OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 08:09:39 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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me  (Read 9410 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #315 on: March 27, 2013, 08:51:43 PM »

Perhaps it is an unhappy word use and we should shoot for another. One might say that the pope is a stand in for Christ's visible presence.

Still flawed.  Does this make the Pope merely a puppet and Christ pulls his strings to do what He wants?

If Christ intended St. Peter to be the infallible supreme ruler of the Church in his stead, why did he choose 12 Apostles?  Why not just St. Peter and train him well then let him select his own "bishops" who are under him.  Obviously in our iconographic tradition we do see equal value to those called by Christ personally to be the Apostles, which is why St. Matthias normally doesn't appear in depictions of the 12 and is instead replaced by St. Paul, because St. Paul was personally called by Christ while St. Matthias was elevated to the office of Judas by the 11.
You are grasping at straws. The Eastern Orthodox have much more formiddable arguments than this. Come now, you can do better.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #316 on: March 27, 2013, 09:53:15 PM »


So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
refuted is a term you use loosly, I don't need the church fathers to prove the papacy, I have the bible , try as you may you can't refute the fact that Jesus gives only  Peter the keys to the kingdom, tells Peter he is the rock, and tells Peter to rule His sheep in John 21...I've read the attempts to refute this on this forum and they all failed miserably
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,381


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #317 on: March 27, 2013, 10:05:12 PM »


So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
refuted is a term you use loosly, I don't need the church fathers to prove the papacy, I have the bible , try as you may you can't refute the fact that Jesus gives only  Peter the keys to the kingdom, tells Peter he is the rock, and tells Peter to rule His sheep in John 21...I've read the attempts to refute this on this forum and they all failed miserably

Yes, and Scott Butler, the author of Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, also told me the same until he was red in the face.

The 12 Apostles governed the Early Church in a conciliar fashion. Peter was never called "Pope" or even "Bishop of Rome" in the Bible. The Apostle Paul never addressed Peter as "His Holiness," but challenged Peter to his face.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #318 on: March 27, 2013, 11:11:30 PM »


So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
refuted is a term you use loosly, I don't need the church fathers to prove the papacy, I have the bible , try as you may you can't refute the fact that Jesus gives only  Peter the keys to the kingdom, tells Peter he is the rock, and tells Peter to rule His sheep in John 21...I've read the attempts to refute this on this forum and they all failed miserably

Yes, and Scott Butler, the author of Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, also told me the same until he was red in the face.

The 12 Apostles governed the Early Church in a conciliar fashion. Peter was never called "Pope" or even "Bishop of Rome" in the Bible. The Apostle Paul never addressed Peter as "His Holiness," but challenged Peter to his face.
I don't know any butler, to discount all the biblical passages that clearly set Peter apart from the others because Paul did confront Peter concerning the circumcision issue is ridiculous

In Acts 15,we read about the dissension concerning circumcision. Some were teaching that all gentile converts to the Gospel had to undergo circumcision to be saved. After much disputing,Paul and Barnabas went to the Apostles at Jerusalem to consult about this question. The leaders of the Church held a council to discuss the issue. This council is sometimes called the first ecumenical council of the Christian Church.


Acts15:7-“And when there had been much disputing,Peter rose up,and said unto them,Men and brethren,ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,that the Gentiles by mouth should hear the word of the gospel,and believe.”

After much disputing,St Peter rises up and delivers the first address to silence the argument and give the decision. That’s because he was the leader of the Church,the first pope. The Bible makes special  mention of the fact that when Peter spoke and gave his decision,the multitude kept silence:

Acts 15:12 “Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul…”

St James spoke after paul and Barnabas, for , as early Church historian Eusebius tells us,St James was left to be Bishop over the local church at Jerusalem.

Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

Galatians18  Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days.


 1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

The ancients therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come:
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #319 on: March 28, 2013, 05:12:54 AM »


So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
refuted is a term you use loosly, I don't need the church fathers to prove the papacy, I have the bible , try as you may you can't refute the fact that Jesus gives only  Peter the keys to the kingdom, tells Peter he is the rock, and tells Peter to rule His sheep in John 21...I've read the attempts to refute this on this forum and they all failed miserably

Even if, for the sakes of argument, I were to agree with your interpretation of Scripture (I don't, but we'll put that aside for now), you still would have to explain how you get from St. Peter as monarch of the Church to the Pope of Rome in that role. Why not the Patriarch of Antioch, who would certainly seem to have prior claim? Why not the Patriarch of Alexandria? Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Pope of Rome is the successor to St. Peter and one of the Popes of Rome (St. Gregory the Great) clearly describes the all three Patriarchates (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) as the See of St. Peter.

I keep seeing you claiming to have refuted Orthodox arguments, but all I actually see is bluster. Your 'arguments' seem to consist of you sticking both fingers in your ears and declaring that nobody can refute you. Thankfully not all the Catholics here are so poor at presenting their case.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,211


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #320 on: March 28, 2013, 05:47:19 AM »

Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.

Here. The relevant part starts at paragraph 2 of caput III and continues on the next page.
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

A Traditionalist Catholic who isn't good at Latin? Is outrage!
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 05:47:42 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,211


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #321 on: March 28, 2013, 05:49:30 AM »

Peter was never called "Pope" or even "Bishop of Rome" in the Bible.

This argument is unimpressive.
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,211


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #322 on: March 28, 2013, 05:52:24 AM »


You are grasping at straws. The Eastern Orthodox have much more formiddable arguments than this. Come now, you can do better.

Same with Roman Catholics. There are some really good arguments out there for the Papay but internet apologists usually don't come much further than copypasting patristic florilegia filled with quotes which are completely taken out of context (as sedevacantist is doing) or shouting "anticonception". Disappointing, but internet debates will be internet debates.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 05:53:23 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 82


« Reply #323 on: March 28, 2013, 09:14:59 AM »

Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.


Question to alternative A:
- Is it  the Councils themselves who are deemed infallible or is it when the council decrees have been received by the Church, i.e when "integrated" in the mind of the Church?
When listening to Clark Carlton's podcasts, he puts the emphasis on the latter alternative. That seems reasonable, considering the consensus criterion.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,111


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #324 on: March 28, 2013, 09:26:03 AM »

Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

Not to stereotype or anything, but Scots aren't known for their Latin.
Who's a scot?

Aren't all hispanics/latinos originally from Scotland? Grin Grin
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,111


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #325 on: March 28, 2013, 09:30:10 AM »

Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.

Here. The relevant part starts at paragraph 2 of caput III and continues on the next page.
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

A Traditionalist Catholic who isn't good at Latin? Is outrage!

Maybe there's a Gaelic translation  laugh laugh laugh!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #326 on: March 28, 2013, 10:11:32 AM »

Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.

Here. The relevant part starts at paragraph 2 of caput III and continues on the next page.
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

A Traditionalist Catholic who isn't good at Latin? Is outrage!

Some of those who go to TLM are just hipsters.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #327 on: March 28, 2013, 10:37:14 AM »

is it when the council decrees have been received by the Church, i.e when "integrated" in the mind of the Church?

This.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #328 on: March 28, 2013, 10:56:17 AM »

Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.

Here. The relevant part starts at paragraph 2 of caput III and continues on the next page.
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

A Traditionalist Catholic who isn't good at Latin? Is outrage!
Aslo a hispanic from New Mexico who is not fluent in Spanish!
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,111


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #329 on: March 28, 2013, 11:10:25 AM »

Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.

Here. The relevant part starts at paragraph 2 of caput III and continues on the next page.
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

A Traditionalist Catholic who isn't good at Latin? Is outrage!
Aslo a hispanic from New Mexico who is not fluent in Spanish!

Bad, bad, BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD Boy!!!! Grin
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 11:11:13 AM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 82


« Reply #330 on: March 28, 2013, 11:21:54 AM »

Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.

Here. The relevant part starts at paragraph 2 of caput III and continues on the next page.
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

A Traditionalist Catholic who isn't good at Latin? Is outrage!

Some of those who go to TLM are just hipsters.
And  some of those who attend the Novus Ordo are just pedophiles. Sounds like calumny, doesn't it, even though it statistically is a factual statement, just like yours?
Why the  smearing of people who at least are searching for some kind of tradition? From your point of view that search should be laudable, since you yourself obviously have searched and found tradition.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #331 on: March 28, 2013, 12:39:46 PM »

Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.

Here. The relevant part starts at paragraph 2 of caput III and continues on the next page.
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

A Traditionalist Catholic who isn't good at Latin? Is outrage!

Some of those who go to TLM are just hipsters.
Meh, I've been called worse on this forum.  Grin
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #332 on: March 28, 2013, 01:02:40 PM »

Meh, I've been called worse on this forum.  Grin

I'm not talking about you.  But it is true a lot of people just follow it as a trend.  I mean, the same thing happens to Eastern Catholicism.  When people discover it they love it because it is a new thing to them.  How many of them actually stay there?  How many of them actually live the traditions of an Eastern Catholic?

I'm not discounting genuine traditionalists like yourself.  That is why I said "some".  But some people just attends one TLM then starts posting Latin on their FB page.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #333 on: March 28, 2013, 01:37:11 PM »

Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

Not to stereotype or anything, but Scots aren't known for their Latin.
Who's a scot?

(emphasis added)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,381


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #334 on: March 28, 2013, 05:41:47 PM »

is it when the council decrees have been received by the Church, i.e when "integrated" in the mind of the Church?

This.

Exactly.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #335 on: March 28, 2013, 06:40:54 PM »

Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

Not to stereotype or anything, but Scots aren't known for their Latin.
Who's a scot?

(emphasis added)
LOL. I get it now. <palm to forhead> I meant to say, "My latin is pretty week."
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 746



« Reply #336 on: March 28, 2013, 08:52:55 PM »

Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

Not to stereotype or anything, but Scots aren't known for their Latin.
Who's a scot?

(emphasis added)
LOL. I get it now. <palm to forhead> I meant to say, "My latin is pretty week."

Mine is pretty month.   Wink
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,381


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #337 on: March 28, 2013, 08:59:51 PM »

Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

Not to stereotype or anything, but Scots aren't known for their Latin.
Who's a scot?

(emphasis added)
LOL. I get it now. <palm to forhead> I meant to say, "My latin is pretty week."

Mine is pretty month.   Wink

And this little piggy, went "wee, wee, wee" all the way home.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #338 on: March 28, 2013, 10:50:09 PM »


You are grasping at straws. The Eastern Orthodox have much more formiddable arguments than this. Come now, you can do better.

Same with Roman Catholics. There are some really good arguments out there for the Papay but internet apologists usually don't come much further than copypasting patristic florilegia filled with quotes which are completely taken out of context (as sedevacantist is doing) or shouting "anticonception". Disappointing, but internet debates will be internet debates.
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #339 on: March 28, 2013, 11:12:36 PM »


So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
refuted is a term you use loosly, I don't need the church fathers to prove the papacy, I have the bible , try as you may you can't refute the fact that Jesus gives only  Peter the keys to the kingdom, tells Peter he is the rock, and tells Peter to rule His sheep in John 21...I've read the attempts to refute this on this forum and they all failed miserably

Even if, for the sakes of argument, I were to agree with your interpretation of Scripture (I don't, but we'll put that aside for now), you still would have to explain how you get from St. Peter as monarch of the Church to the Pope of Rome in that role. Why not the Patriarch of Antioch, who would certainly seem to have prior claim? Why not the Patriarch of Alexandria? Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Pope of Rome is the successor to St. Peter and one of the Popes of Rome (St. Gregory the Great) clearly describes the all three Patriarchates (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) as the See of St. Peter.

I keep seeing you claiming to have refuted Orthodox arguments, but all I actually see is bluster. Your 'arguments' seem to consist of you sticking both fingers in your ears and declaring that nobody can refute you. Thankfully not all the Catholics here are so poor at presenting their case.

James
where did St Peter die


When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Opatatus:
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 is 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. (Opatatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, 367 A.D.)
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,273


WWW
« Reply #340 on: March 28, 2013, 11:21:31 PM »


So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
refuted is a term you use loosly, I don't need the church fathers to prove the papacy, I have the bible , try as you may you can't refute the fact that Jesus gives only  Peter the keys to the kingdom, tells Peter he is the rock, and tells Peter to rule His sheep in John 21...I've read the attempts to refute this on this forum and they all failed miserably

Even if, for the sakes of argument, I were to agree with your interpretation of Scripture (I don't, but we'll put that aside for now), you still would have to explain how you get from St. Peter as monarch of the Church to the Pope of Rome in that role. Why not the Patriarch of Antioch, who would certainly seem to have prior claim? Why not the Patriarch of Alexandria? Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Pope of Rome is the successor to St. Peter and one of the Popes of Rome (St. Gregory the Great) clearly describes the all three Patriarchates (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) as the See of St. Peter.

I keep seeing you claiming to have refuted Orthodox arguments, but all I actually see is bluster. Your 'arguments' seem to consist of you sticking both fingers in your ears and declaring that nobody can refute you. Thankfully not all the Catholics here are so poor at presenting their case.

James
where did St Peter die


When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Opatatus:
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 is 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. (Opatatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, 367 A.D.)

What did the Lord say about vain repetitions?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,179


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #341 on: March 28, 2013, 11:30:34 PM »


So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
refuted is a term you use loosly, I don't need the church fathers to prove the papacy, I have the bible , try as you may you can't refute the fact that Jesus gives only  Peter the keys to the kingdom, tells Peter he is the rock, and tells Peter to rule His sheep in John 21...I've read the attempts to refute this on this forum and they all failed miserably

Even if, for the sakes of argument, I were to agree with your interpretation of Scripture (I don't, but we'll put that aside for now), you still would have to explain how you get from St. Peter as monarch of the Church to the Pope of Rome in that role. Why not the Patriarch of Antioch, who would certainly seem to have prior claim? Why not the Patriarch of Alexandria? Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Pope of Rome is the successor to St. Peter and one of the Popes of Rome (St. Gregory the Great) clearly describes the all three Patriarchates (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) as the See of St. Peter.

I keep seeing you claiming to have refuted Orthodox arguments, but all I actually see is bluster. Your 'arguments' seem to consist of you sticking both fingers in your ears and declaring that nobody can refute you. Thankfully not all the Catholics here are so poor at presenting their case.

James
where did St Peter die


When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Opatatus:
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 is 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. (Opatatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, 367 A.D.)

What did the Lord say about vain repetitions?
How much will it cost me to buy green tea in Shanghai?
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,273


WWW
« Reply #342 on: March 29, 2013, 12:03:36 AM »


So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
refuted is a term you use loosly, I don't need the church fathers to prove the papacy, I have the bible , try as you may you can't refute the fact that Jesus gives only  Peter the keys to the kingdom, tells Peter he is the rock, and tells Peter to rule His sheep in John 21...I've read the attempts to refute this on this forum and they all failed miserably

Even if, for the sakes of argument, I were to agree with your interpretation of Scripture (I don't, but we'll put that aside for now), you still would have to explain how you get from St. Peter as monarch of the Church to the Pope of Rome in that role. Why not the Patriarch of Antioch, who would certainly seem to have prior claim? Why not the Patriarch of Alexandria? Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Pope of Rome is the successor to St. Peter and one of the Popes of Rome (St. Gregory the Great) clearly describes the all three Patriarchates (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) as the See of St. Peter.

I keep seeing you claiming to have refuted Orthodox arguments, but all I actually see is bluster. Your 'arguments' seem to consist of you sticking both fingers in your ears and declaring that nobody can refute you. Thankfully not all the Catholics here are so poor at presenting their case.

James
where did St Peter die


When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Opatatus:
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 is 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. (Opatatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, 367 A.D.)

What did the Lord say about vain repetitions?
How much will it cost me to buy green tea in Shanghai?

I forget the lesson from that comment.   Huh
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,211


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #343 on: March 29, 2013, 04:23:06 AM »

if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
« Last Edit: March 29, 2013, 04:23:34 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,211


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #344 on: March 29, 2013, 05:01:23 AM »

Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

Not to stereotype or anything, but Scots aren't known for their Latin.
Who's a scot?

(emphasis added)
LOL. I get it now. <palm to forhead> I meant to say, "My latin is pretty week."

LOL.
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #345 on: March 29, 2013, 05:20:01 AM »

if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?

I'm interested. Do that devil's advocate thing.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #346 on: March 29, 2013, 07:39:58 AM »

if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,211


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #347 on: March 29, 2013, 08:45:09 AM »


I'm interested. Do that devil's advocate thing.

OK. Just keep in mind that I don't agree with it myself. It is full of sophistries, isn't written very eloquently and is tl;dr:

Peter is the Rock on which the Church is built:

Peter is the first of the Apostles. Not only is this continually mentioned in the hymns of the Church, the Fathers too said the same. "Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built up, left one epistle generally received" wrote Origen (Eus. H.E VI.25) and St. Basil wrote  (Adv. Eunom.): "When we say Peter we mean the son of Jonas, brother of Andrew, who since he was the greatest in faith received the building up of the Church to himself". The list of quotes from the Fathers, including names like St. John Chrysostom and St. Ephrem, which say the same would indeed be too long for this forum post. Even the Menaion of the Church of Constantinople calls St. Peter on the feast day of St. Peter in the Chains in the Hesperinon: "The foundation of the Church and Rock of the faith" and "Immovable basis of dogmas".

Moreover, the menaion of the 13th of April has this to say about Pope St. Martin: "By what name shall I call thee, oh Martin ! Shall I call thee the glorious ruler of the Orthodox Faith for all? Or the sacred chief of divine dogmas, unstained by error?... Or the most true reprover of heresy ? ... We know that thou
wast the foundation of bishops, pillar of the Orthodox Faith, teacher of religion... Thou didst adorn the divine See of Peter, and since thou from this divine Rock didst guard the Church unmoved, so now with him (St. Peter) art thou glorified."

Besides, St. Jerome, at the moment in "the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord (ep. 15)" writes to Pope Damasus: "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. (idem.)"

This speaks for itself.

The Pope is the successor of St. Peter/St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome:

The Popes claimed to be the successors of St. Peter and thus "the rock" and the "immovable basis of dogmas". Eusebius of Caesarea wrote: "Linus received the Bishopric of the Roman Church first after Peter". The Council of Chalcedon and Constantinople III clearly approved of this when they cried out "Peter has spoken thus through Leo/Agatho". Again, the sticheron in the Menaion of June states "Summit and foundation of the Apostles, you left all things and followed your Master, saying: May I die with you, so as to live the life of the Blessed. You became the first Bishop of Rome; you were the glory and honour of the greatest of all cities and fulcrum of the Church, oh Peter, against which the gates of hell shall never prevail.". Lex orandi, lex credendi.

It's even more explicit on the feast day of St. Gregory Dialogos: "Most sacred Pastor, thou art the successor of the see and also of the zeal of the first one, cleansing the people and bringing them to God. Successor of the throne of the prince of the choir of disciples, whence thou dost by thy teaching as with a torch enlighten the faithful, oh Gregory!"

The Pope enjoys universal jurisdiction:

Obviously, the rock could not have perished with the death of St. Peter. St. John Chrysostom states (De Sac. ii. 1. PG: 48:632.) "Why did he (our Lord) shed his blood? To redeem the sheep which he handed over to Peter and to his successors.". Thus, there must still be successors of St. Peter who still shepherd the Church. Who then is this shepherd?

Let's ask St. Basil, who wrote this in a letter to St. Athanasius (ep. 69): "It has seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodical decree, to advise him to exercise his own personal authority in the matter by choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of a journey—suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here". Obviously, the Pope had no authority in Cappadocia unless he had universal jurisdiction.

That the Pope has universal jurisdiction is shown as well in the fact that the Pope summoned St. Athanasius and his accusers to Rome to stand trial before the Roman Pope. St. Athanasius came and submitted himself to the judgment of the Roman Bishop, who had no authority in Egypt (can. 6 of Nicaea), unless, of course, he had universal jurisdiction. The Pope reinstated St. Athanasius, because, according to Sozomen (H.E III,8), "the care of all belonged to him because of the rank of his see, he restored to each one his Church." By coming to Rome, submitting himself to trial and acknowledging the verdict St. Athanasius clearly recognised the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

Rome does not and shall not err:

"For since the beginning, when the Word of God came down to us, being made man, all the Churches of the Christians have received one only firm basis and
foundation, the great Church that is there (at Rome), against which, according to the Saviour's promise, the gates of hell shall never prevail, and which holds the keys of the true faith in him, which gives the true and only piety to those who come to her devoutly, which shuts the mouth of all heretics" wrote the great Maximus the Confessor (Ep. Romae scripta, ii. 72,). And indeed, this is proven by history. The other Patriarchates repeatedly fell into heresies like nestorianism, iconoclasm and monophysitism (I don't believe the non-chalcedonians are heretics or monophysites, this is just an exercise in rhetorics -- Cyrillic) and Rome alone held the faith undefiled. Many more quotes like this one can be adduced from the writings of the Fathers.

Rome too is the final arbiter of any dogmatic questions. ""till you come to the Apostolic See" St. Sophronius of Jerusalem said (Mansi X, 896) "where is the foundation of the Orthodox belief. Tell the most holy persons of that see all about our difficulties : do not cease to beg and entreat them until their Apostolic and divine wisdom shall pronounce the victorious sentence, and shall canonically destroy and root out this new heresy." And how can the foundation of Orthodox belief fail?

As a last example I will adduce the testimony of St. Theodore the Studite, which lived just before the time that Photius bewitched the Byzantine Church and made them look with disdain upon the first of bishops (I don't actually believe this myself, St. Photius pray for us! --Cyrillic). St. Theodore of Studium, one of the last witnesses of the old Byzantine Church, clearly shows that the pre-Photian Byzantine Church had the same beliefs about the Papacy as the Latin west. In a letter to the Pope he asks him to invoke his universal jurisdiction, which St. Theodore believed the Pope had. "Behold, now is the time and place: help us, you who are ordained by God for this. Stretch out your hand as far as you can. You have the power from God, since you are Prince of all. (Patrologia Graeca, xcix, 1153)"

How could the Pope else have jurisdiction in Constantinople and the Iconoclast East than with his universal jurisdiction?

Besides, St. Theodore believed that all matters of doctrinal importance should be referred to Rome. "If the Emperor is not content, if, as he says, the Patriarch
Nicephorus has wandered from the truth, both sides should send an embassy to the Roman (Patriarch), and should from him accept the certainty of faith (PG 99:1420)." St. Theodore wrote to the Pope asking his opinion on the iconoclasts. When Pope Paschal sent back a letter in which he condemned and excommunicates the iconoclasts Theodore said: "Now, indeed, I say before God and men that the heretics have separated themselves from the Body of Christ, from the supreme see in which Christ has placed the keys of faith, against which the gates of hell have never prevailed, and never shall prevail till the end. Let the most holy, the Apostolic, the beloved Paschal rejoice; he has accomplished the work of Peter." Remarkable quotes, especially since they were uttered mere decades before Photius usurped the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople.

We have, then, as the belief of these Fathers that (i) Peter was the Prince of the Apostles and the Rock, (2) the Roman Pontiffs succeed him in this office, (3) therefore the Roman Bishop has jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ, (4) and the faith of his Church is the standard of orthodoxy for all
Christians. And these four points make up exactly what Catholics believe about the Pope.

I could go on and on with this, but this is long enough, I think. Again, it's pretty much nonsense but it sounds more convincing than your average Roman polemics. Forgive me the grammatical slipups. I typed this quickly and I'm incredibly tired.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2013, 08:59:27 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,211


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #348 on: March 29, 2013, 08:51:13 AM »

I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.

Well, no. I just like rhetorics and enjoy switching POV's in (political) debates, just to see if I can convince others using rhetorics to accept a position I actually oppose.

I do believe the Orthodox faith to be the total truth. I know the arguments for the Papacy, considered them and rejected them, if it makes you feel any better.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2013, 09:04:07 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #349 on: March 29, 2013, 11:41:55 PM »

I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.

Well, no. I just like rhetorics and enjoy switching POV's in (political) debates, just to see if I can convince others using rhetorics to accept a position I actually oppose.

I do believe the Orthodox faith to be the total truth. I know the arguments for the Papacy, considered them and rejected them, if it makes you feel any better.
why do you reject the truth, reject the bible, and no it doesn't make me feel better that you are outside the church and that your salvation is clearly in jeopardy
Logged
JoeS2
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,114


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #350 on: March 30, 2013, 12:11:58 AM »

I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.

Well, no. I just like rhetorics and enjoy switching POV's in (political) debates, just to see if I can convince others using rhetorics to accept a position I actually oppose.

I do believe the Orthodox faith to be the total truth. I know the arguments for the Papacy, considered them and rejected them, if it makes you feel any better.
why do you reject the truth, reject the bible, and no it doesn't make me feel better that you are outside the church and that your salvation is clearly in jeopardy

So, you feel that we Orthodox are "outside" the church....We are the Church, the original church of the East.  We love the Bible and Tradition.  One's salvation is in God's hands and His Eternal Mercy.  And that goes for RC's as well.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,179


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #351 on: March 30, 2013, 12:12:57 AM »

if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... Undecided sounds rather presumptuous to me.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 12:14:35 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #352 on: March 30, 2013, 12:19:10 AM »

if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.

If you want the whole truth then you'd be Orthodox.  You claim that you would go to where the truth is no matter where it is, yet you are closed minded to be anywhere else other than where you are.  You won't even go back to the original and true Roman Church under the Pope of Rome.  You'd rather be your own Pope.
Logged
JoeS2
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,114


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #353 on: March 30, 2013, 12:25:32 AM »

if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.

If you want the whole truth then you'd be Orthodox.  You claim that you would go to where the truth is no matter where it is, yet you are closed minded to be anywhere else other than where you are.  You won't even go back to the original and true Roman Church under the Pope of Rome.  You'd rather be your own Pope.

One needs to wrap yourself around God, rather than wrapping God around you.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 12:26:33 AM by JoeS2 » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #354 on: March 30, 2013, 12:37:12 AM »


I'm interested. Do that devil's advocate thing.

OK. Just keep in mind that I don't agree with it myself. It is full of sophistries, isn't written very eloquently and is tl;dr:

Peter is the Rock on which the Church is built:

Peter is the first of the Apostles. Not only is this continually mentioned in the hymns of the Church, the Fathers too said the same. "Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built up, left one epistle generally received" wrote Origen (Eus. H.E VI.25) and St. Basil wrote  (Adv. Eunom.): "When we say Peter we mean the son of Jonas, brother of Andrew, who since he was the greatest in faith received the building up of the Church to himself". The list of quotes from the Fathers, including names like St. John Chrysostom and St. Ephrem, which say the same would indeed be too long for this forum post. Even the Menaion of the Church of Constantinople calls St. Peter on the feast day of St. Peter in the Chains in the Hesperinon: "The foundation of the Church and Rock of the faith" and "Immovable basis of dogmas".

Moreover, the menaion of the 13th of April has this to say about Pope St. Martin: "By what name shall I call thee, oh Martin ! Shall I call thee the glorious ruler of the Orthodox Faith for all? Or the sacred chief of divine dogmas, unstained by error?... Or the most true reprover of heresy ? ... We know that thou
wast the foundation of bishops, pillar of the Orthodox Faith, teacher of religion... Thou didst adorn the divine See of Peter, and since thou from this divine Rock didst guard the Church unmoved, so now with him (St. Peter) art thou glorified."

Besides, St. Jerome, at the moment in "the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord (ep. 15)" writes to Pope Damasus: "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. (idem.)"

This speaks for itself.

The Pope is the successor of St. Peter/St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome:

The Popes claimed to be the successors of St. Peter and thus "the rock" and the "immovable basis of dogmas". Eusebius of Caesarea wrote: "Linus received the Bishopric of the Roman Church first after Peter". The Council of Chalcedon and Constantinople III clearly approved of this when they cried out "Peter has spoken thus through Leo/Agatho". Again, the sticheron in the Menaion of June states "Summit and foundation of the Apostles, you left all things and followed your Master, saying: May I die with you, so as to live the life of the Blessed. You became the first Bishop of Rome; you were the glory and honour of the greatest of all cities and fulcrum of the Church, oh Peter, against which the gates of hell shall never prevail.". Lex orandi, lex credendi.

It's even more explicit on the feast day of St. Gregory Dialogos: "Most sacred Pastor, thou art the successor of the see and also of the zeal of the first one, cleansing the people and bringing them to God. Successor of the throne of the prince of the choir of disciples, whence thou dost by thy teaching as with a torch enlighten the faithful, oh Gregory!"

The Pope enjoys universal jurisdiction:

Obviously, the rock could not have perished with the death of St. Peter. St. John Chrysostom states (De Sac. ii. 1. PG: 48:632.) "Why did he (our Lord) shed his blood? To redeem the sheep which he handed over to Peter and to his successors.". Thus, there must still be successors of St. Peter who still shepherd the Church. Who then is this shepherd?

Let's ask St. Basil, who wrote this in a letter to St. Athanasius (ep. 69): "It has seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodical decree, to advise him to exercise his own personal authority in the matter by choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of a journey—suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here". Obviously, the Pope had no authority in Cappadocia unless he had universal jurisdiction.

That the Pope has universal jurisdiction is shown as well in the fact that the Pope summoned St. Athanasius and his accusers to Rome to stand trial before the Roman Pope. St. Athanasius came and submitted himself to the judgment of the Roman Bishop, who had no authority in Egypt (can. 6 of Nicaea), unless, of course, he had universal jurisdiction. The Pope reinstated St. Athanasius, because, according to Sozomen (H.E III,8), "the care of all belonged to him because of the rank of his see, he restored to each one his Church." By coming to Rome, submitting himself to trial and acknowledging the verdict St. Athanasius clearly recognised the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

Rome does not and shall not err:

"For since the beginning, when the Word of God came down to us, being made man, all the Churches of the Christians have received one only firm basis and
foundation, the great Church that is there (at Rome), against which, according to the Saviour's promise, the gates of hell shall never prevail, and which holds the keys of the true faith in him, which gives the true and only piety to those who come to her devoutly, which shuts the mouth of all heretics" wrote the great Maximus the Confessor (Ep. Romae scripta, ii. 72,). And indeed, this is proven by history. The other Patriarchates repeatedly fell into heresies like nestorianism, iconoclasm and monophysitism (I don't believe the non-chalcedonians are heretics or monophysites, this is just an exercise in rhetorics -- Cyrillic) and Rome alone held the faith undefiled. Many more quotes like this one can be adduced from the writings of the Fathers.

Rome too is the final arbiter of any dogmatic questions. ""till you come to the Apostolic See" St. Sophronius of Jerusalem said (Mansi X, 896) "where is the foundation of the Orthodox belief. Tell the most holy persons of that see all about our difficulties : do not cease to beg and entreat them until their Apostolic and divine wisdom shall pronounce the victorious sentence, and shall canonically destroy and root out this new heresy." And how can the foundation of Orthodox belief fail?

As a last example I will adduce the testimony of St. Theodore the Studite, which lived just before the time that Photius bewitched the Byzantine Church and made them look with disdain upon the first of bishops (I don't actually believe this myself, St. Photius pray for us! --Cyrillic). St. Theodore of Studium, one of the last witnesses of the old Byzantine Church, clearly shows that the pre-Photian Byzantine Church had the same beliefs about the Papacy as the Latin west. In a letter to the Pope he asks him to invoke his universal jurisdiction, which St. Theodore believed the Pope had. "Behold, now is the time and place: help us, you who are ordained by God for this. Stretch out your hand as far as you can. You have the power from God, since you are Prince of all. (Patrologia Graeca, xcix, 1153)"

How could the Pope else have jurisdiction in Constantinople and the Iconoclast East than with his universal jurisdiction?

Besides, St. Theodore believed that all matters of doctrinal importance should be referred to Rome. "If the Emperor is not content, if, as he says, the Patriarch
Nicephorus has wandered from the truth, both sides should send an embassy to the Roman (Patriarch), and should from him accept the certainty of faith (PG 99:1420)." St. Theodore wrote to the Pope asking his opinion on the iconoclasts. When Pope Paschal sent back a letter in which he condemned and excommunicates the iconoclasts Theodore said: "Now, indeed, I say before God and men that the heretics have separated themselves from the Body of Christ, from the supreme see in which Christ has placed the keys of faith, against which the gates of hell have never prevailed, and never shall prevail till the end. Let the most holy, the Apostolic, the beloved Paschal rejoice; he has accomplished the work of Peter." Remarkable quotes, especially since they were uttered mere decades before Photius usurped the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople.

We have, then, as the belief of these Fathers that (i) Peter was the Prince of the Apostles and the Rock, (2) the Roman Pontiffs succeed him in this office, (3) therefore the Roman Bishop has jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ, (4) and the faith of his Church is the standard of orthodoxy for all
Christians. And these four points make up exactly what Catholics believe about the Pope.

I could go on and on with this, but this is long enough, I think. Again, it's pretty much nonsense but it sounds more convincing than your average Roman polemics. Forgive me the grammatical slipups. I typed this quickly and I'm incredibly tired.

Thank you. I'll read it more carefully when I am not as tired.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #355 on: March 30, 2013, 12:38:43 AM »

I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.

Well, no. I just like rhetorics and enjoy switching POV's in (political) debates, just to see if I can convince others using rhetorics to accept a position I actually oppose.

A very classical manner of learning. One could even say, Latin.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,211


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #356 on: March 30, 2013, 05:06:52 AM »

why do you reject the truth, reject the bible

I don't.

it doesn't make me feel better that you are outside the church and that your salvation is clearly in jeopardy

Yes. I'm aware that being outside the Church is risky, but as I told you before I'm working on remedying this.
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #357 on: March 30, 2013, 07:11:13 AM »

why do you reject the truth, reject the bible

Because they're all evil! Evil I say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #358 on: March 30, 2013, 07:27:29 AM »

if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... Undecided sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted?Huh
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #359 on: March 30, 2013, 07:34:17 AM »

if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.

If you want the whole truth then you'd be Orthodox.  You claim that you would go to where the truth is no matter where it is, yet you are closed minded to be anywhere else other than where you are.  You won't even go back to the original and true Roman Church under the Pope of Rome.  You'd rather be your own Pope.
so I'm closed minded because I believe my position is true??? what on earth are u talking about? if I was closed minded I would have still been going to the wretched new mass, so the opposite is true, I am opened minded because I was able to break out of the vatican 2 sect even though I grew up in it, my family and friends are closed minded in that they can't accept the evidence presented that the new mass/vatican is evil....I'll just add  your "be own pope" comment to the list of ridiculous things you have posted already.....you confirm once more that you just don't know what you're talking about
Logged
Tags: That Irenaeus quote 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   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 0.226 seconds with 72 queries.