OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 25, 2014, 05:10:41 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  
Poll
Question: Is the Papacy anti-Christ?
Yes!!!! - 2 (3.6%)
Maybe... - 10 (17.9%)
Nope - 14 (25%)
Oh Please, Do we really have to go over this again???!!! - 30 (53.6%)
Total Voters: 56

Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pope is Antichrist yet again  (Read 7755 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 684


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« on: November 15, 2010, 07:52:37 PM »

I decided to ask this after reading people's response on whether Islam was the great Beast of Revelation.
I chose not to answer my own poll, at least at first. I am actually not sure. I definitely believe that those who follow the basic Roman Catholic doctrines, even the ones my church and I personally consider anathema, are Christians.
That said I really don't like the Office of the Pope and never have, even if I did respect the late JP II.
What put a bug in my ear concerning the Papacy's possible connection is that the so-called Vicar of Christ has been around for a looooong time. Much longer than some of the other culprits such as Communism and Fascism. Also as I mentioned on the other thread to Mohamed's credit he never claimed to be personally divine or to sit in the place of God.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 07:53:34 PM by sprtslvr1973 » Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2010, 07:57:28 PM »

The Pope has never claimed to be personally divine or sit in the place if God.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 684


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2010, 08:02:50 PM »

The Pope has never claimed to be personally divine or sit in the place if God.
I would say that that his self appointment of Vicar of Christ is pretty cloase. At any rate I ask that my respondents please vote.
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,361


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2010, 08:07:20 PM »

The Pope has never claimed to be personally divine or sit in the place if God.
I would say that that his self appointment of Vicar of Christ is pretty cloase. At any rate I ask that my respondents please vote.
I thought that the Eastern Orthodox saw all bishops as Vicars of Christ.


St. Ignatius of Antioch:
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" —Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2010, 08:10:52 PM »

Ok I placed my vote. Oh pulease!  Grin (stashko's favorite smiley has no patent pending)
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 08:16:19 PM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2010, 08:12:15 PM »

The Pope has never claimed to be personally divine or sit in the place if God.

Pope Leo XIII:
"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." 

Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, 1894

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

There are other references by other Popes.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2010, 08:13:13 PM »

The Pope has never claimed to be personally divine or sit in the place if God.
I would say that that his self appointment of Vicar of Christ is pretty cloase. At any rate I ask that my respondents please vote.

I voted. "oh, please." Cheesy

Vicar of Christ is neither of these. It means simply the Pope is a physical head on Earth of God's Church. He doesn't replace Jesus, he represents him physically to believers and, especially, non-believers.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2010, 08:14:53 PM »

The Pope has never claimed to be personally divine or sit in the place if God.

Pope Leo XIII:
"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." 

Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, 1894

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

There are other references by other Popes.


I'm taking his point as being more literal. That is, to replace God, not merely a physical vicar.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,361


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2010, 08:19:22 PM »

The Pope has never claimed to be personally divine or sit in the place if God.

Pope Leo XIII:
"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."  

Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, 1894

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

There are other references by other Popes.

How is that different from this???

St. Ignatius of Antioch:
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" —Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1

Last time I checked, St. Ignatius was recognized as a saint by the EO Church.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 08:20:13 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,422


fleem
WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2010, 08:20:24 PM »

Oh, for pity's sake.  Roll Eyes

On some sites, they have a 'sick to your stomach' smiley, and I have thought that it might be appropriate here also. In your first paragraph, you say that you believe they are Christians, and then comes your second paragraph, which wipes it all away.

Is this supposed to be serious, or what? Did you get this from a Jack Chick tract?

 Angry

This sort of thing used to be called "flame bait" because it's to provoke strenuous argument, not insights, and it's really very difficult not to take it as offensive, so it chews up lots of board space and divides people, and pretty soon they're just yelling at each other. Most boards have a policy about that.

You know, I have considered becoming Orthodox for a long time before I actually tried to do it. I understand that people have their differences. Some of them are established and legitimate. I could see people sitting down and wanting to talk about them. However, to start off a thread with a title like "Pope is Antichrist yet again," is-- let's just not get into detail about what it is. I think I'm not allowed to use certain language on this board.

My point is, there is debate that you can take seriously, and then there's stuff that you can't. If I got on a bus and someone next to me said, "What do you think about the Pope's decision about such-and-such? I'm not sure I like it. Here's why," I might talk to that person. I don't know if I'd agree with them or not, but we could talk like grown-ups. However, if I sat next to a person, and he or she said, "The Pope is Antichrist!", I think I'd pull the 'Stop Requested' cord and try to get off that bus pretty darn quickly. I can transfer to another line, or just take a long walk.

I grew up Catholic, and while I have come to believe in the Orthodox stance on things, I might have already been Orthodox a few years ago-- except for the fact that I kept running into some unfortunate people who would say very offensive things about the Catholics. Not just disagreements, but really disgusting comments that didn't seem to be true and certainly weren't in a charitable Christian spirit. I know, there are probably some bad apples in any large groups of people, and there may be some on the Catholic side as well. Still, if people push me away, I don't go where I'm not wanted. I go to a lovely parish, and I want to become Orthodox, really I do. I am not kidding. But what am I to do if I'm at a church dinner one day, about to plow into my salad, and somebody pipes up, "You know, the Pope is Antichrist!" No matter what else is wrong with the Catholic Church, nobody ever did that when I was growing up. Nobody.

As I see it, the issue of the papacy is whether the office is filled by a person who does so with a correct spirit and who has Christian compassion; for if it's bad that it simply exists, somebody on the Orthodox side had better be consistent and do some talking to Pope Shenouda III of the See of St. Mark. Notice, how the anti-Catholic people never do that? But there's not just one Pope in the world, you know... oh, forget it, sometimes you can't expect consistency.  Roll Eyes

I wonder that people never remember Christ's injunction that "the end is not yet." I know there are some people on this board who are hardcore anti-Papists and who may not be satisfied unless the entire country of Italy is removed from the map and replaced by a 3D plastic kit. Somehow I don't think I'll see a story like that on the news anytime soon.

I love the people in my parish. I'd hate to stop going there. Things like this put a wrench in the works, though, and for no good reason at all.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2010, 08:29:57 PM »

Much longer than some of the other culprits such as Communism and Fascism. Also as I mentioned on the other thread to Mohamed's credit he never claimed to be personally divine or to sit in the place of God.
Don't give him too much credit. Mohammed made many false claims; He denied the Deity of Jesus, saying He was just a man - a great prophet, but not the Divine Son of God.

Also, many people do credit the late Pope for being instrumental in communism's downfall.
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 889


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2010, 08:38:16 PM »

Personally, I think saying or implying that anyone is the Anti-Christ is the most ultimate judgment you can make against another person.  What are we going to say to Christ if we've said that a certain person is the Anti-Christ and that person is not?  Look at all those who were sure that Pope John Paul II was the AC, and, obviously, he was not. 
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2010, 08:42:00 PM »



As I see it, the issue of the papacy is whether the office is filled by a person who does so with a correct spirit and who has Christian compassion; for if it's bad that it simply exists, somebody on the Orthodox side had better be consistent and do some talking to Pope Shenouda III of the See of St. Mark. Notice, how the anti-Catholic people never do that? But there's not just one Pope in the world, you know... oh, forget it, sometimes you can't expect consistency.  Roll Eyes



Not that I take issue with most of the content of your post, but this particular paragraph has an error that derides from the rest of your argument.  Being against the Roman conception of "pope" does not mean being against the title of "Pope" as it is used in other contexts.  That would be the same as saying that being against the Bishop of Rome means that one is against bishops.  If the Alexandrian Pope claimed that his office and his office alone had the authority to infallibly define doctrine for the Church you would have a point, but I've never heard of such a claim coming from Alexandria.  Such a claim is limited to only one of the five historical Sees, and that is Rome.

That said, I voted "oh please..."  I know enough from Chick comics that I can say unless Pope Benedict is a Freemason/Witch/Muslim with the Dungeon Master's Guide on his bookshelf (complete with his Level 20 half-Drow Ranger character sheet), then no, he's not the Antichrist  Smiley
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
TristanCross
Chief Of Sinners
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Former Christian
Posts: 355


Romans 10:9-10


« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2010, 08:42:19 PM »

The Pope has never claimed to be personally divine or sit in the place if God.

Pope Leo XIII:
"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." 

Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, 1894

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

There are other references by other Popes.


READ IN CONTEXT:

"But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us.  And as this Divine Prayer and Supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this Prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the Unity of Divine Faith."

Context is VERY essential. Proof?

Psalm 14:1 (Out of context)
There is no God.

Psalm 14:1 (In context)
For the director of music. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.
Logged

"Let the mouth also fast from disgraceful speeches and railings. For what does it profit if we abstain from fish and fowl and yet bite and devour our brothers and sisters? The evil speaker eats the flesh of his brother and bites the body of his neighbor. "
— St. John Chrysostom
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2010, 08:45:40 PM »

I decided to ask this after reading people's response on whether Islam was the great Beast of Revelation.
I chose not to answer my own poll, at least at first. I am actually not sure. I definitely believe that those who follow the basic Roman Catholic doctrines, even the ones my church and I personally consider anathema, are Christians.
That said I really don't like the Office of the Pope and never have, even if I did respect the late JP II.
What put a bug in my ear concerning the Papacy's possible connection is that the so-called Vicar of Christ has been around for a looooong time. Much longer than some of the other culprits such as Communism and Fascism. Also as I mentioned on the other thread to Mohamed's credit he never claimed to be personally divine or to sit in the place of God.
Are you sure you ever left Protestant sectarianism?
Logged
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #15 on: November 15, 2010, 08:46:09 PM »

oh, NM.  This thread is pointless. 
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 08:50:06 PM by Ionnis » Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #16 on: November 15, 2010, 08:46:12 PM »

biro - you are my hero!

Great post!
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,422


fleem
WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 15, 2010, 08:56:25 PM »

biro - you are my hero!

Great post!

Thank you.   Smiley
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #18 on: November 15, 2010, 09:11:26 PM »

While I would not want to call the Pope the Antichrist, it is true that other Orthodox in fact do - the monks of Mount Athos for example, many of the Greek bishops, and many conservative Orthodox.  One has only to look at the writings of Saint Justin the New of Serbia.

Drawing back though from calling the Pope the Antichrist, would it be within the realm of moderate Orthodoxy to say that the institution of the papacy is the forerunner of Antichrist?
Logged
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #19 on: November 15, 2010, 09:35:45 PM »

While I would not want to call the Pope the Antichrist, it is true that other Orthodox in fact do - the monks of Mount Athos for example, many of the Greek bishops, and many conservative Orthodox.  One has only to look at the writings of Saint Justin the New of Serbia.

Drawing back though from calling the Pope the Antichrist, would it be within the realm of moderate Orthodoxy to say that the institution of the papacy is the forerunner of Antichrist?

I think that kind of language is only appropriate when speaking amongst Orthodox brethren.  There are many reasons why it is prudent to use such strongly-worded language when dealing with our own, especially those who knowingly or unknowingly are compromising the Orthodox teaching that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  But using it amongst mixed company is not prudent, IMHO.  I think there are better ways to explain our position to the non-orthodox, particularly Roman Catholics.  Such strong language is a pitcher of cold water in the face.  For instance, I highly recommend Fr. Seraphim Rose's "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future" to many of my Orthodox friends, but I *never* recommend it to Protestants, especially Charismatics.  I think there is a better, more compassionate way, of dealing with their erros.  Just my own POV, of course.
Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 15, 2010, 09:36:28 PM »

Of course the Papacy as it exists now is anti-Christ.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 15, 2010, 09:43:58 PM »

Of course the Papacy as it exists now is anti-Christ.

Logged


I'm going to need this.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 15, 2010, 09:54:39 PM »

The Papacy has been doing its darnedest to destroy the Church of Christ for over 1500 years now. How could that be anything but anti-Christ?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,422


fleem
WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 15, 2010, 09:56:01 PM »

The Papacy has been doing its darnedest to destroy the Church of Christ for over 1500 years now. How could that be anything but anti-Christ?

 Roll Eyes

Mother of Mercy.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 15, 2010, 09:56:50 PM »

The Papacy has been doing its darnedest to destroy the Church of Christ for over 1500 years now. How could that be anything but anti-Christ?

 Roll Eyes

Mother of Mercy.

Well? Care to answer my question?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,422


fleem
WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 15, 2010, 09:59:15 PM »

Quote from: deusveritasest
Well? Care to answer my question?

What question? All I saw was a rhetorical diatribe.

Care to make a substantive post instead of offensive nonsense?

Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 15, 2010, 10:00:14 PM »

The Papacy has been doing its darnedest to destroy the Church of Christ for over 1500 years now. How could that be anything but anti-Christ?

No.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 15, 2010, 10:04:31 PM »

Quote from: deusveritasest
Well? Care to answer my question?

What question? All I saw was a rhetorical diatribe.

Care to make a substantive post instead of offensive nonsense?



The question was:

How could the Papacy be anything but anti-Christ given that it has been trying to destroy the Church of Christ for more than 1500 years?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
samkim
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 735



« Reply #28 on: November 15, 2010, 10:04:45 PM »

The Pope has never claimed to be personally divine or sit in the place if God.
I would say that that his self appointment of Vicar of Christ is pretty cloase. At any rate I ask that my respondents please vote.
I thought that the Eastern Orthodox saw all bishops as Vicars of Christ.


St. Ignatius of Antioch:
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" —Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1

I like how everyone is ignoring you.
Logged

주 예수 그리스도 하느님의 아들이시여 저 이 죄인을 불쌍히 여기소서.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 15, 2010, 10:04:54 PM »

The Papacy has been doing its darnedest to destroy the Church of Christ for over 1500 years now. How could that be anything but anti-Christ?

No.

Your answer is nonsensical.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 15, 2010, 10:06:41 PM »

The Papacy has been doing its darnedest to destroy the Church of Christ for over 1500 years now. How could that be anything but anti-Christ?

No.

Your answer is nonsensical.

So is your question.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 15, 2010, 10:08:54 PM »

The Pope has never claimed to be personally divine or sit in the place if God.
I would say that that his self appointment of Vicar of Christ is pretty cloase. At any rate I ask that my respondents please vote.
I thought that the Eastern Orthodox saw all bishops as Vicars of Christ.

St. Ignatius of Antioch:
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" —Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1

I like how everyone is ignoring you.

High five, Papist!

...on the rebound.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,361


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #32 on: November 15, 2010, 10:10:30 PM »

The Pope has never claimed to be personally divine or sit in the place if God.
I would say that that his self appointment of Vicar of Christ is pretty cloase. At any rate I ask that my respondents please vote.
I thought that the Eastern Orthodox saw all bishops as Vicars of Christ.


St. Ignatius of Antioch:
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" —Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1

I like how everyone is ignoring you.
Haha. Yeah, I noticed it too.   Cheesy
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 15, 2010, 10:15:02 PM »

The Papacy has been doing its darnedest to destroy the Church of Christ for over 1500 years now. How could that be anything but anti-Christ?

No.

Your answer is nonsensical.

So is your question.

I don't see how.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 15, 2010, 10:24:36 PM »

The Papacy has been doing its darnedest to destroy the Church of Christ for over 1500 years now. How could that be anything but anti-Christ?
No.
Your answer is nonsensical.
So is your question.
I don't see how.

You have to accept the Pope (as an office) as attempting to destroy the Church of Christ.

Some/many may agree that there have been anti-popes (those not fitting for the magnitude of responsibility and position of Pope), but to claim the office is in and of itself an attempt to destroy the Church of Christ can be construed as nonsensical.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,422


fleem
WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 15, 2010, 10:24:48 PM »

Quote from: deusveritasest

Your answer is nonsensical.

 Roll Eyes

You wrote an inaccurate outburst. I responded to you by calling that what it was, much as a firefighter can't put out a house fire by calling it something else. Maybe I shouldn't have done that:

Mt. 5:43-45
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."

If you want to push people out of the body of Christ, go ahead and do that, but say that's what you want to do, beforehand. There are over one billion Catholics in the world. Like them or not, odds are that one out of every six people you bump into on this planet is Catholic. It's just math. Would you talk to all of them the way you talked to me? How do you think they would want to talk to you?

You've got a lot more pushing to do.

I have come to see that I have a lot of repenting to do. A lot. Oh, boy. But how much do you think you are going to grow the Orthodox faith by what you've said?

What kind of light do you shine?

I hope that this Nativity Fast will bring me more peace, and help me in my discernment. And you as well.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #36 on: November 15, 2010, 10:27:59 PM »

The Pope has never claimed to be personally divine or sit in the place if God.
I would say that that his self appointment of Vicar of Christ is pretty cloase. At any rate I ask that my respondents please vote.
I thought that the Eastern Orthodox saw all bishops as Vicars of Christ.

St. Ignatius of Antioch:
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" —Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1


If only the Pope would hold to this teaching and acknowledge that he presides in the same manner as every bishop and has no higher privilege or authority than they do.  But the Pope's claim to preside in the place of God is quite different to what Saint Ignatius is writing to the Magnesians.
Logged
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #37 on: November 15, 2010, 10:30:45 PM »

Don't take deusveritasest's responses personally.  He isn't exactly known around here for his kindness and tact. 

And regarding Papist's post, I wasn't ignoring it.  I never disputed that the bishop is a representative of Christ. 
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 10:31:25 PM by Ionnis » Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 15, 2010, 10:35:38 PM »

The Pope has never claimed to be personally divine or sit in the place if God.
I would say that that his self appointment of Vicar of Christ is pretty cloase. At any rate I ask that my respondents please vote.
I thought that the Eastern Orthodox saw all bishops as Vicars of Christ.

St. Ignatius of Antioch:
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" —Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1


If only the Pope would hold to this teaching and acknowledge that he presides in the same manner as every bishop and has no higher privilege or authority than they do.  But the Pope's claim to preside in the place of God is quite different to what Saint Ignatius is writing to the Magnesians.

R. Catholics hold that all ordained are "Vicars of Christ" in respect to their position in the Sacraments. However, believing that the Pope holds a special place as physical head of God's Church on Earth, he is the Vicar of Christ.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,361


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #39 on: November 15, 2010, 10:36:19 PM »

The Pope has never claimed to be personally divine or sit in the place if God.
I would say that that his self appointment of Vicar of Christ is pretty cloase. At any rate I ask that my respondents please vote.
I thought that the Eastern Orthodox saw all bishops as Vicars of Christ.

St. Ignatius of Antioch:
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" —Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1


If only the Pope would hold to this teaching and acknowledge that he presides in the same manner as every bishop and has no higher privilege or authority than they do.  But the Pope's claim to preside in the place of God is quite different to what Saint Ignatius is writing to the Magnesians.
But in both places,  there are claims that some one is an iconic representation of God, without actually being God. No idolotry here. No claiming that a human being is God. So there you have it. You can keep trying to claim this nonsense all over the internet, and I will continue to expose your weak argument. Smiley
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 10:37:03 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #40 on: November 15, 2010, 10:40:44 PM »

Some/many may agree that there have been anti-popes (those not fitting for the magnitude of responsibility and position of Pope), but to claim the office is in and of itself an attempt to destroy the Church of Christ can be construed as nonsensical.

The office of the papacy is as alien to the Church of Christ as the office of the female episcopate, and both are destructive.
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,826


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #41 on: November 15, 2010, 10:41:43 PM »

This has always confused me.  What is the difference between "Vicar of Christ," as the Catholics believe the Pope to be, and the iconic representations of Christ that the Orthodox believe all bishops to be?
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,361


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #42 on: November 15, 2010, 10:42:02 PM »

Some/many may agree that there have been anti-popes (those not fitting for the magnitude of responsibility and position of Pope), but to claim the office is in and of itself an attempt to destroy the Church of Christ can be construed as nonsensical.

The office of the papacy is as alien to the Church of Christ as the office of the female episcopate, and both are destructive.
Actually, the Papacy was established by Jesus. Cheesy
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,361


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #43 on: November 15, 2010, 10:42:21 PM »

This has always confused me.  What is the difference between "Vicar of Christ," as the Catholics believe the Pope to be, and the iconic representations of Christ that the Orthodox believe all bishops to be?
The answer to that question is: Polemics
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 10:42:55 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,422


fleem
WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 15, 2010, 10:42:34 PM »

I think we need a 'shrugs' smiley, too.

Unrelated blog links and personal commentary removed.

If he wants to pick a fight that much, he can go to the Vatican's own website, and talk about it. I'm serious. If he thinks his claims can fly, why not stand up for what he says, and say it to the people he's talking about?

I think maybe he knows it's not so, and is using the subject as an outlet for other things. May the Lord help him.
 Stay focused on the arguments, not on the people.  Your links and commentary were, by definition and admission, ad hominem.  This warning will last 30 days.  If you feel this warning is in error, please PM Fr. Chris to appeal.

- Fr. George, Global Moderator
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 11:37:55 PM by Fr. George » Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #45 on: November 15, 2010, 10:43:56 PM »

The Pope has never claimed to be personally divine or sit in the place if God.
I would say that that his self appointment of Vicar of Christ is pretty cloase. At any rate I ask that my respondents please vote.
I thought that the Eastern Orthodox saw all bishops as Vicars of Christ.

St. Ignatius of Antioch:
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" —Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1


If only the Pope would hold to this teaching and acknowledge that he presides in the same manner as every bishop and has no higher privilege or authority than they do.  But the Pope's claim to preside in the place of God is quite different to what Saint Ignatius is writing to the Magnesians.

R. Catholics hold that all ordained are "Vicars of Christ" in respect to their position in the Sacraments. However, believing that the Pope holds a special place as physical head of God's Church on Earth, he is the Vicar of Christ.

Yes, that is where the heresy starts to seep in, with the belief that there is one bishop in Rome who has has a greater office (munus) than other bishops.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #46 on: November 15, 2010, 10:44:05 PM »

Some/many may agree that there have been anti-popes (those not fitting for the magnitude of responsibility and position of Pope), but to claim the office is in and of itself an attempt to destroy the Church of Christ can be construed as nonsensical.

The office of the papacy is as alien to the Church of Christ as the office of the female episcopate, and both are destructive.

The whole office of Papacy? I don't think all Orthodox are prepared to defend that. Perhaps in a Papal Supremacy role, but not the actual office of the Papacy.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #47 on: November 15, 2010, 10:46:27 PM »

Some/many may agree that there have been anti-popes (those not fitting for the magnitude of responsibility and position of Pope), but to claim the office is in and of itself an attempt to destroy the Church of Christ can be construed as nonsensical.

The office of the papacy is as alien to the Church of Christ as the office of the female episcopate, and both are destructive.

I agree.  Azurestone, if by the papacy you mean anything more than a bishopric, something supra-apostolic, then it is, by its nature, destructive to the Church of Christ.    
Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #48 on: November 15, 2010, 10:48:15 PM »

R. Catholics hold that all ordained are "Vicars of Christ" in respect to their position in the Sacraments. However, believing that the Pope holds a special place as physical head of God's Church on Earth, he is the Vicar of Christ.

Yes, that is where the heresy starts to seep in, with the belief that there is one bishop in Rome who has has a greater office (munus) than other bishops.

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no
doubt: this dogma is the heresy of heresies."


Saint Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987

The first important work in creating unity between our Churches is really the abolishment of the papacy.  Until that occurs we are dancing on the fringes.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 15, 2010, 10:52:09 PM »

Some/many may agree that there have been anti-popes (those not fitting for the magnitude of responsibility and position of Pope), but to claim the office is in and of itself an attempt to destroy the Church of Christ can be construed as nonsensical.
The office of the papacy is as alien to the Church of Christ as the office of the female episcopate, and both are destructive.
I agree.  Azurestone, if by the papacy you mean anything more than a bishopric, something supra-apostolic, then it is, by its nature, destructive to the Church of Christ.    

Certaintly, that is not how the R. Catholics view the Papacy. It is not "supra-apostolic", but in fact seen as pro-apostolic as a successor of the head of the apostles. Where Peter is a chief of apostles, the Pope is a chief among bishops. Not for it's own sake, but for the sake of the Church, it's unity in thought, and purpose.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #50 on: November 15, 2010, 10:52:43 PM »

While Roman Catholics see a universal primacy as a fundamental need for the Church
the Orthodox believe that the institution of the papacy is a major aberration in the
ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, something which Christ never called into existence.  

Before there can be unity between us this institution must be destroyed.  It has no place in the Church.

I believe that the words of St. Justin (Popovich) the great modern Serbian
Teacher, are more than a propos:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."

Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 15, 2010, 10:55:19 PM »

R. Catholics hold that all ordained are "Vicars of Christ" in respect to their position in the Sacraments. However, believing that the Pope holds a special place as physical head of God's Church on Earth, he is the Vicar of Christ.

Yes, that is where the heresy starts to seep in, with the belief that there is one bishop in Rome who has has a greater office (munus) than other bishops.

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no
doubt: this dogma is the heresy of heresies."[/size]

Saint Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987

The first important work in creating unity between our Churches is really the abolishment of the papacy.  Until that occurs we are dancing on the fringes.

You are probably right. The papacy as it is commonly understood today will never serve unity. Who knows. However, I can only talk to today, for I am but a layman.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,110


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #52 on: November 15, 2010, 11:47:01 PM »

Why does this topic need to keep coming up?  The Pope isn't "the Antichrist," and therefore, IMO, we shouldn't use constructions like, "The Pope is Anti-Christ," or "The Pope is Antichrist," or "The Papacy is anti-Christ."  I'm the first to admit (and my sig bears this out) that I think the Papacy has been divisive throughout Christian history; but this does not, methinks, reflect a purposeful and continued desire or intent to rend the Church of Christ.  Thus, I'd be hesitant to use such charged language regarding the Papacy... Right or wrong, we'll be called to account for it some day.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #53 on: November 16, 2010, 02:39:54 AM »

Of course the Papacy as it exists now is anti-Christ.

So think feminist, Marxist, atheist, and homosexual activist groups. Hope you're enjoying the company!  Smiley

But beware, he has his Eye on you.

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #54 on: November 16, 2010, 02:54:04 AM »


The whole office of Papacy? I don't think all Orthodox are prepared to defend that. Perhaps in a Papal Supremacy role, but not the actual office of the Papacy.


These Orthodox pro-papalists would be hard put to defend their position.  In the thousand years when we were one, you will not find one canon of the Ecumenical Councils which addresses the rights and obligations of something called the papacy in the city of Rome, how it relates to other bishops, how it relates to the other 4 patriarchates

It is really in canon law that we look for the administrative structure of the Church.  But there is not the slightest mention of the papacy. For a thousand years the Church knew nothing of it.  So I cannot see that pro-papalist Orthodox have a leg to stand on, canonically or traditionally.  
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 02:56:07 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #55 on: November 16, 2010, 02:57:48 AM »


The whole office of Papacy? I don't think all Orthodox are prepared to defend that. Perhaps in a Papal Supremacy role, but not the actual office of the Papacy.


These Orthodox pro-papalists would be hard put to defend their position.  In the thousand years when we were one, you will not find one canon of the Ecumenical Councils which addresses the rights and obligations of something called the papacy in the city of Rome, how it relates to other bishops, how it relates to the other 4 patriarchates

It is really in canon law that we look for the administrative structure of the Church.  But there is not the slightest mention of the papacy. For a thousand years the Church knew nothing of it.  So I cannot see that pro-papalist Orthodox have a leg to stand on, canonically or traditionally.  
Oh my....
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,826


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #56 on: November 16, 2010, 03:01:42 AM »




That picture always cracks me up.  I can't help but think that Pope Benedict would get a laugh out of it.   Smiley
Logged

ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #57 on: November 16, 2010, 03:06:06 AM »




That picture always cracks me up.  I can't help but think that Pope Benedict would get a laugh out of it.   Smiley
It is amusing  laugh ( I might have to say 100 Hail Mary's for that)
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 03:06:57 AM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #58 on: November 16, 2010, 10:02:40 AM »


The whole office of Papacy? I don't think all Orthodox are prepared to defend that. Perhaps in a Papal Supremacy role, but not the actual office of the Papacy.


These Orthodox pro-papalists would be hard put to defend their position.  In the thousand years when we were one, you will not find one canon of the Ecumenical Councils which addresses the rights and obligations of something called the papacy in the city of Rome, how it relates to other bishops, how it relates to the other 4 patriarchates

It is really in canon law that we look for the administrative structure of the Church.  But there is not the slightest mention of the papacy. For a thousand years the Church knew nothing of it.  So I cannot see that pro-papalist Orthodox have a leg to stand on, canonically or traditionally.  

Ecumenical Councils arise to settle theological disputes. Considering the east and west split, and never truly discussed unity until recently (despite the Eastern Catholics), I'm not surprised by this.

I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church) and relying on constitutional tradition (i.e. Positions in government are maintained by tradition not written word, which is more common than not [think British Monarchy constitution]) only helped aggravate later tensions in authority.

Because while the Pope may be divisive in history (as a major authority figure), all church authority has experienced it's share of dispute and split. Humans suck.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,361


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #59 on: November 16, 2010, 10:08:53 AM »

The councils don't speak of Mary's sinlessness either, but it is still  a belief held by the Eastern Orthodox. Fr. Ambrose, when you sound the call for the dogma of "Councils alone!" you sound like the protestants who cry, "Scripture alone!"
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #60 on: November 16, 2010, 10:15:52 AM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria.  There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #61 on: November 16, 2010, 10:17:43 AM »

The councils don't speak of Mary's sinlessness either, but it is still  a belief held by the Eastern Orthodox. Fr. Ambrose, when you sound the call for the dogma of "Councils alone!" you sound like the protestants who cry, "Scripture alone!"
Fr. Ambrose has never called for "Councils alone!" Quite the opposite. He has called for Councils, the Fathers, the liturgical texts, the calendar, etc. None of which support the IC, papal supremacy, the filioque, Vatican infallibility, etc. etc. etc.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #62 on: November 16, 2010, 10:22:37 AM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria.  There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Do you have a source, Father? I'd be interested in reading it.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #63 on: November 16, 2010, 10:31:02 AM »

The councils don't speak of Mary's sinlessness either, but it is still  a belief held by the Eastern Orthodox. Fr. Ambrose, when you sound the call for the dogma of "Councils alone!" you sound like the protestants who cry, "Scripture alone!"

Wrong!

1. Only a certain percentage of our dogma has been addressed and clarified by Councils.  They are called at moments of wide-spread crisis in the Church to deal with specific heretical challenges to the teaching of our salvation.  They do not include, and have never been seen as including, a comprehensive and complete compendium of our faith.   The Councils, in our mind, form a part of our Tradition.  And the Tradition is larger than the Councils.

2.  However, the Councils did produce, besides clear refutations of heretical teaching, quite a lot of canons which deal with the organisational structure and the good order of the Church.   These are also important for us and guide our Churches and bishops to the present day. 

So there is a place for the Councils in the life of our Church.  They come into existence at times of doctrinal crisis, they are held under the aegis of the Hoy Spirit whom Christ promised would lead His Church into all truth.  It is very strange that you would see any appeal to their authority as a sign of Protestantism.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #64 on: November 16, 2010, 10:32:05 AM »

The councils don't speak of Mary's sinlessness either, but it is still  a belief held by the Eastern Orthodox. Fr. Ambrose, when you sound the call for the dogma of "Councils alone!" you sound like the protestants who cry, "Scripture alone!"
Fr. Ambrose has never called for "Councils alone!" Quite the opposite. He has called for Councils, the Fathers, the liturgical texts, the calendar, etc. None of which support the IC, papal supremacy, the filioque, Vatican infallibility, etc. etc. etc.

Thank you, Ialmisry.  Right on the button!   Smiley
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 971



« Reply #65 on: November 16, 2010, 10:39:02 AM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria.  There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Do you have a source, Father? I'd be interested in reading it.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.viii.html
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #66 on: November 16, 2010, 10:39:09 AM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria.  There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Do you have a source, Father? I'd be interested in reading it.

Here you are

http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum01.htm
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #67 on: November 16, 2010, 10:39:48 AM »

Some/many may agree that there have been anti-popes (those not fitting for the magnitude of responsibility and position of Pope), but to claim the office is in and of itself an attempt to destroy the Church of Christ can be construed as nonsensical.

The office of the papacy is as alien to the Church of Christ as the office of the female episcopate, and both are destructive.
Actually, the Papacy was established by Jesus. Cheesy

I could be wrong, but I think when we say "the institution of the papacy", we are mostly talking about the system as instituted under the Franks. I'm sorry, but I don't think Jesus started the Cardinal system.

There was only one Patriarch of the west and so the only thing the western church knew was one super arch-diocese.

Under the Franks it would seem as if she started to see herself more and more as being the only Autocephalous church. The idea that we must all be integrated into her super arch-diocese is what's foreign to us.

Other than that I really don't have any issues with Rome. If I was rude or mean to you by saying this then I am sorry. I really don't mean to be.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 10:48:56 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #68 on: November 16, 2010, 10:53:54 AM »




That picture always cracks me up.  I can't help but think that Pope Benedict would get a laugh out of it.   Smiley
It is amusing  laugh ( I might have to say 100 Hail Mary's for that)


I always liked it myself. I saw alot of liberals on tv and rust belt Roman Catholics over here in Pa being upset when he was made Pope. And so I always thought that they(liberal Roman Catholics or nonchristian secularists) as being the ones who made that picture. But it would be interesting to find out who actually made it.

I actually like Pope Benedict the 16th! I like him more than I did JPII
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,787


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #69 on: November 16, 2010, 11:22:28 AM »

Why does this topic need to keep coming up?  The Pope isn't "the Antichrist," and therefore, IMO, we shouldn't use constructions like, "The Pope is Anti-Christ," or "The Pope is Antichrist," or "The Papacy is anti-Christ."  I'm the first to admit (and my sig bears this out) that I think the Papacy has been divisive throughout Christian history; but this does not, methinks, reflect a purposeful and continued desire or intent to rend the Church of Christ.  Thus, I'd be hesitant to use such charged language regarding the Papacy... Right or wrong, we'll be called to account for it some day.

Amen. Amen. Amen.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #70 on: November 16, 2010, 12:22:01 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople
Quote
Canon III.

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.iv.html

Then:

The Fourth Ecumenical Council.  The Council of Chalcedon.
Quote
Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

Quote
Bright.

After the renewal of this canon by the Council of Trullo, Gratian adds “The VIIIth Synod held under Pope Hadrian II., canon xxj.”  (Decretum Pars I., Dist. xxij., C. vij.)  “We define that no secular power shall hereafter dishonour anyone of these who rule our patriarchal sees, or attempt to move them from their proper throne, but shall judge them worthy of all reverence and honour; chiefly the most holy Pope of Old Rome, and then the Patriarch of Constantinople, and then those of Alexandria, and Antioch, and Jerusalem.

Notes: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

For Reference from the Bright quote:

Fourth Council of Constantinople 869-870 A.D.
Quote
21

We believe that the saying of the Lord that Christ addressed to his holy apostles and disciples, Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever despises you despises me, was also addressed to all who were likewise made supreme pontiffs and chief pastors in succession to them in the catholic church. Therefore we declare that no secular powers should treat with disrespect any of those who hold the office of patriarch or seek to move them from their high positions, but rather they should esteem them as worthy of all honour and reverence. This applies in the first place to the most holy pope of old Rome, secondly to the patriarch of Constantinople, and then to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Furthermore, nobody else should compose or edit writings or tracts against the most holy pope of old Rome, on the pretext of making incriminating charges, as Photius did recently and Dioscorus a long time ago. Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs.

If, then, any ruler or secular authority tries to expel the aforesaid pope of the apostolic see, or any of the other patriarchs, let him be anathema. Furthermore, if a universal synod is held and any question or controversy arises about the holy church of Rome, it should make inquiries with proper reverence and respect about the question raised and should find a profitable solution; it must on no account pronounce sentence rashly against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/8ecumen3.htm

The Robber Council of 869-870 was a council held in Constantinople called by Emperor Basil I the Macedonian and Pope Adrian II, meeting from October 5, 869 to February 28, 870. It deposed and condemned St. Photius the Great as patriarch and, of the four Eastern patriarchates, ranked Constantinople before Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

The acts of this council were eventually abrogated at the Eighth Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 879-880. This latter council was held to be ecumenical by both East and West until the 11th century, when Rome repudiated the council of 879-880 and retroactively regarded the council of 869-870 to be the Eighth Ecumenical Council, but which the Orthodox Church continues to regard as a robber council.  -Orthowiki http://orthodoxwiki.org/Robber_council_of_869-870

I included it for reference to thought of the time, despite it's contestability. The second council is seen (by RC) as mercy to reinstate St. Photius, but later the re-acknowledgment of the original council as being true in spirit.

I had trouble finding the canons of the Eighth Ecumenical Council (879-880), if you or another can help me find a copy, it would be appreciated.

As reference: Orthowiki
Quote
There are two misunderstandings of this Pentarchy that must be avoided:

    * the system of patriarchs and metropolitans is based on ecclesiastical structure
    * the Bishop of Rome (Pope) has supremacy over the other bishops

Regarding the first misunderstanding, the Orthodox do not view the Church from the standpoint of ecclesiastical order, but from the perspective of divine right. They see all bishops as essentially equal, regardless of the prominence of the city which they oversee. They are all divinely appointed teachers of the faith, they all share in Apostolic succession and they all have sacramental powers. If a dispute arises, it is not enough for any one bishop to express his opinion; all diocesan bishops have the right to attend a general council, express their opinion and cast a vote. The system of the Pentarchy does not impair the essential quality of each bishop nor does it strip the local community of the significance Ignatius assigned it.

Regarding the second misunderstanding, the Orthodox do not accept the doctrine of Papal authority as established in 1870 by the Vatican Council and taught in the Roman Catholic Church today. But neither do they deny Rome its place of primacy, as she is first in honor as set up by the second Council. It was Rome, after all, who stayed most true to the faith during many of the heresies over the centuries. Where the Orthodox see Rome going wrong is when they turned this place of 'primacy' in love (as St. Ignatius called it) into a place of supremacy of external jurisdiction and power. And so the primacy assigned to Rome does not overthrow the essential equality of all bishops. The Pope may be the 'first Bishop in the Church,' but he is first among equals.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Fourth_Ecumenical_Council

Interesting article on Orthodox Wiki about Primacy: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Primacy_and_Unity_in_Orthodox_Ecclesiology



...I feel like Isa  ...I need a shower  Grin
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 12:28:25 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #71 on: November 16, 2010, 12:32:53 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople

I must be incredibly blinkered/acculturated in Orthodoxy because I truly see nothing in any of the citations you give which provide any support for the concept of a papacy.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #72 on: November 16, 2010, 12:33:09 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome.  

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople
Quote
Canon III.

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.iv.html
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 12:33:57 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #73 on: November 16, 2010, 12:53:37 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople

I must be incredibly blinkered/acculturated in Orthodoxy because I truly see nothing in any of the citations you give which provide any support for the concept of a papacy.

Really? Does Papacy mean something else to you?

I read it as "physical leader of the church". If a patriarch (being physical leader of a regional church) has primacy over other patriarchs, that Patriarch with Primacy is referred to as the Papacy.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #74 on: November 16, 2010, 12:53:58 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople
Quote
Canon III.

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.iv.html
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.


Sorry, I don't follow.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 12:55:05 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,361


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #75 on: November 16, 2010, 01:04:11 PM »

The councils don't speak of Mary's sinlessness either, but it is still  a belief held by the Eastern Orthodox. Fr. Ambrose, when you sound the call for the dogma of "Councils alone!" you sound like the protestants who cry, "Scripture alone!"
Fr. Ambrose has never called for "Councils alone!" Quite the opposite. He has called for Councils, the Fathers, the liturgical texts, the calendar, etc. None of which support the IC, papal supremacy, the filioque, Vatican infallibility, etc. etc. etc.
You know very well that the Fathers are very strong supporter of the concept of papal primacy. Smiley
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,361


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #76 on: November 16, 2010, 01:05:00 PM »

Some/many may agree that there have been anti-popes (those not fitting for the magnitude of responsibility and position of Pope), but to claim the office is in and of itself an attempt to destroy the Church of Christ can be construed as nonsensical.

The office of the papacy is as alien to the Church of Christ as the office of the female episcopate, and both are destructive.
Actually, the Papacy was established by Jesus. Cheesy

I could be wrong, but I think when we say "the institution of the papacy", we are mostly talking about the system as instituted under the Franks. I'm sorry, but I don't think Jesus started the Cardinal system.

There was only one Patriarch of the west and so the only thing the western church knew was one super arch-diocese.

Under the Franks it would seem as if she started to see herself more and more as being the only Autocephalous church. The idea that we must all be integrated into her super arch-diocese is what's foreign to us.

Other than that I really don't have any issues with Rome. If I was rude or mean to you by saying this then I am sorry. I really don't mean to be.
No one ever said that Jesus started the Cardinal system. And, no, I don't think you were rude. Thanks for  your concern.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,361


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #77 on: November 16, 2010, 01:06:30 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople
Quote
Canon III.

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.iv.html
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.


Sorry, I don't follow.
This was when the East tried to adopt this idea that the primacy was based on politics rather than on the keys given to St. Peter. In fact, Rome did not accept Constantinople's jumping to number two for a long time, and then only as a matter of Church politics, and not as a matter of dogma.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #78 on: November 16, 2010, 01:11:17 PM »

The councils don't speak of Mary's sinlessness either, but it is still  a belief held by the Eastern Orthodox. Fr. Ambrose, when you sound the call for the dogma of "Councils alone!" you sound like the protestants who cry, "Scripture alone!"
Fr. Ambrose has never called for "Councils alone!" Quite the opposite. He has called for Councils, the Fathers, the liturgical texts, the calendar, etc. None of which support the IC, papal supremacy, the filioque, Vatican infallibility, etc. etc. etc.
You know very well that the Fathers are very strong supporter of the concept of papal primacy. Smiley
but committed opponents of Vatican supremacy, and having no knowledge of Vatican infallibility.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #79 on: November 16, 2010, 01:16:16 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople
Quote
Canon III.

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.iv.html
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.


Sorry, I don't follow.
This was when the East tried to adopt this idea that the primacy was based on politics rather than on the keys given to St. Peter.
the idea of primacy based on St. Peter's keys doesn't even begin to appear until 254 (btw, by then the title of pope had already been bestowed on the bishop of Alexandria). The organization of the Church on the secular order was centuries old by then.

Quote
In fact, Rome did not accept Constantinople's jumping to number two for a long time,
And the Church ignored Rome's protests.

Quote
and then only as a matter of Church politics, and not as a matter of dogma.
It isn't dogma, no matter what Pastor Aeternas tells you.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #80 on: November 16, 2010, 01:17:01 PM »

The councils don't speak of Mary's sinlessness either, but it is still  a belief held by the Eastern Orthodox. Fr. Ambrose, when you sound the call for the dogma of "Councils alone!" you sound like the protestants who cry, "Scripture alone!"
Fr. Ambrose has never called for "Councils alone!" Quite the opposite. He has called for Councils, the Fathers, the liturgical texts, the calendar, etc. None of which support the IC, papal supremacy, the filioque, Vatican infallibility, etc. etc. etc.
You know very well that the Fathers are very strong supporter of the concept of papal primacy. Smiley
but committed opponents of Vatican supremacy, and having no knowledge of Vatican infallibility.

Despite appearing very pro-RC in many of my posts, I am merely playing the devil's advocate in my indecision to find 'truth'.

I, too, despite finding truth in Primacy of Rome, have a problem with supremacy and infallibility.

Therefore, if there is another RC that could take that and run with it, I'd be appreciative of the argument.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #81 on: November 16, 2010, 01:22:21 PM »

[
Really? Does Papacy mean something else to you?

I read it as "physical leader of the church". If a patriarch (being physical leader of a regional church) has primacy over other patriarchs, that Patriarch with Primacy is referred to as the Papacy.

Ah, I see that we may have different perceptions of the role of a Patriarch

Sandro Magister, Roman Cathoic journalist, puts it well, not fully accurately, but well enough.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7014?&eng=y

The patriarch´s role

In general the role of the Orthodox patriarch is not well understood in the West. He is often seen as another pope. Yet according to Orthodox ecclesiology, the Church´s patriarch is only its top bishop. It is almost sacrilegious to call him the Church´s chief or head, since only Jesus Christ can be the head of the Church.

As a symbolic figure of the Church the patriarch has an enormous responsibility, but is imbalanced by his prerogatives. He is not the only protector of the Orthodox faith, since the faith in entrusted to the whole Church, both to its pastors and laity. According to the very same faith, however, it is only the patriarch who can intercede for the Church´s flock of faithful and is the chief administrator of the Church in terms of its institutional aspects.

His responsibility is threefold: before God, the Church itself (represented by the synod, the ranks of bishops, and all the faithful whom the faith must safeguard and protect through its dogmatic purity) and before fellow brothers and sisters in the faith and other patriarchs of local Churches with whom he is in communion.

The weight of such responsibility sometimes poses a problem for his personal freedom, which is quite different than that of the Roman Catholic pontiff. The Catholic pope has real freedom in decision making. Many innovations and changes, though not completely approved of by the Roman curia, are the fruit of the pope´s intuition and charisma. Yet if the Orthodox patriarch were to dare reform tradition, he would be simply ousted by the Synod or even directly by the Orthodox faithful themselves.

We must forever bear in mind this possibility, when referring to gestures (made or not made) or to meetings (which have not occurred) between the pope and Moscow´s patriarch. Even if we are reminded much more often and much more solemnly so in the liturgy that the patriarch not the pope of the Roman Catholic faith, indeed he does not have a great opportunity to express his personality in the Church of which he is its highest representative

The patriarch alone cannot touch any part of the faith´s sacred inheritance, handed down by the fathers of the Church. Not event local Church councils can do this, despite having the highest power. Only an Ecumenical Council can: in terms of doctrinal matters it has the highest authority, that is, the power of the Holy Spirit (according to Acts 15: 28). The Ecumenical Council has the right to change or "update" such sacred teachings and traditions, yet only under a spirit of fidelity to past councils. One small particularity, however: the seventh and last Ecumenical Council of then undivided Church of God was called ages ago in the year 787 in order to defeat and condemn the iconoclasts. (v.z.)

__________
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #82 on: November 16, 2010, 01:22:30 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople

I must be incredibly blinkered/acculturated in Orthodoxy because I truly see nothing in any of the citations you give which provide any support for the concept of a papacy.

Really? Does Papacy mean something else to you?

I read it as "physical leader of the church". If a patriarch (being physical leader of a regional church) has primacy over other patriarchs, that Patriarch with Primacy is referred to as the Papacy.

I could be wrong but I always thought historically the Bishop of Rome was seen as being the Patriarch of the west. Do you have any sources to share that would show the bishop of Rome as being the Patriarch over other Patriarchs? We see a difference between Primacy & Supremacy. The Roman Catholic view is one of Supremacy, not Primacy.

Also, the Bishop of Rome isn't the only Pope. The Bishop of Alexandria is also called Pope.
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #83 on: November 16, 2010, 01:34:19 PM »


I read it as "physical leader of the church". If a patriarch (being physical leader of a regional church) has primacy over other patriarchs, that Patriarch with Primacy is referred to as the Papacy.

You bring us back to the point I have been making from the beginning of the discussion.

There has never been any Patriarch who had a primacy over other Patriarchs,  Therefore there has never been any papacy.  It is a beast unknown to the Church.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #84 on: November 16, 2010, 02:38:19 PM »


I read it as "physical leader of the church". If a patriarch (being physical leader of a regional church) has primacy over other patriarchs, that Patriarch with Primacy is referred to as the Papacy.

You bring us back to the point I have been making from the beginning of the discussion.

There has never been any Patriarch who had a primacy over other Patriarchs,  Therefore there has never been any papacy.  It is a beast unknown to the Church.

What is your response/understanding of the Orthodox Wiki articles regarding the Primacy among Patriarchs?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #85 on: November 16, 2010, 02:42:56 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome.  

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople

I must be incredibly blinkered/acculturated in Orthodoxy because I truly see nothing in any of the citations you give which provide any support for the concept of a papacy.

Really? Does Papacy mean something else to you?

I read it as "physical leader of the church". If a patriarch (being physical leader of a regional church) has primacy over other patriarchs, that Patriarch with Primacy is referred to as the Papacy.

I could be wrong but I always thought historically the Bishop of Rome was seen as being the Patriarch of the west. Do you have any sources to share that would show the bishop of Rome as being the Patriarch over other Patriarchs? We see a difference between Primacy & Supremacy. The Roman Catholic view is one of Supremacy, not Primacy.

Also, the Bishop of Rome isn't the only Pope. The Bishop of Alexandria is also called Pope.
Also? Alexandria is the original. Btw, the Vatican has not let the three lines it has for patriarch there take the title pope.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 02:43:16 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #86 on: November 17, 2010, 01:16:18 AM »

Quote
Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

If New Rome was given equal privileges with Old Rome, then on what basis does the Papacy claim exclusive privileges?
Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #87 on: November 17, 2010, 01:24:54 AM »

Quote
Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

If New Rome was given equal privileges with Old Rome, then on what basis does the Papacy claim exclusive privileges?
Here you go :

The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Flavian's successor, Anatolius, at Pope Leo I's urging, to set aside the 449 Second Council of Ephesus, better known as the "Robber Council". The Council of Chalcedon repudiated the idea that Jesus had only one nature, and stated that Christ has two natures in one person. The Chalcedonian Creed describes the "full humanity and full divinity" of Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity. The council also issued 27 disciplinary canons governing church administration and authority. In the famous 28th canon passed by the council, the bishops sought to raise the See of Constantinople (New Rome) in stature, claiming that Constantinople enjoyed honor and authority similar to that of the See of (the older) Rome. Pope Leo's legate opposed the canon but in 453, Leo confirmed all the canons, except the 28th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_chalcedon
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #88 on: November 17, 2010, 01:28:09 AM »

Quote
If only the Pope would hold to this teaching and acknowledge that he presides in the same manner as every bishop and has no higher privilege or authority than they do.  But the Pope's claim to preside in the place of God is quite different to what Saint Ignatius is writing to the Magnesians.

I agree with you Irish on this (good to see you again by the way!) If only every Bishop could preside in the same manner and stop these unscriptural un-Apostolic claims to higher privilege or authority. By the way, the ACOE did not sign up to Chalcedon in part due to this I believe.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 01:31:55 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #89 on: November 17, 2010, 02:37:45 AM »

Quote
Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

If New Rome was given equal privileges with Old Rome, then on what basis does the Papacy claim exclusive privileges?
Here you go :

The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Flavian's successor, Anatolius, at Pope Leo I's urging, to set aside the 449 Second Council of Ephesus, better known as the "Robber Council". The Council of Chalcedon repudiated the idea that Jesus had only one nature, and stated that Christ has two natures in one person. The Chalcedonian Creed describes the "full humanity and full divinity" of Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity. The council also issued 27 disciplinary canons governing church administration and authority. In the famous 28th canon passed by the council, the bishops sought to raise the See of Constantinople (New Rome) in stature, claiming that Constantinople enjoyed honor and authority similar to that of the See of (the older) Rome. Pope Leo's legate opposed the canon but in 453, Leo confirmed all the canons, except the 28th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_chalcedon

It does not alter the fact that the council clearly believed that there could be a bishop with equal authority to Rome. The Illyrians actually did subscribe to the 28th Canon. The issue was finally brought back to the table in the Quinisext Council, which approved it. Of course, the Pope rejected that council, so that makes little difference to you.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html

The point is that is shows that the bishops outside of Old Rome's archdiocese did not believe in exclusive rights for the Papacy.
Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #90 on: November 17, 2010, 02:48:19 AM »

Quote
Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

If New Rome was given equal privileges with Old Rome, then on what basis does the Papacy claim exclusive privileges?
Here you go :

The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Flavian's successor, Anatolius, at Pope Leo I's urging, to set aside the 449 Second Council of Ephesus, better known as the "Robber Council". The Council of Chalcedon repudiated the idea that Jesus had only one nature, and stated that Christ has two natures in one person. The Chalcedonian Creed describes the "full humanity and full divinity" of Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity. The council also issued 27 disciplinary canons governing church administration and authority. In the famous 28th canon passed by the council, the bishops sought to raise the See of Constantinople (New Rome) in stature, claiming that Constantinople enjoyed honor and authority similar to that of the See of (the older) Rome. Pope Leo's legate opposed the canon but in 453, Leo confirmed all the canons, except the 28th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_chalcedon

It does not alter the fact that the council clearly believed that there could be a bishop with equal authority to Rome. The Illyrians actually did subscribe to the 28th Canon. The issue was finally brought back to the table in the Quinisext Council, which approved it. Of course, the Pope rejected that council, so that makes little difference to you.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html

The point is that is shows that the bishops outside of Old Rome's archdiocese did not believe in exclusive rights for the Papacy.
Of course it makes very little difference to me. Just like what Tertullian and St Irenaenus say about the Bishop of Rome make very little difference to you.

The famous third canon reads:
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.[6]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #91 on: November 17, 2010, 03:27:49 AM »


What is your response/understanding of the Orthodox Wiki articles regarding the Primacy among Patriarchs?


Dear Azurestone,

Orthodoxwiki is a good starting point when looking for information.  But it reflects the frailties and preferences of its anonymous contributors.

As a monk of the Russian Orthodox Church I naturally turn to my Church and its bishops for some guidance.  TThe Russian Orthodox Church is implacably opposed to the institution of the papacy and to any attempt to introduce into Orthodoxy a level of global supremacy/jurisdiction.   It is Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) who represents this teaching at international meetings with the Roman Catholics in the name of the Russian Patriarch and Synod of Bishops and for this he is 200% correct and we should all kiss his toes for his courage in standing up to such as Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas at Belgrade and Cyprus.  The latter two wish to foist upon the Orthodox an innovative concept of a "Global Protos" within Orthodoxy.


Primacy on a regional level and at the level of Local Churches is catered for in the canons. The Orthodox do not dispute that. But primacy on a global level does not exist.

Here are the words of Cardinal Kasper on Ravenna 2007:

"But the real breakthrough, he said, was that "the Orthodox agreed to speak
about the universal level -- because before there were some who denied that
there could even be institutional structures on the universal level. The
second point is that we agreed that at the universal level there is a
primate. It was clear that there is only one candidate for this post, that
is the Bishop of Rome, because according to the old order -- "taxis" in
Greek -- of the Church of the first millennium the see of Rome is the first
among them."



Here is the response of the Orthodox Church of Russia. This is Bishop Hilarion, speaking to "Inside The Vatican", 15 November 2007:

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the
Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept.
This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the
universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

"We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the
Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome
occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the
Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until
the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of
the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has
jurisdiction over any other."


From
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925822/posts

And elsewhere he speaks even more strongly of the Russian Church NEVER accepting any concept of global primacy and papal primacy..
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 03:46:11 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #92 on: November 17, 2010, 03:44:21 AM »

Quote
Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

If New Rome was given equal privileges with Old Rome, then on what basis does the Papacy claim exclusive privileges?
Here you go :

The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Flavian's successor, Anatolius, at Pope Leo I's urging, to set aside the 449 Second Council of Ephesus, better known as the "Robber Council". The Council of Chalcedon repudiated the idea that Jesus had only one nature, and stated that Christ has two natures in one person. The Chalcedonian Creed describes the "full humanity and full divinity" of Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity. The council also issued 27 disciplinary canons governing church administration and authority. In the famous 28th canon passed by the council, the bishops sought to raise the See of Constantinople (New Rome) in stature, claiming that Constantinople enjoyed honor and authority similar to that of the See of (the older) Rome. Pope Leo's legate opposed the canon but in 453, Leo confirmed all the canons, except the 28th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_chalcedon

It does not alter the fact that the council clearly believed that there could be a bishop with equal authority to Rome. The Illyrians actually did subscribe to the 28th Canon. The issue was finally brought back to the table in the Quinisext Council, which approved it. Of course, the Pope rejected that council, so that makes little difference to you.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html

The point is that is shows that the bishops outside of Old Rome's archdiocese did not believe in exclusive rights for the Papacy.
Of course it makes very little difference to me. Just like what Tertullian and St Irenaenus say about the Bishop of Rome make very little difference to you.

The famous third canon reads:
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.[6]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople

Why does it make very little difference to you?

What did St. Irenaeus say that makes little difference to me?

What does the canon you invoked have to do with anything?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #93 on: November 17, 2010, 07:17:11 AM »

I agree with you Irish on this (good to see you again by the way!)

 Smiley  Good to see you too. Where have you been?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #94 on: November 17, 2010, 09:55:54 AM »

Quote
Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

If New Rome was given equal privileges with Old Rome, then on what basis does the Papacy claim exclusive privileges?
Here you go :

The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Flavian's successor, Anatolius, at Pope Leo I's urging, to set aside the 449 Second Council of Ephesus, better known as the "Robber Council". The Council of Chalcedon repudiated the idea that Jesus had only one nature, and stated that Christ has two natures in one person. The Chalcedonian Creed describes the "full humanity and full divinity" of Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity. The council also issued 27 disciplinary canons governing church administration and authority. In the famous 28th canon passed by the council, the bishops sought to raise the See of Constantinople (New Rome) in stature, claiming that Constantinople enjoyed honor and authority similar to that of the See of (the older) Rome. Pope Leo's legate opposed the canon but in 453, Leo confirmed all the canons, except the 28th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_chalcedon

It does not alter the fact that the council clearly believed that there could be a bishop with equal authority to Rome. The Illyrians actually did subscribe to the 28th Canon. The issue was finally brought back to the table in the Quinisext Council, which approved it. Of course, the Pope rejected that council, so that makes little difference to you.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html

The point is that is shows that the bishops outside of Old Rome's archdiocese did not believe in exclusive rights for the Papacy.
Of course it makes very little difference to me. Just like what Tertullian and St Irenaenus say about the Bishop of Rome make very little difference to you.

The famous third canon reads:
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.[6]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople
Notice, not "because Constantinople was founded by St. Andrew."

What  St. Irenaeus says about the Bishop of Rome matters a great deal to us. The Vatican's misrepresentation of what St. Irenaeus says makes no difference to us.  But as great as St. Irenaeus was, he was not above the Fathers of an Ecumenical Council.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 09:58:44 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #95 on: November 17, 2010, 10:21:39 AM »

Notice, not "because Constantinople was founded by St. Andrew."

It's my understanding that Constantinople was not, in fact, founded by St. Andrew. Constantinople was merely a Metropolitan See until the significance of the city increase due to secular movement. Do you have any direct text to gaze upon?

What St. Irenaeus says about the Bishop of Rome matters a great deal to us. The Vatican's misrepresentation of what St. Irenaeus says makes no difference to us.  But as great as St. Irenaeus was, he was not above the Fathers of an Ecumenical Council.

In what way?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 10:28:57 AM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #96 on: November 17, 2010, 10:45:57 AM »

Notice, not "because Constantinople was founded by St. Andrew."

It's my understanding that Constantinople was not, in fact, founded by St. Andrew. Constantinople was merely a Metropolitan See until the significance of the city increase due to secular movement. Do you have any direct text to gaze upon?
It wasn't even a Metropolitan see, just a suffragan of Herakleia.

Somewhere here I posted a series of quotes (there are many) which place St. Andrew in Byzantium, there are many predating 306, including Syriac ones preserved by the ACE, which had no reason to magnify Constantinople.  A lot of them are summarized here:
http://www.roadtoemmaus.net/back_issue_articles/RTE_19/The_Astonishing_Missionary_Journeys.pdf
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actsandrew.html

The fact that it remained a suffragan doesn't vacate that its founder was St. Andrew the Apostle.

The point I was making is that the Fathers didn't attribute the perogatives of honor to Rome because of being founded by St. Peter, as the Vatican would have it.

What St. Irenaeus says about the Bishop of Rome matters a great deal to us. The Vatican's misrepresentation of what St. Irenaeus says makes no difference to us.  But as great as St. Irenaeus was, he was not above the Fathers of an Ecumenical Council.

In what way?

St. Irenaeus witnesses to the Church. In the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council, the Church speaks.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #97 on: November 17, 2010, 10:50:32 AM »

It's my understanding that Constantinople was not, in fact, founded by St. Andrew. Constantinople was merely a Metropolitan See until the significance of the city increase due to secular movement. Do you have any direct text to gaze upon?


It seems that there are texts in Greek to be gazed upon.....

This is from Halsall at Fordham:

Demetrius Kymenas, deriving his comments from the Thriskeftiki kai Ethiki Encyclopaedia (Athens 1962-8) sums up the situation as follows:-

It is difficult to say where the legend stops and where reality begins. However, the Apostle Andrew preached in the general area and according to the tradition he ordained the first bishop of Byzantium (Stachys), the first  bishop of Nicaea (Drakonteios), the first bishop of Chalkedon (Tychikos), the first bishop of Sinope (Philologos), the first bishop of Thracian Herakliea (Apellis), etc. (He ordained many of the Seventy Apostles as bishops in cities of Asia Minor, Thrace and Greece).

Because the lord of the small city of Byzantium, Xeuxikus, was brutal and a fanatic pagan who used to tie and throw in the sea any Christian who visited his city,  Andrew resided in nearby Argyroupolis (later a suburb of Constantinople), and there he stayed for two years during which time he managed to create a Christian community of 2000 people along with their church and episcopate. It is not clear if Stachys is the same person with the one the Apostle Peter calls "dear" in his letter to the Romans, but his memory is celebrated by the Orthodox church on October 31.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/byzantium/texts/byzpatcp.html

Byzantium, out of which Constantinople sprang, was a small, well-fortified town, occupying most of the territory comprised in the two hills nearest the head of the promontory, and in the level ground at their base. The landward wall started from a point near the present Stamboul custom-house, and reached the ridge of the 2nd hill, a little to the east of the point marked by Chemberli Tash (the column of Constantine). There the principal gate of the town opened upon the Egnatian road. From that gate the wall descended towards the Sea of Marmora, touching the water in the neighbourhood of the Seraglio lighthouse. The Acropolis, enclosing venerated temples, crowned the summit of the first hill, where the Seraglio stands....

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Constantinople

In the time of Saint Andrew Byzantium was a very busy mercantile and maritime city, full of loose sailors and bad women, and it makes perfect sense that it would have been a place to go and preach the Gospel.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #98 on: November 17, 2010, 11:08:17 AM »

Thank you, both.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #99 on: November 20, 2010, 05:23:48 PM »

You have to accept the Pope (as an office) as attempting to destroy the Church of Christ.

Some/many may agree that there have been anti-popes (those not fitting for the magnitude of responsibility and position of Pope), but to claim the office is in and of itself an attempt to destroy the Church of Christ can be construed as nonsensical.

I see what you're trying to get at.

No, I don't think the See of Rome in its origins is anti-Christ.

However, my point was that its incumbents and the institution that has developed around it for the past 1500 years have been exclusively opposed to the Church of Christ. In this sense the Papacy of the past 1500 years has been anti-Christ.

Also, some aspects, even, of what have come to define the Papacy, such as papal supremacy and papal infallibility, are anti-Christ as well. Thus, some of what are now understood as aspects fundamental to the institution are anti-Christ.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #100 on: November 20, 2010, 05:29:13 PM »

You wrote an inaccurate outburst.

What was inaccurate about it?

If you want to push people out of the body of Christ, go ahead and do that, but say that's what you want to do, beforehand.

It is indeed not. Who exactly were you imagining me pushing out anyway?

Would you talk to all of them the way you talked to me?

What exactly do you have in mind that is disturbing of what I have said to you?

But how much do you think you are going to grow the Orthodox faith by what you've said?

As much as is allowed by confession of the truth. Someone asked me if I thought the papacy was anti-Christ. I gave my honest answer. To avoid having done that would be to have avoided the truth, and Orthodoxy cannot be served by avoiding the truth.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #101 on: November 20, 2010, 05:33:27 PM »

Why does this topic need to keep coming up?  The Pope isn't "the Antichrist," and therefore, IMO, we shouldn't use constructions like, "The Pope is Anti-Christ," or "The Pope is Antichrist," or "The Papacy is anti-Christ."  I'm the first to admit (and my sig bears this out) that I think the Papacy has been divisive throughout Christian history; but this does not, methinks, reflect a purposeful and continued desire or intent to rend the Church of Christ.  Thus, I'd be hesitant to use such charged language regarding the Papacy... Right or wrong, we'll be called to account for it some day.

Using the term anti-Christ only to refer to the Anti-Christ is actually anti-biblical, so far as I can tell.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #102 on: November 20, 2010, 05:34:28 PM »

Of course the Papacy as it exists now is anti-Christ.

So think feminist, Marxist, atheist, and homosexual activist groups. Hope you're enjoying the company!  Smiley

But beware, he has his Eye on you.



What about these activist groups?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #103 on: November 20, 2010, 05:36:42 PM »

The councils don't speak of Mary's sinlessness either, but it is still  a belief held by the Eastern Orthodox. Fr. Ambrose, when you sound the call for the dogma of "Councils alone!" you sound like the protestants who cry, "Scripture alone!"

Mary's personal sinlessness is not a dogma.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #104 on: November 20, 2010, 05:40:42 PM »

This was when the East tried to adopt this idea that the primacy was based on politics rather than on the keys given to St. Peter.

The keys were the possession of the Apostles collectively, held by Saint Peter as their president.

The Apostles did not have anything beyond the episcopacy to give to their successors. There is no individual charismatic succession.

Saint Peter was not supreme or infallible.

Saint Peter was not the founder of the Holy Church of Rome. Saint Paul was.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,361


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #105 on: November 20, 2010, 05:42:00 PM »

Deusveritasest,  so you think Mary's sinlessness is up for debate? Tell your priest that and see what happens.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #106 on: November 20, 2010, 05:43:21 PM »

There has never been any Patriarch who had a primacy over other Patriarchs,

Primacy of honor and presidency.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,361


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #107 on: November 20, 2010, 05:44:47 PM »

Deusveritasest, the only person in the bible that Jesus gives the keys to is peter. The Gospels never mention the Aposltes receiving the keys collectively... Nice try though.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,361


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #108 on: November 20, 2010, 05:48:03 PM »

There has never been any Patriarch who had a primacy over other Patriarchs,

Primacy of honor and presidency.
lol. That is not what St. Iranaeus says.  Grin Also where did this idea of predisidency suddenly come from? According to Fr. Ambrose it's nothing more than primacy of honor. Is this concept of presidency just one of your pet theories?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #109 on: November 20, 2010, 06:10:27 PM »

Deusveritasest,  so you think Mary's sinlessness is up for debate? Tell your priest that and see what happens.

I did. He said it isn't a big deal and people believe different things about it. He in fact said it may be dangerous to say that she was entirely without sin because that removes the uniqueness of Jesus being the only sinless one. Not to mention, the liturgy refers to Christ as 'the only sinless one' so there is room for differing opinions here.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #110 on: November 20, 2010, 06:18:30 PM »

Saint Peter was not the founder of the Holy Church of Rome. Saint Paul was.

Then how did Paul write a letter to the Romans before he'd ever been there?

It would be interesting if someone got to Rome before both Peter and Paul!!

But this is all beside the point: the see of Rome was founded by Peter.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #111 on: November 20, 2010, 07:54:22 PM »

Saint Peter was not the founder of the Holy Church of Rome. Saint Paul was.

Then how did Paul write a letter to the Romans before he'd ever been there?

It would be interesting if someone got to Rome before both Peter and Paul!!

But this is all beside the point: the see of Rome was founded by Peter.

Point of interest.  This is strenously denied by some Orthodox including Pope Shenouda.

See message 37
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28604.msg451939.html#msg451939
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #112 on: November 23, 2010, 05:51:23 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria.  There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Dear Azurestone,

Please see  "Popes and Councils Reject Appeals to Rome"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31519.new.html
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #113 on: November 23, 2010, 06:59:58 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria.  There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Dear Azurestone,

Please see  "Popes and Councils Reject Appeals to Rome"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31519.new.html

I will, Father.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #114 on: November 24, 2010, 04:46:52 PM »

I wonder how many times the See of Rome has been accused of being the antichrist?
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,422


fleem
WWW
« Reply #115 on: November 25, 2010, 01:52:34 AM »

I wonder how many times the See of Rome has been accused of being the antichrist?

They probably just laugh by now. It's like some string of prank phone calls.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.412 seconds with 145 queries.