OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 30, 2014, 09:14:46 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 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "Thou Art Peter"  (Read 44279 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #135 on: November 30, 2003, 02:28:21 PM »

Why don't we cap the polemics and c#ap  for Philips Fast and the start of Advent.


james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #136 on: November 30, 2003, 02:30:59 PM »

Polycarp,

Quote
Your post looks like it came right from a fundamentalist Protestant argument.

Protestants have been correct about some things, including "fundamental" Protestants, so I guess I'll take that as a compliment.

Quote
All kinds of wiggling and twisting to try and explain away the fact that Jesus specifically changed Simon's name to Peter/rock and then said he would build his Church on Peter.

This is explained in the post.  Your conspicuous lack of any rebuttal to it's contents (in particular, the Patristic quotes, which can be multiplied many times over if you'd like) is more telling than this poor ad hominem "rebuttal."

There is nothing esoteric about St.Peter's "name change" - he confessed the true faith, which is the foundation of the Church; there is no "Church" without the confession of Christ.  What is so mysterious about this?

Quote
If there was any doubt in the mind of someone being objective that fact that Jesus then gives Simon Peter the office of The Keys in almost the same breath should wrap it up.

According to St.John Chrysostomos (which last I checked your church accepted as a Saint and Father) the "keys" and the power to "bind and loose" are the same - he explicitly says that St.John "had the keys" as well (and it is in the Scriptures that the power to "bind and loose" was subsequently given to the rest of the Apostles.)

Quote
Then we can see Peter being listed first in almost all of the lists of apostles.

I'm starting to think you didn't read a word of what I wrote.  Why?  Because I explicitly said this in my response!

Quote
And of coarse Jesus asking Peter to feed his sheep etc. Facts are facts Peter was Jesus' hand picked leader for His Church and he made it clear so all future followers would know it.

Yes, he led the Apostles, as "the first".  However, the crime against truth you're committing in this forum, is confounding this with the Papacy as it came to evolve in the west.  That St.Peter's "place" was not the "papal office" as you understand it, is made manifest by the passages from St.John Chrysostomos that I have provided.  I can offer you the thoughts of other Fathers, if you're interested.

Quote
Of coarse we accept that the Church was built not just on the rock of Peter but on all of the apostles save Judas of coarse. But peter was the "Chief" apostle.

I prefer the Biblical term - "the first", as it avoids the confusion "chief" can bring with it.  However, even this term doesn't necessarily imply the baggage the RCC attaches to it.

Quote
The Papal office developed over time as the circumstances warrented. Pope John Paul II said that we would be willing to make concessions to the Orthodox inorder to reunite The Church.

Ok...he can start by renouncing the blasphemy of being Christ's "Vicar", universal juristiction, personal infallibility, filioquism, scholastic theological creativity, and the abnormalities in praxis which have long plagued the west (and only multiplied, particularly in recent memory.)

Now that this has been said - I'll be looking forward to seeing your undermining of the Biblical exegesis I've provided, and offering proof that the Patristic quotes I've provided were in any way falsified.

Seraphim
Logged

Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #137 on: November 30, 2003, 07:07:25 PM »

Carpo,

Quote
It never ceases to amze me how much time is spent on this forum discussing the Papacy.

I would suspect this has to do with the presence of Roman Catholics, or those who are of two minds (but still officially in the RCC) who are curious about becoming Orthodox.   Surprise then, that this is brought up by anyone, seems strange to me.

Quote
One would think someone has a severe case of "church envy".

One would think your statement is a case of being flippant, so as to avoid engaging arguments for which we have no sufficient rebuttal?  See, wild ad hominem arguments are very easy to make.

Quote
It seems evident we shall never agree on the office of the Roman pontiff except to engage in endless argument.

You can speak for yourself, though who knows, I used to be on the other side of the fence on this subject as well.

Quote
Why not do as others have suggested and discuss the things we have in common rather than the things that divide us.

Because frankly, that's a dead end.  It is not the "commonality" which has estranged the Papacy from the Church of Christ, nor will it be that commonality (minus some serious retractions by Rome) which will restore Rome (and it's followers) to the Catholic Church of Christ.

Quote
I agree with you it does seem to be almost the same thing you'd get out of Jack Chick (a noted anti-Catholic polemicist also anti-EO by the way).  I go back to my original diagnosis of "church envy".

Show the Patristic quotes offered, or the Biblical exegesis to be incorrect.  Otherwise, this sounds like demagoguery on your part ("you're opposed to the Papacy = you're a protestant fundie").

Seraphim

I'm  Sorry Seraphem but the only difference I can see in you and many other ex-Catholics I have encountered (I'm assuming ur ex-Catholic based on ur statement about having been on the other side of the fence.) is that you went Orthodox and they went Protestant fundamentalist. You guys use the same logic and have  the same  attitude. The Orthodox and The Latins seperated because of envy and jelousey between the various Patriarchs. The Emperor Constantine divide the Roman Empire into East and West and the Church followed in the same pattern. There wasn't even a Patriarch of Constantinople till Constantine created the "New Rome". If that didn't happen we would still be One Church not One Church which stands divided. The See of Peter would still be recognised by the whole Church as the See which hold's the Presidency. Pray for reunification, not division.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #138 on: November 30, 2003, 07:57:06 PM »

Seraphim,

[One would think your statement is a case of being flippant, so as to avoid engaging arguments for which we have no sufficient rebuttal?  See, wild ad hominem arguments are very easy to make.]

Actually it was a statement to which you seem to have no sufficient rebuttal else you would've rebutted it.

[Show the Patristic quotes offered, or the Biblical exegesis to be incorrect.  Otherwise, this sounds like demagoguery on your part ("you're opposed to the Papacy = you're a protestant fundie").]

You're playing Bible bingo like some Prot fundie and unfortunately doing the same with the Fathers.  

[You can speak for yourself, though who knows, I used to be on the other side of the fence on this subject as well.]

Perhaps this is why you're posts re the RCC seem so full of venom.  What's that line from the Bard, "methinks he doth protest too much"??  Do you secretly envy what you left?

Carpo-Rusyn

Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #139 on: November 30, 2003, 07:58:39 PM »

James

I'm sorry I just read your post.  You're quite right perhaps we should cease all this to prepare for the Saviour's birth.

CR
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #140 on: November 30, 2003, 11:26:51 PM »

I thought it might be good to hear from a few more of the Fathers of the Church, lest one get the idea that there was only one (St. John Chrysostom).

So here are a few pithy quotes:

"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 any one who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery" (St. Leo the Great, The Great Letters, Letter X).

"He made answer: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' 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? (St. Ambrose of Milan, Expositions of the Catholic Faith, Book IV, Chap. V).

"But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism" (St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I).

"There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built . . ." (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter to Florentius Pupianus, [66 (69), 8]; A.D. 254).

"For Peter, whom the Lord chose first and upon whom He built His Church . . ." (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter to Quintus, A Bishop of Mauretania, [71, 1]; A.D. 254/255).

"And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed My sheep.' On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair" (St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church, [4]; A.D. 251).

"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 first-born in My institution, and 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!" (St. Ephraim the Syrian, Homilies, [4,1]; 4th century).

"For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ" (St. Leo the Great, The Great Sermons, Sermon III; 5th century).


Here are a couple of interesting items from the Council of Chalcedon:

SESSION II. (continued).
"After the reading of the foregoing epistle, 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. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away."(From the Records of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon, A.D. 451; underlining mine).


ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, THE FOURTH
THE FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL:
THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON
A.D. 451
EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS.
SESSION I.
"Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out.  This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave. (1)
The most glorious judges and the full senate said: What special charge do you prefer against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus?
Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said: Since he has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him.
The most glorious judges and the whole senate said: In accordance with what has been said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically made.
Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place. (2)
Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop ["Pope" for "bishop" in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.
The most glorious judges and the full senate, said: It is proper that you should set forth specifically in what he hath gone astray." (Underlining mine).


Interesting how none of the bishops assembled at Chalcedon protested when the papal legates, Paschasinus and Lucentius, said things like, "We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches" and "he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place."

One would think such remarks would have provoked some sort of debate, if Pope St. Leo's primacy was merely one of honor.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2003, 11:33:36 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #141 on: November 30, 2003, 11:40:17 PM »

I don't know that much about Fatima - and I am not exactly sure what it has to do with this topic - but is it possible that the prophecies -

*  Russa will be converted,

*  many souls will be saved from hell  -

were fulfilled when communism fell and the Orthodox Church became resurgent?

I mean, did the Blessed Mother tell those Portuguese kids that Russia would become Roman Catholic or simply that she would be converted?

Communism to Orthodoxy is quite a conversion.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
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 #142 on: December 01, 2003, 12:23:13 AM »

[I don't know that much about Fatima - and I am not exactly sure what it has to do with this topic - but is it possible that the prophecies ]

Sorry.  I posted it to the wrong folder.  I have deleted it from here and redirected it where it belongs.

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.
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 #143 on: December 01, 2003, 12:30:59 AM »

Linus7:

Regarding your post  on Sessions I & II -

Perhaps you should go back and read the footnotes regarding the papargraphs marked as footnote 1) and 2).  Seems there is quite a descrepancy between the original Greek and the Latin translations!  
Ref.  'The Nicene & Post Nicean Fathers', Second Series, Volume XIV, THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS published by T&T Clark Eerdmans

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.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #144 on: December 01, 2003, 01:10:36 AM »

Linus

I also have no clue as to what Fatima is doing here.  I think you're right.  When communism fell and the EOC became resurgent and the RCC in Russia could function in the open again counts as Russia being converted. The Theotokos didn't say Russia would be converted to RCC just converted.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #145 on: December 01, 2003, 04:24:20 AM »

There could very well be a number of discrepancies between the Greek and Latin translations in light of the fact that Councils were assembled without Rome's approval (eg. Cyprian's council contra Pope Stephen, even the 5th Ecumenical Council in which Pope Vigilius refused to attend!) but I don't see what the harm is in acknowledging Rome as the head of all churches, the center of unity, the greatest church, or whatever you want to bestow upon it. Rome was the head of the Catholic Church and enjoyed a very special role in witnessing to Orthodoxy. However, what's beyond me is how in light of Church history anyone can interpret the phrase "head of all the churches" to mean "universal jurisdiction" and give it authoritarian qualities as if Rome enforced her decrees on all the other churches. The modern-day understanding of headship has so eclipsed its true meaning in the Gospel that many Orthodox naturally feel repulsed by any mention of it. But without that headship, exercised in the spirit of the Gospel as a more privileged and prestigious witness to the truth of the Faith, the Catholic Church would not have been the same.

Under a unified Catholic Church, I'd be thrilled to once again see Rome as our head, spiritual mother, and touchstone of being in the Catholic Church (providing the Vatican was purified). And I totally agree with Linus (as usual!) that the Roman Church enjoyed more than a primacy of honour merely in an honourific sense, as if the Bishop of Rome was just another one of the boys. Pope St. Leo's witness at Chalcedon and Pope St. Agatho's witness at Constantinople III is enough to dispel that belief, pointing instead to a primacy of greater priority exercised within the Church and never independently:

"The most glorious judges and the great senate said: Since we see that the Holy Gospels have been placed alongside of your holiness [the Emperor], let each one of the bishops here assembled declare whether the epistle of most blessed archbishop Leo is in accordance with the exposition of the 318 fathers assembled at Nice and with the decrees of the 150 fathers afterwards assembled in the royal city." (from the Council of Chalcedon, Session IV)

" Paschasinus and Lucentius the most reverend bishops and Boniface a presbyter, vicars of the Apostolic See of Rome, said: If they do not agree to the letter of that apostolic and blessed man, Pope Leo, give directions that we be given our letters of dismission, and let a synod be held there [i. e. in the West]. (Session V)

Notice the legates don't say "But Leo's Tome is infallible, you must accept it or you're not a good Catholic!"

« Last Edit: December 01, 2003, 05:54:11 AM by Byzantino » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #146 on: December 01, 2003, 10:08:11 AM »

Thanks, Byzantino.
Above is a lucid, well considered post that is exactly what I was stumbling around TRYING to say last week and the week before that. I defer to your superior communication skills.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #147 on: December 01, 2003, 10:19:12 AM »

Thanks, Byzantino.
Above is a lucid, well considered post . . .

Demetri

I agree.

Well done, Byzantino!

The Bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter and was the leader of the College of Bishops, but not a king, and not infallible.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2003, 10:23:56 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #148 on: December 01, 2003, 10:22:49 AM »

Linus7:

Regarding your post  on Sessions I & II -

Perhaps you should go back and read the footnotes regarding the papargraphs marked as footnote 1) and 2).  Seems there is quite a descrepancy between the original Greek and the Latin translations!  
Ref.  'The Nicene & Post Nicean Fathers', Second Series, Volume XIV, THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS published by T&T Clark Eerdmans

Orthodoc

I don't have those footnotes. I have the early Church Fathers on CD-ROM. According to it, the translation I have comes from the Greek and not the Latin.

It might also be worth keeping in mind that Eerdmans is a Protestant publisher.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #149 on: December 01, 2003, 11:13:38 AM »

I don't know that much about Fatima - and I am not exactly sure what it has to do with this topic - but is it possible that the prophecies -

*  Russa will be converted,

*  many souls will be saved from hell  -

were fulfilled when communism fell and the Orthodox Church became resurgent?

I mean, did the Blessed Mother tell those Portuguese kids that Russia would become Roman Catholic or simply that she would be converted?

Communism to Orthodoxy is quite a conversion.
Exactly. Even as a kid I never expected Russia's conversion meaning RC but back to what they were before the Communists. Russian Orthodox.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #150 on: December 01, 2003, 12:00:20 PM »

Linus,

Quote
Interesting how none of the bishops assembled at Chalcedon protested when the papal legates, Paschasinus and Lucentius, said things like, "We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches" and "he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place."

One would think such remarks would have provoked some sort of debate, if Pope St. Leo's primacy was merely one of honor.

I appreciate your citation of these (I know this is an inappropriate title, as this is not what the passages amount to) "pro-Papal" passages.

btw., I have no problem acknowledging any of them.  The whole point of my post (and if necessary, subsequent posts citing the Fathers) is to offer the "counterweight" to these passages, so that they can be read in context.

The truth is, none of the things you have cited here need be read within the paradigm of Papal claims as they developed towards and in particular, after the "great schism".  For example...

- No credible Orthodox source I've read denies the "firstness" of the See of Rome prior to it's separation from the Orthodox Church; however, you will find many places where it becomes quite obvious that Rome's real authority and primacy prior to the schism had been shifting on it's own towards Constantinople, for it was taking away one of the things that did weigh into the question of why Rome was an important See (it's status as Imperial Capital and THE Metropolis of the Roman world)

- No credible Orthodox source I've come in contact with would deny the Petrine heritage of the Church of Rome (though they do not say this is the only reason for it's esteem - usually it's witness through time, it's consecration by hundreds of martyrs' blood, and it's Pauline heritage are also mentioned).

The problem is when these legit claims are confounded with the later (exagerated and heretical) Papacy.  The so called "contrary" Patristic witness is important, for it gives us the balanced witness that the lop-sided RC apologetic will not, and cannot, for obvious reasons.

I'll give you a few examples of what I mean, by contrasting quotes from the same Fathers you cite in the above...

Quote
"He made answer: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' 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? (St. Ambrose of Milan, Expositions of the Catholic Faith, Book IV, Chap. V).

He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation...Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).

Jesus said to them: Who do men say that I am? Simon Peter answering said, The Christ of God (Lk. ix.20). If it is enough for Paul ‘to know nothing but Christ Jesus and Him crucified,’ (1 Cor. ii.2), what more is to be desired by me than to know Christ? For in this one name is the expression of His Divinity and Incarnation, and faith in His Passion. And accordingly though the other apostles knew, yet Peter answers before the rest, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of God’...Believe, therefore, as Peter believed, that thou also mayest be blessed, and that thou also mayest deserve to hear, ‘Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven’...Peter therefore did not wait for the opinion of the people, but produced his own, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God’: Who ever is, began not to be, nor ceases to be. Great is the grace of Christ, who has imparted almost all His own names to His disciples. ‘I am,’ said He, ‘the light of the world,’ and yet with that very name in which He glories, He favored His disciples, saying, ‘Ye are the light of the world.’ ‘I am the living bread’; and ‘we all are one bread’ (1 Cor. x.17)...Christ is the rock, for ‘they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. x.4); also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock (petra) the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you...He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him (Commentary in Luke VI.98, CSEL 32.4).

Quote
"But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism" (St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I).

The one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this stable and firm foundation, which has itself been laid on solid ground, the Church of Christ is built...For the Church was founded upon a rock...upon this rock the Lord established his Church; and the apostle Peter received his name from this rock (Mt. 16.18) (Commentary on Matthew 7.25, M.P.L., Vol. 26, Col. 51. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen der Auslegung von Matthaus 16,13-18 im lateinischen Mittelalter, Dissertation (Tubingen, 1963), Footnote #200, p. 49).

Quote
"There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built . . ." (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter to Florentius Pupianus, [66 (69), 8]; A.D. 254).

Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).


As you can see, the Fathers who wrote the seemingly "pro-Papal" quotes you've provided, said other things which make it quite apparent they had something entirely different in mind than what RC apologists try to get out of them.

This difficulty in correctly understanding the Fathers, in many respects, is similar to the difficulty that we can have understanding Holy Scriptures, particularly on the subject of soteriology (teachings regarding the economy of salvation.)  Just as most of us in the west have been conditioned (even unwittingly) to understand the economy of salvation in basically "Anslemian" terms (to the point that we find it difficult to see famous Biblical passages pertaining to the redemption in any other way), the same goes for this subject - we assume "hey, that passage glorifies St.Peter", and somewhere the leap is made in our minds to assume this leads towards an RC (or even remotely RC) ecclessiology.  I'm not accusing you of this Linus, but I've experienced this myself, and seen it with plenty of other people I have spoken to.

As far as the Fathers are concerned, St.Peter is "rock", precisely because of his Orthodox confession, in particular his articulation of that most central Christian truth (at the heart of the economy of salvation in these last days), the Divinity of the man, Jesus of Nazareth.  Upon this is founded all other things, for Christ is THE Sacrament of God (just as the Church, His Body, is spoken of as being "THE Sacrament of God" as well...all other Mysteries within Her being an unfolding of this) - and there would be no Holy Mysteries for our salvation, without the Incarnation - Christ not only being true man, but verily, true God.  All of the major heresies of the first millenia, were Christological - indeed, by extension, every heresy is Christological (for they all pertain to the economy of salvation, which are ultimatly particulars of Christ Himself, and His diffusion via the Church throughout the world.)

Your copious citations of St.Cyprian in particular are interesting, for it is very clear in St.Cyprian's teaching, that the understood St.Peter to be "archetypical", both in relation to the heirarchy, and to the individual Christian.  Thus, of course the "first heirarch" of the Oecumenical Church is going to participate in some special way in the "firstness" of the "first Apostle" - and the same will be said of all Primates governing a Synod, and not to be lost sight of, each single Bishop on the face of the planet (for in St.Cyprians' thought, without doubt, all Bishops are of equal dignity - there is no "better Priesthood" than that which they possess, nor are they any "less" the leader and teacher of their territory, than their neighbouring Bishop is of theirs.)

And here is the tragedy of the Papal-schism; of what value then, is a "first primate" who teaches heresy?  Is he "Peter"?  Hardly.  He has made himself a "Judas" if anything.

In such a light then, we read the words of St.Leo the Great - he was the first Bishop of the Orthodox Church, Bishop of Rome (with it's own special Petrine heritage - something also shared by the Church of Antioch), and undoubtedly an Orthodox, brilliant confessor of the Divinity of Christ and it's proper understanding, against the blasphemy of the Nestorians.  Undoubtedly, St.Peter spoke through him.

OTOH, another great Pope (venerated to this day in the Orthodox Church) is St.Gregory the Great - who while speaking much like St.Leo does regarding the reverence the Orthodox Church of Rome was regarded with, also has the following to say regarding the notion of a "super Bishop" with "universal juristiction"...

"Consider, I pray thee, that in this rash presumption the peace of the whole Church is disturbed, and that [the title of Ecumenical Patriarch] is in contradiction to the grace that is poured out on all in common; in which grace doubtless thou thyself wilt have power to grow so far as thou determinist with thyself to do so. And thou wilt become by so much the greater as thou restrainest thyself from the usurpation of a proud and foolish title: and thou wilt make advance in proportion as thou are not bent on arrogation by derogation of thy brethren...   Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John-what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head... "...the prelates of this Apostolic See, which by the providence of God I serve, had the honor offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon.  But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren..." (Book V, Epistle XVIII)

"This name of Universality was offered by the Holy Synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the apostolic see which by the Providence of God I serve. But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated.  But far be this from the mind of a Christian that any on should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honor of his brethren..." (Book V: Epistle XLIII)

"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. (Book VII: Epistle XXXIII)

"Your Blessedness...  You address me saying, 'As you have commanded.'  This word 'command', I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am, and who you are. For in position you are my brethren, in character, my fathers... "...in the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself, who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope.  But I beg you most sweet Holiness to do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands, is subtracted from yourself...  For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally."  (Book VIII: Epistle XXX)


Seraphim
« Last Edit: December 01, 2003, 12:33:43 PM by Seraphim Reeves » Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #151 on: December 01, 2003, 12:18:12 PM »

Polycarp,

Quote
I'm  Sorry Seraphem but the only difference I can see in you and many other ex-Catholics I have encountered (I'm assuming ur ex-Catholic based on ur statement about having been on the other side of the fence.) is that you went Orthodox and they went Protestant fundamentalist.

Am I free to impugn the motives of former Protestants (or the odd Orthodox, though God knows why they would do this...which is precisely why it's very uncommon to see this) who become Roman Catholics?  Why not avoid such cheap non-arguments entirely, and stick with the issues?  Why is it that so much time is wasted by you and a couple of conspicuous co-religionists of yours, on such drivel?  Your lack of rebuttal of any sort is particularly conspicuous, as is your excellence in indulging in such character assasination (indeed, lack of sound argument and childish mud slinging seem to go hand in hand in this debate, as with this forum in general.)

Quote
You guys use the same logic and have  the same  attitude. The Orthodox and The Latins seperated because of envy and jelousey between the various Patriarchs. The Emperor Constantine divide the Roman Empire into East and West and the Church followed in the same pattern. There wasn't even a Patriarch of Constantinople till Constantine created the "New Rome". If that didn't happen we would still be One Church not One Church which stands divided. The See of Peter would still be recognised by the whole Church as the See which hold's the Presidency. Pray for reunification, not division.

This is nonsense.  The growth of the Papal claims, the spread of the heterodox filioquist doctrine throughout the west, and abbherations that had developed in Latin praxis and canonical jurisprudence were the key issues which divided Rome from the Orthodox Church early on; reducing this to "politicking" is condescending, and only a tenable opinion if we absolutely refuse to let the Orthodox confessors of that time speak for themselves.

Unfortunately, since that time Rome has introduced many more impediments to it's re-integration into the Church of Christ.  This includes not only further growth of the Papacy (culminating in the Vatican Council I, which proclaimed the Pope personally infallible some 19 cenutries after Pentecost), and further deviations from Ortho-praxis, but also further rifts which in some ways (while more subtle) are at least as profound (a radically different outlook of just what constitutes the redemption, and the final enshrining of rationalism and philosophical creativity as valid means of arriving at "new truths").

Seraphim
Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #152 on: December 01, 2003, 12:28:51 PM »

Carpo

Quote
You're playing Bible bingo like some Prot fundie and unfortunately doing the same with the Fathers.

If this is a valid line of reasoning, then I could be equally dismissive of the tracts put out by Papal-propagandists, citing their own brand of Biblical exegesis and Patristic commentary.  However, I am not - I simply have offered the counter-balance which I honestly think makes their (RC) interpretation untenable.

Quote
Perhaps this is why you're posts re the RCC seem so full of venom.  What's that line from the Bard, "methinks he doth protest too much"??  Do you secretly envy what you left?

Why would I envy heterodoxy, a-doctrinal/supersticious popular piety, quasi-Lutheran liturgy, a-historicism, heirarchal duplicity, etc., etc.?

OTOH, if I sound less than "happy" about Papism, you've understood correctly - heresy ultimatly has it's source in the "father of lies"; how could I rejoice at a work of the anti-Christ?  Whatever is good in the RCC, ultimatly does not belong to her (and you'll notice, I have nothing critical to say of these "good points") - whatever is rotten, is a work of the adversary of God and mankind.  Worse yet, it (Papism) attempts to pass itself off as the "Church founded by Jesus Christ."

Now you tell me, how am I supposed to express ambivilence toward this?

Seraphim
« Last Edit: December 01, 2003, 12:30:52 PM by Seraphim Reeves » Logged

carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #153 on: December 01, 2003, 05:30:34 PM »

OH Seraphim!

What is one to say?  I get this image of you going into your neighbors' homes criticizing how they set the table or how dinner is served. Why do you feel you have to even repsond to any posts about that heretical evil quasi-Lutheran bunch called the RCC.

Why would you envy the RCC? I don't know perhaps because deep down you really do envy the Church and you're afraid to admit it to yourself because the spiritual/ecclesiological house of cards you built for yourself will crumble.

[Now you tell me, how am I supposed to express ambivilence toward this]

No Seraphim but you could express charity.  You mentioned in your post that there are good points in the RCC but they don't belong to her.  I haven't seen you mention any of these good points only those you see as bad.  Come on now!  The gentle saint of Sarov whose name you bear wouldn't take this approach. Did he grab the merchant Motilov (may have gotten the name wrong) by the scruf of his neck and say you're just horribly wrong this is what theosis is all about?  He was the gentlest of Christians somewhat similar to our St Francis of Assisi.  Why not take a page out of St Seraphim's book be gentle with others and yourself.

I'll keep you in my prayers.
Carpo-Rusyn

Logged
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #154 on: December 01, 2003, 05:42:35 PM »

Seraphim (Reeves):


 I've seen stragglers drown in their own incredulity.

AmdG
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #155 on: December 01, 2003, 06:28:18 PM »

Polycarp,

Quote
I'm  Sorry Seraphem but the only difference I can see in you and many other ex-Catholics I have encountered (I'm assuming ur ex-Catholic based on ur statement about having been on the other side of the fence.) is that you went Orthodox and they went Protestant fundamentalist.

Am I free to impugn the motives of former Protestants (or the odd Orthodox, though God knows why they would do this...which is precisely why it's very uncommon to see this) who become Roman Catholics?  Why not avoid such cheap non-arguments entirely, and stick with the issues?  Why is it that so much time is wasted by you and a couple of conspicuous co-religionists of yours, on such drivel?  Your lack of rebuttal of any sort is particularly conspicuous, as is your excellence in indulging in such character assasination (indeed, lack of sound argument and childish mud slinging seem to go hand in hand in this debate, as with this forum in general.)

Quote
You guys use the same logic and have  the same  attitude. The Orthodox and The Latins seperated because of envy and jelousey between the various Patriarchs. The Emperor Constantine divide the Roman Empire into East and West and the Church followed in the same pattern. There wasn't even a Patriarch of Constantinople till Constantine created the "New Rome". If that didn't happen we would still be One Church not One Church which stands divided. The See of Peter would still be recognised by the whole Church as the See which hold's the Presidency. Pray for reunification, not division.

This is nonsense.  The growth of the Papal claims, the spread of the heterodox filioquist doctrine throughout the west, and abbherations that had developed in Latin praxis and canonical jurisprudence were the key issues which divided Rome from the Orthodox Church early on; reducing this to "politicking" is condescending, and only a tenable opinion if we absolutely refuse to let the Orthodox confessors of that time speak for themselves.

Unfortunately, since that time Rome has introduced many more impediments to it's re-integration into the Church of Christ.  This includes not only further growth of the Papacy (culminating in the Vatican Council I, which proclaimed the Pope personally infallible some 19 cenutries after Pentecost), and further deviations from Ortho-praxis, but also further rifts which in some ways (while more subtle) are at least as profound (a radically different outlook of just what constitutes the redemption, and the final enshrining of rationalism and philosophical creativity as valid means of arriving at "new truths").

Seraphim


After having had several years of discussions with excatholics I have found posting answers and quots back and forth is a waste of time. Each side can post endless quotes from scripture and the ECF's that seem to support their opionions. the Church of Rome is just as ligitimate as the EO churches. Perhaps even more because of having the succession from Peter. The Latin Church is The Church of Christ established by Jesus and the apostles and built on the Rock of Peter and of Jesus Christ himself. I would not insult the other EO's by saying that our schism renders them heterodox and heretics. Rome didn't leave the EO and the EO didn't leave Rome because each side seperated mutually along the political lines that Constantine created when he divided The Roman Empire into East and West.
Jesus prayed that we may be one, insults and fundamentalist style name calling is contra to Our Lords prayer for our unity and indeed contra to his command that we love one another as he first loved us.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #156 on: December 01, 2003, 06:41:02 PM »

Carpo,

Quote
What is one to say?  I get this image of you going into your neighbors' homes criticizing how they set the table or how dinner is served. Why do you feel you have to even repsond to any posts about that heretical evil quasi-Lutheran bunch called the RCC.

Because a young man (?) posted the following...

Quote
I have been talking about this subject on other
Forums, but i have been getting mixed and confusing
opinions about this subject because all the other boards
are mixed between catholic/orthodox opinions.

My Question is, If Peters Confession is the Rock of the Church,
as stated by Ambrose, Jerome, Hilary, Augustine, Chrysostom,
would that mean that the doctrines of Papal Infallibily and Universal Jurisdiction/Authority would be false since the Pope would not be the Head of the Church since Christ refered to his Confession and not his person? If Peters Confession is the Rock of the Church, would this not mean that he is not a "Universal Pope" This is what I really want to know but have not been able to get a straight answer.

I hope some one can help me with this very important issue,
Knowing this will help me to detrmine if I am indeed called
to Orthodoxy for If I am to remain where I am now. Please help
me understand fully this issue, from the biblical perspective.

(above was originally posted here)

Last time I checked I fit into the generic category of "someone"...

Quote
Why would you envy the RCC? I don't know perhaps because deep down you really do envy the Church and you're afraid to admit it to yourself because the spiritual/ecclesiological house of cards you built for yourself will crumble.

Though one has to wonder where all of this psycho-analysis is coming from (if I may speculate too, I think it's simply to fill the sucking vacuum created by the lack of a rebuttal to the clear witness of the Holy Fathers), I think my statement that there is no such "envy" on my part should be sufficient to bring such a line of (purile) questioning to an end.  Please, let's stick with the issues - thus far it seems a few people here have insisted on making this very "personal", which has not been my intention for a moment.

Quote
No Seraphim but you could express charity.

Ah, like the charity and good will in simply characterizing an opponent as a "protestant fundie" who is "Jack Chick like", the the continual (self serving) attempts to psycho-analyze my person, rather than do me the tiny favour of simply pointing out where I'm so wildly misguided.

IOW, drop the pretense of pointing a finger at me, particularly when so far it hasn't been I who have indulged in such ad hominem fair (and indeed, I've yet to attempt to make this matter so darned "personality" centered, which others, yourself included, seem intent on doing.)

Quote
You mentioned in your post that there are good points in the RCC but they don't belong to her.  I haven't seen you mention any of these good points only those you see as bad.

Why mention the good points, particularly when my whole point is to illustrate the falsehood of one of the RCC's fundamental claims?  You can do your own prostyletizing, thanks.

Besides, if I wanted to talk about these "good points", I would speak of Orthodoxy, where they exist in their complete context.

Quote
Come on now!  The gentle saint of Sarov whose name you bear wouldn't take this approach.

I consider St.Seraphim my patron, not confusable with my personality and short comings.  Though, I think St.Jerome on a bad day might be close... Wink

Quote
Did he grab the merchant Motilov (may have gotten the name wrong) by the scruf of his neck and say you're just horribly wrong this is what theosis is all about?  He was the gentlest of Christians somewhat similar to our St Francis of Assisi.  Why not take a page out of St Seraphim's book be gentle with others and yourself.

The funny thing is, when this discussion began, I simply offered the Orthodox view - I was challenged...I offered further evidence.  Then it "hit the fan" so to speak.  It seemed to annoy people that I even brought up evidence contrary to the RC apologia on this subject.  Get over yourselves!  This is (at least nominally) an "Orthodox" forum last time I checked, and the area itself is not the "RC area", but the "Catholic - Orthodox" area - as such, don't be surprised if RC ecclessiological claims are contradicted, and with no shortage of evidence (whether it be Biblical exegesis, common sense, or Patristic citations.)

It is this, and not any unworthiness on my part (though that certainly is there) that has raised the ire of several RC malcontents.  I am thoroughly unimpressed.

Seraphim
Logged

the slave
intolerant of intolerance
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: UGCC
Posts: 810



« Reply #157 on: December 01, 2003, 06:56:14 PM »

Seraphim

when you said
<<Because a young man (?) posted the following...>>

Why the question mark after <young man>

Byzantine Christian is young and he is male .

He had after all posed the question in all sincerity - here and on other sites too.

                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                               
Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."
- St. John Maximovitch
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #158 on: December 01, 2003, 07:04:23 PM »

Slave,

Actually I wasn't questioning his sincerity in the least.  I'd just never noticed anything gender specific about any of his posts, and hadn't looked at his profile.

I assumed he was male, but wasn't 100% sure.  Hence "?".

Seraphim
Logged

the slave
intolerant of intolerance
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: UGCC
Posts: 810



« Reply #159 on: December 01, 2003, 07:12:22 PM »

Hmm - OK - Point taken

My apologies
Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."
- St. John Maximovitch
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #160 on: December 01, 2003, 08:24:57 PM »

Seraphim -

My point in supplying the quotes I did was to demonstrate that the Fathers regarded both St. Peter and his confession of faith as the Rock of Matthew 16:18.

Of course, St. Peter's confession was absolutely essential. How could our Lord have made him the leader of the Apostles without it?

I also think that an unbiased reading of Church history will reveal that the bishops of Rome were the successors not only to the office of St. Peter but also to his authority.

The question is not whether the authority existed but what was its extent?

I am Orthodox. I do not believe St. Peter acted as an autocratic monarch among the Apostles or that his successors were meant to act that way either.

But I also do not believe that St. Peter had no more authority than any of the other Apostles or that his successors, the bishops of Rome, held no more authority than any other patriarch or bishop.

There's too much evidence to the contrary.

I have not finished my study of the papacy, but for now I believe an early pope served as the President of the College of Bishops.

Not a king. Not infallible.

But not "just one of the boys" either.

And I certainly do not believe that rightful authority in the Church could properly shift towards Constantinople. Any such apparent shift represents the inordinate influence of the Emperor, which was often exercised on behalf of heretics, rather than the rightful authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #161 on: December 01, 2003, 09:13:46 PM »

Seraphim

[I am thoroughly unimpressed.]

As am I. So far I've seen nothing to shake my faith in the Church of Jesus Christ aka the Roman Catholic Church.  

Carpo-Rusyn

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

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #162 on: December 01, 2003, 09:15:58 PM »

One point should be made. When RC apologists say that the faith of Peter and the person of Peter are inseperable, or interdependent, they're actually strengthening our position - if 'petros' and 'petra' part company, then the Bishop of Rome must listen to the Church and repent, lest he be cast out (cf. Matt 18:17), a fate actually suffered by several Popes in the first millenium. Pope JP II himself knows that the Primacy as exercised now by Rome does not mirror that of the first 800 years, something which is very telling indeed, yet very promising in terms of hoping for Peter's repentance.
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #163 on: December 01, 2003, 09:27:36 PM »

Byz

How about a little church history quiz?

Care to name the [several Popes in the first millenium] who were cast out?

You get extra credit for stating why they were "cast out".

CR
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #164 on: December 01, 2003, 09:34:51 PM »

Sure.

Pope Vigilius, for wavering and endorsing the heretical Three Chapters, tacitly anathematized at the 5th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II).

Pope Honorius who was condemned as a heretic for actively supporting the monothelite heresy.

Pope Nicholas, for claiming to have the right to depose any bishop he pleased and forcing the Bulgarian church to be under Rome, the "only church it could be under." (but of course his excommunication was revoked when the Emperor sided with the Ignatian party and deposed Photius. We all know who won at the Council of Constantinople in 879-80.)

Pope Stephen was also opposed by Cyprian's Council at Carthage, of course not an Ecumenical Council.

How many credit points do i get? Smiley

Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #165 on: December 01, 2003, 10:10:22 PM »

Byz

I'll give you an A -.  I don't know about Stephen but come on it was only a local council.  Nicholas was a new one to me.  Those Bulgars were always touchy.

Virgilius was arrested in the middle of mass sent to New Rome and imprisoned for 3 years before he'd agree to condemn the 3.  Your boy Justinian at work.  Virgilius is released and when safely back in Rome reversed his condemnation.

Honorius was the victim of a shill game.  Sergius the patriarch of New Rome sends H a letter in which he lays out 2 positions, one that Xt had one will the other that He had 2.  The language was so vague that H condemns both the orthodox and heretical positions.  He gets condemned at the council.  Leo2 is asked to ratiify the council's decrees (those popes are always at work you would think they had primacy or something Grin) and he does but doesn't condemn Honorius as H was just confused. Come on maybe it was the end of a busy day and the letter was all in Greek.

I'll give you a A - .  You didn't mention Liberius?

CR

Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #166 on: December 01, 2003, 10:39:13 PM »

There are always two sides to every story. That includes the three men above. Lot's of politics and mitigating circumstances in all of the above cases. Making a matter of fact claim as you did isn't quite fair. So I say no points. :-)
Logged

Peace
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 #167 on: December 01, 2003, 11:07:29 PM »

[As am I. So far I've seen nothing to shake my faith in the Church of Jesus Christ aka the Roman Catholic Church.  

Carpo-Rusyn]

So what is your purpose for being in a website of a religion you  apostatized?  

We already know we have the 'True Faith' in its original unadultrated form.  You, on the other hand, turned your back on it.

Yet you seem to want to spend more time in the house you left than the one you ran to.  One has to wonder why.

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.
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #168 on: December 01, 2003, 11:15:20 PM »

I won't argue with an A-, that's good enough to get me into university Smiley


Your assesment of Pope Honorius is incomplete; there's ALOT more to it than that. Honorius issued more than one decree in which he sanctioned the monothelite heresy and was vigorously defended by his monothelite supporters who were present at the 6th Ecumenical Council:

    [Answer of the Monothelites made at the Emperor's bidding:]

"We have brought out no new method of speech, but have taught whatever we have received from the holy Ecumenical Synods, and from the holy approved Fathers, as well as from the archbishops of this imperial city, to wit: Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter, as also from Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, and from Cyrus who was Pope of Alexandria, that is to say with reference to will and operation, and so we have believed, and so we believe, so we preach; and further we are ready to stand by, and defend this faith." (Session I)

Session XIII spells out in no uncertain terms that Honorius was condemned for more than simply "failing to teach."


"The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches."


Session XVI

To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!

To Paul
To Peter
To Macarius, the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen
To Polychronius
To Apergius of Perga
To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!
    May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!

DEFINITION OF FAITH

“The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God..."

PROSPHONETICUS TO THE EMPEROR

“Therefore we declare that in him there are two natural wills and two natural operations, proceeding commonly and without division: but we cast out of the Church and rightly subject to anathema all superfluous novelties as well as their inventors: to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius and Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter (who were archbishops of Constantinople), moreover Cyrus, who bore the priesthood of Alexandria, and with them Honorius, who was the ruler (greek: proedron) of Rome, as he followed them in these things.

The Council of Trullo also reiterated this condemnation:

Also we agree to guard untouched the faith of the Sixth Holy Synod, which first assembled in this imperial city in the time of Constantine, our Emperor, of blessed memory, which faith received still greater confirmation from the fact that the pious Emperor ratified with his own signet that which was written for the security of future generations. This council taught that we should openly profess our faith that in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations; and condemned by a just sentence those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people that in the one Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will and one operation; to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this God-preserved city; Macarius, who was bishop of Antioch; Stephen, who was his disciple, and the insane Polychronius, depriving them henceforth from the communion of the body of Christ our God. (Canon I)

Even more decisive was the 7th Ecumenical Council's condemnation of Honorius for his doctrinal teaching, the same Council where the Canons of Trullo were received without protest from the Papal Legates:

"We have also anathematised the idle tales of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will held by Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, or rather, we have anathematised their own evil will." (Letter of the Synod to the Emperor and Empress).


Given the force of the evidence we have against Honorius, it amazes me the extent to which so many RC apologists will go to defend, or "rehabilitate" this fallen Pope. Ultramontanes of the past few centuries sought to negate these facts by desperately introducing their hypotheses, ranging from "the documents have been forged," to "Honorius' decrees were certainly 'ex catherdra' but the Council erred in condemning him," to the modern day apologetic of "failing to teach." The ultramontanes were very hard pressed to find any supporters of their hypotheses from any of the clear-thinking RC scholars of the time, such as Karl Hefele, so too in our time will it be very difficult to convince the critical student of history of the inconsistent efforts to save Honorius.

Pope St. Gregory the Great rightly pointed out that "if any one bishop be called universal, all the Church crumbles if that universal one fall." (to Cyriacus)

Should we start allocating grades for historical revisionism, many RC net apologists would get an A+++++.   Grin  Grin  Grin
 

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

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #169 on: December 01, 2003, 11:18:26 PM »

Hello polycarp,

Sadly there are also 2 sides to the story about the Holocaust. Some say it happened, some say it didn't.
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #170 on: December 01, 2003, 11:22:17 PM »

Ortho

I hardly think my posting in an EO forum counts as "spending more time in the house I left".  There is life outside this forum.  I'm actually quite involved in my RC parish attend mass daily and post on RC forums. You can tell the "one" who is wondering why that I just like the company here. Most of you with some notable exceptions are nice people committed Christians.

[So what is your purpose for being in a website of a religion you  apostatized?]

As I stated above.  Do you like to be around people who agree with you all the time?  I find it to be boring.  It helps the "little grey cells" to dialogue and sometimes clash with others who don't share you're point of view.  Actually I've learned a lot here I put into practice outside this forum to bring people to the True Faith.

[We already know we have the 'True Faith' in its original unadultrated form.  You, on the other hand, turned your back on it.]

No we have the True Faith in it's unadulterated form!!

Is that what you wanted me to say?  I actually consider myself lucky to have been baptized and confirmed RC and then to have been chrismated EO.  I think it enriches my life in Christ.  Am I an apostate?  Well I guess I am twice over when I left the RCC to go East and when I left ACROD to return to Rome.  Rather appropriate considering this thread topic.  Peter denied the Master three times and I've apostized only twice.  Peter was forgiven and through the ministry of the Church in the mystery of reconciliation I have been too.
Hope this answers your question.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #171 on: December 01, 2003, 11:26:56 PM »

Byzantino

I'm not really an ultramontane more like a montane leaning towards ultra.  See you're making me actually have to do some research now. :-


I do have to hand it to you, you do do your research.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #172 on: December 01, 2003, 11:32:23 PM »

Carpo, i know you're not an ultramontane. I
Thanks for your kindness, I do have a passion for the history of the Church because it strengthens my faith. btw i enjoy your presence on this forum, really without our RC brothers and sisters here it'd be a real bore.

God bless,

Byz
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #173 on: December 01, 2003, 11:33:35 PM »

Carpo, i know you're not an ultramontane. I
Thanks for your kindness, I do have a passion for the history of the Church because it strengthens my faith. btw i enjoy your presence on this forum, really without our RC brothers and sisters here it'd be a real bore.

God bless,

Byz

I agree.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #174 on: December 02, 2003, 12:06:45 AM »

Philip Schaff wrote about Honorius in History of the Church, Vol. 4:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xi.viii.html
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #175 on: December 02, 2003, 05:02:30 AM »

The Moorish Orthodox Diocese of New Jersey
Cathedral of Saints Sergius & Bakkhus
Ong's Hat Road
Pemberton Township, New Jersey 08068
Tel/Fax: (973) 776-3901, Ext. 8683
E-Mail: MoorishOrthodoxChurch@post.com
Web: http://www.welcome.to/moorishorthodoxy

PRESS RELEASE:
For immediate release
February 26, 2002 - 11:15am (EST)

MOORISH ORTHODOX CHURCH TO DECLARE 7TH-CENTURY ROMAN

POPE A SAINT: WAS ONLY POPE CONDEMNED BY ROME

Pope Honorius I occupied the See of Rome from 625 until his death on 12 October, 638. A native of the Campania, he was consecrated on either 27 October or 3 November (recorded dates vary), in succession to Boniface V. His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680) in connection with his apparent espousal of Monothelitism, a theological position holding that Jesus of Nazareth was possessed of a single Divine will, made manifest in two natures, Davine and human.  This is the doctrine held to to this day by the Armenian, Coptic (Egyptian), Syriac/Jacobite and Ethiopian Apostolic Orthodox Churches, amongst the oldest branches of Christianity still existing.

The Monothelite question was raised about 634 in a letter to this pope from the Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius. He related that Emperor Heraclius, when in Armenia in 622, in refuting a Monophysite of the Severian sect, had made use of the expression "one operation" (energy, energeia) of the Incarnate Word. Cyrus, Bishop of the Lazi, had considered this doubtfully orthodox, and had asked advice of Sergius. Sergius replied (he says) that he did not wish to decide the matter, but had learned that the expression had been used by his predecessor Mennas in a letter to Pope Vigilius, whence it came to fall sequentially into the hands of his successor Honorius.

The critical phrase in Honorius' letter sent in reply is:

"Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin."

Sergius, after receiving the pope's letter approving his cautiousness, composed an "Ecthesis", or exposition, which was issued by the Emperor towards the end of 638.

In conformity with the words of Honorius it orders all the subjects of Heraclius to confess one Will in our Lord, and to avoid the expressions "one operation" and "two operations".

Under Emporer Constantine Pogonatus, and with the connivance of Pope Agatho, a general council met at Constantinople on 7 Nov. 680. On 12 March, 681, a packet was produced which one hierarch Macarius had sent to the emperor, but which had not opened. It proved to contain the letter of Sergius to Cyrus and to Honorius, the forged letter of Mennas to Vigilius, and the letter of Honorius to Sergius.

Having been made privy to the brief's content, the thirteenth session of the Council sitting on 28 March condemned Honorius thus:

"Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God", that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to the pious and great emperor, "and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema. And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas".

According to the Moorish Orthodox Bishop of New Jersey, Dr. Sotemohk Beeyayelel, "There lies in the secret archive of the Vatican Library to this day a text known as the "Grimoire of Honorius," whose existence was only recently made known to us by a revered academic, and one of the attendants of those archives. Notwithstanding his years of standing as a habitue of the Vatican and in spite of his immeasurably valuable service to the Holy See, he is in constant fear that were his having made us privy to the existence of this volume, his life - and that of his family - would be placed in real danger.  Knowing what we do of the 'Holy See's modus operandi,' we have no choice but to lend this brave man credence in his fears."

According to the Bishop, the substance of this volume is a collection of
statements by Honorius defending his theological and political positions against contemporary as well as future opponents, but the monothelite issue plays but a very insubstantial part in it.

Rather, the Grimoire of Honorius, whose existance the Vatican has until now made no statement on, contains in the most part defenses by Honorius of his work to accept, reconcile with and embrace in the life of the Church a dissident faction of Egyptian and Levantine Christians who had formed a sect which, in addition to exhibiting both Carpocratian as well as Valentinian "heretical" features, was most pronouncedly a "proto-Freemasonic" body. Its utilization of contemporary Masonic devices is remarkable, according to Bishop Sotemohk, including both graphical (such as, e.g., the 'compass and square' familiar to all) as well as textual appurtenences (e.g., the reference to the Deity as the "Supreme Architect" and the incorporation into its liturgy of a wide variety of terms taken from the stonebuilding trade).

Moreover, the sect (which was nameless) appears to have conceived of itself as being the anti-Roman, anti-authoritarian and antinomian "Underground Stream" of the Johannine Church, whose task it was to remain underground until the time of its public work was come.

According to its spokespersons, the reasons for the canonization of Pope Honorius by the Moorish Orthodox Church include the Saint's scholarship, life of holy asceticism, courage in defending hmself and his beliefs against the slanders of the self-denominated Orthodox of his day, the attacks he has suffered at the hands of Rome and her minions until the present, and most emphatically, his seeking to bring the Johannine, esoteric tradition hidden within Christianity into the forefront of Christendom.

The Moorish Orthodox Church's Bishop of New Jersey, the Right Reverend Sotemohk A. Beeyayelel, has not set a date for the canonization rites.  According to Dr. Beeyayelel, these will most likely take place over the period of Summer or Fall of 2002 at the diocese's Cathedral of Saints Sergius & Bakkhus, Ong's Hat, Pemberton Township, New Jersey.

Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #176 on: December 02, 2003, 09:00:01 AM »

MOORISH ORTHODOX CHURCH, Indeed! LOL!

Another one for Al Green's 'vagante' list :cwm29:

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,927


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #177 on: December 02, 2003, 03:47:29 PM »

Too silly to comment on.  They don't even get our theology right.
Logged

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
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #178 on: December 02, 2003, 05:15:00 PM »

Better Monothelite Moors than Muslim Moors.

 Wink

Do Moors drink Coors in or out of doors?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2003, 05:15:52 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #179 on: December 02, 2003, 10:24:42 PM »

I have been following these posts for awhile without comment, but one aspect does disturb me:  

It appears that Seraphim Reeves is a lightning rod for ad hominem attacks.  

He makes a number of carefully stated points, then supports it with references and then the majority of the replies are attacks against his faith, character, motives, or personality.  Responses to his points are severly weakened by such attacks.   Such ad hominem attacks show poor reasoning.  I do not mean to insult anyone, I just do not like to see such tactics.

I do think he deserves more respect and any responses should state a clear line of thought followed by references to support it.  Having a reference mixed with a personal attack takes away from any point one is trying to make.


I am stating this because I just hate to see him personally attacked every time he makes a post.  Whether or not you agree with him, his postings do add considerably to the discussions.  It is also obvious from the length of his posts that he considers it important to spend his time sharing his thoughts on the subject.  This does deserve some respect.

Sorry Seraphim that you have to contend with this.  I give you much credit for not making any personal attacks in return.  You must be versed in the art of debating.
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
Tags: papal primacy Primacy of Peter Petrine Primacy That Irenaeus quote 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   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 0.186 seconds with 72 queries.