Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Bishop of Rome was simply doing his work as a Bishop of a particular church, The Suburbicarian Church of Rome!!! Cyprian was pointing out Catholic practice from the fount of Orthodoxy the Bishops in Council.
Do you have any Church fathers or Scriptures which say that?
And if that is the case, then why does Cyprian call Rome "the chair of Peter and to the principal Church", and say "the Church is built on Peter"
When Pope Clement I wrote outside of his bishopric to the church at Corinth, how was that simply doing his work as the Bishop of the diocese of Rome?
The best attempt to explain the situation in readable fashion is "The Early Church and the See of Rome!"
Father Pullan.
I bought mine at a secondhand bookshop quite a few years ago, butI have seen copies there since!Luckily, that book seems to be out of print. These sort of anti-Catholic polemical histories that were fashionable in the 1800's really do not deserve another printing.
Thank you for the info on this book, which seems to have been popular in the early 1900's in England. I would hope that a broad-minded chap would find time to read outside Anglican authors to see what Catholic authors would say about these subjects.What a broad minded chap you are, when I grow older, I don't want to be like you!
.
Are you sure that is the title, and not "The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome"The best attempt to explain the situation in readable fashion is "The Early Church and the See of Rome!"
Father Pullan.
You've read the book,have you?Luckily, that book seems to be out of print. These sort of anti-Catholic polemical histories that were fashionable in the 1800's really do not deserve another printing.
You've read the book,have you?
From your comment I would have to assume you have, else how could you describe it as anti-Catholic polemic unless you were familiar with its contents.
I've read a number of books which are pro-Orthodox. Funnily enough they too are often described as anti-Catholic by those under the Papacy, though they are nothing of the sort.
Are you sure that is the title, and not "The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome"
Why? I've repeatedly mentioned the source of Roman Authority and prestige!
She was the product of two Apostles! (Only one could be proved, but, it is recognised that Peter was in Rome, for how long is disputed!) Rome was the Capitol of the Roman Empire. The Bishop of Rome was parish priest to the Emperor, It was like London is to England now. But, the greatest gift of all was the fact that it was the only really big Christian Centre in the West. Rome was , by wish of the Ecumenical Council, the only Apostolic See in the West! Primus inter pares.
.
Lady,The fact that Rome was the Capitol of the Roman Empire. How does this mean that she wasn't, spiritually, "the Chair of Peter, and the principle church, from which priestly unity takes its source", as Cyprian says?
One of the issues I have with private judgment, is that often those who hold it can't seem to find a single person in early Church history who interprets the N.T. roughly like they do on even a few issues.
Lady,
I think your getting mixed up,
I don.t personally believe that Orthodoxy or orthodox believe in private interpretation. They hold to Christ's Revelation,& scripture which is interpreted by the Bishops in Council. my own Communion the A.C.C. hold to this way of thinking and it is historically correct for all Catholics.
However, when I wrote down the lines of thought which came down from your Council of Trent, which agreed with Tradition, you wouldn't accept it?
But there is another way in which Rome agrees with private interpretation, Where did transubstantiation arrive from? It was the idea of a 1st Millenium Pope, so I understand, as distinct from the Real Presence.
What was the origin of the Immaculate Conception?
I've told you repeatedly , that I believe the Lady Mary was Immaculate, but not because she had a sinless birth.I follow the Councils, where as your ideas stem from an individual, or series of individuals, whereas the ideas taught by the Orthodox and my own Communion follow the Rule of faith, with the Bishops interpreting faith and belief in the Catholic Church!
As for Rome,
It is not shown in the Gospels/Revelation, Scripture or Tradition that the See of Rome is one whit different than any other by Divine will, or promise. She was different in some ways, as I said in the earlier post, but her primacy came not from S.Peter, but from the Councils and her position as Capitol of the Roman Empire! S.Cyprian was simply following the way put forward by the Ecumenical Councils, of the First 800yrs, which traditional Catholics believe was a result of the guidance given by the Holy Ghost. Acts 15. "It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us", as I remember! Traditional Catholics who hold to the ancient ways accept this as the Catholic Magisterium!
I'm having a look at it now. It looks well written with good references. Not at all polemical thus far.You are right, I had the Book repaired, rather I repaired it, it being second hand and this was a label quickly done!I'll change it and thank you! It ran to 8 Editions and I have the 3rd and the eigth. have you read it?
many thanks!
They never describe it in terms of Aristotelian metaphysics, thus are not tainted by the underlying principles of the same.Transubstantiation is fully explicit in Cyril of Jerusalem in the 300s. Even Justin and Irenaeus in the 100s say that the bread and wine become Christ's Body and Blood.
You clearly misinterpret what St Cyprian means. If you read his life and the body of his works you will not come to an understanding of Papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction.How do you determine which councils are "Ecumenical" without accepting what Cyprian said before there were any ecumenical councils, when Cyprian called Rome "the principle Church, from which priestly unity takes its source"?
In other words, there have been many Council in Church history. How do you determine which ones are Ecumenical without accepting Papal Supremacy?
They never describe it in terms of Aristotelian metaphysics, thus are not tainted by the underlying principles of the same.
You clearly misinterpret what St Cyprian means. If you read his life and the body of his works you will not come to an understanding of Papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction.
They interpret something else, but it's still a matter of interpreting.When I saw the title of this thread a few weeks back, it confused me a bit as I've always presumed that to interpret something that this required that a belief or practice was based on a Scripture. But as many Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have openly admitted that their views are not based on the Scriptures, but with tradition, then shouldn't the thread have been titled "...rely on private supplement" or similar?
If something didn't exist in the first place this makes "interpretation" impossible as there was nothing in place to interpret.
But as many Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have openly admitted that their views are not based on the Scriptures, but with tradition,.
That's not Transubstantiation. It's Real Presence, and lots of us non-RCs believe in the Real Presence.Transubstantiation is fully explicit in Cyril of Jerusalem in the 300s. Even Justin and Irenaeus in the 100s say that the bread and wine become Christ's Body and Blood.
.,How do you determine which councils are "Ecumenical" without accepting what Cyprian said before there were any ecumenical councils, when Cyprian called Rome "the principle Church, from which priestly unity takes its source"?
In other words, there have been many Council in Church history. How do you determine which ones are Ecumenical without accepting Papal Supremacy?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?