Who founded your Church?

[Telestia]

You are also incorrect with the following assertion:

Catholics see it as a formal institution whereas “Protestants” see it as the spiritual body of all true believers of Christ Jesus as their God and Savior.

The CC has always taught the underlined words long before Protestanism,thus it is not a Protestant belief,but a Catholic one.

Terrific, we all agree that all Christians are of the Body of Christ, thereby we, the body of Christ, all have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and we constitute the full Christian Church, regardless of what denomination we belong to.

 

[Nicea325]

Terrific, we all agree that all Christians are of the Body of Christ, thereby we, the body of Christ, all have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and we constitute the full Christian Church, regardless of what denomination we belong to.

Well not exactly. It goes far deeper than merely:

We are all Christian by faith.

And unfortuantely denominationlism is an issue,not a unifying factor.

 

[afiala2]

The church I belong to is the universal church, the Body of Christ, which is invisible to mortal eyes, though visible and powerful in the spiritual realm. It consists of all followers of Christ, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. And it was of course founded by Christ. I joined it by believing in Him and by being baptized.
I also belong to a 501c3 corporation called a church, but that’s just for legal purposes, so the group of Christian believers I fellowship with can have a building and other conveniences. I don’t know who founded it and don’t particularly care, as it is essentially just a Christian social club. Wherever we are gathered in His name, He is there; the building is just a convenience. Our local church is affiliated with a denomination (AG), which I largely agree with, but I owe it no particular loyalty nor do I consider myself a member of it, but only of my local church and the universal church.

How can you be a member of the Body of Christ if you don’t receive the Eucharist? If you aren’t “in communion” with others then you are separated and a different body made up of different beliefs.

The Catholic Church is the Universal Church, catholic means universal or according to the whole. So you don’t belong to the Universal (or Catholic) Church, you belong to a Christian social club, which is a 501c3 corporation called a church who’s founder is unknown. I am not trying to be mean about it, I am trying to point out the obvious disunity every non-catholic seems to deny exists because they are all saying it doesn’t matter what we believe because we all have our own truth (seriously read John 14:6, John 16:13, Galatians 1:8-9). Do you know what true and truth mean? If no one agrees about what to teach about what it takes to be saved and what is true and false teachings, how do you consider that the same church?

How do you have “loyalty” to an invisible church that doesn’t exist? So are you loyal to Protestants (which ones?), Catholics, or Orthodox, because we all say different things, so how can you be loyal to everything? Besides you already said you aren’t loyal to AG, so I guess you don’t consider them a part of your “universal” church even though you are affiliated with them? The “invisible universal church” of which you speak has no teachings or authorities, it isn’t real. Matthew 5:14 says the church cannot be hidden.

Christ didn’t found an invisible church. Where is your evidence? Let me guess, it’s invisible. Jesus didn’t found an “invisible church”, He founded the Catholic Church with Peter and the Apostles. He gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus established His Church with Peter (Matthew 16:18), Peter and the Apostles weren’t invisible. St. Paul, St. John, and others weren’t invisible when they were a part of the Church Jesus started or when they helped write what would later become part of the Bible, they are real. The Apostles didn’t all go their own separate ways teaching different things and then claim to be “invisibly united”. This is reality, it isn’t a fairy tale. If you belong to an “invisible church” then I shouldn’t be able to see you or your comments, because you are invisible. If an invisible church existed no one would know about it because no one would have ever seen it. Talking about an invisible church sounds like an argument that Jesus isn’t real or that He is a fictional character. Sounds like pagan god worship, pagan gods were made up tales that lead to the worship of the character in the story. But the problem is, Jesus is real, St. Peter is real, St. Paul is real, St. John is real, the Catholic Church which Jesus started is real. It isn’t a made up story, it is history. Jesus isn’t invisible and neither am I; I am a member of HIS VISIBLY UNITED Church.

The Catholic (Universal) Church is the ONE TRUE FAITH. We are the one holy catholic and apostolic church (Peter was the leader of the Apostles, the Pope and the Bishops of the Catholic Church are their successors).

 

[afiala2]

I don’t get why Roman Catholics use the “who founded your Church?” argument when, even if you accept their logic (I don’t), that Eastern Orthodox can with equal measure make the same claim they do, using the same logic!

So you’re saying they claim to have the successor of St. Peter (Bishop of Rome)?

St. Cyprian of Carthage

“…. If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

How is the Catholic Church that was started by Christ and has been headed by a Pope, who is the successor to Peter who possesses the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the netherworld will not prevail against it, the same as EO? The EO wasn’t even the first break from the Catholic Church.

The EO was started by a schism from the Catholic Church (they left the Church, like Martin Luther did) over a 1,000 years after Christ and no longer hold to the unity of the Chair of Peter.

I would say that it is illogical to use someone else’s beliefs as your defense. If you think Eastern Orthodox is the way to be ‘superior or equivalent’ to my explanation, then why aren’t you a member of the Eastern Orthodox religion then (if not Catholic)? If you are arguing for EO and not your own church/religion, then why don’t you belong to the EO? Why aren’t you either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? Non Catholic, Non EO like to use EO when convenient to string together logical gymnastics, but then don’t have a logical explanation for not being either Catholic or EO. You are using someone else’s leaving the Church to justify you not being a member (or in some cases leaving yourself if you are a former Catholic). Your concept of unity is illogical. Again I could claim I am Jesus (if I was completely insane), but everyone would know today that Jesus lived 2,000 years ago. If people lie enough people start to believe them no matter how ridiculous the claim is like sola scriptura. The beginning of the EO happened when the founder(s) left the Catholic Church which means their previous generations they claim as their own actually were Catholics who were in union with the Pope, the Chair of Peter. So they weren’t the EO as they claim, the EO was started at the schism of 1054. And even then just because they can point to early dissenters doesn’t mean the True Church wasn’t the True Church. That is like a follower of Arianism saying Arius was the leader of the Church in the 3rd or 4th century. Victor II wasn’t the first Pope, he was the 153rd.

The Catholic Church argument is not the same as the EO, and if you still think it is at least become an EO then, 2 is better than 38,000, but One is the number Jesus is after and so am I. If you listen to the EO argument you would have to say Andrew and Peter the first disciples of Jesus, who were Apostles and brothers, each started their own Church and wasn’t unified for their argument to make any sense at all. Hence their misrepresentation of history is leading to divisions because the APOSTLES WERE UNITED. So which one followed Christ and which one made up their own religion? You would have to say they are the same if Christ started both but since they’re not you know one would be more in line with the truth. BUT ANDREW AND PETER WERE UNITED ALONG WITH THE OTHER APOSTLES AS THE BEGINNING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I only know of one Apostle who didn’t stay united with Peter, Judas.

Even if there is a future schism and the majority of true believers (Catholics) renounce it and leave the faith (the Catholic Church) and start another church/religion that doesn’t mean the Catholic Church is no longer the True Church or that the schism church was started by Jesus. It means the person(s) leading the schism left the True Church (the Catholic Church) and started their own. It is not a democracy; Jesus doesn’t jump ship for majority opinion, He is faithful to His Bride. He doesn’t jump ship for even one person who leaves the Church and starts another.

Starting in, say, 1054, who is responsible for the disunity?

Who left the Church? If you leave Peter/the Church and don’t ever attempt to come back, whether you were excommunicated or not, and then go on teaching as if you are Christ’s authority in opposition to the Pope/Christ’s Church, how are you responsible for unity? Are you suggesting the reunion needed to take place outside the Church without the Pope? That is like saying the Apostles should have abandon Peter out of jealous so they would all be the greatest.

 

[CopticChristian]

Terrific, we all agree that all Christians are of the Body of Christ, thereby we, the body of Christ, all have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and we constitute the full Christian Church, regardless of what denomination we belong to.

How do you know if you have the indwelling of the Spirit? If the Spirit is God and God cannot remain in an unclean vessel and you sin does the Spirit remain and if so then are you part of the body?

Do you always have the Spirit in you when you Divorce a la Henry VII, Fornicate like Zwingli, break your vows and marry a nun like Luther and Murder like Calvin…Does the Spirit remain…

For I am convinced that nothing will separate us from the love of God, Adultery, Fornication, Murder…for all the day long we are offered,wait a minute…Romans what???8 oh yeah…sorry

35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

Paul is talking about all manner of suffering, not sin…ooops…so where does the Spirit dwell? in vessels of sin or not and if so then are you part of the body of Christ or not? according to your definition that pleases your mind.

 

[afiala2]

This would be slightly more convincing if it weren’t for, you know, that whole Avignon episode when there were two (and later, THREE!) “Popes” at once! If this were how God had intended for the church to be run that would have never happened.

Anti-pope is the word you’re looking for. Anti-pope is someone who is falsely claiming the Holy See in opposition to the canonically elected Pope (True Pope). So you could call an anti-pope a false pope.

Does Judas prove Jesus isn’t God? Does Peter’s denial mean God doesn’t exist? Thomas doubted why are you a Christian? Pointing out a sinner (we all are) to use as proof Jesus was a liar because His plan failed and He promised that His Church would not fall into error, is like saying satan defeated God and following Jesus is pointless. See look over here satan refused to follow God, that means no one needs to because God can’t even keep His own Angels in order. No one needs to follow God using this same logic because God’s plan can’t be following Him because not all of the Angels did.

There has never been more than one Pope. This is where you need to grasp the fact that just because someone says something doesn’t mean it is true. Men have falsely claimed to be the Pope, but that doesn’t mean they were. There have actually been 3 anti-popes simultaneously before (alongside the real Pope).

Are you trying to argue that right now, you don’t know who the Pope is, the leader of the Catholic Church, which is the Church Christ established, who is the successor to St. Peter? If someone tomorrow claimed they were the Pope through something that one could question the legitimacy of the claim, it would still be pretty obvious they aren’t the real Pope and Benedict XVI is. During these past times of trial for the Church when people falsely claimed to be Pope, Jesus stepped in and carried the Church; He didn’t decide to abandon the Church when it needed Him the most. The Church is the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:21-33). Christ will never be unfaithful, He promised. Jesus would be a hypocrite to leave His Bride (see Matthew 19:9 about divorce), and marry another.

Did Jesus say that the netherworld would not prevail against His Church built on the Rock? Will Truth always stand and last the test of time? Or do lies overtake the Church rendering it defeated because lies make things like wisdom, knowledge, logic, history, and most importantly God’s Divine assistance useless?

As far as the Papacy in Avignon from 1309 to 1377, I believe there was only one anti-pope. The anti-pope from that time was Nicholas V (1328-1330) was put in place by the Holy Roman Emperor, who was excommunicated, so he was not put in place by the Church but an excommunicated politician/emperor that would be like listening to the government of a country today instead of Bishops/College of Cardinals. Pope John XXII excommunicated Nicholas V, the anti-pope, in 1329, but Nicholas (Pietro Rainalducci) later made amends with the Pope and was absolved of his sins after he confessed to Pope John XXII. The Popes that resided in Avignon were still the Bishop of Rome. St. Catherine of Siena convinced Pope Gregory XI to return to Rome (that’s right radical feminists; the Pope listened to an intelligent woman).

St. Catherine of Siena is a Doctor of the Church. She is the Doctor of UNITY. St. Teresa of Avila is another Church Doctor, the Doctor of PRAYER. Let’s all ask Saints Catherine and Teresa for Prayers for Unity to Almighty God, (by asking them to) pray for us. This is just a suggestion to** those of us who can see **the visible disunity and the need to pray for unity. I also think we need to ask St. Jude and St. Rita to pray for us for Unity as well. Two Doctors and two Saints of the impossible, for The Mission Impossible (cue the music).

Robert of Geneva was the first anti-pope (1378-1394) of the great schism (elected by French Cardinals in opposition to Urban VI) and was called “the executioner of Cesena”. There was at least one anti-pope between 1378 and 1417, and even as many as three at once during this time.

The last anti-pope was Amadeus of Savoy (1439-1449). A schismatic council (no authority) determined Eugene IV wasn’t the pope, even though Eugene IV was the rightful pope from 1431-1447. I am not aware of any anti-popes since 1449.

There have been numerous anti-popes throughout history. Your comment about anti-popes highlights the damage that can be done to unity when someone makes a false claim to authority and is what I am driving at here. There will always be evil people wanting schism and promoting heresy. But just because others do it, doesn’t mean it justifies someone else. That goes back to the ‘if everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it to?’ adage. But it is normally pretty clear when this happens though may not be to whom the anti-pope directly lies too.

I am not aware of any anti-popes just 38,000+ that act as if they are an anti-pope. People talk bad about the Pope not claim to be the Pope today. Today who else claims to be Peter’s Successor, Bishop of Rome? (And as I said before, the answer is no one that would confuse a faithful Catholic).

 

[TexanKnight]

Well, I think it is a bit silly to ask to ask to define “Church” when the word came straight to us from Jesus.

18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

The Church is what Jesus started and gave to Peter to care for.

Jesus started the Catholic Church. No other Church or denomination can claim that. Nor would it be necessary. No one ever needs to fix something Jesus made.

 

[afiala2]

…I know plenty of priests, but I can’t name one who thinks the Church’s position on contraception is sound. Sure, they keep their mouths shut when it’s prudent to do so, but that’s not a demonstration of unity of belief.
…official doctrine is more an artifact of power than it is a sign of unity of belief, as it’s sometimes claimed to be.
Protestants believe a hundred different things? So do Catholics, despite what the hierarchy would like them to believe.

Funny thing, I have never heard a Homily where a Priest taught against the Church’s position on contraception. Did you ever ask these “priests you know” if they have read Humanae Vitae? Are you even sure they are Catholic priests? I have no don’t dissenters exist on this, but a dissenter is a dissenter. Dissention from the truth leads to schisms/heretical divisions look at history. Seeking the truth leads to unity.

The Holy Spirit guides the Church. You either believe the Truth (what the Church teaches) or you believe the doctrines of men.

Divisions: are you the solution or the problem? Unity can only be achieved through the Pope that is why Jesus established His Church on it, for unity. Peter said, “Master, to whom shall we go?..”(John 6:68). Peter cannot leave Christ; there is none to turn to but God. The Pope can’t start his own church/denomination/religion; he is the leader of Christ’s Church.

Contraception Timeline
-No Christian denomination/church accepted contraception as morally permissible before 1930.
-Starting with the Anglicans in 1930 one by one Christian denominations started to accept contraception as morally permissible.
-1968 Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae came out and EO unanimously agreed with the Catholic position, while only few others did as well.
-Present day Catholics and even fewer others still consider contraception a moral evil, while EO appear they aren’t sure where they stand (appear on the fence leaning towards excepting it).

While I am sure many EO still hold the position of the Catholics (no surprise because that is the traditional/historical position), the general lack of a clear answer on the issue highlights the need for Peter. Even if they have reached a “new consensus” on the issue, they aren’t convinced of it. So straddle the fence and change the subject seems to be the direction they are going with this one.

So yes EO are mixed on this topic, the point being how will they come to a consensus agreement on this? The “new consensus” would mean that here we have a modern example they aren’t traditional Christianity as they like to claim, even though they have always rejected the traditional or orthodox view of unity of the Church which is attained through Peter (the Pope). A vague reference about understanding biology better is given as the reason why it is ok to change the teaching on the subject (implying God doesn’t understand how to apply morals to biology and/or God doesn’t understand things fully). But even if the EO are right to change on this subject, then the Anglicans beat them to the punch by quite a ways. What does this mean?

Well the Bible says God will not be mocked in Galatians 6:7-8.

Yes, there are plenty of Catholic dissenters on the subject. But every tough teaching will result in dissenters, but hopefully some of them will take the time to educate themselves on the subject and return to communion. There have always been heretics and non-believers. But remember the Catholic teaching is true, historical, traditional, in line with the Bible, and doesn’t lead to destruction. Pope Paul VI correctly (prophetically) said contraception would result in the general lowering of morality; hence it is immoral if it results in furthering moral degradation. People not listening to God when it is a tough thing to hear, sounds like the truth being spoken to me. John 6 shows you Jesus’ teachings aren’t always easy to understand let alone accept. John 6:66, many disciples stop following Jesus because of His teachings on the Eucharist. When it is hard, only those who have the faith of Peter, who in verse 68 says, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. …”, follow Christ.

Interesting HLI article:
hli.org/index.php/contraception/138?task=view
St. John Chrysostom, the 4th century Patriarch of Constantinople said in a homily:”….The procreation of children is not in itself the sole purpose of marriage, but a marriage without the desire for children, and the prayer to God to bear and nurture them, is contrary to the ‘sacrament of love.’" [19]

Who is maintaining the true faith on this subject of contraception? Who has done it clearly? I would argue it is because of our love for our Mother Mary that sets us apart. Revelation 12:17, Mary’s children are those who keep God’s commands and bear witness to Jesus. There’s a battle going on, you have to pick a side Mary or satan. Mary brings you to a deeper understanding of God; while satan, well you know where he brings you.

People saying the Pope has “too much” authority and that Catholics honor Mary “too much”, **don’t realize **that Mary is Jesus’ Mother and the Pope is the leader of Christ’s Church. You are either a member of Christ’s Church, or you are a schismatic or a heretic. If you don’t have faith that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church, then how do you have any faith in the Holy Spirit?

 

[Nicea325]

Well, I think it is a bit silly to ask to ask to define “Church” when the word came straight to us from Jesus.

18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

The Church is what Jesus started and gave to Peter to care for.

Jesus started the Catholic Church. No other Church or denomination can claim that. Nor would it be necessary. No one ever needs to fix something Jesus made.

Unfortunately over the centuries have felt the need to “fix” something Jesus made. I did not know Jesus founded His Church as a indicator for direct competition?

 

[TexanKnight]

Unfortunately over the centuries have felt the need to “fix” something Jesus made. I did not know Jesus founded His Church as a indicator for direct competition?

No…

Jesus was very clear. He was building HIS Church on Peter and the gates of hell would NEVER prevail against it. Only one church can trace its leaders from Peter to now.

Never mind that Jesus made a promise. For the LDS Church, or any other church to be THE true Church, then one must assume that Jesus was not a God of His word. Or, that Jesus was simply too weak to keep His Church going.

Is it likely that Jesus was either dishonest or too weak? I do not accept that.

 

[Nicea325]

No…

Jesus was very clear. He was building HIS Church on Peter and the gates of hell would NEVER prevail against it. Only one church can trace its leaders from Peter to now.

Never mind that Jesus made a promise. For the LDS Church, or any other church to be THE true Church, then one must assume that Jesus was not a God of His word. Or, that Jesus was simply too weak to keep His Church going.

Is it likely that Jesus was either dishonest or too weak? I do not accept that.

I agree with you 100%.

 

[Doxiemom]

Does not the catachism of the Roman Catholic Church describe that the claim to being the universal Church is because , even if you are of other Chrsitian groups, you are still under the umbralla of a universal church as there really is only one church, as was born out of Judism on Pentacost-which is one of their holy feasts given to them by God as He did claim the feasts to be His feasts.

There are levels of closement to the “catholic”(include orthodox here), first of which are the faithful Jews, because of the common binds of the Abrahamic Covenant, then comes various other Chrsitians( depending on how much they differ in theology) and then onto non-chrsitian beliefs that do follow natural law and the law of the heart.

All seek God, it says I believe, but seek Him with varying levels of Light( knowledge). There have always been, from the beginning, those who are seekers of Light and those who shun Light but go ever deeper into the Dark.

Those who deny that there is Light and stay in the Dark cannot be saved and are outside this universal church.

So, whether you like it or not, unless you totally and completely stay in this darkness and are cold and hard of heart(forever) you are part of the catholic church and the man who followed the sucession of Peter, known today as pope or pontiff, is head as having authority.

I am sure not every catholic and non-catholic are happy about this, and the truth be told, not always has every pope used his authority well. But just as David would not slay Saul because Saul was king, and with kingship was government , and government given to man by God,it shall remain so, that we have a pope, listen to him or not,
----------------------------------------------my opinion below-------------------------
There always was, and always shall, one church that was founded. It was founded by God Who lowered Himself into the form of a man Who was a Jew because it was chosen by Himself to be revealed through this hebrew people.It’s birth came on a very specific day call pentacost and God chose to come down again to man as Tongues of Fire and with a Great Wind.

The Roman Catholic Church has placed a high value on the natural law and the law of the heart to the extent that it says even those without Christ can enter into heaven if they have lived according to these laws, unknowing of Christ. The mystery isthat all lcome to theFather through Jesus, but we cannot grasp the possibilites of His Ways.

Sometimes you must examine yourself and ponder whether this was a question born of pride or born of concern.

 

[CopticChristian]

Does not the catachism of the Roman Catholic Church describe that the claim to being the universal Church is because , even if you are of other Chrsitian groups, you are still under the umbralla of a universal church as there really is only one church, as was born out of Judism on Pentacost-which is one of their holy feasts given to them by God as He did claim the feasts to be His feasts.

There are levels of closement to the “catholic”(include orthodox here), first of which are the faithful Jews, because of the common binds of the Abrahamic Covenant, then comes various other Chrsitians( depending on how much they differ in theology) and then onto non-chrsitian beliefs that do follow natural law and the law of the heart.

All seek God, it says I believe, but seek Him with varying levels of Light( knowledge). There have always been, from the beginning, those who are seekers of Light and those who shun Light but go ever deeper into the Dark.

Those who deny that there is Light and stay in the Dark cannot be saved and are outside this universal church.

So, whether you like it or not, unless you totally and completely stay in this darkness and are cold and hard of heart(forever) you are part of the catholic church and the man who followed the sucession of Peter, known today as pope or pontiff, is head as having authority.

I am sure not every catholic and non-catholic are happy about this, and the truth be told, not always has every pope used his authority well. But just as David would not slay Saul because Saul was king, and with kingship was government , and government given to man by God,it shall remain so, that we have a pope, listen to him or not,
----------------------------------------------my opinion below-------------------------
There always was, and always shall, one church that was founded. It was founded by God Who lowered Himself into the form of a man Who was a Jew because it was chosen by Himself to be revealed through this hebrew people.It’s birth came on a very specific day call pentacost and God chose to come down again to man as Tongues of Fire and with a Great Wind.

The Roman Catholic Church has placed a high value on the natural law and the law of the heart to the extent that it says even those without Christ can enter into heaven if they have lived according to these laws, unknowing of Christ. The mystery isthat all lcome to theFather through Jesus, but we cannot grasp the possibilites of His Ways.

Sometimes you must examine yourself and ponder whether this was a question born of pride or born of concern.

This is what I love…what you say is what the Church teaches and what the Church teaches is what was true yesterday…

13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Because God is God of All and His Church is the Church of all…Jew, Greek, Gentile, Barbarian because God…

9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11For there is no partiality with God.

Is impartial and so is HIs Church.

 

[dingodile]

Funny thing, I have never heard a Homily where a Priest taught against the Church’s position on contraception. Did you ever ask these “priests you know” if they have read Humanae Vitae? Are you even sure they are Catholic priests? I have no don’t dissenters exist on this, but a dissenter is a dissenter. Dissention from the truth leads to schisms/heretical divisions look at history. Seeking the truth leads to unity.

I’m certain they’ve read Humanae Vitae, as I have. And yes, I’m very certain they are Catholic priests. I did not claim that these priests contraverted the Church’s position on contraception in their homilies. That was your invention. I am speaking of private and small group discussions.

I can say that in over ten years of regular Catholic Church attendance, I never once heard the Church’s position on contraception, abortion, or women’s ordination taught, or even mentioned, in a homily (at this particular church). Silence in itself is not dissent, of course, but dissent can be the reason for silence, and in this case it was.

There is a difference between the unity of obedience and the unity of belief. I have found that there is often a gap between what Catholics, lay and religious, dare to express in public, and what they will confess to a non-Catholic in private.

Seeking the truth can lead to dissent too, you know. It often does.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m certain they’ve read Humanae Vitae, as I have. And yes, I’m very certain they are Catholic priests. I did not claim that these priests contraverted the Church’s position on contraception in their homilies. That was your invention. I am speaking of private and small group discussions.

I can say that in over ten years of regular Catholic Church attendance, I never once heard the Church’s position on contraception, abortion, or women’s ordination taught, or even mentioned, in a homily (at this particular church). Silence in itself is not dissent, of course, but dissent can be the reason for silence, and in this case it was.

There is a difference between the unity of obedience and the unity of belief. I have found that there is often a gap between what Catholics, lay and religious, dare to express in public, and what they will confess to a non-Catholic in private.

Seeking the truth can lead to dissent too, you know. It often does.

You point out a reality for all Christianity. The Church teaches consistently. If you read Humanae Vitae then you too have been taught. The purpose of the teaching is for all Christians. There is no teaching Protestant body that binds all Christians. The resource is for all.

It is true that not all get the message and not all put the message out. It is the responsibility of each and every individual believer and here is where it parallels Protestant thought. The believer is not spoon fed rather is responsible to know that the truth has been provided and to learn it and disseminate it. The Pope did not hold a whip and thrust this teaching on us. It was provided, disseminated and we are to know and understand then propagate it.

It has done it’s job. You know it. Sadly many do not get the message as you can see when reading the writings of the New Testament that contain many messages for those that are not practicing what they were taught.

 

[dingodile]

The believer is not spoon fed rather is responsible to know that the truth has been provided and to learn it and disseminate it.

And clearly those who understand but don’t believe the teaching cannot know that the truth has been taught, because it’s impossible to know what you don’t believe.

 

[CopticChristian]

And clearly those who understand but don’t believe the teaching cannot know that the truth has been taught, because it’s impossible to know what you don’t believe.

You make an excellent point.

Knox, Zwingli, Calvin and Luther could not know the truth because as you say it was impossible for them to know what they did not believe in spite of the fact that they clearly understood but did not believe the teachings and that is why they are labeled as heretics.

 

[afiala2]

…… the bishops of Egypt, Illyricum, and Palestine who anathematized Theodoret at Ephesus II did not view that Pope St. Leo (or really Archbishop, since the bishop of Rome had not yet assumed the title of pope) …

The Bishop of Rome has always been known as the Successor of Peter. See comparison of Isaiah/Matthew passages in OP, Father of the family-Keys of the Kingdom. Pope is an affectionate name for father by children, like daddy or papa; the Pope also is referred to as the Holy Father, Pontiff, and the Servant of the Servants of God. The average Catholic refers to simple priests as father today. The Successors of Peter started at least as soon as fourth century using the title Pope, 50 some years before Chalcedon, but it was also more widely used as a title to Clergy other than the Successor of Peter during earlier years so to call him Pope may not have been a distinguishing title at that time, even simple priests in the east used the title as well as Bishops of the West. This doesn’t take away from Leo being the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter. St. Gregory VII in the 11th century is when it was said to only use it to describe the Successor of Peter; therefore it is accurate to describe early Bishop’s of Rome with this title even before Leo because for almost 1,000 years now that title has been a distinguishing title of the Bishop of Rome or Pope is NOW known to ONLY refer to Bishop of Rome because no one else goes by that title within the Church (so when talking about early Bishops of Rome to refer to them as Pope, whether or not they used it as an official distinguishing title, is pointing to the obvious that **they were Successors of Peter **as we use the title exclusively today). Just as priests are fathers of their parishes and Bishops are fathers of their dioceses (hence title Patriarch for some Archbishops), the Pope is the father of the WHOLE family. If you are trying to argue that all priests in the east and Bishops in the west had the same authority as the Bishop of Rome because of the title alone, first I would say where is the proof, and second we still call priests father (Pope is a variation of the word). The Bishop of Rome (we now use Pope interchangeably) has always had a primacy above other Bishops, no matter the title, because the Pope is just one title. Father of the family is/was understood and because of schisms and heresies, this title has become exclusively held by the Bishop of Rome.

 

[afiala2]

I’m tired of seeing this one excerpt from the acts of Chalcedon being quoted over and over, when it has nothing to do with papal authority. Examining the acts of Chalcedon show plenty of evidence to the contrary, that the fathers did not really recognize papal authority as we might conceive of it today. For example, this is what was said when Theodoret was allowed entrance to the council:
We see here that the bishops of Egypt, Illyricum, and Palestine who anathematized Theodoret at Ephesus II did not view that Pope St. Leo…

The quote is from those at the council who recognized Papal Authority; you are just pointing out the dissenters who were temporarily confused (some later begged forgiveness) or were those who left the Church shortly after this Council by not recognizing Pope Leo I’s authority. They objected to Leo’s Tome because it was condemning their teachings as a heresy, so yes you are correct the Bishops you are pointing out didn’t agree with Leo or weren’t recognizing his authority that is why they left the church (or were confused because they had temporarily been listening to Dioscorus sense 2nd Ephesus Council until they heard all of Leo’s Tome).

The Chalcedon Council itself is a reflection of Papal Authority; Councils don’t have authority if not in union with the Pope, the Chair of Peter. The second council of Ephesus 2 years before Chalcedon not being recognized as an Ecumenical Council is what you need to pay attention too and the fact that Bishops left the Church after the Chalcedon Council. Pointing out dissention of people who are leaving the Church and/or teaching heresy is like pointing to Martin Luther and saying see he is the true church when he clearly left the Church and objected (nice way of putting it) to Papal authority.

Remember in the fifth century phones and internet, automobiles and planes weren’t invented yet so communication and travel was completely different than it is today.

We have to remember Dioscorus of Alexandria had “ex-communicated” St. Leo I following the Robber Council. But Pope Leo annulled the Acts of the council, absolved all those who were excommunicated at the Robber Council and excommunicated the participating Bishops of that Council. There was a bias against Pope Leo because of this by attendants of the Second Council of Ephesus, or “The Robber Council” and Chalcedon was straightening it out. The Bishops you speak of where geographically close to Dioscorus of Alexandria and/or where most likely attendees of the 449 Ephesus council that refused Pope Leo’s representatives and the council did not read the Tome of Leo rather listened to a Dioscorus dominated council, so were being influenced by him. Then when the Tome of Leo was read at Chalcedon the quote which I quoted (the one you are tired of) was said and then followed of questions of why wasn’t the Tome of Leo read at the 2nd Council of Ephesus. They concluded Dioscorus was hiding it from the attendees of the Robber Council. The 2nd Council of Ephesus was a clear attempt to shut out the Pope (who is still to this day referred to as and is the Bishop of Rome, but yet is still ALSO referred to as THE Pope by faithful members of the Church), because the Pope was in direct conflict with the teachings of the 2nd Council of Ephesus, and the efforts of the Council were trying to influence other people into listening to them instead of the Pope/the Church. The only reason you don’t recognize the Robber Council (2nd Council of Ephesus) is because Pope Leo I annulled its validity, otherwise you don’t recognize Pope Leo’s authority and you recognize Dioscorus. Those who accept the Robber Council most likely don’t recognize the Council of Chalcedon, because it doesn’t appear logical to accept both of them. You are either with Dioscorus or Leo, choose a side. And remember Pope Leo I didn’t ratify all of the Council of Chalcedon, hence only the canons the Pope ratified are recognized. The Pope is the authority because he is the Chair of Peter, hence the quote I quoted that you are tired of. The Council of Chalcedon also condemned the heresy that is attributed to the Abbot Eutyches.

The quote has EVERYTHING to do with Papal Authority. What does PETER HAS SPOKEN mean to you? Dioscorus was not the successor of Peter, Leo was. It makes complete sense to a Catholic. You are tired of it because it is proof the Catholics are right and it is everywhere you look. St. Cyril was a Bishop of the Catholic Church, St. Leo was a Bishop of the Catholic Church (also was the Pope, a Successor of Peter), the men at the Council of Chalcedon, who I was quoting, where agreeing with them and neither of these two were present at the Council (Cyril died in 444, Leo wasn’t present but was the current Pope). St. Cyril was Dioscorus’ immediate predecessor; everyone at the Council understood Dioscorus was deviating from the Church; only Dioscorus’ followers where ok with leaving, because they disagreed with St. Cyril and St. Leo. Dioscorus was deposed at the Council of Chalcedon.

In 431 the (First) Council of Ephesus St. Cyril of Alexandria was the presiding Bishop of the Council and the council condemned the heresy of Nestorius by clearly defining the Divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. **But it was only a recognized Council because Pope Celestine I ratified it **even though he wasn’t present. If you don’t hold this view then you are a follower of the Nestorius heresy, or not a member of the Church or not recognizing the Pope’s authority. Disputes have always arisen throughout history, if you are on the opposite side of the dispute than the Pope and then remain opposed after the matter is settled, you left the church. **A schismatic or heretic cannot magically become the Pope by disagreeing with the Church. **

 

[afiala2]

In analysing and understanding the proceedings of this second session of Chalcedon, it is important to understand several things. Canon 7 of Ephesus forbids creating any new creeds, which is what the bishops are objecting to in the beginning of the session. What the bishops expected to do was to anathematize certain writings as heresy and to approve others (including the Tome of Leo), so they were shocked at the proposal that a new creedal statement be made. This is also why the creed of Constantinople was read: they hoped to provide a precedent for creating other creedal statements in order to circumvent Canon 7 of Ephesus. When the tome of Leo is read out, we can see in the acts that the actual reading of the tome was interrupted by the bishops of Illyria and Palestine who objected to some statements made by the tome on several points. The tome was not being rubber stamped because of some sort of authority of the pope; in fact it was being read by the council to determine its Orthodoxy (the council mostly believed that it conformed to the faith of St. Cyril and of Ephesus, which explains the exclamation made at 23).

“Leo and Cyril taught the same”, it was part of the …….in between what I quoted before. You are confused; the Council of Chalcedon is Leo vs. the 2nd council of Ephesus and the condemning of the heresy of Eutyches (Monophysites), which is what Leo’s Tome did. There wasn’t a “approving of the Tome” the way you are saying, Leo’s Tome itself condemned the heresy, the devout Bishops I quoted simply agreed with Leo, stating Peter has spoken which means they are recognizing Peter’s Authority through Leo and no one should question it. Creeds are involved to weed out heresy that is why the Nicene Creed and others were made, to fight heresy. Leo wasn’t the Pope during the Council of Ephesus (431), the devout Bishops weren’t “judging” or objecting to Leo, they listened to what he had to say on the matter and they simply responded by saying that Peter has spoken on the matter it is finished, and that St. Leo’s letter is clearly in line with what St. Cyril taught (remember leader of the opposition is Cyril’s successor). Not only that, some were upset that they hadn’t heard it at the Robber Council. Again, Leo annulled the 449 council, those objectors most likely where the dissenters who left the Church (or were simply confused because they had attended the Robber Council). Re-watch video on OP. Bishop’s didn’t recognize the Council of Chalcedon and left the Church.

Your explanation does not explain why ”archbishop of the imperial and senior Rome” and “Peter has spoken through Leo” mean something other than what modern day Catholics believe about the Successor of St. Peter, Peter’s primacy. Surrounding history of the Council speaks volumes about the Papal Authority of the time. **Dissenters don’t disprove orthodox belief; it just proves there were dissenters **then just like there are dissenters today. Martin Luther doesn’t prove Catholics didn’t recognize the Pope’s/the Church’s authority during the reformation, he was a leader of the people who left the church and stopped recognizing it. So rather he is proof people are responsible for divisions when people stop recognizing Papal Authority, like the dissenting Bishops of the Council of Chalcedon.

St. Cyril of Alexandria

Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father **and Son **(emphasis added), it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it [Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 (c. A.D. 424)].

Council of Ephesus

Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: “There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors” [Session 3 (A.D. 431)].