OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 24, 2014, 11:42:47 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Discussion between some different Catholic groups  (Read 3893 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #180 on: March 16, 2013, 09:35:50 PM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".
1 Cor. 3:11)
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”


 
You  fail to realize that the bible speaks of all the Apostles as foundations

Revelation 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations,and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

Is there a contradiction between Rev 21:14 and 1 Cor 3:11? No ofcourse not. The fact that Christ is the only foundation as 1 Cor 3:11 teaches simply means that everything comes from Christ. All true authority in the Church must come from Christ because the Church itself comes from Christ. Anything outside of Christ is a false foundation.

 

"Peter’s authority comes precisely from Jesus Christ, as matthew 16 shows. It’s quite obvious,therefore that if Jesus is the one who established these things in Peter, then what’s set up in peter is not a foundation other than of Christ. It’s the very foundation of Christ."


So the fact that Christ is the foundation or the cornerstone,as we read in Ephesians 2:20,does not mean that Christ Himself could not or did not establish one apostle to have a perpetual office which would be the rock upon which the Church would be built. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. For example: Jesus is the Good Shepherd ( John 10:14), but He also gives the responsibility of shepherding all His sheep to Peter, as in John 21:15-17. Jesus is the one with the keys (Rev. 1:18,Rev3:7),but He gives His keys to Peter.


You just proved the Orthodox point. No where in the Bible was Peter regarded higher than the other 11 Apostles.  The 12 foundations, the promise that the 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, they are always co-equal.  Proof that Peter is not a supreme, infallible bishop or Apostle over all the other Apostles.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,474


WWW
« Reply #181 on: March 16, 2013, 09:37:51 PM »

Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved 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 desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Question was answered and you are clearly wrong.

We can go back and forth about who's wrong.  You're still wrong.

I explained how your sect is incorrect in detail how although Jesus is the rock that  Peter is clearly  the rock in Matthew 16. You can not refute the evidence I presented  so my explanation still stands.

The Gospel refutes your argument.  Jesus said not to add or subtract from the Gospel.  Your sect is the one in trouble, not the Eastern Orthodox.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #182 on: March 16, 2013, 10:25:12 PM »

let me clear it up for you
The sedevacantist groups you mention (except the dimonds)  are not true Catholics ...
So, according to you, the Dimonds are the only true Catholics? What is your relationship with MHFM?
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #183 on: March 17, 2013, 07:56:03 AM »

I suggest you do some research, start here
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/our_lady_of_fatima.php

Which sedevacantist group are you affiliated with?
I don't belong to any sedevacantist group, I'm a traditional catholic, who adheres to the strict teachings of the traditional pre vatican 2 church, the main difference between a true traditionalist and the fake traditionalists and modernists is for starters that I believe there is absolutely no salvation outside of the catholic church.
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #184 on: March 17, 2013, 08:02:53 AM »

let me clear it up for you
The sedevacantist groups you mention (except the dimonds)  are not true Catholics ...
So, according to you, the Dimonds are the only true Catholics? What is your relationship with MHFM?
not sure where you are getting this idea, I have no relationship with them, I believe the info they post is the truth, a true catholic must reject vatican 2, they must believe there is no salvation outside the church
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #185 on: March 17, 2013, 08:10:22 AM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".
1 Cor. 3:11)
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”


 
You  fail to realize that the bible speaks of all the Apostles as foundations

Revelation 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations,and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

Is there a contradiction between Rev 21:14 and 1 Cor 3:11? No ofcourse not. The fact that Christ is the only foundation as 1 Cor 3:11 teaches simply means that everything comes from Christ. All true authority in the Church must come from Christ because the Church itself comes from Christ. Anything outside of Christ is a false foundation.

 

"Peter’s authority comes precisely from Jesus Christ, as matthew 16 shows. It’s quite obvious,therefore that if Jesus is the one who established these things in Peter, then what’s set up in peter is not a foundation other than of Christ. It’s the very foundation of Christ."


So the fact that Christ is the foundation or the cornerstone,as we read in Ephesians 2:20,does not mean that Christ Himself could not or did not establish one apostle to have a perpetual office which would be the rock upon which the Church would be built. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. For example: Jesus is the Good Shepherd ( John 10:14), but He also gives the responsibility of shepherding all His sheep to Peter, as in John 21:15-17. Jesus is the one with the keys (Rev. 1:18,Rev3:7),but He gives His keys to Peter.


You just proved the Orthodox point. No where in the Bible was Peter regarded higher than the other 11 Apostles.  The 12 foundations, the promise that the 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, they are always co-equal.  Proof that Peter is not a supreme, infallible bishop or Apostle over all the other Apostles.
no you are wrong, you are confusing 2 isssues, where the 12 apostles will sit in the afterlife ,  with the fact that Jesus appointed Peter to start His church, Peter is the rock in matthew 16, read John 21 a few times and accept Jesus' word

St John Chrysostom, homilies on John, 88, 1, 4th century- “Jesus saith unto him, “feed my sheep” And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band..the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren, and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, “If thou lovest Me,preside over thy brethren.” (Nicene and Post – Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol 14:331)
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #186 on: March 17, 2013, 08:15:30 AM »

Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved 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 desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Question was answered and you are clearly wrong.

We can go back and forth about who's wrong.  You're still wrong.

I explained how your sect is incorrect in detail how although Jesus is the rock that  Peter is clearly  the rock in Matthew 16. You can not refute the evidence I presented  so my explanation still stands.

The Gospel refutes your argument.  Jesus said not to add or subtract from the Gospel.  Your sect is the one in trouble, not the Eastern Orthodox.
[/quote

no you are wrong and haven't refuted my passages I posted, anyone of good will should see that, you're in big trouble for rejecting the gospel, I don't belong to any sect, sedevacantism is not a religion, it's a position that must be taken since the opposite would mean one believes the post vatican 2 popes are not heretics and that they are legitimate,
Logged
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,496


Leave that no-account Oogie-Boogie out of this!


« Reply #187 on: March 17, 2013, 08:18:29 AM »

What's with all the demands for refutation bandied about lately? Y'all letting social litigiousness get to you or what? Huh
« Last Edit: March 17, 2013, 08:18:41 AM by Arachne » Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #188 on: March 17, 2013, 08:43:00 AM »

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).

To paraphrase MAbp Shevchuk: Who are we to determine who is canonical in Catholicism and who is not?

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #189 on: March 17, 2013, 10:36:41 AM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

Wink

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .

brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”

 

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.  As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.  Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

 
Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?  Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?  What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?  How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?  What are the criteria?  I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.  Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

 



I ask you to provide a source of this quote. You have 48 hours to comply this request unless you want to be warned.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2013, 11:08:16 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #190 on: March 17, 2013, 10:37:40 AM »

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #191 on: March 17, 2013, 10:54:30 AM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

Wink

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .
Solemn pronouncements by headless churches lack substance.


brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.
 
Evidently, your "supreme authority of the bishop of Rome" couldn't either, and held Vatican II.

As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.
 
Just showing that he hasn't a clue on "the principles of Eastern "Orthodoxy."

Or your own: Vatican II had far more bishops, and it was called and approved by your bishop of Rome.

Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw…
well, we have to bow to all your expertise in farce.

You have the larger problem that the only difference between Constantinople I and Ephesus II, from the Vatican POV, lay in Old Rome's protesting at the latter through a representative, where it protested from afar the former.  Both Patriarch St. Meletius of Antioch, who opened the former, and Pope Dioscoros of Alexandria, who opened the latter, were at the time not in communion with the archbishop of Old Rome.

Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?
 
It didn't: we had one in 879 (Constantinople IV), a series of them in the XIIIth century (Constantinople V), 1672, (Synod of Jerusalem) etc.

That we didn't have any of the status of Ecumenical Councils, we didn't have any Church tearing heresies, while the Vatican, so mired in heresy-including squabbling over who was the real "supreme pontiff" and "font of unity"-had to keep making it up as it went along.

Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?
It strikes me as ridiculous that someone who rejects a council approved by the one "supreme pontiff" according to Pastor Aeternus, should attempt to make such an arbitrary argument.

What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?
Our side-or rather, those whom the Emperor could force to sign (Caesaropapism is only good when the Vatican does it)-signed with the proviso that it would have to be approved by a Synod convened in the East, which approval never was had.

On your side, you had your original pope still in Basel, opposed to your supreme pontiff Eugene as an "antipope" and his council a "robber council."

How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?
How on Earth could you logically say that Vatican II was not accepted "by the Church," while other councils were?

What are the criteria?
 
Just one: Truth.
I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.
 
more likely because your fingers were down your ear canal

because we don't deal in theory, just the history and facts of how the Ecumenical Councils were conducted and approved.

Meanwhile, you still haven't solved even in theory how you arrogate the power to yourselves to reject a council your bishop of Rome approved.

Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.
like Vatican II

physician, heal thyself.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #192 on: March 17, 2013, 10:54:30 AM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".
1 Cor. 3:11)
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”


 
You  fail to realize that the bible speaks of all the Apostles as foundations

Revelation 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations,and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

Is there a contradiction between Rev 21:14 and 1 Cor 3:11? No ofcourse not. The fact that Christ is the only foundation as 1 Cor 3:11 teaches simply means that everything comes from Christ. All true authority in the Church must come from Christ because the Church itself comes from Christ. Anything outside of Christ is a false foundation.

 

"Peter’s authority comes precisely from Jesus Christ, as matthew 16 shows. It’s quite obvious,therefore that if Jesus is the one who established these things in Peter, then what’s set up in peter is not a foundation other than of Christ. It’s the very foundation of Christ."


So the fact that Christ is the foundation or the cornerstone,as we read in Ephesians 2:20,does not mean that Christ Himself could not or did not establish one apostle to have a perpetual office which would be the rock upon which the Church would be built. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. For example: Jesus is the Good Shepherd ( John 10:14), but He also gives the responsibility of shepherding all His sheep to Peter, as in John 21:15-17. Jesus is the one with the keys (Rev. 1:18,Rev3:7),but He gives His keys to Peter.


You just proved the Orthodox point. No where in the Bible was Peter regarded higher than the other 11 Apostles.  The 12 foundations, the promise that the 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, they are always co-equal.  Proof that Peter is not a supreme, infallible bishop or Apostle over all the other Apostles.
no you are wrong, you are confusing 2 isssues, where the 12 apostles will sit in the afterlife ,  with the fact that Jesus appointed Peter to start His church, Peter is the rock in matthew 16, read John 21 a few times and accept Jesus' word

St John Chrysostom, homilies on John, 88, 1, 4th century- “Jesus saith unto him, “feed my sheep” And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band..the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren, and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, “If thou lovest Me,preside over thy brethren.” (Nicene and Post – Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol 14:331)
St. John Chrysostom wrote that homily when he was not in communion with the bishop of Rome.  Around the same time, he applies the same words to a bishop Basil of Raphnea, a suffragan of a metropolitan under the Patriarch of Antioch, not a pope of Rome, as indeed in Scripture, as we went over this before, St. Paul, as mouth of the disciples become Apostles, applies the same word to the bishops as he hands the Church over to the bishops in Acts 20.

We have someone to apply the verse to.  You do not.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #193 on: March 17, 2013, 11:04:38 AM »

no you are wrong, you are confusing 2 isssues, where the 12 apostles will sit in the afterlife ,  with the fact that Jesus appointed Peter to start His church, Peter is the rock in matthew 16, read John 21 a few times and accept Jesus' word

St John Chrysostom, homilies on John, 88, 1, 4th century- “Jesus saith unto him, “feed my sheep” And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band..the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren, and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, “If thou lovest Me,preside over thy brethren.” (Nicene and Post – Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol 14:331)

No, you are wrong. Did Peter start the Church alone?  There were 120 people in the upper room at Pentecost.  Peter's role as head of the apostolic choir doesn't means he is above and beyond the Apostles.  The problem with you Papists (ah, the line that got me banned at CAF  Grin) is that every passage you read you always conclude it means what you want it to mean but it doesn't really mean what you want it to mean.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #194 on: March 17, 2013, 11:32:53 AM »

I suggest you do some research, start here
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/our_lady_of_fatima.php

Which sedevacantist group are you affiliated with?
I don't belong to any sedevacantist group, I'm a traditional catholic, who adheres to the strict teachings of the traditional pre vatican 2 church, the main difference between a true traditionalist and the fake traditionalists and modernists is for starters that I believe there is absolutely no salvation outside of the catholic church.

What about St. Isaac the Syrian? What's the point of accepting the Papacy if there is no Pope?
« Last Edit: March 17, 2013, 11:35:15 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #195 on: March 17, 2013, 01:31:13 PM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

Wink

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .

brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”

 

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.  As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.  Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

 
Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?  Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?  What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?  How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?  What are the criteria?  I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.  Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

 



I ask you to provide a source of this quote. You have 48 hours to comply this request unless you want to be warned.
like I wrote
brother Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #196 on: March 17, 2013, 01:32:41 PM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

Wink

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .

brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”

 

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.  As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.  Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

 
Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?  Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?  What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?  How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?  What are the criteria?  I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.  Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

 



I ask you to provide a source of this quote. You have 48 hours to comply this request unless you want to be warned.
like I wrote
brother Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery

Is it from a book? - write the title and pages.
Is it from a website? - give an url.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,474


WWW
« Reply #197 on: March 17, 2013, 01:56:31 PM »

Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved 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 desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Question was answered and you are clearly wrong.

We can go back and forth about who's wrong.  You're still wrong.

I explained how your sect is incorrect in detail how although Jesus is the rock that  Peter is clearly  the rock in Matthew 16. You can not refute the evidence I presented  so my explanation still stands.

The Gospel refutes your argument.  Jesus said not to add or subtract from the Gospel.  Your sect is the one in trouble, not the Eastern Orthodox.

no you are wrong and haven't refuted my passages I posted, anyone of good will should see that, you're in big trouble for rejecting the gospel, I don't belong to any sect, sedevacantism is not a religion, it's a position that must be taken since the opposite would mean one believes the post vatican 2 popes are not heretics and that they are legitimate,

Game over.  Happy Easter, if your entity celebrates it.   Smiley
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #198 on: March 17, 2013, 04:21:54 PM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

Wink

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .

brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”

 

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.  As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.  Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

 
Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?  Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?  What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?  How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?  What are the criteria?  I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.  Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

 



I ask you to provide a source of this quote. You have 48 hours to comply this request unless you want to be warned.
like I wrote
brother Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery

Is it from a book? - write the title and pages.
Is it from a website? - give an url.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/refuting_eastern_orthodox.php
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #199 on: March 17, 2013, 04:24:14 PM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

Wink

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .

brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”

 

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.  As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.  Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

 
Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?  Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?  What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?  How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?  What are the criteria?  I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.  Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

 



I ask you to provide a source of this quote. You have 48 hours to comply this request unless you want to be warned.
like I wrote
brother Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery

Is it from a book? - write the title and pages.
Is it from a website? - give an url.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/refuting_eastern_orthodox.php

Thank you. Every time you post something copied from another one place, you are required to give the source.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #200 on: March 17, 2013, 04:24:57 PM »

Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved 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 desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Question was answered and you are clearly wrong.

We can go back and forth about who's wrong.  You're still wrong.

I explained how your sect is incorrect in detail how although Jesus is the rock that  Peter is clearly  the rock in Matthew 16. You can not refute the evidence I presented  so my explanation still stands.

The Gospel refutes your argument.  Jesus said not to add or subtract from the Gospel.  Your sect is the one in trouble, not the Eastern Orthodox.

no you are wrong and haven't refuted my passages I posted, anyone of good will should see that, you're in big trouble for rejecting the gospel, I don't belong to any sect, sedevacantism is not a religion, it's a position that must be taken since the opposite would mean one believes the post vatican 2 popes are not heretics and that they are legitimate,

Game over.  Happy Easter, if your entity celebrates it.   Smiley
spending eternity in the lake of fire is no game
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,474


WWW
« Reply #201 on: March 17, 2013, 04:29:30 PM »

Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved 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 desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Question was answered and you are clearly wrong.

We can go back and forth about who's wrong.  You're still wrong.

I explained how your sect is incorrect in detail how although Jesus is the rock that  Peter is clearly  the rock in Matthew 16. You can not refute the evidence I presented  so my explanation still stands.

The Gospel refutes your argument.  Jesus said not to add or subtract from the Gospel.  Your sect is the one in trouble, not the Eastern Orthodox.

no you are wrong and haven't refuted my passages I posted, anyone of good will should see that, you're in big trouble for rejecting the gospel, I don't belong to any sect, sedevacantism is not a religion, it's a position that must be taken since the opposite would mean one believes the post vatican 2 popes are not heretics and that they are legitimate,

Game over.  Happy Easter, if your entity celebrates it.   Smiley
spending eternity in the lake of fire is no game

I don't believe in abominations like Fatima.  The Virgin Mary I believe is the dewey fleece.  She provides relief, not damnation.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #202 on: March 17, 2013, 04:36:18 PM »

Very amusing.
Quote
THE EASTERN ORTHODOX REJECT THE LAST 13 COUNCILS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
But the Vatican has had 14 councils since it split from us (and one before, rejecting the true Fourth Council of Constantinople after it left us)
Quote
The 21 Ecumenical Councils...
VIII. FOURTH COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Year: 869


IX. FIRST LATERAN COUNCIL
Year: 1123


X. SECOND LATERAN COUNCIL
Year: 1139


XI. THIRD LATERAN COUNCIL
Year: 1179


XII. FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL
Year: 1215

XIII. FIRST COUNCIL OF LYONS
Year: 1245


XIV. SECOND COUNCIL OF LYONS
Year: 1274


XV. COUNCIL OF VIENNE
Years: 1311-1313


XVI. COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE
Years: 1414-1418


XVII. COUNCIL OF BASLE/FERRARA/FLORENCE
Years: 1431-1439


XVIII. FIFTH LATERAN COUNCIL
Years: 1512-1517

XIX. COUNCIL OF TRENT
Years: 1545-1563


XX. FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL
Years: 1869-1870

XXI. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL
Years: 1962-1965
http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #203 on: March 17, 2013, 04:40:41 PM »

Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved 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 desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Question was answered and you are clearly wrong.

We can go back and forth about who's wrong.  You're still wrong.

I explained how your sect is incorrect in detail how although Jesus is the rock that  Peter is clearly  the rock in Matthew 16. You can not refute the evidence I presented  so my explanation still stands.

The Gospel refutes your argument.  Jesus said not to add or subtract from the Gospel.  Your sect is the one in trouble, not the Eastern Orthodox.

no you are wrong and haven't refuted my passages I posted, anyone of good will should see that, you're in big trouble for rejecting the gospel, I don't belong to any sect, sedevacantism is not a religion, it's a position that must be taken since the opposite would mean one believes the post vatican 2 popes are not heretics and that they are legitimate,

Game over.  Happy Easter, if your entity celebrates it.   Smiley
spending eternity in the lake of fire is no game
we'll take your word on that. Wink
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #204 on: March 17, 2013, 08:38:39 PM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

Wink

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .
Solemn pronouncements by headless churches lack substance.


brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.
 
Evidently, your "supreme authority of the bishop of Rome" couldn't either, and held Vatican II.

As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.
 
Just showing that he hasn't a clue on "the principles of Eastern "Orthodoxy."

Or your own: Vatican II had far more bishops, and it was called and approved by your bishop of Rome.

Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw…
well, we have to bow to all your expertise in farce.

You have the larger problem that the only difference between Constantinople I and Ephesus II, from the Vatican POV, lay in Old Rome's protesting at the latter through a representative, where it protested from afar the former.  Both Patriarch St. Meletius of Antioch, who opened the former, and Pope Dioscoros of Alexandria, who opened the latter, were at the time not in communion with the archbishop of Old Rome.

Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?
 
It didn't: we had one in 879 (Constantinople IV), a series of them in the XIIIth century (Constantinople V), 1672, (Synod of Jerusalem) etc.

That we didn't have any of the status of Ecumenical Councils, we didn't have any Church tearing heresies, while the Vatican, so mired in heresy-including squabbling over who was the real "supreme pontiff" and "font of unity"-had to keep making it up as it went along.

Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?
It strikes me as ridiculous that someone who rejects a council approved by the one "supreme pontiff" according to Pastor Aeternus, should attempt to make such an arbitrary argument.

What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?
Our side-or rather, those whom the Emperor could force to sign (Caesaropapism is only good when the Vatican does it)-signed with the proviso that it would have to be approved by a Synod convened in the East, which approval never was had.

On your side, you had your original pope still in Basel, opposed to your supreme pontiff Eugene as an "antipope" and his council a "robber council."

How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?
How on Earth could you logically say that Vatican II was not accepted "by the Church," while other councils were?

What are the criteria?
 
Just one: Truth.
I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.
 
more likely because your fingers were down your ear canal

because we don't deal in theory, just the history and facts of how the Ecumenical Councils were conducted and approved.

Meanwhile, you still haven't solved even in theory how you arrogate the power to yourselves to reject a council your bishop of Rome approved.

Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.
like Vatican II

physician, heal thyself.
very amusing, especially your truth answer, you asked a question instead of answering because you have none, your answers are in here
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #205 on: March 17, 2013, 08:40:55 PM »

Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved 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 desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Question was answered and you are clearly wrong.

We can go back and forth about who's wrong.  You're still wrong.

I explained how your sect is incorrect in detail how although Jesus is the rock that  Peter is clearly  the rock in Matthew 16. You can not refute the evidence I presented  so my explanation still stands.

The Gospel refutes your argument.  Jesus said not to add or subtract from the Gospel.  Your sect is the one in trouble, not the Eastern Orthodox.

no you are wrong and haven't refuted my passages I posted, anyone of good will should see that, you're in big trouble for rejecting the gospel, I don't belong to any sect, sedevacantism is not a religion, it's a position that must be taken since the opposite would mean one believes the post vatican 2 popes are not heretics and that they are legitimate,

Game over.  Happy Easter, if your entity celebrates it.   Smiley
spending eternity in the lake of fire is no game

I don't believe in abominations like Fatima.  The Virgin Mary I believe is the dewey fleece.  She provides relief, not damnation.
fatima abomination,? how did you reach this decision, what have you read on this issue
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,474


WWW
« Reply #206 on: March 17, 2013, 08:50:06 PM »

fatima abomination,? how did you reach this decision, what have you read on this issue

I read the Wikipedia article on Fatima.

I don't believe in apparitions; they are work of the Devil; hence, the Devil's work is an abomination. 
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #207 on: March 17, 2013, 08:51:10 PM »

Game over.  Happy Easter, if your entity celebrates it.   Smiley

We don't celebrate pagan holidays about mythical rabbits that bring eggs.





Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #208 on: March 17, 2013, 08:52:09 PM »

no you are wrong, you are confusing 2 isssues, where the 12 apostles will sit in the afterlife ,  with the fact that Jesus appointed Peter to start His church, Peter is the rock in matthew 16, read John 21 a few times and accept Jesus' word

St John Chrysostom, homilies on John, 88, 1, 4th century- “Jesus saith unto him, “feed my sheep” And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band..the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren, and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, “If thou lovest Me,preside over thy brethren.” (Nicene and Post – Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol 14:331)

No, you are wrong. Did Peter start the Church alone?  There were 120 people in the upper room at Pentecost.  Peter's role as head of the apostolic choir doesn't means he is above and beyond the Apostles.  The problem with you Papists (ah, the line that got me banned at CAF  Grin) is that every passage you read you always conclude it means what you want it to mean but it doesn't really mean what you want it to mean.

ahh like "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church..." (Matt 16:18)
that I say Peter is the rock or
"and I will give unto thee (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in haven..." (Matt 16:19)
That I believe Jesus gave the keys to Peter or
John 21:15-17
that Jesus tells Peter to rule his sheep

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 guess this fchurch father also has my problem of misinterpreting the bible uhh?

you are lost

Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,474


WWW
« Reply #209 on: March 17, 2013, 09:30:24 PM »

Game over.  Happy Easter, if your entity celebrates it.   Smiley

We don't celebrate pagan holidays about mythical rabbits that bring eggs.

We Orthodox don't use the term Easter but sedevacantists do.  I was wishing him what he knew.
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #210 on: March 19, 2013, 12:04:11 AM »

sedevacantist is in awfully good company. There's a group of reknowned Roman Catholic theologians who have been arguing that when the popes diverge from the Councils, the seat of Peter becomes Vacant. According to Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx and Mathew Fox, John Paul II, Pope Benedict (and most probably Pope Francis) are anti-popes, and the seat of Peter has become vacant because they have diverged from the authentic and infallible teaching authority of a Council of the Catholic church, the Second Vatican Council.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/is_pope_francis_a_fraud/
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/freak-extremes-meet-hans-kung-becomes.html

Theological liberals have been agitated because this pontiff (and the last one) are promoters of Communion and Liberation, a group which engenders the same kind of reaction that you get from, say, Opus Dei in the Dan Brown books, or the Jesuits back in the days of yore.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2013, 12:06:16 AM by John Larocque » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #211 on: March 19, 2013, 02:30:31 AM »

sedevacantist is in awfully good company. There's a group of reknowned Roman Catholic theologians who have been arguing that when the popes diverge from the Councils, the seat of Peter becomes Vacant. According to Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx and Mathew Fox, John Paul II, Pope Benedict (and most probably Pope Francis) are anti-popes, and the seat of Peter has become vacant because they have diverged from the authentic and infallible teaching authority of a Council of the Catholic church, the Second Vatican Council.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/is_pope_francis_a_fraud/
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/freak-extremes-meet-hans-kung-becomes.html

Theological liberals have been agitated because this pontiff (and the last one) are promoters of Communion and Liberation, a group which engenders the same kind of reaction that you get from, say, Opus Dei in the Dan Brown books, or the Jesuits back in the days of yore.
I heard that Matthew Fox had a practicing witch, Miriam Simos (Starhawk), on his staff. I  wonder if he consulted with his witch, Miriam Simos, when he reached his conclusion that Pope Benedict was not a Pope.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #212 on: March 19, 2013, 04:25:35 AM »

Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.
like Vatican II

physician, heal thyself.
very amusing, especially your truth answer, you asked a question instead of answering because you have none
Answered
What are the criteria?
 
Just one: Truth.
No, that's your coreligionist shooting you in the foot on your retreat from Vatican II.

My (and Christ's) answers are in here
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #213 on: March 19, 2013, 04:25:35 AM »

no you are wrong, you are confusing 2 isssues, where the 12 apostles will sit in the afterlife ,  with the fact that Jesus appointed Peter to start His church, Peter is the rock in matthew 16, read John 21 a few times and accept Jesus' word

St John Chrysostom, homilies on John, 88, 1, 4th century- “Jesus saith unto him, “feed my sheep” And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band..the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren, and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, “If thou lovest Me,preside over thy brethren.” (Nicene and Post – Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol 14:331)

No, you are wrong. Did Peter start the Church alone?  There were 120 people in the upper room at Pentecost.  Peter's role as head of the apostolic choir doesn't means he is above and beyond the Apostles.  The problem with you Papists (ah, the line that got me banned at CAF  Grin) is that every passage you read you always conclude it means what you want it to mean but it doesn't really mean what you want it to mean.

ahh like "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church..." (Matt 16:18)
that I say Peter is the rock or
"and I will give unto thee (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in haven..." (Matt 16:19)
or
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” (Matt 16:23)
That I believe Jesus gave the keys to Peter or
John 21:15-17
that Jesus tells Peter to rule his sheep
And St. Paul tells all the bishops in Asia (and in general) that the Holy Spirit appointed them for that (Acts 20:28).

St. Peter mentions your interpretation: II Peter 3:16

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 guess this fchurch father also has my problem of misinterpreting the bible uhh?
No, in particular that he was no in communion with the bishop of Old Rome at the time, because he was in communion with St. Peter's successor, Pat. Meletius of Antioch.

you are lost
you have lost your head

nobody's there.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #214 on: March 19, 2013, 04:25:35 AM »

sedevacantist is in awfully good company. There's a group of reknowned Roman Catholic theologians who have been arguing that when the popes diverge from the Councils, the seat of Peter becomes Vacant. According to Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx and Mathew Fox, John Paul II, Pope Benedict (and most probably Pope Francis) are anti-popes, and the seat of Peter has become vacant because they have diverged from the authentic and infallible teaching authority of a Council of the Catholic church, the Second Vatican Council.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/is_pope_francis_a_fraud/
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/freak-extremes-meet-hans-kung-becomes.html

Theological liberals have been agitated because this pontiff (and the last one) are promoters of Communion and Liberation, a group which engenders the same kind of reaction that you get from, say, Opus Dei in the Dan Brown books, or the Jesuits back in the days of yore.
So they are all united in accepting Pastor Aeternus and rejecting its consequence.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #215 on: March 19, 2013, 08:56:10 AM »

What about St. Isaac the Syrian? What's the point of accepting the Papacy if there is no Pope?

Why not answer these two questions, sedevacantist?
« Last Edit: March 19, 2013, 08:56:17 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #216 on: March 19, 2013, 09:17:06 AM »

I just love these quotes...

Kung:

Quote
The classical doctrine regarding schism should be a warning to him. According to it, a schism of the Church happens when it separates from the Pope, but also when the latter separates himself from the body of the Church. "Even the Pope could become a schismatic, if he will not guard the unity and communion proper to the whole body of the Church." (Francisco Suárez, major Spanish theologian of the 16th/17th centuries).

A schismatic pope loses his position according to that same teaching of the constitution of the Church. At least, he cannot expect obedience. Pope Benedict would be therefore encouraging the already widespread  popular movement of "disobedience" against a hierarchy that is disobedient to the Gospel. He would bear sole responsibility for the grave rift and the strife created inside the Church. , he would have alone the responsibility.

Fox:

http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/former-dominican-sees-churchs-demise-blessing-disguise

Quote
The premise of The Pope’s War is that we’ve been given two schismatic popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, over the past three decades for a reason. And that is to shake us up so that we will press the restart button on Christianity...

In the book, I tell the story of Fr. [Edward] Schillebeeckx, a great Catholic theologian whom I respect tremendously. He brought this issue of schism to my attention years ago, when the Dutch Dominicans were offering me asylum. He told me, and this is a quote, "I and many other European theologians believe the present papacy [of John Paul II] is in schism." And my response was, well, what are we going to do about it? And though he never said a word, he looked at me with this face that said, "You Americans are so naive, you think you can do something about it."

Schism is a heavy word theologically and historically. But I think it applies to the previous pope and the present pope because they have trumped the Second Vatican Council. The truth, according to Catholic theology, is that councils trump popes, popes don’t trump councils. All of the reforms of Vatican II have been erased. This is pretty serious in terms of the history of the church.

But what it also means is that any Catholic who is following the principles and spirit of Vatican II is free to carry on those principles because the church is now elsewhere.

And recently...
Quote
In my book, "The Pope's War: How Ratzinger's Crusade Imperiled the Church and How It Can Be Saved," where I document all the above abuses and more, I also make the point that the late and great Dutch Dominican Father Schillebeexks made to me more than 15 years ago when he said: "I and many other European theologians believe the present papacy is in schism." ... If we are correct that the Vatican is in schism, then that means that every Cardinal, bishop and priest anointed over the past 42 years is in schism, and therefore, does not need to be heeded or listened to... And now we have a conclave full of schismatic cardinals voting for another schismatic pope.

Quote
When I asked Fox whether he actually held out hope for Pope Francis, he briefly tried to be diplomatic, saying he was praying for the new pontiff and wished him well. Then he said, "But remember that all those cardinals that voted for him were appointed by John Paul II and Ratzinger" - and therefore, from Fox’s point of view, are not legitimate cardinals at all.

« Last Edit: March 19, 2013, 09:37:50 AM by John Larocque » Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #217 on: March 19, 2013, 10:19:07 AM »

*subscribing*
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #218 on: March 19, 2013, 11:01:02 AM »

I just love these quotes...

Kung:

Quote
The classical doctrine regarding schism should be a warning to him. According to it, a schism of the Church happens when it separates from the Pope, but also when the latter separates himself from the body of the Church. "Even the Pope could become a schismatic, if he will not guard the unity and communion proper to the whole body of the Church." (Francisco Suárez, major Spanish theologian of the 16th/17th centuries).

A schismatic pope loses his position according to that same teaching of the constitution of the Church. At least, he cannot expect obedience. Pope Benedict would be therefore encouraging the already widespread  popular movement of "disobedience" against a hierarchy that is disobedient to the Gospel. He would bear sole responsibility for the grave rift and the strife created inside the Church. , he would have alone the responsibility.

Fox:

http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/former-dominican-sees-churchs-demise-blessing-disguise

Quote
The premise of The Pope’s War is that we’ve been given two schismatic popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, over the past three decades for a reason. And that is to shake us up so that we will press the restart button on Christianity...

In the book, I tell the story of Fr. [Edward] Schillebeeckx, a great Catholic theologian whom I respect tremendously. He brought this issue of schism to my attention years ago, when the Dutch Dominicans were offering me asylum. He told me, and this is a quote, "I and many other European theologians believe the present papacy [of John Paul II] is in schism." And my response was, well, what are we going to do about it? And though he never said a word, he looked at me with this face that said, "You Americans are so naive, you think you can do something about it."

Schism is a heavy word theologically and historically. But I think it applies to the previous pope and the present pope because they have trumped the Second Vatican Council. The truth, according to Catholic theology, is that councils trump popes, popes don’t trump councils. All of the reforms of Vatican II have been erased. This is pretty serious in terms of the history of the church.

But what it also means is that any Catholic who is following the principles and spirit of Vatican II is free to carry on those principles because the church is now elsewhere.

And recently...
Quote
In my book, "The Pope's War: How Ratzinger's Crusade Imperiled the Church and How It Can Be Saved," where I document all the above abuses and more, I also make the point that the late and great Dutch Dominican Father Schillebeexks made to me more than 15 years ago when he said: "I and many other European theologians believe the present papacy is in schism." ... If we are correct that the Vatican is in schism, then that means that every Cardinal, bishop and priest anointed over the past 42 years is in schism, and therefore, does not need to be heeded or listened to... And now we have a conclave full of schismatic cardinals voting for another schismatic pope.

Quote
When I asked Fox whether he actually held out hope for Pope Francis, he briefly tried to be diplomatic, saying he was praying for the new pontiff and wished him well. Then he said, "But remember that all those cardinals that voted for him were appointed by John Paul II and Ratzinger" - and therefore, from Fox’s point of view, are not legitimate cardinals at all.
Well, that's what you get for putting all your eggs in one basket, as they have for the past millenium.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #219 on: March 19, 2013, 11:06:20 AM »

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I wonder if it would be worth my while to start a petition, at a Catholic forum that I participate on, for them to deem "Eastern Orthodox" to mean anyone who calls themselves that, whatever-the-hell they might really be.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #220 on: March 19, 2013, 11:15:01 AM »

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I wonder if it would be worth my while to start a petition, at a Catholic forum that I participate on, for them to deem "Eastern Orthodox" to mean anyone who calls themselves that, whatever-the-hell they might really be.

Returning to MABp Shevchuk, he stated something like that.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #221 on: March 19, 2013, 11:15:13 AM »

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I wonder if it would be worth my while to start a petition, at a Catholic forum that I participate on, for them to deem "Eastern Orthodox" to mean anyone who calls themselves that, whatever-the-hell they might really be.

Well you wouldn't get that many actual Orthodox in there if you did - I think I could count the number of people I've known who have called themselves 'Eastern Orthodox' on one hand (not sure I'd actually need two fingers, to be honest). It tends to be something other people call us (exactly like other people call all of you Roman Catholic, and I know you don't like that). It only ever really gets used by us if we're having to distinguish between EO and OO and even then its hardly self-designation so much as a way to avoid confusion.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #222 on: March 19, 2013, 11:33:28 AM »

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I wonder if it would be worth my while to start a petition, at a Catholic forum that I participate on, for them to deem "Eastern Orthodox" to mean anyone who calls themselves that, whatever-the-hell they might really be.
This is a Catholic forum.

As for the fora that apologize for the Vatican 1) why should we Catholics care? 2) they already run with those who call themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome." 3) CAF already lumps us together with Protestants, JWs, Mormons, Muslims and atheists and "whatever-the-hell they might really be."

Since there isn't really a supreme pontiff, we have no dog in your fight.

Or did you expect us to take your supreme pontiff's word on it?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


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


« Reply #223 on: March 19, 2013, 11:50:57 AM »

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I wonder if it would be worth my while to start a petition, at a Catholic forum that I participate on, for them to deem "Eastern Orthodox" to mean anyone who calls themselves that, whatever-the-hell they might really be.
This is a Catholic forum.

As for the fora that apologize for the Vatican 1) why should we Catholics care? 2) they already run with those who call themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome." 3) CAF already lumps us together with Protestants, JWs, Mormons, Muslims and atheists and "whatever-the-hell they might really be."

Since there isn't really a supreme pontiff, we have no dog in your fight.

Or did you expect us to take your supreme pontiff's word on it?

Are we Catholic?  Fully !
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #224 on: March 19, 2013, 12:22:39 PM »

3) CAF already lumps us together with Protestants, JWs, Mormons, Muslims and atheists and "whatever-the-hell they might really be."

Yes, I've been complaining about the "Non-Catholic Religions Forum" for years.

Nevertheless, CAF (thus far at least) does know that "is Eastern Orthodox" != "calls himself/herself Eastern Orthodox".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.27 seconds with 72 queries.