OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 23, 2014, 04:03:33 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 34945 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #45 on: February 18, 2008, 01:36:16 AM »

All of the sees of the Church were there.  Wink

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

So Rome fell then, since it is no longer a See?
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: 3,016



« Reply #46 on: February 18, 2008, 01:45:47 AM »

Reply to Reply #39-

Good question; the answer is considered by some, debatable.  Being that the Ecumenical Synods promulgated doctrine and disciplinary canons, the Church has not felt the need to meet in an Ecumenical Synod.  There have been Synodical meetings, that can be considered substantial in terms of what was put forward, but doctrinal issues were not considered at them.  Bishop Kallistos of Diocleia, in his book "The Orthodox Church," identifies these synodical meetings and even some Patriarchal Encyclicals as having substantial standing.  However, my opinion, in response to your inquiry, is that you've touch on one of the failings of the Orthodox Church today.  Since 1923, the Church has been working toward the convening of what the Church refers to as "The Great and Holy Council (Synod) of the Orthodox Church."  In the 1980's, a number of pre-conciliar meetings had met, under the auspices of the Orthodox Center in Chambasay (sp), Switzerland, which is under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in an effort to come to a consensus about the agenda topics, which were initially drafted in the early 1960's at the Pan-Orthodox Conferences on the island of Rhodes.  The agenda was later scaled down.  Again, doctrinal matters are not being considered.  Perhaps, the disputes between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Russia, are what has stalled the pre-conciliar process.  I've heard nothing about this process in the last decade.  It does seem, because of the need to reach consensus in Orthodox practice, it is difficult to address the pressing issues confronting the Church, such as the non-canonical overlapping of canonical jurisdictions in the regions beyond those territories of the Autocephalos Churches, such as we're experiencing here in America.  An example, though, of an action that was conducted with only a minimal attempt at conciliar action, was the conversion by the Church of Greece, in 1924, to the "revised Julian Calendar."  Despite other Churches having followed the Church of Greece, the Orthodox Church worships under two calendars (except for during Great Lent and the Pascal cycle), "some feast while others fast," as the Old Calendarists, rightly say.  Having said this, I think most of leadership of the Church believes it can meet in an ecumenical synod, but hasn't been able to do so, as yet.  Never-the-less, Patriarch Bartholomew has convened pan-Orthodox synodal conclaves to address pressing administrative problems in the various Churches, such as in regard to the Churches of Bulgaria, Cyprus and Jerusalem, in the past decade.
Logged

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

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #47 on: February 18, 2008, 02:00:04 AM »

Thank you. That was a lot of interesting info. I am still perplexed with my question however, but your info is good to know.

I suppose as long as the OC do not call councils ecumenical after the schism, there really is no problem. However, if they excommunicate the Western church and call it ecumenical, well, therein lies the contradiction. Because, by defintion, it cannot be ecumenical.  Huh

So how can any of the Sees excommunicate a See and call it ecumenical? It cant. Thats the problem. So the question then remains, who has the authority?...historically? I know of a time when the entire church except Rome was heretical. And Rome fixed the heresy. It was not ecumenical. Which means, for whatever reason, it can operate outside the limitations of needing an ecumenical council.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #48 on: February 18, 2008, 02:13:04 AM »

So how can any of the Sees excommunicate a See and call it ecumenical? It cant. Thats the problem. So the question then remains, who has the authority?...historically? I know of a time when the entire church except Rome was heretical. And Rome fixed the heresy. It was not ecumenical. Which means, for whatever reason, it can operate outside the limitations of needing an ecumenical council.
You are looking at it too legalistic. Sees are fluid and can change. The authority of Rome was transfered to Constantinople after the Frankish corruption of that See. The Orthodox understand the tradition of the Ancient Sees came from the Roman Territorial Governance System. The See of Moscow did not exist for any of the Ecumenical Councils but the See of Moscow recognizes them all because they are a part of the Church.
Logged

Joseph
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #49 on: February 18, 2008, 02:20:24 AM »

You are looking at it too legalistic. Sees are fluid and can change. The authority of Rome was transfered to Constantinople after the Frankish corruption of that See. The Orthodox understand the tradition of the Ancient Sees came from the Roman Territorial Governance System. The See of Moscow did not exist for any of the Ecumenical Councils but the See of Moscow recognizes them all because they are a part of the Church.

So Rome fell?
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 #50 on: February 18, 2008, 02:22:26 AM »

Do you happen to know where to read the council in question here?
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 #51 on: February 18, 2008, 02:50:57 AM »

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

I am ready to quote an Eastern Church Father now for you to answer, as you requested above. The background here in history is when the entire Eastern Church had fallen into the Monothelite heresy. The Eastern Father is St Maximus the Confessor. There are many quotes like the following, but I will only post this one.

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)
A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople, ...

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692). [/u]
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 02:55:13 AM by earlychurch » 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 #52 on: February 18, 2008, 03:07:08 AM »

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.

Keep in mind I am fully aware that you can interpret all of the above quote so it can support your Eastern Sees, and not the See of Rome. I only provided it so as to grant your request.

Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #53 on: February 18, 2008, 03:13:21 AM »

So Rome fell?

YES! So what? It is an earthly place. Antioch was destroyed by an Earthquake. Constantinople has been sacked by both Franks and Islamics. Moscow fell to Communist. Alexandria fell to the M-word.

The important matter is the faith of the Church and that is the point that Maximus is making in his letter. These letters must be read in their historical context. They are polemical in nature and must be taken in context.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 03:23:59 AM by arimethea » Logged

Joseph
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #54 on: February 18, 2008, 03:33:09 AM »

YES! So what? It is an earthly place. Antioch was destroyed by an Earthquake. Constantinople has been sacked by both Franks and Islamics. Moscow fell to Communist. Alexandria fell to the M-word.

The important matter is the faith of the Church and that is the point that Maximus is making in his letter. These letters must be read in their historical context. They are polemical in nature and must be taken in context.

I hear ya. I have heard many interpretations of the above quote. I happen to think, that he meant that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the See of Rome. I understand that the you guys think that that's furthest from his mind. Like I said, I have no care to argue it really. I just posted it at your request.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #55 on: February 18, 2008, 03:52:16 AM »

I happen to think, that he meant that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the See of Rome. I understand that the you guys think that that's furthest from his mind. Like I said, I have no care to argue it really.

So what is the point of this thread?
Logged

Joseph
Symeon
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 582


Radovan Karadzic - Serbian Hero


« Reply #56 on: February 18, 2008, 04:41:15 AM »

I'd just like to point out that the "Letter to Peter" survives only in excerpts and only in Latin. Something to consider.  Wink

Quote
"And what will you do when the Romans unite with the Byzantines? Yesterday two papal legates arrived. Tomorrow is the Lord's day, and they will partake of the immaculate Mysteries with the Patriarch," they taunted him.

The godly one replied, "The whole world may enter into communion with the Patriarch, but I will not. The Apostle Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit anathematizes even angels who preach a new Gospel, that is, introduce novel teaching."
Life of Saint Maximus the Confessor
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 05:42:46 AM by Symeon » 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 #57 on: February 18, 2008, 06:49:31 AM »

If I mention a particular quote, then I am sure there will be a lengthy dialogue, which is what I am trying to avoid.
You're trying to avoid dialogue?
A forum is a place of dialogue. People who want monologues start blogs.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 06:49:46 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
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: 37,390



« Reply #58 on: February 18, 2008, 07:17:23 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?

Btw, how does Rome do it without the other 4? (besides setting up rival patriarchates).

It is not a question of number.  It is a question of the diptychs.  All those hierarchs in the diptychs are the ones needed.  Those not in the diptychs are not.

When those Orthodox who left the Church to submit to Rome and put the pope of Rome's name back in, they also accepted the councils he had since the schism.

At the time of Constantinople I, Constantinople was not in Rome's diptychs.  And when Rome put Constantinople back in the diptychs afterwards, she accepted Constantinople I (and the Creed).
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
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: 37,390



« Reply #59 on: February 18, 2008, 07:26:07 AM »

I know of a time when the entire church except Rome was heretical.

What time was that?
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
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: 37,390



« Reply #60 on: February 18, 2008, 07:28:19 AM »

I am ready to quote an Eastern Church Father now for you to answer, as you requested above. The background here in history is when the entire Eastern Church had fallen into the Monothelite heresy. The Eastern Father is St Maximus the Confessor. There are many quotes like the following, but I will only post this one.

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)
A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople, ...

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692). [/u]

Honorius.
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 #61 on: February 18, 2008, 10:12:09 AM »

I'd just like to point out that the "Letter to Peter" survives only in excerpts and only in Latin. Something to consider.  Wink
Life of Saint Maximus the Confessor

I was asked to produce a quote, I really just wanted to know what you guys did with such quotes, not debate them. In your case, I see you'd just discard it.
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 #62 on: February 18, 2008, 10:13:51 AM »

So what is the point of this thread?

To get an answer to my first question. The quote I offered at soemone's request. I had no intention to argue it, for I already heard many different OC interpretations.
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 #63 on: February 18, 2008, 10:15:19 AM »

You're trying to avoid dialogue?
A forum is a place of dialogue. People who want monologues start blogs.

Indeed, but I just wanted an answer to my first question. I only produced this quote at someone's request. I had no intention debating it. There are several like this quote. What do you guys do with them? I think I have an idea now.
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 #64 on: February 18, 2008, 10:22:06 AM »

Btw, how does Rome do it without the other 4? (besides setting up rival patriarchates).

I dont believe Rome ever has had called the hereies of the East by an ecumenical council . Ecumenical without all of the Sees is a contradiction. My point earlier was Rome had corrected a heresy that involved every See in the East at one time, without it having to be ecumenical. For whatever reason, Rome felt it had that authority, to which my quote above demostrated.

It is not a question of number.  It is a question of the diptychs.  All those hierarchs in the diptychs are the ones needed.  Those not in the diptychs are not.When those Orthodox who left the Church to submit to Rome and put the pope of Rome's name back in, they also accepted the councils he had since the schism.


...and being numbered in their company she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerodotal law.


At the time of Constantinople I, Constantinople was not in Rome's diptychs.  And when Rome put Constantinople back in the diptychs afterwards, she accepted Constantinople I (and the Creed).

I am not sure what you are saying here? When I look at the ancient quotes like the above, Rome generally says submit or be excommunicated. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Rome acted with absolute authority and thought that such actions were within her powers, and above an ecumenical council in these cases.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 10:44:49 AM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #65 on: February 18, 2008, 10:35:19 AM »

In your case, I see you'd just discard it.
We don't just discard them but we look at their historical context to understand them. There is a difference. It is not fair to Maximus or any other Father to add 1200 years of change to the world situation to his discussion of a problem of his day.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 10:37:24 AM by arimethea » Logged

Joseph
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #66 on: February 18, 2008, 10:40:06 AM »

Honorius.

I have no intention in debating Honorius, since he has been addressed by elsewhere many times over. I have already told you that his personal ideas are exempt from the defintion of being infallible. The See of Rome never taught what he believed personally as infallible doctrine. Here is such a link dealing with him:

THE TRUTH ABOUT POPE HONORIUS

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

Every question that you can bring up against the See of Rome has been dealt with in huge detail elsewhere. I am not here to cut and paste huge articles answering every objection you may have with the See of Rome. I became RC preciesly because they answered every objection I had in detail. Every time I research an issue in detail, RC always makes more sense. In your case, OC makes more sense. I understand that, and respect that. I had only wondered what you guys did with quotes like the above. I am satisfied with my research on the subject this far. Thanks to everyone here in helping me.

God bless you all.
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 #67 on: February 18, 2008, 10:43:40 AM »

We don't just discard them but we look at their historical context to understand them. There is a difference. It is not fair to Maximus or any other Father to add 1200 years of change to the world situation to his discussion of a problem of his day.

I believe different people handle the quote differently. Some question its legitimacy, as was already shown here. Some interpret it to not support the See of Rome. I disagree with both of these ways of handling the quote. But I respect those who do not agree with me. I am not here to force you to agree with me, just curious what you guys do with such quotes.

God bless you.
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
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: 37,390



« Reply #68 on: February 18, 2008, 10:54:42 AM »

Honorius.

I have no intention in debating Honorius, since he has been addressed by elsewhere many times over. I have already told you that his personal ideas are exempt from the defintion of being infallible. The See of Rome never taught what he believed personally as infallible doctrine. Here is such a link dealing with him:

THE TRUTH ABOUT POPE HONORIUS

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

Every question that you can bring up against the See of Rome has been dealt with in huge detail elsewhere. I am not here to cut and paste huge articles answering every objection you may have with the See of Rome. I became RC preciesly because they answered every objection I had in detail. Every time I research an issue in detail, RC always makes more sense. In your case, OC makes more sense. I understand that, and respect that. I had only wondered what you guys did with quotes like the above. I am satisfied with my research on the subject this far. Thanks to everyone here in helping me.

God bless you all.


what we do is point out that a) Honorius reigned before the quote you pasted b) the Fifth Ecumenical Council anathematized him as a heretic (the Jesuits weren't around, so the Fathers didn't have the "material heretic" casuatry) c) in view of a and b, St. Maximus' quote is either a) wrong, as Rome did promote error, or b) is not meant in the sense that the ultramontnists intend.

In view of Rome's ultramontanism, how is the fact dealt with that Rome did not preside over a single Ecumenical Council?  That is a fact that does not depend on a single Father, nor group of Fathers.

No one claims that the Fathers are individually infallible.  Nor does a majority infallibility make (and ultramontanism has no where near a majority of the Fathers, as the New Advent article on the office of the keys admits).  Only One is infallible, and two close to that (Theotokos and the Forerunner), and besides writing sins in the sand (the woman caught in adultery), they wrote nothing.

Look at the practice of the Church as a whole.  The Ecumenical Councils are convened in absense of the Pope.  Many of his solemn pronouncements are ignored, or taken with a grain of salt.  There is no evidence that the parishes around the world ever commemorated the pope at their Liturgies, as those under Rome do now.  The practice of Rome post first millenium does not comport with the first millenium praxis of the Church.
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
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: 37,390



« Reply #69 on: February 18, 2008, 11:03:34 AM »

Honorius.

I have no intention in debating Honorius, since he has been addressed by elsewhere many times over. I have already told you that his personal ideas are exempt from the defintion of being infallible. The See of Rome never taught what he believed personally as infallible doctrine. Here is such a link dealing with him:

THE TRUTH ABOUT POPE HONORIUS

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

Every question that you can bring up against the See of Rome has been dealt with in huge detail elsewhere. I am not here to cut and paste huge articles answering every objection you may have with the See of Rome. I became RC preciesly because they answered every objection I had in detail. Every time I research an issue in detail, RC always makes more sense. In your case, OC makes more sense. I understand that, and respect that. I had only wondered what you guys did with quotes like the above. I am satisfied with my research on the subject this far. Thanks to everyone here in helping me.

God bless you all.

I knew I recognized your quote from This Rock.  I apolgoize for misattributing it to Fr. Ryland, the usual source for such things.
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 #70 on: February 18, 2008, 11:12:36 AM »


what we do is point out that a) Honorius reigned before the quote you pasted b) the Fifth Ecumenical Council anathematized him as a heretic (the Jesuits weren't around, so the Fathers didn't have the "material heretic" casuatry) c) in view of a and b, St. Maximus' quote is either a) wrong, as Rome did promote error, or b) is not meant in the sense that the ultramontnists intend.

In view of Rome's ultramontanism, how is the fact dealt with that Rome did not preside over a single Ecumenical Council?  That is a fact that does not depend on a single Father, nor group of Fathers.

No one claims that the Fathers are individually infallible.  Nor does a majority infallibility make (and ultramontanism has no where near a majority of the Fathers, as the New Advent article on the office of the keys admits).  Only One is infallible, and two close to that (Theotokos and the Forerunner), and besides writing sins in the sand (the woman caught in adultery), they wrote nothing.

Look at the practice of the Church as a whole.  The Ecumenical Councils are convened in absense of the Pope.  Many of his solemn pronouncements are ignored, or taken with a grain of salt.  There is no evidence that the parishes around the world ever commemorated the pope at their Liturgies, as those under Rome do now.  The practice of Rome post first millenium does not comport with the first millenium praxis of the Church.

I really have no interest in debating the said pope, since it is dealt with, a lot, elsewhere. In fact, studying him is what help me convert.

As far as you objections with Rome, they have been dealt with, a lot, elsewhere as well. I am not here to argue what I believe the See of Rome has answered many times over in books and articles. I suppose if you want to steer this thread elsewhere, just start a new thread.

Look, according to your studies, the OC makes more sense. According to mine, quotes like the above, and there are many of them, point me in a different direction. I respect your point of view, and do not plan on arguing every tenet of Rc with you. I was just curious how you guys deal with the quotes, esp from Eastern Church Fathers.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,839


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2008, 05:32:24 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.
A good place to start your search for answers to your loaded question:  Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 05:34:17 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #72 on: February 18, 2008, 05:36:06 PM »

I was just curious how you guys deal with the quotes, esp from Eastern Church Fathers.

The fathers aren't fortune tellers. Many Churches have fallen. Look at the 7 churches that fell in Asia Minor. I guess the only real way of knowing is when God intervenes.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #73 on: February 18, 2008, 06:38:27 PM »

A good place to start your search for answers to your loaded question:  Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics

I am reading through the seven ecumenical councils right now. Hopdefully I get to your suggestion in the near future. However, I was curious how you guys here deal the early church father quotes.
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 #74 on: February 18, 2008, 06:42:44 PM »

The fathers aren't fortune tellers. Many Churches have fallen. Look at the 7 churches that fell in Asia Minor. I guess the only real way of knowing is when God intervenes.

What makes the OC claim that the See of Rome have fallen strange for me, are the many quotes from church fathers saying that it cannot. This is peculiar to me. Since I am a RC, and think that the See of Rome never fell, this is not a problem. The many church quotes present no difficulties. But if I were OC, well, thats a different story. And from what I have gathered thus far is, that the said quotes are either forgeries, interpreted wrong, from fathers in error, or non existent.

God bless everyone.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 07:00:01 PM by earlychurch » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #75 on: February 18, 2008, 06:59:01 PM »

I am reading through the seven ecumenical councils right now. Hopdefully I get to your suggestion in the near future. However, I was curious how you guys here deal the early church father quotes.

I rarely post here, but have lurked for years! And I can't give you quotes, of church fathers or anyone else, but just what are you trying to prove? Hasn't your Church, the Roman Church instructed it's members to NOT proselytize members of the Orthodox Church? (it's a rhetorical question BTW, because that in fact IS what your Church has instructed) So what are you doing? Trying to convince everyone the East has been wrong, and KNEW they were wrong all this time...one question I saw asked once was this: If Roman supremacy was so well known, so absolute, and so ingrained and obvious in all the Church fathers, and throughout the Church, why on earth would the entire Eastern half of the Church claim the authority to excommunicate the Roman pontiff? (this is semi rhetorical btw) My guess is because back then it wasn't so well known, it only "developed" into doctrine and finally dogma centuries later, which is why no Orthodox Church knows of such an authority in Rome. You're reading the Church fathers and superimposing your 21st century sensibilities onto them, which is exactly what protestants and even atheists do. Context is of extreme importance.

Finally I've always wondered this, if what you're saying is absolutely true about Rome, why didn't the Church through all the great controversies simply go to Rome and ask the Pope to proclaim ex cathedra all the doctrines of the Church, instead of years of squabling, arguing, praying, and debating the 7 councils? Why go through all that stuff, when it would have been so much easier to go to Rome and ask "hey, is the Holy Spirit God?" Or "hey does Christ truly become man?" or any other of the great debates. Why the pomp and politics of decades of debates when the Pope had all the answers? And why didn't the Pope stand up and proclaim the truth, or at least show up to the councils and straighten everyone out? My guess is, from a purely logical POV, is that no such doctrine (as Rome proclaims it today) existed at the time, that's why. But hey I could be wrong.

As far as I'm concerned all this is pointless as we're all brethren in Christ. Its good to understand the other POV, but it just didn't seem like you were trying to understand, only "convert" everyone.

Ok, back to lurker status I go.....


Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,839


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #76 on: February 18, 2008, 07:07:28 PM »

I am reading through the seven ecumenical councils right now. Hopdefully I get to your suggestion in the near future. However, I was curious how you guys here deal the early church father quotes.
First, we don't start by presupposing that these patristic quotes are to be interpreted as saying that the See of Rome will never fall.

Second, we ask you to give us a compendium of quotes from the writings of several of the Fathers you claim to present the opinion that Rome will never fall so we can cross-examine your thesis.  So far, I've only seen you submit a handful of quotes from one Father, St. Maximos the Confessor.  Your assumption that we at OCnet know the standard RC apologetics is actually a very unhealthy assumption, since most of us are really quite ignorant of your church's classic arguments for Papal Infallibility.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 07:24:52 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #77 on: February 18, 2008, 07:18:12 PM »

I rarely post here, but have lurked for years! And I can't give you quotes, of church fathers or anyone else, but just what are you trying to prove? Hasn't your Church, the Roman Church instructed it's members to NOT proselytize members of the Orthodox Church? (it's a rhetorical question BTW, because that in fact IS what your Church has instructed) So what are you doing? Trying to convince everyone the East has been wrong, and KNEW they were wrong all this time...one question I saw asked once was this: If Roman supremacy was so well known, so absolute, and so ingrained and obvious in all the Church fathers, and throughout the Church, why on earth would the entire Eastern half of the Church claim the authority to excommunicate the Roman pontiff? (this is semi rhetorical btw) My guess is because back then it wasn't so well known, it only "developed" into doctrine and finally dogma centuries later, which is why no Orthodox Church knows of such an authority in Rome. You're reading the Church fathers and superimposing your 21st century sensibilities onto them, which is exactly what protestants and even atheists do. Context is of extreme importance.

Finally I've always wondered this, if what you're saying is absolutely true about Rome, why didn't the Church through all the great controversies simply go to Rome and ask the Pope to proclaim ex cathedra all the doctrines of the Church, instead of years of squabling, arguing, praying, and debating the 7 councils? Why go through all that stuff, when it would have been so much easier to go to Rome and ask "hey, is the Holy Spirit God?" Or "hey does Christ truly become man?" or any other of the great debates. Why the pomp and politics of decades of debates when the Pope had all the answers? And why didn't the Pope stand up and proclaim the truth, or at least show up to the councils and straighten everyone out? My guess is, from a purely logical POV, is that no such doctrine (as Rome proclaims it today) existed at the time, that's why. But hey I could be wrong.

As far as I'm concerned all this is pointless as we're all brethren in Christ. Its good to understand the other POV, but it just didn't seem like you were trying to understand, only "convert" everyone.

Ok, back to lurker status I go.....




I have no illusion that I will convert anyone here. I was curious how quotes that don't seem to fit into the OC way of thinking are handled here. As far as your questions regarding the RC, there are many book and articles that answer those questions. I have read them, and continue to read as necessary. In fact, there are formal debates regarding the issues you just brought up. IMOP, they are all one-sided to me. IMOP, RC wins those debates easily. Now I understand that if you read those same debates, that you'd think that the OC wins every time. So believe me, I have no illusions on converting you. What sparked my curiousity is not if I could convert you, but am trying to understand how in the world you can think that the See of Rome fell, when beforehand it was said that it could not fall, according to church fathers.  Huh

And these church fathers were always attributing their idea that the See of Rome could never fall because they thought it was protected by the promise from the Incarnate Word.

So how do you?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 07:29:36 PM by earlychurch » 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 #78 on: February 18, 2008, 07:21:54 PM »

First, we don't start by presupposing that these patristic quotes are to be interpreted as saying that the See of Rome will never fall.

That's what I wanted to hear, how you dealt with them. Your are saying that you deal with them by simply interpreting them to fit. I have NP with that, and was expecting those kind of answers. Thank you.
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
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: 37,390



« Reply #79 on: February 18, 2008, 07:30:40 PM »

What makes the OC claim that the See of Rome have fallen strange for me, are the many quotes from church fathers saying that it cannot. This is peculiar to me. Since I am a RC, and think that the See of Rome never fell, this is not a problem.

Except, in the very least, Honorius.  If he wasn't such a problem, why was he overlooked (St. Agatho just obliquely refers to those who supported the heretics he names), and Leo II wouldn't have that oath which each Pope of Rome said for centuries in the Liber Diurnis, which anathematized Honorius by name.

But I forgot.  You don't want to talk about him.  Btw, lots from our side have been written and proved our point.

Quote
The many church quotes present no difficulties. But if I were OC, well, thats a different story. And from what I have gathered thus far is, that the said quotes are either forgeries, interpreted wrong, from fathers in error, or non existent.


Again, you seem to be trying to play some trump card.

By far interpreted wrong is usually the scenario.  Another good one in out of context.

I think NorthernPines has said basically all there needs to be said.  So your simple question is answered.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,839


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #80 on: February 18, 2008, 07:33:54 PM »

That's what I wanted to hear, how you dealt with them. Your are saying that you deal with them by simply interpreting them to fit. I have NP with that, and was expecting those kind of answers. Thank you.
You expect these kinds of answers because that's what you project onto us, and wrongly so.  I said nothing about us interpreting anything to fit any preconceived notions; rather, I merely pointed out that it is YOU who are interpreting patristic quotes to fit YOUR preconceived notions.

Now, are you here because you REALLY want to hear what we think, or are you just content to tell us what we think?  "If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." - Samuel Goldwyn
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 07:35:16 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
GreekChef
Prez
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: Metropolis of Atlanta
Posts: 884



« Reply #81 on: February 18, 2008, 07:39:54 PM »

^^Post of the month nominee!!!!

You just said EXACTLY what I was thinking, Peter!  You are far more eloquent than I, however.  Bravo!

Presbytera Mari
Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,839


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #82 on: February 18, 2008, 07:42:13 PM »

I have no illusion that I will convert anyone here. I was curious how quotes that don't seem to fit into the OC way of thinking are handled here. As far as your questions regarding the RC, there are many book and articles that answer those questions. I have read them, and continue to read as necessary. In fact, there are formal debates regarding the issues you just brought up. IMOP, they are all one-sided to me. IMOP, RC wins those debates easily. Now I understand that if you read those same debates, that you'd think that the OC wins every time. So believe me, I have no illusions on converting you. What sparked my curiousity is not if I could convert you, but am trying to understand how in the world you can think that the See of Rome fell, when beforehand it was said that it could not fall, according to church fathers.  Huh

And these church fathers were always attributing their idea that the See of Rome could never fall because they thought it was protected by the promise from the Incarnate Word.

So how do you?
Again, who besides St. Maximos the Confessor actually said that the See of Rome could never fall?  You keep telling us about these quotes, but you have never posted any of these quotes outside of a few from St. Maximos, and this in spite of the many requests that you do so.  How can you REALLY get a feel for how we would respond to these quotes if you won't even let us read them for ourselves?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 07:45:26 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #83 on: February 18, 2008, 07:42:55 PM »

Except, in the very least, Honorius.  If he wasn't such a problem, why was he overlooked (St. Agatho just obliquely refers to those who supported the heretics he names), and Leo II wouldn't have that oath which each Pope of Rome said for centuries in the Liber Diurnis, which anathematized Honorius by name.

But I forgot.  You don't want to talk about him.  Btw, lots from our side have been written and proved our point.
 

Again, you seem to be trying to play some trump card.

By far interpreted wrong is usually the scenario.  Another good one in out of context.

I think NorthernPines has said basically all there needs to be said.  So your simple question is answered.

You are right, I dont believe Honorius destroyed the See of Rome. I dont believe Rome fell with Honorius, as neither did your church think that. So its a non-issue. You do realize when your church thought Rome fell right? I dont see the point in cut and pasting articles for you in an attempt to refute you. I already posted a link etc. The thread here is about how you deal with the said quotes. According to you, you say you can use context to solve most of the difficulties. Good for you. I hardly see that possible in the face of blatant straight forward words. It is a hard sale for me. But that has never been my point. I respect the way you deal with them. So in a sense, since you answered, we are done.

God bless you. Thanks for your input.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 07:44:25 PM by earlychurch » 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 #84 on: February 18, 2008, 07:45:47 PM »

You expect these kinds of answers because that's what you project onto us, and wrongly so.  I said nothing about us interpreting anything to fit any preconceived notions; rather, I merely pointed out that it is YOU who are interpreting patristic quotes to fit YOUR preconceived notions.

Now, are you here because you REALLY want to hear what we think, or are you just content to tell us what we think?  "If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." - Samuel Goldwyn

Okay, that was kind of an answer too. I appreciate it. God bless you.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,839


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #85 on: February 18, 2008, 07:50:46 PM »

You are right, I dont believe Honorius destroyed the See of Rome. I dont believe Rome fell with Honorius, as neither did your church think that. So its a non-issue. You do realize when your church thought Rome fell right? I dont see the point in cut and pasting articles for you in an attempt to refute you. I already posted a link etc. The thread here is about how you deal with the said quotes. According to you, you say you can use context to solve most of the difficulties. Good for you. I hardly see that possible in the face of blatant straight forward words. It is a hard sale for me. But that has never been my point. I respect the way you deal with them. So in a sense, since you answered, we are done.

God bless you. Thanks for your input.
Maybe the problem of this thread is not how we deal with these quotes you say exist.  Maybe the REAL problem is how to deal with you and your presumption that you already know what we think.
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #86 on: February 18, 2008, 07:51:20 PM »

What makes the OC claim that the See of Rome have fallen strange for me, are the many quotes from church fathers saying that it cannot. This is peculiar to me. Since I am a RC, and think that the See of Rome never fell, this is not a problem. The many church quotes present no difficulties. But if I were OC, well, thats a different story. And from what I have gathered thus far is, that the said quotes are either forgeries, interpreted wrong, from fathers in error, or non existent.

God bless everyone.

The essence of sin is the fear of the Other, which is part of the rejection of God. Once the affirmation of the "self" is realized through the rejection and not the acceptance of the Other. it is only natural and inevitable for the other to become an enemy and a threat. Reconciliation with God is a necessary pre-condition for reconciliation with any "other."
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #87 on: February 18, 2008, 07:51:33 PM »

Again, who besides St. Maximos the Confessor actually said that the See of Rome could never fall?  You keep telling us about these quotes, but you have never posted any of these quotes outside of a few from St. Maximos, and this in spite of the many requests that you do so.  How can you REALLY get a feel for how we would respond to these quotes if you won't even let us read them for ourselves?

I only grudingly quoted St Maximus because you asked me to. I really have to intention in posting quotes here that appear, without amazing context and history, to not support OC ideals. The reason why I dont want to quote them is not to upset everyone here. Anybody can google them. I am not interested in rehashing debates that have long been won decades ago. You can seriously, for example, look up Pope Honorius and read through millions of discussion boards like this one and go through the arguments. I have no intention in reproducing what has already been worked out. What is new for me, is figuring out how you guys deal with the quotes. Just answer. Why the hard feelings and defense tactics? Just say what you think and be done with it?
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 #88 on: February 18, 2008, 07:54:03 PM »

Maybe the problem of this thread is not how we deal with these quotes you say exist.  Maybe the REAL problem is how to deal with you and your presumption that you already know what we think.

Okay. I dont understand the mind games. Just say what you think regarding the main point of the thread?? If you think that the quotes can be explained either by context or the father being fallible etc, thats fine.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 07:55:55 PM by earlychurch » 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 #89 on: February 18, 2008, 07:55:14 PM »

Maybe the problem of this thread is not how we deal with these quotes you say exist.  Maybe the REAL problem is how to deal with you and your presumption that you already know what we think.

I feel like you guys are trying to provoke me. Why? Just answer and be done. If you dont want to answer, thats fine too. But why all this?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 08:02:10 PM by earlychurch » 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 0.157 seconds with 72 queries.