B
badebop
Guest
A reading of Eusebius of Caesarea’s “Church History” will find the East deferring to the authority of Rome several times.
- Status
S
Scalia
Guest
No, only Peter is given the Keys. Only Peter is told to repeatedly feed my sheep. Only Peter gets the name change.
D
DavidB
Guest
Sarah Jane:
David
So do I. While they all pay special honor to the seat of Peter, not one provides for the concept of papal infallibility nor papal authority over the entire Church. Until the fililoque issue in 1054, the bishop of Rome had never made a doctrinal decision apart from a council of bishops. He was considered the first among equals, but he was not considered to have that authority, that is to decide doctrine on his own. When that occured, East said ‘no way’ that’s not for you to decide based on 1,000 years of history and you’ve over stepped your bounds.
David
F
Fiat
Guest
So, do you pay special honor to the seat of Peter, DavidB? If not, why not? If so, how so? If the ECF are so instructive to you that papal infallibility is a Roman Fiction, then I can assume that their reverence of the Petrine seat is also instructive to you.
Fiat
B
BibleReader
Guest
Paul may in fact mention the second Pope, Linus, as a companion, at 2 Timothy 4:21.
Perhaps on the same day as Peter, according to some sources, Paul was martyred in Rome at the hands of Nero, and 2 Timothy seems to anticipate that, at 2 Timothy 4:6-8. So, the time is right.
And if indeed Paul wrote 2 Timothy from Rome, as the impending doom he mentions implies, the place is right.
Papal phobiacs are dishonest if they object that John does not mention popes after Peter, but they then omit the fact that Paul seems, indeed, to mention the man who was second in line.
Perhaps on the same day as Peter, according to some sources, Paul was martyred in Rome at the hands of Nero, and 2 Timothy seems to anticipate that, at 2 Timothy 4:6-8. So, the time is right.
And if indeed Paul wrote 2 Timothy from Rome, as the impending doom he mentions implies, the place is right.
Papal phobiacs are dishonest if they object that John does not mention popes after Peter, but they then omit the fact that Paul seems, indeed, to mention the man who was second in line.
D
DavidB
Guest
Actually, ‘yes’ I do regard the Pope with great honor. Just being the bishop over a billion Christians is sufficient reason to honor him above any other bishop in the world. That he holds the seat of Peter, all the more so.
My parish prayed fervently for the recovery of JPII and said a requiem Mass for him after he passed away And we have prayed for Benedict.
David
F
Fiat
Guest
So, it appears you recognize apostolic succession of the Petrine ministry, and you acknowledge the Patriarch of the West as the rightful and authoritative bishop of his episcopacy. I assume, then, that you only protest to issues of authority over a universal church, and part of your argument is that St. John doesn’t mention a pope in the Book of Revelations. Does your bishop have apostolic succession? Who is your bishop and how does he substantiate that claim?
Fiat
D
DavidB
Guest
Yes, you’ve got it with your first few comments. But I never had a problem or question about John never mentioning a Pope in Revelations. That was someone else. I simply said there wasn’t a universal Pope at the time, so I wouldn’t expect John to have said anything.
Yes, our bishops in the CEC (www.iccec.org) have Apostolic Succession. From the Catholic perspective, it’s considered valid, but illicit. It comes through the Catholic Church of Brazil. So the ordination and succession is valid, but not recognized since that Church is schizmatic. We actually have very close ties to the Catholic Church. In our area, we occasionally are sent Catholics by their bishops for ministry purposes. We’re charismatic and they trust us, so we get people who need Spirit-Filled ministry, prayers and deliverance. The referals come from fairly high up in the diosese, so our bishop and the Catholic bishop must be on good terms.
David
F
Fiat
Guest
DavidB:
It appears this thread is dying out and my comments here have little to do with the topic itself, but I have an observation. It appears the thrust of your posts is that although the Bishop of Rome is the true Bishop of the Latin Church and has proper apostolic succession, you deny his position as Bishop of the universal church. In support of your argument, you use selective texts of the ECFs (and perhaps you misuse those texts, as you did in your discussion with ChurchMilitant regarding St. Jerome’s dialogue of achieving Christ’s command of being “perfect.”) You also subscribe to conspiracy theories about forgeries.
At the same time, you honor the pope, praying “feverntly” for him, remembering him at times even in your masses conducted under the jurisdiction of “schizmatic” (your word, not mine) bishops. You admire the Eastern Orthodox Church because you believe that their ecumenical structure is proper and correct, yet as it appears you believe in the necessity of apostolic succession (indicated by your acknowledged of the Pope as the Bishop of Rome), you indicate to us that your own Church is not a part of the Eastern Orthodox Communion.
I don’t know much about the Charismatic Episcopal Church, (nor am I really that interested), but I do recall hearing the testimony of one of your priests who recognized the error of his ways and was received into full communion with the Holy Catholic Church. It strikes me as odd that you can acknowledge the validity of the Eastern Orthodox Communion yet clearly not be a part of it. It strikes me as odd that you can reverence the pope, not in some sort of pitying way in which you privately think he is greatly misled, and not be a part of his episcopacy. I asked how your own bishop traces succession and you were content to ignore it. that’s fine. I think I already know the answer. My guess is that at some level you recognize the disonance, and that’s why you’re here.
Peace.
Fiat
D
DavidB
Guest
Why is that odd to you? I admire a number of Christian denominations. I see many branches bearing the fruit of the Vine and admire them because of it. I prefer my own branch and don’t have a desire to jump to another at this point. That one of our priests decided to become Catholic is not a surprise. Others have joined the Orthodox. And we have a number who have left those denominations to join us. We maintain excellent dialogue and relations with both, so there’s no hard feelings.
Again, why do you find that odd? I am a US citizen and prefer to live here more than anywhere in the world. Yet I admire other nations and their leaders without wanting to leave where I am and join them. Can’t someone want to converse and fellowship with people from other communions without having alterior motives?
Huh? I clearly told you that my bishops received their Apostolic Succession via the Catholic Church of Brazil. And I provided our website so you could research further if you wanted more info - I assumed no one else wanted me to clutter up the thread with such details.
David
F
Fiat
Guest
Because I believe the Holy Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, I can’t imagine being a part of any other church. There are some aspects of other churches I too admire (mostly cultural), but the sum of all of those qualities still fall short of the completeness of truth and beauty I find in the Catholic Church.
As far as the apostolic succession of your church is concerned, my confusion lies in what appears to be your approval of Eastern Orthodoxy and apostolic succession. If you are content to trace the apostolic succession and legitimacy of a bishop in schism with another bishop in schism with the ecumenical councils, then I leave it to your own logic to substantiate the validity of your church’s claim.
Unlike your situation, my membership in the Catholic Church is not simply a “preference.”
Fiat
D
DavidB
Guest
We don’t view ourselves as “schizmatic”. I used the term to acknowledge that’s how you view us. We understand that and realize you won’t change your view, but we know for certain we are a branch of the Vine. And even if your Catholic branch doesn’t recognize us as a branch, it doesn’t change or alter the reality that we are indeed a branch. We know your opinion is mistaken, which is sad, but we don’t lose any sleep over it. We have enough to keep us busy just following the direction of the Lord. Our faith is strong enough to view and treat you as our brothers and sisters in Christ. Many individual Catholics are strong enough in their faith to recognize that truth and accept us in the same light. Others are not, but that’s OK, we’ll be patient until you do
David
F
Fiat
Guest
DavidB:We don’t view ourselves as “schizmatic”. I used the term to acknowledge that’s how you view us. We understand that and realize you won’t change your view, but we know for certain we are a branch of the Vine. And even if your Catholic branch doesn’t recognize us as a branch, it doesn’t change or alter the reality that we are indeed a branch. We know your opinion is mistaken, which is sad, but we don’t lose any sleep over it. We have enough to keep us busy just following the direction of the Lord. Our faith is strong enough to view and treat you as our brothers and sisters in Christ. Many individual Catholics are strong enough in their faith to recognize that truth and accept us in the same light. Others are not, but that’s OK, we’ll be patient until you do
David
Since we are so off-topic, I’m a little surprised this thread hasn’t been shut down. Until then, I’m content to carry on the exchange. You say you know our opinion is mistaken and you won’t lose sleep over it, yet it appears you spend a great deal of your time trying to convince us that we are wrong by posting here. If you truly accept us Catholics, then why spend your time tyring to correct the deficiencies you perceive?
Fiat
D
DavidB
Guest
It’s really not much time. Few minutes at a time. I cruise threads based on topics of interest. Many times, I just read threads to learn and provoke thinking. When I do post, it’s not always trying to correct, but can’t help trying to get some folks back on track when I can. Doesn’t mean they’ll accept the help, but I try anyway. Sorta like life, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him think, I mean drink.
David
F
Fiat
Guest
Yes you’re right. It’s a little like the Enemy in the Book of Job…wandering to and fro…and walking up an down…
Fiat
D
DavidB
Guest
Now that was funny.
J
John_Henry
Guest
I would say the answer is similar to why St. Ignatius would also not mention the “Pope”. To quote John Henry Newman:
"For instance, it is true, St. Ignatius is silent in his Epistles on the subject of the Pope’s authority; but if in fact that authority could not be in active operation then, such silence is not so difficult to account for as the silence of Seneca or Plutarch about Christianity itself, or of Lucian about the Roman people. St. Ignatius directed his doctrine according to the need. While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. When the Apostles were taken away, Christianity did not at once break into portions; yet separate localities might begin to be the scene of internal dissensions, and a local arbiter in consequence would be wanted. Christians at home did not yet quarrel with Christians abroad; they quarrelled at home among themselves. St. Ignatius applied the fitting remedy. The Sacamentum Unitatis was acknowledged on all hands; the mode of fulfilling and the means of securing it would vary with the occasion; and the determination of its essence, its seat, and its laws would be a gradual supply for a gradual necessity…
When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated.
And, in like manner, it was natural for Christians to direct their course in matters of doctrine by the guidance of mere floating, and, as it were, endemic tradition, while it was fresh and strong; but in proportion as it languished, or was broken in particular places, did it become necessary to fall back upon its special homes, first the Apostolic Sees, and then the See of St. Peter."
- Status