Well, for one, there's the papacy finally caving in to outside pressure to make a unilateral change to a creed that was drafted and ratified by an ecumenical council (i.e., the filioque clause). You may think that the papacy has authority even over an ecumenical council, but we Orthodox believe otherwise. Following the example of Acts 15, where the apostles and bishops gathered in council to address the burning doctrinal issue of the day--BTW, it was James, the local bishop of Jerusalem, NOT St. Peter, who had the last word in this council--the Orthodox Church expresses her mind most authoritatively in council. By asserting its jurisdiction even over the ecumenical councils, the papacy sinned against the unity of the Church as this was expressed in her councils. Not only this, but in asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, the Latin Church departed from the traditional teaching that the Son and the Holy Spirit both find their source of life in the Father as from one Monarch.
you are bound to follow the teachings of the true catholic church, not rome, so for me I can not follow the teachings of the heretical popes for the last 5 plus decades as I have absolute proof they are anti catholic, so I guess we have to go back to 1054 when the orthodox split with the roman catholic church, can you give me a brief summary of what you believe are the heresies of Rome that caused the split...my belief is we've had heretical popes throughout history but that doesn't mean you should not follow the true teachings of the magisterium, from the true popes
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
fair enough, I did get resistance from others in this forum about what you seem to acknowledge, that Peter was the rock, was given primacy etc so I sense you all are not in agreement..... now the split came in 1054 between our churches, so I'm not sure if bringing up anything the popes said after this date as being useful correct? for example I know vatican 1 is a no no for you guys but the break came way before,
Actually, many Eastern Orthodox would agree for the most part with what you have said thus far about the primacy of the Apostle Peter, so you're kinda preaching to the choir here.
I have stated the argument that St Peter was given primacy of the church with the following, I guess it's up to you to refute it
Would you like to try?
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
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 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?
Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... sounds rather presumptuous to me.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted?
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep
Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.
Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.
John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”
In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27
Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”
That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say.
The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.I don't have a problem with the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles, or even with the primacy of Rome as a spiritual authority within the early Church. What I don't see as evident in early Church history is any concept, such as the Roman Church teaches today, of the sovereignty of a universal papal monarch or papal infallibility even in certain restricted circumstances. Your job is to convince me that modern Roman teachings about the papacy can be traced back to the early Church's understanding of Rome's primacy without you reading anything backward into the early writings. Can you do this?
St Basil the Great (330-379) AD , Against Eunomians, 4 “Peter…who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”
St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
let me know your thoughts on the following
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.
Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:
And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"
some interesting info info from wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque_clause
The writings of the early Church Fathers, both eastern and western, sometimes speak of the Holy Spirit as proceeding or spirating from the Father and the Son.
Before the creed of 381 became known in the West and even before it was adopted by the First Council of Constantinople, Christian writers in the West, of whom Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220), Jerome (347–420), Ambrose (c. 338 – 397) and Augustine (354–430) are representatives, spoke of the Spirit as coming from the Father and the Son, while the expression “from the Father through the Son” is also found among them.
Tertullian, writing at the beginning of the third century, emphasizes that Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share a single divine substance, quality and power, which he conceives of as flowing forth from the Father and being transmitted by the Son to the Spirit.
One Christian source for Augustine was Marius Victorinus (c. 280-365), who in his arguments against Arians strongly connected the Son and the Spirit.
Hilary of Poitiers, in the mid-fourth century, speaks of the Spirit as "coming forth from the Father" and being "sent by the Son" (De Trinitate 12.55); as being "from the Father through the Son" (ibid. 12.56); and as "having the Father and the Son as his source" (ibid. 2.29); in another passage, Hilary points to John 16.15 (where Jesus says: 'All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that [the Spirit] shall take from what is mine and declare it to you'), and wonders aloud whether "to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father" (ibid. 8.20).
Ambrose of Milan, writing in the 380s, openly asserts that the Spirit "proceeds from (procedit a) the Father and the Son", without ever being separated from either (On the Holy Spirit 1.11.20).
"None of these writers, however, makes the Spirit’s mode of origin the object of special reflection; all are concerned, rather, to emphasize the equality of status of all three divine persons as God, and all acknowledge that the Father alone is the source of God’s eternal being."
As for the Greek Fathers, there is, according to A. Edward Siecienski, no citable basis for the claim historically made by both sides, that they explicitly either supported or denied the later theologies concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Son. However, they did enunciate important principles later invoked in support of one theology or the other. These included the insistence on the unique hypostatic properties of each Divine Person, in particular the Father's property of being, within the Trinity, the one cause, while they also recognized that the Persons, through distinct, cannot be separated, and that not only the sending of the Spirit to creatures but also the Spirit's eternal flowing forth (προϊέναι) from the Father within the Trinity is "through the Son" (διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ).
Cyril of Alexandria, in particular, provides "a host of quotations that seemingly speak of the Spirit's 'procession' from both the Father and the Son". In these passages he uses the Greek verbs προϊέναι (like the Latin procedere) and προχεῖσθαι (flow from), not the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι, the verb that appears in the Greek text of the Nicene Creed.
Siecienski remarked that, "while the Greek fathers were still striving to find language capable of expressing the mysterious nature of the Son's relationship to the Spirit, Latin theologians, even during Cyril's lifetime, had already found their answer - the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (ex Patre et Filio procedentem). The degree to which this teaching was compatible with, or contradictory to, the emerging Greek tradition remains, sixteen centuries later, subject to debate."
Yves Congar commented, "'The walls of separation do not reach as high as heaven.'" And Aidan Nichols remarked that "the Filioque controversy is, in fact, a casualty of the theological pluralism of the patristic Church", on the one hand the Latin and Alexandrian tradition, on the other the Cappadocian and later Byzantine tradition.
Procession of the Holy Spirit
As early as the fourth century, a distinction was made, in connection with the Trinity, between the two Greek verbs ἐκπορεύεσθαι (the verb used in the original Greek text of the 381 Nicene Creed) and προϊέναι. In his Oration on the Holy Lights (XXXIX), Saint Gregory of Nazianzus wrote: "The Holy Ghost is truly Spirit, coming forth (προϊέναι) from the Father indeed, but not after the manner of the Son, for it is not by Generation but by Procession (ἐκπορεύεσθαι)".
That the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son in the sense of the Latin word procedere and the Greek προϊέναι (as opposed to the Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι) was taught by the early fifth century by Saint Cyril of Alexandria in the East The Athanasian Creed, probably of the middle of the fifth century, and a dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I, who declared in 446 that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son.
Although the Eastern Fathers were aware that in the West the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son was taught, they did not generally regard it as heretical: "a whole series of Western writers, including popes who are venerated as saints by the Eastern church, confess the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son; and it is even more striking that there is virtually no disagreement with this theory."
The phrase Filioque first appears as an anti-Arian interpolation in the Creed at the Third Council of Toledo (589), at which Visigothic Spain renounced Arianism, accepting Catholic Christianity. The addition was confirmed by subsequent local councils in Toledo and soon spread throughout the West, not only in Spain, but also in the kingdom of the Franks, who had adopted the Catholic faith in 496, and in England, where the Council of Hatfield imposed it in 680 as a response to Monothelitism. However, it was not adopted in Rome.
In the Vulgate the Latin verb procedere, which appears in the Filioque passage of the Creed in Latin, is used to translate several Greek verbs. While one of those verbs, ἐκπορεύεσθαι, the one in the corresponding phrase in the Creed in Greek, "was beginning to take on a particular meaning in Greek theology designating the Spirit's unique mode of coming-to-be ... procedere had no such connotations".
Although Hilary of Poitiers is often cited as one of "the chief patristic source(s) for the Latin teaching on the filioque", Siecienski says that "there is also reason for questioning Hilary's support for the filioque as later theology would understand it, especially given the ambiguous nature of (Hilary's) language as it concerns the procession."
However, a number of Latin Church Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries explicitly speak of the Holy Spirit as proceeding "from the Father and the Son", the phrase in the present Latin version of the Nicene Creed. Examples are what is called the creed of Pope Damasus I, Ambrose of Milan ("one of the earliest witnesses to the explicit affirmation of the Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son"), Augustine of Hippo (whose writings on the Trinity "became the foundation of subsequent Latin trinitarian theology and later served as the foundation for the doctrine of the filioque". and Pope Leo I (but Easterners have argued that his acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon, with its reaffirmation of the Nicene Creed, which in the original text is without the Filioque, proves that he questioned the Filioque, something that his successors never did).
Thereafter, Eucherius of Lyon, Gennadius of Massilia, Boethius, Agnellus, Bishop of Ravenna, Cassiodorus, Gregory of Tours are witnesses that the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son was well established as part of the (Western) Church's faith, before Latin theologians began to concern themselves about how the Spirit proceeds from the Son.
Pope Gregory the Great is usually counted as teaching the Spirit's procession from the Son, although Byzantine theologians, quoting from Greek translations of his work rather than the original, present him as a witness against it, and although he sometimes speaks of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father without mentioning the Son. Siecienski says that, in view of the widespread acceptance by then that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it would be strange if Gregory did not advocate the teaching, "even if he did not understand the filioque as later Latin theology would - that is, in terms of a 'double procession'".