OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 10:33:06 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 10751 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #360 on: March 30, 2013, 12:59:18 PM »

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
Would you like to try? Wink
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 12:59:42 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #361 on: March 30, 2013, 01:02:12 PM »

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.
Y'know, sedevacantist is right. You don't know him for Jack, yet you presume to know his mind. You'd better quit while you're already behind before you dig yourself into a hole from which you will never extricate yourself.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #362 on: March 30, 2013, 01:12:13 PM »

Y'know, sedevacantist is right. You don't know him for Jack, yet you presume to know his mind. You'd better quit while you're already behind before you dig yourself into a hole from which you will never extricate yourself.

And you don't know me for jack, yet you do the same thing you accuse me of doing.  You're even further behind than I am.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #363 on: March 30, 2013, 01:17:43 PM »

Y'know, sedevacantist is right. You don't know him for Jack, yet you presume to know his mind. You'd better quit while you're already behind before you dig yourself into a hole from which you will never extricate yourself.

And you don't know me for jack, yet you do the same thing you accuse me of doing.  You're even further behind than I am.
Your words ring hollow when you're defending yourself.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #364 on: March 30, 2013, 02:06:30 PM »

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.
Y'know, sedevacantist is right. You don't know him for Jack, yet you presume to know his mind. You'd better quit while you're already behind before you dig yourself into a hole from which you will never extricate yourself.

^^ That seemed to come out of nowhere. (I says "seems" because I don't want to go back and re-read all the posts that led up to this one.)
Logged

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

Posts: 208


« Reply #365 on: March 30, 2013, 09:15:02 PM »

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
Would you like to try? Wink
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
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

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.

 

 

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.”
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #366 on: March 31, 2013, 01:50:14 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
Would you like to try? Wink
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
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

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.
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.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

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.”
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?
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #367 on: March 31, 2013, 02:08:29 PM »

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
Would you like to try? Wink
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
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

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.
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.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

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.”
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?
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,
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?"

Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,240


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


« Reply #368 on: March 31, 2013, 04:54:33 PM »

Christos Voskrese!!
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 (?)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #369 on: March 31, 2013, 05:49:55 PM »

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
Would you like to try? Wink
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
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

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.
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.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

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.”
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?
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,
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?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,442


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #370 on: March 31, 2013, 06:50:54 PM »

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
Would you like to try? Wink
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
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

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.
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.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

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.”
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?
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,
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?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?

Rome did fall into heresy. That is why she split from Orthodoxy, then the Protestants split from her, and then millions have left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

Several Catholic periodicals have quoted from a survey done in the 1990's which showed that about 25 million people left the Roman Catholic Church from 1965 to 1990. While some of these people left to join Protestant sects, many became atheists, and a few joined Orthodox Christian jurisdictions. I knew some Catholic teaching sisters who left the convent after they had became atheists.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 06:52:04 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #371 on: March 31, 2013, 07:29:40 PM »

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
Would you like to try? Wink
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
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

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.
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.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

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.”
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?
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,
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?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?

Rome did fall into heresy. That is why she split from Orthodoxy, then the Protestants split from her, and then millions have left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

Several Catholic periodicals have quoted from a survey done in the 1990's which showed that about 25 million people left the Roman Catholic Church from 1965 to 1990. While some of these people left to join Protestant sects, many became atheists, and a few joined Orthodox Christian jurisdictions. I knew some Catholic teaching sisters who left the convent after they had became atheists.
I don't see what point you're trying to make, Maria. Seeing that Holy Russia became an atheist country, I'm not sure we have any cause to point out how the heresies of the Roman Church lead people to embrace atheism as if we were somehow immune to that problem ourselves just because we've preserved the True Faith.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,442


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #372 on: March 31, 2013, 08:51:16 PM »


If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?

Rome did fall into heresy. That is why she split from Orthodoxy, then the Protestants split from her, and then millions have left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

Several Catholic periodicals have quoted from a survey done in the 1990's which showed that about 25 million people left the Roman Catholic Church from 1965 to 1990. While some of these people left to join Protestant sects, many became atheists, and a few joined Orthodox Christian jurisdictions. I knew some Catholic teaching sisters who left the convent after they had became atheists.
I don't see what point you're trying to make, Maria. Seeing that Holy Russia became an atheist country, I'm not sure we have any cause to point out how the heresies of the Roman Church lead people to embrace atheism as if we were somehow immune to that problem ourselves just because we've preserved the True Faith.

Frankly, I cannot comprehend why you are bringing Russia into this discussion.

I was talking about the USA where more than 25,000,000 Catholics left the Roman Catholic Church and its papacy from 1965 to 1990.

Were you ever a Roman Catholic? Denouncing the Roman papacy is a huge step. When I was first shown the Hapgood denunciations in the rite of Chrismation, I was shocked. However, Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald wanted every Roman Catholic converting to Orthodoxy to pronounce a denunciation of the papacy because in his experience, if a RC convert to Orthodoxy did not denounce the papacy, then he most likely would return to Rome.


Fixed quote tags  -PtA
« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 08:54:48 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #373 on: March 31, 2013, 09:02:07 PM »


If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?

Rome did fall into heresy. That is why she split from Orthodoxy, then the Protestants split from her, and then millions have left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

Several Catholic periodicals have quoted from a survey done in the 1990's which showed that about 25 million people left the Roman Catholic Church from 1965 to 1990. While some of these people left to join Protestant sects, many became atheists, and a few joined Orthodox Christian jurisdictions. I knew some Catholic teaching sisters who left the convent after they had became atheists.
I don't see what point you're trying to make, Maria. Seeing that Holy Russia became an atheist country, I'm not sure we have any cause to point out how the heresies of the Roman Church lead people to embrace atheism as if we were somehow immune to that problem ourselves just because we've preserved the True Faith.

Frankly, I cannot comprehend why you are bringing Russia into this discussion.

I was talking about the USA where more than 25,000,000 Catholics left the Roman Catholic Church and its papacy from 1965 to 1990.

Were you ever a Roman Catholic? Denouncing the Roman papacy is a huge step. When I was first shown the Hapgood denunciations in the rite of Chrismation, I was shocked. However, Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald wanted every Roman Catholic converting to Orthodoxy to pronounce a denunciation of the papacy because in his experience, if a RC convert to Orthodoxy did not denounce the papacy, then he most likely would return to Rome.
I guess I still don't understand what point you're trying to make by speaking in one paragraph of how the Roman Catholic Church fell into heresy and then speaking in the next of mass defections from Catholicism to atheism. Your logic seems like a non sequitur to me. Some context for why you mentioned the mass apostasy and what connection you see between that and the Roman Church's fall into heresy might help me understand your message better.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,442


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #374 on: March 31, 2013, 09:09:19 PM »

With Rome falling into heresy and introducing novel doctrines starting in 800 A.D., she caused serious repercussions. When Rome finally split from Orthodoxy in 1054 A.D., only a few centuries later the Protestants split from her, and then millions of Catholics left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

With loss of faith, many Catholics whom I have known have become atheistic or agnostic. My own father became an agnostic after graduating from a Jesuit high school.

Those who have lost their faith explained to me that it was the doctrines of Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, and Immaculate Conception that were their undoing. Notice that all these Papal doctrines were introduced in modern times (on or after 1870).

« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 09:15:02 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #375 on: March 31, 2013, 09:23:43 PM »

With Rome falling into heresy and introducing novel doctrines starting in 800 A.D., she caused serious repercussions. When Rome finally split from Orthodoxy in 1054 A.D., only a few centuries later the Protestants split from her, and then millions of Catholics left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

With loss of faith, many Catholics whom I have known have become atheistic or agnostic. My own father became an agnostic after graduating from a Jesuit high school.

Those who have lost their faith explained to me that it was the doctrines of Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, and Immaculate Conception that were their undoing. Notice that all these Papal doctrines were introduced in modern times (on or after 1870).
That may well be true, but I kinda hesitate to talk about how Roman Catholic deviations from orthodoxy have led many to leave Christianity altogether when we have our own history of a whole Orthodox nation--no less than the "Holy" Russian empire that many associate with the Third Rome itself--embracing atheism and enforcing atheism upon its masses through pain of exile and death. What you're doing just seems hypocritically triumphalistic to me. AISI, this is one of those issues where we need to address the log in our own eye before we go about looking for the speck in our brother's.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 09:24:46 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,442


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #376 on: March 31, 2013, 09:33:21 PM »

With Rome falling into heresy and introducing novel doctrines starting in 800 A.D., she caused serious repercussions. When Rome finally split from Orthodoxy in 1054 A.D., only a few centuries later the Protestants split from her, and then millions of Catholics left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

With loss of faith, many Catholics whom I have known have become atheistic or agnostic. My own father became an agnostic after graduating from a Jesuit high school.

Those who have lost their faith explained to me that it was the doctrines of Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, and Immaculate Conception that were their undoing. Notice that all these Papal doctrines were introduced in modern times (on or after 1870).
That may well be true, but I kinda hesitate to talk about how Roman Catholic deviations from orthodoxy have led many to leave Christianity altogether when we have our own history of a whole Orthodox nation--no less than the "Holy" Russian empire that many associate with the Third Rome itself--embracing atheism and enforcing atheism upon its masses through pain of exile and death. What you're doing just seems hypocritically triumphalistic to me. AISI, this is one of those issues where we need to address the log in our own eye before we go about looking for the speck in our brother's.

Since you have been dominating this thread, and completely misreading/misunderstand many posters, I am going to absent myself. It is not worth it.

I was talking about defections in the USA, not Russia. I was talking about Roman Catholicism, not Orthodoxy. And remember that I was a Catholic for more than 30 years. Furthermore, I learned about Christ through Catholicism, and I praise the Lord and thank my parents for that gift of faith. I still have devout Catholics as friends. By the way, that little faith I had, helped me to survive my first year in Orthodoxy when I met many cradle "cultural" Orthodox who were very smug with the little faith they had.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,171


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


« Reply #377 on: March 31, 2013, 10:11:41 PM »

With Rome falling into heresy and introducing novel doctrines starting in 800 A.D., she caused serious repercussions. When Rome finally split from Orthodoxy in 1054 A.D., only a few centuries later the Protestants split from her, and then millions of Catholics left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

With loss of faith, many Catholics whom I have known have become atheistic or agnostic. My own father became an agnostic after graduating from a Jesuit high school.

Those who have lost their faith explained to me that it was the doctrines of Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, and Immaculate Conception that were their undoing. Notice that all these Papal doctrines were introduced in modern times (on or after 1870).
That may well be true, but I kinda hesitate to talk about how Roman Catholic deviations from orthodoxy have led many to leave Christianity altogether when we have our own history of a whole Orthodox nation--no less than the "Holy" Russian empire that many associate with the Third Rome itself--embracing atheism and enforcing atheism upon its masses through pain of exile and death. What you're doing just seems hypocritically triumphalistic to me. AISI, this is one of those issues where we need to address the log in our own eye before we go about looking for the speck in our brother's.

That may be true to a point but the revitalization of Orthodoxy in Russia is due to the 1000 years of Orthodox culture and religion which could not be wiped away.  I've been told that during the Soviet times folks would have painting of Stalin in their homes but when no one was around they would turn the Icon around which showed Icon of Our Lady or St. Nicholas.  The Babuskas. The grandmothers who had memories of the church prior to the Atheistic take over held the old religion in their minds and hearts and it is they who were able to pass on the faith to the younger generation in Russia.  Today, they are having trouble opening up new monastery churches in Moscow because they have too many.  Could you just imagine that during the height of Stalin's time?  Orthodoxy is alive and well and gaining support every day.  What they need to do is to not get too lax at this time and take it for granted that all will be well.  Remember, Christianity by its very nature , is always somewhere under persecution and will continue to be until the end of time.l
« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 10:13:23 PM by JoeS2 » Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #378 on: March 31, 2013, 10:50:36 PM »

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
Would you like to try? Wink
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
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

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.
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.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

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.”
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?
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,
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?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
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
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,171


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


« Reply #379 on: March 31, 2013, 10:59:01 PM »

Lets see here:  There was Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople.  Five Patriachates
 
Rome departs from this pentarchy and WE are the ones who split from you?.....Look at a 5 pointed star. take away one point you still have a four pointed star.  No, You left us is how I see it......Don't try to convince me otherwise.  
« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 11:01:36 PM by JoeS2 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #380 on: March 31, 2013, 11:48:09 PM »

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
Would you like to try? Wink
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
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

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.
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.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

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.”
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?
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,
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?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
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
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.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #381 on: April 01, 2013, 09:48:00 AM »

When I was first shown the Hapgood denunciations in the rite of Chrismation, I was shocked. However, Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald wanted every Roman Catholic converting to Orthodoxy to pronounce a denunciation of the papacy because in his experience, if a RC convert to Orthodoxy did not denounce the papacy, then he most likely would return to Rome.

The no-fault-divorce mentality is quite prevalent in our society.
Logged

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

Posts: 208


« Reply #382 on: April 01, 2013, 07:38:10 PM »

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
Would you like to try? Wink
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
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

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.
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.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

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.”
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?
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,
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?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
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
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.
Acts 2:14 “But Peter,standing up with the eleven,lifted up his voice,and said unto them,Ye men of Judea,and all te that dwell at Jerusalem,be this known unto you,and hearken to my words.”

Notice again the language, “Peter standing up with th eleven.” This was the on the day of Pentecost,considered the birthday of the Church,when all the leaders of he Churchwere gathered. After he preached to the Jews,they asked the men (plural) what they should do. It was again Peter who answered everyone:

Acts 2:37-47

“Now when they heard this,they were pricked in their heart,and said unto Ptere and to the rest of the apostles. Men and brethren,what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent,and be baptized every one of youin the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost…and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls…And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”

At a gathering with the high priest,the question was posed to them: by what power have you done this? St Peter again answered for the rest.

Acts4:6-10,12-“: And Annas the high priest,and  Caiphas,and John,and Alexander,and as many as were the kindred of the high priest,were gathered together at Jerusalem..they asked,By what power,or by what name,have ye done this? Then peter filled with the Holy Ghost,said unto them,Ye rulers of the people,and elders of Israel…Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no name under heaven given among men,whereby we must be saved.”

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 thisquestion. 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.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #383 on: April 01, 2013, 07:45:24 PM »

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 thisquestion. 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.
You do realize that you're merely setting your interpretation of Acts 15 against mine? By what authority do you declare your's right and mine wrong?

BTW, considering that the discussion continued on even after St. Peter spoke and that someone else proclaimed the final definitive judgment on the matter shows that St. Peter's word was not deemed final or infallible. What is it St. James said? "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood." He spoke not as one deferring to another's authority, but as one who had the authority to proclaim his own judgment on the matter.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 07:49:59 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #384 on: April 01, 2013, 07:51:26 PM »

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
Would you like to try? Wink
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
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

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.
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.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

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.”
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?
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,
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?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
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
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.

here's an interesting take on the filioque issue by the Dimonds
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php/

 In 381 the Council of Constantinople defined that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.  The Council did not say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.  The omission of the words “and the Son” (filioque in Latin) caused countless millions to erroneously conclude that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son, a heresy that was later condemned by the Church.  If the Council of Constantinople had simply included that little statement, that the Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son, it would have eliminated over a thousand years of controversy with the Eastern Schismatics – a controversy which still continues to this day.  That little phrase (“and the Son”), if it had been included in Constantinople, probably would have stopped millions of people from leaving the Catholic Church and embracing Eastern Orthodoxy, because the Eastern Orthodox thought and still think that the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and the Son is contrary to the Council of Constantinople, which only said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

 

     So, did the Council of Constantinople err?  Of course not.  But could Constantinople have been more clear by adding that little phrase which would have eliminated a controversy?  Absolutely.  So why did God allow this controversy to occur, when He could have prevented it by simply inspiring the council fathers at Constantinople in 381 to include that tiny phrase?  The answer is that there must be heresies.

 

1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”

 

     God allows heresies to arise in order to see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires.  God never allows His councils, such as Constantinople and Trent, to teach any error, but He can allow the truth to be stated in ways that give people the opportunity to twist and pervert the meaning of the words used if they so desire (no pun intended), as the Eastern Schismatics did in regard to Constantinople’s omission of the phrase: and the Son.

 

      In fact, it doesn’t even matter if some of the council fathers at Constantinople believed that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son; and there were probably some who didn’t believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.  All that matters is what the Council of Constantinople actually declared, a declaration which says nothing contrary to the fact that the Holy Ghost does proceed from the Son.  The intentions of the Council Fathers at Constantinople or any other Council have nothing to do with Papal Infallibility.  All that matters is what the actual dogma approved by the pope declares or finalizes in the Profession of Faith.



Fixed quote tags  -PtA
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 08:05:23 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #385 on: April 01, 2013, 07:59:04 PM »

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
Would you like to try? Wink
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
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

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.
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.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

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.”
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?
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,
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?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
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
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.

some interesting info info from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque_clause


Church fathers

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,[10] while the expression “from the Father through the Son” is also found among them.[20][21]

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,[22] which he conceives of as flowing forth from the Father and being transmitted by the Son to the Spirit.[23]

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."[15]

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).[24]

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.[25]

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."[26]

Yves Congar commented, "'The walls of separation do not reach as high as heaven.'"[27] 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.[28]
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)".[29][30]

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[10][31] The Athanasian Creed, probably of the middle of the fifth century,[32] and a dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I,[33][34] who declared in 446 that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son.[35]

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:[36] "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."[37]

The phrase Filioque first appears as an anti-Arian[38][39] 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,[40] and in England, where the Council of Hatfield imposed it in 680 as a response to Monothelitism.[41] 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".[42]

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."[43]

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,[44] Ambrose of Milan ("one of the earliest witnesses to the explicit affirmation of the Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son"),[45] 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".[46] 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).[47]

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.[48]

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'".[49]
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,821


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #386 on: April 01, 2013, 08:01:05 PM »

Sedevacantist. Could you please do me a favor and read St. Photius the Great's Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit when you have some free time. Thanks.
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #387 on: April 01, 2013, 08:03:25 PM »

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 thisquestion. 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.
You do realize that you're merely setting your interpretation of Acts 15 against mine? By what authority do you declare your's right and mine wrong?

BTW, considering that the discussion continued on even after St. Peter spoke and that someone else proclaimed the final definitive judgment on the matter shows that St. Peter's word was not deemed final or infallible. What is it St. James said? "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood." He spoke not as one deferring to another's authority, but as one who had the authority to proclaim his own judgment on the matter.
I'll admit that Acts 15 isn't the clearest example of proving papal supremacy,but it surely doesn't disprove it... I'm merely countering your interpretaion with the Catholic view....I've proven papal supremacy already with other passages
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #388 on: April 01, 2013, 08:11:15 PM »

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
Would you like to try? Wink
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
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

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.
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.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

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.”
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?
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,
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?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
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
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.

here's an interesting take on the filioque issue by the Dimonds
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php/
Can you cite an authority other than the Dimonds, like maybe someone whose authority we Orthodox actually recognize?

In 381 the Council of Constantinople defined that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.  The Council did not say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.  The omission of the words “and the Son” (filioque in Latin) caused countless millions to erroneously conclude that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son, a heresy that was later condemned by the Church.  If the Council of Constantinople had simply included that little statement, that the Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son, it would have eliminated over a thousand years of controversy with the Eastern Schismatics – a controversy which still continues to this day.  That little phrase (“and the Son”), if it had been included in Constantinople, probably would have stopped millions of people from leaving the Catholic Church and embracing Eastern Orthodoxy, because the Eastern Orthodox thought and still think that the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and the Son is contrary to the Council of Constantinople, which only said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

 

     So, did the Council of Constantinople err?  Of course not.  But could Constantinople have been more clear by adding that little phrase which would have eliminated a controversy?  Absolutely.  So why did God allow this controversy to occur, when He could have prevented it by simply inspiring the council fathers at Constantinople in 381 to include that tiny phrase?  The answer is that there must be heresies.

 

1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”

 

     God allows heresies to arise in order to see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires.  God never allows His councils, such as Constantinople and Trent, to teach any error, but He can allow the truth to be stated in ways that give people the opportunity to twist and pervert the meaning of the words used if they so desire (no pun intended), as the Eastern Schismatics did in regard to Constantinople’s omission of the phrase: and the Son.

 

      In fact, it doesn’t even matter if some of the council fathers at Constantinople believed that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son; and there were probably some who didn’t believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.  All that matters is what the Council of Constantinople actually declared, a declaration which says nothing contrary to the fact that the Holy Ghost does proceed from the Son.  The intentions of the Council Fathers at Constantinople or any other Council have nothing to do with Papal Infallibility.  All that matters is what the actual dogma approved by the pope declares or finalizes in the Profession of Faith.



Fixed quote tags  -PtA
Yes, it has been said by some on your side that we fell into heresy by omitting the filioque from the Creed. Roll Eyes Do you have any evidence that the Church actually taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, in spite of Christ's own statement to the contrary (see Chapter 14 or 16 of the Gospel of John)? To convict us of deviating from the truth, you have to first establish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #389 on: April 01, 2013, 08:13:25 PM »

I've been torn between the CC and OC for quite awhile now. I'm a convert to the CC, but I felt a strong pull to the OC even before becoming Catholic. Since then, I've struggled to make sense of it all.

I do not understand the Catholic veneration of the papal office. I hear lots of comments about how regardless of what he may have said or done or taught as Bishop that he is Pope now and they support him no matter what, because he is reserved from teaching false doctrine or he will no longer be Pope. People actually believe that God will strike him down before he would have the opportunity to promulgate something false.  Huh

I'm now starting to see the problem with declaring something ( a council) or someone ( the Pope) infallible at the outset instead of after the fact when the orthodoxy of what is declared can be confirmed or rejected.

Universal jurisdiction seems to be naturally tied to papal infallibility and creates the situation where submission to Rome is more important than orthodox belief. Hence we have a bunch of people that are considered Catholic but don't agree with Catholic teaching on many issues. it's no longer about orthodox belief it's all about being in communion with the Pope. Because once a Catholic always a Catholic.

None of this makes any sense to me and now I realize I never should have become Catholic in the first place.

I think you picked the wrong thread to post this on.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #390 on: April 01, 2013, 08:14:25 PM »

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 thisquestion. 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.
You do realize that you're merely setting your interpretation of Acts 15 against mine? By what authority do you declare your's right and mine wrong?

BTW, considering that the discussion continued on even after St. Peter spoke and that someone else proclaimed the final definitive judgment on the matter shows that St. Peter's word was not deemed final or infallible. What is it St. James said? "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood." He spoke not as one deferring to another's authority, but as one who had the authority to proclaim his own judgment on the matter.
I'll admit that Acts 15 isn't the clearest example of proving papal supremacy,but it surely doesn't disprove it... I'm merely countering your interpretaion with the Catholic view....I've proven papal supremacy already with other passages
No you haven't.
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #391 on: April 01, 2013, 08:59:49 PM »

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
Would you like to try? Wink
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
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

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.
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.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

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.”
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?
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,
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?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
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
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.

here's an interesting take on the filioque issue by the Dimonds
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php/
Can you cite an authority other than the Dimonds, like maybe someone whose authority we Orthodox actually recognize?

In 381 the Council of Constantinople defined that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.  The Council did not say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.  The omission of the words “and the Son” (filioque in Latin) caused countless millions to erroneously conclude that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son, a heresy that was later condemned by the Church.  If the Council of Constantinople had simply included that little statement, that the Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son, it would have eliminated over a thousand years of controversy with the Eastern Schismatics – a controversy which still continues to this day.  That little phrase (“and the Son”), if it had been included in Constantinople, probably would have stopped millions of people from leaving the Catholic Church and embracing Eastern Orthodoxy, because the Eastern Orthodox thought and still think that the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and the Son is contrary to the Council of Constantinople, which only said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

 

     So, did the Council of Constantinople err?  Of course not.  But could Constantinople have been more clear by adding that little phrase which would have eliminated a controversy?  Absolutely.  So why did God allow this controversy to occur, when He could have prevented it by simply inspiring the council fathers at Constantinople in 381 to include that tiny phrase?  The answer is that there must be heresies.

 

1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”

 

     God allows heresies to arise in order to see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires.  God never allows His councils, such as Constantinople and Trent, to teach any error, but He can allow the truth to be stated in ways that give people the opportunity to twist and pervert the meaning of the words used if they so desire (no pun intended), as the Eastern Schismatics did in regard to Constantinople’s omission of the phrase: and the Son.

 

      In fact, it doesn’t even matter if some of the council fathers at Constantinople believed that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son; and there were probably some who didn’t believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.  All that matters is what the Council of Constantinople actually declared, a declaration which says nothing contrary to the fact that the Holy Ghost does proceed from the Son.  The intentions of the Council Fathers at Constantinople or any other Council have nothing to do with Papal Infallibility.  All that matters is what the actual dogma approved by the pope declares or finalizes in the Profession of Faith.



Fixed quote tags  -PtA
Yes, it has been said by some on your side that we fell into heresy by omitting the filioque from the Creed. Roll Eyes Do you have any evidence that the Church actually taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, in spite of Christ's own statement to the contrary (see Chapter 14 or 16 of the Gospel of John)? To convict us of deviating from the truth, you have to first establish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.
what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #392 on: April 02, 2013, 10:35:08 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
Would you like to try? Wink
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
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

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.
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.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

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.”
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?
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,
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?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
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
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.

here's an interesting take on the filioque issue by the Dimonds
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php/
Can you cite an authority other than the Dimonds, like maybe someone whose authority we Orthodox actually recognize?

In 381 the Council of Constantinople defined that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.  The Council did not say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.  The omission of the words “and the Son” (filioque in Latin) caused countless millions to erroneously conclude that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son, a heresy that was later condemned by the Church.  If the Council of Constantinople had simply included that little statement, that the Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son, it would have eliminated over a thousand years of controversy with the Eastern Schismatics – a controversy which still continues to this day.  That little phrase (“and the Son”), if it had been included in Constantinople, probably would have stopped millions of people from leaving the Catholic Church and embracing Eastern Orthodoxy, because the Eastern Orthodox thought and still think that the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and the Son is contrary to the Council of Constantinople, which only said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

 

     So, did the Council of Constantinople err?  Of course not.  But could Constantinople have been more clear by adding that little phrase which would have eliminated a controversy?  Absolutely.  So why did God allow this controversy to occur, when He could have prevented it by simply inspiring the council fathers at Constantinople in 381 to include that tiny phrase?  The answer is that there must be heresies.

 

1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”

 

     God allows heresies to arise in order to see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires.  God never allows His councils, such as Constantinople and Trent, to teach any error, but He can allow the truth to be stated in ways that give people the opportunity to twist and pervert the meaning of the words used if they so desire (no pun intended), as the Eastern Schismatics did in regard to Constantinople’s omission of the phrase: and the Son.

 

      In fact, it doesn’t even matter if some of the council fathers at Constantinople believed that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son; and there were probably some who didn’t believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.  All that matters is what the Council of Constantinople actually declared, a declaration which says nothing contrary to the fact that the Holy Ghost does proceed from the Son.  The intentions of the Council Fathers at Constantinople or any other Council have nothing to do with Papal Infallibility.  All that matters is what the actual dogma approved by the pope declares or finalizes in the Profession of Faith.



Fixed quote tags  -PtA
Yes, it has been said by some on your side that we fell into heresy by omitting the filioque from the Creed. Roll Eyes Do you have any evidence that the Church actually taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, in spite of Christ's own statement to the contrary (see Chapter 14 or 16 of the Gospel of John)? To convict us of deviating from the truth, you have to first establish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.
what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?
1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2013, 10:56:27 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,171


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


« Reply #393 on: April 02, 2013, 12:19:43 PM »


1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

You know it would be pretty cool if everyone would cut short their continued posts by lopping off maybe the last ten messages to make the search for the end a little more easier......thanx
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #394 on: April 02, 2013, 02:10:07 PM »


1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

You know it would be pretty cool if everyone would cut short their continued posts by lopping off maybe the last ten messages to make the search for the end a little more easier......thanx
Relax. You're not the only one who posts on this forum. Wink
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #395 on: April 02, 2013, 02:35:28 PM »

Relax. You're not the only one who posts on this forum. Wink

I'm not entirely sure why, but that even makes me feel more relaxed.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,171


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


« Reply #396 on: April 02, 2013, 03:55:28 PM »

Relax. You're not the only one who posts on this forum. Wink

I'm not entirely sure why, but that even makes me feel more relaxed.

Ok, let us see how big we can make it.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,628



« Reply #397 on: April 02, 2013, 04:06:08 PM »


1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

You know it would be pretty cool if everyone would cut short their continued posts by lopping off maybe the last ten messages to make the search for the end a little more easier......thanx

One board I used to post on had a script which allowed you to see just my posts.

Its an idea which should be adopted everywhere.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,240


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


« Reply #398 on: April 02, 2013, 04:19:55 PM »


1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

You know it would be pretty cool if everyone would cut short their continued posts by lopping off maybe the last ten messages to make the search for the end a little more easier......thanx

One board I used to post on had a script which allowed you to see just my posts.

Its an idea which should be adopted everywhere.

And you stopped posting there?? Shocked  Why on earth for?!  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 (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #399 on: April 02, 2013, 04:56:18 PM »


I think I've got it.

No wait; something definitely doesn't seem right.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,628



« Reply #400 on: April 02, 2013, 08:24:50 PM »

With Rome falling into heresy and introducing novel doctrines starting in 800 A.D., she caused serious repercussions. When Rome finally split from Orthodoxy in 1054 A.D., only a few centuries later the Protestants split from her, and then millions of Catholics left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

If you are going to play the numbers game.

RCs are truer than whatever you are, not being Orthodox or RC.

And Islam is the truest!
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,628



« Reply #401 on: April 02, 2013, 08:26:02 PM »


1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

You know it would be pretty cool if everyone would cut short their continued posts by lopping off maybe the last ten messages to make the search for the end a little more easier......thanx

One board I used to post on had a script which allowed you to see just my posts.

Its an idea which should be adopted everywhere.

And you stopped posting there?? Shocked  Why on earth for?!  Grin

People were even more touchy than around here.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2013, 08:26:13 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,442


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #402 on: April 02, 2013, 09:09:07 PM »

With Rome falling into heresy and introducing novel doctrines starting in 800 A.D., she caused serious repercussions. When Rome finally split from Orthodoxy in 1054 A.D., only a few centuries later the Protestants split from her, and then millions of Catholics left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

If you are going to play the numbers game.

RCs are truer than whatever you are, not being Orthodox or RC.

And Islam is the truest!

Hey, I am an Orthodox Christian.
Logged

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

Posts: 208


« Reply #403 on: April 02, 2013, 09:09:55 PM »

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.
[/quote
what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?
1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.
it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers, many of which stated the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, will comment later on the other issues you raised
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #404 on: April 02, 2013, 09:45:42 PM »

If you are going to play the numbers game.

RCs are truer than whatever you are, not being Orthodox or RC.

And Islam is the truest!

Hey, I am an Orthodox Christian.

Interesting disagreement. Maybe you guys need a Catholic like me to settle it for you ... you know, to return the favor of the Orthodox who've taken it upon themselves to decide sedevacantists are Catholics. Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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 0.362 seconds with 73 queries.