I do apologise Victor, you do make a good and honest argument. Again I am not saying that value is making it right, but it is at least a positive departure from:"We are because WE say we are" type of attitude that is often presented by Mr. Dave Armstrong and the brotherhood.
I was leaning toward telling you the same about some of the Orthodox brotherhood, but there really is no point in doing so. This is seditious and only provokes either you or me to get a bit hostile. I really don’t want to do that and I truly want to change the tone in which both our churches have been dialoguing. Thank you for your time and further look in my observation.
First of all, I can not agree with your presentation given in:
Here you go:
16 He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him.
LXX renders this verse as: And he shall speak for thee to the people, and he shall be thy mouth, and thou shalt be for him in things pertaining to God.
The context is that Moses is asking of God to ordain someone able to speak for him because Moses is weak in speech and slow tongued.
The context is:
10ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š And Moses said to the Lord, I pray, Lord, I have not been sufficient in former times, neither from the time that thou hast begun to speak to thy servant: I am weak in speech, and slow-tongued. 11 And the Lord said to Moses, Who has given a mouth to man, and who has made the very hard of hearing, and the deaf, the seeing and the blind? have not I, God? 12 And now go and I will open thy mouth, and will instruct thee in what thou shalt say. 13 And Moses said, I pray thee, Lord, appoint another able person whom thou shalt send. 14 And the Lord was greatly angered against Moses, and said, Lo! is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he will surely speak to thee; and, behold, he will come forth to meet thee, and beholding thee he will rejoice within himself. 15 And thou shalt speak to him; and thou shalt put my words into his mouth, and I will open thy mouth and his mouth, and I will instruct you in what ye shall do. 16 And he shall speak for thee to the people, and he shall be thy mouth, and thou shalt be for him in things pertaining to God. (LXX, Exodus IV.)
It is hardly what you are trying to present. And given that the Church used Greek LXX and not some modern translation, I still think that your words are more similar to the words of the snake than of God. Not that I am implying that you are snake, God Forbid, I am just trying to show that you have to find better prefigurement of Papal Infallibility than this one.
So, as a conclusion, this verse does not place any weight behind RCC position, unless you wish to say that RCC is a snake. In that case I will point you to many who will agree.
Vladimir, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to conclude. I was by no means trying to prove Papal Infallibility with the OT. Once again my point was to show that God puts ONE above the rest. There is not much I can show you that I’m sure you haven’t seen to prove infallibility in Peter. I see the development of supremacy of jurisdiction in the Bishop of Rome in history, reason, and Scripture. RCC pulls out their early church father quotes to prove their case and the Orthodox does the same. This becomes no different then you and I arguing with a Protestant on interpretation and verse crossing issues.
No one said that God had qualms in putting one over the all. But you do tend do disregard what The Church thinks of who this ONE over all in This time (Since Pentecost) is.I am sorry, that St. Peter is not.
At least you see that ONE man (guided by God obviously) can be over all. This is at least a step forward in my eyes.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
You can go from type to type in the O.T.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š and you will never find such type that anyone can consider (without a very gymnastic bending) a type of St. Peter+Pope=Infallible Pope.
Once again I was not trying to prove that. I don’t know why you think I was trying to do that.
Also, having these human "heads" in the OT did not prevent Jews from falling away.
Have you ever heard a RCC say that having a Pope will guarantee or be more prone to cause the flock to not fall away? If you did then I will confess that is not the case. Pope or no pope, people will disobey and fall away.
In the NT that is changed into Our Lord being THE HEAD, and from this, having God as the Head of the Body that is His Church we see the perfect enenergyf the New Testament, radiance of which is felt for 2000 years. Without change, without addition or deletion. I am talking of the Orthodox Church, not of Vatican as is now.
You had me at the edge of my seat until you said Orthodox ChurchÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
First of all, let me say that I can not check any quotes from Patrologiae Graecae, as I do not have access to Mignes marvelous work. But, rest assured, if indeed St. Confessor said that, he did not see it as Vatican sees it from Vatican I onwards. Many Fathers have said what would today been considered an opposing/contradicting statements. This is due to what RCC sees as the Prerogative of Power vested in the See of Rome. Onus of proof in this case is on you, to show THE SACRED CANONS and DEFINITIONS that show that Rome possesses supreme power in all things and for all things, over all the holy Churches of God throughout the World as well as power and authority of binding and loosing - as defined by RCC today
I suppose I could give you a truck load of early church father writings to show you. But this just turns into a quote war and quite frankly it’s getting old hearing “your misunderstanding what they are saying”. While it’s quite clear what St. Confessor said. It some cases I have gone back and read into what many of these early fathers have said, only to conclude that it said what I meant. But as you know, it is a lot of reading neither you nor I in the time we have on earth could possibly retain all those writings. Besides going back to the volumes of writings of St. Confessor will not make moot the clarity in which he clearly notes the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
That is, you have to prove, based on the Holy Scriptures, Patrology and Canons of Ecumenical Councils that Rome had PREROGATIVE OF POWER, INFALLIBILITY, ABBILITY TO CHANGE DECISIONS OF THE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS on HER own.
How about the quote I gave you of St. Confessor? Look into him and get back to me.
I for one, do not see context in which St. Confessor is speaking, and from what I know, RC Apologists (ie. Armstrong, my fave) are very good at sectarian approach to Patrology and Scriptures. That is they present their arguments EXACTLY AS YOU DO, using (...) and other ways to change the meaning and not providing context. Combining two or even three sentences to show that one is saying something, when in the fact the person is not doing that. My way of thinking is that if those presented (accurately) in PG have been thinking the way that RCC thinks today, we would all be thinking that way. Why? Because Orthodox Church has not changed her Doctrine since Pentecost. Nothing has been formulated beyond what has been given once unto the Saints for the salvation of souls.
On the other hand, starting with filioqve until today, RCC has changed numerous things, coming into the situation of Doctrinal (Dogmatic) nightmare that is in today.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š So, as I said, onus is on you.
Vladimir, why such confidence if you have admitted not to have looked into it yourself? You accuse RC’s of doing this but have caught yourself in the same dilemma. I’ll tell you what, since you are convinced that we do this. Why don’t you post the entire volume of St. Confessor and we can read and observe the context. Although I am unsure what St. Confessor could possibly say to take back the words or make void the clarity in which he says what he said.
As far as typology goes, I am sorry, from Adam, over Noe, over Abraham, over Moses, David etc...... there is not one similarity with what you are trying to show.
That’s because you misunderstood me.
St. Peter+Pope=Infallable Pope is nothing but a Vision of Vatican I and that is it.
I am not an expert on anything in regard to Theology. My knowledge (if you can call it so) is far from Theology. But I will try to present the view of the Orthodox Church to the best of my abbility. I hope that the One that knows everything will help us both to see His will and in doing so we might start doing His will.
What I wrote is not the position of the Orthodox Church, only my (not well informed) oppinion of what that oppinion would be.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
Completely agree and the same goes with me.