What's it gonna take pt. 2

[Ryan2010]

It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital [orbis major est urbe]. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles. – St. Jerome

The local church with its bishop contains the totatlity of the universal church.  This matches up with St. Ignatius ecclesiology and puts into context any reference to Rome by St. Jerome.  To say that St. Jerome says that the church is only the church insofar as it is in corporation with a greater corporation is false.  So to read the current Roman Catholic definition of catholicity into the reading of St. Jerome takes St. Jerome himself out of context.  St. Ignatius is likewise.

In Canon 34 of the Apostolic canons (first half of the fourth century) we read:

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things which concern his own parish and the country places which belong to it.  But neither let him who is the first do anything without the consent of all.  For so there will be oneness of mind and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit. 

Matt 16:18-19
The current presupposition that the Bishops of Rome always have enjoyed universal jurisdiction and the charism of infallible teaching is often juxtaposed onto Matt 16.  However, if you study the fathers and early Christian writings on this verse we find that the current Roman Catholic interpretation is in the minority even foreign to some of the most prominent of Roman Catholic personalities.

See what praises follow this faith. "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.

[Ryan2010]

Need to take a break.  Will post more later.  Hope to get through all seven Ecumenical Councils as well as a few more bible verses and Church Fathers that are often said to support an "implied" Supremacy/Infallibility. 



God bless

[desertknight]

Need to take a break.  Will post more later.  Hope to get through all seven Ecumenical Councils as well as a few more bible verses and Church Fathers that are often said to support an "implied" Supremacy/Infallibility. 



God bless

Same here...

[Selene]

Need to take a break.  Will post more later.  Hope to get through all seven Ecumenical Councils as well as a few more bible verses and Church Fathers that are often said to support an "implied" Supremacy/Infallibility. 



God bless

Same here...

Does he always post loooong posts? I need to go back and read the rest later on.  I have to go to church now. 

[winsome]

Does he always post loooong posts? I need to go back and read the rest later on.  I have to go to church now. 

Yes!

It's too much Ryan - at least too much for my ancient brain.

blessings

[mclees8]

Does he always post loooong posts? I need to go back and read the rest later on.  I have to go to church now. 

Yes!

It's too much Ryan - at least too much for my ancient brain.

blessings

::sleepingsoundly::Yea! same here.

[chestertonrules]

Ryan,

Your post is so long that I can't respond to all of it, but I would like to make two points:

The local church with its bishop contains the totatlity of the universal church.

This is true to an extent, but what of doctrinal questions that are not unamimously agreed upon by the Bishops?  Did God provide a system for maintaining doctrinal unity?  Catholics say yes, and this system is the papacy.  This does not change the  role or the universal nature of the Bishop in a given Church locality.

Forty four of the fathers refer to the passage as Peter's confession, sixteen place emphasis of this passage as Christ himself being the rock, eight use the passage to explain the Apostles (plural) as that rock, and only seventeen ever refer to Peter as being the rock. 

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is the rock and that Peter is the Rock.  None of the early Fathers contradict Catholic teaching, but many contradict Orthodox teaching on the papacy.


Unity is only possible with a hierarchy.  Multiple and equal authorities lead to disputes.  Jesus understood this, of course, and he gave  us a unified Church to follow.

[desertknight]

Unity is only possible with a hierarchy.  Multiple and equal authorities lead to disputes.  Jesus understood this, of course, and he gave  us a unified Church to follow.

Well put, and welcome!  I like your screen name. 

[Ryan2010]

This is true to an extent, but what of doctrinal questions that are not unamimously agreed upon by the Bishops?  

Well, this is what the general council is for.  This is what the meaning of Ecumenical council means.  That we have Ecumenical councils that are universally accepted (catholic) that were called without the knowledge of the Bishop of Rome and that were even called and universally accepted despite the bishop of Rome's wishes, shows that it is the general council that has universal jurisidiction, not the bishops of Rome.  

You have to look at the Councils and the canons and the writing of the Fathers.  They tackle this very question.  St. Augustine even speaks about a situation that if the local councils of Rome judge poorly there is always the universal jurisdiction of the general council that can be appealed to.  

There is limited jurisdiction for the Bishops of Rome.  

Did God provide a system for maintaining doctrinal unity?  Catholics say yes, and this system is the papacy.  

The doctrinal unity (our universality or catholicity) is according to the fathers themselves, the councils and the canons, only in the general council.  That we are all to agree is true but this is not something that is attributed to Rome's jurisdiction alone.  

This is why we have St. Ignatius writing to Rome and touching on the fact that Rome has authority over the jurisdiction of Rome and it is not universal but limited.  

This does not change the  role or the universal nature of the Bishop in a given Church locality.

But it does.  If the Church is only totally the Church insofar as she is in communion with Rome then it's not that the totality of The Church is as St. Ignatius describes, surrounding the local Bishop, but that the "universal jurisdiction" is only true insofar as the charism of universal jurisdiction is given to the successor of the person of St. Peter.  

The early Fathers make it clear that all the Apostles had universal jurisdiction and that this charism was not transferred.  Does a Bishop that is ordained by the Apostle Paul have universal jurisdiction over all churches?  No.  Neither does this apply to the successors of St. Peter.  

It is clear by the Church Fathers, the councils, creeds and canons that Rome had jurisdiction over Rome just as the African Churches had jurisdiction over the African churches.  There is no single bishop of bishops who enjoyed universal jurisdiction and headship over the Church.  

Forty four of the fathers refer to the passage as Peter's confession, sixteen place emphasis of this passage as Christ himself being the rock, eight use the passage to explain the Apostles (plural) as that rock, and only seventeen ever refer to Peter as being the rock.  

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is the rock and that Peter is the Rock.  None of the early Fathers contradict Catholic teaching, but many contradict Orthodox teaching on the papacy.

If we could cite those Fathers who contradict the Orthodox teaching on the papacy this would be a start.  I listed a few above.  Among them, St. Ambrose, St. Clement, St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, St. Ignatius and Blessed Augustine.

Unity is only possible with a hierarchy.  Multiple and equal authorities lead to disputes.  Jesus understood this, of course, and he gave  us a unified Church to follow.

This hierarchy is Christ first and foremost, followed by the Apostles and the prophets and the universal jurisdiction enjoyed by them is only expressed in the General Councils.  The current Roman Catholic position is that it believes that this charism of universal jurisdiction was passed down ONLY to the successor of the person of St. Peter.

But as we go over the Councils, Creeds, Canons and Fathers, we will see that it is not in the person of St. Peter that this universal jurisdiction is laid as the rock but on the proclamation of faith of all the Apostles and that this charism was not bestowed upon any one bishop of bishops but was according to the whole expressed through the general "ecumenical" councils.    

Unity (catholicity and universal jurisdiction) is not found in the alignment of Bishops to the Bishop of Rome but in alignment to Jesus, the Christ, as head over The Church.    




ICXC

[chestertonrules]

Unity (catholicity and universal jurisdiction) is not found in the alignment of Bishops to the Bishop of Rome but in alignment to Jesus, the Christ, as head over The Church.   




ICXC

But there is no unity outside of the Catholic Church, which represents the majority of Christians.

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

[Ryan2010]

Thank you for these Chesterton.  I have homework!   

Welcome to the boards btw!  It's always good to have someone who remains respectful of others.  I post notoriously long posts as if you haven't noticed yet.  But no one complains and everyone loves to read these reaaaaaally long posts because 

Ok, ok.  Not everyone.  Regardless, I am grateful when someone at least considers a little of something that I might have put forth.  Even if it's just to say, "these are really long!"



....  St. Cyprian is going to be interesting


Thanks again and again, welcome dear brother!


St. Cyprian of Carthage


At about this time there was a great leader in Carthage, named Cyprian. He had studied rhetoric and philosophy in school and become a well-known teacher of these subjects. In his forty-sixth year, after his conversion by a priest named Caelilius, he became a Christian. His zeal was so great that within a few years he was made bishop of Carthage. During his bishopric, St Cyprian guided the African church through the ravages of a deadly plague that took a great toll on the Roman Empire. He also strengthened and supported his flock during the Valerian persecutions.

He was a prolific writer, with a very melodic and sweet style. In 258 AD, the persecution of the Church gained great momentum. Cyprian formed what was called the 'Underground Church'—the Catacomb Church in Carthage. The Roman authorities ceaselessly persecuted and hunted him. Constantly in flight, he ministered to his flock wherever he could. At one point, when asksed why he didn't simply give himself up, he replied, 'The white rose of labor can be as sweet as the red rose of martyrdom.' When he was finally caught and condemned to execution by beheading, St Cyprian's only words were 'Thank you, Father.' He was possessed of such a noble spirit that he gave the executioner twenty-five pieces of gold and then joyfully placed his head on the block for beheading.



ICXC
NIKA

[desertknight]

But no one complains...

[Ryan2010]

But no one complains...

[chestertonrules]

But no one complains...

Ryan,

Thanks for your welcome.  We can learn from each other! 

[Ryan2010]

I've spent the past few days reading over the fathers you posted both in this thread and in another thread where you posted fathers that you believe support the Roman Catholic position.  I've been going over what they've written and the historical context that surround the thing being said.   I've also been looking at the various Roman Catholic apologetics for these fathers/councils, regarding Rome's position that the Bishops of Rome have always enjoyed universal jurisdiction.  

The Catholic apologetics tackle it a few ways.  The first way and weakest is simply to quote the father out of context but this often back fires.  For instance, if you just quote a father talking glowingly about Rome and her Bishops, it doesn't take long to discover that this language is not exclusive to those speaking to Rome and neither does it mean by necessity that this substantiates Rome's claim of universal jurisdiction.  

When the early fathers wrote to one another they often addressed each other, lavished each other with heaping scoops of honorific praise.  This shouldn't be taken literally.  

For instance, you have Sixtus III writing to Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria and saying that the whole church is indebted to him and that ALL are subject to him.  

Of course we know that Sixtus wasn't literally saying that all are subject to the Bishop of Alexandria. But if I were trying to paint a picture that the Bishops of Alexandria had universal jurisdiction I could use Sixtus III quote.  The quote would be out of context and anyone that reads the same praises being flung all over the place (those early church fathers are very loving) would know better.  

But for those that don't know better this might have ill effect.  

If you read my entire post and I'm not saying that you didn't, I quote some of the same fathers you quote.   What you have to do is find quotes that substantiate Papal Supremacy/Infallibility, not Primacy.  You have to find not just one father but many fathers that define "Supremacy

[chestertonrules]

I've spent the past few days reading over the fathers you posted both in this thread and in another thread where you posted fathers that you believe support the Roman Catholic position.  I've been going over what they've written and the historical context that surround the thing being said.   I've also been looking at the various Roman Catholic apologetics for these fathers/councils, regarding Rome's position that the Bishops of Rome have always enjoyed universal jurisdiction.  

The Catholic apologetics tackle it a few ways.  The first way and weakest is simply to quote the father out of context but this often back fires.  For instance, if you just quote a father talking glowingly about Rome and her Bishops, it doesn't take long to discover that this language is not exclusive to those speaking to Rome and neither does it mean by necessity that this substantiates Rome's claim of universal jurisdiction.  

When the early fathers wrote to one another they often addressed each other, lavished each other with heaping scoops of honorific praise.  This shouldn't be taken literally.  

For instance, you have Sixtus III writing to Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria and saying that the whole church is indebted to him and that ALL are subject to him.  

Of course we know that Sixtus wasn't literally saying that all are subject to the Bishop of Alexandria. But if I were trying to paint a picture that the Bishops of Alexandria had universal jurisdiction I could use Sixtus III quote.  The quote would be out of context and anyone that reads the same praises being flung all over the place (those early church fathers are very loving) would know better.  

But for those that don't know better this might have ill effect.  

If you read my entire post and I'm not saying that you didn't, I quote some of the same fathers you quote.   What you have to do is find quotes that substantiate Papal Supremacy/Infallibility, not Primacy.  You have to find not just one father but many fathers that define "Supremacy

[mclees8]

I've spent the past few days reading over the fathers you posted both in this thread and in another thread where you posted fathers that you believe support the Roman Catholic position.  I've been going over what they've written and the historical context that surround the thing being said.   I've also been looking at the various Roman Catholic apologetics for these fathers/councils, regarding Rome's position that the Bishops of Rome have always enjoyed universal jurisdiction.  

The Catholic apologetics tackle it a few ways.  The first way and weakest is simply to quote the father out of context but this often back fires.  For instance, if you just quote a father talking glowingly about Rome and her Bishops, it doesn't take long to discover that this language is not exclusive to those speaking to Rome and neither does it mean by necessity that this substantiates Rome's claim of universal jurisdiction.  

When the early fathers wrote to one another they often addressed each other, lavished each other with heaping scoops of honorific praise.  This shouldn't be taken literally.  

For instance, you have Sixtus III writing to Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria and saying that the whole church is indebted to him and that ALL are subject to him.  

Of course we know that Sixtus wasn't literally saying that all are subject to the Bishop of Alexandria. But if I were trying to paint a picture that the Bishops of Alexandria had universal jurisdiction I could use Sixtus III quote.  The quote would be out of context and anyone that reads the same praises being flung all over the place (those early church fathers are very loving) would know better.  

But for those that don't know better this might have ill effect.  

If you read my entire post and I'm not saying that you didn't, I quote some of the same fathers you quote.   What you have to do is find quotes that substantiate Papal Supremacy/Infallibility, not Primacy.  You have to find not just one father but many fathers that define "Supremacy

[Ryan2010]

Thanks for your post.

Thanks for the reply 

Here's a question:  Isn't the schism itself proof that a single authority is necessary to unify all Christians?

This is kind of a loaded question that I'll have to unpack.  If I say, yes, then I prove what you're implying and that wouldn't truly express my answer.  If I say no, I deny Jesus Christ, who is that single authority and it can be misconstrued that I don't believe that where the bishop is surrounded by the faithful, there The Church is. 

If the Pope at the time of the schism was conciliar there would not have been a schism.  He unilaterally attempted to excommunicate the Patriarchs required to make a council ecumenical.  And more than this, if by "single authority" you mean, "universal jurisdiction" then you also have to wonder why this single authority didn't unify all Christians instead of excommunicate the major bulk of Christendom. 

If you look at the councils they had to be ratified by the five patriarchates.  Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria and Rome.  Rome is just one jurisdiction.  That the Bishop of Rome would excommunicate all the other jurisdictions doesn't strike me as "unifying".  And then later to heal the schism (council of Florence), the only thing Rome offered was complete submission to doctrines that were foreign to the other jurisdictions. 

What was foreign were doctrines on hell, purgatory, the presence of God, papal supremacy which had become even more far reaching and controlling than in 1054 and other things that were unheard of in the Tradition of The early Church. 

I don't quite understand the question.  Orthodox believe that Rome has a primacy and that the Bishop of Rome would enjoy those same honors as she had in her original form and that the Pope would even preside as a President with the ability to hear appeals (council of Sardica) across jurisdictions. 

If we see Primacy as it's defined, practiced and understood as shown in the councils and canons then we agree, but if we Supremacy as Rome defines it today, then this isn't congruent to the faith of our fathers who received what they received from the Apostles who received what they received from Jesus, who is the Christ. 

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

Our goal is not to change or believe we can make better that which was handed down but to preserve the unchanging doctrines of Christ.

Also, do you acknowledge that the Catholic Church has been much more evangelical in practice and much more effective in spreading the Gospel?

Well, you're working off of a presupposition.  That's like saying whoever has converted the most folks to their tradition are therefore the most valid and so this should be seen as a mark of its authenticity. 

Pope Pius IX even says, "To one who says, 'Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material strength,' let him be anathema."

The Orthodox nominally speaking are the second largest Christian group in the world but have you seen Joel Osteen's sold-out stadiums?  I mean, many groups of protestants are far more "evangelistic" in many regards. I mean, some groups hand out tracts like there's no tomorrow and take to the streets and go door to door.  I'm not saying this is bad by any means but what we are talking about here is the fullness of the faith, the faith that was delivered to the Saints once and for all.  Moving away from Christian groups, you even have marvel at the tenacity of the Jehovah witnesses. 

You're aware that the "emergent church" movement is growing far faster and wider than the vast majority of the older traditions?  Does this mean that the emergent church groups are necessarily indicative of the faith of the Apostles?  Thank God they say, Jesus is Lord but Lord have mercy, have you heard some of the teachings on who Christ is, coming out of those groups? 

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. 



Blessings

[chestertonrules]

Thanks for your post.

Thanks for the reply 

Here's a question:  Isn't the schism itself proof that a single authority is necessary to unify all Christians?

This is kind of a loaded question that I'll have to unpack.  If I say, yes, then I prove what you're implying and that wouldn't truly express my answer.  If I say no, I deny Jesus Christ, who is that single authority and it can be misconstrued that I don't believe that where the bishop is surrounded by the faithful, there The Church is. 

If the Pope at the time of the schism was conciliar there would not have been a schism.  He unilaterally attempted to excommunicate the Patriarchs required to make a council ecumenical.  And more than this, if by "single authority" you mean, "universal jurisdiction" then you also have to wonder why this single authority didn't unify all Christians instead of excommunicate the major bulk of Christendom. 

If you look at the councils they had to be ratified by the five patriarchates.  Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria and Rome.  Rome is just one jurisdiction.  That the Bishop of Rome would excommunicate all the other jurisdictions doesn't strike me as "unifying".  And then later to heal the schism (council of Florence), the only thing Rome offered was complete submission to doctrines that were foreign to the other jurisdictions. 

What was foreign were doctrines on hell, purgatory, the presence of God, papal supremacy which had become even more far reaching and controlling than in 1054 and other things that were unheard of in the Tradition of The early Church. 

I don't quite understand the question.  Orthodox believe that Rome has a primacy and that the Bishop of Rome would enjoy those same honors as she had in her original form and that the Pope would even preside as a President with the ability to hear appeals (council of Sardica) across jurisdictions. 

If we see Primacy as it's defined, practiced and understood as shown in the councils and canons then we agree, but if we Supremacy as Rome defines it today, then this isn't congruent to the faith of our fathers who received what they received from the Apostles who received what they received from Jesus, who is the Christ. 

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

Our goal is not to change or believe we can make better that which was handed down but to preserve the unchanging doctrines of Christ.

Also, do you acknowledge that the Catholic Church has been much more evangelical in practice and much more effective in spreading the Gospel?

Well, you're working off of a presupposition.  That's like saying whoever has converted the most folks to their tradition are therefore the most valid and so this should be seen as a mark of its authenticity. 

Pope Pius IX even says, "To one who says, 'Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material strength,' let him be anathema."

The Orthodox nominally speaking are the second largest Christian group in the world but have you seen Joel Osteen's sold-out stadiums?  I mean, many groups of protestants are far more "evangelistic" in many regards. I mean, some groups hand out tracts like there's no tomorrow and take to the streets and go door to door.  I'm not saying this is bad by any means but what we are talking about here is the fullness of the faith, the faith that was delivered to the Saints once and for all.  Moving away from Christian groups, you even have marvel at the tenacity of the Jehovah witnesses. 

You're aware that the "emergent church" movement is growing far faster and wider than the vast majority of the older traditions?  Does this mean that the emergent church groups are necessarily indicative of the faith of the Apostles?  Thank God they say, Jesus is Lord but Lord have mercy, have you heard some of the teachings on who Christ is, coming out of those groups? 

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. 



Blessings

I agree that those were loaded questions, but they are not frivolouss.

The Catholic Church is growing rapidly around the world.  5 million new Catholics are added each year in Africa alone.

The emergent Churches are primarily and American phenomenon and I don't believe that it is a long term trend.  It is an escape from Christianity in many respects.

I would imagine we share common ground with regard to the emergent church movement.

I don't think Christian unity is possible outside of the Catholic Church.  Do you?

[Ryan2010]

I think you make some good points Ryan. I certainly agree How they misuse letters of so called church fathers taking things out of context to justify their own position.

I am not saying they do this with intent.  Dear mcclees, I am not trying to vilify them.  And though you call them "so called" I think it fair to read them and read about their lives.  The vast majority of them suffered terribly for Christ.  Some have been martyred for Christ.  They also work tirelessly and Christ through them accomplished and established much.  I would hate to deprive you of the chance of getting to know them fairly and so I'm just encouraging you to read those early fathers.  Start with the earliest perhaps and move your way up.  

St. Ephrems writings are beautiful.  If you could have St. John Chrysostom as a pastor, you would be blessed.  His homilies (sermons) quiet the soul.  Well, mine and many others anyway...  

Please don't think that I am being combative here.  I just don't think that it does us any good not to speak to each other in love and humility.  Regardless of a persons faith, we are still called, above all, to love.  And in a very real way.

If we denounce cynicism and yet are cynical then we are what we preach against.  If we vilify those who vilify in the scriptures and yet vilify then we too have become the target of our own attack.  

I think in the overall this is what they have done from the beginning. a flim flam of sorts. still i wonder what you hope to gain here. They are drunken with the idea supreme authority. Its their only thrust. That's what is suspect about this.  

I don't pretend to have a pure heart.  I know that I too am still drunk on sin.  I too am still insofar as I am out of communion with God, delusional.  A mad man.  Blind.  What man other than Christ can say with full confidence that their heart is pure and that they "see" the light and yet not realize the darkness in their own heart?  In my struggle against sin I too wrestle with the temptation for power.  I can't in my struggle look over at the protestant or the catholic and say, "aha, they only want power! they are power hungry!" and then at the same time ignore the fact that I too have that same hunger.  

This is what we are all together struggling against and it lifts no one up to pretend that only a few suffer from it.  

I doubt having a peaceful respectful dialog will change anything. And what if it did? What then? I make many comments about what I see in this thing we call Christianity. Quite frankly most of what i see stinks of worldliness.

If you look for God in His creation instead of the devil, you may find him no matter where you look.  If you look for the devil in creation, there too, you will see him.  

Satan accuses us day and night before the dread judgment seat of Christ.  We shouldn't imitate him.  

The Catholics only desire power, the protestants are lovers of self, the Orthodox are stubborn and cling to the past, that guy only wants to help you because he wants something, you are a failure, you will never live up to the purpose God created you, etc...  

Ceaselessly.  We don't need to enter into that swift moving torrent.  We can be respectful to the image of God.  Every person, especially your enemy carries that image.  If you ignore the image and only see the devil then we will find that we have treated our Lord as the devil.  

Don't doubt that you can have a peaceful and respectful dialog because Our Lord commands it.  Perhaps if you find that you cannot be peaceful or respectful, then out of care for your soul and respect to the image of God, you should abstain.  

Matthew 25:34-40

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'





Here is who you should see when looking into your enemy's eyes.  Here is who you should hear when you hear your enemy speak.  Here is who we should remember when we are tempted to be disrespectful or to cause violence in word or in deed.  











Philippians 4:5
Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near.



The Lord is near
Christ is risen

[Ryan2010]

The Catholic Church is growing rapidly around the world.  5 million new Catholics are added each year in Africa alone.

But see, I'm not knocking that.  I mean, that there are some protestants that read the daylights out of their bibles is quite wonderful.   Are you saying that the amount of people added to the RCC each year is the result of good fruit and therefore is not dead?  I don't understand.  I'm not doubting the outreaches of other churches.  I don't see it as indicative of there being a "single head" over all jurisdictions though.  I mean, the protestants are by no means united under any one person and they add plenty to their numbers each year. 

I don't think Christian unity is possible outside of the Catholic Church.  Do you?

I think it depends on what you mean by "Catholic". 

Do I think that all Christians can attain to the unity of the faith?  Absolutely.  Part of my struggle is becoming Orthodox and remaining Orthodox.  Just because I show up to church every Sunday doesn't mean I'm present. 

If we all converted "according to the whole" (catholic) then the task would still remain that we should live as what we say we are.  We are not the very thing we represent otherwise we wouldn't be representations. 

We are icons.  Image bearers.  The Holy Trinity is our unity and our struggle is to reflect the Holy Trinity.l

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal...

Have mercy on us. 

[chestertonrules]

The Catholic Church is growing rapidly around the world.  5 million new Catholics are added each year in Africa alone.

But see, I'm not knocking that.  I mean, that there are some protestants that read the daylights out of their bibles is quite wonderful.   Are you saying that the amount of people added to the RCC each year is the result of good fruit and therefore is not dead?  I don't understand.  I'm not doubting the outreaches of other churches.  I don't see it as indicative of there being a "single head" over all jurisdictions though.  I mean, the protestants are by no means united under any one person and they add plenty to their numbers each year. 

I don't think Christian unity is possible outside of the Catholic Church.  Do you?

I think it depends on what you mean by "Catholic". 

Do I think that all Christians can attain to the unity of the faith?  Absolutely.  Part of my struggle is becoming Orthodox and remaining Orthodox.  Just because I show up to church every Sunday doesn't mean I'm present. 

If we all converted "according to the whole" (catholic) then the task would still remain that we should live as what we say we are.  We are not the very thing we represent otherwise we wouldn't be representations. 

We are icons.  Image bearers.  The Holy Trinity is our unity and our struggle is to reflect the Holy Trinity.l

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal...

Have mercy on us.