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:
Here you go:
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.
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.
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:
... 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.