Why I am Catholic

[fncceo]

Why I am Orthodox

I'm not Orthodox ... I'm not even a xtian.

I am a big fan of Medieval History ... particularly that of The Byzantine.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The first ecumenical council, The Council of Nicea, in 325CE, established both the church structure and hierarchy that you know today.

That council, held in Alexandria, was presided over by Patriarch Alexander The Orthodox version of Pope. It was a Greek Orthodox Council, attended by members of The Roman Church, not vice-versa.

I'm not re-writing History. It's just amazing how little xtians know about the history of their own church.

I guess knowing that history gets in the way of hating anyone who you think disagrees with you.

Shut up stupid protestant you can't handle the fact protestants split the church the second time and call Catholics not christians

 

[fncceo]

Shut up stupid protestant

I'm a Jew ... who also knows how to punctuate.

But, I guess things like history and grammar get in the way of dogmatic obedience.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

Jesus in no way shape of form advocated global theocratical hierarchy

That is a totally false statement. In choosing the apostles he essentially replaced the fathers of the 12 tribes.

In choosing Peter and handing him the keys to the Kingdom and giving him the power to bind and loose he specifically invoked the Rabbinical term for "forbidding and permitting." The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees.. In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who "bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers"; that is, "loose them," as they have the power to do (Matt. xxiii. 2-4). In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II. ("Clementine Homilies," Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: "I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church." Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." It is this view which, adopted by Tertullian and all the church fathers, invested the head of the Christian Church with the power to forgive sins, the "clavis ordinis," "the key-power of the Church."

Later, in the book of acts, we see Bishops, Deacons and Presbyters, which correspond exactly to today';s Catholic (and orthodox) Church. We have bishops, priests and deacons. Those are the only three levels of clergy in the Church. Just like te book of Acts.

As for the global aspect, Jesus said to make disciples of ALL nations. Therefore it only follows that the bishops, priests and deacons would be in all nations.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I'm a Jew ... who also knows how to punctuate.

But, I guess things like history and grammar get in the way of dogmatic obedience.

No, you are trying to rewrite it and who cares about grammar?

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

I'm not Orthodox ... I'm not even a xtian.
I am a big fan of Medieval History ... particularly that of The Byzantine.

Ah, I see

I'm a Jew

Well you got a lot of stuff right which is pretty good.

But, I guess things like history and grammar get in the way of dogmatic obedience.

In Catholicism, Dogmas are divinely reaffirmed Doctrines, or beliefs.

History is history.

Apples and oranges

 

[fncceo]

In choosing Peter and handing him the keys to the Kingdom and giving him the power to bind and loose

A small sample of Peter's writings...

“In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands” (1 Pet. 3:1)

 

[fncceo]

who cares about grammar?

Educated people?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Educated people?

Then why are you here if your educated?

 

[Wyatt earp]

That is a totally false statement. In choosing the apostles he essentially replaced the fathers of the 12 tribes.

In choosing Peter and handing him the keys to the Kingdom and giving him the power to bind and loose he specifically invoked the Rabbinical term for "forbidding and permitting." The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees.. In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who "bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers"; that is, "loose them," as they have the power to do (Matt. xxiii. 2-4). In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II. ("Clementine Homilies," Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: "I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church." Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." It is this view which, adopted by Tertullian and all the church fathers, invested the head of the Christian Church with the power to forgive sins, the "clavis ordinis," "the key-power of the Church."

Later, in the book of acts, we see Bishops, Deacons and Presbyters, which correspond exactly to today';s Catholic (and orthodox) Church. We have bishops, priests and deacons. Those are the only three levels of clergy in the Church. Just like te book of Acts.

As for the global aspect, Jesus said to make disciples of ALL nations. Therefore it only follows that the bishops, priests and deacons would be in all nations.

Catholics are wrong with stupid bishops and pope .



"But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."
Matthew 23:5-12, KJV

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

“In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands” (1 Pet. 3:1)

Yes, well, let us consider the rest of scripture to offer context: Paul also says something similar, but then he goes on to say, Husbands, love your wives just as Jesus loved the Church and laid down his life for us

Its a 2-way street

I heard a lady once say that such a man who would lay down his life for her and Christ laid down his life would be a man she could submit to.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

Catholics are wrong with stupid bishops and pope

YOU are wrong and you just called the Book of Acts and Stupid.
Read Acts and see the duties of bishops, and deacons, and priests all laid out.

The word Pope is an English bastardization of the word father. He is just another bishop, but he is the head bishop.

Learn something, moron

 

[fncceo]

No, you are trying to rewrite it

I can suggest few books from my library that go into great detail concerning the origins of both the Roman and Greek Churches ...

Byzantium: The Early Centuries - John Julius Norwich

The Byzantine Theocracy: The Weil Lectures, Cincinnati - Steven Runciman

A History of the Crusades, Volume One to Three - Steven Runciman

Rise and Fall of The Roman Empire - Edward Gibbon

Read these and then get back to me if you still disagree with my assessment.

 

[Wyatt earp]

YOU are wrong and you just called the Book of Acts and Stupid.
Read Acts and see the duties of bishops, and deacons, and priests all laid out.

The word Pope is an English bastardization of the word father. He is just another bishop, but he is the head bishop.

Learn something, moron

So us Catholics never called a priest before father? Again the Catholics are wrong

 

[fncceo]

Then why are you here if your educated?

...you're educated. I'm here for your education.

 

[fncceo]

Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master

But Rabbi means 'teacher', not 'master'.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

So us Catholics never called a priest before father? Again the Catholics are wrong

YOU are wrong. Once again: Read Acts and see the duties of bishops, and deacons, and priests all laid out.

The word Pope is an English bastardization of the word father. He is just another bishop, but he is the head bishop.

We call all priests and bishops father. Now if you have a problem with that then you can read this:

Call No Man "Father"?

Some Protestants claim that when Catholics address priests as "father," they are engaging in an unbiblical practice. Here's how to respond.

www.catholic.com

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

But Rabbi means 'teacher', not 'master'.

As soon as that poster popped off with "stupid bishops and pope" they went into the dustbin of credibility.

 

[sparky]

That is a totally false statement. In choosing the apostles he essentially replaced the fathers of the 12 tribes.

In choosing Peter and handing him the keys to the Kingdom and giving him the power to bind and loose he specifically invoked the Rabbinical term for "forbidding and permitting." The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees.. In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who "bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers"; that is, "loose them," as they have the power to do (Matt. xxiii. 2-4). In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II. ("Clementine Homilies," Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: "I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church." Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." It is this view which, adopted by Tertullian and all the church fathers, invested the head of the Christian Church with the power to forgive sins, the "clavis ordinis," "the key-power of the Church."

Later, in the book of acts, we see Bishops, Deacons and Presbyters, which correspond exactly to today';s Catholic (and orthodox) Church. We have bishops, priests and deacons. Those are the only three levels of clergy in the Church. Just like te book of Acts.

As for the global aspect, Jesus said to make disciples of ALL nations. Therefore it only follows that the bishops, priests and deacons would be in all nations.

Jesus never 'said' any of what you claim Uncca , the council of Nicaea INTERPRETED Him and His followers towards your claims

This was because the Romans were the original Borg, assimilation was their MO, which they did very well , which at the time had far more political gain than feeding His followers to the lions in arenas

Further, none of what you claim 'written' was even in print during Jesus' short earthly experience, do not confuse His teachings with that which is no more than the politicization of them

~S~

 

[fncceo]

We call all priests and bishops father

You call "The Pope" father as well -- from the Italian for Papa. His official title is Sancta Papa (Holy Father).

And the Orthodox call the head of their church Patriarch -- a Greek word for the male head of a family.