Anyone on here Catholic?

Yes, we accept them. Just because they are a valid Church does not mean they are apart of the Catholic Church... My Church wouldn't allow me to take sacraments from them anyway unless I had some special permission from a Bishop; which usually NEVER happen. Only in rare circumstances. Yes, they have valid sacraments. But If I were to take their communion or something, it presents a false ecumenism. It also present to the Catholic Church that I'm in schism.

 

You can freely attend them on your own if you want. Read Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint. Read John Paul II's Ecumenical Directory.

 

I realize that. I don't think there has been any restriction. But, we have the same liturgy as Eastern Orthodox in our many Byzantine rites. I can just go to a Byzantine Catholic Church, experience the same liturgy, and also have the privilege of actually receiving Christ in the Eucharist!

 

Your Church teaches that you receive Christ in the Eucharist in the Eastern Orthodox liturgy too.

 

I know that. However, we are not allowed to receive Christ in the Eucharist in Eastern Orthodox liturgy unless we have special permission from a Bishop. BTW, just saw your face palm on the last post... Lol. Didn't notice it before. You don't understand what a Church is do you...?

 

My friend, I do. It is the Body of Christ. There can be only one Church, and there is only one Church. Some parts of it are ruled by the Pontiff, often badly or wrongly. Other parts reject the imposition and are ruled directly by Christ who is the Head of the Church.

 

That is the spiritual Church. I'm speaking about the actual "physical" Church, as the best way I can describe it. And often badly ruled by the Pontiff???????? We have had 266 Pontiffs, compared to that, only a handful of them have been evil and corrupted. And today, seemingly none of them are bad.

 

Might want to read up on the Papal history, as well as the moral abominations and corruptions that had caused the Reformation. When your spiritual leader sworn to celibacy has dozens of children, whose wives are famous around Rome and treated as Queens, and whose illegitimate sons he installs at 15, or 16, or 17 years-old, as Cardinals of the Church, then you have a problem.

 

Did you not just read what I wrote above? You know, you don't have to reject Peter because of Judas... BTW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHHMhhKBcH8

 

We reject the corrupt popes like the ones I described above. What does this have to do with St. Peter of the holy scriptures? What Peter did or did not do is contained and limited to the narrative of the first century. I do not accept the idea that one can succeed the Apostles in a physical and literal way. Bishops and priests succeed the apostles in office, not in persons. No one has succeeded St. Paul or St. James for example, even though they have done far more for the Church than St. Peter had. St. Augustine had come and gone yet no one has succeeded him in person.

 

I never said that, I was simply using an allegory. Are you saying just because an apostle did more makes him automatically higher than another apostle? Not at all! Peter was appointed the leader of the apostles. I mean, even if you're not Catholic, come on... I think all Christians can agree Peter was the leader among the apostles. It's clear from the very first chapters of Acts, and also how Saint Paul considers Saint Peter a "pillar of the Church", along with James and John (Galatians 2:9). What do you mean you reject the corrupt Popes? Do you say they are not valid Popes? There have been corrupt Bishops in many places. Even outside of the Catholic Church, as there were some within the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, if they were not valid, then that would also mean the current Bishops are also not valid, since succession would not be able to be passed onto them.

 

For all the reasons others have mentioned, I referred to you as Roman Catholic because that is who you are -- you submit to the Roman pontiff. Very true, the entire Church is not Roman.

And, no, I don't find you rude. I find you confusing. You are here to simply create arguments (which are old and have been debated on countless other online forums)? Or are you here to learn something? Are you here to see if there are Anglicans who have not lost their rich tradition? Because there are many if you would like to know about them. You answered earlier that you're here because you are bored. Well, I'm not here because I'm bored. Nor am I seeking conversation with a provocateur....

 

"Roman Catholics" kind of consider it an insult when you refer to our Church as a whole as "Roman Catholic." If you're referring specifically to the Roman rite of the Catholic Church, we don't mind. However, if you're referring to our Church as a whole like that... we don't appreciate it. We see ourselves simply as the Catholic Church. We see ourselves as the universal Church. Rome is our center, but just because it's our center does not mean we're all "Roman" Catholic. Each rite in the Church has its own particular Patriarch to head it. All report back to Rome though. It's almost like referring to the body as the head. Yeah, the main control of the body is the head because the brain is there. Without it, of course, the body would die... However, the body is still not the head. Same goes for the "Roman Catholic Church", or should I say, "Catholic Church."

I don't try to create the arguments. I honestly didn't even intend this post to be a whole argument. As you said, I'm here because I'm bored. I'm not on many forum websites. But, I do find Anglicans an interesting bunch as well. You're a unique kind of Christianity. You're like middle way between Protestant and Catholic. I really didn't mean to be annoying at all. Just... the circumstances that I happen to cause...

 

I think you'll find that historically minded Anglicans agree with you on this. There is but one church, and that one church is the catholic church, no matter what men call her. As Bishop Jewel put it in his Apologia:

That is the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and by God's grace Anglicans are a part of it. We'd love to have you join us.

 

I was an Anglican, however, I left the Communion to join the Catholic Church.

What you refer to as the "Roman Catholic Church" is beyond Roman. She is also Byzantine, Coptic, Chaldean, etc. etc! She is universal! She is the Catholic Church! Augustine says that the heretics and schismatic wish to be called Catholic, and yet they are outside of her. He himself says that heretics and schismatic are separated from the Catholic Church.

The Bishop of Rome always held highest status over all other Churches, because it is where Peters ministry was left. And so, his successor becomes the next leader of the Church there. Multiple early Church fathers attest to this. Nicaea actually helped establish it more by helping push forward the formation of the patriarchates. I mean, the early Church recognized three Churches as having the most power over the rest of the Church. This was before Nicaea too. These were Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria! And guess what? All of these sees claimed apostolic succession from Peter! They were all held to a certain primacy because of this!

Especially Rome, since as I said before, it's where Peters ministry was left.

 

...and Augustine was quite right. heretics and schismatics do like to call themselves catholics.

Where in the new testament is an italian bishop with immediate universal jurisdiction over all christians mentioned? i seemed to have missed that one.

 

Sola Scriptura? Though the NT does not make a direct reference to Peter in Rome, it certainty makes reference to his primacy among the other apostles. Matthew 16:18-19 as one. The beginning of Acts basically. Though it stops alittle to focus more on Paul, but we see Peter return in Acts 15. We defiantly see him assert his primacy at the Council of Jerusalem. Galatians 2:9 makes great reference to Peter as having some kind of primacy, because Paul calls him a "pillar of the Church" alongside John and James. The very fact that Jesus gave him the name Cephas, or Peter, also tells us something. So, Peters primacy is found throughout scripture, and in the early Church.

 

Peter was truly a bold servant of Christ, a pillar, as you put it, but a pillar along with other apostles not the pillar and certainly the vicar of christ. And you still haven't made an italian connection yet. Peter shepherded many church communities, including Jerusalem and Antioch, surely his successors in those churches have that same Petrine magic touch. What makes the Bishop of Rome the universal pontifex?

 

The way I've heard this is more in reverse that the Apostle did more because he was more highly honored with the Holy Ghost. Why make one Apostle a "leader" and yet make a different apostle actually do more of leadership, doctrine and the rest of Your work, inspired by Your Spirit? Occam's Razor, my friend...

Yeah along with St. James and St. John. You've got the crux of it, right there!

St. James, the brother of Our Lord, the presiding bishop over the Jerusalem Council (the first and most important council...), the bishop of Jerusalem (which is the holy of holies)... see what I mean?

 

You don't understand apostolic succession. Whatever Church he headed, the bishops after him would be his successors. Rome would be the supreme see because it is where Peters ministry ended. As I said before, this has always been apart of the Church. The first three patriarchates were chosen as patriarchates because they had apostolic succession from Peter! Peter was always recognized as the leader of the Church. Rome was always seen as having a primacy in the Church. Especially with doctrine and morals. Alot of the times, when there was a problem in the Church with doctrine, many would turn to Rome.

It is tradition from the earliest days that Peter was in Rome. It does not need to be mentioned in the Bible. Many early Church fathers mention it. Some of whom knew the apostles, or had very close connections to the apostles. Do I need to quote them? Not only this, but it's possible Peters bones were found under Saint Peters Basilica. The description of the tomb found said, "Peter is here." The bones are also from a 60-70 year old man, matching the age Peter would have been around when he died in Rome. It's not confirmed these are his bones. But evidence seems to suggest it.