OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 08:43:36 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics  (Read 59569 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #180 on: July 06, 2008, 11:54:46 PM »

Dear Truth,

I think I personally have answered your question on how you can change my mind.  First there has to be consistency, and according to Pope St. Gregory, it is inconsistent with the quote by St. Maximus.  Now, the quote you give does seem to support Roman supremacy, but then again, I can't judge since I haven't studied it.  However, it seems to me that the EO's have interpreted it as something else.  From what I know, St. Maximus defended a Pope who with him condemned Monotheletism and suffered with him for it, the very same heresy that the Patriarch of New Rome was endorsing.

Second reason for changing my mind is to convince me on the dogmas Rome accepted.  Tell me this truth, if Rome, not just the Pope, but all of Rome apparently started to teach a dogma that you feel is heretical, do you still feel Rome is supreme?

God bless.

PS  In today's society, is it really necessary to claim Rome as number one?  Is it really something Christ wanted us to argue over.  Of what dogmatic importance is it to argue who is first and who is second?  "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matthew 25:26-28) "If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all." (Mark 9:34)  It is because of this selfish need to find out who is first that is one of the reasons for the schisms we have today.

Well, I certainly dont think that RCs are holier than OCs because they are RCs. So I agree with your PS.

IMOP, the problems from the east is due preciesly because they wanted more power, or to be first. Since Rome always had primacy, it never had to seek it. IMOP, the 1054 schism happened not from thoelogical differences between the OC and RC (because the east knew of the See of Rome's idea of herself supreme, as well Rome's endorsement of the filioque as described by St Augustine). Rather it happened for geopolitical reasons.

Quote
...but all of Rome apparently started to teach a dogma that you feel is heretical, do you still feel Rome is supreme?

Interesting scenario. It is a point in fact that Eastern Sees did preciesly this, whereas I have not heard of a justifiable case against the See of Rome. So yes, if the See of Rome taught something like worship satan and steal when no one is looking, I would cease to be a RC. If the RC said that Jesus never died and came back to life, I would cease to be a RC etc.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #181 on: July 07, 2008, 12:04:09 AM »

Interesting scenario. It is a point in fact that Eastern Sees did preciesly this, whereas I have not heard of a justifiable case against the See of Rome.
The Eastern Sees did no such thing.
Rome "excommunicated" the East. Please recall who enetered whose Basilica and slapped down a writ of excommunication.
This act created a schism, with Rome believing it was the Church. In fact, to cause a schism is even worse than heresy.
Rome cut itself off from the Church with this act.

So yes, if the See of Rome taught something like worship satan and steal when no one is looking, I would cease to be a RC. If the RC said that Jesus never died and came back to life, I would cease to be a RC etc.
Fine. But this is simply moving the goal post. For us, it is enough that Rome changed the doctrine of the Trinity we received from the Fathers of the first Oecumenical Councils- an act forbidden by these and subsequent Oecumenical Councils.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #182 on: July 07, 2008, 12:16:42 AM »

The Eastern Sees did no such thing.
Rome "excommunicated" the East. Please recall who enetered whose Basilica and slapped down a writ of excommunication.
This act created a schism, with Rome believing it was the Church. In fact, to cause a schism is even worse than heresy.
Rome cut itself off from the Church with this act.
Fine. But this is simply moving the goal post. For us, it is enough that Rome changed the doctrine of the Trinity we received from the Fathers of the first Oecumenical Councils- an act forbidden by these and subsequent Oecumenical Councils.


The hersies I was talking about was Arianism etc, which happened in the early church. The east fell into many heresies.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,291


WWW
« Reply #183 on: July 07, 2008, 12:20:13 AM »

The hersies I was talking about was Arianism etc, which happened in the early church. The east fell into many heresies.

Examples???
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #184 on: July 07, 2008, 12:27:18 AM »

The hersies I was talking about was Arianism etc, which happened in the early church.
Huh Are you solely crediting Old Rome with correcting this? You have to be kidding!

The east fell into many heresies.
And, thanks be to God, She climbed out of them. You've held the Filioque for over a Millenium. Smiley
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #185 on: July 07, 2008, 12:50:19 AM »

Quote
Are you solely crediting Old Rome with correcting this?


No.


Quote
You have to be kidding!
And, thanks be to God, She climbed out of them. You've held the Filioque for over a Millenium. Smiley

Actually more than a millenium, since the early church (remember Augustine?)
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #186 on: July 07, 2008, 12:56:52 AM »

Examples???

Okay, I'll give you some. I actually took this list from a thread that was recommended to me in a post above:

Are you familiar with the Arian crisis?  Constantinople 55 years out of Communion.
Acacian schism?  35 years.
Monotheletism. 41 years.
Iconoclasm.  61 years.

And who, incidentally, was on the Orthodox side in all these cases?  Who on the heretical?


On a side note, I have no idea why the said threads were recommended to me. They certainly hurt someone's case.



Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,291


WWW
« Reply #187 on: July 07, 2008, 01:11:19 AM »

Okay, I'll give you some. I actually took this list from a thread that was recommended to me in a post above:

<snip>

List any Eastern heresies occurring during the 2nd or 3rd Millennia because all the cited 1st Millennia examples (snipped to preserve bandwidth) were resolved?
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #188 on: July 07, 2008, 02:40:34 AM »

And who, incidentally, was on the Orthodox side in all these cases?  Who on the heretical?[/b][/i]
Your facts are not right, but be that as it may, "was" is past tense. Nestorios was Patriarch of Constantinople, just as Honorius was Pope of Old Rome, but both were anathematised as heretics by the Church. What does this prove other than the fact that heretics have sat on both the throne of Old Rome and the throne of The City?
To make your question relevant, you need to ask:
"And who, incidentally, is on the Orthodox side now?  Who on the heretical?"
Who changed the Creed of Our Fathers? Who introduced strange doctrines alien to Christianity and persists in them to this day despite the rebuke of Illumined Fathers like St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas and St Mark Evgenikos?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2008, 02:49:05 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #189 on: July 07, 2008, 08:10:57 AM »

I see. Well, what I was getting at is that many factors played a role to make it look like the See of Rome was superior to any eastern see. Can you blame people who research and find the many evidences of this and believe in it?

Then it would not Jive with the historical records that do not indicate Universal Jurisdiction by the Pope.

Okay, I'll try to show an example in the early church of the See of Rome acting as if it had Universal Jurisdiction. Keep in mind that the pope is not claimed to have Universal Jurisdiction, but the pope working with the See of Rome.

Easy.  Pope Victor, tried to impose the Roman paschalion on everyone, and got rebuked by the Church, including by St. Iranaeus, his own suffergan.  Btw, the paschalion adopted by the Universal Church was that of the Pope-of Alexandria!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #190 on: July 07, 2008, 08:20:53 AM »

I need to look into this. You do realize that the council have the Byzantines at Chalcedon never attempting to accord Constantinople equality with Rome, but only second after.

...also, we are talking about supreme authority etc. How can the council at hand be used by you if in the wording of it clearly says second after Rome??? If it is supreme and has unversial power, why did they say this?

Easy.  Second, that means Rome is first, Alexandria third, Antioch fourth.

Second.  That means that Rome is not sole, and therefore accountable to the other four of the pentarchy.

Second.  That means when number one removes herself from the pentarchy, number two fulfills the role of number one.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #191 on: July 07, 2008, 08:28:47 AM »

Side note: Rome accepted Chalcedon Canon 28 in 1205 - after establishing their puppet Latin Patriarchate at Constantinople. Figures...
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #192 on: July 07, 2008, 08:47:01 AM »

Okay, I'll give you some. I actually took this list from a thread that was recommended to me in a post above:

Are you familiar with the Arian crisis?  Constantinople 55 years out of Communion.

Afraid you outdid yourself here.  Yes New Rome was out of communion with old Rome for some time, including the time that St. Gregory the theologian and St. Nectarius were on her throne.  The second Ecumenical council was convened and run by those not in communion with Old Rome, including St. Meltius, patriarch of Antioch, whom Old Rome, through Jerome, had appointed and supported a rival (btw, the second council had the most of any in number of glorified/canonized saints).  All three (and the defunct fourth) of Rome's clamaints for the throne of Antioch trace their succession through St. Meletius, and not Rome's man.

Quote
Acacian schism?  35 years.

Ah yes, "solved" by the confession of Hormisdas.  Only problem was that only the bishops whom the emperor strong armed would sign it: Pope Hormisdas told the emperor to use force to get all the Eastern bishops to sign (seems Rome is inconsistent about caesaropapism).  Patriarch John of Constantinople signed only after adding a preamble which stated the equality of New Rome with Old Rome.  Rome's bishop of Thessalonica tore the document in two.  Actually, the schism was solved by the faithful forcing in on the new Chalcedonian emperors Justin and Justinian.

Quote
Monotheletism. 41 years.


As Pope Honorius adhered to it, how was New and Old Rome out of communion?  And the Maronites?  The only surviving Monothelites ended up with Rome.

Quote
Iconoclasm.  61 years.

The councilf of Frankfurt condemened the Seventh Council (and insisted on the Filioque).

Quote
And who, incidentally, was on the Orthodox side in all these cases?
 

The Orthodox bishops of the East, of which there were a number.

Quote
Who on the heretical?[/b][/i]

Who indeed.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #193 on: July 07, 2008, 08:49:15 AM »

List any Eastern heresies occurring during the 2nd or 3rd Millennia because all the cited 1st Millennia examples (snipped to preserve bandwidth) were resolved?

Don't know if we can say resolved, since they cropped up again in the West during the 2nd and 3rd millenia.  Some people can't learn from others mistakes.  They have also repeated the Western heresies, e.g. Pelagianism.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,747


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #194 on: July 07, 2008, 11:05:33 AM »

Iconoclasm.  61 years.

And who, incidentally, was on the Orthodox side in all these cases?  Who on the heretical?[/b][/i]

Sts Theodore of the Studion, John of Damascus, Kassiane the Hymnographer, Stephen the New, to name but a few. Were any of these from the Roman side?  Tongue

Of all heresies mentioned by "truth", iconoclasm is the most ironic, as Rome effectively ignored most of the rulings on iconography from the Quinisext and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, including the proscribing of statues for veneration.
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #195 on: July 07, 2008, 11:31:40 AM »

List any Eastern heresies occurring during the 2nd or 3rd Millennia because all the cited 1st Millennia examples (snipped to preserve bandwidth) were resolved?

Why? I was refering to how the early Roman church was perceived by early church fathers etc. If I have the wrong views of Rome, my main point is that I am in very good company historically speaking. You would have to blame many of the early great thinkers for the supposed confusion as well. If Rome was not supreme, why all of the quotes like St Maximos'? You can respond saying they had those views because they were all dumb etc, which is what you are indirectly saying, and so in that case, I'd be happy to be called dumb by you guys too.  Grin
« Last Edit: July 07, 2008, 11:40:30 AM by truth » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #196 on: July 07, 2008, 11:41:12 AM »

Why? I was refering to how the early Roman church was perceived by early church fathers etc. If I have the wrong views of Rome, my main point is that I am in very good company historically speaking. You would have to blame many of the early great thinkers for the supposed confusion as well. If Rome was not supreme, why all of the quotes like St Maximos'? You can answer because they were all dumb etc, which is what you are indirectly saying, so in that case, I'd be happy to be called dumb by you guys too.  Grin


Such early great thinkers didn't have our benefit of hindsight. Wink
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #197 on: July 07, 2008, 11:46:32 AM »

A pope can have heretical views in his personal opinion. What is safeguarded by the papal infallibility in when the pope is teaching alongside the see of Rome.

The difference between the eastern heresies were that the entire sees were heretical. Big difference.

So when I read which side the heresies were on, as well as the testimonies from the likes of St Maximos regarding the suprimacy of the See of Rome, can you really blame me for coming to the conclusions of the RCC?

I know none of you agree, but my main point is maybe instilling in you some kind of understanding on how someone researching history can end up converting to RC.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2008, 11:55:02 AM by truth » Logged
Heracleides
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarch of Jerusalem
Posts: 390


Kona-Kai


« Reply #198 on: July 07, 2008, 12:13:51 PM »

A pope can have heretical views in his personal opinion. What is safeguarded by the papal infallibility in when the pope is teaching alongside the see of Rome.

This argument put forth by various Roman Catholic apologists has always struck me as the most absurd.

Edited to insert more charitable terminology.  -- Friul
« Last Edit: July 07, 2008, 02:03:49 PM by Friul » Logged

"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #199 on: July 07, 2008, 02:00:56 PM »

A pope can have heretical views in his personal opinion. What is safeguarded by the papal infallibility in when the pope is teaching alongside the see of Rome.

The difference between the eastern heresies were that the entire sees were heretical. Big difference.

So when I read which side the heresies were on, as well as the testimonies from the likes of St Maximos regarding the suprimacy of the See of Rome, can you really blame me for coming to the conclusions of the RCC?

I know none of you agree, but my main point is maybe instilling in you some kind of understanding on how someone researching history can end up converting to RC.

Now you really have blundered.  The entire sees were heretical?  Constantinople under St. Gregory?  Alexandria under St. Athanasius?  Jerusalem under St. Sophronius.  Puh-leeese!

You are making a distinction the Vatican does not make between the pope and Rome.  This idea of "teaching alongside Rome" is decidedly against Lumen Gentium, for instance, Lumen Gentium's addendum to make this clear:
The documents of recent Pontiffs regarding the jurisdiction of bishops must be interpreted in terms of this necessary determination of powers.

3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said "to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church." This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ's Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ's whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised-whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church's welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,445


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #200 on: July 07, 2008, 03:58:29 PM »

The difference between the eastern heresies were that the entire sees were heretical. Big difference.

Why is it that you feel the entire sees were heretical?  Do they hold the same heresies today?  The heresies you listed are interesting, since I find no trace of them in the church of today.  By your logic, one can hold Rome accountable of the stupidity behind the Crusades, the age of the serfs, the corruptions that went on, the taking of money for the forgiveness of sins, etc.  All of Rome seemed to be under that spell until the Reformation seemed to wake Rome up a little.

The entire see?  This is obviously false.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #201 on: July 07, 2008, 05:02:53 PM »

Well the entire See of Rome is heretical today with the heresy of Fillioque, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception,. Papal Infallibility, Merits of Saints, Anullments, etc etc etc etc
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #202 on: July 07, 2008, 08:29:49 PM »

Now you really have blundered.  The entire sees were heretical?  Constantinople under St. Gregory?  Alexandria under St. Athanasius?  Jerusalem under St. Sophronius.  Puh-leeese!

You are making a distinction the Vatican does not make between the pope and Rome.  This idea of "teaching alongside Rome" is decidedly against Lumen Gentium, for instance, Lumen Gentium's addendum to make this clear:
The documents of recent Pontiffs regarding the jurisdiction of bishops must be interpreted in terms of this necessary determination of powers.

3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said "to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church." This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ's Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ's whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised-whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church's welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.


I think you make a good point. Thanks.
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #203 on: July 07, 2008, 08:33:21 PM »

Well the entire See of Rome is heretical today with the heresy of Fillioque, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception,. Papal Infallibility, Merits of Saints, Anullments, etc etc etc etc

Heretical says you. Thats the problem. It comes down to who has the authority. As pointed out, the early church as well as say St Maximos, thought Rome did.

My question to you is how can you blame an honest researcher for converting to RC, given the cloud of witnesses?
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #204 on: July 07, 2008, 08:37:49 PM »

Quote
Why is it that you feel the entire sees were heretical? 


Well, because they were. They came back from heresy, which must mean that they left right? I thought this was common knowledge?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #205 on: July 07, 2008, 09:26:45 PM »

Heretical says you. Thats the problem. It comes down to who has the authority. As pointed out, the early church as well as say St Maximos, thought Rome did.

My question to you is how can you blame an honest researcher for converting to RC, given the cloud of witnesses?

Not to be redundant, but to repeat what I have already said: The Seventh Council, with the approval of two Popes of Rome, anathematized another Pope of Rome, whom St. Maximos had defended. Here we don't even have to get into the question of Pope versus Council: both Popes during the council approved of the Council's decision.

As for the Cloud of Witnesses, the Second Ecumenical Council, the Council of the most saints of any of the Seven (or I think any the Vatican had) were assembled out of communion with Rome: St. Meltios of Antioch opened the council. Rome had appointed a replacement for him (although Rome's present claimants all claim succession through St. Meletios).  St. Gregory Nazianzus, also out of communion.  Ss. Flavian and Nectarius, successors elected at the Council of these two, etc. etc. etc.  St. John Chrysostom lived most of his life out of communion with Rome.  The list goes on.  And this council wrote the Creed we say, and you did until Spain meddled with it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #206 on: July 07, 2008, 11:51:01 PM »

Not to be redundant, but to repeat what I have already said: The Seventh Council, with the approval of two Popes of Rome, anathematized another Pope of Rome, whom St. Maximos had defended. Here we don't even have to get into the question of Pope versus Council: both Popes during the council approved of the Council's decision.

As for the Cloud of Witnesses, the Second Ecumenical Council, the Council of the most saints of any of the Seven (or I think any the Vatican had) were assembled out of communion with Rome: St. Meltios of Antioch opened the council. Rome had appointed a replacement for him (although Rome's present claimants all claim succession through St. Meletios).  St. Gregory Nazianzus, also out of communion.  Ss. Flavian and Nectarius, successors elected at the Council of these two, etc. etc. etc.  St. John Chrysostom lived most of his life out of communion with Rome.  The list goes on.  And this council wrote the Creed we say, and you did until Spain meddled with it.

You forgot to mention the name of the pope that was hererical. And remember, I dont want to be redundant either, but remember, was he heretical for openly teaching the heresy by the See of Rome?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2008, 11:54:39 PM by truth » Logged
Heracleides
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarch of Jerusalem
Posts: 390


Kona-Kai


« Reply #207 on: July 08, 2008, 12:12:23 AM »

You forgot to mention the name of the pope that was hererical. And remember, I dont want to be redundant either, but remember, was he heretical for openly teaching the heresy by the See of Rome?

He was heretical for embracing heresy...  Wink
Logged

"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #208 on: July 08, 2008, 12:35:15 AM »

Not to be redundant, but to repeat what I have already said: The Seventh Council, with the approval of two Popes of Rome, anathematized another Pope of Rome, whom St. Maximos had defended. Here we don't even have to get into the question of Pope versus Council: both Popes during the council approved of the Council's decision.

As for the Cloud of Witnesses, the Second Ecumenical Council, the Council of the most saints of any of the Seven (or I think any the Vatican had) were assembled out of communion with Rome: St. Meltios of Antioch opened the council. Rome had appointed a replacement for him (although Rome's present claimants all claim succession through St. Meletios).  St. Gregory Nazianzus, also out of communion.  Ss. Flavian and Nectarius, successors elected at the Council of these two, etc. etc. etc.  St. John Chrysostom lived most of his life out of communion with Rome.  The list goes on.  And this council wrote the Creed we say, and you did until Spain meddled with it.

If you were talking about POPE HONORIUS, then:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

Newman and other commentators have noted that Honorius' letters to Sergius are not doctrinal definitions ex cathedra; thus they are outside the scope of infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council.

In his two letters Sergius warned that teaching two wills in Christ would lead to the idea that the human will of the Son of God was opposed to that of his Father. He advised the Pope that it was better to speak of only one will in our Lord. Sergius was trying a little sleight of hand: He was attempting to deny the existence of Christ's human will by pointing out that our Lord never opposed the Father. Yet if two persons agree, they may be spoken of as being of "one will" this doesn't mean, of course, that one of them has no will at all.

The Pope, with no idea of Sergius' between-the-lines message, answered the Patriarch on the unthinkable subject of Christ's "opposition" to the Father. "We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, since our (human) nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being faultless, as it was before the Fall." [Quoted in Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 5 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896; AMS Reprint, 1972), 29]. Since Christ's human will is "faultless," there can be no talk of opposing wills. (Christ hardly would have been faultless if he opposed his Father's will.)

Monothelites, as they grew in numbers and influence over the ensuing years, seized upon Honorius' confession of "one will of our Lord Jesus Christ" as confirmation that the Pope believed with them that Christ had no human will. Newman and other commentators have noted that Honorius' letters to Sergius are not doctrinal definitions ex cathedra; thus they are outside the scope of infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council.

That is true, but, even more to the point, a look at Honorius' exact words shows that while he did use a formula--"one will"--that was later declared heretical, he used it in a sense that implied the orthodox belief.

This was picked up as early as 640 by Pope John IV, Honorius' successor, who pointed out that Sergius had asked only about the presence of two opposing wills. Honorius had answered accordingly, speaking, says Pope John, "only of the human and not also of the divine nature." Pope John was right. Honorius assumed the existence of a human will in Christ by saying that his nature is like humanity's before the Fall. No one would claim that before the Fall Adam had no will. Thus Honorius's speaking of Christ's assumption of a "faultless" human nature shows that he really did believe in the orthodox formula of two wills in Christ: one divine, one human, in perfect agreement.

The Third Council of Constantinople was thus in error when it condemned Honorius for heresy. But a Council, of course, has no authority except insofar as its decrees are confirmed by the pope. The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because "he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted." [Carroll, 254]

This is a crucial distinction. Honorius probably should have known the implications of using the "one will" formula; he could have found out by writing a letter to Sophronius of Jerusalem. But he was no heretic.

The anti-papists got the wrong guy. It seems incredible that so many readers of Honorius's letters, from Patriarch Sergius to Hans Kng, see only what they want to see in Honorius's "one will" formula. We should thank God that this poor old pope saw fit to explain himself. Rarely outside of the homoousios/homoiousios controversy at the First Council of Nicaea has so much hinged on so few words.

Since this case seemed to be the best one the anti-infallibilists could turn to, I became an infallibilist, a Catholic with faith in the pope as the Vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter. The Church will live beyond the trials of these days as it did those of Honorius's day. That bare fact may seem abstract and impenetrable in the convulsions of our age, yet it is our unshakable guarantee.


If not, then who?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 01:05:40 AM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #209 on: July 08, 2008, 12:44:59 AM »

He was heretical for embracing heresy...  Wink

Who?...if Honorius, well, he was condemned because of what was found in a private letter. If he was openly teaching it, you'd have a point. This is far from what the eastern sees were caught for.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 12:49:28 AM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #210 on: July 08, 2008, 12:58:12 AM »

Quote
And this council wrote the Creed we say, and you did until Spain meddled with it.

By the way, the creed was meddled with by you guys as well, if you want to use that phraseology.
Logged
Heracleides
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarch of Jerusalem
Posts: 390


Kona-Kai


« Reply #211 on: July 08, 2008, 12:58:31 AM »

Who?...if Honorius, well, he was condemned because of what was found in a private letter. If he was openly teaching it, you'd have a point. This is far from what the eastern sees were caught for.

So let me get this straight... you're basically saying that you're ok with one of your popes being a 'closet' Heretic?  If so... makes one wonder how many other of your popes were also closet heretics who managed to keep their private letters, and the heresy espoused therein, private.  Roll Eyes
Logged

"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #212 on: July 08, 2008, 01:07:04 AM »

So let me get this straight... you're basically saying that you're ok with one of your popes being a 'closet' Heretic?  If so... makes one wonder how many other of your popes were also closet heretics who managed to keep their private letters, and the heresy espoused therein, private.  Roll Eyes

Right...popes are not perfect. Only when teaching ex cathedra.

So you're okay with entire eastern sees openly teaching heresies?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 01:08:46 AM by truth » Logged
Heracleides
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarch of Jerusalem
Posts: 390


Kona-Kai


« Reply #213 on: July 08, 2008, 01:11:08 AM »

Right...popes are not perfect. Only when teaching ex cathedra.

So you're okay with entire eastern sees being heretical?

Umm... I could ask you the same of you - the Roman Patriarchate and it's popes have embraced and espoused heresy for the last millennium.  Roll Eyes

Good luck with your closet heretic popes (for your sake and a billion other Roman Catholics, let's hope they manage to stay in the closet).  Wink
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 01:13:38 AM by Heracleides » Logged

"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #214 on: July 08, 2008, 01:19:13 AM »

Umm... I could ask you the same of you - the Roman Patriarchate and it's popes have embraced and espoused heresy for the last millennium.  Roll Eyes

Good luck with your closet heretic popes (for your sake and a billion other Roman Catholics, let's hope they manage to stay in the closet).  Wink

I think your missing the point:

Fautling one pope's personal views found in a private letter while ignoring the major eastern heresies, which openly taught the heresies publiclly, is a little lobsided.

« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 01:23:02 AM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #215 on: July 08, 2008, 01:25:14 AM »

Quote
Umm... I could ask you the same of you - the Roman Patriarchate and it's popes have embraced and espoused heresy for the last millennium.

From your opinion. Rome has never been judged in heresy by an ecunmenical council.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 01:26:54 AM by truth » Logged
Heracleides
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarch of Jerusalem
Posts: 390


Kona-Kai


« Reply #216 on: July 08, 2008, 01:33:59 AM »

I think your missing the point:

Fautling one pope's personal views while ignoring the major eastern heresies, which openly taught the heresies publiclly, is a little lobsided.



Umm... odd how you have overlooked the Roman Patriarchate's millennium long record of embracing, espousing and spreading heresy. Last I checked, your church's current heresies (you know the list) are publically promulgated - nothing private about it. And lest you blithely dismiss this point, just remember that the major western heresies espoused by your pope and his followers have sown unprecedented discord and caused your church to remain outside the Faith far longer any of the eastern heresies ever did. Any of the resolved eastern heresies pale in comparison to Rome's ongoing western heresy and it's fruit.
Logged

"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas
Heracleides
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarch of Jerusalem
Posts: 390


Kona-Kai


« Reply #217 on: July 08, 2008, 01:37:46 AM »

From your opinion. Rome has never been judged in heresy by an ecunmenical council.

You've obviously never read any of our "private letters" on the matter.   Cheesy
Logged

"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #218 on: July 08, 2008, 01:43:42 AM »

Umm... odd how you have overlooked the Roman Patriarchate's millennium long record of embracing, espousing and spreading heresy. Last I checked, your church's current heresies (you know the list) are publically promulgated - nothing private about it. And lest you blithely dismiss this point, just remember that the major western heresies espoused by your pope and his followers have sown unprecedented discord and caused your church to remain outside the Faith far longer any of the eastern heresies ever did. Any of the resolved eastern heresies pale in comparison to Rome's ongoing western heresy and it's fruit.

The problem with your comparison is that the west does not agree that it is in heresy, whereas every learned person knows that the eastern sees openly taught heresies. The best you guys have is a private letter from a pope??
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #219 on: July 08, 2008, 01:46:41 AM »

Quote
just remember that the major western heresies espoused by your pope and his followers have sown unprecedented discord


Any institution that is of great size has more problems than small ones. You guys never reached that much power, which is why you guys were limited in comparison to what you could do etc.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 01:47:35 AM by truth » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,445


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #220 on: July 08, 2008, 01:50:49 AM »

Well, because they were. They came back from heresy, which must mean that they left right? I thought this was common knowledge?

The fact that they came back from heresy does not make the "whole see" heretical.  Only certain leaders were.  I think we disagree on "common" knowledge.

If this is the case, I guess we can agree that the whole see of Rome was Nestorian for accepting the Three Chapters before Justinian had to beat it out of the Pope.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Heracleides
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarch of Jerusalem
Posts: 390


Kona-Kai


« Reply #221 on: July 08, 2008, 01:52:26 AM »

The problem with your comparison is that the west does not agree that it is in heresy, whereas every learned person knows that the eastern sees openly taught heresies. The best you guys have is a private letter from a pope??

And you miss the point that every learned person within the Church knows that the Patriarchs' of Rome have openly taught heresy for the past millennium.  Your heretical Pope Honorius was simply the first (relatively speaking) of a long line of ongoing heretical Archbishops to taint and subvert the See of Rome.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 01:55:22 AM by Heracleides » Logged

"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #222 on: July 08, 2008, 01:59:46 AM »

Quote
The fact that they came back from heresy does not make the "whole see" heretical.  Only certain leaders were.  I think we disagree on "common" knowledge.

This is denial. They were openly teaching it.

Quote
If this is the case, I guess we can agree that the whole see of Rome was Nestorian for accepting the Three Chapters before Justinian had to beat it out of the Pope.

This is not a clear case of heresy, as the eastern sees indulged in.(three chapters was never officially taught or understood for that matter etc):

The matter was further complicated by the fact that the Latins, Vigilius among them, were for the most part ignorant of Greek and therefore unable to judge the incriminated writings for themselves. Pelagius II in his third epistle to Elias, probably drawn up by St. Gregory the Great, ascribes all the trouble to this ignorance.

It was never openly taught...etc

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Three_Chapters
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 02:05:40 AM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #223 on: July 08, 2008, 11:07:13 AM »

Quote
And you miss the point that every learned person within the Church knows that the Patriarchs' of Rome have openly taught heresy for the past millennium. 


Nobody from the See of Rome does, or any other RC, which has more numbers than the OC, thinks that Rome has been heretical for the last 1000 years. How can you say every learned? On the contrary, Every learned from both the OC and RC knows that the eastern sees were heretical. Big difference.

Quote
Your heretical Pope Honorius was simply the first (relatively speaking) of a long line of ongoing heretical Archbishops to taint and subvert the See of Rome.

Again, what condemned Honorius was his view in a private letter. Rome has never taught that openly. And remember, this is all you have. Big difference. It is not even comparable. It is a serious effort of reaching.

« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 11:14:15 AM by truth » Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #224 on: July 08, 2008, 11:44:03 AM »



Any institution that is of great size has more problems than small ones. You guys never reached that much power, which is why you guys were limited in comparison to what you could do etc.

Which is actually a point in *favor* of the EO - in my humble opinion as an RC.  angel
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Tags: Primacy of Peter Pope Leo Petrine Primacy Chalcedon cheval mort Flavian Ephesus II Tome of Leo The St. Maximos Quote That Irenaeus quote 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.147 seconds with 72 queries.