Question for my fellow catholic brothers (sisters)

[Ben Kenobi]

Uh, wasn't C.S Lewis actaully an Anglican?

Yes he was.

Mere Christianity is an excellent presentation of Christian doctrine.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, you are either ignorant of (likely) or refusing to acknowledge the power struggles between the different major bishops in alexandria, constinople, rome, and other places.

1. Constantinople didn't attain prominence until after Constantine made it the capital of the east.

2. Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria were all important right from the beginning of the church. That is why they are patriarchs. When Peter who had authority over all the other Apostles, set up his see in Rome, that gave Rome primacy over the other sees. It didn't make them less important then they were previously.

Let me put it this way. Did the Church in Jerusalem claim authority over all the Church?

[Jon Miller]

Let me ask you this, when a certain patriarch try to boss around other patriarchs, did the others ones think he was correct? No, they refused him until they were forced to by secular authority. They never recognized the authority that Rome started claiming until forced to.

That is why you still have the Alexandria, Antioch, and Constinople churchs today. They never recognized Romes primacy. Not 1800+ years ago, and some have continued not doing so until today.

Everyone didn't even recognize Peter's authority. You can see evidence in the Bible ,that a lot of the other leaders disagreed with him (including Paul, and obvious Paul won out).

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Let me ask you this, when a certain patriarch try to boss around other patriarchs, did the others ones think he was correct?

For the most part they did. There has always been rebellion against the teachings of the church.

You should read what St. Polycarp writes about the church founded by St Peter.

Since, however, it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

Polycarp was at one point Patriarch of Antioch, and he had no problems asserting the supremacy of Rome. The church has always had a head, who is Christ, and the man whom Christ appointed was Peter.

No, they refused him until they were forced to by secular authority. They never recognized the authority that Rome started claiming until forced to.

No, for the most part they obeyed unless they had reasons of their own, (jealousy, greed), by which they wanted more authority.

That is why you still have the Alexandria, Antioch, and Constinople churchs today.

What do you mean by Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople? The Patriarch of Alexandria and Antioch are not yet restored, and neither for that matter is Constantinople.

The Patriarch of the East hasn't served in his see for a long time now, so all you have left are the remnants, who for the most part are in communion with Rome, at least from our standpoint.

Everyone didn't even recognize Peter's authority. You can see evidence in the Bible ,that a lot of the other leaders disagreed with him (including Paul, and obvious Paul won out).

Of course there would be disagreements. That is human nature. People didn't always agree with Paul either, but that doesn't mean he is no longer an Apostle. Peter's authority exists regardless of whether people disagree with him, even if they are correct in doing so.

[Ben Kenobi]

As for Constantinople, why should it rank to any more importance then the Patriarch of Venice, or the Patriarch of Lisbon?

It wasn't until 451 that Constantinople became a Patriarch, and that right was junior to that of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria.

How can Constantinople be above Rome? It doesn't make sense.

[Jon Miller]

There are still Christian churchs of Alexandria tradition and Antioch tradition. Read up sometime!

JM

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
A friend of mine commented recently he's been encountering Catholics who say, "I am not a Christian. I am a Catholic."

Probably due to the fact that many Catholics get sick of people thinking that if they are Christians, that it means they are Proddys (or one of the other assorted other variants that are apparantley not following the true word of God).

It's all pretty stupid really.

Another case of this kind of thing - a good friend of mine is Irish, and Catholic. He met an Irish girl in Australia - and they got married. She is a Protestant.

His mother has refused to speak to him for the last 7ish years, and the last time he flew back to Ireland - she refused to let him inside the house.......

[Cartimandua]

Originally posted by Nugog
His mother has refused to speak to him for the last 7ish years, and the last time he flew back to Ireland - she refused to let him inside the house.......

It's too bad, family should mean so much more than that. I have seen many examples similar to this, suggesting that there are more saints in the Catholic church than actual Christians.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Who did he learn it from? The Apostles. This is why tradition is important. Scripture is important, but scripture and tradition are equally important.
...
Thus the traditions are essential in maintaining the Word of God.

Traditions are important but they cannot be equal to the Word of God. Don't you think that traditions should be evaluated and judged to make sure they are good and biblical? If a tradition were to be found to be inappropriate, shouldn't it be changed? That is why Sola Scriptura is so important. The Word of God is our source for Truth. So, each Christian, filled with the Holy Spirit, must be able to study the Bible, to discern right from wrong. When one man has the corner on truth with is what papal infallibility basically does, then you run the risk of introducing false doctrine or false traditions.

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't you think that traditions should be evaluated and judged to make sure they are good and biblical?

I agree with that wholeheartedly. I also agree that how we interpret scripture should be understood in the light of tradition. So it works both ways a novel interpretation can be just as harmful, if not moreso then a tradition which has strayed.

If a tradition were to be found to be inappropriate, shouldn't it be changed?

Scripture shouldn't be left to personal interpretation. If everyone interprets scripture differently, then what is the truth?

That is why Sola Scriptura is so important. The Word of God is our source for Truth.

Along with tradition. The trinity is mentioned nowhere explicitly in the bible, yet it is one of the core doctrines of Christianity. We need tradition too. Sola Scriptura just leads to divisions upon divisions, as each person has things they don't like about the bible, and wish to ignore. This is why tradition is so important in understanding what scripture teaches.

So, each Christian, filled with the Holy Spirit, must be able to study the Bible, to discern right from wrong.

What is truth? If two people interpret scripture differently, who is right?

When one man has the corner on truth with is what papal infallibility basically does, then you run the risk of introducing false doctrine or false traditions.

My question for you is why your own interpretation is more accurate then that of the Catholic church. Yes, we are all fallen men, which is why we cannot rely on our own interpretation. It's too easy for us to deceive ourselves.