OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 31, 2014, 03:47:09 AM *
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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Thinking About Orthodoxy  (Read 9034 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Byzantine Christian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


« on: November 06, 2003, 01:05:51 AM »


Latley ive been thinking about converting to Orthodoxy, specifically
Greek Orthodox under the Jurisdiction of the Ecucmenical Patriarch.
I am having some doubts about going to Orthodoxy because,
I have not seen any Historical Facts or Quotes from the Fathers, supporting any views on the Papacy from an Orthodox View.

I have read quotes and other historical things that suport Roman Catholicisms view of the papacy, but never in suport of Orthodoxy.
Can any buddy help me with this.

In Christ
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2003, 02:14:23 AM »

Dear ByzantineChristian...

I am also pondering a conversion to Orthodoxy from Catholicism....

Please post any and all quotes of the Church fathers and councils that claim the Bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ, has primacy of jurisdiction, and the power to declare dogmas. I am not aware of any but I would sure be gald to seem them!

Rome didn't begin to make these wild claims untill about the 9th and 11th centuries...so I do wonder what you are talking about when you say:

"I have read quotes and other historical things that suport Roman Catholicisms view of the papacy"

As far as the Orthodox view on the papacy, it is very late and I dont have time to look up quotes from the Church fathers, but history proves Orthodoxy's view on the papcy.

Before the split between east and west not one Pope declared a dogma and said the whole Church must believe in it, as popes can do today.

Before the spilt between east and west the Pope did not have the last word on theological debates with in the Church, the ecumenical councils did. In fact when the ecumenical council (forgot which one) elevated the Patriarch of Constantinople second in place, behind  Rome, the Pope objected but the council ignored the pope and went a head any way....this shows the pope did not have the last word.      

Also in 879 a council was held in Constantinople where papal legates of Pope John VIII signed an agreement with the east that the bishop of Rome would not interfere with the internal affairs of constantinople...this council was ratified by John VIII, doesn't this seem a little odd when Rome calims she has always had universal jurisdiction over the entire Chruch?

The fact remains that the papacy does not work the same way and carry the same power as it did in 1500 A.D., 1000 A.D. and 500 A.D. It keeps reinventing itself to adapt to the demands of each Catholic generation.

Hope this helps!
You will be in my prayers!
« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 02:17:05 AM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Byzantine Christian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2003, 02:17:53 AM »

Pope Clement I



"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58-59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

 
Hermas



"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

 
Ignatius of Antioch



"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

 
Dionysius of Corinth



"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

"Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement" (ibid., 4:23:11).

 
The Martyrs of Lyons



"And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches" (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])

"And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’" (ibid., 5:4:1-2).

 
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]).

 
Eusebius of Caesarea



"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1-24:11).

"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churchesJohn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men ... when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (ibid., 55[52]:Cool.

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

 
Firmilian



"[Pope] Stephen ... boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. ... Stephen ... announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).

 
Pope Julius I



"[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. ... Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. ... What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20-35).
Logged
Byzantine Christian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2003, 02:18:31 AM »

Council of Sardica



"f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

"f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment" (canon 4).

 
Optatus of Milevus



"In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

 
Council of Constantinople I



"The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome" (canon 3 [A.D. 381]).

 
Pope Damasus I



"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

 
Synod of Ambrose



"We recognize in the letter of your holiness [Pope Siricius] the vigilance of the good shepherd. You faithfully watch over the gate entrusted to you, and with pious care you guard Christ’s sheepfold [John 10:7ff], you that are worthy to have the Lord’s sheep hear and follow you" (Synodal Letter to Pope Siricius [A.D. 389]).

 
Jerome



"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

 
Augustine



"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]).

"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

 
Pope Innocent I



"If cases of greater importance are to be heard [at a council], they are, as the synod decrees and as happy custom requires, after episcopal judgment, to be referred to the Apostolic See" (Letters 2:3:6 [A.D. 408]).

"In seeking the things of God . . . following the examples of ancient tradition . . . you have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us, and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged. Following him, we know how to condemn evils just as well as we know how to approve what is laudable. Or rather, guarding with your priestly office what the Fathers instituted, you did not regard what they had decided, not by human but by divine judgments, as something to be trampled on. They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See [Rome], so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of this See, and thence other churches—just as all waters proceed from their own natal source and, through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure liquids of an incorrupted head. . . ." (ibid., 29:1).

 
Pope Celestine I



"We enjoin upon you [my legates to the Council of Ephesus] the necessary task of guarding the authority of the Apostolic See. And if the instructions handed to you have to mention this and if you have to be present in the assembly, if it comes to controversy, it is not yours to join the fight but to judge of the opinions [on my behalf]" (Letters 17 [A.D. 431]).

 
Council of Ephesus



"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now [we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

 
Pope Leo I



"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. . . . [You, my brothers], must realize with us, of course, that the Apostolic See—out of reverence for it, I mean—has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your own province [Vienne]. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom" (Letters 10:2-3 [A.D. 445]).

"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (ibid., 110).

"If in your view, [Anastasius of Thessalonica], in regard to a matter to be handled and decided jointly with your brothers, their decision was other than what you wanted, then let the entire matter, with a record of the proceedings, be referred to us. . . . Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen [to be apostles], but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one see of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).

 
Peter Chrysologus



"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

 
Council of Chalcedon



"Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’" (ibid., session 2).

 
Pope Gregory I



"Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]" (Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).
Logged
Byzantine Christian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2003, 02:19:00 AM »

Clement of Alexandria



"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

 
Tertullian



"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed" (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

 
The Letter of Clement to James



"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

 
Origen



"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

 
Cyprian of Carthage



"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

 
Cyril of Jerusalem



"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid., 6:14).

"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34]" (ibid., 17:27).

 
Ephraim the Syrian



"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

 
Ambrose of Milan



"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

 
Pope Damasus I



"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

 
Jerome



"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

 
Pope Innocent I



"In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged" (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).

 
Augustine



"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

 
Council of Ephesus



"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).

 
Pope Leo I



"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery" (ibid., 10:2-3).

"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).
Logged
Byzantine Christian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2003, 02:21:08 AM »

Dear: Ben,

Slava Isusu Christu!

Here is all the quotes that I have read in support of Roman Catholicism View, there is another forum on the Internet which i am discussing this subject, www.byzcath.org, I think the topic went dead but you might be able to find it some were on byzcath. Another Good Froum for Orthodoxy is www.monachos.net

In Christ+
« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 02:21:49 AM by ByzantineChristian » Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2003, 07:28:03 AM »

Dear Daniel,

you might like to have a look at these threads
Becoming a Catechumen
Why is this not ex cathedra?
for discussion on some of the quotes you've given. You might also like to read "The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations" by Abb+¬ Guett+¬e which can be found online at this address;
www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/essays.html
Scroll down to the section titled "Books". It is the first in the list. I recommend you read the comments first.

John.

<edit>
[grammar nazi] It's "any body", not "any buddy" [/grammar nazi]
Sorry about that, but it has been driving me nuts Grin
</edit>
« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 07:36:10 AM by prodromos » Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2003, 08:36:18 AM »

ByzantineChristian,

How r ya doin!

You sure have quoted alot! The problem with quoting Patristic texts sliced out of context is that they can lend support to just about any religious belief...even Elvisology if that were possible. Church history is not something that can be treated as a simple "yep that looks like it teaches doctrine 'x', *cut* paste*" exercise, especially on a subject so complicated and extensive as the Papacy. There's just so much more to it.

Those quotes may be a good starting point. But what you'll find is that they're just the tip of the iceberg. I'm converting to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism because I dived into the ocean to investigate the rest of the iceberg, so to speak. Everything fell into place after that.

Here are a few books you might find most helpful, unless you've already read them:

"Early Christian Doctrine" - J.N.D. Kelly
Anything by the Church historian Phillip Schaff, alot of which you'll be able to find online.
"The Primacy of Peter" - John Meyendorff
"You Are Peter" - Olivier Clement
"Two Paths" - Michael Whelton
"The History of the Church" - Eusebius
"Byzantine Theology- Historical trends and Doctrinal Themes" - J. Meyendorff
"The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy" - Meyendorff/Papadakis
"Infallible? An Inquiry" - Hans Kung.

There's also an essay on this website entitled "The Vatican Dogma" by Sergius Bulgakov, that's definitely worth checking out.
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2003, 10:55:01 AM »

If Orthodoxy is the true Church why hasn't Orthodoxy carried out the great commission? It seems Orthodoxy has been too centered on it's own individual nationalistic lines and has ignored the great commission. Perhaps the lack of a central unifying and authoratative leadership has weakened The Eastern Church's ability to evangelize the world as Jesus sent us out to do 2000 years ago. Rome certainly did it in spite of all the problems Rome has had standing it Her way.
Logged

Peace
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2003, 11:02:04 AM »

If Orthodoxy is the true Church why hasn't Orthodoxy carried out the great commission? It seems Orthodoxy has been too centered on it's own individual nationalistic lines and has ignored the great commission. Perhaps the lack of a central unifying and authoratative leadership has weakened The Eastern Church's ability to evangelize the world as Jesus sent us out to do 2000 years ago. Rome certainly did it in spite of all the problems Rome has had standing it Her way.
The answers to this are in the Orthodox-Catholic Discussion boards. Why don't you go there and stay out of "Converts"?
Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2003, 11:19:16 AM »

St. Polycarp,

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions.

However, please remember that this is the "convert issues" board, and NOT the Catholic-Orthodox board where such conversation should be carried out.  Your comment takes an offensive stance towards Orthodoxy, not to mention that you provide no substantial evidence as to why Orthodoxy hasn't carried out the "Great Commission."  

I recall a topic on this discussion awhile back which could be found by using the "search" option located on the top of the page.

Bobby
Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #11 on: November 06, 2003, 11:25:30 AM »

If Orthodoxy is the true Church why hasn't Orthodoxy carried out the great commission?

I am confused. How can you be a serious convert and yet be so unaware of the history of the Orthodox Church under bondage?

Still, you are correct when referring to the last 10-20 years. One of Orthodoxys BIG problems is its focus on ETHNICITY. However, if you study the history of the Church, you will get a better understanding of why this has happened.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 11:31:01 AM by TomS » Logged
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2003, 11:27:15 AM »

If Orthodoxy is the true Church why hasn't Orthodoxy carried out the great commission?

I am confused. How can you be a serious convert and yet be so unaware of the history of the Orthodox Church under bondage?

I took Polycarp's post as a flame, and not a substantiated assertion. Of course, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and just assuming he has some " convert cold feet" so to speak.

Bobby
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,768


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2003, 11:35:54 AM »

Quote
If Orthodoxy is the true Church why hasn't Orthodoxy carried out the great commission? It seems Orthodoxy has been too centered on it's own individual nationalistic lines and has ignored the great commission. Perhaps the lack of a central unifying and authoratative leadership has weakened The Eastern Church's ability to evangelize the world as Jesus sent us out to do 2000 years ago. Rome certainly did it in spite of all the problems Rome has had standing it Her way.


Just a word before this thread stops, splits or moves to Orthodox-Catholic discussion.

One-sided Eastern Orthodox apologists online can be most annoying - 'We're completely different - the heretical papist Franks say "Mother of God" but we of the true faith say "Thay-oh-TOH-koss!" That's better, see, ’cos it's diffferent!' - but this criticism calls for a defence of the Eastern Churches.

This screed totally smacks of pr+ªstantia ritus latini - Roman equals real Catholic; all other rites are inferior. A stand even the Catholic Church has disowned officially.

Almost all the regulars here know that the Eastern Orthodox were physically prevented from missionizing thanks to Turkish and Communist rule. The Russians did try, in their vast Asian empire and in their colony Alaska. Recently on a map of American religions the only area shaded as Eastern Orthodox, in fact the only area where EOx showed up at all, was in Alaska, thanks to the Russian-Aleut population there.

As for 'who is more Catholic?' (-+Qui+¬n es m+ís macho?), let's look at what the C word means. It can mean 'universal' but that really means not physical size and spread but rather that its basic teachings, and the thinking behind its practices, are universally applicable and beneficial to all men. Certainly Eastern Orthodoxy passes this criterion, whether one accepts their belief that they alone do or not: it holds to the Trinity, divinity of Christ, virgin birth, Resurrection, Mary as Mother of God, the (all-male) apostolic ministry, the complete presence of Christ in the Eucharist and to the sacraments. Archimandrite Serge (Keleher), a 'common-knowledge' Catholic himself, agrees! (Though RCs and other 'common-knowledgers', of course, hold that more things are basic and indispensible: the Latin formulations about the intermediate state of the dead and Our Lady's immaculateness, the Assumption which EOx believe in anyway and 'the Pope thing'.)
« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 11:37:45 AM by Serge » Logged

Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2003, 11:42:21 AM »

Well put, Serge.

Bobby
Logged
Tony
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #15 on: November 06, 2003, 11:44:10 AM »

I don't think St Polycarp has ever indicated he wanted to convert to the Orthodox Church. I could be wrong.

In Christ,
Tony

If Orthodoxy is the true Church why hasn't Orthodoxy carried out the great commission?

I am confused. How can you be a serious convert and yet be so unaware of the history of the Orthodox Church under bondage?

I took Polycarp's post as a flame, and not a substantiated assertion. Of course, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and just assuming he has some " convert cold feet" so to speak.

Bobby
« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 11:47:49 AM by Tony » Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2003, 11:55:26 AM »

St. Polycarp of Smyrna WAS Orthodox!  Indeed, he was an Orthodox Catholic.  The split between West and East had not yet happened in St. Polycarp's lifetime.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Tony
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2003, 11:57:18 AM »

Hypo,

I'm referring to the poster who has St Polycarp as his screen name, not the actual Saint.

In Christ,
Tony

St. Polycarp of Smyrna WAS Orthodox!  Indeed, he was an Orthodox Catholic.  The split between West and East had not yet happened in St. Polycarp's lifetime.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2003, 12:30:16 PM »

Hypo,

I'm referring to the poster who has St Polycarp as his screen name, not the actual Saint.

In Christ,
Tony

St. Polycarp of Smyrna WAS Orthodox!  Indeed, he was an Orthodox Catholic.  The split between West and East had not yet happened in St. Polycarp's lifetime.

Hypo-Ortho

Sorry, Tony.  Somewhere along the line I became confused by this.  I don't think it's a good idea for someone to use "Saint" in his/her screenname, especially if one has not been canonized!   Wink Grin  Why the pretention?  Why not simply "Polycarp"?

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Tony
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2003, 12:34:30 PM »

No problem, Hypo. Smiley I agree with you about not putting Saint as part of a screen name.

In Christ,
Tony

Hypo,

I'm referring to the poster who has St Polycarp as his screen name, not the actual Saint.

In Christ,
Tony

St. Polycarp of Smyrna WAS Orthodox!  Indeed, he was an Orthodox Catholic.  The split between West and East had not yet happened in St. Polycarp's lifetime.

Hypo-Ortho

Sorry, Tony.  Somewhere along the line I became confused by this.  I don't think it's a good idea for someone to use "Saint" in his/her screenname, especially if one has not been canonized!   Wink Grin  Why the pretention?  Why not simply "Polycarp"?

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Elisha
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2003, 12:55:13 PM »

Tony (and Poly),

The whole point is that, acording to the agreement you signed when you joined this board, anti-Orthodox rhetoric from a RC point of view is only allowed in the Catholic-Orthodox fora (that's why it's there).  This thread is for questions about converting to Orthodoxy.
Logged
Tony
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2003, 12:59:04 PM »

Why are you addressing this to me? Look over my messages again.

In Christ,
Tony

Tony (and Poly),

The whole point is that, acording to the agreement you signed when you joined this board, anti-Orthodox rhetoric from a RC point of view is only allowed in the Catholic-Orthodox fora (that's why it's there).  This thread is for questions about converting to Orthodoxy.
Logged
Elisha
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2003, 01:03:04 PM »

Well, maybe I should've just not addressed it to anyone - let the reader figure it out.  No matter  - just so everyone knows.
Logged
Tony
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2003, 01:06:34 PM »

I think you are confused. I didn't attack Orthodoxy in my posts. As a matter of fact I converted on Sunday. Again, where did you get the impression I wrote anti-Orthodox rhetoric?

In Christ,
Tony

Well, maybe I should've just not addressed it to anyone - let the reader figure it out.  No matter  - just so everyone knows.
Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2003, 01:07:30 PM »

Well, maybe I should've just not addressed it to anyone - let the reader figure it out.  No matter  - just so everyone knows.

"'Sorry' seems to be the hardest word"?
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2003, 01:17:03 PM »

Because the two people who are asking questions here are fellow Catholics that is why.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,959


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2003, 01:23:54 PM »

Regarding what "Catholic" means, and touching a little bit upon Orthodoxy and missionary work, I wrote the following at the EWTN Eastern Catholic Churches Q&A forum in response to an individual whom I quote at the beginning of my post.  

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum25&recnu=9&number=381558
Logged

Still posting.

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2003, 01:26:36 PM »

I only brought this up because the two posters are Catholics who are wondering if they should convert to Orthodoxy. There are issues that should be discussed. As you have said perhaps they should go to the Orthodox Catholic discussion board where both sides can be discussed.
I accept the Eastern Orthodox as ligitimate Churches and valid in every way. Many Orthodox do not accept The Catholic Church in the same manner.
Many of the Orthodox posters here are very well educated and smarter than I am so there shouldn't be any reason for them to be concerned with any questions I might ask.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2003, 01:30:43 PM »

I use the pseudonym of Saint Polycarp to honor his memory and to witness mostly to Protestants who never heard of him. If I were to just use Polycarp they would have no clue what it meant.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2003, 02:38:55 PM »

This is a convert forum.  We should keep the discussion more dirtected to helping our fellow Christians out and praying for them.

More defenses of the Roman church should be taken another room in the forum.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2003, 02:47:28 PM »

And now to quote the Orthodox Catholic sources speaking against Roman supremacy -

"Petrine texts were interpreted allegorically. As we have seen, they were referred by Origen and his
successors to 'the Church; or 'the faithful,' and not to Peter himself Commenting on Matt. 16:18, Origen
stated that 'the Rock' was 'every imitator of Christ from whom they drank, who drank from the spiritual
Rock that followed them.' The Church and its constitution were built on such a Rock. The passage referred
to the apostles as a whole and not only to Peter. Elsewhere, Peter is seen as the pattern of all who had a
tight disposition for the Church to be built. The 'keys of the kingdom' were given to all who believed in the
confession Peter made and repented their faults. Origen's lead was followed. In the fifth century, we find
the Alexandrian Monophysite patriarch, Timothy Eluros (454-77), writing to the Church of Constantinople
and referring to Peter's Rock as 'meaning the orthodox faith,' and not Peter's successors." (W.H.C.
Frend, The Rise of Christianity, p. 400)

The church fathers on Peter -

In fact, Cyprian, unwilling to grant even a simple primacy to the Bishop of Rome, considers that "the whole body of bishops is
addressed in Peter." St. Cyprian rightly concludes that the "Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter." (De Catholicae
Ecclesiae Unitate, cap. 4-5)

"I believe that by the Rock you must understand the unshaken faith of the apostles." (St. Hilary, 2nd Book on the Trinity)

Rome, which relies on the "witness" of history to claim jurisdiction over all believers, is shorn of any defense when she is confronted
with these writings. Is it any wonder that patristics (or the study of the Fathers) is given such a minor place in Roman seminary
curricula? Or can one doubt that with such massive evidence against her, the Church of Rome was forced to edit manuscripts, present
forgeries, and doctor the testimony of ancient observers in the faith?

  So complete is the witness of the Fathers that Ignaz von Dollinger, universally acclaimed as the patron of Church history in the late
  nineteenth century, who left the Roman Church upon the proclamation of the doctrine of infallibility, writes with candor and certain
                                          knowledge:

  "Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matthew 16:18, et. al.) NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM applies
these passages to the Roman bishops as Peter's successor. How many Fathers had busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of
   them whose commentaries we possess, Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Theodoric... has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Peter is the consequence of the
commission and promise to Peter. Not one of them has explained the Rock or foundation on which Christ will build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to
his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ, often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally
            with the other apostles, the twelve being together the foundation stones of the Church." (Ignaz von Dollinger, The Papacy and the Council, p. 91)

"This one (Peter) is called a rock in order that on his FAITH (Rock) he may receive the foundations of the Church."  - St.
             Gregory Nazianzen, 26th Discourse

"The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession." - St. John Chrysostom, 53rd Homily
             on St. Matthew

"The Rock (petra) is the blessed and only rock of the faith confessed by the mouth of Peter. It is on this Rock of the
             confession of faith that the Church is built." - St. Hilary of Poitiers, 2nd book on the Trinity

Hilary wrote the first lengthy study of the doctrine of the Church in Latin. Proclaimed a "Doctor of the Church" by the Roman See in 1851, he is called
the Athanasius of the Western Church.

             
             In his Letter to Nestorius, St. Cyril says:

             "Peter and John were equal in dignity and honor. Christ is the foundation of all -the unshakeable Rock upon which we
             are all built as a spiritual edifice."

"Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rocks. God has founded His Church on this
             Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named." - St. Jerome, 6th book on Matthew

"Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but the faith of St. Peter of which it was said, 'the
             gates of hell shall not prevail'; certainly it is the confession of faith which has vanquished the powers of hell."

             "Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name... to Peter because he borrowed from the Rock the
             constancy and solidity of his faith- thy Rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a Rock,
             thou shalt be in the Church, for the Church is built upon the Rock... (the profession of faith in Christ Jesus)." - St.
             Ambrose: The Incarnation

(Note: St. Ambrose often spoke disparagingly of the Bishop of Rome as usurping the legitimate rights of other bishops in the Church. Cf. On the
Incarnation, On St. Luke, and On the 69th Psalm.)

St. Augustine, one of the most renowned theologians of the Western Church, claimed by the Roman See as "Father and Doctor", says:

"In one place I said... that the Church had been built on Peter as the Rock... but in fact it was not said to Peter, "Thou art the Rock," but rather "Thou art
Peter." The Rock was Jesus Christ, Peter having confessed Him as all the Church confesses Him, He was then called Peter, "the Rock"... (ed, for his
faith) ...Between these two sentiments let the reader choose the most probable." (St. Augustine, Retractions - 13th Sermon; Contra Julianum 1:13)

St. Augustine also adds: "Peter had not a primacy over the apostles, but among the apostles, and Christ said to them "I will build upon Myself, I will not
be built upon thee." (ibid.)

To Augustine, this made Peter somewhat less than an infallible teacher, without his fellow bishops and all the faithful by his side. It is this statement by
Augustine which Pope Hadrian VI (1522-25) had in mind when he declared:

"A Pope may err alone, not only in his personal, but official capacity."

In still another letter Augustine quotes Cyprian, with whom he is in full agreement:

"For neither did Peter whom the Lord chose... when Paul afterwards disputed with him... claim or assume anything and arrogantly to himself, so as to
say that he held a primacy and should rather be obeyed by newcomers..."

Finally, Augustine concludes, near the end of his earthly life, with these words on the "Rock of the Church":

"Christ said to Peter... I will build thee upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee. Those who wished to be built among men said, 'I am of Paul, I am of
Apollos, I am of Cephas' - however, those who did not wish to be built upon Peter but upon the Rock say, I am of Jesus Christ." (Retractions, 13th
Sermon)

What do the Canons say?

Canon 6 at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 AD), which states:

             "The Bishop of Alexandria shall have complete control and jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis. As also the
             Roman bishop over those as are subject to Rome. So too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest of the bishops shall have
             complete control and jurisdiction over those faithful who are under them."

The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) looks up to Rome as a prestigious See of apostolic origin ...but ecclesiologically, according to this Council, Alexandria,
Antioch and Rome arc on an equal level, each endowed with the SAME power within its provincial boundaries."

Canon 3 (381 AD) "The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome"

Canon 28 (451 AD) "...the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old
Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (
isa presbeia ) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal
privileges with the old imperial Rome..."

Canon 36  (692 AD) "...we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome..."  

Through the Canons of the Church, we see that Rome held a "Primacy of Honor". Further, it seems this Primacy of Honor moved to the New Rome,
Constantinople, after the collapse of the Western half of the Roman Empire to the barbarians.

"For no one [of us] has set himself up to be bishop [of bishops ], or attempted with tyrannical dread to force his colleagues to
         obedience to him, since every bishop has, for the license of liberty and power, his own will, and as he cannot be judged by another,
         so neither can he judge another. But we await the judgment of our universal Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, who one and alone hath
         the power, both of advancing us in the governance of his Church, and of judging of our actions [in that position]." - Council of
         Carthage

Another site to check -

http://aggreen.net/peter/st_peter.html

Roman Forgeries claiming papal Power.  Written by a RC Nun -

http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Forged.html

http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_5/ts215j.html

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,768


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2003, 03:56:56 PM »

Quote
So complete is the witness of the Fathers that Ignaz von D+¦llinger, universally acclaimed as the patron of Church history in the late nineteenth century, who left the Roman Church upon the proclamation of the doctrine of infallibility, writes with candor and certain knowledge

Yes, Dr von D+¦llinger, who while he didn't found it directly has as his legacy today the 'Old Catholic Church', a goofy little rump sect in Holland and Germany that while retaining Catholic trappings is ++ber-liberal and ordains women. Just another mainline Protestant church.

He's supposed to be taken seriously by Eastern Orthodox as authoritative just because he criticized the Pope?
« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 03:57:22 PM by Serge » Logged

Byzantine Christian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2003, 04:52:41 PM »


Are we back on topic yet?

In Christ+
Logged
LatinTrad
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


www.unavoce.org www.christendom.edu


« Reply #33 on: November 06, 2003, 05:05:53 PM »

Thank you, Serge.

Mr. Tallick:

I think you would be embarrased to quote the rest of that Cyprian!

I mean the part where he says that NO ONE can have any assurance whatsoever that they remain part of the Church, if they have severed themselves from the Petrine see of Rome.

LatinTrad
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #34 on: November 06, 2003, 05:30:06 PM »

I thought this was interesting in that it comes from a great Roman Catholic scholar Johannes Quasten, from "Patrology: Volume II" (pp. 374-378):

"The solidarity of the universal Church rests in turn on that of the bishops, who act as a sort of senate. They are the successors of the apostles and the apostles were the bishops of old. 'The Lord chose the apostles, that is, the bishops and rulers' (Epist. 3, 3). The Church is built upon them. Thus Cyprian interprets the Tu es  Petrus as follows:

Our Lord, whose commandment we must fear and obey, establishes the honorable rank of bishop and the constitution of His Church when in the gospel He speaks and says to Peter: 'I say to thee: Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven' (Matt. 16, 18-19). Thence have come down to us in course of time and by due succession the ordained office of the bishop and the constitution of the Church, forasmuch as the Church is founded upon the bishops and every act of the Church is subject to these rulers. Since then this order has been established by divine decree, I am amazed that some individuals have had the bold effrontery to write to me and send letters in the name of the Church, seeing that the Church is composed of the bishop and the clergy and all who are steadfast (Epist. 33, 1).

Thus he understands Matth. 16, 18 of the whole episcopate, the various members of which, attached to one another by the laws of charity and concord (Epist. 54, I; 68, 5), thus render the Church universal a single body. 'TheChurch, which is catholic and one, is not split asunder nor divided but istruly bound and joined together by the cement of its priests, who hold fast to one another' [Epist. 66, 8].

Cyprian is convinced that the bishop answers to God alone. 'So long as the bond of friendship is maintained and the sacred unity of the Catholic Church is preserved, each bishop is master of his own conduct, conscious that he must one day render an account of himself to the Lord' (Epist. 55, 21). In his controversy with Pope Stephen on the rebaptism of heretics he voices as the president of the African synod of September 256 his opinion as follows:

No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannyand terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing thatevery bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgement of our Lord Jesus Christ, who singly and alone has the power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein (CSEL. 3, I, 436).

From these words it is evident that Cyprian does not recognize a primacy of jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over his colleagues. Nor does he think Peter was given power over the other apostles because he states: hoc erant et ceteri apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis (De unit. 4). No more did Peter claim it: 'Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disputed with him over circumcision, did not claim insolently any prerogative for himself, nor make any arrogant assumptions nor say that he had the primacy and ought to be obeyed' (Epist. 71, 3)."On the other hand, it is the same Cyprian who gives the highest praise to the church of Rome on account of its importance for ecclesiastical unity and faith, when he complains of heretics 'who dare to set sail and carry letters from schismatic and blasphemous persons to the see of Peter and the leading church, whence the unity of the priesthood took its rise, not realizing that
the Romans, whose faith was proclaimed and praised by the apostle, are men into whose company no perversion of faith can enter' (Epist. 59, 14). Thus the cathedra Petri is to him the ecclesia principalis and the point of origin of the unitas sacerdotalis. However, even in this letter he makes it quite clear that he does not concede to Rome any higher right to legislate for other sees because he expects her not to interfere in his own diocese 'since to each separate shepherd has been assigned one portion of the flock to direct and govern and render hereafter an account of his ministry to the Lord' (Epist- 59, 14). It is precisely this same idea which led him to oppose Pope Stephen in the question of rebaptism, but it cannot be called his consistent attitude. M. Benevot has recently and rightly pointed to his reaction to Pope Cornelius' inquiries about the consecration of Fortunatus, which Cyprian had performed without first consulting Rome. In his reply, the African prelate recognizes his obligation to report to the Pontiff any
matter of major importance:
I did not write you of it at once, dearest brother, for it was not a matter of enough importance or gravity to be reported to you in great haste...Since I supposed that you were aware of these facts and believed that you would certainly be guided by your memory and sense of discipline, I did not consider it necessary to notify you immediately and hurriedly of the heretics' antics...And I did not write you of their performance because we despise all these doings and I was soon to send you the name of the bishops who govern the brethren soundly and correctly in the Catholic Church. It was the judgement of us all in this region that I should send these names to you (Epist. 59, 9).
This answer makes no protest about responsibility to God alone but, by actually rendering an account of the incident, recognizes Cornelius' right to expect submission of any 'matter of enough importance or gravity.' The same reason explains exactly the same behaviour when, during the vacancy following the death of Pope Fabian (250), the mere clergy of the capital city express their disapproval of Cyprian's going into hiding; in this case also, he yields a report of his conduct, and, over and beyond that, adopts the Roman line of action with regard to the lapsi; in short he feels an obligation, not only to the ordinary, but, in his absence, to the very see.
To return to De unitate ecclesiae, we must keep in mind that its primary aim was not to defend the oneness of all the various churches, but of each within itself. Nevertheless, the writer sees in Peter not only the symbol, but also the real reason of unity, which is founded on him: primatus Petro datur et una ecclesia et cathedra una monstratur. Et pastores sunt omnes, sed grex unus ostenditur qui ab apostolis omnibus unanimi consensione pascatur. Qui cathedram Petri super quem fundata ecclesia est, deserit, in ecclesia se esse confidit? (De unit. 4). Thus we read in what, according to recent investigations, was the original edition (cf. above, p. 352). If he refuses to the bishop of Rome any higher power to maintain by legislation the solidarity of which he is the centre, it must be because he regards the primacy as one of honor and the bishop of Rome as primus inter pares."


To demonstrate that the See of Peter was not understood to mean Rome **alone**, I quote Pope St. Gregory the Great:

"Your Holiness has spoken to me at large, in your letters, of the see of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, saying that he still resides here by his successors. Now, I acknowledge myself unworthy not only of the honour of the chiefs, but even to be counted in the number of the faithful. Yet I have willingly accepted all that you have said, because your words regarding the see of Peter came from him who occupies that see of Peter. A special honour has no charms for me; but I greatly rejoice that you, who are very holy, only ascribe to me what you also give to yourself. Indeed, who is ignorant that the holy Church has been made fast upon the solidity of the prince of the Apostles, whose name is the type of the firmness of his soul, and who borrowed from the rock his name of Peter?-that it was said to him by the Truth, 'I  will give unto
thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . When thou art converted strengthen thy brethren. . . Simon, Son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep." Therefore, though there were many Apostles, the single see of the prince of the Apostles prevailed by his princedom; which see now exists in three places; for it is he that made glorious that see where he condescended to rest (quiescere) and close his present life. It is he who adorned the see, whither he sent the Evangelist, his disciple. It is he who strengthened the see, which he occupied for seven years, although finally compelled to leave it. Since then there is but one see of the same Apostle, and three bishops now hold it by divine authority. All the good I bear of you I also impute to myself."

He writes again to Eulogius:

"Praise and glory be in the heavens to my saintly brother, thanks to whom the voice of Mark is heard from the chair of Peter, whose teaching resounds through the Church as the cymbal in the tabernacle, when he fathoms the mysteries-that is to say, when, as priest of the Most High, he enters the Holy of Holies." (Book 10. Epist. 35.)

To the Patriarch of Antioch, Anastasios, he writes:

"Behold now, your Holiness is weighed down with many tribulations in your old age; but remember what was said of him whose seat you fill. Is it not of him that the Truth himself said, 'When thou shalt be old . . . another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not"? (John 21:18.) (Book 8, Epist 2.)

He also says to the same Patriarch in another letter:

"I have introduced in my letter these words drawn from your writings, that your Holiness may know that your own holy Ignatius is also ours. For as we have in common the master, the prince of the Apostles, we must neither of us exclusively claim the disciple of this prince of the Apostles." (Book 5. Epist. 39.)



At the 6th Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, 680-681 A.D. where the deceased Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople and Antioch were condemned as heretics, the titles given by the signers of the "Prosphoneticus" are as follows:

"George, humble presbyter of the Holy Roman Church and holding the place of the most blessed Agatho, Ecumenical Pope of the city of Rome..."

"Peter, a presbyter and holding the place of the Apostolic See of the great city of Alexandria..."

"George, a humble presbyter of the Holy Resurrection of Christ our God and holding the place of the Apostolic See of Jerusalem."

"John, the unworthy bishop of Portus, legate of the whole Council of the Holy Apostolic See of Rome."
 
« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 05:30:50 PM by Byzantino » Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #35 on: November 06, 2003, 05:52:48 PM »

I realize this is the convert board and I don't want to get into this except to comment about the unfair comment that the EO haven't tried to carry out the Great Commission.  I mean come on!  What about Cyril and Methodius (though this was pre-1054), Stephen of Perm, Innocent of Alaska, Nicholas of Japan, Herman of Alaska, not to mention the Greeks who evangelized Uganda.  I mean I might not agree with the EO over the Petrine office but give them their due.  They also managed to keep their faith alive under the Turkish and Communist yokes.

Just had to address that point

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2003, 06:54:54 PM »

Sorry I really didn't want to upset anyone. I stick by my opinion regarding the lack of success of EO in the great commission. We can certainly take it to the Catholic Orthodox board. Again I am sorry for upsetting anyone. I have much love and respect for The Eastern part of The Church.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2003, 07:12:55 PM »

Polycarp

Jesus said to go forth and baptize He didn't say go forth and baptize and be a success at it.  Let's be careful of what we call success.  If you put it that way then the RCs haven't been a success at it either else why is there so many non RCs in the world.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2003, 07:36:21 PM »

Mr. Tallick:

I think you would be embarrased to quote the rest of that Cyprian!

I mean the part where he says that NO ONE can have any assurance whatsoever that they remain part of the Church, if they have severed themselves from the Petrine see of Rome.

LatinTrad

========

If we are going to pick and choose to prove our points than I can match you one on one.

How about where he runs into a disagreement with pope Stephen?


http://www.csfunl.com/reading/sketches/1.8.2.html

Sketches of Church History - Chapter VIII:  St Cyprian, Part II  (AD 253-257)

After this, Cyprian had a disagreement with Stephen bishop of Rome. Rome was the greatest city in the whole world, and the capital of the empire. There were many Christians there even in the time of the Apostles, and, as years went on, the Church of Rome grew more and more, so that it was the greatest, and richest, and most important church of all. Now the bishops who were at the head of this great church were naturally reckoned the foremost of all bishops, and had more power than any other, so that if a proud man got the bishopric of Rome, it was too likely that he might try to set himself up above his brethren, and to lay down the law to them. Stephen was, unhappily, a man of this kind, and he gave way to the temptation, and tried to lord it over other bishops and their churches. But Cyprian held out against him, and made him understand that the bishop of Rome had no right to give laws to other bishops, or to meddle with the churches of other countries. He showed that, although St. Peter (from whom Stephen pretended that the bishops of Rome had received power over others) was the first of the Apostles, he was not of a higher class or order than the rest; and, therefore, that, although the Roman bishops stood first, the other bishops were their equals, and had received an equal share in the Christian ministry. So Stephen was not able to get the power which he wished for over other churches, and, after his death, Carthage and Rome were at peace again.


Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #39 on: November 06, 2003, 07:58:16 PM »

[Sorry I really didn't want to upset anyone. I stick by my opinion regarding the lack of success of EO in the great commission. We can certainly take it to the Catholic Orthodox board. Again I am sorry for upsetting anyone. I have much love and respect for The Eastern part of The Church.]

That's ok Polycarp!
Still, i'd like to respond. Perhaps your conclusion begs the question. Why is the level of success in carrying out the Great Commission the foremost criterion in determining the True Church? The Mormons seem to be carrying out the Great Commission more successfully than any other denomination at the present time, but that doesn't make me consider joining them. I think history shows the effectiveness of all Christian and non-Christian cults in this sphere, so it would seem more appropriate to prioritize other criteria in seeking the answer to our question.
Logged
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #40 on: November 06, 2003, 09:38:52 PM »

The Mormons seem to be carrying out the Great Commission more successfully than any other denomination at the present time, but that doesn't make me consider joining them. I think history shows the effectiveness of all Christian and non-Christian cults in this sphere, so it would seem more appropriate to prioritize other criteria in seeking the answer to our question.

I was going to mention the same point myself.  In addition, what is the RC doing to keep its gatherings from the Great Commission.  The Mormons are gaining many converts in Latin America.  It is not to say that the EO does not have this problem, but a church has to continue to enrich the lives of their followers or else it becomes a dead church and the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses move in.

I see the Great Commission as not only gathering the harvest, but also helping to ensure the seeds do not fall amongst the rocks and thorns.  Both RC and EO face this problem.  The Russian Orthodox Church faces a big challenge in revitalizing church life after 60 years of militant atheism.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #41 on: November 06, 2003, 10:22:43 PM »

I agree that the sucess of Rome at carrying out  the great commision is not the formost criterion. But it certainly should to make one who wants to make claims of being the "true Church" pause for thought. I believe both the latin and Eastern Churches are the true Church. Togeather we make up the true Church. Neither side should make any claims which exclude the other.
In the same vein I don't see any reason why a Catholic must "convert" to Orthodoxy or why any Orthodox must "convert" to Catholicism. If someone feels there is a compelling personal reason to change juristictions that should be the only real reason to switch. In a way shouldn't we stay where God put's us and do the best we can to make that community the best it can be? Even before the schism bishops felt that people shouldn't be switching from one juristiction to another without good reason.
I would become Orthodox if it would be the path that God chooses for me. But as it is, He seems to be telling me I belong right where he put me to start with. Perhaps more of us should accept God's will and do what we can where he put us instead of trying to find what is pleasing to our own desires. I'm not trying to put anyone down here just trying to relate my own feelings which I realize may be wrong for other people.
Logged

Peace
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2003, 11:24:03 AM »

In the same vein I don't see any reason why a Catholic must "convert" to Orthodoxy or why any Orthodox must "convert" to Catholicism. If someone feels there is a compelling personal reason to change juristictions that should be the only real reason to switch. In a way shouldn't we stay where God put's us and do the best we can to make that community the best it can be? Even before the schism bishops felt that people shouldn't be switching from one juristiction to another without good reason.


These are explosive words to be sure.  I can say that I indeed had compelling personal reasons to change to the Orthodox Church.  If I had stayed as a Roman Catholic, I do not think I would have had as rich a spiritual life as I have now.  The more I studied it the more doubts and confusion set in.  Inheriting the sin guilt of Adam and Eve, the Immaculate Conception, the filioque, papal infallability, growth in the earthly authority of the Pope of Rome since 1054, the causes of the Protestant Reformation, and the disregard for the Holy Traditions as a result of Vatican II, humanistic theology, the need to define every spiritual mystery in legalistic terms.


All these things caused confusion and serious doubts in my mind.  Since embracing Orthodoxy, all of that is gone and my Christian life has been enhanced as a result.

As a young man, I was not a wishy washy Catholic either.  In college and in the military I was a devout Roman Catholic, who attended mass daily and had a few priests as friends.  I had big debates with Protestant Fundamentalists and JW's defending Catholicism.  I am well aware of all the defenses of Catholicism, I used them myself.  

Sometimes, when I reflect on where I was and where I am now.  I am thankful with all my heart for the spiritual growth and the enlightenment from the Holy Spirit I have received.  I have no regrets about my Roman Catholic upbringing.  I am grateful for it.  I have no animosity towards the Roman church, I just feel the Roman church has lost much over the years and is going down a path that will lead to a bad end.  The Roman Church needs to look back into it past and rediscover itself and its roots.  

The way I think about it for me is as an eye doctor analogy.  As a Roman Catholic I had eye glasses of the wrong prescription.  I could still see Christ, but the image was blurry and a little distorted.  Now as an Orthodox, I have eye glasses of the correct prescription and I see our Lord clearly and can fully appreciate his glory.

Please do not discourage those wanting to seek that glory.  By sincere prayer and supplication to the Lord a Christian will follow the path to Jesus Christ.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Byzantine Christian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


« Reply #43 on: November 07, 2003, 03:16:16 PM »

Dear: Justinianus,

Slava Isusu Christu!

What branch of the military were you in? Im enlisted in the US Marine Corps, going to boot camp on June 28th 2004. I am now really think about converting to Greek Orthodoxy because of the historical quotes and books and other documents at www.ccel.org. I found this site it was linked to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese web site.
They have old books and they put them online its called "History of the Christian Church" and the papacy it looks to me is that, back then is not what it looked like today. Even the latin fathers such as Ambrose, and Augustine even Jerome believe that Peters Confession was the "Rock" they recanted their statements if i read the text right but still their original statements were in favor of Orthodoxy, if any buddy could put some more quotes in favor of Orthodoxy It would be of much appreciated help, on my Journey.

In Christ+
IC XC NI KA
« Last Edit: November 07, 2003, 03:19:04 PM by ByzantineChristian » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,959


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 07, 2003, 03:22:24 PM »

Are we really linked to the GOARCH website?  Smiley
Logged

Still posting.

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   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 0.183 seconds with 71 queries.