OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 11:54:15 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: How can Rome fall?  (Read 35172 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« on: February 17, 2008, 05:50:27 PM »

I am just curious how the OC remedies quotes from the church fathers that claim that the See of Rome can never fall. Since the OC believes that the See of Rome fell, were all of the church fathers wrong?

I want to add, that this post is not meant to cause harsh feelings. I seriously want to know how the OC deals with the early church father quotes that appear not to side with the OC opinions.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2008, 06:02:14 PM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
TinaG
I am not a pessimist - I'm just grimly realistic!
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 870


If only my family were this normal !


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2008, 06:02:30 PM »

Do we really say the See of Rome fell?  The See of Rome is still the See of Rome - just not presently occupied by a hierarch that we are in communion with.  But we could be, if only....
Logged

On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2008, 06:05:34 PM »

Do we really say the See of Rome fell?  The See of Rome is still the See of Rome - just not presently occupied by a hierarch that we are in communion with.  But we could be, if only....

Rome was excommunciated by the East. It fell into heresy according to the East. I suppose the East could reunite at some point. But that is not my question. Thanks for your reply however, and God bless you.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2008, 06:11:07 PM »

Do we really say the See of Rome fell?  The See of Rome is still the See of Rome - just not presently occupied by a hierarch that we are in communion with.  But we could be, if only....

Just out of curioisty, what events would have to take place in order to deduce that the See of Rome fell?
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,960



« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2008, 07:58:41 PM »

I think you would have to first question the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, who struck Pope Vigilius from the diptychs, and the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, who anathematized Pope Honorius as did his successor Pope St. Leo.
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
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2008, 09:09:40 PM »

I think you would have to first question the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, who struck Pope Vigilius from the diptychs, and the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, who anathematized Pope Honorius as did his successor Pope St. Leo.

I's answer by stating that Popes can have personal hereitcal views. But the entire See of Rome cannot.

I dont want to focus on particular quotes, just how you deal with them in general.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2008, 09:25:47 PM »

I think you would have to first question the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, who struck Pope Vigilius from the diptychs, and the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, who anathematized Pope Honorius as did his successor Pope St. Leo.

Forgive me for being ignorant, but could you explain Pope Vigilius. I could not find how the See of Rome was imperiled by him. I know Pope Honorius' story, and that his views never became official See of Rome teaching. So, no problem there. But now I am curious about Pope Vigilious. I tried researching him and amd confused as to what you are getting at.

But at some point, could you answer the first question?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2008, 09:26:51 PM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2008, 09:28:19 PM »

Do you actually want answers or are you just trying to get people to agree with your already held assumptions?
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2008, 09:31:40 PM »

Do you actually want answers or are you just trying to get people to agree with your already held assumptions?

I do actually want answers. I mean no harm. I ask to be forgiven if you think my post hostile and vulgar. I am sorry.

I am very curious with this issue however.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2008, 09:44:47 PM »

I think you would have to first question the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, who struck Pope Vigilius from the diptychs, and the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, who anathematized Pope Honorius as did his successor Pope St. Leo.

I actually found good stuff on Pope Vigilius. So please no need to post a lot about him. I'd rather stick to the first question so the thread does not become too confusing.

We could start another thread discussing him if you like, but I'd stay focused here.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2008, 09:45:27 PM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,070



« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2008, 09:57:02 PM »

Reply to Reply #2, by "earlychurch"-  I do not believe any Synod of the Eastern Orthodox Church has declared Rome or Roman Catholicism to be in heresy, not-with-standing the valid theological disagreements Orthodoxy has with Rome.  I know certain saints have declared teachings of theirs, heresy's, but doesn't the Church speak through it Synods?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2008, 09:58:28 PM by BTRAKAS » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2008, 09:57:19 PM »

I think you would have to first question the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, who struck Pope Vigilius from the diptychs, and the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, who anathematized Pope Honorius as did his successor Pope St. Leo.

To bring an answer for your Pope Vigilius question, since it is a small paste:

Three names, though, kept popping up in all the sources, whether Protestant, Orthodox, or liberal Catholic: Liberius (352-366), Vigilius (537-555), and Honorius. I disposed of the first two quickly. They had been made to sign questionable statements of faith while under duress. That doesn't count: Papal infallibility applies only to free acts of the pope, not to acts under torture. No contract signed under duress is binding; thus Liberius and Vigilius, whatever their failings, were excused.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2008, 10:02:10 PM »

Reply to Reply #2, by "earlychurch"-  I do not believe any Synod of the Eastern Orthodox Church has declared Rome or Roman Catholicism to be in heresy, not-with-standing the valid theological disagreements Orthodoxy has with Rome.  I know certain saints have declared teachings of theirs, heresy's, but doesn't the Church speak through it Synods?

I dont know. My main question is how does the OC handle them. Do they ignore them?...interpret them differently?...not consider them binding since, as you mentioned, they were not from Synods?...

Thats why I am asking, I dont know.

As far as the East excommunicating the West, that definitely happened. Most OC would agree that Rome is in hersey for many reasons, the addition of the filioque being one reason, but there are many other reasons, such as their views on Mary, purgetory...etc.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2008, 10:28:51 PM »

Reply to Reply #2, by "earlychurch"-  I do not believe any Synod of the Eastern Orthodox Church has declared Rome or Roman Catholicism to be in heresy, not-with-standing the valid theological disagreements Orthodoxy has with Rome.  I know certain saints have declared teachings of theirs, heresy's, but doesn't the Church speak through it Synods?

This brings up another question that I have been struggling with OC. If their decisions are based on ecumenical synods, how can they excommunicate an entire See? Don’t they need all of the churches involved in order to consider their councils ecunmenical? I don’t understand this either? There are examples when the entire East was heretical and corrected by Rome. Whenever did the opposite happen?
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,960



« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2008, 10:35:39 PM »

To bring an answer for your Pope Vigilius question, since it is a small paste:

Three names, though, kept popping up in all the sources, whether Protestant, Orthodox, or liberal Catholic: Liberius (352-366), Vigilius (537-555), and Honorius. I disposed of the first two quickly. They had been made to sign questionable statements of faith while under duress. That doesn't count: Papal infallibility applies only to free acts of the pope, not to acts under torture. No contract signed under duress is binding; thus Liberius and Vigilius, whatever their failings, were excused.

This paste, is it from "Catholic Answers." I seem to recall reading something of the sort from the priest on This Rock who writes a lot of dribble on the Orthodox.

Liberius? What torture? What duress?

Is there some confusion with Zosimos, or has that Pope's problems with the Truth (supporting Pelagius) been forgotten?

Vigilius?  The only duress was the pressure being applied to agree with the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

So the claim is not even made for Honorius being under duress.  Interesting.  And the fact that he "confirmed" Monotheletism is a problem, despite the fact that the Ecumenical Council prevented it from becoming the position of Rome (or anywhere else outside of Syria).
« Last Edit: February 17, 2008, 10:44:37 PM by ialmisry » 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
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,960



« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2008, 10:46:51 PM »

This brings up another question that I have been struggling with OC. If their decisions are based on ecumenical synods, how can they excommunicate an entire See? Don’t they need all of the churches involved in order to consider their councils ecunmenical? I don’t understand this either? There are examples when the entire East was heretical and corrected by Rome. Whenever did the opposite happen?

Rome approved Constantinople I, Ephesus  and Constantinople IV (of 879).  All anathematized tampering with the Creed in general, and the last condemned the filioque in particular.  So she stands condemned by her own words.
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
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,070



« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2008, 10:50:30 PM »

Yes.  A Synod, comprised of at least, to my knowledge, the Patriarchs of the Ancient Churches of the East (i.e. Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch-due to illness or something unrelated, I believe the Patriarch of Jerusalem was absent, but later sent his consent), "anathematized" the Pope and all his followers, in response to the Bull of Excommunication placed on the Holy Table of the Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople by the Pope's legate, Cardinal Humbard. The Church thought this "division" would be short lived and resolved at that time, in 1064.  However, the Crusades sack of Constantinople in 1204 solidified the division.  

My only point is that our Church has not condemned them as heretics.  Due to what you ask, "earlychurch," I would guess, we're separated from them; a distinct denomination.  Since 1965, the Ecumenical Patriarchate coordinates a "dialogue of love" (which really wasn't initiated until sometime in the 1980's), but as Patriarch Bartholomew said in 1997, here in the U.S., in addition to the well known theological disputes betwen the two Churches, we've been separated for over 1,000 years and our traditions have continued to grow, independently.  It seems, therefore, we're separated, distinct, yet, through dialogue, attempting to focus on areas of continuing dispute in an effort to resolve them and also focusing on defining matters in which we share common belief, but we are separated Churches.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2008, 10:51:21 PM »

The short answer is, your questions has been dealt with. I have seen lenghty discussions regarding your question. If you dont like the RC answers, then that explains why you are OC. NP.

We can start a thread regarding the popes in question. However, on this thread, I am curious about my first question.

God bless you.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2008, 10:53:44 PM »

Are you saying that Rome never fell then?
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,960



« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2008, 10:57:58 PM »

The short answer is, your questions has been dealt with. I have seen lenghty discussions regarding your question. If you dont like the RC answers, then that explains why you are OC. NP.

We can start a thread regarding the popes in question. However, on this thread, I am curious about my first question.

God bless you.

As for your first question, several Church Fathers (Iranaeus and the whole Church and Victor, Cyprian/Firmilian and Stephen, Augustine and Zosimus, the Fifth Council and Vigilius, the Sixth Council and Honorius, Photius and Nicholas, Constantinople IV (879) and Leo IX, etc.) voiced their opinion that Rome had errored.  So the problem is not with what the Fathers said and thought, but an ultramontanist interpretation of 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
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2008, 11:08:49 PM »

Rome approved Constantinople I, Ephesus  and Constantinople IV (of 879).  All anathematized tampering with the Creed in general, and the last condemned the filioque in particular.  So she stands condemned by her own words.

I want to add that the reason I became a RC, was because upon research, every question I had was adequately answered. In fact, I could research and answer all of your questions. But I did not start this thread for that purpose. I want to have my questions regarding the OC answered. So you could ask me a million RC questions, to which I could answer, because they have all been answered. But why cant you just answer my little question?
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2008, 11:11:03 PM »

As for your first question, several Church Fathers (Iranaeus and the whole Church and Victor, Cyprian/Firmilian and Stephen, Augustine and Zosimus, the Fifth Council and Vigilius, the Sixth Council and Honorius, Photius and Nicholas, Constantinople IV (879) and Leo IX, etc.) voiced their opinion that Rome had errored.  So the problem is not with what the Fathers said and thought, but an ultramontanist interpretation of it.

Okay, let me try to clear the waters a bit. Are you saying that the church fathers made mistakes when appearing not to side with the OC.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,960



« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2008, 11:11:39 PM »

I want to add that the reason I became a RC, was because upon research, every question I had was adequately answered. In fact, I could research and answer all of your questions. But I did not start this thread for that purpose. I want to have my questions regarding the OC answered. So you could ask me a million RC questions, to which I could answer, because they have all been answered. But why cant you just answer my little question?

What little question hasn't been answered? Huh
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
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2008, 11:13:18 PM »

As for your first question, several Church Fathers (Iranaeus and the whole Church and Victor, Cyprian/Firmilian and Stephen, Augustine and Zosimus, the Fifth Council and Vigilius, the Sixth Council and Honorius, Photius and Nicholas, Constantinople IV (879) and Leo IX, etc.) voiced their opinion that Rome had errored.  So the problem is not with what the Fathers said and thought, but an ultramontanist interpretation of it.

Another thing, I could cut and paste a huge amount of writings covering every person you just brought up. But still, I just want an answer to my first question.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2008, 11:13:54 PM »

What little question hasn't been answered? Huh

How do you deal with the church father quotes that dont seem to side with the OC? That is:

I am just curious how the OC remedies quotes from the church fathers that claim that the See of Rome can never fall. Since the OC believes that the See of Rome fell, were all of the church fathers wrong?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2008, 11:15:33 PM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,960



« Reply #25 on: February 17, 2008, 11:26:56 PM »

How do you deal with the church father quotes that dont seem to side with the OC? That is:

I am just curious how the OC remedies quotes from the church fathers that claim that the See of Rome can never fall. Since the OC believes that the See of Rome fell, were all of the church fathers wrong?


What Church Father is that?

St. Iranaeus is often claimed to say this, but he sided with the whole Church against Pope Victor.

St. Cyprian is said to have claimed this, but he elicited aid from Firmilian and the rest of the East against Pope Stephen.

St. Augustine is said to have claimed this, but then he wrote his retractions, and opposed Pope Zosimus' coddling of Pelagius.

The list can go on.

Either the Fathers are schizophrenic, or what they wrote is not what the ultramontanists are reading.

St. Jerome did write something ultramontanist.  But then he was ordained by Paulinus, Rome's man in Antioch, from whom NONE of the 3/4 bishops of Antioch under Rome claim succession.  They all claim it from St. Meletius, whom Rome condemened.

It might help if you specify which Fathers who seem to think we have a problem with.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2008, 11:27:48 PM by ialmisry » 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
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #26 on: February 17, 2008, 11:31:58 PM »

Are you saying that the church fathers are all on the Eastern side? If not, what do you do with the quotes that are not?
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #27 on: February 17, 2008, 11:34:23 PM »

earlychurch,

We are asking you to provide the quotes you want answers to. Often these quotes are taken out of context, or otherwise do not 'fit' the explanations Latin apologists give them.

So, give us the quotes you are interested in, and we'll be happy to respond to them.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #28 on: February 17, 2008, 11:51:46 PM »

Actually, I am trying to keep it simple, in order to just to get an idea on how you deal with the quotes. If I mention a particular quote, then I am sure there will be a lengthy dialogue, which is what I am trying to avoid. The persons mentioned earlier are all covered in detail in books, articles etc. I know how the RC deals with them, and how they deal with quotes that dont fit.

My question is, do you believe all the church fathers agree with the OC? If you do not, what do you do with their quotes? Simple really.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #29 on: February 17, 2008, 11:56:59 PM »

Actually, I am trying to keep it simple, in order to just to get an idea on how you deal with the quotes. If I mention a particular quote, then I am sure there will be a lengthy dialogue, which is what I am trying to avoid. The persons mentioned earlier are all covered in detail in books, articles etc. I know how the RC deals with them, and how they deal with quotes that dont fit.

My question is, do you believe all the church fathers agree with the OC? If you do not, what do you do with their quotes? Simple really.

So in other words, you want a sound bite rather than what we really think.  Yawn. Roll Eyes
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #30 on: February 17, 2008, 11:58:22 PM »

Simple really.

The only thing 'simple really' is for you to provide examples of quotes you have in question, and then await our response.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #31 on: February 18, 2008, 12:05:11 AM »

I just dont want to over analyze a particular church father. I can do that by research. I just want to know how you deal with the said quotes.

Let me ask you another way, has there ever been a church father whose quotes did not side the OC?
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #32 on: February 18, 2008, 12:10:54 AM »

Which church fathers are considered infallible in and of themselves--meaning, thier pronouncements are considered mandatory for the entire Body of Christ to follow.

I'm not evading your question; actually I have answered it. IOW, where does authority rest: in the individual, or in the Church?
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #33 on: February 18, 2008, 12:12:49 AM »

Which church fathers are considered infallible in and of themselves--meaning, thier pronouncements are considered mandatory for the entire Body of Christ to follow.

I'm not evading your question; actually I have answered it. IOW, where does authority rest: in the individual, or in the Church?

I believe you are saying that if a church father quote does not jive, it is wrong, since he is not infallible. Is this accurate?
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,070



« Reply #34 on: February 18, 2008, 12:22:56 AM »

Reply from a layman-  The Fathers and other Saints are not considered infallible.  They teach.  They're inspired. Like "Theologoumena," their "theological opinions" may or may not be believed.  Their teachings may have been considered by the Ecumenical Synods when doctrinal matters were being considered.  It is the doctrine's of the Church, promulgated by the Ecumenical Synods, that must be believed.  Once they were received and accepted by the Church as a whole, and were confirmed by a subsequent Synod, they are what Orthodoxy holds to be infallible.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 12:27:10 AM by BTRAKAS » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #35 on: February 18, 2008, 12:29:52 AM »

Reply from a layman-  The Fathers and other Saints are not considered infallible.  They teach.  They're inspired. Like "Theologoumena," their "theological opinions" may or may not be believed.  Their teachings may have been considered by the Ecumenical Synods when doctrinal matters were being considered.  It is the doctrine's of the Church, promulgated by the Ecumenical Synods, that must be believed.  Once they were received and accepted by the Church as a whole, and were confirmed by a subsequent Synod, they are what Orthodoxy holds to be infallible.

Thank you.

The ecumenicl synods is a problem for me, because dont all of the Sees have to particapate? How can you claim that it is ecunmenical with a See missing? Since Rome was excommunicated, how are councils ecumenical?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 12:32:28 AM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #36 on: February 18, 2008, 12:39:38 AM »

Actually, you have answered your own question.

So, by your statement, you would throw away all councils held by the Latins since Constantinople IV (879), right?
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #37 on: February 18, 2008, 12:43:01 AM »

Actually, you have answered your own question.

So, by your statement, you would throw away all councils held by the Latins since Constantinople IV (879), right?

I don't hold that position, so no, I wouldn't. I don't believe the church needs all Sees to make an infallible statement. I would think that a problem for a church that claims an ecumenical synod w/o a See. So how do you guys?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 12:43:55 AM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,070



« Reply #38 on: February 18, 2008, 12:47:48 AM »

My discussion in Reply #16, wherein I mentioned the "anathema" put forward by the Holy Synods of the Ancient Patriarchates, was specific to the issuance of the "anathema," only.  They were not an ecumenical synod, because all the hierarchy of the Church was not called to them; nor did they participate in them.  They did not promulgate doctine.  (In fact, I'm not even sure the entire Synod of each Church was present; perhaps only the Patriarchs attended). And, remember, they "excommunicated" the Pope and his followers; they did not deem Roman Catholicism to be in heresy, either.  
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #39 on: February 18, 2008, 12:52:13 AM »

My discussion in Reply #16, wherein I mentioned the "anathema" put forward by the Holy Synods of the Ancient Patriarchates, was specific to the issuance of the "anathema," only.  They were not an ecumenical synod, because all the hierarchy of the Church was not called to them; nor did they participate in them.  They did not promulgate doctine.  (In fact, I'm not even sure the entire Synod of each Church was present; perhaps only the Patriarchs attended). And, remember, they "excommunicated" the Pope and his followers; they did not deem Roman Catholicism to be in heresy, either.  

Thank you. But out of curiousity, is it possible to have an ecumenical council without the See of Rome? If not, how do you guys have any ecumenical councils after the schism?
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #40 on: February 18, 2008, 01:04:44 AM »

First off, our understanding of an Ecumenical Council is different than Rome's: for us, an Ecumenical Council must discuss elements of the Faith. We have not been torn by the same disruptions of the Faith that has beset Rome.

However, we have had what some historians describe the Ninth Ecumenical Council, which were a series of three meetings held from 1341-1351 to discuss the Palamite question. In those cases, a meeting was called of the hierarchs of the Church, and they reached a decision in conciliar fashion.

We also have meetings of our hierarchs to discuss Pan-Orthodox issues; a very famous one was held in 1848. Again, hierarchs meet and decide upon issues relevant to the scope of the synod.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #41 on: February 18, 2008, 01:08:10 AM »

But how you call them ecumenical without the See of Rome? Does not ecumenical mean to include all of the Sees?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 01:08:31 AM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #42 on: February 18, 2008, 01:10:49 AM »

Here are some interesting quotes from TRValentine's site:

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/8-9synods.html

Quote
In an article titled 'The Theological Question of our Day: An Interview with Protopresbyter George Metallinos' published in Divine Ascent: A Journal of Orthodox Faith, Father George stated (all parentheses and brackets in original):

Blessed John Popovich, a confessor of our Faith, has written an important critical treatise on the upcoming Synod. The cause that leads to an Ecumenical Synod is always a specific problem, and the question is, what is the key problem today? If we look at the agenda of the Synod, it seems [as if] we want to formulate a new dogmatic [theology]. Traditionally, the holy Fathers brought three main problems to the council: issues concerning the Trinity, issues concerning Christology, or issues concerning the grace of God and man's salvation. (Of the nine Ecumenical Synods of the Orthodox Church, the Eighth (879-880) and the Ninth (1341) dealt with these problems. The trinitarian problem expresses Orthodox sociology, which is ecclesiology, and the Christological problem expresses Orthodox anthropology.) We do not need anything new today; we only need to live and experience our Orthodox Tradition.
— Vol. 1, Number 2; pp. 59-60

Quote
The sharp reader may note that the first quote from Father George states that the Ninth Ecumenical Council was in 1341, but the title of the essay by Father John refers to the Ninth Ecumenical Council of 1351.  A typo in one of the sources?  Perhaps.  But there were councils in 1341, 1347, and 1351, held in Constantinople.  They are sometimes referred to as the 'Palamite Councils' because their focus was the dispute between Saint Gregory Palamas and Barlaam of Calabria over hesychasm.  The difference reflects an uncertainty as to which of the Palamite Councils should be deemed 'ecumenical', but at the same time, it demonstrates that the result of the Palamite Councils is accepted by all Orthodox Christians.  Aristeides Papadakis writes:


But if Gregory's insight and solution are important, so is his impact on the later Palamite synthesis. Part of that synthesis was actually prepared in the thirteenth century by Patriarch Gregory II of Cyprus.In a very real sense, the fundamental distinction between the essence and the energy is none other than the "working piece" of Palamas' theology. Even so, its formal ratification as dogma by the Palamite councils of 1341, 1347, and 1351, was foreshadowed in the confirmation of the Tomus at the Council of 1285. Significantly, all Orthodox scholars who have written on Palamas — Lossky, Krivosheine, Papamichael, Meyendorff, Christou — assume his voice to be a legitimate expression of Orthodox tradition. Mutatis mutandis the same is true of Gregory of Cyprus. As one of these scholars has recognized, what is being defined is "one and the same tradition ... at different points, by the Orthodox, from St Photius to Gregory of Cyprus and St Gregory Palamas. Western scholars who have dealt with Gregory II and with Palamas — Jugie, Cayré, Laurent, Candal — have seen fit to attack both of them as revolutionary "innovators." ...  
— Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the
Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289), p. 205


And , of course, one of the reasons we feel free to hold such councils without Rome, is because she stands convicted by her own words:

Quote
The Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879-880 was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (Pope John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Saint Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by the Emperor Basil I. This council condemned any 'additions' to the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople, condemned anyone who denied the legitimacy of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and its decree on icons, and contained an agreement that patriarchates would not interfere in each others' internal affairs. This council was regarded by (Old) Rome (present-day Rome) as the Eighth Ecumenical Council until the eleventh century. At that time, Roman Catholicism found it more convenient to replace it with a council held in Constantinople in 869 (a council that was never accepted in the East and was condemned by the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879-880). It was at that time that Old Rome began to use the heretical Filioque in the Creed. They could no longer embrace a council which condemned that which they did.

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #43 on: February 18, 2008, 01:12:17 AM »

But how you call them ecumenical without the See of Rome? Does not ecumenical mean to include all of the Sees?

All of the sees of the Church were there.  Wink

Rome had excommunicated herself from the Church by the time of the Palamite councils.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #44 on: February 18, 2008, 01:35:15 AM »

Thank you. I just read your entire post. I was hoping that you could answer how a council can be considered ecumenical without a See. Your post did not answer that question. Now I can post huge articles answering your post. I am not interested in a huge debate about that stuff. I just want the following:

How can you have an ecumenical council without all of the Sees?
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
Tags: Troll roman catholic Petrine Primacy 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 0.124 seconds with 72 queries.