OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 29, 2014, 02:34:28 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 6677 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 0.081 seconds with 38 queries.