Roman Catholics! Come, join the truth Church, the Orthodox Church. We welcome and desire your brotherhood!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw8XE3j_c0U;
Look what your Church said at Vatican II
>The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
-Nostra aetate
>But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
-Lumen gentium
You don't want that, you want the STRONK Orthodox Church
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ye0a_F9Zj8
>A government must rule by the Grace of God or by the will of the people, it must believe in authority or in the Revolution; on these issues compromise is possible only in semblance, and only for a time.
-Father Seraphim Rose, on the divine right of kings in "Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age"
http://oodegr.co/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm
>>73262663
Obviously Vatican II was a mistake. The Chuch moves slowly. Instead of the Orthodox church you should join SSPX or any Traditional Catholic organization that rejects Vatican II. The Church is still the one true Church, and the Orthodox church is nothing but a collection of holy men with no leadership and no singular "church." It is not "a church" at all.
You should instead rejoin the fold, the same Church you were part of for 1500 years - Traditional Catholicism. Cheers anyhow because the Orthodox aren't as bad as the protestants.
>>73262981
Western Rite Orthodoxy is more traditional than Traditional Catholicism.
Pic related is a Western Rite Orthodox icon. It's in Romanesque style, and artistic style of the Medieval period in the West
This is a Western Rite Orthodox liturgy, it dates from the 6th Century: no instruments, no polyphony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGvjx1102U8
>>73263102
>States [random sect] more traditional than Trad Cat
>[Random sect] ignores the seat of Peter, the oldest Church tradition
The logic is weak in this thread.
>>73262663
Vatican II is recognized as an Ecumenical Council by your Church, by the way, so if it's wrong, that undercuts your church's authority
>>73262663
Just like your last thread, thanks but no thanks.
>>73263704
http://sspx.org/en/what-is-the-second-vatican-council-sspx-faq-ep8-resource
>In opposition to all of the prior ecumenical councils though, Vatican II was declared to be "pastoral", which would not make any infallible statements. In the wake of the Council though, the liberals falsely asserted that Vatican II was dogmatic, particularly concerning the Modernist errors it introduced, such as ecumenism, collegiality, and religious liberty.
You have a lot to learn.
>>73263969
>SSPX
Forgot about them, absolutely based. They actually have a Church in Sydney not far from me.
>>73263541
Q4: Concerning Peter as the Rock upon which the Church is built
A4: We support Papal Primacy perhaps, but that is very distinct from Papal Supremacy, and it is not dogma, it is the position of primus inter pares which the See of Rome is entitled to, under the condition she is in the Orthodox Church--she obviously isn't entitled to it in the event that she leads a schism away from the true Church, in which case the position of primus inter pares passed to Constantinople, but that is not dogma either (see A8 of this FAQ). Now to address why the Catholic theology of Papal Supremacy isn't just heretical it borders on blasphemy, take a look at this: http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=386119&language=en Do you think Saint Peter would have accepted this? How do you think he would feel if someone said he should declare himself Ceasar of the world and Christ's official and only successor? This idea has zero precedence in the early Church--many of the Church Fathers are taken out of context to support Papal Supremacy, when the Church Fathers did not support Papal Supremacy at all. Let me give you an example
cont
>>73264127
from Saint Jerome, as quoted by a Catholic Site (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy): '"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).' Now take a look at the quote in context: first of all, Saint Jerome is responding to Jovian, who says chastity is of no importance, and Jovian argued that if chastity were important, then Saint John, who was a virgin, would have been made the rock, not Peter, who was not a virgin. Saint Jerome is not presenting his own opinion about Peter being the rock, he is actually responding to Jovian voicing that opinion (indeed, if we look as Saint Jerome's commentary on Matthew, he says, on Matthew 16:18, that Christ is referring to HIMSELF when he says "on this rock", see Ephesians 2:20). Now let's remove the ellipsis and see the full quote: "But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.
cont
>>73264158
But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them, Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, and, He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all, would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We may be sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men. Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle— the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet." (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm)
cont
>>73264183
Casts the quote in quite a different light, doesn't it? Here is a more exhaustive coverage of examples such as this: http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html Isn't it clear enough there is something wrong with calling the Pope "Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church", when the term "Supreme Pontiff" (High Priest), in the Christian sense, refers exclusively to Christ? Pontiffs aren't even a clerical office in Christianity, presbyters (word is the same in Latin) are. The title "pontiff" is only applied to Christians in the Vulgate when it is talking about Christ, or the universal priesthood of believers.
Q4a: Concerning Saint Peter being given the keys to heaven.
A4a: If you care to read Matthew 16:19, you'll see that by being given the keys to heaven, it means he can bind and loose. You will also note that Christ says δώσω, which is futurist punctual case, meaning that Christ is not giving now and into the future (durative future case), but *will* give--he has yet to. Then also note that Peter actually receives this authority when Christ it gives to all his Apostles in Matthew 18:18. The idea that Peter, let alone whoever is Bishop of Rome, has the keys to heaven and the ability to bind and loose, in any sense beyond the other Apostles (which of course, if they were still alive, the Roman Catholic Church would demand be subjected to whomever was Pope, see A4b of this FAQ), is equating him with God (Isaiah 22:22).
Q4b: Concerning John 21:17
Q4b: Peter asks the same thing in 1 Peter 5:2 of other bishops, invoking only the authority of being a fellow presbyter (1 Peter 5:1, there was no distinction between the offices of presbyter/episkopos, priest/bishop, the early Church). Peter was obviously the bishop par excellence in honor, but he held no rank above regular bishops.
>>73263969
In Latin
>Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum Secundum
It's ecumenical
>>73263969
Oh, and the decree, for instance, that Protestants have valid baptism, is absolutely dogmatic, there's no way around that can just being a discipline. If it's not true, then it is heretical.
>>73264127
>Walls of text.
If it takes multiples walls of text to retort my simple statement regarding tradition, you've already lost.
As I said, you have much to learn. If you don't think the answer to the books you posted exists, its because you aren't looking in the full spirit of truth. With that I cannot help you.
>>73264503
There are walls because of how many points there are against it.
>>73264503
I didn't post any book quotation by the way, except for the excerpt from Jerome. I wrote it.
