Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or both?

Me

[the_conscience]

I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?

I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?

[Cronos]

Poe: "While it is true that the Eastern Orthodox looks upon their Patriarchs as bishops, the Catholics have made it a point (many times I might add) to say they trace their heritage all the way back to Peter. Well who do the Orthodox trace their heritage to? Irvin?"

Mark: "All priests and bishops trace their lineage back to the Apostles."

Harley: "That is not what is being discussed. "

Me :-) Come on, HD, Poe was asking one thing to which Mark answered, you've just asked a whole different question.

[Cronos]

“This is a unique chair” — quite incorrect. The Apostolic Church as a whole asserts that The Bishop of Rome holds the position of first among equals and that yes, the person who sits in the seat of Peter has a unique position within The Church. They do dispute aspects of authority, but the “uniqueness” of the chairr of Peter was never in question, neither was/is the uniqueness of the chair of St. Andrew (Constantinople) or St Mark (Alexandria) etc.

[Poe White Trash]

You wrote:

Poe: "While it is true that the Eastern Orthodox looks upon their Patriarchs as bishops, the Catholics have made it a point (many times I might add) to say they trace their heritage all the way back to Peter. Well who do the Orthodox trace their heritage to? Irvin?"

I didn't write those sentences. HarleyD did. Please refer to HarleyD's Post #12,150.

Please don't attribute to me postings I didn't write.

[Poe White Trash]

The Apostolic Church as a whole asserts that The Bishop of Rome holds the position of first among equals and that yes, the person who sits in the seat of Peter has a unique position within The Church.

As an institution, the Apostolic Chair hasn't been whole for about 1 000 years.

You're incorrect -- the "Eastern Orthodox" claim that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is "primus inter pares."

The Church of Rome claims that, as Wikipedia puts it so succinctly,

The Roman Catholic Church considers the Pope to be Vicar of Christ, successor of Saint Peter, and leader of the bishops, successors of the Apostles. Due to this, the Roman Catholic Church sees the Pope as holding an office senior to that of other bishops, rather than merely being the most senior bishop. This claim was one of the main causes of the East-West Schism in the Christian church, which became formal in 1054. The Dean of the College of Cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church is generally considered to be the first among equals in the College.

However, Wikipedia isn't the only source of information about this very basic historical fact. Don't believe me? -- look it up.

[Cronos]

You're incorrect -- the "Eastern Orthodox" claim that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is "primus inter pares."

No, ask any of the Eastern Orthodox, they will tell you that the primus inter pares is the Pope and the second is the EP. However, since the schism, they don't meet with the Pope, so the Patriarch who occupies the next position of respect has the highest position of respect.

[Cronos]

Apologies for that,!

[Forest Keeper]

All three passages show that God gives mercy as His sovereign decision. He may choose the Jews despise their sinfulness and he may pass over the Egyptians, or choose Jacob and pass over Esau. But these passages do not show that the grace is not sufficient for all called should they ask for it. Neither the Pharaoh, Esau, or a hardened sinner ask.

No, the giving of mercy to all who choose Him (first) cannot be the sovereign decision. In my 11,842 I quoted from Rom. 9:10-18 and Eph. 2:1-7. These show God as the actor. It was God who hardened certain hearts so that they would be UNABLE to ask for mercy. There is the decision.

God saying that He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy is a meaningless statement if all it means is that God will obediently follow the direction of man by abiding by the decisions of man. It would be like a politician proclaiming to all the world that his sovereign decision was to accept the votes of all who voted for him. It's meaningless. God's decision to grant mercy is not based on man's will, it's based on God's will alone. For God's will to be to submit His will to man's will would be for Him to abdicate His sovereignty. It would make God like the politician who tries as hard as he can to get votes, but the ultimate power is still with the people. Heaven is NOT a democracy. :)

[Forest Keeper]

“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”

From that I’m supposed to learn that God gives mercy at random?

Not at all. Nothing in the statement implies randomness. Rather it states that God will decide (implicitly) by whatever means He sees fit. Granted, we are not told what those means are, but that does not leave only randomness. It just says that HE decides (not man). We can reasonably infer that those means are not random because the Bible does not describe a God to us who makes random decisions. Everything we know about God is attached to a purpose. There are specific reasons for everything, even if we are not told what they are.

How about learning that God gives mercy according to his desire - and he has consistently given forgiveness to those who believe Him. It was true in Gen 15, and it was true in John, and true everywhere else.

Sure, I agree with that, but it does not address how people come to believe in Him. In my 11,842 I posted verses I thought showed that it was God's decision alone which hearts would be able to believe in Him since God alone decides to harden some.

Romans 9 doesn’t address individual salvation, but the transmission of the promise to Abraham.

It explains that the transmission of the promise through Abraham was to INDIVIDUALS who are Israel by faith, not by birth.

Righteousness by election, or by faith?

Both. CHRIST'S righteousness is imputed to the elect by grace through faith.

FK: “This last passage shows God as the sole actor, even when those He was acting on had no faith.”

Not hardly.

Huh? Here is the section I highlighted: "4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, ...". God made us alive WHEN we were dead in sins. I don't see how it could be any plainer.

Since I’m reading in John right now, I’ll once again offer a small excerpt of what John had to say about believing - just in the first 7 chapters, so my post won’t be too long...and as you review them, ask yourself if belief is something we are responsible to do, in response to God & evidence, or if it is a gift given after salvation: [Jhn 1:7, Jhn 1:12, Jhn 1:50, Jhn 2:11, Jhn 2:22, Jhn 2:23, Jhn 3:12, Jhn 3:15, Jhn 3:16, Jhn 3:18, Jhn 3:36, Jhn 4:39, Jhn 4:41, Jhn 4:42, Jhn 4:48, Jhn 4:50, Jhn 4:53, Jhn 5:24, Jhn 5:38, Jhn 5:44, Jhn 5:46-47, Jhn 6:29-30, Jhn 6:35, Jhn 6:36, Jhn 6:40, Jhn 6:47, Jhn 6:64, Jhn 6:69, Jhn 7:5, Jhn 7:31, Jhn 7:38, Jhn 7:39, Jhn 7:48]

All of those verses are true and none of them show that God's will was to surrender His sovereignty to the will of man. We do respond to God because the gift is before belief, just as many of the verses confirm. But none of these verses negate or contradict those verses which specifically describe the mechanism of how we come to faith. When read in that light, they all remain perfectly true. So with monergism all the verses are true, but with synergism I don't see any explanation for the truth of the verses explaining that God makes a sovereign decision without following man (such as those we are discussing in Romans and Ephesians).

Sorry - there is no way to read those verses and conclude God gives us belief after we are born again, or after we have been given life.

Well, that's fine. They were not designed to do that and do not contradict the idea. Other passages show God's sovereignty in election and grace.

We are saved by grace thru faith, not by grace thru election.

I agree. Election comes before grace. First election, then grace, then faith.

[HarleyD]

Different Patriarchs trace their lineage back to different Apostles (like St. Mark for Alexandria, etc.) or to other Patriarchates. The Orthodox have Apostolic lineage.

So then the Pope is NOT the head of the Catholic Church. He is ONE member of a group of people who head the Catholic Church. And thus he cannot be infallible if others disagree with his pronouncements.

[HarleyD]

Ping to above. It seems we have the same view. ;O)

[annalex]

God saying that He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy is a meaningless statement if all it means is that God will obediently follow the direction of man by abiding by the decisions of man.

God sets His own laws: laws of nature and laws of morality. It is not that He obeys His own Laws, He simply in His love for us informs us what they are, and gives us grace to obey them when we are so disposed. It is therefore His sovereign will to show mercy on those who choose righteousness, and pass over those who don't. You wouldn't say that God lacks sovereignty because objects, once dropped, fall to the ground?

[Cronos]

How do you get So then the Pope is NOT the head of the Catholic Church. He is ONE member of a group of people who head the Catholic Church. And thus he cannot be infallible if others disagree with his pronouncements. from Different Patriarchs trace their lineage back to different Apostles (like St. Mark for Alexandria, etc.) or to other Patriarchates. The Orthodox have Apostolic lineage. -- that is applying sola interpretura tactics (one's own opinion blinding what the text says) rather than real reading. This is a failure of sola scriptura.

The FACT is that different Patriarchs trace their lineage back to different Apostles. There is no and has been no dispute to that -- we hold the Orthodox and Oriental's Apostolic descent as being without question and they hold the same for ours and their own. They also hold that the Pope, continuing in the seat of St. Peter is the First among Equals, just as Peter was the head of the Apostles in the sense of the Eldest, the most respected. They dispute the administrative authority of the Pope over other Patriarchs but they do not dispute the position of primus inter pares respect.

Finally, you do mistake the idea of Papal infallibility -- the last time it was invoked was in 1950 and it has been invoked barely a half-dozen times in the past millenium

And, the doctrine as described in VII says "Although individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with peter's successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith and morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one that must be held conclusively. This authority is even ore clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" -- The Orthodox hold to the ecumenical councils which were infallible.

A Pope's private theological opinions are not infallible, remember, neither is his opinion on fried eggs v/s boiled. This is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope. It prevents a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as truth something that is in fact error. It does nothelp him know what is true, nor does it inspire him to teach what s true. He had to learn the truth the way we all do -- through study -- though the protection of the Holy Spirit prevents falling into error. Infallibility is held by the bishops as a whole as representatives of The Church as a whole (which is infallible). Individuals can disagree with any of Pope JPII's pronouncements or actions (he was after all a mortal, FALLIBLE man like you or me), but not on the words of Peter spoken ex-cathedra on dogma / doctrine (which to my knowledge JPII did not use). The words as spoken by this office are infallible, not the man himself. Hence the occupant of the office is distinct from the office itself.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[Poe White Trash]

No, ask any of the Eastern Orthodox, they will tell you that the primus inter pares is the Pope and the second is the EP. However, since the schism, they don't meet with the Pope, so the Patriarch who occupies the next position of respect has the highest position of respect.

More correctly, according to the Eastern Orthodox position the primus inter pares would be the Bishop of Rome IF the two churches were not in schism and IF the Bishop of Rome were to give up his claims to extra-special status: Vicar of Christ, etc.

The primus inter pares certainly WAS the Bishop of Rome BEFORE 1054, although you could qualify the matter further because there was a lot of haggling over what the content of the status was, not to mention the existence of schisms before 1054. But you know this.

[Poe White Trash]

Literally. I hate it when that happens.

[Cronos]

That is not “more corretly”, sorry, but the Pope is still consiered primus inter pares with the EP second and since they are not meeting, the EP occupies the highest position of respect. It still is the Pope’s title of First among equals.

[Poe White Trash]

That is not “more corretly”, sorry, but the Pope is still consiered primus inter pares with the EP second and since they are not meeting, the EP occupies the highest position of respect. It still is the Pope’s title of First among equals.

I read your post twice and still can't figure out what you're trying to say.

In your last post, you were discussing the status of the Bishop of Rome from the Eastern Orthodox perspective. Now you are asserting an unnamed perspective, neither RC nor Eastern Orthodox.

Perhaps you should try again in the morning.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

First election, then grace, then faith.

AMEN! Ephesians 1.

[MarkBsnr]

I had no idea JPII and BXVI speak not just for those who submit to the Church of Rome, but also for those who are in a church who are in schism with the Church of Rome.

Catholic is Catholic. Your statement is a non sequitur.

Do yourself a favor and get a good dictionary.

I have several, thanks for your concern.

Anyone with the ability to read the history of medieval and modern history of knows that what you say is flat-out false.

Interesting. My statements are true. That is the reality of the Church.

Histories of the Byzantine Empire, Orthodox beliefs in the light of the ecosystem, the role and the importance of hesychasm and so on are not definitive histories of the Church.

That's right. You don't. I must say your learning is not in evidence.

Eyes to see and ears to hear. Perhaps your indwelling god might help you out.

If I wish a lesson in the Gospels, I'll open my Bible and prayfully consult God and my conscience,

May I ask what form of consultation occurs? Which is more important - God or your conscience. We Catholics have consciences formed from the Faith. I see that you admit to having your own conscience interpreting Scripture. Nice.

or else I'll attend my Bible Church on Sunday and consult my Christian fellowship there

Ah. Traditions of men huddled around. I must thank you for your frank admissions. Most Protestants deny this.

The land of Christ is everywhere, and is not circumscribed but the institutional pride of the Church of Rome.

Not sure what you mean here.

LOL! I find your meek and unassuming position here in character with what passes for RC apolegetics on FR. As for me, I'll continue to point out what I see as myth and falsehood as long as the moderators permit me.

Catholic believe that what God sees matters, as opposed to what we see, however much we want to see it, laden with human pride and arrogance. I must thank you again for your frankness. It is refreshing to see admitted what has been on display since the Reformation.

[MarkBsnr]

Would you say the Pope is at the same level and position as all the other Bishops?

No, he is considered primus inter pares. On the same level as the Patriarchs of the other four sees.

We're talking specifically about the Pope himself and his office. It has always been the RCC position that this is a unique chair specifically designated for the head of the Catholic Church.

No. The Church is led by the council of bishops, with the Patriarchs and the Pope as equals. What is under consideration is what primus inter pares actually means. In no way is it administrative. It has more to do with the respect of the position than having command authority.