What would it take for the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox to reunify?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomasbradley312
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So you honestly believe each bishop has full power individually and independently of any other bishop to bind or loose sins, even if bishops end up contradicting each other on this? Or can they only exercise their power - though according to you with no evidence except an argument from silence - their power in consensus and agreement in a council all together, even though you say Christ gave each one of them properly the keys to the kingdom? Or is each bishop and each bishop’s Church itself the one kingdom of heaven, such that membership in any one and having your sins absolved by any one enough to enter through the gates of heaven, even if every other bishop and Church insisted on exercising the power invested in them not to loose but rather to bind? I mean you are of course free to imagine and assert that God Himself instituted such a chaotic, confusing and positively contradictory arrangement if you like but I think at least some serious minds might venture a doubt.
 
And the Apostle Saint John also alone had Christ entrust His entire flock personally and singularly to Saint Peter and did not record Christ doing the same to any other Apostle, as none of the Gospels record anyone except Saint Peter being given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, the same kingdom Christ preached.
 
That’s true.
How do we know in the dialogue Christ was sitting there staring at Peter.
Peter may have come to known Christ was the Son of God but what if Christ responded in a way of group conversation? It it emblazoned in our minds that Christ was talking to Peter alone but you really could just as easily see the conversation with Christ looking at all of the disciples and saying he will “give you the keys to heaven.”
 
ziapueblo said:
For these keys not one man but the unity of the Church received.
Click to expand...
All the quotes you provide are perfectly fine and in accordance with Catholic belief so long as it is understood in unity with Saint Peter.
 
How then do you reconcile your perspective on Vatican I with the documents signed at the Council of Nicea II on October 6, 787 ? Do you recognize this as an ecumenical and infallible Council of the Holy Catholic Church?
 
Not one quote you gave said Christ endowed each Apostle with they keys individually and properly: Augustine even qualified it to say it was given to the Church in unity. What happens in disunity? Which Church or bishop constitutes “the Church in unity” in that case? This isn’t a problem for Catholics as the visible principle and foundation of the Church’s unity is in Peter and his successors and all those Churches and bishops in communion with him.

Your quote from Saint Jerome is talking in the first place about the foundation of the Church, which is indeed the Apostles as the book of Revelations vividly portrays. But we’re talking about the keys and their power and the Church’s unity: if each of the Apostles had the power and authority of the keys granted to them independently of each other, they could have exercised them not only independently of each other but equally (in authority) contradictory to each other. Do you honestly believe any Church Father would think this possible? And what about after the age of the Apostles? Could each bishop individually claim to have independent of all the others the power and authority of Christ to bind or loose? How could the authority of Christ be distributed such that it could even with equal authority contradict itself?
 
Why is Rome so special anyways?
Peter and Paul spent much more time in Antioch than Rome.
In fact the Syriac Church considers Peter its first patriarch.
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
Why is Rome so special anyways?
Click to expand...
Because Christ gave Peter the keys to heaven. Peter’s see was in Rome. The successor of Peter is the Supreme Pontiff because he is the successor of Peter, and Christ gave the keys of heaven to Peter.
 
Last edited:
SeraficLeo said:
What happens in disunity? Which Church or bishop constitutes “the Church in unity” in that case? This isn’t a problem for Catholics
Click to expand...
What if there are three Popes at the same time? Would that not be a problem?
 
SeraficLeo said:
To Peter alone were the keys given. Or else show where not only the other Apostles were given the keys but anyone else.
Click to expand...
& Jesus prayed for Peter specifically
But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."
Click to expand...
& it was Peter He charged to look after His flock
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep."
Click to expand...
 
ziapueblo said:
Saint Ignatius refutes this idea in his letter to the Smyrneans when he says that the fullness of the Church rests in the Bishops given by Christ. Not the Bishop of Rome. The Latin Father, Saint Augustine ironically says of Peter what the Orthodox say. He was an emblem or archetype for all bishops. And that fits perfectly with what Cyprian of Carthage says, that all bishops who profess the faith of Peter are Peters successors not just the Bishop in Rome.
Click to expand...
And if the bishops were to all contradict each other? What then? And which bishop can most reasonably claim to be resounding in the same profession of faith as that made by Saint Peter?

Again everything you say the Church Fathers said is not a problem in the Catholic Church because the Church’s bishops are modelled on the bishop of Rome. See venerable Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English Church and the special place Pope St. Gregory enjoyed in and to it and also his Successors, if you want to see how a new Catholic Church is moulded along the pattern of the Pope and Church of Rome.

Bishops are patterned on the bishop of Rome and are one with him in the profession of the same faith. None of this is a problem in Catholicism.
 
Last edited:
ziapueblo said:
Saint Ignatius refutes this idea in his letter to the Smyrneans when he says that the fullness of the Church rests in the Bishops given by Christ. Not the Bishop of Rome. The Latin Father, Saint Augustine ironically says of Peter what the Orthodox say. He was an emblem or archetype for all bishops. And that fits perfectly with what Cyprian of Carthage says, that all bishops who profess the faith of Peter are Peters successors not just the Bishop in Rome.
Click to expand...
Theoretically I understand. Practically it doesn’t work.
 
AlNg said:
What if there are three Popes at the same time? Would that not be a problem?
Click to expand...
There are never actually three Popes at the same time. The first elected Pope is the Pope until he dies or voluntarily resigns.

Antipopes are indeed a scourge and can cause great distress and confusion. But even during those periods it remains understood that only the lawfully elected Pope is and can be the legitimate Pope.

Now consider a situation where the rivals or disputants could all really and actually have equal claim and validity. That would be a church order that would truly be distressing as it’s not a matter of ascertaining which is the authentic one because they would all equally be authentic and have equal authority. That would truly be the most distressing situation conceivable.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
Is it not true that St. Peter established the church in Antioch and was the first bishop of Antioch before going to Rome?
Click to expand...
It is my understanding Saint Peter founded the church in Rome then went to Antioch for a while. Then returned to Rome.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
If the filioque is needed in Latin, was the infallible Roman Catholic Church wrong for hundreds of years when it said the creed without the filioque hundreds of years before the filioque was introduced into the creed.
Click to expand...
No, because translations are NOT protected from error.

The Creed was written in Greek. The Greek version is the version protected from error. The Catholic Church teaches that use of the Filioque in Greek would be heresy. No Roman Catholic may use the Filioque in Greek.

So once again… this is a translation issue. If you didn’t read the entire article I posted, I highly recommend it.

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top