/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>694889

>I'm thinking about becoming Catholic or eastern orthodox

It is a little more complex than just flipping a coin >>694640

>>694893

That's why I called it a spiritual journey

>>694889

>One, the bread and wine are the literal body and blood of Christ

Scripture https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-eucharist/

History

http://practicalapologetics.blogspot.com/2013/07/early-church-fathers-on-eucharist.html

Theology

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm

>Peter is the rock of Matthew 16 as well as this succession applying *Only* to the bishops of rome.

No one believes that it's only about him. But nonetheless

Scripture: https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-primacy-of-peter/

History: http://practicalapologetics.blogspot.com/2013/07/early-church-fathers-on-peter-being.html

Theology: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5040.htm#article6

Be more precise.

>Also, can you explain to me how the Eucharist can be a propitiatory sacrifice when Christ's death on the cross was a once and for all sacrifice?

Because it was FOR ALL.

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

>If the sacrifice of Christ must be repeatedly made present then does that not go against Hebrews 10:1-3?

he key here is Heb 10:14:

<“For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.”

The phrase “are sanctified” is one word in the Greek (hagiazomenous). It is a passive present participle. In other words, the sacrifice of Christ is one but the sanctification of His people is continuously being applied.

Hebrews 10:2 in particular seems to be a baptismal reference (“cleansed”), and it’s true that baptism removes original sin and that it cannot be repeated. Regardless of how you interpret Heb 10:2, it should be read in the context of Heb 10:14, which indicates the present aspect.

We don’t need another sacrifice (e.g. a new bull, a new goat, or even new Savior) every time we sin as in the Old Covenant. We must remember that the author of Hebrews is writing those tempted to return to the Temple sacrifices of the Old Covenant. Christ’s death is sufficient and continues to sanctify us. Our sins might be repeated, but Christ’s death cannot be repeated or supplemented by another.

It goes without saying that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a true re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice – not a different sacrifice.

>>694889

>that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16 as well as this succession applying *Only* to the bishops of rome.

Here are quotes from saints on the matter, deduce for yourself:

>>694389

>>694889

>reasons why you think the rock of Matthew 16 isn't Peter or doesn't applies to the bishop of rome alone.

Because the early church wasn't organised in this fashion until various developments led to the Great Schism. The five patriarchs operated as equals until the Popes began declaring greater authority for themselves. The Pope was indeed often appealed to by other patriarchs to weigh on doctrinal matters, but this is largely because the relative geographical separation of Rome from the other patriarchates meat that heresies which appeared in the East rarely spread as far Rome, so the Pope could perhaps be trusted to contribute from an 'impartial' perspective.

A key factor in the schism was the fact that the Pope inserted the filioque into the Creed as a means to combat the heresy of Arianism which had appeared exclusively in the West, without consulting the other patriarchs as they had consulted the popes beforehand.

>>694944

>Because the early church wasn't organised in this fashion

Easter controversy alone disproves this claim

>The five patriarchs operated as equals

Canons of Nicaea, where there are three patriarchates, two of them under Rome alone disproves this claim.

>because the relative geographical separation of Rome from the other patriarchates meat that heresies which appeared in the East rarely spread as far Rome

The fact that Tomus ad Flavianum was accepted as "Peter speaks through Leo!" alone disproves this claim

>was the fact that the Pope inserted the filioque into the Creed

Filioque being accepted doctrine in fourth century and in creed since seventh alone disproves this claim

Schism (fifth in fact) happened because patriarch of Constantinople was power hungry faggot with no respect for apostolic traditions of the West for which he was punished just like Alexandria and Antioch for Monophysitism and Nestorianism

>>695144

Didn't rome have little or nothing to do with the council at nicea? From what I've read Sylvester, who was the bishop of rome at the time, only sent two of his legates since he was too old and that was the extent of romes role in the first ecumenical council. And as for Peter speaking through leo, wasn't this statement also applied to other particulates? Weren't other bishops also said to have spoken through Peter?

I would just like your thoughts on these because they're things I've heard from eastern orthodox.

>>694928

Looks like what you were trying to link me too doesn't exist anymore. Care to post another link?

>>695249

>Didn't rome have little or nothing to do with the council at nicea?

Hosius of Corduba. Check him out. Papal legate, Father of Nicea.

Also, if you really want to see how void EO ecclesiology really is, try to find any coherent definition of ecumenical council except for "those seven".

>Weren't other bishops also said to have spoken through Peter?

No. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm

Closest you get is that Ciril thought what Leo thought i.e. Orthodoxy.

>>695268

How would you define ecumenical council? I read kalistos ware's book "the orthodox way" and it seems like even he doesn't quite know what makes a council ecumenical or not.

>>695290

Thanks you for that comment. Is this an attack on papal primacy/supremacy?

>>695293

Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.

>>695250

Why the hell did mods delete my thread?

https://mega.nz/#!2Uh1mbjI!cLLr99DbfOi6nDgJBdBNTmvRE32K0MymxuCul2gtTGw

>>695303

The 2nd ecumenical council didn't have many bishops from many places and no papal legates at all.

>>695305

It ranks as Ecumenical because its decrees were ultimately received in the West also.