Why are Roman Catholics afraid to admit to being the first Protestants?

[Eschato]

Ignatious said:

If only that were true!

I have spent years pondering that very quote. You see, it seems most logical that what Christ was saying was: ‘you are Peter but it is on THIS rock [meaning HImself] that I build my Church’!

The hymn ‘Rock of ages cleft for me’. That is not Pope of ages but refers to Christ! Similarly, Christ called HImself ‘the stone which the builders rejected’. It seems to me again that He was referring to Himself.

I wish you were right but I am also a realist

If you are are a realist, why are you daydreaming in make-believe-land?

Do you get your theological basis from your own inferences or some other protestant’s? You cannot change the words of holy scripture around to make it better suit what you want them to be. They are what they are, and he meant what he said. Take it or leave. I seriously wouldn’t mind if you leave it.

Simon means sand, or sandy.
Peter means rock.
Jesus means neither.
What does “rock of ages” have to do with anything?

 

[Hesychios]

It was the Orthodox who left. Both parties are at fault, but Orthodox split from us.

You know you are wrong about that.

Carefully read your history. The Orthodox did no such thing.

Cardinal Humbertus placed the bull of excommunication directly on the altar of Hagia Sophia! A deacon chased after him, begging him to take it back, and the Cardinal let it fall in the street…

The Orthodox church did not leave obedience of the Pope, because in the normal operating practice the Pope had no function in the east. His only involvement was when he was asked to participate.

The standard operating procedures of the eastern churches did not actually change at all as a result. No new Canons were needed, no replacement for the Pope was needed.

No new theology, no changes at all. You may check any source: Roman Catholic materials, independent scholarship, Orthodox writings, college textbooks, anything! The Orthodox church did nothing different after the schism.

There were no ‘recusants’, no big debates, no new rules and no martyrs. No crises.

Imagine if the church of France (or any Roman Catholic body, perhaps the USCCB) were to separate from the Pope today. How would they choose their bishops? How would they canonize their saints? Who would approve their GIRM, or their catechism? That church structure would have to address each and every procedure that previously involved the Vatican, the Curia, the Pope.

And there would be a historical record of all the changes.

None of this happened in the East, because the Pope did nothing in the East. He never even called a Council.

What is usually overlooked by Roman Catholics is that each of the patriachal churches was autocephalic. That means they each were self-headed, independent of each other.

The Patriarch of the west (called the Pope of Rome) was as independent as the Pope of Alexandria. The Roman Pontiff and his Curia decided to go their own way. Today that should be a source of great embarassment for them.

(It is often objected that the Pope had expired and so the Bull was invalid, but that is a modern excuse. The Bull was not repudiated by the next Pope, the Cardinal was not reprimanded. They simply carried on as if it were a valid action. That is not defensible with an argument that “the Pope died”.)

But Roman Catholic authors and apologists will not normally explain it the way I have laid it out here, in fact they gloss over the events in a very cursory manner. It does not look good for Rome.

Michael

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Incredibly, there is more misinformation per post here than in the usual thread.

It appears that most Roman Catholics do not know their own history, but are very familiar with their own propaganda.

So sad…

Michael,

Some Catholics (Latin Rite or otherwise) have not read much on the events and situations leading to the Great Schism of 1054.

It has been addressed on other threads recently. In fact, I gave the ‘brief notes’ version a few weeks back.

I suggest that our more zealous friends (from both points of the compass) do a little more research before pointing fingers.
It was unfortunate, but it is what it is. The Western Church (with the Bishop of Rome as Pope) thrived while Islam (Turkish variety) and later, communism, stifled the spread of Orthodox Christianity.

We love our Eastern Catholics and we love our Orthodox brethren. I hope the ecumenical work given added impetus by BOTH sides during Pope John Paul the Great’s papacy brings all of us ‘catholic Christians’ together in the Catholic Church.

My upbringing (Slovak and English-Irish) was in the Latin Rite. But I enjoy the other Rites (and the Anglican Use!) of our Eastern Churches.

The main problems were political and cultural. Let us pray it is not too late to correct the foolishness of past cardinals and patriarch, popes and metropolitans. We are of the same trunk. Our beauty is our varied liturgies and customs, our commonality is our doctrine and dogma.

Let us not let language, the parsing of a phrase or concept, keep our communion apart.

Pax Christi

Jonathan

 

[Bishopite]

Largely through the influence of Protestants on this forum, the facts about the Holy Apostolic Orthodox Catholic Church, I have come to realise that Roman Catholics are in fact the first protestants.

So why condemn luther’s followers when you taught them how to be protestants

Protestant is a term decribing those who willingly or are the product of protesters against the Catholic Church. And what is the “Holy Orthodox Catholic Church?”
If “Roman Catholics are protestants” that would mean all Catholic are protesting (whether they know it or not) against the *One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which is an impossiblity in principle.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Sixtus:

Largely through the influence of Protestants on this forum, the facts about the Holy Apostolic Orthodox Catholic Church, I have come to realise that Roman Catholics are in fact the first protestants.

So why condemn luther’s followers when you taught them how to be protestants

The Church in 110 A.D was called Catholic by St. Ignatius of Antioch. I don’t agree that the Catholic are Protestants.

By definition is “protests the teachings of the Church of Rome or Catholic Church.”

If you say it is, the Church would be against itself.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You know you are wrong about that.

Carefully read your history. The Orthodox did no such thing.

Cardinal Humbertus placed the bull of excommunication directly on the altar of Hagia Sophia! A deacon chased after him, begging him to take it back, and the Cardinal let it fall in the street…

The Orthodox church did not leave obedience of the Pope, because in the normal operating practice the Pope had no function in the east. His only involvement was when he was asked to participate.

The standard operating procedures of the eastern churches did not actually change at all as a result. No new Canons were needed, no replacement for the Pope was needed.

No new theology, no changes at all. You may check any source: Roman Catholic materials, independent scholarship, Orthodox writings, college textbooks, anything! The Orthodox church did nothing different after the schism.

There were no ‘recusants’, no big debates, no new rules and no martyrs. No crises.

Imagine if the church of France (or any Roman Catholic body, perhaps the USCCB) were to separate from the Pope today. How would they choose their bishops? How would they canonize their saints? Who would approve their GIRM, or their catechism? That church structure would have to address each and every procedure that previously involved the Vatican, the Curia, the Pope.

And there would be a historical record of all the changes.

None of this happened in the East, because the Pope did nothing in the East. He never even called a Council.

What is usually overlooked by Roman Catholics is that each of the patriachal churches was autocephalic. That means they each were self-headed, independent of each other.

The Patriarch of the west (called the Pope of Rome) was as independent as the Pope of Alexandria. The Roman Pontiff and his Curia decided to go their own way. Today that should be a source of great embarassment for them.

(It is often objected that the Pope had expired and so the Bull was invalid, but that is a modern excuse. The Bull was not repudiated by the next Pope, the Cardinal was not reprimanded. They simply carried on as if it were a valid action. That is not defensible with an argument that “the Pope died”.)

But Roman Catholic authors and apologists will not normally explain it the way I have laid it out here, in fact they gloss over the events in a very cursory manner. It does not look good for Rome.

Michael

I already know that when I was looking over at the 1054 Schism.

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/timeline_history_of_catholic_orthodox_relations.htm

 

[jco2004]

Which Orthodox church is the first Church? There are so many to chose from. Could you please clarify which of the Orthodox churches is the original church?

There is only one Orthodox Church. The ethnic and national divisions in Orthodoxy are not different churches. Joe

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Largely through the influence of Protestants on this forum, the facts about the Holy Apostolic Orthodox Catholic Church, I have come to realise that Roman Catholics are in fact the first protestants.

So why condemn luther’s followers when you taught them how to be protestants

The word Protestant" already has a clear set of meanings - to include Catholics as Protestants would only cause confusion, & make yet another word, that originally signified one set of things, rather than a different set of things, so elastic in meaning as to be useless. “Gentleman”, “Christian”, “liberal”, “democrat”, are already all but unusable, because they have been over-extended, to mean things they did not; or else they are used so generally as to be meaningless. If that happens often enough, all exchange of thought becomes impossible. Christianity is quite perplexing enough without more & needless confusions.​

This is what C.S. Lewis called verbicide - for when words are used in this way, they are killed. Without definite meaning, we are condemned to using words in imprecise senses; which would have been entirely uneccessary, had we been less careless. ##

 

[jam070406]

You know you are wrong about that.

Carefully read your history. The Orthodox did no such thing.

Cardinal Humbertus placed the bull of excommunication directly on the altar of Hagia Sophia! A deacon chased after him, begging him to take it back, and the Cardinal let it fall in the street…

The Orthodox church did not leave obedience of the Pope, because in the normal operating practice the Pope had no function in the east. His only involvement was when he was asked to participate.

The standard operating procedures of the eastern churches did not actually change at all as a result. No new Canons were needed, no replacement for the Pope was needed.

No new theology, no changes at all. You may check any source: Roman Catholic materials, independent scholarship, Orthodox writings, college textbooks, anything! The Orthodox church did nothing different after the schism.

There were no ‘recusants’, no big debates, no new rules and no martyrs. No crises.

Imagine if the church of France (or any Roman Catholic body, perhaps the USCCB) were to separate from the Pope today. How would they choose their bishops? How would they canonize their saints? Who would approve their GIRM, or their catechism? That church structure would have to address each and every procedure that previously involved the Vatican, the Curia, the Pope.

And there would be a historical record of all the changes.

None of this happened in the East, because the Pope did nothing in the East. He never even called a Council.

What is usually overlooked by Roman Catholics is that each of the patriachal churches was autocephalic. That means they each were self-headed, independent of each other.

The Patriarch of the west (called the Pope of Rome) was as independent as the Pope of Alexandria. The Roman Pontiff and his Curia decided to go their own way. Today that should be a source of great embarassment for them.

(It is often objected that the Pope had expired and so the Bull was invalid, but that is a modern excuse. The Bull was not repudiated by the next Pope, the Cardinal was not reprimanded. They simply carried on as if it were a valid action. That is not defensible with an argument that “the Pope died”.)

But Roman Catholic authors and apologists will not normally explain it the way I have laid it out here, in fact they gloss over the events in a very cursory manner. It does not look good for Rome.

Michael

you should read what your own Eastern Fathers and leaders wrote. it is clear Rome had authority. to deny this, is to deny history.

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450):

A native of Antioch, Theodoret ruled under the Antiochean Patriarch.

I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. **For that most holy **throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516)

Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that 'such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.’ (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)

Emperor Justinian (520-533)

*Writing to the Pope, … *

Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since **you are the **Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)

A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople, …

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

 

[jam070406]

the only early church was the Catholic church. the Orthodox church was established after 1054.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch (363):

Our Lord Jesus Christ then became a man, but by the many He was not known. But wishing to teach that which was not known, having assembled the disciples, He asked, ‘Whom do men say that the Son of man is?’ …And all being silent (for it was beyond man to learn) Peter, the Foremost of the Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church, not using the language of his own finding, nor persuaded by human reasoning, but having his mind enlightened by the Father, says to Him, ‘Thou art the Christ,’ not simply that, but ‘the Son of the living God.’ (Cyril, Catech. xi. n. 3)

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826):

*Writing to Pope Leo III … *

Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387):

Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, ‘Blessed art thou, &c.’ This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty …even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)

Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).

Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)

(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)

And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren, …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge. (Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

 

[AdvanceAlways]

God established the Catholic Church on earth. It is Biblical, it is fact. The Orthodox in their rejection of the Bible (in terms of St. Peter’s Primacy) separated themselves from the Church.

 

[Hesychios]

The Orthodox in their rejection of the Bible (in terms of St. Peter’s Primacy) separated themselves from the Church.

Not so, this is a fallacy.

The Holy Orthodox church has not rejected primacy of the bishop of Rome. Orthodoxy understands primacy very well, it is operative throughout the church at many levels, and when the east and west were in communion primacy of Rome (at the level of Patriarchs) was understood and accepted. Orthodoxy is Catholic, always has been, and no one can take that away from us. Orthodoxy teaches no errors (even the Roman Catholic church publicly acknowledges that ).

What Holy Orthodoxy rejects is the late claims to Supremacy (primacy and supremacy are quite different, as I am sure you know), and this was not even a big issue at the time of the great schism. The big issue of the day was the filioque, and the second was abuse of the Byzantine churches in southern Italy after the Norman conquest.

Interestingly, if one reads the list of complaints in the Bull excommunicating the east, rejecting the primacy of Rome is not even among them! Among an assortment of silly charges there is one very serious FALSE charge against the Eastern Catholics, that of removing the filioque from the Creed!

The blatantly fraudulent nature of the charges is so embarassing to the Roman Catholic church, that I have never seen a Roman Catholic site on the internet that will actually list them, and I have never seen a book from Roman Catholic sources that will list them. Ask your priest for the information, he will probably not have it, and not know how to find it. It seems to be unavailable from Roman Catholic sources anywhere, yet the Bull of excommunication was not formally rescinded until 1965.

In place of solid information, what Roman Catholics can usually learn about the subject is myth, pure propaganda that goes back hundreds of years and is mindlessly repeated as if it were fact.

Michael

 

[marlo]

so does the Oriental Orthodox in the 3rd century, they did not change after splitting, No council no new theology, nothing new,just the old 3rd century OO church.just like the EO, it stopped in the 8th century.

.

No new theology, no changes at all. You may check any source: Roman Catholic materials, independent scholarship, Orthodox writings, college textbooks, anything! The Orthodox church did nothing different after the schism.

Michael

 

[jam070406]

Not so, this is a fallacy.

The Holy Orthodox church has not rejected primacy of the bishop of Rome. Orthodoxy understands primacy very well, it is operative throughout the church at many levels, and when the east and west were in communion primacy of Rome (at the level of Patriarchs) was understood and accepted. Orthodoxy is Catholic, always has been, and no one can take that away from us. Orthodoxy teaches no errors (even the Roman Catholic church publicly acknowledges that ).

What Holy Orthodoxy rejects is the late claims to Supremacy (primacy and supremacy are quite different, as I am sure you know), and this was not even a big issue at the time of the great schism. The big issue of the day was the filioque, and the second was abuse of the Byzantine churches in southern Italy after the Norman conquest.

Interestingly, if one reads the list of complaints in the Bull excommunicating the east, rejecting the primacy of Rome is not even among them! Among an assortment of silly charges there is one very serious FALSE charge against the Eastern Catholics, that of removing the filioque from the Creed!

The blatantly fraudulent nature of the charges is so embarassing to the Roman Catholic church, that I have never seen a Roman Catholic site on the internet that will actually list them, and I have never seen a book from Roman Catholic sources that will list them. Ask your priest for the information, he will probably not have it, and not know how to find it. It seems to be unavailable from Roman Catholic sources anywhere, yet the Bull of excommunication was not formally rescinded until 1965.

In place of solid information, what Roman Catholics can usually learn about the subject is myth, pure propaganda that goes back hundreds of years and is mindlessly repeated as if it were fact.

Michael

sorry, but i’ll believe St. Maximus the Confessor whos says, the church of Rome presides over all the churches which are under the sun and are subject to her.

as far as the filioque, whatever Rome decides on this matter is the final decision. for now, it remains. Rome has spoken.

and let’s be fair, there are polemic materials written by both sides on these issues.

 

[Hesychios]

you should read what your own Eastern Fathers and leaders wrote. it is clear Rome had authority. to deny this, is to deny history.

You quote my post, but your post does not address my points.

You should be aware that churchmen were very fond of flowery language, and they were of a habit of saying such things to each other routinely. The bishop of Rome was not the only hierarch to receive such praise.

Your proof-text cutting and pasting does not support the existence of a modern Papacy. It is very supportive of a former primacy which the Orthodox church does not deny.

But none of this serves as a proof for supremacy, which today is claimed by the Papal church. Since supremacy is a late development, it did not figure into the formation of the schism (which was mainly a result of the heresy of the filioque, and attempts to impose it upon the east). Papal Supremacy is just one more of several obstacles to unity the Roman church has been piling up over the centuries.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

so does the Oriental Orthodox in the 3rd century, they did not change after splitting, No council no new theology, nothing new,just the old 3rd century OO church.just like the EO, it stopped in the 8th century.

Are you proud of the fact that your church has changed?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Pope John Paul II worked to bring about reunion with the East. He says, “The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are two lungs within the same Body.” …and how “we must learn to breathe with both lungs.” He also declares that “ignorance of the Eastern Rite is ignorance of the Church.”

It is interesting that folk claim that 'catholicism is based on the Roman see of Peter

What is not being said is that ‘catholicism’ you speak of is in fact 'Roman Catholicism as it that were ‘the only catholicism’. What about all the other catholicisms?

We cannot substantiate and evidence our unity by pretending those not in union do not exist

Up until the Council of Nicaea, the churches in the East were heading towards Arianism. If not for the Pope in Rome, and the grace of God, the Church today would be Aryan.

Jim

 

[Hesychios]

sorry, but i’ll believe St. Maximus the Confessor whos says, the church of Rome presides over all the churches which are under the sun and are subject to her.

The last I heard, St Maximos, great saint that he was, was not gifted with the charism of infallibility.

as far as the filioque, whatever Rome decides on this matter is the final decision. for now, it remains. Rome has spoken.

Rome resisted the filioque for several hundred years, yet was unable to stop it’s progression through the western church.

Eventually through the influence of the Franks, the dogma was imposed upon Rome. Aachen has spoken.

and let’s be fair, there are polemic materials written by both sides on these issues.

I agree, but I don’t think I have been polemical. I am only interested in clarifying the issue for others who may read here. To correct misinformation that may be posted (otherwise without challenge).

The Patristic quotations are, for the most part probably correct, and I will not challenge them. But the conclusions I will draw are quite a bit different from what you may draw.

I am not really expecting most Roman Catholics to agree with me, and that’s OK. I don’t expect to change your minds.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Up until the Council of Nicaea, the churches in the East were heading towards Arianism. If not for the Pope in Rome, and the grace of God, the Church today would be Aryan.

Jim

What had any Pope to do with Nicea

 

[jam070406]

You quote my post, but your post does not address my points.

You should be aware that churchmen were very fond of flowery language, and they were of a habit of saying such things to each other routinely. The bishop of Rome was not the only hierarch to receive such praise.

Your proof-text cutting and pasting does not support the existence of a modern Papacy. It is very supportive of a former primacy which the Orthodox church does not deny.

But none of this serves as a proof for supremacy, which today is claimed by the Papal church. Since supremacy is a late development, it did not figure into the formation of the schism (which was mainly a result of the heresy of the filioque, and attempts to impose it upon the east). Papal Supremacy is just one more of several obstacles to unity the Roman church has been piling up over the centuries.

Michael

the Orthodox seem to find a loop hole out of everything don’t they?
the role of Rome has not changed throughout history. your own post asserts this by saying supremacy was not an issue in the split. the claims by the Orthodox about Catholics changing history is in fact the exact opposite, THEY have changed the role of the pope. Orthodox have changed history to make the pope and Rome seem like some evil dictator trying to control the world. (funny it only comes after the split) the role of pope was further defined. that’s it! it didn’t change the role he already had. the pope is to shepard the flock and preserve faith and morals. read Vatican I. it says nothing more than what has always been stated. Peter is the rock, etc. etc. the quotes i posted prove that the Fathers believed the same thing. (it’s not just fluffy talk)
the church has always been know as the Catholic church. the “Orthodox” church is a new church that came out of the split.
or should i say churches? because there is no one Orthodox church.
there is no unity among these churches. it’s a complete fallacy, to give the impression they are one. but they are not.
claiming the papacy is some new creation and pretending the Orthodox churches are all One are the only things the Orthodox can stand on. if they admit they are wrong then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
the only way to unity is to come home to the church of Rome.