orthodox Church, which has been telling the truth since 33 AD.

that is why is said to be infallible.

I do not accept the notion of papal infallibility.

because it cannot be nothing but the Truth.

The truth will set you free.

not because the pope himself cannot say or do something wrong, but when it comes to Doctrines, the Church cannot err because Jesus has given her the Spirit of Truth, therefore she is protected from teaching error.

**

Never before has there been so much learning, and yet so little knowledge of the truth.**

I daresay. But consider this. Suppose it is the Catholic Church that went astray? Not hopelessly astray but just slightly wayward. Then it would be the Orthodox Church that was protected from teaching error, wouldn’t it? I assume you are not claiming infallibility for yourself. So how can you be sure that you have correctly analyzed all the factors that the historical record contains? How do you know for certain that you have gotten hold of the truth? Might you have made a mistake? People do, you know. To err is human, the poet declared. How do you know for certain that the Orthodox Church is not the Church that Christ founded and the one that He has been protecting from error all through the centuries?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[jmcrae]

I appreciate your taking the time to comment but I’ve already made my decision. The Orthodox Church has existed since 33 AD without papal infalliblity and it’s within that Church that I’m going to make my home.

Have you read the writings of St. John Chrysostom? As I recall, he is considered an ancestor of the Greek Orthodox episcopate - and yet, in his Sermon for Pentecost (Book 4 of the Great Sermons of the Early Fathers series), he writes very eloquently about the primacy of Peter. I don’t have that sermon with me at the moment, but I am going to be reviewing it this week, and I’ll be able to quote from it directly, within the next few days.

The First Vatican Council also quoted extensively from that same sermon, when defining the parameters of Papal infallibility.

PS: Of course, that is only an argument if one is Greek Orthodox, I realize. I don’t know who the ancestors of the American Orthodox are. You will have to enlighten me.

 

[wisdomseeker]

No, it isn’t.

I have concluded that the Orthodox Church contains the fullness of truth.

A statement that could be applied to both Catholics and to Non–Catholics, depending upon the presuppositions embraced by the speaker.

Yes, the Orthodox Church, which has been telling the truth since 33 AD.

The Orthodox Church, which has been telling the truth since 33 AD.

I do not accept the notion of papal infallibility.

The truth will set you free.

I daresay. But consider this. Suppose it is the Catholic Church that went astray? Not hopelessly astray but just slightly wayward. Then it would be the Orthodox Church that was protected from teaching error, wouldn’t it? I assume you are not claiming infallibility for yourself. So how can you be sure that you have correctly analyzed all the factors that the historical record contains? How do you know for certain that you have gotten hold of the truth? Might you have made a mistake? People do, you know. To err is human, the poet declared. How do you know for certain that the Orthodox Church is not the Church that Christ founded and the one that He has been protecting from error all through the centuries?

Curiously,
Mick

should we find out which one is it or not? east and west are considered both to be the Catholic Church. they are separated but they are still Catholic. now, which is the One with the authority to call a Councill? and why? remember the Words of Jesus: Peter, satan has been trying to get you, but i have prayed for you, that when you have returned you may strength your brothers. nobody can deny, i dont think, how St Peter has a special place prepared for him. Jesus paid the taxes for Him and St Peter only. if the Pope sits in the chair of St Peter, then he is the one we should be following.

**
“But when He, the Spirit of Truth has come, he will teach you all the truth. For He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He will hear He will speak, and the things that are to come He will declare to you.” John 16:13**

 

[Harpazo]

Have you read the writings of St. John Chrysostom? As I recall, he is considered an ancestor of the Greek Orthodox episcopate - and yet, in his Sermon for Pentecost (Book 4 of the Great Sermons of the Early Fathers series), he writes very eloquently about the primacy of Peter. I don’t have that sermon with me at the moment, but I am going to be reviewing it this week, and I’ll be able to quote from it directly, within the next few days.

The First Vatican Council also quoted extensively from that same sermon, when defining the parameters of Papal infallibility.

Christ is risen!

The Orthodox have no qualms about the primacy of Peter, that is completely apostolic. Should Rome and the Orthodox Church heal the schism, the Orthodox will accept the Pope as primus inter pares, where he can preside at an Ecumenical Council and will have his jurisdiction limited to his See. However, what we do not accept is papal supremacy and infallibility, which were not at all present in the early church. Just by reading the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, one get an understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology and understand where we are coming from.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[wisdomseeker]

Christ is risen!

The Orthodox have no qualms about the primacy of Peter, that is completely apostolic. Should Rome and the Orthodox Church heal the schism, the Orthodox will accept the Pope as primus inter pares, where he can preside at an Ecumenical Council and will have his jurisdiction limited to his See. However, what we do not accept is papal supremacy and infallibility, which were not at all present in the early church. Just by reading the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, one get an understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology and understand where we are coming from.

In Christ,
Andrew

may our God bring their unity very soon. we must see the brothers united again. Infalability is such an ugly word for many. i think if we examine the case closer with an open mind we can see that St Peter had an infallible voice. why? because when a dispute arose among them, St Peter would decide and that was it. no more arguments everybody accepted. so the pope who sits in St Peter chair has the same authority.
today, is the same thing, when there is a dispute among the brothers one has to decide what is going to be and the case is settled. the Church is not a democratic institution, it never was.

**ROME SPOKE, CASE IS CLOSED. **

 

[dzheremi]

Uh…I think the tone of your second statement somewhat invalidates your first statement there, Wisdomseeker. “We must reunite…ROME HAS THE FINAL WORD ON EVERYTHING!”

The more I read these sorts of the threads, the more I find myself in sympathy with the Orthodox position.

 

[jmcrae]

Uh…I think the tone of your second statement somewhat invalidates your first statement there, Wisdomseeker. “We must reunite…ROME HAS THE FINAL WORD ON EVERYTHING!”

He was quoting from St. Augustine’s comment about the promulgation of the final canon of the Scriptures (which were in dispute for something like 200 years) - Roma locuta est; causa finita est. - Rome has spoken; the matter is settled.

He was not saying that Rome is some kind of big bad bully interfering where it isn’t wanted, but rather, that Rome finally came to the rescue of the Church and made a declaration on the Scriptures, thus settling an argument that had been going on for something like 200 years.

As has been pointed out already several times, Rome doesn’t do this whimsically, or even all that frequently.

 

[dzheremi]

He was not saying that Rome is some kind of big bad bully interfering where it isn’t wanted

And neither am I. I am a Latin-rite Catholic, after all.

but rather, that Rome finally came to the rescue of the Church and made a declaration on the Scriptures, thus settling an argument that had been going on for something like 200 years.

The context of this discussion is not the a declaration on scripture, however. Within the context of this conversation, the implications of such a quote are somewhat broadened. It is none of my business if you want to make the case that because of Rome’s role in deciding the canon, Rome can be said to be the final authority on everything. That is fine with me. My only point is that as this is one of the great fault lines that divide us from our Orthodox friends, it does no good simply to reassert what has already been claimed so many years ago by St. Augustine. The Orthodox did not agree in 1054, and they don’t agree now. “Rome has spoken; Case closed” is essentially a non-starter, if you are interested in actually discussing the obstacles towards unity between the Catholics and the Orthodox. In fact, it is a great illustration of one of those primary obstacles.

As has been pointed out already several times, Rome doesn’t do this whimsically, or even all that frequently.

Of course it doesn’t. I did not mean to even imply that it does. Apologies if that is how it seems.

 

[Brother2]

Greetings and Respect to all on this Forum. God bless all here!!

Anything I say is written about Organizations and never against individuals, or people within these organizations, no offence intended.

Protestants can never, even though some will, re unite with the Roman Catholic Church!

God called the Reformers out, even though they were excommunicated, of the Roman Catholic Church for a good reason…because lots of tares/weeds/error had been sown amongst the wheat/true doctrine of the Church, by the father of lies, the great deceiver, Lucifer the devil. Paganism had been married to Christianity. The work of rooting out these weeds began with the Reformers, but human beings choke if given too much information or Truth all at once, so, the process of throwing out the error was to take some years.

Most Protestants up to approx. 100 years ago, believed that the Roman Catholic Church is, to be polite, the Mother of churches, united with the state to persecute…therefore, we protestants cannot reunite with them. From the Persecution of the middle ages(Foxes Book of Martyrs…course there were many Roman Catholic martyrs too) to Revelation 13 and 14. Where once again the Roman Catholic Church will unite with the state to persecute… Which I totally agree is open to different interpretations, only in the future the right of it will be revealed.

What is the difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic Church’s now…the Mass which I have spoken about I think earlier, and I would contest, the Sabbath day…some historians have said that (making a rod for my own back) Protestants already give their alliegance to the Roman Catholic Church by worshiping on Sunday…coming from the pagan belief of the worship of the sun and the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

I have also spoken of the change of the Sabbath not being Biblical, all the evidence that Protestants use for Sunday originated from the Counter reformation wrought by Roman Catholic theologians to counteract Protestant changes.

The above is my opinion and the opinion of the Adventist Church and others too, small ‘Remnant’ though we be… so I don’t expect You All out there to agree…but tuck it away in your memory banks and when it happens be ready to CHOOSE whom you will worship…God the Creator or the beast, and the great dragon, the main antichrist, Lucifer the great deceiver and father of lies and enemy of God.

I am only stating what I believe to be scriptural, I intend no offence or harm to anyone who reads it. It is for information only…and discussion on this forum of course…

God bless all here. Michael.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5243020:

I daresay. But consider this. Suppose it is the Catholic Church that went astray? Not hopelessly astray but just slightly wayward. Then it would be the Orthodox Church that was protected from teaching error, wouldn’t it? I assume you are not claiming infallibility for yourself. So how can you

be sure that you have correctly analyzed all the factors that the historical record contains? How do you know for certain that you have gotten hold of the truth? Might you have made a mistake? People do, you know. To err is human, the poet declared. How do you know for certain that the Orthodox Church is not the Church that Christ founded and the one that He has been protecting from error all through the centuries?

Curiously,
Mick
:thumbsup:should we find out which one is it or not? east and west are considered both to be the Catholic Church. they are separated but they are still Catholic. now, which is the One with the authority to call a Councill? and why? remember the Words of Jesus: Peter, satan has been trying to get you, but i have prayed for you, that when you have returned you may strength your brothers. nobody can deny, i dont think, how St Peter has a special place prepared for him. Jesus paid the taxes for Him and St Peter only. if the Pope sits in the chair of St Peter, then he is the one we should be following.

**
“But when He, the Spirit of Truth has come, he will teach you all the truth. For He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He will hear He will speak, and the things that are to come He will declare to you.” John 16:13**

I note that you chose to ignore my questions. They are challenging, I know, but I sense that you’re up to the task. Tell you what – allow me to cut out all the questions except the last one in order to make it less daunting and perhaps less confusing for you. I’m not trying to catch you out. There’s no trick and there’s no trap. I’m simply calling upon you to speak the truth in response to my direct question. Here’s that question again:

How do you know for certain that the Orthodox Church is not the Church that Christ founded and the one that He has been protecting from error all through the centuries?

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[jmcrae]

And neither am I. I am a Latin-rite Catholic, after all.

The context of this discussion is not the a declaration on scripture, however. Within the context of this conversation, the implications of such a quote are somewhat broadened. It is none of my business if you want to make the case that because of Rome’s role in deciding the canon, Rome can be said to be the final authority on everything.

At the time that he wrote that, St. Augustine was, himself, Bishop of Hippo, and had, himself, already declared the same canon of Scriptures more than 10 years previously - with much less effectiveness than when the Bishop of Rome did it.

If “all Bishops are equal” or if the Holy Spirit was only waiting for someone to come up with the correct canon, then the matter should have been settled when St. Augustine made his own declaration of an identical canon in 393 - and yet, it was not.

This seems to suggest that the Holy Spirit waits on the Bishop of Rome specifically to promulgate the correct information; not on just any Bishop to promulgate his findings, and not on just someone (whomever) having the correct information.