Why is the Vatican and Catholicism superior?

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Not material oil probably, for it is not mentioned in such Scriptures as Acts viii. 17, xix 6, Heb. vi. 2; but the anointing (1 John ii. 20) of the Holy Ghots. As a symbol, oil was used at an early period, however; and the Latins are not slow to press this in favour of material oil in the chrism, or confirmation.

It's both physical and spiritual.

As we are both physical and spiritual.

As Christ is both physical and spiritual.

Not one or the other...

Both

That is what we are taught. That is what we have maintained.

Forgive me...

 

[PT Calvinist]

Oh Most Noble Theophilus:


Chapter III.-Nature of God. You will say, then, to me, "Do you, who see God, explain to me the appearance of God." Hear, O man. The appearance of God is ineffable and indescribable, and cannot be seen by eyes of flesh. For in glory He is incomprehensible, in greatness unfathomable, in height inconceivable, in power incomparable, in wisdom unrivalled, in goodness inimitable, in kindness unutterable. For if I say He is Light, I name but His own work; if I call Him Word, I name but His sovereignty; if I call Him Mind, I speak but of His wisdom; if I say He is Spirit, I speak of His breath; if I call Him Wisdom, I speak of His offspring; if I call Him Strength, I speak of His sway; if I call Him Power, I am mentioning His activity; if Providence, I but mention His goodness; if I call Him Kingdom, I but mention His glory; if I call Him Lord, I mention His being judge; if I call Him Judge, I speak of Him as being just; if I call Him Father, I speak of all things as being from Him; if I call Him Fire, I but mention His anger. You will say, then, to me, "Is God angry? "Yes; He is angry with those who act wickedly, but He is good, and kind, and merciful, to those who love and fear Him; for He is a chastener of the godly, and father of the righteous; but he is a judge and punisher of the impious.

 

[tadoflamb]

Coming this Sunday to a Catholic Church near you!

In Him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of salvation, and have believed in Him, were sealed with the promised holy Spirit which is the first installment of our inheritance toward redemption as God's possession, to the praise of His glory. (Ephesians 1:13-14)

 

[PT Calvinist]

can you do any less?

well?

 

[Rhamiel]

You do realize that my first Bishop was Peter also. I never said Peter was Apostate. I said The Church of Rome is.

From your POV would you not be forced to say that The Church of Jerusalem is apostate?

One or the other is.

Forgive me...

the EO is not apostate, just schismatic, she broke away from the Church though her actions

 

[AmericanCatholic]

There are many differences in the Catholic faith that are radical compared to other denominations.

You have that reversed.

 

[Albion]

You hit the nail on the head on why I love Catholicism. The Catholic Church has had a lot to say on lots of things concerning morals and faith. I suppose one reason for that is that the Catholic Church is confronted a lot, so the need arises to clarify teachings. If I need clarification, all I have to do is pick up my catechism with all it's cross references to scripture and Church documents.

As I said, any cult will do all of this for you too. I'm surprised that being correct and not defining where defining is not called for doesn't rank at least a bit higher on your list, but that's just my reaction FWIW.

For instance, in my parish from the top down, there seems to be a great deal of support for women's ordination. If left to myself and my own devices, I'd probably hop on the bandwagon. It's a popular notion these days. However, I know, and the Bishop of Rome knows, that the Church doesn't have the authority to ordain women. And so, instead of following popular thought, I tend to look towards Rome which for me has the greater authority.

Well, that doesn't set your church apart from many others which are also feeling these pressures from the world but resisting them as invalid.

True, not all things are dogma, but I, for one, believe the Catholic Church contains the fullness of God's revealed Truth, so if the Church says it, I try to follow it to the best of my ability.

If that is what you need.

Thank you very much for your posts, they've given me a greater appreciation for the AC.

You're welcome, although my church does not belong to the AC or intend to. The term, "Anglican Communion" seems to confuse non-Anglicans who think it refers to the whole world of Anglicans. In fact, the AC is a particular federation, a voluntary association, of some Anglican churches, representing about 60% of the Anglicans in the world. Some of these churches are not in communion with each other and there is a wide range of beliefs and practices among them.

And then there are about 33-40% of the world's Anglicans who are unaffiliated with the AC, although they have their own federations or communions in many cases. They are more traditional in belief and pracfice than the AC. I answered as these orthodox Anglicans would.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

the EO is not apostate, just schismatic, she broke away from the Church though her actions

Let's not fool ourselves. There is no EO. There are Churches who are still in communion with one another, as they have always been. EO is only a description.

We are talking about

Jerusalem
Antioch
Rome
Alexandria
Byzantium

Five Patriarchate's (Five See's) Each one with a Bishop and fully capable of caring for it's community.

For 1000 years there were five in communion. Now there are four in communion. Where did the one go? No where. Rome is still where it was then. However, her Bishop will no longer sit in council with us as equals and has not gotten the vote of the other four to ratify changes made since their division against the very councils themselves.

All can be forgiven... but the Pope must return to first among equals and everything that has been declared by Rome since the falling of Rome must be declared to be a local council only. Ecumenical councils must be ratified by all the churches, as it has always been.

Rome must remove the filioque and rescend Unam Sanctum among others.

We welcome Rome's return to Orthodox Christianity. However, she cannot lead. She should be in repentance and you know it.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

So...

Is the Vatican superior?

Forgive me...

 

[BrendanMark]

Just speculation, but since most of the Sees seem to be based upon political and population factors, the fact that Rome didn't fall to Islam may be one reason for many to make such an assumption. I note you still refer anachronistically to "Byzantium" - which only became important at all when Constantine moved there.

It is now Istanbul. Alexandria and Antioch fell long before, and Jerusalem was the focus of unsuccessful crusades that may have harmed Christendom more than helped - once it was rebuilt.

Rome had the influence and presence of Peter and Paul - and was the capitol of the Empire at the time of the founding of the Church. Secular considerations, I know, but real and historical ones as well - as the Apostles knew. Once Jerusalem was razed, it was only natural Rome would become the centre of Christendom in the Empire. To realise the regard Rome was held in, unlike any other ancient city including Constantinople and Alexandria, one only need read Augustine's City of God.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Just speculation, but since most of the Sees seem to be based upon political and population factors, the fact that Rome didn't fall to Islam may be one reason for many to make such an assumption. I note you still refer anachronistically to "Byzantium" - which only became important at all when Constantine moved there.

It is now Istanbul. Alexandria and Antioch fell long before, and Jerusalem was the focus of unsuccessful crusades that may have harmed Christendom more than helped - once it was rebuilt.

Rome had the influence and presence of Peter and Paul - and was the capitol of the Empire at the time of the founding of the Church. Secular considerations, I know, but real and historical ones as well - as the Apostles knew. Once Jerusalem was razed, it was only natural Rome would become the centre of Christendom in the Empire. To realise the regard Rome was held in, unlike any other ancient city including Constantinople and Alexandria, one only need read Augustine's City of God.

All true. The councils reflect the same.

Forgive me...

 

[Rhamiel]

Let's not fool ourselves. There is no EO. There are Churches who are still in communion with one another, as they have always been. EO is only a description.

We are talking about

Jerusalem
Antioch
Rome
Alexandria
Byzantium

Five Patriarchate's (Five See's) Each one with a Bishop and fully capable of caring for it's community.

For 1000 years there were five in communion. Now there are four in communion. Where did the one go? No where. Rome is still where it was then. However, her Bishop will no longer sit in council with us as equals and has not gotten the vote of the other four to ratify changes made since their division against the very councils themselves.

All can be forgiven... but the Pope must return to first among equals and everything that has been declared by Rome since the falling of Rome must be declared to be a local council only. Ecumenical councils must be ratified by all the churches, as it has always been.

Rome must remove the filioque and rescend Unam Sanctum among others.

We welcome Rome's return to Orthodox Christianity. However, she cannot lead. She should be in repentance and you know it.

Forgive me...

Alexiandria left before the East-West Schism, the Coptic Church is not in Communion with the EO,
there were more then five in communion, there were many Bishops in the East and in the West, still are, the EO seems to just focus on the Patriarchs
The Catholic Church is made up of Eastern and Western Rites, The Eastern Rites have their own Bishops as the head of each particular church, some Eastern Churches wish to stay in Schism, some Eastern Churches wish to have communion with Rome and accept the Pope first among equals

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

How does that bolster the superiority of the Vatican and The Church of Rome, when it comes to matters of faith?

...and how does it effect the fact that The Church of Rome should be in repentance for her past actions while in the hands of bad men?

Forgive me...

 

[PT Calvinist]

How does that bolster the superiority of the Vatican and The Church of Rome, when it comes to matters of faith?

...and how does it effect the fact that The Church of Rome should be in repentance for her past actions while in the hands of bad men?

Forgive me...

When you can tell me how it dosen't bolster the superiority. then you can simply answer that question yourself. But I understand that you want to catch Catholics in a web so that you can correct them on their beliefs.

I already told you why Catholicism is superior....

Because it came before the Church of Antioch.
Schismatics of course don't agree on this. so.....That makes it troublesome.
I also. like you, don't believe that Christ instantiated the RCC when you said to Peter, "This is my rock, on whom I will build my church."
That is mere specualtion.

 

[spiritwarrior37]

Otherwise, According the the RC, The Church of Antioch is not superior to the Vatican, because the RCC was instantiated when Christ said to Peter: "This is my Rock". Meaning that the Catholic Church was before the Church of Antioch.



That would be considered heresy to your Church.

Note: This is not my opinion, but supported by Catholic belief.

13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The rock spoken of here is not Peter, but the understanding of Peter of who Jesus was, the Son of God. The church was built upon Jesus as shown here: Eph.2:19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
The church was not built upon Peter or anything he did, but on Jesus who did it all for us.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Why Catholics are wrong about Matthew 16:18

Here's the proof you've all been waiting for

And upon this rock,

etc. This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word ROCK refers to Peter's confession; and that he meant to say, upon this rock-- this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah--and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety; and in such confessions shall my church stand amidst the flames of persecution--the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that he referred to himself.

Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8.

And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said: "Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah--upon myself as the Messiah--I will build my church." Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm in and fit for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honoured; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10:1 and following, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbours, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honour of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles. And this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one on whom he would rear his church.

See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed--a thing which could not have happened if Christ, as the Roman Catholics say, meant that Peter should be absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter should have infallible successors who should be the vicegerents of Christ, and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this:

"I will make you the honoured instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."
​

 

[Fixation On God]

Most Protestants agree with you H_B

 

[Albion]

I already told you why Catholicism is superior....

Because it came before the Church of Antioch.

That argument is really not credible, as I think you know. At no point in the Matthew passage is Rome even hinted at, nor would that make any sense. In addition, there is absolutely no warrant for assuming--regardless of what we make of Jesus' words to Peter--that he actually was speaking to several hundred other men to come.

 

[PT Calvinist]

That argument is really not credible, as I think you know. At no point in the Matthew passage is Rome even hinted at, nor would that make any sense. In addition, there is absolutely no warrant for assuming--regardless of what we make of Jesus' words to Peter--that he actually was speaking to several hundred other men to come.

I'm not Catholic, that's not my assumption. I am using Catholic theology though, i don't know if you forgot that.

Catholics haven't come against what I've said. Maybe that could be because they're for it. And them, being loyal Catholics, heed to Rome, since they do so, I don't have to assume because since they heed to Rome and Rome is Correct in Catholic belief, I don't have to specualte, I know how they feel.

Btw, earlier I posted of why Catholics are wrong about their interpretation of Matthew 16:18. it's just a couple of posts behind.

 

[Albion]

I'm not Catholic, that's not my assumption. I am using Catholic theology though, i don't know if you forgot that.

That's why I said, "as I think you know." The argument remains without foundation, though, and occasionally it's worth mentioniong. There are other arguments that can be used which are somewhat more plausible, but that one isn't among them.

Catholics haven't come against what I've said. Maybe that could be because they're for it. And them, being loyal Catholics, heed to Rome, since they do so, I don't have to assume because since they heed to Rome and Rome is Correct in Catholic belief, I don't have to specualte, I know how they feel.

Btw, earlier I posted of why Catholics are wrong about their interpretation of Matthew 16:18. it's just a couple of posts behind.

Yes, but as I recall, you dealt there with a different aspect of Jesus' words to Peter and the subsequent claims made by the church at Rome.