OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 07:17:03 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Conversations with St. Peter  (Read 1485 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,382



WWW
« on: September 22, 2011, 09:03:17 AM »

Elder Peter, your blessing.


Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. 2 Peter 1:2

Elder Peter, you know about the polemics that formed over your blessed confession on that day that Our Lord asked the Apostles who they thought He was and you answered for them all: "The Christ, the Son of the Living God". Because of this a party has formed, Father Peter, that says that you yourself would be the rock that Our Lord mentioned, and therefore nobody could properly belong to the Church without being under this rock. Tell us, Father Peter, you who were there and who was addressed by the Lord, what did He mean?


For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,“The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone”. Come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him
1 Peter 2:6,7 - 4


But there are presbyters (elders) who say that you are an elder above them, who confirms them! What do you say to these?

To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder.
1 Peter 5:1

Those in this party say they have the right to govern the Church in your name. Based on that, they claim universal supremacy over the Church. How do you see the leadership in the Church, Father Peter? Is it to be based on absolute power? What do you say to the true leaders of the Church?

Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.
1 Peter 5:2,3


They say that the bishop of Rome is the Chief Shepherd of the Church...

When the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
1 Peter 5:4


They say also that this same man has the final infallible word over the meaning of the Scripture.
A similar principle is applied by those called "Protestants" who claim that the Holy Spirit can give them the personal interpretation of the Scriptures.


Know this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Peter 1:20


They say they have saints and great doctors of faith...

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 Peter 2:1

Swift destruction? Has this anything to do with the bad image that the way of Christ has acquired today?

Many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2 Peter 2:1


Thank you Father Peter! Any final blessings for all the Orthodox Christians?

Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
2 Peter 3:17,18
« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 09:06:34 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
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 #1 on: September 22, 2011, 09:20:51 AM »

Wow, that wasn't at all polemic.  Roll Eyes
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)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,582


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2011, 11:26:28 AM »

That was pretty neat. Thanks for that Smiley

To quote the movie Braveheart, "Im gonna go pick a fight."  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

PP
« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 11:27:28 AM by primuspilus » Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2011, 12:06:15 PM »

What are you hoping to accomplish here?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,179


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2011, 12:15:53 PM »

That was pretty neat. Thanks for that Smiley

To quote the movie Braveheart, "Im gonna go pick a fight."  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

PP

At first I thought you were talking about when Chris Farley said that in Waynes World 2. But Google says it was also in braveheart. Bad movies think alike...?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2011, 12:56:33 PM »

Eastern Orthodoxy


One of the most tragic divisions within Christianity is the one between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches. Both have valid holy orders and apostolic succession through the episcopacy, both celebrate the same sacraments, both believe almost exactly the same theology, and both proclaim the same faith in Christ. So, why the division? What caused the division?

 

Emperor vs. Patriarch


After the western Roman Empire collapsed in A.D. 476, the eastern half continued under the title of the Byzantine Empire and was headquartered in Constantinople. The patriarch of that city had jurisdiction over the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and served under the emperor, who ruled those lands with military might. In the East, the emperor wielded tremendous influence in church affairs. Some emperors even claimed to be equal in authority to the twelve apostles, and as such claimed to have the power to appoint the patriarch of Constantinople. Although the two offices were legally autonomous, in practice the patriarch served at the emperor’s pleasure. Many patriarchs of Constantinople were good and holy bishops who ruled well and resisted imperial encroachments on church matters, but it is difficult to withstand the designs of power-hungry or meddlesome emperors with armed soldiers at their disposal.

The patriarch often attempted to bolster his position in the universal Church to give himself more leverage in dealing with the emperor, and this usually brought him into conflict with Rome.

During the years of conflict between East and West, the Roman pontiff remained firm, defending the Catholic faith against heresies and unruly or immoral secular powers, especially the Byzantine emperor. The first conflict came when Emperor Constantius appointed an Arian heretic as patriarch. Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398.

Ironically, in the Church’s eighth-century struggle against the Iconoclastic heresy (which sought to eliminate all sacred images), it was the pope and the Western bishops mainly who fought for the Catholic practice of venerating icons, which is still very much a part of Orthodox liturgy and spirituality. The patriarch of Constantinople sided with the heretical, iconoclastic emperors.

 

1054 and All That


The Norman conquest of southern Italy helped touch off the Great Schism between Eastern and Western Christendom. When the Catholic Normans took over the Byzantine-Rite Greek colonies in southern Italy, they compelled the Greek communities there to adopt the Latin-Rite custom of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist. This caused great aggravation among the Greek Catholics because it went against their ancient custom of using leavened bread.

In response, Patriarch Cerularius ordered all of the Latin-Rite communities in Constantinople to conform to the Eastern practice of using leavened bread. You can imagine the uproar that ensued. The Latins refused, so the patriarch closed their churches and sent a hostile letter to Pope Leo IX.

What followed next was a tragedy of errors. In an attempt to quell the disturbance, the pope sent a three-man delegation, led by Cardinal Humbert, to visit Patriarch Cerularius, but matters worsened. The legates presented the patriarch with the pope’s reply to his charges. Both sides managed to infuriate each other over diplomatic courtesies, and when the smoke cleared, a serious rift had developed. This was not, however, the actual break between the two communions. It’s a popular myth that the schism dates to the year 1054 and that the pope and the patriarch excommunicated each other at that time, but they did not.

Orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware) writes, "The choice of Cardinal Humbert was unfortunate, for both he and Cerularius were men of stiff and intransigent temper. . . . After [an initial, unfriendly encounter] the patriarch refused to have further dealings with the legates. Eventually Humbert lost patience, and laid a bull of excommunication against Cerularius on the altar of the Church of the Holy Wisdom. . . . Cerularius and his synod retaliated by anathematizing Humbert (but not the Roman Church as such)" (The Orthodox Church, 67).

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The consummation of the schism is generally dated from the year 1054, when this unfortunate sequence of events took place. This conclusion, however, is not correct, because in the bull composed by Humbert, only Patriarch Cerularius was excommunicated. The validity of the bull is questioned because Pope Leo IX was already dead at that time. On the other side, the Byzantine synod excommunicated only the legates and abstained from any attack on the pope or the Latin Church."

There was no single event that marked the schism, but rather a sliding into and out of schism during a period of several centuries, punctuated with temporary reconciliations. The East’s final break with Rome did not come until the 1450s.

 

Attempts at Reconciliation


"Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. . . . The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware" (Ware, 67).

This changed when the Byzantine Empire collapsed suddenly in 1453. A soldier forgot to lock one of the gates of the fortified city of Constantinople, and the Turks sacked the city. With the Turks in control of the capital city, the rest of the empire crumbled quickly. Under pressure from Muslims, most of the Eastern churches repudiated their union with Rome, and this is the split that persists to this day. The current Eastern Orthodox communion dates from the 1450s, making it a mere six decades older than the Protestant Reformation.

 

Eastern Fragmentation


Two subsequent events, one external, the other internal, reduced the patriarch of Constantinople’s status to nearly that of a figurehead. The sword of Islam gave military protection to the center of the Eastern Orthodox world, but at a high price. The Muslim sultan sold the office of patriarch to the highest bidder and changed the occupants often to keep the money rolling in. From 1453 to 1923, the Turkish sultans deposed 105 out of the 159 patriarchs. Six were murdered, and only 21 died of natural causes while in office.

Another blow that weakened the patriarch’s authority came from Russia. Ivan the Great assumed the title of "Czar" (Russian for "Caesar"). Moscow was then called the "third Rome," and the Czar tried to assume the role of protector for Eastern Christianity.

With the collapse of the patriarchal system, the Eastern church lost its center and fragmented along national lines. Russia claimed independence from the patriarch of Constantinople in 1589, the first nation to do this. Other ethnic and regional splintering quickly followed, and today there are eleven independent Orthodox churches. The Russian Orthodox church dominates contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy, representing seven-eighths of the total number of Orthodox Christians.

 

The Filioque Problem


One theological disagreement has to do with the Latin compound word filioque ("and the Son") which was added to the Nicene Creed by Spanish Catholic bishops around the end of the sixth century. With this addition, the creed says that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." Without the addition, it says the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Eastern Orthodox have traditionally challenged this, either saying that the doctrine is inaccurate or, for those who believe that it is accurate, that the pope had no authority to insert this word into the creed (though it was later affirmed by an ecumenical council).

Many today, both Orthodox and Catholics, believe this controversy was a tempest in a teapot. The doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father is intimated in Scripture and present in the earliest Church Fathers. Controversy over it only arose again after the Eastern churches repudiated their union with Rome under pressure from the Muslims.

Eastern Orthodox often refer to the Holy Spirit proceeding from "the Father through the Son," which can be equivalent to the Catholic formula "from the Father and the Son." Since everything the Son has is from the Father, if the Spirit proceeds from the Son, then the Son can only be spoken of as one through whom the Spirit received what he has from the Father, the ultimate principle of the Godhead. Because the formulas are equivalent, the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes: "This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed" (CCC 248).

Today there is every hope that the equivalence of the two formulas can be formally recognized by all parties and that the filioque controversy can be resolved.

 

The Councils


A more substantive disagreement between Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox concerns the role of the pope and the ecumenical councils in the Church. Both sides agree that ecumenical councils have the ability to infallibly define doctrines, but a question arises concerning which councils are ecumenical.

The Eastern Orthodox communion bases its teachings on Scripture and "the seven ecumenical councils"—I Nicaea (325), I Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), II Constantinople (553), III Constantinople (680), and II Nicaea (787). Catholics recognize these as the first seven ecumenical councils, but not the only seven.

While Catholics recognize an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, the Eastern Orthodox say there have been no ecumenical councils since 787, and no teaching after II Nicaea is accepted as of universal authority.

One of the reasons the Eastern Orthodox do not claim to have had any ecumenical councils since II Nicaea is that they have been unable to agree on which councils are ecumenical. In Orthodox circles, the test for whether a council is ecumenical is whether it is "accepted by the church" as such. But that test is unworkable: Any disputants who are unhappy with a council’s result can point to their own disagreement with it as evidence that the church has not accepted it as ecumenical, and it therefore has no authority.

 

The Pope’s Authority


Since the Eastern schism began, the Orthodox have generally claimed that the pope has only a primacy of honor among the bishops of the world, not a primacy of authority. But the concept of a primacy of honor without a corresponding authority cannot be derived from the Bible. At every juncture where Jesus speaks of Peter’s relation to the other apostles, he emphasizes Peter’s special mission to them and not simply his place of honor among them.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom" and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not. In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32).

In John 21:15–17, with only the other disciples present (cf. John 21:2), Jesus asks Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?"—in other words, is Peter more devoted to him than the other disciples? When Peter responds that he is, Jesus instructs him: "Feed my lambs" (22:15). Thus we see Jesus describing the other disciples, the only other people who are present, the ones whom Jesus refers to as "these," as part of the lambs that he instructs Peter to feed, giving him the role of pastor (shepherd) over them. Again, a reference to Peter having more than merely a primacy of honor with respect to the other apostles, but a primacy of pastoral discipline as well.

 

Ecumenical Prospects


While Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are separate for the moment, what unites us is still far greater than what divides us, and there are abundant reasons for optimism regarding reconciliation in the future. Over the last several decades, there has been a marked lessening of tensions and overcoming of long-standing hostilities.

In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople lifted mutual excommunications dating from the eleventh century, and in 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist together. John Paul II, the first Slavic pope, has made the reconciliation of Eastern and Western Christendom a special theme of his pontificate, and he has released a large number of documents and addresses honoring the contributions of Eastern Christendom and seeking to promote unity between Catholics and Orthodox.

It is again becoming possible to envision a time when the two communions will be united and, by the power of the Holy Spirit, fulfill their duty in bringing about Christ’s solemn desire and command "that they may be one" (John 17:11).



http://archive.catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,179


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2011, 01:04:59 PM »

Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,582


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2011, 01:34:23 PM »

Actually Wyatt, the beginning of your article is incorrect. The eastern romans didnt continue under the name Byzantine. That was given to them in the 16th century. They called themselves the Roman Empire because they were.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,179


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2011, 01:38:50 PM »

Actually Wyatt, the beginning of your article is incorrect. The eastern romans didnt continue under the name Byzantine. That was given to them in the 16th century. They called themselves the Roman Empire because they were.

PP

 Cheesy
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,382



WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2011, 01:58:58 PM »

The first Easterner to deny supremacy of anyone in the Church, that heretic, was Jesus, oh Grand Inquisitor Wyatt:

33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.

 35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Mark 9

Did you get the "anyone" showing 1) not exclusive to Peter and certainly not exclusive to Rome (two different things); 2) that leadership could shift from someone not demonstrating the right faith (proper humility) to someone who does?

And second, if they were discussing that it is because that had not been defined? Some commentators say this happened after the confession of Peter and of the Theophany. So, evidently, these things did not have the meaning of defining a leader in the worldy "supreme authority" meaning the Apostles expected (and Romans still do).
« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 02:01:08 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2011, 02:17:59 PM »

The first Easterner to deny supremacy of anyone in the Church, that heretic, was Jesus, oh Grand Inquisitor Wyatt:
Not Papal Supremacy, for Christ himself established the Papacy, oh Silly Schismatic Fabio.

33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.

 35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Mark 9
Proves nothing except that you can sling out of context Scripture passages at me like a Protestant. Good job. Now prove that Christ was talking about the Papacy. Obviously Christ is opposed to man's pride in desiring to elevate himself, but if Christ appointed someone to a ministry in the Church He would obviously not be against something that was His own doing. One of the titles of the Pope, by the way, is "Servant of the Servants of God." *Gasp* Such pride and prestige he claims for himself.  Roll Eyes

Did you get the "anyone" showing 1) not exclusive to Peter and certainly not exclusive to Rome (two different things); 2) that leadership could shift from someone not demonstrating the right faith (proper humility) to someone who does?
Denying the authority of the See of Rome is an Eastern Orthodox invention.

And second, if they were discussing that it is because that had not been defined? Some commentators say this happened after the confession of Peter and of the Theophany. So, evidently, these things did not have the meaning of defining a leader in the worldy "supreme authority" meaning the Apostles expected (and Romans still do).
The role of the Papacy has nothing to do with what the Apostles were talking about in that passage. What they were talking about was who would be first in the kingdom of heaven, correct? That has absolutely nothing to do with the Papacy. It's very possible that there are many Popes who are in hell.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,075


"My god is greater."


« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2011, 02:19:42 PM »

I'm guessing that "Eastern Orthodoxy" essay was written by a 10th grader for history class at the last minute.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,582


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2011, 02:32:14 PM »

Quote
Not Papal Supremacy, for Christ himself established the Papacy, oh Silly Schismatic Fabio
No, because the pontifex maximus in Rome at the time was a guy named Tiberius.

Quote
Denying the authority of the See of Rome is an Eastern Orthodox invention
See my sig to kill that one.

Quote
Proves nothing except that you can sling out of context Scripture passages at me like a Protestant. Good job. Now prove that Christ was talking about the Papacy. Obviously Christ is opposed to man's pride in desiring to elevate himself, but if Christ appointed someone to a ministry in the Church He would obviously not be against something that was His own doing. One of the titles of the Pope, by the way, is "Servant of the Servants of God." *Gasp* Such pride and prestige he claims for himself
Well, when Christ says ANYONE, I think thats pretty easy to explain. Also, I can give myself the title primuspilus, laserproof, invisible, and sexiest man in the universe. That doesn't make it so, and it also doesn't mean I act like it.


Quote
It's very possible that there are many Popes who are in hell

Really? a "vicar of Christ" in Hell? Why wouldn't they just ex cathedra themselves to heaven?


Quote
Denying the authority of the See of Rome is an Eastern Orthodox invention
Im sure St. James would disagree......


PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2011, 02:39:20 PM »

Quote
Not Papal Supremacy, for Christ himself established the Papacy, oh Silly Schismatic Fabio
No, because the pontifex maximus in Rome at the time was a guy named Tiberius.
I'm talking about the Bishop of Rome.

Quote
Denying the authority of the See of Rome is an Eastern Orthodox invention
See my sig to kill that one.
He was objecting to the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" which he interpreted as "universal bishop."

Quote
Proves nothing except that you can sling out of context Scripture passages at me like a Protestant. Good job. Now prove that Christ was talking about the Papacy. Obviously Christ is opposed to man's pride in desiring to elevate himself, but if Christ appointed someone to a ministry in the Church He would obviously not be against something that was His own doing. One of the titles of the Pope, by the way, is "Servant of the Servants of God." *Gasp* Such pride and prestige he claims for himself
Well, when Christ says ANYONE, I think thats pretty easy to explain. Also, I can give myself the title primuspilus, laserproof, invisible, and sexiest man in the universe. That doesn't make it so, and it also doesn't mean I act like it.
Ah...but "Servant of the Servants of God" is one of the the titles that the Church has given to the Pope. Big difference.

Quote
It's very possible that there are many Popes who are in hell

Really? a "vicar of Christ" in Hell? Why wouldn't they just ex cathedra themselves to heaven?
Wow...another adherent of the Phanar and Co. that doesn't understand ex cathedra. Surprise, surprise!

Quote
Denying the authority of the See of Rome is an Eastern Orthodox invention
Im sure St. James would disagree......
No.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2011, 02:43:28 PM »

That was pretty neat. Thanks for that Smiley

To quote the movie Braveheart, "Im gonna go pick a fight."  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

PP

At first I thought you were talking about when Chris Farley said that in Waynes World 2. But Google says it was also in braveheart. Bad movies think alike...?

Braveheart=Wayne's World=bad movie? Sacrilege!

On a serious note, y'all must be aware that we have moved "bickering" EO v. RC threads to the Private Forum. Not that this is one yet, but I see the beginnings of one. So, please be careful. Thanks, Second Chance
« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 02:51:12 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,582


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2011, 03:01:29 PM »

Quote
I'm talking about the Bishop of Rome.
Jesus didn't make the Bishopric of Rome. Sorry.

Quote
He was objecting to the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" which he interpreted as "universal bishop."
So I guess he meant anyone but me but he just forgot that part hmmm? Anyone means anyone. He meant exactly what he said.

Quote
Wow...another adherent of the Phanar and Co. that doesn't understand ex cathedra. Surprise, surprise!
Admittedly, I gave a snide remark not to be taken literally. Even still, how can a Pope be the Vicar of Christ and be hellbound? It's a contradiction in terms.

Quote
Denying the authority of the See of Rome is an Eastern Orthodox invention
Im sure St. James would disagree......

No.
Ah, so St. James bowed to the heresy that St. Peter ascribed to. Ah I must have missed that part.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2011, 03:28:44 PM »

Quote
I'm talking about the Bishop of Rome.
Jesus didn't make the Bishopric of Rome. Sorry.
Yes He did. Jesus appointed Simon as Kepha (Rock), then that Rock traveled to Rome and was martyred, consecrating that See as the See of Kepha. Are you saying that Christ didn't know that the Rock upon which He founded His Church would last perpetually through the ages?

Quote
He was objecting to the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" which he interpreted as "universal bishop."
So I guess he meant anyone but me but he just forgot that part hmmm? Anyone means anyone. He meant exactly what he said.
Yes he did mean what he said. You just don't understand what he said. There is no indication in that quote that his objection to the term Ecumenical Patriarch, which he took to mean universal bishop, meant that he didn't understand his role as the Roman Pontiff.

Quote
Wow...another adherent of the Phanar and Co. that doesn't understand ex cathedra. Surprise, surprise!
Admittedly, I gave a snide remark not to be taken literally. Even still, how can a Pope be the Vicar of Christ and be hellbound? It's a contradiction in terms.
He is the Vicar of Christ. He is not Christ. His role is to shepherd the Church until Christ returns. That doesn't mean he is impeccable nor does it mean he is incapable of going to hell.

Quote
Denying the authority of the See of Rome is an Eastern Orthodox invention
Im sure St. James would disagree......

No.
Ah, so St. James bowed to the heresy that St. Peter ascribed to. Ah I must have missed that part.
http://www.aboutcatholics.com/worship/proof_reason_papal_office/
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2011, 03:36:54 PM »

The Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch did not concelebrate the Eucharist.
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 #18 on: September 22, 2011, 03:46:15 PM »

And I thought I was the only guy who had conversations with St. Peter!  Wink
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2011, 03:50:48 PM »

Quote
It's very possible that there are many Popes who are in hell

Really? a "vicar of Christ" in Hell? Why wouldn't they just ex cathedra themselves to heaven?

It's called 'metochion'.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,582


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2011, 03:56:43 PM »

Quote
There is no indication in that quote that his objection to the term Ecumenical Patriarch, which he took to mean universal bishop, meant that he didn't understand his role as the Roman Pontiff
Again, anyone means anyone. I find it very hard to believe as educated as he was he'd get something like that wrong. Thats an insult to him.

Quote
You've got to be kidding me. This "article" is a complete joke. St. Peter ascribed to the Judiazing heresy. If the assembly accepted Peter's words on this then the church would be Judiaziers. We're not because he was wrong. Pure and simple. Furthermore, this article states that because Peter's letters were inspired they are therefore infallible. So using this logic, the rest of scripture is not inspired by God? Does this mean the rest is infallible? Sounds kind of Protestant to me.....

From the article
Quote
Our Lord says this rock will be God's way of preserving the Church from corruption until the end of time
you dont have to hold a doctorate of history to see how completely laughable this statement is in the context the writer intended it to sound.

Simply put, I would never doubt that the Pope of Rome deserved the honor he had. Nor would I doubt the title of Patriarch of the West which he also deserved. I go back to a question that I asked weeks ago and was never answered.

Rome states anyone who denys the papal authority is anathema. Paul told Peter he was wrong to his face. So why is Paul not anathema? St. James (contrary to what anyone else might think) was the presiding bishop over the Council of Jerusalem. Not Peter. Peter ascribed to the Judiazing heresy. Plain and simple. He was wrong. He did not have universal jurisdiction then, and not afterwards.


PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,582


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2011, 04:08:51 PM »

I see another episode of "convincing these people is like talking to a wall" show.....

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,382



WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2011, 06:15:27 PM »

Wyatt,

why do you insist that Peter was the rock in Matt16:18 when:

Peter himself says it's Christ.

The vast majority of the Fathers of Church say it's Christ.

And talking about picking excerpts out of context:

*All* the prophetic imagery of the OT regarding "rock" as a symbol refer it to God.

*All* the prophetic imagery of the NT regarding "rock" as a symbol refer it to God.

*All* the discussions on Church authority in the NT point to the Apostles as a council. Even the oldest treatise of Church teachings does not bring the seal "Papal" but "The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles" (the Didache). Then we get the treatise "The Apostolic Tradition" and "Canons of the Apostles". Counciliriaty, with a proper "Speaker of the House" leader. Not a king with a court.

How come in this context, can anyone make an exception out of one verse? You can't get more heretical than that.

Quote
Proves nothing except that you can sling out of context Scripture passages at me like a Protestant. Good job. Now prove that Christ was talking about the Papacy. Obviously Christ is opposed to man's pride in desiring to elevate himself, but if Christ appointed someone to a ministry in the Church He would obviously not be against something that was His own doing. One of the titles of the Pope, by the way, is "Servant of the Servants of God." *Gasp* Such pride and prestige he claims for himself.

Out of context it is indeed. Why don't you try the following to put into context: gather all the Gospel excerpts where the Apostles discuss authority and rank in the Church with Christ. Let's find one where the reply of Christ is something like "it's Peter who will rule over you after I'm gone and this charisma will be transmitable to his successors only in the place where he is martyred" instead of "leadership shall not be like anything in the secular world and it depends on the leader keeping the right faith".

Also, prove that Christ has appointed the kind of ministry the Papacy claims (supreme authority, final word, infallibility, universal jurisdiction) to Peter and to those who were bishops in the city he died. If, lacking a direct text you resort to symbolic text, explain why trusting the Holy Virgin to John is not a greater symbol of that since She is, in the New Testament itself, in Revelation, an explicit symbol of the Church: remember, here we have a person who Christ Himself used to symbolize His Church, and He entrusted Her to John. Why the successors of John do not inherit this responsibility?

Hint: to prove that you just have to show it is said, even if metaphorically, and that the Apostles followed suit. It would suffice finding a council callled and/or presided by Peter to solve a major dogmatic/moral issue where he would have an infallible say and final word. Of course, any council accepted by the Apostles where any of these factors were missing would actually be a proof that this thesis doesn't hold water.

As for the title, it would be a good thing if the office of the Pope was adapted to act accordingly. Servants don't have supreme authority over their masters. Ok, the Caroligeans, who were mayors of the house for the Merovigeans did exactly that, usurping the power of their previous masters. Since the Papacy is a creation of the Franks we can see where the idea came from.

Quote
What they were talking about was who would be first in the kingdom of heaven, correct?

Ah, the cliche fallacy of "all the NT discussions about authority in the Church except Matt 16:18 are about the Kingdom of Heaven in Heaven only". It's much better when you make things easier by bringing the expected pseudo-arguments.

First, the Church *is* the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. All the discussions about the Kingdom of Heaven apply to the Church.
Second, it's common knowledge that the Apostles did not quite understand the nature of Jesus mission before the Pentecost. In fact, they were asking about Earthly power right before the Ascension:

Quote
6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

 7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.
Acts 1

So, there is no support to say that they were talking about who would rule in any metaphysical dimension. Even when they talked of Kingdom of Heaven, what they had in mind was the hierarchy among the Apostles which they thought would be the hierarchy in the very earthly liberated Israel.

Wyatt, you claim to follow Peter but you follow him in his bad examples. Like Peter you fear the storm of doubts around you and don't believe the Spirit can keep you above the waters and you sink into heresy, looking for something to hold instead of Christ Himself. The Scriptures have disappointed you and so will the bishop of Rome because the only One truly faithful and infallible is God himself. Do not project into human beings that which is properly His. Like Peter before the Pentecosts you get excited about the words of Christ and has the presumption of being able to tell Him where He should or should not go.

And all that despite the fact that Peter himself, in his epistles, deny the kind of leadership the Pope claims for himself.

And I will highlight: the Church keeps the orthodoxy about the Primate of the Church. There is to be a "Head of the Bishops", just like Peter was the "Head of the Apostles". Only that there are no such leadership with "infallibility" or "jurisdictional supremacy".

Even St. Paul another martyr of Rome said that there is no such a thing as "those who are of Peter".

"12Some of you are saying, “I am a follower of Paul.” Others are saying, “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Peter,d” or “I follow only Christ.”
13Has Christ been divided into factions?" 1Cor 1

All the Gospels and all the NT just scream that the leadership in the Church is counciliar with a head of the council, not a head of the church. Also, the head of the Council is *not* necessarily Peter or one of his legates.

The president of the Council doesn't have to be Head of the Bishops.
St. James was the president of the first council.

The Charisma of Head of Bishops does not imply governance over the Church
Peter did not call the first council. Peter explicitily proclaimed to be a presbyters like the others. The authority of Peter was due not to any official rank but to his sanctity as we see in Acts. He had authority because of his holiness and not holiness because of his authority.

The Charisma of Head of Bishops does not give divine protection from errors
In the first council, Peter had professed the heretical side, the judaizers. Also, this charisma is represented by the symbol of the keys. The keys are a traditional symbol of *world* authority, which Peter receives before the other Apostles *because* of his faith. He did not proclaim the right faith because he had the keys. Finally, in the Old Testament we see the keys, symbol of authority, being given to Eliakin. There are mighty promises about the holder of the keys:

Quote
In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat[a] of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.
Isaiah 22

But the keys had been taken from Shebna:

Quote
“Go, say to this steward,
   to Shebna the palace administrator:
16 What are you doing here and who gave you permission
   to cut out a grave for yourself here,
hewing your grave on the height
   and chiseling your resting place in the rock?

 17 “Beware, the LORD is about to take firm hold of you
   and hurl you away, you mighty man.
18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball
   and throw you into a large country.
There you will die
   and there the chariots you were so proud of
   will become a disgrace to your master’s house.
19 I will depose you from your office,
   and you will be ousted from your position.
Isaiah 22

Indeed, holding the keys is no guarantee that one and his successors will always hold them. Shebna was the first "mayor of the palace" and holder of the keys (prefiguration of primate of the Church) and lost the "keys" to Eliakim, a man with the right belief. So, again, it is being faithful and "orthodox" that guarantees the holder can keep the keys. Having the keys does not produce the faith.

The Charisma of Head of Bishops is not a "Vicarius Christus"
Peter himself proclaims the only rock is Christ. So do the majority of the Fathers of the Church.

Orthodox Faith is the source of the Charisma of Head of Bishops and not the opposite
Simon is called Peter *because* he proclaimed the Orthodox Faith. He did not proclaim it *because* he was called Peter. (See the Eliakim case above).

The Charisma of Head of the Bishops is not "inheritable"
There simply is not anything like this concept in the NT. And no tradition in the Church of bishops inheriting the charismas of the patron saints of their sees. Plus, Rome was the martyrdom place of both Peter and Paul and that see used to boast both patrons to assert its (then) deserved authority.







« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 06:24:26 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,363


fleem
WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2011, 06:52:08 PM »

What was your point?

You're not going to talk Roman Catholics out of their faith. You are also never going to get them to change their beliefs about St. Peter. So why are you trying?

Would you walk up to a total stranger on the street, point at them and say, "You know what your problem is?" I don't think so, so why are you doing it here?

This has become yet another thread which is seriously disappointing and markedly lowers my respect for some of the people in it.

What a shame.
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
Ioannis Climacus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


"There is no religion higher than TRUTH"


« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2011, 07:05:57 PM »

What was your point?

You're not going to talk Roman Catholics out of their faith. You are also never going to get them to change their beliefs about St. Peter. So why are you trying?
Do you think internet discussions/debates (in general) are incapable of changing minds?
Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,382



WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 22, 2011, 07:27:29 PM »

Would you walk up to a total stranger on the street, point at them and say, "You know what your problem is?" I don't think so, so why are you doing it here?

Which is exactly what you have just done.

As to the point of the post, it was written as a simple exercise of organizing ideas in a easier way to understand. The style of "dialogue" with geniuses of the past to clarify their ideas and doctrines is well-known.

I had this dialogue in my own language in my blog and found it could be interesting to share it here. And that's the whole "point" of it.

Now, it's not our fault that people from religion X lurk in the fora of religion Y to shout "I'm so offended" or "You're so wrong because you don't agree with us" every time someone makes comments or posts with the PoV of religion Y on things that border their religion X. An Orthodox who doesn't want to ever hear the quite normal and traditional Roman view that we are schismatic or the Protestant view that we are image/saints/Mary idolaters simply should not visit Roman or Protestant websites and churches.

It is really typical of our time that people feel it is their right, nay, their duty, to go into other people's spaces to tell them how wrong they are and criticize them for simply stating basic assumptions of that community. Of course, they do it under the guise of sheeps, just trying to protect their own faiths. Well, when someone go to their spaces to spread whatever they consider to be mistakes, then they will be defending their faith. Doing it here is just a way of venting their own insecurity.

« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 07:30:18 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
tweety234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ask the Answer
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 628



« Reply #26 on: November 26, 2012, 03:03:46 PM »

And I thought I was the only guy who had conversations with St. Peter!  Wink

you really do? tell us something regarding that?
Logged

“God has no religion.”
― Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,859


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #27 on: November 26, 2012, 07:17:54 PM »

How do Roman Catholics explain the Orthodox Patriarchate in Antioch/Damascus? St. Peter established that Church way before he established Rome. If their belief about St. Peter himself being the rock is true, then wouldn't it be self-contradictory to their own case because we could claim supremacy through Antioch?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2012, 07:22:44 PM »

Finally, something that will go private that does not involve my communion at all! Grin Thank you, Fabio and Wyatt!
Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,363


fleem
WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2012, 07:26:51 PM »

How do Roman Catholics explain the Orthodox Patriarchate in Antioch/Damascus? St. Peter established that Church way before he established Rome. If their belief about St. Peter himself being the rock is true, then wouldn't it be self-contradictory to their own case because we could claim supremacy through Antioch?

No.

Do you think the capital of the United States is still Philadelphia?

Things move. People move. Roman Catholics believe St. Peter lived the last years of his life and was martyred in Rome. There is no question that Rome was an important See of the Church for hundreds of years. St. Peter may have been in Antioch first, but he left. One of his epithets is the Prince of the Apostles, and he was called that for a reason. He would not cease to be an important person in the Church just because he moved. Lots of saints served as priest or bishop in one place and then moved someplace else, where they continued their service in the church in that city. It happens to this day.

Unless you want to pretend that doesn't happen, either.  Lips Sealed
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
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2012, 07:54:52 PM »

How do Roman Catholics explain the Orthodox Patriarchate in Antioch/Damascus? St. Peter established that Church way before he established Rome. If their belief about St. Peter himself being the rock is true, then wouldn't it be self-contradictory to their own case because we could claim supremacy through Antioch?

There is also a Catholic Patriarchate in the same area with 3 claimants, the Melkite Patriarch, Syrian Catholic Patriarch, and Maronite Patriarch.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,382



WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 27, 2012, 06:55:47 AM »

Then the argument has changed. It's not about being the successor of Peter, but being the successor of Peter in the last city he lived.
Obviously, this condition was never part of the original argument, it's just an a posteriori rationalization in face of the forgotten fact that Peter had more than one successor.

Also, since we agree that capitals do change and that things move, that is precisely why Rome, once denying the Catholic ecclesiology in words, thoughts and acts, de facto, left the Church and the Primacy went to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

How do Roman Catholics explain the Orthodox Patriarchate in Antioch/Damascus? St. Peter established that Church way before he established Rome. If their belief about St. Peter himself being the rock is true, then wouldn't it be self-contradictory to their own case because we could claim supremacy through Antioch?

No.

Do you think the capital of the United States is still Philadelphia?

Things move. People move. Roman Catholics believe St. Peter lived the last years of his life and was martyred in Rome. There is no question that Rome was an important See of the Church for hundreds of years. St. Peter may have been in Antioch first, but he left. One of his epithets is the Prince of the Apostles, and he was called that for a reason. He would not cease to be an important person in the Church just because he moved. Lots of saints served as priest or bishop in one place and then moved someplace else, where they continued their service in the church in that city. It happens to this day.

Unless you want to pretend that doesn't happen, either.  Lips Sealed
« Last Edit: November 27, 2012, 07:01:32 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,382



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 27, 2012, 06:56:22 AM »

This is an old debate from 2011. Someone bumped it. Smiley


Finally, something that will go private that does not involve my communion at all! Grin Thank you, Fabio and Wyatt!
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.139 seconds with 61 queries.