OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 21, 2014, 10:16:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?  (Read 22202 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #90 on: September 05, 2010, 07:48:34 AM »

But that will be beautifull.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #91 on: September 05, 2010, 08:10:17 AM »


When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter..

. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy..

I have to say, Azul, that I don't see this function in the early Church for the Archbishops of Rome at all.  The decisions on heresies were not taken to the Popes but to Ecumenical Councils, the gatherings of the Church's bishops and the Pope did not attend a single one.

I am racking my brains trying to think what heresies were dealt with by the Pope but none come to mind.  Of course that could just be my old brain.   Grin

There is of course the Tome of Leo which made the Council Fathers so happy, but when the you read the Acts of the Council they first studied it to ensure it was orthodox before they proclaimed it as truly representing the orthodox faith.  The Fathers did not accept it because it came from Rome.  They accepted it because *they* made the decision that it was a correct expression of the faith... and at the same time they gave equal praise to Cyril who also taught as the Pope of Rome did.
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #92 on: September 05, 2010, 08:23:12 AM »

Council of Ephesus
"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See 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. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod�" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

St. Jerome

"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).

Pope Leo I
"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" (Letters 110 [A.D. 445]).
"Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, �You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.� Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]" (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).

Council of Chalcedon
"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! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!�" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).



SOURCE (appended by moderator):  http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm
« Last Edit: September 25, 2010, 03:46:22 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #93 on: September 05, 2010, 08:23:45 AM »

Off-topic: Pls reply to my topic "Last Days".
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #94 on: September 05, 2010, 08:30:07 AM »


When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter..

. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy..

I have to say, Azul, that I don't see this function in the early Church for the Archbishops of Rome at all.  The decisions on heresies were not taken to the Popes but to Ecumenical Councils, the gatherings of the Church's bishops and the Pope did not attend a single one.



It was both..
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #95 on: September 05, 2010, 08:33:45 AM »

When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter.. Peter who was urged by Christ to strengthen his brethren and to lead and feed His flock.. In the same manner the bishop of Rome in the early Church completed and made the declaration of Orthodoxy clear and whole.. He represented "the Rock" and nectar of the Orthodox faith.. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy.. So if the Pope will become Orthodox he can still be regarded in a way a source of infaibillity.. But we have greater things to ponder than this.. I don`t think that the times we are in are waiting for the Pope to become Orthodox..

Another thought which disturbs me in your thought is this:   You are saying that for the first 1000 years the Pope of Rome was the source of infallibility for making decisions on heresies and for clarifying theology and misunderstandings, though the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

Then the Pope removed himself from the Church and for the last 1000 years, and even right now today, the Church is sort of limping along *without* the Pope and his infallibility and his charisms which come through the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

In other words the Orthodox Church has been lacking for a thousand years an essential element in the Church's life which Christ intended His Church to have.

If that *is* the case I would say that the Orthodox Church today is NOT the Church but, as the Pope himself says, it is a defective and wounded organisation lacking the Pope and his special gifts.


Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #96 on: September 05, 2010, 08:38:58 AM »

Council of Ephesus
"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See 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. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod�" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

If memory serves there were TWO letters sent to Ephesus from Rome.  One is the one as quoted above by Philip the Roman legate.  It was not read to the Council Fathers because of its ultra Roman claims.  The other letter which had been sent did not make any extravagant claims for the Archbishop of Rome and it was that letter which was read to the Council Fathers.

This was gone over on CAF years ago and I'll do a search for the material.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #97 on: September 05, 2010, 08:54:26 AM »

Council of Chalcedon
"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! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!�" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).


What you have posted is the usual truncated version given by Roman Catholic apologists in order to bolster their claims for the Pope of Rome.  If we look at the whole text we see that it does not bolster his claims at all.

"The most reverend bishops cried out; This is the orthodox faith; this we all believe: into this we were baptized; into this we baptize: Blessed Cyril so taught: this is the true faith: this is the holy faith: this is the everlasting faith: into this we were baptized: into this we baptize: we all so believe: so believes Leo, the Pope: Cyril thus believed: Pope Leo so interpreted it"


After Cyril's Letter had been read the Council Fathers said:


"And when these letters [i.e. Cyril's letter to Nestorius Καταφλυαροῦσι and his letter to John of Antioch Εὐφραινέσθωσαν] had been read, the most reverend bishops cried out: We all so believe: Pope Leo thus believes: anathema to him who divides and to him who confounds: this is the faith of Archbishop Leo: Leo thus believes: Leo and Anatolius so believe: we all thus believe. As Cyril so believe we, all of us: eternal be the memory of Cyril: as the epistles of Cyril teach such is our mind, such has been our faith: such is our faith: this is the mind of Archbishop Leo, so he believes, so he has written."


Then Leo Letter was read and the Council Fathers said:


"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."

See the text at
http://www1000.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm

When we have the whole text in front of us, it gives a quite different impression than what the usual truncated Roman Catholic text does.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 09:03:14 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #98 on: September 05, 2010, 08:58:04 AM »

When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter.. Peter who was urged by Christ to strengthen his brethren and to lead and feed His flock.. In the same manner the bishop of Rome in the early Church completed and made the declaration of Orthodoxy clear and whole.. He represented "the Rock" and nectar of the Orthodox faith.. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy.. So if the Pope will become Orthodox he can still be regarded in a way a source of infaibillity.. But we have greater things to ponder than this.. I don`t think that the times we are in are waiting for the Pope to become Orthodox..

Another thought which disturbs me in your thought is this:   You are saying that for the first 1000 years the Pope of Rome was the source of infallibility for making decisions on heresies and for clarifying theology and misunderstandings, though the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

Then the Pope removed himself from the Church and for the last 1000 years, and even right now today, the Church is sort of limping along *without* the Pope and his infallibility and his charisms which come through the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

In other words the Orthodox Church has been lacking for a thousand years an essential element in the Church's life which Christ intended His Church to have.

If that *is* the case I would say that the Orthodox Church today is NOT the Church but, as the Pope himself says, it is a defective and wounded organisation lacking the Pope and his special gifts.




The pope of Rome was the leader of the Church in the first 1000 years.. The pope of Rome was the highest authority of faith.. In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.

Yes the Orthodox Church is deffinetly lacking something for a thousand years.. It cannot be called catholic.. Without the succesor of Peter, the pope, the Church is not catholic.. The catholicity of the Church exists only through the pope.. The pope represent the integrality and universality of the Church.. Therefore the Schism was the first fall into apostasy, and the decimation of the Church.. Since that time it is still decimating and weakening till it reaches to the fullness of apostasy through the fall of Orthodoxy and Ecumenism.


The Orthodox Church is not THE Church..  The Church is above.. Our city is in heaven.. The people of God are the Church.

« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 08:58:58 AM by Azul » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #99 on: September 05, 2010, 08:58:37 AM »


When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter..

. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy..

I have to say, Azul, that I don't see this function in the early Church for the Archbishops of Rome at all.  The decisions on heresies were not taken to the Popes but to Ecumenical Councils, the gatherings of the Church's bishops and the Pope did not attend a single one.



It was both..

Could you tell us which heresies were taken to Rome and to the Pope for a decision?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #100 on: September 05, 2010, 09:00:46 AM »

When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter.. Peter who was urged by Christ to strengthen his brethren and to lead and feed His flock.. In the same manner the bishop of Rome in the early Church completed and made the declaration of Orthodoxy clear and whole.. He represented "the Rock" and nectar of the Orthodox faith.. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy.. So if the Pope will become Orthodox he can still be regarded in a way a source of infaibillity.. But we have greater things to ponder than this.. I don`t think that the times we are in are waiting for the Pope to become Orthodox..

Another thought which disturbs me in your thought is this:   You are saying that for the first 1000 years the Pope of Rome was the source of infallibility for making decisions on heresies and for clarifying theology and misunderstandings, though the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

Then the Pope removed himself from the Church and for the last 1000 years, and even right now today, the Church is sort of limping along *without* the Pope and his infallibility and his charisms which come through the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

In other words the Orthodox Church has been lacking for a thousand years an essential element in the Church's life which Christ intended His Church to have.

If that *is* the case I would say that the Orthodox Church today is NOT the Church but, as the Pope himself says, it is a defective and wounded organisation lacking the Pope and his special gifts.




The pope of Rome was the leader of the Church in the first 1000 years.. The pope of Rome was the highest authority of faith.. In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.

Yes the Orthodox Church is deffinetly lacking something for a thousand years.. It cannot be called catholic.. Without the succesor of Peter, the pope, the Church is not catholic.. The catholicity of the Church exists only through the pope.. The pope represent the integrality and universality of the Church.. Therefore the Schism was the first fall into apostasy, and the decimation of the Church.. Since that time it is still decimating and weakening till it reaches to the fullness of apostasy through the fall of Orthodoxy and Ecumenism.


The Orthodox Church is not THE Church..  The Church is above.. Our city is in heaven.. The people of God are the Church.


When you write "Orthodox" in your profile, do you mean "Orthodox in communion with Rome"?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 09:02:19 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #101 on: September 05, 2010, 09:05:38 AM »

I don`t like contradictory discussions..

Marcionism rejected the Old Testament and its God, said to be different from the God of love in the New Testament, and made a complete dichotomy between law and grace. Marcion (d.c.160) came from northeastern Turkey and migrated to Rome but was promptly excommunicated in 144. The heresy was checked by 200 in Rome but lasted for several centuries in the East.

Montanism was an apocalyptic sect that denied the divinely-established nature of the Church. Montanus, who began prophesying in 172, came from central Turkey (which became the heresy’s center of operations). Opposition to Montanism was spearheaded by Pope Eleutherus (175-89), and it was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217).

Modalism (also known as Sabellianism) denied the full Personhood of all three Persons of the Trinity, and believed that God operated through mere “modes” or the transferral of power. Theodotus (2nd cent.) came from Byzantium to Rome, only to be excommunicated by Pope Victor (c.189-98). His disciple, also named Theodotus (early 3rd century) was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217). Artemon (3rd century) was teaching in Rome, c.235, but was excommunicated. Sabellius (fl.. 215) was excommunicated by Pope Callistus I.

Novatianism was a rigorist schism, stating that persons who fell away under persecution or who were guilty of serious sin could not be absolved. Its theology was otherwise orthodox. Novatian (d.258), a Roman presbyter, started the schism in 250. In 251 it was condemned by a Roman Synod and Pope Cornelius, and Novatian became an “antipope.” His views were approved at Antioch.

SOURCE (appended by moderator):  http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/papal-authority-and-early-heresies-in-the-1st-millennium-ad/
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 02:01:17 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #102 on: September 05, 2010, 09:06:46 AM »

When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter.. Peter who was urged by Christ to strengthen his brethren and to lead and feed His flock.. In the same manner the bishop of Rome in the early Church completed and made the declaration of Orthodoxy clear and whole.. He represented "the Rock" and nectar of the Orthodox faith.. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy.. So if the Pope will become Orthodox he can still be regarded in a way a source of infaibillity.. But we have greater things to ponder than this.. I don`t think that the times we are in are waiting for the Pope to become Orthodox..

Another thought which disturbs me in your thought is this:   You are saying that for the first 1000 years the Pope of Rome was the source of infallibility for making decisions on heresies and for clarifying theology and misunderstandings, though the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

Then the Pope removed himself from the Church and for the last 1000 years, and even right now today, the Church is sort of limping along *without* the Pope and his infallibility and his charisms which come through the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

In other words the Orthodox Church has been lacking for a thousand years an essential element in the Church's life which Christ intended His Church to have.

If that *is* the case I would say that the Orthodox Church today is NOT the Church but, as the Pope himself says, it is a defective and wounded organisation lacking the Pope and his special gifts.




The pope of Rome was the leader of the Church in the first 1000 years.. The pope of Rome was the highest authority of faith.. In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.

Yes the Orthodox Church is deffinetly lacking something for a thousand years.. It cannot be called catholic.. Without the succesor of Peter, the pope, the Church is not catholic.. The catholicity of the Church exists only through the pope.. The pope represent the integrality and universality of the Church.. Therefore the Schism was the first fall into apostasy, and the decimation of the Church.. Since that time it is still decimating and weakening till it reaches to the fullness of apostasy through the fall of Orthodoxy and Ecumenism.


The Orthodox Church is not THE Church..  The Church is above.. Our city is in heaven.. The people of God are the Church.


When you write "Orthodox" in your profile, do you mean "Orthodox in communion with Rome"?

Why did you get angry?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #103 on: September 05, 2010, 09:09:33 AM »

Even if I do not know all the details of history , i know with my heart that the Papal primacy and the presidency of the See of Rome is at the level of "fact" ... And you know it also..
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 09:10:01 AM by Azul » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #104 on: September 05, 2010, 09:09:49 AM »

When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter.. Peter who was urged by Christ to strengthen his brethren and to lead and feed His flock.. In the same manner the bishop of Rome in the early Church completed and made the declaration of Orthodoxy clear and whole.. He represented "the Rock" and nectar of the Orthodox faith.. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy.. So if the Pope will become Orthodox he can still be regarded in a way a source of infaibillity.. But we have greater things to ponder than this.. I don`t think that the times we are in are waiting for the Pope to become Orthodox..

Another thought which disturbs me in your thought is this:   You are saying that for the first 1000 years the Pope of Rome was the source of infallibility for making decisions on heresies and for clarifying theology and misunderstandings, though the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

Then the Pope removed himself from the Church and for the last 1000 years, and even right now today, the Church is sort of limping along *without* the Pope and his infallibility and his charisms which come through the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

In other words the Orthodox Church has been lacking for a thousand years an essential element in the Church's life which Christ intended His Church to have.

If that *is* the case I would say that the Orthodox Church today is NOT the Church but, as the Pope himself says, it is a defective and wounded organisation lacking the Pope and his special gifts.




The pope of Rome was the leader of the Church in the first 1000 years.. The pope of Rome was the highest authority of faith.. In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.

Yes the Orthodox Church is deffinetly lacking something for a thousand years.. It cannot be called catholic.. Without the succesor of Peter, the pope, the Church is not catholic.. The catholicity of the Church exists only through the pope.. The pope represent the integrality and universality of the Church.. Therefore the Schism was the first fall into apostasy, and the decimation of the Church.. Since that time it is still decimating and weakening till it reaches to the fullness of apostasy through the fall of Orthodoxy and Ecumenism.


The Orthodox Church is not THE Church..  The Church is above.. Our city is in heaven.. The people of God are the Church.


When you write "Orthodox" in your profile, do you mean "Orthodox in communion with Rome"?

Why did you get angry?

I am not angry but I am certainly curious about you and your Church membership.  You see, what you have written above is decidedly unorthodox!
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #105 on: September 05, 2010, 09:11:04 AM »

What is unorthodox?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #106 on: September 05, 2010, 09:13:29 AM »

What is unorthodox?

What you wrote in message 98.
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #107 on: September 05, 2010, 09:16:39 AM »

What is unorthodox?

What you wrote in message 98.

Specifically what?



Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #108 on: September 05, 2010, 09:21:23 AM »

I don`t like contradictory discussions..

Marcionism rejected the Old Testament and its God, said to be different from the God of love in the New Testament, and made a complete dichotomy between law and grace. Marcion (d.c.160) came from northeastern Turkey and migrated to Rome but was promptly excommunicated in 144. The heresy was checked by 200 in Rome but lasted for several centuries in the East.

Montanism was an apocalyptic sect that denied the divinely-established nature of the Church. Montanus, who began prophesying in 172, came from central Turkey (which became the heresy’s center of operations). Opposition to Montanism was spearheaded by Pope Eleutherus (175-89), and it was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217).

Modalism (also known as Sabellianism) denied the full Personhood of all three Persons of the Trinity, and believed that God operated through mere “modes” or the transferral of power. Theodotus (2nd cent.) came from Byzantium to Rome, only to be excommunicated by Pope Victor (c.189-98). His disciple, also named Theodotus (early 3rd century) was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217). Artemon (3rd century) was teaching in Rome, c.235, but was excommunicated. Sabellius (fl.. 215) was excommunicated by Pope Callistus I.

Novatianism was a rigorist schism, stating that persons who fell away under persecution or who were guilty of serious sin could not be absolved. Its theology was otherwise orthodox. Novatian (d.258), a Roman presbyter, started the schism in 250. In 251 it was condemned by a Roman Synod and Pope Cornelius, and Novatian became an “antipope.” His views were approved at Antioch.

Naughty man!  You uplifted that without acknowledgement from

"Papal Authority and Early Heresies in the 1st Millennium AD"

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/papal-authority-and-early-heresies-in-the-1st-millennium-ad/

and that site has taken it from a book by Dave Armstrong, one of a small number of virulently anti-Orthodox Roman Catholic apologists.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #109 on: September 05, 2010, 09:25:26 AM »


The pope of Rome was the highest authority of faith..

Wrong.

 In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.

Wrong.

Yes the Orthodox Church is deffinetly lacking something for a thousand years..

Wrong.

 It cannot be called catholic..

Wrong.

Without the succesor of Peter, the pope, the Church is not catholic..

Wrong.

The catholicity of the Church exists only through the pope..

Wrong.

The pope represent the integrality and universality of the Church..

Wrong.

Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,601



« Reply #110 on: September 05, 2010, 09:29:09 AM »

Council of Ephesus
"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See 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. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod�" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

If memory serves there were TWO letters sent to Ephesus from Rome.  One is the one as quoted above by Philip the Roman legate.  It was not read to the Council Fathers because of its ultra Roman claims.

Why not? I thought we too believe that St. Peter is the prince and head of the apostles etc. and that the pope of Old Rome is one of the successors of St. Peter. It doesn's say that the pope of Old Rome has universal jurisdiction or that he is infallible so what's so awfully wrong with that letter?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 09:29:42 AM by Alpo » Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #111 on: September 05, 2010, 09:32:14 AM »

I don`t like contradictory discussions..

Marcionism rejected the Old Testament and its God, said to be different from the God of love in the New Testament, and made a complete dichotomy between law and grace. Marcion (d.c.160) came from northeastern Turkey and migrated to Rome but was promptly excommunicated in 144. The heresy was checked by 200 in Rome but lasted for several centuries in the East.

Montanism was an apocalyptic sect that denied the divinely-established nature of the Church. Montanus, who began prophesying in 172, came from central Turkey (which became the heresy’s center of operations). Opposition to Montanism was spearheaded by Pope Eleutherus (175-89), and it was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217).

Modalism (also known as Sabellianism) denied the full Personhood of all three Persons of the Trinity, and believed that God operated through mere “modes” or the transferral of power. Theodotus (2nd cent.) came from Byzantium to Rome, only to be excommunicated by Pope Victor (c.189-98). His disciple, also named Theodotus (early 3rd century) was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217). Artemon (3rd century) was teaching in Rome, c.235, but was excommunicated. Sabellius (fl.. 215) was excommunicated by Pope Callistus I.

Novatianism was a rigorist schism, stating that persons who fell away under persecution or who were guilty of serious sin could not be absolved. Its theology was otherwise orthodox. Novatian (d.258), a Roman presbyter, started the schism in 250. In 251 it was condemned by a Roman Synod and Pope Cornelius, and Novatian became an “antipope.” His views were approved at Antioch.

Naughty man!  You uplifted that without acknowledgement from

"Papal Authority and Early Heresies in the 1st Millennium AD"

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/papal-authority-and-early-heresies-in-the-1st-millennium-ad/

and that site has taken it from a book by Dave Armstrong, one of a small number of virulently anti-Orthodox Roman Catholic apologists.

So? Are those things taken from there true or not? Does the source really matter?

Now tell me what Orthodoxy is?Is it about knowing the doctrine and history?Is it about arguing and getting angry on your brother?

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Orthodoxy is a state and it is more than that.It is about knowing God.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #112 on: September 05, 2010, 09:49:14 AM »

At the commencement of the Council the Roman legates conveyed to the Council Fathers the Pope of Rome's orders that Dioscorus must be expelled from the Council:

"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 [Pope Leo I], 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."


So what did the Council Fathers do?

They rejected the authority of the Pope.  They most certainly did not accept him as their head or the head of "all the churches."

How did they show this rejection of the Pope's claims?  They ignored the Pope's instructions not to allow Discorus to have a seat at the Council.

The Council Fathers gave Dioscorus a seat and allowed him to speak.

They refused to follow the Pope's instructions that he should be cast out if he attempted to speak.

Even the papal legates acted in a dishonest fashion.  After threatening to leave if Dioscorus was allowed to be there and to speak, they did not leave.

The whole incident is NOT proof of papal authority.  It is just the opposite.  It is proof that the Council Fathers did *not* see the Pope as having authority over them or over the activities of the Council.

A resounding and very public defeat for any claims of the Pope, and at an Ecumenical Council.
.

Read it all here, at the beginning of the webpage

http://www1000.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm

« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 09:53:22 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #113 on: September 05, 2010, 09:53:22 AM »

The pope of Rome was the highest authority of faith..

Wrong.


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

SOURCE (inserted by moderator):  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=24770.0


In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.

Wrong.

St. Jerome
"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter�s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome" (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).
"Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says �With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,� the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle" (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).
"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).




Yes the Orthodox Church is deffinetly lacking something for a thousand years..

Wrong.

 It cannot be called catholic..

Wrong.

Without the succesor of Peter, the pope, the Church is not catholic..

Wrong.

If the Church really considers that much of a catholic than tell me how many Ecumenical Councils did it held after the Schism?

The catholicity of the Church exists only through the pope..

Wrong.

The pope represent the integrality and universality of the Church..

Wrong.

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, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . � [Matt. 16:18]. 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. . . . If someone [today] 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; first edition [A.D. 251]).

Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that 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" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

St. Augustine
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, �Upon this rock I will build my Church� . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 532 [A.D. 412]).

"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" (ibid., 15:2).
"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).


SOURCE (appended by moderator):  http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 01:59:16 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #114 on: September 05, 2010, 10:01:54 AM »


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


In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.



This is the period of the Monothelite heresy and Saint Maximus was a little optimistic in his hope in the Pope for Pope Honorius himself fell into heresy with Monothelitism.

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy.

When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, one Pope of Rome (for even Pope Honorius had fallen into the Monothelite heresy), one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops.  During all those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #115 on: September 05, 2010, 10:31:51 AM »

The Catholic teaching is that the Pope is infaillible only when he speaks ex-cathedra..
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #116 on: September 05, 2010, 10:32:50 AM »


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


In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.



This is the period of the Monothelite heresy and Saint Maximus was a little optimistic in his hope in the Pope for Pope Honorius himself fell into heresy with Monothelitism.

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy.

When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, one Pope of Rome (for even Pope Honorius had fallen into the Monothelite heresy), one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops.  During all those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx

Pope Martin I was Orthodox.

"Arguing for a dual-will faculty in Christ, Maximus was called to Rome, where he supported the condemnation of Monothelitism by a regional church council under Pope Martin I in 649. Maximus and Martin were arrested by the emperor Constans II in an intricate theological�political tactic, and, after imprisonment from 653 to 655, Maximus was later tortured and exiled; he died in the wilderness near the Black Sea. "
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #117 on: September 05, 2010, 10:38:07 AM »

Pope Martin I was Orthodox.

Yes, many Popes were, but Fr. Ambrose's point is that not all of them were and the Papacy was not the unfailing bulwark of Orthodoxy that some hoped it would be.

I have to repeat Fr. Ambrose's question... are you really Orthodox or are you "Orthodox" in communion with Rome? 
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #118 on: September 05, 2010, 10:47:22 AM »


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


In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.



This is the period of the Monothelite heresy and Saint Maximus was a little optimistic in his hope in the Pope for Pope Honorius himself fell into heresy with Monothelitism.

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy.

When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, one Pope of Rome (for even Pope Honorius had fallen into the Monothelite heresy), one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops.  During all those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx

Pope Martin I was Orthodox.

"Arguing for a dual-will faculty in Christ, Maximus was called to Rome, where he supported the condemnation of Monothelitism by a regional church council under Pope Martin I in 649. Maximus and Martin were arrested by the emperor Constans II in an intricate theological�political tactic, and, after imprisonment from 653 to 655, Maximus was later tortured and exiled; he died in the wilderness near the Black Sea. "

Yes, Pope Saint Martin was orthodox and condemned the teaching of Pope Honorius.

To get a grasp of this complicated question do a google search and type in these words

"the Type" Honorius Martin Pope

Saint Martin was martyred for refusing to sign the Type.



Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #119 on: September 05, 2010, 10:52:40 AM »

The Holy Orthodox Popes of Rome

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/ortpopes.htm

In this present short work it is our aim to present a full list of the holy
popes of Rome, a work which to our knowledge has never been carried out
before in its Orthodox context.

For a list of all these Popes, with very brief biographies, see message 14

at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27919.msg439853.html#msg439853
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #120 on: September 05, 2010, 10:55:23 AM »

You didn`t answer : How many ecumenical councils did the Orthodox Church held after the schism if it considers itself wholly Catholic?

there remains a part which you have not answered;

es the Orthodox Church is deffinetly lacking something for a thousand years..

Wrong.

 It cannot be called catholic..

Wrong.

Without the succesor of Peter, the pope, the Church is not catholic..

Wrong.

If the Church really considers that much of a catholic than tell me how many Ecumenical Councils did it held after the Schism?

The catholicity of the Church exists only through the pope..

Wrong.

The pope represent the integrality and universality of the Church..

Wrong.

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, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . � [Matt. 16:18]. 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. . . . If someone [today] 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; first edition [A.D. 251]).

Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that 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" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

St. Augustine
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, �Upon this rock I will build my Church� . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 532 [A.D. 412]).

"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" (ibid., 15:2).
"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).



SOURCE (appended by moderator):  http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm
« Last Edit: September 25, 2010, 03:48:04 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #121 on: September 05, 2010, 10:56:17 AM »

Pope Martin I was Orthodox.

Yes, many Popes were, but Fr. Ambrose's point is that not all of them were and the Papacy was not the unfailing bulwark of Orthodoxy that some hoped it would be.

I have to repeat Fr. Ambrose's question... are you really Orthodox or are you "Orthodox" in communion with Rome? 

Yes it was.. But it was not infaillible..
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #122 on: September 05, 2010, 10:57:33 AM »

Pope Martin I was Orthodox.

Yes, many Popes were, but Fr. Ambrose's point is that not all of them were and the Papacy was not the unfailing bulwark of Orthodoxy that some hoped it would be.

I have to repeat Fr. Ambrose's question... are you really Orthodox or are you "Orthodox" in communion with Rome? 

I am Eastern Orthodox under the patriarchate of Romania.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #123 on: September 05, 2010, 11:03:29 AM »


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


In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.



This is the period of the Monothelite heresy and Saint Maximus was a little optimistic in his hope in the Pope for Pope Honorius himself fell into heresy with Monothelitism.

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy.

When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, one Pope of Rome (for even Pope Honorius had fallen into the Monothelite heresy), one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops.  During all those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx

Pope Martin I was Orthodox.

"Arguing for a dual-will faculty in Christ, Maximus was called to Rome, where he supported the condemnation of Monothelitism by a regional church council under Pope Martin I in 649. Maximus and Martin were arrested by the emperor Constans II in an intricate theological�political tactic, and, after imprisonment from 653 to 655, Maximus was later tortured and exiled; he died in the wilderness near the Black Sea. "

Yes, Pope Saint Martin was orthodox and condemned the teaching of Pope Honorius.

To get a grasp of this complicated question do a google search and type in these words

"the Type" Honorius Martin Pope

Saint Martin was martyred for refusing to sign the Type.





Maxim the Confessor did not support Honorius I.. So I don`t see what point are you trying to make other than deviate from what is being discussed.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #124 on: September 05, 2010, 11:04:05 AM »

You didn`t answer : How many ecumenical councils did the Orthodox Church held after the schism if it considers itself wholly Catholic?

Sorry, I did not notice that question.

In our times the Tradition is fairly settled and unchallenged and has been for over a millennium.  There was a time from the 4th to 8th centuries when the Church was rocked by serious heresies and so it called into temporary existence 7 great Councils to address them, to put down the false teaching and to formally clarify the true and orthodox teaching.  These Councils did not concern themselves with an attempt to act as an over-arching teaching authority nor to formulate doctrine in general.  They addressed the aspects of the faith -trinitarian, christological, pneumatological- which were currently in danger from heretical teachings.

Having dealt with the heresy threatening the Church the Councils dissolved.  They are extraordinary irruptions from the other world into the life of the Church, the work of the Spirit, in safeguarding the teaching of Christ and His path to salvation.

For the last 1200 years the Church has had no need to call further Councils.  Heresies which have come along have been localised and have been dealt with by local Synods and local Churches.

So, the teaching authority of the Church -which is the Tradition and the Spirit who flows within it- has flowed on quietly for centuries since the last Great Council in 787.

If we should be faced by a new church-wide heresy, then the Church will probably combat it again by convening an Ecumenical Council.  And probably God will be pleased to give us such superb and staunchly orthodox individuals as Athanasius and Maximus the Confessor to protect our holy faith.  For the "authority" to protect the faith is not the exclusive provenance of the archbishop of Rome but it can be given by God even to laymen and monastics.

Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #125 on: September 05, 2010, 11:05:18 AM »

Here is something to ponder on :

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

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

SOURCE (inserted by moderator):  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=24770.0


St. Irenaeus
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 33 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
The Little Labyrinth
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 53).
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, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . � [Matt. 16:18]. 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. . . . If someone [today] 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; first edition [A.D. 251]).
"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, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him�when the place of [Pope] 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. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).
"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).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter�s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 39�10 [A.D. 312]).
Pope Julius I
"[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . 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], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20�35).
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]).
Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that 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" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).
Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered 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 [today], 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]).

St. Jerome
"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter�s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome" (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).
"Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says �With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,� the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle" (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).
"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).
...
"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" (ibid., 15:2).
"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).
Ambrose of Milan
"[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: �I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heavenMatt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 532 [A.D. 412]).
Council of Ephesus
"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See 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. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod�" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
Pope Leo I
"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" (Letters 110 [A.D. 445]).
"Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, �You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.� Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]" (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).
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
"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! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!�" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).


SOURCE (inserted by moderator):  http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm


   Marcionism rejected the Old Testament and its God, said to be different from the God of love in the New Testament, and made a complete dichotomy between law and grace. Marcion (d.c.160) came from northeastern Turkey and migrated to Rome but was promptly excommunicated in 144. The heresy was checked by 200 in Rome but lasted for several centuries in the East.

    Montanism was an apocalyptic sect that denied the divinely-established nature of the Church. Montanus, who began prophesying in 172, came from central Turkey (which became the heresy’s center of operations). Opposition to Montanism was spearheaded by Pope Eleutherus (175-89), and it was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217).

    Modalism (also known as Sabellianism) denied the full Personhood of all three Persons of the Trinity, and believed that God operated through mere “modes” or the transferral of power. Theodotus (2nd cent.) came from Byzantium to Rome, only to be excommunicated by Pope Victor (c.189-98). His disciple, also named Theodotus (early 3rd century) was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217). Artemon (3rd century) was teaching in Rome, c.235, but was excommunicated. Sabellius (fl.. 215) was excommunicated by Pope Callistus I.

    Novatianism was a rigorist schism, stating that persons who fell away under persecution or who were guilty of serious sin could not be absolved. Its theology was otherwise orthodox. Novatian (d.258), a Roman presbyter, started the schism in 250. In 251 it was condemned by a Roman Synod and Pope Cornelius, and Novatian became an “antipope.” His views were approved at Antioch.

    Donatism held that sacraments administered by unworthy priests were invalid, and practiced re-baptism. The sect flourished in Africa, around Carthage. It began in 311 and was condemned by Pope Miltiades (311-14), who also came from Africa, in 313.

    Arianism held that Jesus was created by the Father. In trinitarian Christianity, Christ and the Holy Spirit are both equal to, uncreated, and co-eternal with God the Father. Arius (c.256-336), the heresiarch, was based in Alexandria and died in Constantinople. In a Council at Antioch in 341, the majority of 97 Eastern bishops subscribed to a form of semi-Arianism, whereas in a Council at Rome in the same year, under Pope Julius I, the trinitarian St. Athanasius was vindicated by over 50 Italian bishops. The western-dominated Council of Sardica (Sofia) in 343 again upheld Athanasius’ orthodoxy, whereas the eastern Council of Sirmium in 351 espoused Arianism, which in turn was rejected by the western Councils of Arles (353) and Milan (355). Learn more about St. Athanasius’ appeal to Rome by clicking here.

    Pelagianism is the heretical doctrine that man can make steps toward salvation by his own efforts, without Divine Grace. Pelagius cleared himself at a Synod at Jerusalem around 416, but was condemned at Carthage and Milevis in 416 and excommunicated by Pope Innocent I in the same year. Pope Zosimus reaffirmed this judgment in 418, as did the ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.

    Nestorianism contends that there are two persons in Christ (Divine and human) and denies that Mary is the Mother of God incarnate. Orthodox, Catholic Christianity holds to one Divine Person — a Godman. Nestorius (d. c.451) studied at a monastery at Antioch and became Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431, having been condemned by Pope Celestine I in the Council at Rome in 430 (after both sides of the controversy appealed to Rome). The ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 repeated the Roman condemnation, after which Eastern bishops predominantly from Syria, Persia and Assyria withdrew from the Catholic Church.

    Monophysitism was a heresy which held that Christ had one Divine Nature, as opposed to the orthodox and Catholic belief in two Natures (Divine and human). The Henoticon, a semi-Monophysite document was widely acknowledged in the East, but never at Rome. The cowriters of the Henoticon are thought to be Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople (471-89), and Peter Mongo, Patriarch of Alexandria (477-90). Both were Monophysites who rejected the Council of Chalcedon. Monophysitism was an advanced type of Alexandrian theology. Pope Leo the Great dominated the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, which repudiated Monophysitism.

    Monothelitism is the heretical belief that Christ had one will (Divine), whereas in orthodox, Catholic Christian dogma, Christ has both Divine and human wills. Sergius (d.638), Patriarch of Constantinople from 610 to 638, was the most influential exponent of Monotheletism. The Ecthesis, a Monothelite statement issued by Emperor Heraclius, was accepted by Councils at Constantinople in 638 and 639, but was finally rejected at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 680, which confirmed the decisions of Pope Agatho and the Synod at Rome in 679.

    The Iconoclastic Controversy, a great upheaval of the 8th and 9th centuries, was spurred on notably by Monophysitism and influenced by Islam. This heresy held that images in worship were idolatrous and evil. It was initiated by Eastern Emperors Leo II (717-41), who deposed Germanus (c.634-c.733), Patriarch of Constantinople (715-30) — who appealed to Pope Gregory III. Gregory held two Synods at Rome condemning Leo’s supporters in 731. In 784 Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, initiated negotiations with Pope Adrian I. The Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 787 condemned the Iconoclasts. The Iconoclast Controversy was a major contributor towards the enduring schism between East and West.


SOURCE (inserted by moderator):  http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/papal-authority-and-early-heresies-in-the-1st-millennium-ad/


Neither Schultz nor I have received anything from you to indicate your desire to comply with my instruction that you give credit to your sources by posting links to the Web pages from which you copied the above text.  You are therefore on Warned status until you provide the links requested of you.  If you don't comply with my request for sources within five days of this warning by PM'ing them to me or to Schultz, your status will be escalated to Moderated, wherein every one of your posts will need to be approved by a moderator before it will appear on the forum.  If you think this action unfair, please feel free to appeal it to either Veniamin or Fr. George.

- PeterTheAleut

The moderator team has yet to receive from you a private message containing the link(s) to the Web pages from which you copied the above material, and it's been more than five days since I last warned you for this.  You are therefore on post moderation until you give us the links requested of you.  You will still be able to post, but every one of your posts must be approved by a moderator before it will appear on the forum.  PM one of the moderators the links I requested so we can append them to your posts, and we will lift your post moderation.  Since your last warning, I noticed that you had submitted three or four posts prior to this one that show the same cut-and-paste work with no credit given to your sources, so you must credit your sources for those posts as well (cf. Replies # 92, 113, & 120  above).  If you have any questions or concerns about my request, feel free to send them to me in a private message.  If you think this action wrong, please appeal my decision via private message to either Fr. George or Fr. Chris.

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 01:59:57 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #126 on: September 05, 2010, 11:12:09 AM »

]

Maxim the Confessor did not support Honorius I.. So I don`t see what point are you trying to make other than deviate from what is being discussed.

No, it is not a deviation. I am disproving your point that the Popes may be looked upon as infallible opponents of heresy and never anything other than champions of the true faith.

Honorius failed miserably.  Saint Maximus was a little naive in placing his trust in the Pope since the previous one, Honorius, was a heretic, a monothelite.  Perhaps Saint Maximus was not aware of that at the time?
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #127 on: September 05, 2010, 11:18:22 AM »

]

Maxim the Confessor did not support Honorius I.. So I don`t see what point are you trying to make other than deviate from what is being discussed.

No, it is not a deviation. I am disproving your point that the Popes may be looked upon as infallible opponents of heresy and never anything other than champions of the true faith.

Honorius failed miserably.  Saint Maximus was a little naive in placing his trust in the Pope since the previous one, Honorius, was a heretic, a monothelite.  Perhaps Saint Maximus was not aware of that at the time?

Indeed.The popes were not infaillible but they were looked upon as the champions of the true faith, and the highest authority in orthodoxy.. Don`t worry S. Maximus was not naive, but we are a little bit of bigotish..
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #128 on: September 05, 2010, 11:20:41 AM »

The presidency and supremacy of the See of Rome[Old] is a fact.. And every sincere an true orthodox knows this.. In fact no one can really call himself a true Orthodox if he denies that..
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #129 on: September 05, 2010, 11:24:12 AM »

Dear Azul,

Have you seen the Renunciations which a Roman Catholic is required to make at his ceremony of reception into holy Orthodoxy?  These are used in Russia and in Serbia, and I imagine they are used in Romania too.

..........Do you renounce the erroneous belief that it does not suffice to confess our Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the Universal Church; and that a man, to wit, the Bishop of Rome, can be the head of Christ's Body, the Universal Church?

..........Do you renounce the erroneous belief that the holy Apostles did not receive from our Lord equal spiritual authority, but that the holy Apostle Peter was their Prince; and that the Bishop of Rome alone is his successor; and that the Bishops of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and others are not, equally with the Bishop of Rome, successors of the Apostles?

..........Do you renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the Ecumenical Councils,  and infallible in faith, notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by the Councils?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #130 on: September 05, 2010, 11:28:44 AM »

The presidency and supremacy of the See of Rome[Old] is a fact.. And every sincere an true orthodox knows this.. In fact no one can really call himself a true Orthodox if he denies that..

Dimpotrivă !
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #131 on: September 05, 2010, 11:38:19 AM »

Not even Roman Catholics claim that the pope is the head of their church.. That is silly..

To whom did Christ say besides Peter : Feed my sheep? To whom else did He say I will give you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven?Who alone appears in the iconografy of the Church holding the keys in his hand?Of whom is being said that is the keeper of heaven and stands at the gates of heaven?Who is mentioned with name besides Christ the most in the NT? Why does Paul consider only some pillars?Among those Peter?Why does the hymnology and iconography of the Church show Peter alone as the holder of the keys of Heaven?

I did not say that the Pope of Rome is superior to Ecumenical Councils, nor infaillible in faith.. What i said was that he could be regarded as a source of infaibility when speaking ex cathedra, or when dealing with heresies.. But through that i actually ment that the he could be regarded and consulted as the champion of the true faith, because he succeeds the champion of faith who is Peter.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #132 on: September 05, 2010, 11:40:22 AM »

The presidency and supremacy of the See of Rome[Old] is a fact.. And every sincere an true orthodox knows this.. In fact no one can really call himself a true Orthodox if he denies that..

Dimpotrivă !

Nu ai vrea sa vorbim pe chat?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #133 on: September 05, 2010, 11:59:47 AM »


Nu ai vrea sa vorbim pe chat?

My Romanian is confined to singing "Hristos a inviat din morti, cu moartea pre moarte calcand..." and crying "Narok" at church festivuties!   laugh
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #134 on: September 05, 2010, 12:14:09 PM »


Not even Roman Catholics claim that the pope is the head of their church.. That is silly..


Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on The Pope.  It says, over and over, that the Pope is the supreme Head of the Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

See also the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" which teaches exactly that.
Logged
Tags: cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   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 0.196 seconds with 72 queries.