OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 08:46:54 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 35006 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 #405 on: February 27, 2008, 01:46:11 AM »

You are still using a double standard

No. You are using double standards and projecting them on to us.
You demand "three quotes from the Fathers to say Rome can fall", then make the outlandish claim that the entire East fell, and when we ask you for "three quotes from the Fathers to say that the entire East can fall" you ignore us. So, you won't believe us that Rome can fall (despite a Pope of Old Rome being anathamized) because you claim not to have three quotes from the fathers saying that it can; yet we are supposed to believe you that the entire East has fallen, even though you cannot produce three quotes from the Fathers to say that it can.
By what yardstick you measure, you shall be measured- and you just failed your own test.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #406 on: February 27, 2008, 02:05:32 AM »

The reason why in this case you are using it, is because there are zero quotes from the early church fathers to support your case. Whereas, there are many that support mine. Like this one:

Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

This doesn't support your case at all, but I recall you saying earlier that you aren't going to debate about that. I also thought I should point out that the above translation takes a fair bit of liberty in calling Rome the "most ancient church", since we know there are several which are older.

John
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 #407 on: February 27, 2008, 02:25:57 AM »

I should point out that the above translation takes a fair bit of liberty in calling Rome the "most ancient church", since we know there are several which are older.
Like for instance, the the Church of Jerusalem, founded on the day of Pentecost?
It's amazing how "thorough" some people's revisionist view of history can be- to the point where they miss painfully obvious facts!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #408 on: February 27, 2008, 09:33:38 AM »

If "that eastern Sees fell is common knowledge," then surely someone besides you knows it. Why can't you find someone who agrees with you?

I agree with earlychurch that "eastern Sees fell".

The problem is that earlychurch claimed that "there was a time when the entire East, and not Rome, was heretcial at the same time." Then, when he was challenged, his claim morphed into "Everybody knows for a fact that every Eastern See at some point fell." (Note that "at the same time" is now missing.)

Now his claim has morphed again into "eastern Sees fell".

He's just playing a game with you, man. Roll Eyes
-Peter.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2008, 09:35:12 AM by PJ » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #409 on: February 27, 2008, 09:36:09 AM »

You know, you're like a giant windbag.  The more you try to blow our quotes off of us with your bluster, the more tightly we will hold our quotes around ourselves to protect ourselves against your wind.

From a troll's point of view, isn't that a victory?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,965


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #410 on: February 27, 2008, 11:20:55 AM »

I agree with earlychurch that "eastern Sees fell".
I confess that this is indeed true, but not in the morphing way earlychurch presents this.  He has yet to provide any real evidence that when Eastern sees did fall, it was always Rome who pulled them out, that the East as a whole never recovered their fallen sees.  He has also not yet provided any substantial evidence to defend Rome against our claims that Rome fell into heresy toward the end of the First Millennium and has never recovered, falling instead only deeper into her heresies.  Call him to that fact, and he says that only the First Millennium matters, yet he claims that Rome can never fall.
Logged
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #411 on: February 27, 2008, 11:55:03 AM »

I confess that this is indeed true, but not in the morphing way earlychurch presents this.  He has yet to provide any real evidence that when Eastern sees did fall, it was always Rome who pulled them out, that the East as a whole never recovered their fallen sees.  He has also not yet provided any substantial evidence to defend Rome against our claims that Rome fell into heresy toward the end of the First Millennium and has never recovered, falling instead only deeper into her heresies.  Call him to that fact, and he says that only the First Millennium matters, yet he claims that Rome can never fall.

The point was when all churches agree to who has fallen. Thats why the first 1000s years is important. We all agree that Eastern Sees fell wheras Rome did not.

I have not had time to support everything yet, so will try to focus on whats agreed till I get time for what is not.

Until then, I'll just work with:

I agree with earlychurch that "eastern Sees fell".

Now this quote:

Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

...obviously refers to Rome. Do you think it does not?

And I might add, you have zero quotes for your case.


Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #412 on: February 27, 2008, 12:57:56 PM »

I confess that this is indeed true, but not in the morphing way earlychurch presents this. 

Exactly. (Whoa. Did I just agree with a moderator?)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #413 on: February 28, 2008, 03:07:42 PM »

I confess that this is indeed true, but not in the morphing way earlychurch presents this.  He has yet to provide any real evidence that when Eastern sees did fall, it was always Rome who pulled them out, that the East as a whole never recovered their fallen sees.  He has also not yet provided any substantial evidence to defend Rome against our claims that Rome fell into heresy toward the end of the First Millennium and has never recovered, falling instead only deeper into her heresies.  Call him to that fact, and he says that only the First Millennium matters, yet he claims that Rome can never fall.

During the The Acacian Schism, Rome brought the East back into communion.
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 #414 on: February 29, 2008, 02:18:48 AM »

I thought this slice from an article regarding the Counicl of 869 by Phil Blosser interesting:

Was it recognized as ecumenical by the Holy See? Three facts are certain and incontestable. First, Adrian II had already approved it in his letter of Nov. 10, 871, as well as in his letter to the faithful of Salerno and Amalfi in 875; and John VIII called it sancta octava synodus, thereby formally recognizing its ecumenical status. Second, the Council has been listed among the ecumenical councils recognized by the Roman Catholic Church since the beginning of the 12th century. Third, the Byzantine Church itself accepted the Council as ecumenical until the Photian Synod of 879-880, which is thought to have abrogated its Acts; and those portions of the Byzantine Church that reunited with Rome since that time have considered it as ecumenical.

The crux of debate is reducible to the question whether Pope John VIII, by means of his supreme power of binding and loosing, actually annulled the acts of the Council of 869-870, thus depriving it of ecumenical status. This is of course what is claimed by Anti-Western Orthodox scholars, who have a curious (if convenient) interest at this point in the Roman primacy of John VIII. The answer is affirmative if the Greek text of the last two sessions of the Photian Synod are considered authentic, which may be doubted, not least because of Photius's history of altering the letters sent to him, to the Emperor Basil, and to the Byzantine Church by Pope John VIII, before having them read at the Photian Synod of 879-880. The answer is negative if takes into consideration other documents, such as the letter of Pope Stephen V to Emperor Basil I in 885-886. This letter states, in fact, that 20 years after the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), Photius was still trying to have it annulled, a step that would be inexplicable if prior to this time John VIII had already taken the initiative in this matter.

While ecumenically-minded scholars such as Dvornik have written irenically in support of the thesis of abrogation by John VIII, others such as Venance Grumel and Martin Jugie have defended the thesis of non-abrogation and ecumenicity of the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) as the Eighth Ecumenical Council of the Church. Ultimately, however, the issue is one of ecclesiastical authority, in testimony of which stands the record of decrees of the Holy See.
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 #415 on: February 29, 2008, 02:47:06 AM »

This doesn't support your case at all, but I recall you saying earlier that you aren't going to debate about that. I also thought I should point out that the above translation takes a fair bit of liberty in calling Rome the "most ancient church", since we know there are several which are older.

John

Here is another killer quote in the mean time:

Pope St. Gelasius (d. 496):

"Yet we do not hesitate to mention that which is known to the Universal Church, namely, that as the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to loose what has been bound by the judgments of any bishops, whatsoever, and since it has jurisdiction over every church, so that no one may pass judgment on its verdict, the canons providing that an appeal should be to it from any part of the world, no one is permitted to appeal against its judgment." (Thiel, Ep. 26)
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
Cyril of New York
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese
Posts: 35



« Reply #416 on: March 09, 2008, 04:47:25 PM »

Uh, I'm no intellectual authority (I'm probably less knowledgable than anyone else on this site) but I'm not really sure what that quote is supposed to prove. Considering the source, I would say it proves nothing. I mean OF COURSE a Pope of Rome would say such.

Give us authentic examples of similar beliefs from men who didn't have a stake in maintaining a position of self-proclaimed theological and political power, like Ss. Basil, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim, Isaac, Gregory the Theologian,  John of Damascus, or St. Paul for that matter. Provide PROOF that Papal Supremacy/infallibility was  a universally accepted notion among the other eighty percent of the ancient church from their own people. Posting quotes from Popes who filled the political power vaccuum in the West and had a vested interest in playing Caesar to hold onto  it means absolutely nothing.
Logged
Marc1152
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,658


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #417 on: March 09, 2008, 05:07:42 PM »

Here is another killer quote in the mean time:

Pope St. Gelasius (d. 496):

"Yet we do not hesitate to mention that which is known to the Universal Church, namely, that as the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to loose what has been bound by the judgments of any bishops, whatsoever, and since it has jurisdiction over every church, so that no one may pass judgment on its verdict, the canons providing that an appeal should be to it from any part of the world, no one is permitted to appeal against its judgment." (Thiel, Ep. 26)


Well now, if you think of these passages as "Killers" then I doubt you will make much headway with any Orthodox person. This has all been debated before and the Roman case turns out to be weak. I notice the the usual Orthodox scholar types have avoided this thread. Probably due to the overly agressive tone.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,965


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #418 on: March 12, 2008, 12:52:37 AM »

Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
But let us also remember that this same St. Irenaeus, whom you love to quote to support your concept of papal supremacy, also opposed Pope Victor I when the pope threatened to excommunicate most of the churches in Asia Minor for not celebrating Easter on Sunday together with the Church in Rome.  If St. Irenaeus opposed the excessive authoritarianism of Pope Victor I in A.D. 190, would he not have also opposed the increasingly overreaching claims to supreme sovereignty advanced by the later popes?
« Last Edit: March 12, 2008, 01:03:38 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #419 on: March 12, 2008, 01:35:24 AM »

Uh, I'm no intellectual authority (I'm probably less knowledgable than anyone else on this site) but I'm not really sure what that quote is supposed to prove. Considering the source, I would say it proves nothing. I mean OF COURSE a Pope of Rome would say such.

Well, thats the dilemma. Quotes like these exist, and I applaud you for at least recognizing them as such. The question then remains, with such quotes existing, proving that the See of Rome heretical according to the OCC' view, why was the OCC in communion with Rome until 1054 when it knew Rome heretical centuries with its view of the filioque and supremecy  Huh

Give us authentic examples of similar beliefs from men who didn't have a stake in maintaining a position of self-proclaimed theological and political power, like Ss. Basil, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim, Isaac, Gregory the Theologian,  John of Damascus, or St. Paul for that matter. Provide PROOF that Papal Supremacy/infallibility was  a universally accepted notion among the other eighty percent of the ancient church from their own people. Posting quotes from Popes who filled the political power vaccuum in the West and had a vested interest in playing Caesar to hold onto  it means absolutely nothing.

You need to prove that the See of Rome had church fathers that share your view, since it is you, and not me, who is arguing from silence. This has been my main thrust for a long time. If there are quotes that support my view, well, I supplied them. Where are the quotes supporting your views?...on any of the subjects brought forth here!


Fixed quote tags, that is all.  -- Friul
« Last Edit: March 12, 2008, 01:38:36 AM by Friul » Logged

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

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



« Reply #420 on: March 12, 2008, 01:04:11 PM »

Let St. Maximos answer the question at hand. Wink

During the first imprisonment of the Saint, the messengers from the Ecumenical Patriarch asked him,


    "To which church do you belong? To that of Byzantium, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? For all these churches, together with the provinces in subjection to them, are in unity. Therefore, if you also belong to the Catholic Church, enter into communion with us at once, lest fashioning for yourself some new and strange pathway, you fall into that which you do not even expect!"

    To this the righteous man wisely replied, "Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession. However, I wish to know the contents of your confession, on the basis of which all churches, as you say, have entered into communion. If it is not opposed to the truth, then neither will I be separated from it."

The confession which they were proposing to the Saint was not Orthodox, of course, and so he refused to comply with their coercions. Furthermore, they were lying about the See of Rome which, in fact, had remained Orthodox. Some time later, at his last interrogation by the Byzantine authorities, the following dialogue took place:

    The Saint said, "They [the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria and all the other heretical bishops of the East] have been deposed and deprived of the priesthood at the local synod which took place recently in Rome. What Mysteries, then, can they perform? Or what spirit will descend upon those who are ordained by them?"

    "Then you alone will be saved, and all others will perish?" they objected.

    To this the Saint replied, "When all the people in Babylon were worshipping the golden idol, the Three Holy Children did not condemn anyone to perdition. They did not concern themselves with the doings of others, but took care only for themselves, lest they should fall away from true piety. In precisely the same way, when Daniel was cast into the lion's den, he did not condemn any of those who, fulfilling the law of Darius, did not wish to pray to God, but he kept in mind his own duty, and desired rather to die than to sin against his conscience by transgressing the Law of God. God forbid that I should condemn anyone or say that I alone am being saved! However, I shall sooner agree to die than to apostatize in any way from the true Faith and thereby suffer torments of conscience."

    "But what will you do," inquired the envoys, "when the Romans are united to the Byzantines? Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord's day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch. "

    The Saint replied, "Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching."
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 #421 on: March 12, 2008, 09:37:21 PM »

Let St. Maximos answer the question at hand. Wink

During the first imprisonment of the Saint, the messengers from the Ecumenical Patriarch asked him,


    "To which church do you belong? To that of Byzantium, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? For all these churches, together with the provinces in subjection to them, are in unity. Therefore, if you also belong to the Catholic Church, enter into communion with us at once, lest fashioning for yourself some new and strange pathway, you fall into that which you do not even expect!"

    To this the righteous man wisely replied, "Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession. However, I wish to know the contents of your confession, on the basis of which all churches, as you say, have entered into communion. If it is not opposed to the truth, then neither will I be separated from it."

The confession which they were proposing to the Saint was not Orthodox, of course, and so he refused to comply with their coercions. Furthermore, they were lying about the See of Rome which, in fact, had remained Orthodox. Some time later, at his last interrogation by the Byzantine authorities, the following dialogue took place:

    The Saint said, "They [the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria and all the other heretical bishops of the East] have been deposed and deprived of the priesthood at the local synod which took place recently in Rome. What Mysteries, then, can they perform? Or what spirit will descend upon those who are ordained by them?"

    "Then you alone will be saved, and all others will perish?" they objected.

    To this the Saint replied, "When all the people in Babylon were worshipping the golden idol, the Three Holy Children did not condemn anyone to perdition. They did not concern themselves with the doings of others, but took care only for themselves, lest they should fall away from true piety. In precisely the same way, when Daniel was cast into the lion's den, he did not condemn any of those who, fulfilling the law of Darius, did not wish to pray to God, but he kept in mind his own duty, and desired rather to die than to sin against his conscience by transgressing the Law of God. God forbid that I should condemn anyone or say that I alone am being saved! However, I shall sooner agree to die than to apostatize in any way from the true Faith and thereby suffer torments of conscience."

    "But what will you do," inquired the envoys, "when the Romans are united to the Byzantines? Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord's day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch. "

    The Saint replied, "Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching."


Right, this article was already refered to by me as a refutation against your position etc. It was dealt with many times in other places. Basically, if you read the entire article, the context reveals that St maximus was getting taunted by what he already knew to be lies. For his express views on the See of Rome, that is, when not being tortured and lied to, see the other quotes already posted. Simply put, he thought it impossible for the See of Rome to fall, to which, the EOC members here say was a forgery.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
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 #422 on: March 12, 2008, 09:41:25 PM »

Simply put, he thought it impossible for the See of Rome to fall, to which, the EOC members here say was a forgery.
Interesting interpretation, but codswhollop nonetheless.
Read the quote again and you will see that the Saint sticks to Rome in this instance, not because it is Rome, but because it had maintained Orthodoxy. It's quite a leap in logic to infer from this that the Saint is saying that "Rome can never fall".
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Marc1152
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,658


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #423 on: March 12, 2008, 11:15:05 PM »

Interesting interpretation, but codswhollop nonetheless.
Read the quote again and you will see that the Saint sticks to Rome in this instance, not because it is Rome, but because it had maintained Orthodoxy. It's quite a leap in logic to infer from this that the Saint is saying that "Rome can never fall".

Yup..Another out of context passage. Roman Catholics often read their foregone conclusions back into the quotes they like to use.

Rome never ran the other See's, there is no record of it. They had a place of honor and could be used to mediate disputes etc.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,965


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #424 on: March 13, 2008, 12:01:12 AM »

Right, this article was already refered to by me as a refutation against your position etc.
Historical revisionism...  You repeatedly offered us three handpicked quotes from documents attributed (fraudulently?) to St. Maximos, but none of them came out of the Life of St. Maximos the Confessor that Demetrios excerpted and to which Symeon linked this thread, the article you claim in the quote above to have referenced.

The Life of St. Maximos the Confessor
Logged
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #425 on: March 13, 2008, 12:13:17 AM »

Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189])
She preserves the traditions of the faithful everywhere because the faithful from everywhere has traveled to Rome and laid down their Traditions there.


Once again this quote which does nothing to support Papal claims is produced. This passage with its obvious textual manipulation of the latin word "convenire" translated as "must agree". Convenire a latin word which more accurayely translates as "to go" or "come together" is given the roman apologists a rendering which is in the bottom of a list of possible translations.

The opening sentence of St Irenaeus says it all, "But since it would be to long to enumerate in such a volume as this, THE SUCCESSION OF ALL THE CHURCHES....

So instead St Irenaeus concentrates on the Apostolic Church near him. Now it is IMPOSSIBLE for St Irenaeus to have meant "must agree" because St Irenaeus is known for disagreeing with Pope Victor when that pope "ATTEMPTED" to cut off all the churches which were in communion with the Asia Minor churches over the Paschal controversy.

Pope Victor in attempting to cut off those churches,  had the adverse effect of isolating himself from the Catholic Church. St Irenaeus took the side of  Polycrates of Ephesus in the dispute. Irenaeus and other bishops wrote epistles to Pope Victor instructing him in proper ecclesiology that one dies not sever unity simply because another apostolic church uses another equal and ancient custom, correcting him. Thus no one had to agree with Rome and the schism was of no effect.

St Irenaeus further gives the example of when Polycarp traveled to Rome and met with Pope Anicetus:

"When the blessed Polycarp was visiting in Rome during the time of Anicetus.... For Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp to forego the observance of his (easter custom) inasmuch these things have been observed by John the disciple of the Lord. .. Nor on the other hand could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep (easter his way). For Anicetus maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters that preceded him. And in their state of affairs they held fellowship with each other."

As we can see Polycarp not only did not have to agree with the roman custom of keeping the Pascha but Polycarp even persuaded the Pope to change it to his way. At the end both kept unity with EACH OTHER.

And this example recorded by St Ireaneus tells us what he means by the latin word "convenire". Rome was the capital city, the center of commerce, many christians traveled there. St Polycarp of Smyrna traveled there and deposited his Tradition during the reign of Pope Anicetus, As did the Apostles Peter and Paul and the martyrs St Ignatius, Justin Martyr and the Father Hegesipus and many other before and after Irenaeus.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #426 on: March 13, 2008, 09:40:03 AM »

Yup..Another out of context passage. Roman Catholics often read their foregone conclusions back into the quotes they like to use.

Yeah, we RCs are all just as bad as earlychurch.  Roll Eyes
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,965


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #427 on: March 13, 2008, 10:15:32 AM »

Yeah, we RCs are all just as bad as earlychurch.  Roll Eyes
He didn't say ALL Roman Catholics, nor did he say ALWAYS.
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #428 on: March 13, 2008, 03:06:20 PM »

Right, this article was already refered to by me as a refutation against your position etc. It was dealt with many times in other places. Basically, if you read the entire article, the context reveals that St maximus was getting taunted by what he already knew to be lies. For his express views on the See of Rome, that is, when not being tortured and lied to, see the other quotes already posted. Simply put, he thought it impossible for the See of Rome to fall, to which, the EOC members here say was a forgery.

You still don't understand. It isn't the church that saves you. It is the condition of your heart. Any church that ceases to foster there children into theosis is without grace. The Orthodox churches are structured in a way that can not allow a fall of the entire church. We are linked in communion with each other through right practice.
Listen to the saints words. "Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. The same goes for any Patriarch or pope in your case.
If your pope falls he will take the whole church with him. Orthodoxy doesn't fear this. That is why the gates of hell will not destroy her.
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.
Paradosis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #429 on: March 13, 2008, 11:34:07 PM »

Right, this article was already refered to by me as a refutation against your position etc. It was dealt with many times in other places. Basically, if you read the entire article, the context reveals that St maximus was getting taunted by what he already knew to be lies. For his express views on the See of Rome, that is, when not being tortured and lied to, see the other quotes already posted. Simply put, he thought it impossible for the See of Rome to fall, to which, the EOC members here say was a forgery.

I'm not sure about the authenticity of the quote often attributed to St. Maximos the Confessor.  However, even if it is authentic, it doesn't establish the Roman Catholic argument.  I assume you are aware that a longstanding tradition shared by both our Churches and repeated by Post-Schism Popes, theologians and canonists holds that a Pope can fall into heresy and lose the Papacy, and thus be resisted by the faithful.  This opinion is well established and has never been condemned in your Church (the dogma of papal infallibility only said this couldn't happen when the Pope declares a dogma, not that it couldn't happen under normal circumstances) and even if it is kept under wraps right now, it was once a normative understanding of the Papal Office.  This leads us to an interesting question:  If St. Maximos the Confessor is saying by this quote that the Pope can never err and one must maintain communion with him, regardless of our objective observation and judgment of his orthodoxy, then this understanding would have remained constant at least in the Roman See, itself.  However, this can be shown to not be true.  Ergo, it makes better sense that St. Maximos (granted the quote is genuine) was either going into non-doctrinal hyperbole or, more likely, he was thinking of the Roman See being inviolate in an abstract sense (think of the controversial Roman Catholic bishop, Marcel Lefebvre, invoking the purity of "Eternal Rome" (or the continued significance that "Orthodox Rome" has in Orthodox thought) in response to the novelties of Vatican II and you can get an idea of what St. Maximos may have been thinking when he [supposedly] made this statement).  In any case, no affirmation about the Roman See not falling into heresy found in the Holy Fathers can be used to condemn our principle of resistance to the Roman Catholic Pope, without condemning a venerable tradition in your own Church, which holds open the same possibility of resistance when he clearly falls into heresy. 

God bless,

Adam
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #430 on: March 14, 2008, 08:53:26 AM »

^^Post of the month nominee.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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 0.107 seconds with 53 queries.