OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 22, 2014, 10:23:39 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Role of the Pope  (Read 6843 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« on: October 27, 2004, 01:33:23 PM »

As most of the posters here know, I'd made up my mind not to 'dox' because I'd found a way to reconcile my views of the role of the pope with RC teachings.  But now I'm a bit 'confused.'  

Bear with me, it's been several years since I've studied the issue so my patristics and Church history is very rusty.  

On the DCF board, there was a discussion about a whacko parish.  The bishop had refused to do anything so people went to Rome which stepped in.  This strikes me as being wrong.  Of course I'm glad someone did something.  Apparently according to canon law, the pope has universal jurisdiction over everything in the Churches in communion with him.  My problem with this is that when I studied Church history (admittedly a few years ago), I don't remember seeing this kind 'intrusiveness' by the pope.  I guess the way I view the pope is that he's the first among equals, meaning that he's the 'tie-breaker' if there's a dispute between the Churches.  

What would the Orthodox response be to RC claims that the pope has complete authority over parishes not in the diocese of Rome?  Also canon law refers to the pope as the "supreme pastor" of every parish.  Am I wrong in thinking that seems wrong?  

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

Posts: 18,310


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2004, 02:00:03 PM »

Dear Jennifer,

When I once considered RCism as a viable alternative to Orthodoxy, it was reading church history for a class at my state university that made me realise this kind of "universal jurisdiction" was not present in the early Church.  

Generally speaking (and very quickly), I'd say the bishop has the final say in his diocese.  But it depends on what the whacko parish in question was up to.  If it was something of genuine concern, and the bishop was derelict in his duties, I think it would be right to appeal to a higher authority.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Twenty Nine
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 206



« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2004, 03:15:38 PM »

Dear Jennifer --

Here are some quotes from Vatican I (1870) Session 4:

Quote
1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.

3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].

4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

Sadly, it gets worse:

Quote
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

 Sad

Gregory
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. - Philippians 4:8
pilgrim727
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


OC.net


« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2004, 11:01:33 PM »

That's right, Gregory.  The Roman church teaches that the Pope has total jurisdiction over all Christians (the exercise of which he MAY [but does not have to] share with other bishops).

According to that teaching, he could abolish any and all "rites" in the church and replace them with whatever might strike his fancy.  

The "magisterium" becomes a replacement for tradition.

Porter
Logged

NULL
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2004, 03:15:50 AM »

Quote
According to that teaching, he could abolish any and all "rites" in the church and replace them with whatever might strike his fancy.
 

Though I can't elaborate much on the concept, there is a hierarchy of laws to which the pope (and everybody) is subject.  Canon law which grants the pope his authority is subordinate to natural law which in turn is subordinate to divine law.  Catholic traditionalists, as opposed to neo-conservative R.C.s (who subscribe to the idea of Catholicism as the personal cult of the pope), understand this and hence know that moral law forbids the pope from acting deviantly and treating the Church, rites, and tradition as his own peronal lego set.

It seems ironic that the same pope - Pope Pius IX - who reportedly said, "I am Tradition," also said, "I am only the pope. What power have I to touch the Canon?"

In IC XC
Samer
« Last Edit: October 28, 2004, 03:22:56 AM by SamB » Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2004, 05:25:21 PM »

Thanks for your perspective Sam.  

One more thing, I don't know if you remember but about two years ago we had a little 'discussion' about Israel.  I was pretty hardline in those days.  My views have since changed and in large part to reading your posts about Israel.  Now I'm the one arguging with neo-con Catholics about Israel.  I wanted to thank you for helping to open my eyes.  

My latest debate on the DCF board was about the legitimacy of Israel and it got me to wondering if the willfull ignorance (see my other post on this topic) of Eastern Catholics amongst 'conservative' RCs is related to their willfull ignorance about the sufferings of their fellow Catholics in the middle east.
Logged
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2004, 07:58:56 PM »

Hello there, Jennifer.  Thanks for the occasional comments on the blog.  Do keep them coming.

One more thing, I don't know if you remember but about two years ago we had a little 'discussion' about Israel.  I was pretty hardline in those days.  My views have since changed and in large part to reading your posts about Israel.  Now I'm the one arguging with neo-con Catholics about Israel.  I wanted to thank you for helping to open my eyes.
 
If I recall, I allowed it to get personal and made use of strong language at some points.  Please accept my apology for whatever overboard comments and uncouth conduct was 'committed to paper' back then.

Quote
My latest debate on the DCF board was about the legitimacy of Israel and it got me to wondering if the willfull ignorance (see my other post on this topic) of Eastern Catholics amongst 'conservative' RCs is related to their willfull ignorance about the sufferings of their fellow Catholics in the middle east.  

In my mind's eye, those who fail to perceive our presence in that region tend to look at maps and see the Middle East as that uncharted mass of water off the edge of the world with drawings of sea monsters and other fanciful illustrations.  Perhaps some of those who do know of us nonetheless neglect to consider our significance as both the descendants of the first Christians (ergo, the world's longest-term Christians), inheritors of apostolic Sees, and guardians of the oldest Christian traditions, churches and monasteries, and heritage.

But I would not be too eager to draw a connexion between recognition of Levantine Christians (and their sufferings) and knowledge of Eastern Christianity and Eastern Catholics.  The two can be separated in one's consciousness.  Consider that the oft-discussed group (at least in my limited observation) in matters of Eastern Christianity is Byzantine Christians (hence removing from the scope's range the mostly Middle Eastern Orientals) and particularly - especially for those who wish to stage showdowns between the Catholic and Orthodox worlds and to present a picture of strong polarisation - Slavs, and to a lesser extent, Greeks.  For some, the Russians seem to represent the official face and diplomatic stance of Orthodoxy, not difficult for Catholics who would like to see charged relations persist, considering the public image of antagonism the Russian patriarch is seen to project.

I shouldn't think ignorance of the existence of Levantine Christians, their situations, and the geo-political factors that mold their realities contributes to Western Christians not knowing about Eastern Christianity, thought the converse would be true.

In IC XC
Samer
« Last Edit: October 29, 2004, 09:05:45 PM by SamB » Logged
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2004, 01:24:13 PM »

Jennifer --

It does follow under Catholic canon law and dogmatic teaching per Vatican I (posted by someone higher in this thread) that the Pope has universal direct jurisdiction in every diocese of the church.  I think that this is the current Catholic teaching, both on a canonical and a dogmatic level.

I guess that the Orthodox perspective on this is mixed.  On the one hand, there are many Orthodox who have a knee-jerk response about this.   On the other, I think that the history is more nuanced and mixed than either side in the often polemical discussion will easily admit.  There are instances of the Pope sending letters, for example, to far away dioceses about things, such as the more-or-less famous incident involving the disputed Easter celebrations in Asia Minor.  The key question, it seems to me, is in what capacity the Pope was doing these things ... and that's where there is a difference in perspective.  The Latin Church sees these incidents as a prototype for what eventually developed into universal direct jurisdiction, once communication methods and the like were sufficiently advanced so as to permit this to be a reality.  The Orthodox Church sees these instances as brotherly admonitions, similar in nature to those issued by a number of other Christian senior bishops from time to time to various other churches on various matters during the early church period.  Once we move a bit later, Rome's position began to harden, but for the most part the Eastern bishops did not make an issue of it in situations where it did not directly impact them.  When the time came such that the Pope tried to directly intervene in the affairs of one of the Eastern Churches, the result was the unfortunate Photian situation, after which there was mostly great suspicion in the East of the exercise of Papal power.

I think that the historical perspective, while important, is also somewhat limiting because each side in the debate can look to various incidents, quotes, patristical passages and simply get nowhere in convincing the other side of the merits of its argument.  Much of the reason for that is a different perspective on history ... Orthodox tend to say that things now should not be any different than they were during the first millenium, and so they look to history for *models* of how things should run today.  Catholics, for their part, tend to believe in development of things, and so they look to the first millenium for *seeds* of what later developed, recognizing that the full-blown universal direct jursidiction, as a cannonical and/or dogmatic principle, was not recognized at that time.

The key question for me is "what works best today".  I don't know the answer to that.  I know that I don't believe that the papal dogmas are dogmas because the Orthodox do not subscribe to them, and for me that caused me problems as a Catholic because the Catholics believe that they are dogmas.  But beyond that, what system works today in a more effective way?  Ultimately it comes down to that type of discussion, and there aren't a lot of crystal clear answers on that.  There are well-formed opinions, but a lot of trade-offs as well.

B
Logged

B
Donna Rose
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 937


« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2004, 04:39:02 PM »

Quote
I think that the historical perspective, while important, is also somewhat limiting because each side in the debate can look to various incidents, quotes, patristical passages and simply get nowhere in convincing the other side of the merits of its argument. Much of the reason for that is a different perspective on history ... Orthodox tend to say that things now should not be any different than they were during the first millenium, and so they look to history for *models* of how things should run today.  Catholics, for their part, tend to believe in development of things, and so they look to the first millenium for *seeds* of what later developed, recognizing that the full-blown universal direct jursidiction, as a cannonical and/or dogmatic principle, was not recognized at that time.

Brendan,

I think this is the most concise and clear way I have ever heard the situation expressed regarding how both sides view history and its role in our lives and Church today. Thank you for taking the time to articulate this...

~*Donna Rose Smiley
Logged

hmmmm...
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2004, 07:32:45 AM »

Quote
3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].
I've been looking into this lately (the Catholic interpretation of John 21:15-17) and thus far I have found no Fathers in the early church who interpret this passage as Vatican I does. Not a single one, though the passage gets mentioned often enough. I'm up to the 5th century now and still searching.

John.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,172


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2004, 08:45:30 AM »

Perhaps the Catholics here could provide some patristic support for their use of this passage? I agree though, I've not seen it in any of the Fathers (not that I've done an extensive search like you are doing). The closest I've seen is taking it to mean that all bishops have a responsibility to feed the flock (e.g., St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 2 and On the Unity of the Church)

EDIT--Out of curiosity I just checked on what Augustine wrote in his interpretation of the passage. For those interested, it can be found here. Augustine also seems to see our Lord speaking of all bishops/priests, not Peter (and his successors) alone.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2004, 08:53:01 AM by Paradosis » Logged
francis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24



« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2004, 12:46:27 PM »

Quick Introduction: I'm Roman Catholic, converted from United Methodism, and with a love of the East. I've lurked here for a while, but just today decided to actually post.

I've studied the Papacy, and it's place in the Church for quite some time (although I'm no scholar). I recently finished reading "Papal Primacy: From its Origins to the Present" by Klaus Schatz, a Jesuit priest. I found it very enlightening. Schatz takes what I believe is a balanced, objective view of how the Church viewed the Papacy over the years. Interestingly, I think an Orthodox would read the book and say "See - he confirms what we think about the Papacy!", and a Catholic would read it and have the same reaction. As Brendan03 says, it's how you read history that matters.

In another thread, Irenaeus' famous passage was brought up. This passage is a great example of Brendan03's comment. A Catholic reads it and clearly sees the seeds of Roman Primacy. But an Orthodox reads it and sees just as clearly that the current, modern Roman Primacy does not fit in the model described by Irenaeus.

Regarding the passage from John: I don't think there is much, if any, evidence of Fathers tying the bishop of Rome directly to Peter until the fourth or fifth century. The most common reason that Rome had a primacy before the fourth or fifth century was three-fold:

(1) It was the location of the martrydom of the two most glorious apostles: Peter and Paul.
(2) It was the capital of the Empire.
(3) It almost immediately gained a reputation for "keeping the faith" (see Romans 1 as well as Ignatius' letter as well as Irenaeus).

After some time, the theological reasoning for #3 ("keeping the faith") began to be developed and seen in light of the various Petrine texts of the Gospels, and Rome's position strengthened throughout the empire as a "reliable" See (in terms of Orthodoxy). Some posit this was because Rome was not very theologically sophisticated and so their simple-mindedness allowed them to avoid error more easily, but whatever the reason, it is a basically accepted historical fact that Rome kept the Faith much more reliably than any major diocese in the first 800 years of Christendom

As as Catholic, I see all of this as a legitimate development - as legitimate as the development of understanding about Icons, for example. But it is a development, nonetheless. Peter is clearly singled out in the Gospels for some purpose - he is not just like the other apostles. The question, of course, is whether the uniqueness of Peter among the apostles are to be transferred to the Bishop of Rome among the bishops.
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2004, 05:52:23 PM »

Welcome Francis, to the unique group of us that wrestle with THAT question of Peters' position, which most likely will go on till the Lords' return.

james
Logged

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

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

Posts: 220

OC.net


« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2004, 07:27:58 PM »

Francis,

An interesting and thought out response. I too have been lurking on this thread, but need to go away and do some reading before entering what might be a chain of infinite length............... Roll Eyes
Logged

Age is honourable and youth noble
CatholicEagle
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


HH St.Pius X, Pope of Rome, Ecumenical Pontiff


« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2004, 08:01:21 PM »

That's right, Gregory.  The Roman church teaches that the Pope has total jurisdiction over all Christians (the exercise of which he MAY [but does not have to] share with other bishops).

According to that teaching, he could abolish any and all "rites" in the church and replace them with whatever might strike his fancy.  

The "magisterium" becomes a replacement for tradition.

Porter
Wrong, the Magisterium is Bound by Holy Scripture and Tradition.
Logged
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2004, 09:14:53 PM »

Dear Catholic Eagle,

I find your quote to be very perplexing. "Wrong, the Magisterium is Bound by Holy Scripture and Tradition."

There are many examples of the Magisterium departing from Holy Writ and Tradition to many for me to list at this time. What these things mean I can't say. However, we know that the Tradition of children receiving the Eucharist remains in place in the Orthodox Church as it did with the Latin's until the new Latin idea of the age of reason came about, hence denying the Eucharist to children. We also know that the Latin's as usually liturgical practice do not impart the chalice to the faithful. I don't think that traditional practices should be changed as the Magisterium incorrectly does to the bewilderment of the Orthodox. Here are some scriptural references for your consideration. How the Latin's interpret scripture is much different sometimes from the traditional interpretation that they used to have in common with the True Church the Orthodox Church which remains faithful to tradition and Holy writ. This is because the Orthodox Church really is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against her.

Matthew 19:13

Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. 14But Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."


John 6:56
He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

John 6:55
For My flesh is food indeed,[6:55 NU-Text reads [true food ] and [true drink.] ] and My blood is drink indeed.

John 6:53
Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
Logged
Isaac
Orthodox law student
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56

OC.net


« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2004, 02:08:11 AM »

The Rome which once presided in love, the Rome once renowned for her Orthodoxy, the Rome whose bishops laid down their lives for the flock-- this Rome is no more.  

Instead we have the Rome which demands obeisance at any cost, the Rome whose bishops proclaim themselves "Emporer" and "Caesar" and no longer the "servant of the servants of God."  We have the "Universal Bishop" that Pope St. Gregory the Great said would be the fore-runner of Anti-christ.  Where once Rome's bishop was content to be "primus inter pares," he now claims for himself all authority.  This is not "development of the tradition," this is a radical departure from it... a departure from Orthodoxy, right belief, right glory.
Logged
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2004, 11:03:40 PM »

Instead we have the Rome which demands obeisance at any cost, the Rome whose bishops proclaim themselves "Emporer" and "Caesar" and no longer the "servant of the servants of God."  We have the "Universal Bishop" that Pope St. Gregory the Great said would be the fore-runner of Anti-christ.  Where once Rome's bishop was content to be "primus inter pares," he now claims for himself all authority.  This is not "development of the tradition," this is a radical departure from it... a departure from Orthodoxy, right belief, right glory.

Well said, Isaac.
Logged
SnowFlaps
Roman Catholic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


OC.net


« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2004, 11:44:27 PM »

Quote
Instead we have the Rome which demands obeisance at any cost, the Rome whose bishops proclaim themselves "Emporer" and "Caesar" and no longer the "servant of the servants of God."  We have the "Universal Bishop" that Pope St. Gregory the Great said would be the fore-runner of Anti-christ.  Where once Rome's bishop was content to be "primus inter pares," he now claims for himself all authority.  This is not "development of the tradition," this is a radical departure from it... a departure from Orthodoxy, right belief, right glory.

Would the Holy Spirit lead his Church into error?
Logged

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #19 on: December 09, 2004, 11:52:20 PM »

[Would the Holy Spirit lead his Church into error?]

No.  That's why the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church still exists.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
SnowFlaps
Roman Catholic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


OC.net


« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2004, 11:54:46 PM »

Quote
No.  That's why the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church still exists.

Orthodoc

So then are you saying that God would allow the Church, the Church that was built on Peter, on whom Jesus said he would build his Church, to be in schism?
Logged

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


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


« Reply #21 on: December 09, 2004, 11:56:12 PM »

Would the Holy Spirit lead his Church into error?

No. But a man would.
Logged
SnowFlaps
Roman Catholic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


OC.net


« Reply #22 on: December 09, 2004, 11:58:55 PM »

Quote
No. But a man would.

So, can the will of man ovverride the will of God?  and if a man can lead one church into schism and heresy, then why are you so sure that you arent in schism and heresy as well, say from, the Coptic Church?
Logged

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #23 on: December 10, 2004, 12:00:01 AM »

We all know that there is deception, betrayal on both sides, it is not confined to one. If you think it is your in denial my friends.

james
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


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


« Reply #24 on: December 10, 2004, 12:03:03 AM »

So, can the will of man ovverride the will of God?  and if a man can lead one church into schism and heresy, then why are you so sure that you arent in schism and heresy as well, say from, the Coptic Church?

I am not so sure. My FAITH does not reside in any one man or any brick and mortar church in this world.

How can YOU be so sure?
« Last Edit: December 10, 2004, 12:03:43 AM by Tom+ú » Logged
SnowFlaps
Roman Catholic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


OC.net


« Reply #25 on: December 10, 2004, 12:03:03 AM »

Think about this:  The See of Peter, called by Irenaeus, "the Church with which all others must agree", being led into schism and heresy.
Logged

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2004, 12:34:08 AM »

[Think about this: The See of Peter, called by Irenaeus, "the Church with which all others must agree", being led into schism and heresy.]


Think about this -


The church was built on the faith of Peter not Peter himself.  Other church fathers state the exact opposite of what you are claiming -

Pope St. Gregory:
“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a God, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, p. 226).

Pope St. Gregory to the Pope of Alexandria:
“Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, ‘as you have commanded me.’ I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity” (Ibid., p. 227).


St. Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Church:

"If anyone considers and examines these things, there is no need of a lengthy discussion and arguments. Proof for faith is easy in a brief statement of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter: 'I say to thee,' He says, 'thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven. ' Upon him, being one, He builds His Church, and although after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the Apostles, and says: 'As the Father has sent me, I also send you. Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be forgiven him; if you retain the sins of anyone, they will be retained, yet that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one. SURELY THE REST OF THE APOSTLES ALSO WERE THAT WHICH PETER WAS, ENDOWED WITH AN EQUAL PARTNERSHIP OF OFFICE AND OF POWER..."



St. James, Bishop of Nisibis:

“Our Lord Jesus Christ is the firm and true foundation; and upon this rock our faith is established. Therefore, when any one has come to faith, he is set upon a firm rock.... And Simon, who was called a rock, was deservedly called a rock because of his faith”


St. John Chrysostom, 53rd Homily on St. Matthew:

"The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession."


St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to Nestorius:

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


St. Augustine, Retractions, 13th Sermon:

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

=======

Orthodoc

« Last Edit: December 10, 2004, 12:38:06 AM by Orthodoc » Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2004, 12:50:54 AM »

So then are you saying that God would allow the Church, the Church that was built on Peter, on whom Jesus said he would build his Church, to be in schism?

Luckily, as St Cyprian teaches, ALL bishops sit on the chair of Peter.  And 4/5 of the ancient patriarchates stayed in the apostolic Church while one became Frankicized.

Romiosini lives on in the other four.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 10, 2004, 12:51:41 AM »

Think about this:  The See of Peter, called by Irenaeus, "the Church with which all others must agree", being led into schism and heresy.

That was based on Rome's until that time orthodox record.  Once Rome went "filioque" in 1014, that ended.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 10, 2004, 12:53:12 AM »

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
gphadraig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 220

OC.net


« Reply #30 on: December 20, 2004, 07:00:17 PM »

It was a rapacious Medici Pope who in sending priests all over western Europe selling indulgences that was the final straw for the Augustinian canon, Martin Luther, and all that followed. Luther's revolt would not have gathered the momentum it did, surely, if the abuses of the Papacy had not gotten so out of hand and therefore Luther's action struck a seam of already existing discontent? Also as I recall - and will later try to track the references down - St Peter is seen as an archetype for all bishops, not as this monarchial figure we have seen develop from the eighth century onwards.

Apostolic churches have fallen and some are now simply names and memories. Our Saviour promised that His Church would prevail, He did not promise Rome would prevail.
Logged

Age is honourable and youth noble
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2004, 09:16:22 PM »

//Apostolic churches have fallen and some are now simply names and memories. Our Saviour promised that His Church would prevail, He did not promise Rome would prevail.//

You make a very sober statement here.

May you all have a very Blessed Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Christ is Born!  Glorify Him!

JoeS   Wink
Logged
twf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #32 on: March 09, 2005, 09:20:30 PM »

We must recall that St. Cyprian also said the following:
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Above quotes from http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp and http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp)

Again from Optatus:
"For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 7:3 (c.A.D. 367).

Again St. Jerome, writing to the Apostolic See:
"GǪI think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by PaulGǪThe fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfoldGǪMy words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).

Pope Zosimus:
"Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgments...For (Peter) himself has care over all the Churches, and above all that in which he sat nor does he suffer any of its privileges or decisions to be shaken" Pope Zosimus [regn A.D. 417-418 ],To Aurelius and the Council of Carthage, Epistle 12 (A.D. 418).

Pope Boniface:
"For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See." Pope Boniface [regn A.D. 418-422], To Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, Epistle 13 (A.D. 422).

(The above quotes taken from http://scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_I...many more there).

Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus, while writing to Pope Theodore, proclaims the following:
O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed. (Sergius Ep. ad Theod. lecta in Sess. ii. Concil. Lat. anno 649)

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

(The above two are taken from http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm#Cyprus, which includes many more similar quotes).

In Christ,
Tyler
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #33 on: March 09, 2005, 10:00:12 PM »

Tyler,
Thank you for these quotes from the Orthodox Popes of Rome. When an Orthodox pope again sits on the throne of St Peter I will gladly kiss his hand.

Demetri
Logged

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

Posts: 4


« Reply #34 on: March 11, 2005, 03:23:13 PM »

On what do you base your understanding that Rome can fall into heresy? Rome was appealed to when a controversy arose. Her judgement was assented to. What is the point of an arbitrator like the See of Peter if she too can fall into heresy? Heretics and schismatics of old rejected Peter's rulings...but in the end they always came back to the unity of the universal Catholic Church. How is it different now? How can churches that have fallen into heresy in the past, more than once, presume to be right now, and Rome to be wrong? I don't mean to attack, I just want to understand your position. If there is no unmovable foundation of Orthodoxy (as Maximus suggests there is), then how can any side of a schism ever be certain that they are correctly interpreting the Scriptures and the Tradition?

In Christ and Mary,
Tyler
Logged
twf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #35 on: March 11, 2005, 03:24:25 PM »

By the way, I don't actually consider the Eastern Orthodox heretics (I'm sorry, I may have seemed to imply that above). I am simply making a point.

(I believe we share, essentially, the same Faith, but often expressed differently).
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #36 on: March 11, 2005, 06:36:57 PM »


twf

A debate between an orthodox Catholic and a Roman Catholic regarding Papal Primacy can be found at -

http://www.a2z.org/acts/articles/primacy/

Regarding the role of the Pope in a reunited church, here is the Orthodox Catholic reply to him -

(From my files regarding a previous post I made on this very subject):

The Orthodox Catholic Church has never denied a 'primacy'  to either Peter or the church of Rome.  The problem occurred when the Pope was no longer was satisfied with 'primacy' and opted for 'supremacy'!

Contrary to claims made by papal Catholics both here and elsewhere that we Orthodox Catholics refuse to answer the Popes question on how we would invision his role in a reintegrated Church, we have been very clear  in our response.  From a book called 'Orthodoxy In Conversation',  here are some of the Orthodox responses regarding 'papal primacy' -

"The  Church is the communion of believers living in Jesus Christ with the Father.  It has its origins and prototype in the Trinity in which there is both distinction of persons and unity based on love, NOT SUBORDINATION."

In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy.  Within a reintegrated Christiandom the bishop of Rome will be considered as primus inter pares serving the unity of the church in love.  HE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SET UP OVER THE CHURCH AS A RULER whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction.  His authority must be understood , not acccording to standards of  earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25-27).

In a reintegrated Christiandom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus inter pares  within the Orthodox Catholic communion, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole church.  The bishop of Rome, will of course, preside over such a synod and his office may coordinate the life and the witness of the Orthodox Catholic Church and in times of need be its spokesman.  The role of acting as the voice of the Church is not, however, to be restricted to any hierachal order within the Church, still less to a single see.  In principle, any bishop, priest or layman may be called by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the true faith.

======

Orthodoc



Logged

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

Posts: 40

Totus Tuus Maria


« Reply #37 on: April 27, 2005, 05:08:07 PM »

Welcome Francis, to the unique group of us that wrestle with THAT question of Peters' position, which most likely will go on till the Lords' return.


I hope not.
Logged
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #38 on: May 18, 2005, 11:24:37 PM »

Orthodoc brings up an important point, name the infallible witness of St. Matthew 20:25-26.

Quote
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be among you, let him be your minister;

It seems that many Christians did accept the descisions of the Patriarch of Rome, but was this ever infallible. If the Pope was always considered infallible, what need would there be to ever have a Council?

It also seems that the interpretation of the Rock found in the Gospel of St. Matthew appears to be Jesus Christ, not Peter. This Rock is the foundation of the Church. It is also interesting to note that a cornerstone is a type of foundation. Perhaps the Cornerstone and the Rock are the same thing?

Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #39 on: May 19, 2005, 12:03:54 AM »

Orthodoc brings up an important point, name the infallible witness of St. Matthew 20:25-26.



It seems that many Christians did accept the descisions of the Patriarch of Rome, but was this ever infallible. If the Pope was always considered infallible, what need would there be to ever have a Council?

It also seems that the interpretation of the Rock found in the Gospel of St. Matthew appears to be Jesus Christ, not Peter. This Rock is the foundation of the Church. It is also interesting to note that a cornerstone is a type of foundation. Perhaps the Cornerstone and the Rock are the same thing?



This is precisely the point Orthodox Christians maintain. And that is: If the Pope is Infallible.and had Supremacy, from the very beginning, what is the need or the point for councils? For most bishops a council would be a major waste of their time.  Since any conclusion decided by council can be reversed or vetoed by this one person. This of course, didnt happen which is why the infallibility/Supremacy issue is one that developed over the centuries and was eventually accepted by the RCC in total in the 19th century. 

JoeS
Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 19, 2005, 09:08:01 AM »

Aside from personal sins and darkened minds, one reason why the "great schism" occured, is because of divergent developments in the "east" and the "west."

Essentially, Christendom outside of Rome's sphere of influence (which is one that grew with time) continued on along more or less "concilliar" lines, with some notable exceptions (like in Egypt, where the local Churches were very much administratively centered around the Pope of Alexandria.)  OTOH, due both to pre-Nicean custom (in which Rome, like Alexandria, played a big role in the life of Churches in the region - a sort of uber-Metropolis), the fall of the civil government (when the western part of the Empire fell, the Popes were often the ones "keeping it together"), and isolation from the rest of Christendom, the Latins developed a consciousness about Rome's place in the life of the Church which wasn't shared by others.  I think this began subtly, and at this early stage it was simply a nuisance, a difference which could be overlooked (like a certain Patriarchate which in our day insists on selling themselves as being the "leader of Orthodoxy") - but later on, it did become a problem obviously, particularly when wedded to other "regional pecularities" which then came to be used as a sort of "banner of schism", a means by which the Franks could distinguish themselves (and their faith) from that of their "Greek" rivals to the east.

Thus, all of this "Pope stuff" doesn't come from nowhere...and it's a good lesson.  Why?  Because we have here a very clear example of something starting very subtly, in a "seed form", and then growing and going haywire later on, under the "right" (nay, wrong!) circumstances.

Logged
Sabbas
Drink from your own wells
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 503

St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania


« Reply #41 on: May 20, 2005, 03:13:08 PM »

It seems that many Christians did accept the descisions of the Patriarch of Rome, but was this ever infallible. If the Pope was always considered infallible, what need would there be to ever have a Council?

It also seems that the interpretation of the Rock found in the Gospel of St. Matthew appears to be Jesus Christ, not Peter. This Rock is the foundation of the Church. It is also interesting to note that a cornerstone is a type of foundation. Perhaps the Cornerstone and the Rock are the same thing?

A few weeks ago I Inter-Library loaned the complete Homilies of St.Bede (Anglo-Saxon Saint 673-735) and I noticed two things. First St.Bede wrote a lot for a Medieval writer. The Homilies are over 500 pages long and they are but one of close to forty works that have come down to us. Second that St.Bede's exegesis on St.Matthew 16:13-19 is completely Orthodox. I quote:

There follows: ' And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church'. Peter, who before this was referred to as 'Simon,' received from the Lord the name Peter, because of the strength of his faith and the constancy of his confession, for he clung with a stable and tenacious mind to Him concerning Whom it was written, and the Rock was Christ (1 co 10:4) And upon this Rock the Church is built - that is upon the Lord and Savior. To his faithful one who recognized Him, and loved Him, He granted a share in his own name, so that he was called Peter from 'rock'. Only through faith in and love of Christ, through the reception of Christ's Sacraments, and through observing Christ's commandments does on ereach the lot of elect, and eternal life, as the Apostle attests when he says, For no on can lay and other foundation except that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus.
 . . . Hence he adds clearly, 'And whatsoever you bind upon earth will be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you loose upon earth will be loosed in heaven'. Although it may seem that this power of loosing and binding was given by the Lord only to Peter, we must nevertheless know without any doubt that is was also given to the other apostles, as [Christ] Himself testified when, after the triumph of his Passion and Resurrection, he appeared to them and breathed upon them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain, they are retained'.
-Homily 1.20 "On the Chair of St.Peter"

So Sean you are quite right. The original understanding of this passage has been corrupted by Roman Catholicism pure and simple. In the rest of St.Bede's Homily he says basically the same as other Fathers. St.Peter is a symbol of Catholic Unity in the Church not the Rock!
« Last Edit: May 20, 2005, 03:14:41 PM by Sabbas » Logged

www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.
Kizzy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229



« Reply #42 on: May 21, 2005, 10:27:02 PM »

Aside from personal sins and darkened minds, one reason why the "great schism" occured, is because of divergent developments in the "east" and the "west."

Essentially, Christendom outside of Rome's sphere of influence (which is one that grew with time) continued on along more or less "concilliar" lines, with some notable exceptions (like in Egypt, where the local Churches were very much administratively centered around the Pope of Alexandria.) OTOH, due both to pre-Nicean custom (in which Rome, like Alexandria, played a big role in the life of Churches in the region - a sort of uber-Metropolis), the fall of the civil government (when the western part of the Empire fell, the Popes were often the ones "keeping it together"), and isolation from the rest of Christendom, the Latins developed a consciousness about Rome's place in the life of the Church which wasn't shared by others.

The schism was not a single event but a process, as you mention.  The important thing to note is that during iconoclasm the east was in a big mess and the church there not functioning well at all. Relics were tossed in the River and hierarchy brutalized... definitely not a time when the church in the East was able to participate strongly in pan-church affairs.  This was the beginning of the church as a whole 'coming apart'.   Rome tried to help restore the icons and all that went with it.. veneration of  Saints, etc.  This was a rather long period in history for the church of the East and it was essentially weak for a long time, and Rome had to fend for itself.  After icons were restored there was still a period of unrest and the church in the East went very 'liberal' under Theophilus.  During that time actors were brought in to the church in order to help bring people to the church as the state was poor and the public theater short of funds. .  Again, this was not a good time for the church in the East.  But during this time, the church in Rome dealt with its own issues and developed its own way to deal with them, and the East was encumbered with it's own issues. It is not a surprise that given the great distance between the East and West, the difficulties of communication, and the turbulence in the East which rendered instability there, that the Pope in Rome began to rely more and more on himself and as you say, tried to be the source of stability in the West... lest it fall into the mess- similar to  what happened during Iconoclasm.
     
In XC, Kizzy
 
Logged

In XC, Kizzy
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #43 on: June 29, 2005, 03:25:24 AM »

Below is a post from another forum that I was directing to an Orthodox friend of mine. Let me know your thoughts and I have the following question:
Does the Orthodox Church see any prefigurings or parallels of Peter in the Old Testament?

Quote
There is something I’ve been meaning to share with you. This came to me a while back while driving on one of Southern California’s busiest freeway (the 5 freeway). Come to think of it, this is actually where I have some of my deepest thoughts. I completely block out the noisy world around me and dwell in my thoughts.

The question that popped into my head was: Is it unusual for God to give a single man authority over the whole of His people? Or is it more common to see that authority is equally dispersed within a group of men?

These questions are important to me because God did many things to shape the way or prepare His people for what was to come; such as circumcision for baptism, bread from the desert to bread of life (The Eucharist), and stopping Abraham from sacrificing his son so God can sacrifice His Son (Christ). There are several examples of this that I’m sure you will see and agree with. This parallel also exists with Peter, being the strongest, one that I’m sure you’re aware of; the keys in relation to the keeper of the palace in the Old Testament. (Isaias 22, in which "the key of the house of David".)

But you can take this even further and look at several examples where God gives authority to one man over His people. This last statement doesn’t prove the supremacy of authority given to Peter, but it sure shows God functioning in such a way. Most all major doctrines that we both believe in, Ted, have some sort of parallel in the OT. But it appears that the Orthodox Church seems to either minimize or misunderstand the parallels with Peter. The misunderstanding is much easier to deal with because an honest conversation with plenty of clarification may help the Orthodox see the office of Peter in the OT. But when assuming an Orthodox said, “Well I can see how God gave authority to Moses, for example, but that doesn’t mean Peter had such authority.” This is difficult for me to grasp because with every doctrine we both believe in God elevates what was (mana in the desert, circumcision, Abraham’s attempt to sacrifice, etc.) to what is (bread of life [Eucharist], baptism, Christ’s sacrifice, etc.) We do not see Him minimizing practices like circumcision, but rather He elevates them to a supernatural state. He makes them even more special, from a physical circumcision to a circumcision of the heart, for example. Either God decided to not give Peter authority over the whole of His people like He did in the OT (Moses, Abraham, etc)...OR He does address it by giving Peter supremacy of honor with equal authority shared with the rest of the bishops, as you say this is the case. Which means He did not elevate it like He did everything else. He simply mimicked the OT, with no change, no elevation. Why would He not do it with Peter but do it with everything else like what I noted above?
Only the Catholic position seems to satisfy God’s way of doing things in the OT. Did God ever give more than one person authority? Of course He did, but my only point is that God consistently appears to like going through one person and uses him as final authority on matters that deal with His people. As an example we can look at the OT in Exodus 4:14. Here we begin to see God’s method of hierarchically positioning men. He tells Moses “You will be as God.” Positioning him directly above Aaron and all the people. We see God doing things like this all through out the OT with different men. Did He drop the ball in the NT and decide “I’m going to make all equal”. It seems to me like God knows us too well. He understands the power behind using one person vs. using the college of bishops alone. Not that the college of bishops can’t produce an infallible proclamation for the body of believers. For history shows they have done this. But history also shows the college of bishops disagreeing right down the middle. 50% say one thing and 50% say another (the numbers are not accurate.) My point is that they couldn’t come to a conclusion, just like they couldn’t in the council of Jerusalem in Acts. Peter spoke and everybody stayed silent and he settled the matter. If you’re honest about it, Ted, you’ll at least conclude that God did use one person often in the OT. So my questions to you are: Why do you think God would stop using the Moses’ of the OT in the NT? If God just intended for Peter to be honored, where is the elevation in that, just like He did all the other doctrines in the NT? Maybe Peter was just the exception, or maybe Catholics are right to view him as they do.

~Victor

The Least in Christ
~Victor
Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #44 on: June 29, 2005, 05:37:55 PM »


Does the Orthodox Church see any prefigurings or parallels of Peter in the Old Testament?


No, we do however, see lots of prefigurings of Christ.

John
Logged
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #45 on: June 29, 2005, 06:46:46 PM »

Quote
No, we do however, see lots of prefigurings of Christ.

John

Hmm...not sure if you were being sarcastic or not. No comments on my observations of Peter in the OT?

~Victor
Logged
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #46 on: June 29, 2005, 09:05:29 PM »

Dear Victor, your theory is very nice, but, you are making wrong presumptions, from a wrong ecclesiology based on wrong definitons in a complete disregard to the Catholicity of the Church.
That is, in turn, based on a wrong this and that.. wrong everything.  Smiley

And as an answer, your view is (very very) wrong.





One more thing. This have me really concerned.
Quote
He tells Moses “You will be as God.” Positioning him directly above Aaron and all the people


Where did HE tell that to Moses?

Those words do sound familiar, but they were not uttered by God.
Gen 3, 5.  For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


"Fine" prefigurement, indeed.






I would really suggest you read some posts on this forum that deal with why Orthodox do not accept erroneus teaching(s) of Vatican.
Also, read-up some more on typology (prefigurements, types and antiypes) in the Old Testament.
Read the Fathers and not... whoever you have been reading thus far.

Its amazing what you can find.




*highlight is mine
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 10:50:20 PM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #47 on: June 30, 2005, 02:34:28 PM »

Quote
Dear Victor, your theory is very nice, but, you are making wrong presumptions, from a wrong ecclesiology based on wrong definitons in a complete disregard to the Catholicity of the Church.
That is, in turn, based on a wrong this and that.. wrong everything.  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

And as an answer, your view is (very very) wrong.

Vladimir, thank you for taking the time to respond. Although I must say that I am disappointed to get a “your wrong” type of response without any clarification as to why I am wrong. This was not intended to be a theory but an honest observation with hopes of someone either disproving it with an explanation or building on it.

Quote
One more thing. This have me really concerned.
He tells Moses “You will be as God.” Positioning him directly above Aaron and all the people.

Where did HE tell that to Moses?

Those words do sound familiar, but they were not uttered by God.
Gen 3, 5.ÂÂ  For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


Here you go:
Exodus 4:16
16 He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him.

Sure sounds like God had no qualms with putting one above another. Like I said in my previous post, this doesn’t mean God will do this or even that he did. But it sure puts more weight to the RCC position.

Quote
"Fine" prefigurement, indeed.

I would really suggest you read some posts on this forum that deal with why Orthodox do not accept erroneus teaching(s) of Vatican.
Also, read-up some more on typology (prefigurements, types and antiypes) in the Old Testament.
Read the Fathers and not... whoever you have been reading thus far.

Its amazing what you can find

Vladimir, I am by no means an expert on Orthodox understandings of the RCC (although I have been reading post here and other writings).It is Because I have been talking to Orthodox and doing some reading on our differences is one of the reasons why I was disappointed to get a “you’re wrong” type of response. Orthodox make great arguments, and was expecting that type of response. Please don’t take this in an inflammatory manner. I am just trying to understand and have a charitable conversation. Yes it is amazing what you can find. Here let me show you just a small portion of what I found:

Maximus the Confessor who said that the Apostolic See of Rome:

Quote
... from God the Incarnate Word Himself as well as all the holy Councils, according to the sacred canons and definitions, has received and possesses supreme power in all things and for all things, over all the holy churches of God throughout the world, as well as power and authority of binding and loosing. For with this church, the Word, who commands the powers of heaven, binds and looses in heaven. [PG 91: 144]


The least in Christ
~Victor
« Last Edit: June 30, 2005, 03:58:49 PM by Victor » Logged
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #48 on: June 30, 2005, 09:19:37 PM »

I do apologise Victor, you do make a good and honest argument. Again I am not saying that value is making it right, but it is at least a positive departure from:"We are because WE say we are" type of attitude that is often presented by Mr. Dave Armstrong and the brotherhood.


First of all, I can not agree with your presentation given in:
Quote
Here you go:
Exodus 4:16
16 He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him.

LXX renders this verse as: And he shall speak for thee to the people, and he shall be thy mouth, and thou shalt be for him in things pertaining to God.
The context is that Moses is asking of God to ordain someone able to speak for him because Moses is weak in speech and slow tongued.

The context is:
10  And Moses said to the Lord, I pray, Lord, I have not been sufficient in former times, neither from the time that thou hast begun to speak to thy servant: I am weak in speech, and slow-tongued. 11 And the Lord said to Moses, Who has given a mouth to man, and who has made the very hard of hearing, and the deaf, the seeing and the blind? have not I, God? 12 And now go and I will open thy mouth, and will instruct thee in what thou shalt say. 13 And Moses said, I pray thee, Lord, appoint another able person whom thou shalt send. 14 And the Lord was greatly angered against Moses, and said, Lo! is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he will surely speak to thee; and, behold, he will come forth to meet thee, and beholding thee he will rejoice within himself. 15 And thou shalt speak to him; and thou shalt put my words into his mouth, and I will open thy mouth and his mouth, and I will instruct you in what ye shall do. 16 And he shall speak for thee to the people, and he shall be thy mouth, and thou shalt be for him in things pertaining to God. (LXX, Exodus IV.)

It is hardly what you are trying to present. And given that the Church used Greek LXX and not some modern translation, I still think that your words are more similar to the words of the snake than of God. Not that I am implying that you are snake, God Forbid, I am just trying to show that you have to find better prefigurement of Papal Infallibility than this one.

So, as a conclusion, this verse does not place any weight behind RCC position, unless you wish to say that RCC is a snake. In that case I will point you to many who will agree.  Wink


Quote
Sure sounds like God had no qualms with putting one above another. Like I said in my previous post, this doesn’t mean God will do this or even that he did.
No one said that God had qualms in putting one over the all. But you do tend do disregard what The Church thinks of who this ONE over all in This time (Since Pentecost) is. I am sorry, that St. Peter is not. You can go from type to type in the O.T.  and you will never find such type that anyone can consider (without a very gymnastic bending) a type of St. Peter+Pope=Infallible Pope. Also, having these human "heads" in the OT did not prevent Jews from falling away. In the NT that is changed into Our Lord being THE HEAD, and from this, having God as the Head of the Body that is His Church we see the perfect enenergyf the New Testament, radiance of which is felt for 2000 years. Without change, without addition or deletion. I am talking of the Orthodox Church, not of Vatican as is now.

Quote
Vladimir, I am by no means an expert on Orthodox understandings of the RCC (although I have been reading post here and other writings).It is Because I have been talking to Orthodox and doing some reading on our differences is one of the reasons why I was disappointed to get a “you’re wrong” type of response. Orthodox make great arguments, and was expecting that type of response. Please don’t take this in an inflammatory manner. I am just trying to understand and have a charitable conversation. Yes it is amazing what you can find. Here let me show you just a small portion of what I found:

Maximus the Confessor who said that the Apostolic See of Rome:
Quote
... from God the Incarnate Word Himself as well as all the holy Councils, according to the sacred canons and definitions, has received and possesses supreme power in all things and for all things, over all the holy churches of God throughout the world, as well as power and authority of binding and loosing. For with this church, the Word, who commands the powers of heaven, binds and looses in heaven. [PG 91: 144]


First of all, let me say that I can not check any quotes from Patrologiae Graecae, as I do not have access to Mignes marvelous work. But, rest assured, if indeed St. Confessor said that, he did not see it as Vatican sees it from Vatican I onwards. Many Fathers have said what would today been considered an opposing/contradicting statements. This is due to what RCC sees as the Prerogative of Power vested in the See of Rome. Onus of proof in this case is on you, to show THE SACRED CANONS and DEFINITIONS that show that Rome possesses supreme power in all things and for all things, over all the holy Churches of God throughout the World as well as power and authority of binding and loosing - as defined by RCC today.

That is, you have to prove, based on the Holy Scriptures, Patrology and Canons of Ecumenical Councils that Rome had PREROGATIVE OF POWER, INFALLIBILITY, ABBILITY TO CHANGE DECISIONS OF THE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS on HER own.

I for one, do not see context in which St. Confessor is speaking, and from what I know, RC Apologists (ie. Armstrong, my fave) are very good at sectarian approach to Patrology and Scriptures. That is they present their arguments EXACTLY AS YOU DO, using (...) and other ways to change the meaning and not providing context. Combining two or even three sentences to show that one is saying something, when in the fact the person is not doing that. My way of thinking is that if those presented (accurately) in PG have been thinking the way that RCC thinks today, we would all be thinking that way. Why? Because Orthodox Church has not changed her Doctrine since Pentecost. Nothing has been formulated beyond what has been given once unto the Saints for the salvation of souls.
On the other hand, starting with filioqve until today, RCC has changed numerous things, coming into the situation of Doctrinal (Dogmatic) nightmare that is in today.  So, as I said, onus is on you.


As far as typology goes, I am sorry, from Adam, over Noe, over Abraham, over Moses, David etc...... there is not one similarity with what you are trying to show.

St. Peter+Pope=Infallable Pope is nothing but a Vision of Vatican I and that is it.


I am not an expert on anything in regard to Theology. My knowledge (if you can call it so) is far from Theology. But I will try to present the view of the Orthodox Church to the best of my abbility. I hope that the One that knows everything will help us both to see His will and in doing so we might start doing His will.
What I wrote is not the position of the Orthodox Church, only my (not well informed) oppinion of what that oppinion would be.  Smiley


Many years.






« Last Edit: June 30, 2005, 09:52:24 PM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #49 on: July 01, 2005, 02:33:42 PM »

Quote
I do apologise Victor, you do make a good and honest argument. Again I am not saying that value is making it right, but it is at least a positive departure from:"We are because WE say we are" type of attitude that is often presented by Mr. Dave Armstrong and the brotherhood.

I was leaning toward telling you the same about some of the Orthodox brotherhood, but there really is no point in doing so. This is seditious and only provokes either you or me to get a bit hostile. I really don’t want to do that and I truly want to change the tone in which both our churches have been dialoguing. Thank you for your time and further look in my observation.

Quote
First of all, I can not agree with your presentation given in:
Here you go:
Exodus 4:16
16 He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him.

LXX renders this verse as: And he shall speak for thee to the people, and he shall be thy mouth, and thou shalt be for him in things pertaining to God.
The context is that Moses is asking of God to ordain someone able to speak for him because Moses is weak in speech and slow tongued.

The context is:
10ÂÂ  And Moses said to the Lord, I pray, Lord, I have not been sufficient in former times, neither from the time that thou hast begun to speak to thy servant: I am weak in speech, and slow-tongued. 11 And the Lord said to Moses, Who has given a mouth to man, and who has made the very hard of hearing, and the deaf, the seeing and the blind? have not I, God? 12 And now go and I will open thy mouth, and will instruct thee in what thou shalt say. 13 And Moses said, I pray thee, Lord, appoint another able person whom thou shalt send. 14 And the Lord was greatly angered against Moses, and said, Lo! is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he will surely speak to thee; and, behold, he will come forth to meet thee, and beholding thee he will rejoice within himself. 15 And thou shalt speak to him; and thou shalt put my words into his mouth, and I will open thy mouth and his mouth, and I will instruct you in what ye shall do. 16 And he shall speak for thee to the people, and he shall be thy mouth, and thou shalt be for him in things pertaining to God. (LXX, Exodus IV.)

It is hardly what you are trying to present. And given that the Church used Greek LXX and not some modern translation, I still think that your words are more similar to the words of the snake than of God. Not that I am implying that you are snake, God Forbid, I am just trying to show that you have to find better prefigurement of Papal Infallibility than this one.

So, as a conclusion, this verse does not place any weight behind RCC position, unless you wish to say that RCC is a snake. In that case I will point you to many who will agree.
ÂÂ  

Vladimir, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to conclude. I was by no means trying to prove Papal Infallibility with the OT. Once again my point was to show that God puts ONE above the rest. There is not much I can show you that I’m sure you haven’t seen to prove infallibility in Peter. I see the development of supremacy of jurisdiction in the Bishop of Rome in history, reason, and Scripture. RCC pulls out their early church father quotes to prove their case and the Orthodox does the same. This becomes no different then you and I arguing with a Protestant on interpretation and verse crossing issues.

Quote
No one said that God had qualms in putting one over the all. But you do tend do disregard what The Church thinks of who this ONE over all in This time (Since Pentecost) is.I am sorry, that St. Peter is not.


At least you see that ONE man (guided by God obviously) can be over all. This is at least a step forward in my eyes.ÂÂ  Wink

Quote
You can go from type to type in the O.T.ÂÂ  and you will never find such type that anyone can consider (without a very gymnastic bending) a type of St. Peter+Pope=Infallible Pope.


Once again I was not trying to prove that. I don’t know why you think I was trying to do that.

Quote
Also, having these human "heads" in the OT did not prevent Jews from falling away.


Have you ever heard a RCC say that having a Pope will guarantee or be more prone to cause the flock to not fall away? If you did then I will confess that is not the case. Pope or no pope, people will disobey and fall away.

Quote
In the NT that is changed into Our Lord being THE HEAD, and from this, having God as the Head of the Body that is His Church we see the perfect enenergyf the New Testament, radiance of which is felt for 2000 years. Without change, without addition or deletion. I am talking of the Orthodox Church, not of Vatican as is now.

You had me at the edge of my seat until you said Orthodox Church…ÂÂ  Wink

Quote
First of all, let me say that I can not check any quotes from Patrologiae Graecae, as I do not have access to Mignes marvelous work. But, rest assured, if indeed St. Confessor said that, he did not see it as Vatican sees it from Vatican I onwards. Many Fathers have said what would today been considered an opposing/contradicting statements. This is due to what RCC sees as the Prerogative of Power vested in the See of Rome. Onus of proof in this case is on you, to show THE SACRED CANONS and DEFINITIONS that show that Rome possesses supreme power in all things and for all things, over all the holy Churches of God throughout the World as well as power and authority of binding and loosing - as defined by RCC today
.

I suppose I could give you a truck load of early church father writings to show you. But this just turns into a quote war and quite frankly it’s getting old hearing “your misunderstanding what they are saying”. While it’s quite clear what St. Confessor said. It some cases I have gone back and read into what many of these early fathers have said, only to conclude that it said what I meant. But as you know, it is a lot of reading neither you nor I in the time we have on earth could possibly retain all those writings. Besides going back to the volumes of writings of St. Confessor will not make moot the clarity in which he clearly notes the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.ÂÂ  

Quote
That is, you have to prove, based on the Holy Scriptures, Patrology and Canons of Ecumenical Councils that Rome had PREROGATIVE OF POWER, INFALLIBILITY, ABBILITY TO CHANGE DECISIONS OF THE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS on HER own.

How about the quote I gave you of St. Confessor? Look into him and get back to me.

Quote
I for one, do not see context in which St. Confessor is speaking, and from what I know, RC Apologists (ie. Armstrong, my fave) are very good at sectarian approach to Patrology and Scriptures. That is they present their arguments EXACTLY AS YOU DO, using (...) and other ways to change the meaning and not providing context. Combining two or even three sentences to show that one is saying something, when in the fact the person is not doing that. My way of thinking is that if those presented (accurately) in PG have been thinking the way that RCC thinks today, we would all be thinking that way. Why? Because Orthodox Church has not changed her Doctrine since Pentecost. Nothing has been formulated beyond what has been given once unto the Saints for the salvation of souls.
On the other hand, starting with filioqve until today, RCC has changed numerous things, coming into the situation of Doctrinal (Dogmatic) nightmare that is in today.ÂÂ  So, as I said, onus is on you.

Vladimir, why such confidence if you have admitted not to have looked into it yourself? You accuse RC’s of doing this but have caught yourself in the same dilemma. I’ll tell you what, since you are convinced that we do this. Why don’t you post the entire volume of St. Confessor and we can read and observe the context. Although I am unsure what St. Confessor could possibly say to take back the words or make void the clarity in which he says what he said.

Quote
As far as typology goes, I am sorry, from Adam, over Noe, over Abraham, over Moses, David etc...... there is not one similarity with what you are trying to show.


That’s because you misunderstood me.

Quote
St. Peter+Pope=Infallable Pope is nothing but a Vision of Vatican I and that is it.

I am not an expert on anything in regard to Theology. My knowledge (if you can call it so) is far from Theology. But I will try to present the view of the Orthodox Church to the best of my abbility. I hope that the One that knows everything will help us both to see His will and in doing so we might start doing His will.
What I wrote is not the position of the Orthodox Church, only my (not well informed) oppinion of what that oppinion would be.  ÃƒÆ’‚Â


Many years.
Completely agree and the same goes with me.

~Victor
« Last Edit: July 01, 2005, 03:23:18 PM by Victor » Logged
SaintShenouti
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 224


« Reply #50 on: July 01, 2005, 04:27:57 PM »

Who needs a Roman pope when we have our own? 

The pope of Alexandria has held this title long before any Roman patriarch.
Logged
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #51 on: July 01, 2005, 04:53:13 PM »

Quote
Who needs a Roman pope when we have our own? 

The pope of Alexandria has held this title long before any Roman patriarch.

Haha!  Cheesy

Nice avatar pic, btw.
Logged
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #52 on: July 01, 2005, 07:51:27 PM »

I do not think that there is anything I can add.

As I said, onus is on you.
When you are ready to prove your view by using anything but some "Armstrongian quotes" and a bunch of wrong assumption you are welcome to do so. Until then, have a good one.

« Last Edit: July 01, 2005, 09:17:59 PM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #53 on: July 02, 2005, 01:38:19 AM »

Vladimir, thanks for the chat but if your going to make an accusation like me having "Armstrongian quotes"  please point them out. Since onus is on me it appears offense in a spot you feel comfortable with. I am going to have to decline and just continue to read and post in the forum when you are more willing to seek unity on not seek to be on offense send me a message. Even if you are right I get edgey when someone just wants answers but does not seek to understand.

Thanks again

The Least in Christ
~Victor
Logged
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #54 on: July 02, 2005, 09:04:50 AM »

You are right, it is pointless asking for answers and not wanting to understand.


Given that you say that you are not trying to present what I saw (assume)  you wanted to present....

What are you trying to say?
« Last Edit: July 02, 2005, 09:41:56 AM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #55 on: March 29, 2010, 04:11:50 AM »

One good quote from the Bible would be:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28)

This clearly shows that it is the conciliar decision of the Church in a Council, with the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit, that would be the infallible and orthodox dogma -- and not the sole decision of the Peter or the successor of Peter. Jesus promised that the Church would not be prevailed upon by Hades, He did not promise that Peter would not be prevailed upon by Hades!
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
Tags: The St. Maximos Quote 
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.206 seconds with 83 queries.