But that IN NO WAY MEANS THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME HAS JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER THE BISHOPS OF THE OTHER CHURCHES.
Each churches were independently led by their own Bishop who were charged to be faithful to the gospel.
The example of Paul shows that while he was a bishop in his own right, he still reported to the central authority.
There was NO POPE.
The patriarch of the Latin branch earned the first amongst equals status by being true to the Faith in the first millennium while the Orthodox were not quite, shall we say, orthodox.
While later Roman bishops would claim such authority, resulting in the development of the papacy, at the time of the Council of Nicea, no Christian looked to one individual, or church, as the final authority.
That's not what Paul says. He says that the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth. He further goes on to say that it is only what the Church teaches that is right and correct.
This is important because often we hear it alleged that the Trinity, or the Nicene definition of the deity of Christ, is a “Roman Catholic” concept “forced” on the church by the pope. The simple fact of the matter is, when the bishops gathered at Nicea they did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as anything more than the leader of the most influential church in the West.
We who? I am Roman Catholic. I do not consider my Orthodox brethren to be any less Catholic than I am. The pope is the first among equals, nothing more.
RE: And homosexual men may prefer to be ‘married’. Liberals prefer Obama. So?
Your analogy between the corruption of the word “marriage” by militant gays and the alleged corruption of the word “catholic” is a false one. MINE is the correct understanding of the word. Yours is the LATER INNOVATION.
Negative. The term Catholic was used as early as the first century by Irenaeus.
RE: I understand the Church to be what Jesus indicated that it is. And that only includes those who believe in the teachings of the Church, as handed down from the Apostles.
And who are these people but those who believe and obey SCRIPTURES. For it is in the SCRIPTURES where we find the teachings of Christ and the apostles. I see no reason why non-Catholics who obey scriptures should be excluded from the church of Jesus Christ.
Take it up with Jesus. I do not reason why when it comes to Him.
RE: Then diverging one’s self from the Catholic Church does not seem to conform to your thesis, does it?
Again who is diverging from the catholic Church? Only those who refuse to believe in Jesus and those who refuse to obey His teachings are the ones who are diverging. You have not shown that non Roman Catholics fir that description at all.
By refusing to follow the teaching authority of the Church (remember to shake the dust from your sandals), those who do not follow the Church are not of the Faith. And again, it is not just the Latin branch, but all Catholics.
RE: Certainly. One is either Catholic or one is not.
Yes, and I don’t think you get to decide that.
Thankfully, only the Judge of All gets to decide that.
RE: The example of Paul shows that while he was a bishop in his own right, he still reported to the central authority.
To whom did he report?
He did go to Jerusalem to be laid hands on and to be commissioned to preach the gospel, but where does it show that Peter had authority over him?
In fact in Galatia ( as Paul himself wrote in his epistle ), it was PAUL HIMSELF exercising the authority based on the word of God ( the gospel ) who PUBLICLY REBUKED Peter in Antioch for his hypocrisy. See Galatians 2:11-16.
In fact, when Paul wrote about the pillars of the church to the Galatians, he said this:
“6 As for those who were held in high esteem —whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism —they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.” ( Galatians 2:6-9)
Notice any supreme authority given to Peter in the above passage? I don’t. I do notice these:
1) He said that both he and Peter were equally entrusted with preaching the gospel. Peter to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles. Where is the indicator that Peter was the Pope with authority over Paul?
2) When Paul mentioned the Pillars of the church, it is interesting that Peter (Cephas) was mentioned SECOND, next to James. Why would that be if Peter had jurisdictional primacy over the others? Shouldn’t he be mentioned first?
So no, all indications are that ALL APOSTLES held EQUAL positions in the preaching of the gospel. THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF ANY HIERARCHICAL AUTHORITY AT ALL.
RE: The patriarch of the Latin branch earned the first amongst equals status by being true to the Faith in the first millennium while the Orthodox were not quite, shall we say, orthodox.
And just because you said so, it must be so? Sorry, no dice. I want you to show me WHERE in the early churches ( yes, up to even Nicea ), Rome exercised authority over all the other churches.
If Rome held the doctrinal interpretation that everyone had to adhere to, then why did the Bishops not simply ask the Pope ( if indeed such a a position existed ) to speak infallibly for all on the one important doctrine — the Nature of God and the Deity of Jesus Christ — that separated orthodoxy from heresy?
Why bother meeting at Nicea? It would be a simple matter for the Pope to tell everyone what to believe and all to simply accept it.
Let the Bishop of Rome write a Papal Doctrinal Letter and let all adhere to what he infallibly said.
But no such thing existed.
In fact, it was ATHANASIUS (later Bishop of Alexandria ) who was the champion of the Nicene Creed.
RE: That’s not what Paul says. He says that the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth. He further goes on to say that it is only what the Church teaches that is right and correct.
You are referring to 1 Timothy 3:15:
“if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
Which leads to 2 questions:
1) What church was Timothy pastoring then? Answer the EPHESIAN CHURCH. Where in this passage did he refer to Rome?
2) When Paul used the term church? What was he referring to?
What Paul is referring to is this — The church holds forth the Scripture and the doctrine of Christ, as a pillar holds forth a proclamation. Hence, the church (any church anywhere in the world, be it in Ephesus, Rome or in New York) SHOULD be FAITHFUL to God’s word.
How do we know this? Because Paul said so.
He said this to Timothy in another letter:
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”
This is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with his advise to Timothy and the Ephesians church he pastored — THE CHURCH IS THE PILLAR OF TRUTH IN THAT IT MUST AND SHOULD BE FAITHFUL TO THE WORD OF GOD.
So, where does it mention the Church of Rome in the above passage? If Rome and the Pope were so important in this context, I find it strange that Paul failed to mention it at all.
RE: The term Catholic was used as early as the first century by Irenaeus.
Yes he did in his writings AGAINST HERESY, but again what did he mean by “catholic”? Did he mean a church headquartered in Rome with jurisdiction over all churches? Or did he mean the universal body of true believers everywhere?
If you say it is the former, maybe you can quote the exact explanation he gave for me....
RE: Take it up with Jesus. I do not reason why when it comes to Him.
Let’s see what the Lord Himself said concerning who His brothers and sisters are:
Matthew 12: 46-50
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
So, I’ve taken it up with Him and I still fail to see how he tells us that one must acknowledge the Papacy of Peter and his successors to be a member of His church.
I do see Him requiring OBEDIENCE to God (which of course requires adherence to HIS WORDS ).
RE: By refusing to follow the teaching authority of the Church (remember to shake the dust from your sandals), those who do not follow the Church are not of the Faith. And again, it is not just the Latin branch, but all Catholics.
But I DO follow the teaching authority of the church. I do not even disobey what the Popes teach.
However, in doing that, I must (and so must you) obey the teaching authority of Christ — Who taught us to — LOVE THE LORD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, WITH ALL YOUR SOUL AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND (Luke 10:27).
That does not mean BLINDLY accepting whatever a Bishop or even Pope teaches without using one’s mind (which the Lord Himself tells us to use) to discern whether what they teach are scriptural.
RE: Thankfully, only the Judge of All gets to decide that.
Of course, that is why I said your statement that “one is either Catholic or not” is not for you to decide. You agree with me and that’s good.