OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 24, 2014, 11:12:03 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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Urgent help needed; possible RC convert  (Read 3945 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« on: May 18, 2013, 12:26:17 PM »

Hello brethren,

Before I post the quote, I ask that if you are tempted to post a pithy and/or ironic response, please restrain yourself from posting. My friends and I have been researching Orthodoxy for some time now and have grieved intensely over the schism and our possible duty of having to leave the Catholic Church, and these comments which these and other forums are rife and plagued with are the absolute most awful and insensitive remarks possible converts have to deal with in searching for the true Church of Christ. If possible, I would like to restrict this thread to those who are truly interested in helping me and others who are struggling with this painful process out.

With that said here is a quote from St. Jerome which seems to support the Catholic claim:

 "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."

As I'm sure many of you are aware already, there are numerous quotes found within the Church Fathers of this nature, but this one in particular brings out one of the more complex issues with the Matthew 16:18 debacle. He, like other Fathers, seem to refer to one Chair of Peter while ascribing to it a perpetual ministry of divine assurance in one See. I've been wrestling with the fact that my RC friend brings up frequently that the Church was founded upon ONE MAN and that the Keys were given to ONE MAN, and that this last point is given the assurance that the gates of hell would not prevail against that ONE CHURCH. With the Peter syndrome set aside, it isn't entirely ridiculous to see how the RC interpretation came about considering the central role of Peter (especially in Matthew 16, Luke 22 and John 21) and his death in Rome which is widely attested to, as being foundational for a LOVING GUARANTEE from God that a particular Church would never err. St. Cyprian says:

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal UNITY has its SOURCE; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance."


There is little doubt that you have come across these passages and others like them before. For that I am sorry, but as I said previously, I am immensely grieved and the responses here, in books and in other forums are lacking regarding certain quotations and RC concepts that are not for the moment fully reconciled with my conscience. Thank you in advance for your charitable responses.

God bless you,

Jonathan
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,277


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2013, 12:41:21 PM »

Dear Jonathan,

Know that I am praying for you. I left the Roman Catholic Church and joined the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church where I found a new home for 3 years. During those three years, I inquired into Eastern Orthodoxy.
With my increasing disbelief in Papal Powers, especially papal infallibility and papal supremacy, I finally left the Melkite Church and was chrismated into the Greek Orthodox Church.

I will pray for you that you may find true peace.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2013, 01:00:17 PM »

Dear Jonathan,

Know that I am praying for you. I left the Roman Catholic Church and joined the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church where I found a new home for 3 years. During those three years, I inquired into Eastern Orthodoxy.
With my increasing disbelief in Papal Powers, especially papal infallibility and papal supremacy, I finally left the Melkite Church and was chrismated into the Greek Orthodox Church.

I will pray for you that you may find true peace.

Bless you Maria. What beautiful hope you've given me. I FEEL your prayers. I cannot thank you enough for manifesting this love of God to me. Bless you friend.
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
truthseeker32
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOAA- Denver
Posts: 381



« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2013, 01:39:00 PM »

Hello Jy3pr6,
   My spiritual journey has been a difficult and confusing one, and the issue of what role the Bishop of Rome played in the early Church is one I continue to study and wrestle with. That being said, I will give some brief thoughts.

With that said here is a quote from St. Jerome which seems to support the Catholic claim:

 "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."

The first question I have regarding this passage: What does St. Jerome mean when he says "... I communicate with none but your blessedness..."? Does he mean he only sees communion with the Church of Rome as important? I would like to read this passage in its original language, since nuance can often be lost in translation.

Further, reading the Church Fathers has taught me that there seems to have been varying views of the Bishop of Rome. I don't think the reality that some ECF's may have had a view of the Pope similar to the modern Roman Catholic understanding proves anything more than the variety of views the early church had of the Bishop of Rome. For example, lets pretend that Sts. Jerome and Athanasius believed the Pope had supremacy, and Sts. Basil and Gregory of Nyssa believed no such thing. The issue would remain inconclusive, and it seems that in such cases it is better to side with conservatism (the Orthodox position) unless it can be demonstrated that the greater part of the Christian tradition has agreed with Rome.

Anyways, good questions. I look forward to seeing other responses.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,072


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2013, 01:47:55 PM »

Hi, Jy3,

I am on this journey too. It has not been easy. I wish you the best.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
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 #5 on: May 18, 2013, 02:44:34 PM »

Hello brethren,

Before I post the quote, I ask that if you are tempted to post a pithy and/or ironic response, please restrain yourself from posting. My friends and I have been researching Orthodoxy for some time now and have grieved intensely over the schism and our possible duty of having to leave the Catholic Church, and these comments which these and other forums are rife and plagued with are the absolute most awful and insensitive remarks possible converts have to deal with in searching for the true Church of Christ. If possible, I would like to restrict this thread to those who are truly interested in helping me and others who are struggling with this painful process out.
You post on an Orthodox forum about "having to leave the Catholic Church" when it fact what you are contemplating joining the Catholic Church.

As for painful, what in particularly causes you your pain?

With that said here is a quote from St. Jerome which seems to support the Catholic claim:

 "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."
IIRC, this is from his whining letter to Abp. (the title of Pope at the time was held only by the Archbishop of Alexandria) St. Damasus, on whom to commune with in the East.  Abp. Damasus settled on Paulinus as Patriarch of Antioch, who ordained St. Jerome.  Alas!  The East was in communion with Patriarch St. Meletius, who opened up the Second Ecumenical Council not in communion with the archbishop of Rome and set their seal on the Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  At that Council of Saints (it has the most canonized/glorified saints who attended any council, although it was the smallest), they elected St. Flavian to succeed him as patriarch of Antioch, when St. (and so on the Vatican's calendar as well) Meletius reposed, and did so over Old Rome's objections.  Paulinus' line died out after him.  All five lines of patriarchs that the Vatican promoted for patriarch of Antioch all claim to trace their episcopal lineage from Pat. St. Meletius, not Paulinus, who was quite forgotten.

On that:
I am seeking independent verification of information contained in an Orthodox encyclical

The encyclical in question is
"Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns""

In it they say...

"...witnessed by the great Basil (Ep. 48 Athan.) to be "the most venerable of all the Churches in the world." Still more, the second Ecumenical Council, writing to a Council of the West (to the most honorable and religious brethren and fellow-servants, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerian, and others), witnesseth, saying: "The oldest and truly Apostolic Church of Antioch, in Syria, where first the honored name of Christians was used."

I have looked at the cite www.ccel.org which gives documents by Church Fathers.

The 48th epistle by Basil begins...
Letter XLVIII.

To Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata.

I have had considerable difficulty in finding a messenger to convey a letter to your reverence, for our men are so afraid of the winter that they can hardly bear even to put their heads outside their houses.  We have suffered from such a very heavy fall of snow that we have been buried, houses and all, beneath it, and now for two months have been living in dens and caves.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.xlix.html

Am I missing something regarding the reference (Ep. 48 Athan.)?

Also, I can't find the letter sent by the second ecumenical council to 'the west'



My best guess is that it is this epistle which Basil wrote to Athanasius, which is being referenced: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.lxvii.html

In it he writes:
Quote
No one knows better than you do, that, like all wise physicians, you ought to begin your treatment in the most vital parts, and what part is more vital to the Churches throughout the world than Antioch?  Only let Antioch be restored to harmony, and nothing will stand in the way of her supplying, as a healthy head, soundness to all the body.  Truly the diseases of that city, which has not only been cut asunder by heretics, but is torn in pieces by men who say that they are of one mind with one another, stand in need of your wisdom and evangelic sympathy.

As I'm sure many of you are aware already, there are numerous quotes found within the Church Fathers of this nature, but this one in particular brings out one of the more complex issues with the Matthew 16:18 debacle. He, like other Fathers, seem to refer to one Chair of Peter while ascribing to it a perpetual ministry of divine assurance in one See. I've been wrestling with the fact that my RC friend brings up frequently that the Church was founded upon ONE MAN and that the Keys were given to ONE MAN, and that this last point is given the assurance that the gates of hell would not prevail against that ONE CHURCH. With the Peter syndrome set aside, it isn't entirely ridiculous to see how the RC interpretation came about considering the central role of Peter (especially in Matthew 16, Luke 22 and John 21) and his death in Rome which is widely attested to, as being foundational for a LOVING GUARANTEE from God that a particular Church would never err. St. Cyprian says:

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal UNITY has its SOURCE; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance."


There is little doubt that you have come across these passages and others like them before. For that I am sorry, but as I said previously, I am immensely grieved and the responses here, in books and in other forums are lacking regarding certain quotations and RC concepts that are not for the moment fully reconciled with my conscience. Thank you in advance for your charitable responses.

God bless you,

Jonathan
On the quotes:
said that this moment in John 21, after the resurrection of Jesus , was the moment that Jesus actually gave  to St Peter the keys and the authority over His church which He had promised him in Matthew 16.
Yes, as we have seen above, Pastor Aeternus taught so in error.  On Matthew 16:
Quote
It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349).
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm
On this one:

This has been dealt with a lot (including on St. Chrysostom's words on St. James and St. John, in addition to St. Peter). For an example:
Witega, you seem to say the Fathers often understood references to Peter as meaning the whole group of Apostles.  Does that apply here with Chrysostom's quote?

I found this quote, on the topic of it not only applying to the whole group of Apostles, but also to the lowly bishop of a rural town way down in the stix of Upper Egypt:

Due to the ongoing debate on the Fourth Council, I by chance was reaquainted with a text I thought appropriate here.  It is from the "Life of Shenoute" by his disciple St. Besa.  St. Shenoute's writings were the examplar of Coptic literature, but his chief claim to fame was cracking his staff over Nestorius' head at the Council of Ephesus.  In one episode, "One day," Besa says, "our father Shenoute and our Lord Jesus were sitting down talking together" (a very common occurance according to the Vita) and the Bishop of Shmin came wishing to meet the abbot.  When Shenoute sent word that he was too busy to come to the bishop, the bishop got angry and threatened to excommunicate him for disobedience:

Quote
The servant went to our father [Shenouti] and said to him what the bishop had told him.  But my father smiled graciously with laughter and said: "See what this man of flesh and blood has said! Behold, here sitting with me is he who created heaven and earth! I will not go while I am with him." But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].  When my father heard these words of the Savior, he arose, went out to the bishop and greeted him.

 Besa, Life of Shenoute 70-72 (trans. Bell). On the context of this story see Behlmer 1998, esp. pp. 353-354. Gaddis, There is No Crime for those who have Christ, p. 296
http://books.google.com/books?id=JGEibDA8el4C

Now this dates not only before the schism of East-West, and the Schism of Chalcedon, but nearly the Schism of Ephesus.  Now Shmin is just a town in southern Egypt, and the bishop there just a suffragan of Alexandria.  So it would seem to be odd if the Vatican's interpretation of Matthew 16:19 were the ancient one why this would be applied to a bishop far from Rome, in a land where St. Peter never founded any Church.  But it makes perfect sense from the Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16:19, and indeed, according to "the Catholic Encyclopedia," the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers.

Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

It’s important to emphasize that the moment after the Resurrection, in John 21, was the point at which Jesus made St Peter the first pope. This is significant because some non Catholics bring up St Peter’s 3 fold denial of Christ in john 18:25 and following.  When peter denied Jesus Christ, it was before the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Jesus had not yet given St peter the authority as pope. The words in MT 16:18-20 promise the keys of the Kingdom to St Peter. They promise that Jesus would build His Church upon Him and make him the prime minister of His Church, but that office was not conferred upon peter until after the RESURRECTION, BY THESE WORDS IN John21:15-17. Therefore, St Peter’s  denial of Christ poses no problem at all for Catholic teaching on the papacy.
Ah, a little problem for the Vatican in that He had already conferred the Power of the Keys on ALL the Disciples (except St. Thomas, and of course, Judas) in John 20:22.

And, the problem that John 21 deals with St. Peter's denial and his repentance therefrom, to confess his love for Christ once denied:
Quote
So when they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these? He says unto Him, Yea, Lord, You know that I love You.
1. There are indeed many other things which are able to give us boldness towards God, and to show us bright and approved, but that which most of all brings good will from on high, is tender care for our neighbor. Which therefore Christ requires of Peter. For when their eating was ended, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these? He says unto Him, Yea, Lord, You know that I love You.

He says 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; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.

When then having been asked once and again, he called Him to witness who knows the secrets of the heart, and then was asked even a third time, he was troubled, fearing a repetition of what had happened before, (for then, having been strong in assertion, he was afterwards convicted,) and therefore he again betakes himself to Him.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.
St. John the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom must have not gotten the memo, because the only thing they have to say about young and old
Quote
When you were young, you girded yourself, and walked whither you would, but when you are old, others shall gird you, and carry you whither you will not.
And yet this he did will, and desired; on which account also He has revealed it to him. For since Peter had continually said, I will lay down my life for You John 13:37, and, Though I should die with You, yet will I not deny You Matthew 26:35: He has given him back his desire. What then is the, Whither you will not? He speaks of natural feeling, and the necessity of the flesh, and that the soul is unwillingly torn away from the body. So that even though the will were firm, yet still even then nature would be found in fault. For no one lays aside the body without feeling, God, as I said before, having suitably ordained this, that violent deaths might not be many. For if, as things are, the devil has been able to effect this, and has led ten thousand to precipices and pits; had not the soul felt such a desire for the body, the many would have rushed to this under any common discouragement. The, whither you will not, is then the expression of one signifying natural feeling.

But how after having said, When you were young, does He again say, When you are old? For this is the expression of one declaring that he was not then young; (nor was he; nor yet old, but a man of middle age. ) Wherefore then did He recall to his memory his former life? Signifying, that this is the nature of what belongs to Him. In things of this life the young man is useful, the old useless; but in Mine, He says, not so; but when old age has come on, then is excellence brighter, then is manliness more illustrious, being nothing hindered by the time of life. This He said not to terrify, but to rouse Him; for He knew his love, and that he long had yearned for this blessing. At the same time He declares the kind of death. For since Peter ever desired to be in the dangers which were for His sake, Be of good cheer, He says, I will so satisfy your desire, that, what you suffered not when young, you must suffer when you are old. Then the Evangelist, to rouse the hearer, has added,

As to an alleged distinction between clergy and the Faithful:
Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say. The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.
When St. Paul on behalf of the Apostles turns the Church over to their successors, the bishops, Acts 20, he uses the exact word "poimane" in verse 28 "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."  So they are placed by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church.  Notice in all the final instructions of Acts not a word about "submit yourselves to Peter."

Traditions of ruling houses die out when the dynasty goes extinct.  You are working at cross purposes, here and elsewhere, trying to prove the necessity of your visible head when you call yourself a member of a decapitated church, with no means of sewing a head back on.  You preach the gospel of a dead god, while we are shown to hold to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Maybe you should try your luck with the Mormons or the Jehovah Witnesses.  They are founded on deus ex machina.
Cyprian the Bishop By J. Patout Burns
http://books.google.com/books?id=egbXJlUgAW8C&pg=PA158&dq=cyprian+all+bishops+successors+peter&hl=en#v=onepage&q=cyprian%20all%20bishops%20successors%20peter&f=false
As he put it
Quote
The doctrine of St. Cyprian upon the point before us is extremely full and clear from many passages of his treatises and epistles. A remarkable passage from the treatise "de Unitate Ecclesiae," has been quoted above, in which he says plainly, that "Christ gave to all the Apostles equal authority," and that "all the other Apostles were what Peter was, endowed with an equal participation of honour and power."

In other places he says, "There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded by the voice of the Lord on Peter." This doctrine is thus repeated in the Epistle of Cornelius to St. Cyprian: "Nor are we ignorant that there is one God, one Christ, the Lord whom we have confessed, one Holy Ghost, that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church." This assertion, which at the first sight might seem to favour the modern claims of the Roman see, is thus interpreted in the treatise "de Unitate:" "The Episcopate is one; of which every individual (Bishop) participates possessing it entire. And again, elsewhere: "From Christ there is one Church, divided throughout the whole world into many members; and one Episcopate, diffused by the 'concordant numerosity' of many Bishops'." Thus the Episcopate is "single and indivisible," but held in equal truth and fulness by many. All alike hold under the promise made to St. Peter'. That promise was addressed to him personally, "to manifest unity;" but in him, was addressed alike to all. There are many shepherds, but the flock is one; in order that if any member of our college (Bishops) endeavour to make heresy, and tear the flock of Christ, the rest may assist, and like good shepherds, collect the Lord's sheep into the flock. All shepherds hold by no other right than that of legitimate and successive ordination. Yet St. Peter himself, whom the Lord chose first and on whom He built His Church, when afterwards Paul disputed with him about circumcision, did not claim any thing to himself so insolently or arrogantly as to say that he held a primacy, or that he ought rather to be obeyed by the present and future generation.
The sayings of the great forty days, between the resurrection and ascension ... By George Moberly
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=the+episcopate+is+one+episcopatum+unum&id=XIQrAAAAYAAJ&ots=8gPpU-mje5#v=onepage&q=the%20episcopate%20is%20one%20episcopatum%20unum&f=false
On St. Cyprian, consider his translation of the letter of Firmilian into Latin:

Ah, yes. His translation into Latin of Firmilian's letter for Rome shows that:

17. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of [Arbp.] Stephen [of Old Rome], that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity...
24. Consider with what want of judgment you dare to blame those who strive for the truth against falsehood. For who ought more justly to be indignant against the other?—whether he who supports God’s enemies, or he who, in opposition to him who supports God’s enemies, unites with us on behalf of the truth of the Church?—except that it is plain that the ignorant are also excited and angry, because by the want of counsel and discourse they are easily turned to wrath; so that of none more than of you does divine Scripture say, “A wrathful man stirreth up strifes, and a furious man heapeth up sins.”For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all[/u]; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace, although he warned, and said, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiv.html
« Last Edit: May 18, 2013, 02:45:23 PM by ialmisry » 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
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2013, 06:38:36 PM »

Hello Jy3pr6,
   My spiritual journey has been a difficult and confusing one, and the issue of what role the Bishop of Rome played in the early Church is one I continue to study and wrestle with. That being said, I will give some brief thoughts.

With that said here is a quote from St. Jerome which seems to support the Catholic claim:

 "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."

The first question I have regarding this passage: What does St. Jerome mean when he says "... I communicate with none but your blessedness..."? Does he mean he only sees communion with the Church of Rome as important? I would like to read this passage in its original language, since nuance can often be lost in translation.

Further, reading the Church Fathers has taught me that there seems to have been varying views of the Bishop of Rome. I don't think the reality that some ECF's may have had a view of the Pope similar to the modern Roman Catholic understanding proves anything more than the variety of views the early church had of the Bishop of Rome. For example, lets pretend that Sts. Jerome and Athanasius believed the Pope had supremacy, and Sts. Basil and Gregory of Nyssa believed no such thing. The issue would remain inconclusive, and it seems that in such cases it is better to side with conservatism (the Orthodox position) unless it can be demonstrated that the greater part of the Christian tradition has agreed with Rome.

Anyways, good questions. I look forward to seeing other responses.

Thank you for your response friend. I've contemplated this approach myself but for the sake of purifying my intentions I continue to search for possible validations of the RC position. Nevertheless, thank you for your response.
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2013, 06:39:13 PM »

Hi, Jy3,

I am on this journey too. It has not been easy. I wish you the best.


Thank you Biro. May God have mercy on us both.
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2013, 06:46:50 PM »

Hello brethren,

Before I post the quote, I ask that if you are tempted to post a pithy and/or ironic response, please restrain yourself from posting. My friends and I have been researching Orthodoxy for some time now and have grieved intensely over the schism and our possible duty of having to leave the Catholic Church, and these comments which these and other forums are rife and plagued with are the absolute most awful and insensitive remarks possible converts have to deal with in searching for the true Church of Christ. If possible, I would like to restrict this thread to those who are truly interested in helping me and others who are struggling with this painful process out.
You post on an Orthodox forum about "having to leave the Catholic Church" when it fact what you are contemplating joining the Catholic Church.

As for painful, what in particularly causes you your pain?

With that said here is a quote from St. Jerome which seems to support the Catholic claim:

 "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."
IIRC, this is from his whining letter to Abp. (the title of Pope at the time was held only by the Archbishop of Alexandria) St. Damasus, on whom to commune with in the East.  Abp. Damasus settled on Paulinus as Patriarch of Antioch, who ordained St. Jerome.  Alas!  The East was in communion with Patriarch St. Meletius, who opened up the Second Ecumenical Council not in communion with the archbishop of Rome and set their seal on the Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  At that Council of Saints (it has the most canonized/glorified saints who attended any council, although it was the smallest), they elected St. Flavian to succeed him as patriarch of Antioch, when St. (and so on the Vatican's calendar as well) Meletius reposed, and did so over Old Rome's objections.  Paulinus' line died out after him.  All five lines of patriarchs that the Vatican promoted for patriarch of Antioch all claim to trace their episcopal lineage from Pat. St. Meletius, not Paulinus, who was quite forgotten.

On that:
I am seeking independent verification of information contained in an Orthodox encyclical

The encyclical in question is
"Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns""

In it they say...

"...witnessed by the great Basil (Ep. 48 Athan.) to be "the most venerable of all the Churches in the world." Still more, the second Ecumenical Council, writing to a Council of the West (to the most honorable and religious brethren and fellow-servants, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerian, and others), witnesseth, saying: "The oldest and truly Apostolic Church of Antioch, in Syria, where first the honored name of Christians was used."

I have looked at the cite www.ccel.org which gives documents by Church Fathers.

The 48th epistle by Basil begins...
Letter XLVIII.

To Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata.

I have had considerable difficulty in finding a messenger to convey a letter to your reverence, for our men are so afraid of the winter that they can hardly bear even to put their heads outside their houses.  We have suffered from such a very heavy fall of snow that we have been buried, houses and all, beneath it, and now for two months have been living in dens and caves.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.xlix.html

Am I missing something regarding the reference (Ep. 48 Athan.)?

Also, I can't find the letter sent by the second ecumenical council to 'the west'



My best guess is that it is this epistle which Basil wrote to Athanasius, which is being referenced: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.lxvii.html

In it he writes:
Quote
No one knows better than you do, that, like all wise physicians, you ought to begin your treatment in the most vital parts, and what part is more vital to the Churches throughout the world than Antioch?  Only let Antioch be restored to harmony, and nothing will stand in the way of her supplying, as a healthy head, soundness to all the body.  Truly the diseases of that city, which has not only been cut asunder by heretics, but is torn in pieces by men who say that they are of one mind with one another, stand in need of your wisdom and evangelic sympathy.

As I'm sure many of you are aware already, there are numerous quotes found within the Church Fathers of this nature, but this one in particular brings out one of the more complex issues with the Matthew 16:18 debacle. He, like other Fathers, seem to refer to one Chair of Peter while ascribing to it a perpetual ministry of divine assurance in one See. I've been wrestling with the fact that my RC friend brings up frequently that the Church was founded upon ONE MAN and that the Keys were given to ONE MAN, and that this last point is given the assurance that the gates of hell would not prevail against that ONE CHURCH. With the Peter syndrome set aside, it isn't entirely ridiculous to see how the RC interpretation came about considering the central role of Peter (especially in Matthew 16, Luke 22 and John 21) and his death in Rome which is widely attested to, as being foundational for a LOVING GUARANTEE from God that a particular Church would never err. St. Cyprian says:

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal UNITY has its SOURCE; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance."


There is little doubt that you have come across these passages and others like them before. For that I am sorry, but as I said previously, I am immensely grieved and the responses here, in books and in other forums are lacking regarding certain quotations and RC concepts that are not for the moment fully reconciled with my conscience. Thank you in advance for your charitable responses.

God bless you,

Jonathan
On the quotes:
said that this moment in John 21, after the resurrection of Jesus , was the moment that Jesus actually gave  to St Peter the keys and the authority over His church which He had promised him in Matthew 16.
Yes, as we have seen above, Pastor Aeternus taught so in error.  On Matthew 16:
Quote
It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349).
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm
On this one:

This has been dealt with a lot (including on St. Chrysostom's words on St. James and St. John, in addition to St. Peter). For an example:
Witega, you seem to say the Fathers often understood references to Peter as meaning the whole group of Apostles.  Does that apply here with Chrysostom's quote?

I found this quote, on the topic of it not only applying to the whole group of Apostles, but also to the lowly bishop of a rural town way down in the stix of Upper Egypt:

Due to the ongoing debate on the Fourth Council, I by chance was reaquainted with a text I thought appropriate here.  It is from the "Life of Shenoute" by his disciple St. Besa.  St. Shenoute's writings were the examplar of Coptic literature, but his chief claim to fame was cracking his staff over Nestorius' head at the Council of Ephesus.  In one episode, "One day," Besa says, "our father Shenoute and our Lord Jesus were sitting down talking together" (a very common occurance according to the Vita) and the Bishop of Shmin came wishing to meet the abbot.  When Shenoute sent word that he was too busy to come to the bishop, the bishop got angry and threatened to excommunicate him for disobedience:

Quote
The servant went to our father [Shenouti] and said to him what the bishop had told him.  But my father smiled graciously with laughter and said: "See what this man of flesh and blood has said! Behold, here sitting with me is he who created heaven and earth! I will not go while I am with him." But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].  When my father heard these words of the Savior, he arose, went out to the bishop and greeted him.

 Besa, Life of Shenoute 70-72 (trans. Bell). On the context of this story see Behlmer 1998, esp. pp. 353-354. Gaddis, There is No Crime for those who have Christ, p. 296
http://books.google.com/books?id=JGEibDA8el4C

Now this dates not only before the schism of East-West, and the Schism of Chalcedon, but nearly the Schism of Ephesus.  Now Shmin is just a town in southern Egypt, and the bishop there just a suffragan of Alexandria.  So it would seem to be odd if the Vatican's interpretation of Matthew 16:19 were the ancient one why this would be applied to a bishop far from Rome, in a land where St. Peter never founded any Church.  But it makes perfect sense from the Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16:19, and indeed, according to "the Catholic Encyclopedia," the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers.

Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

It’s important to emphasize that the moment after the Resurrection, in John 21, was the point at which Jesus made St Peter the first pope. This is significant because some non Catholics bring up St Peter’s 3 fold denial of Christ in john 18:25 and following.  When peter denied Jesus Christ, it was before the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Jesus had not yet given St peter the authority as pope. The words in MT 16:18-20 promise the keys of the Kingdom to St Peter. They promise that Jesus would build His Church upon Him and make him the prime minister of His Church, but that office was not conferred upon peter until after the RESURRECTION, BY THESE WORDS IN John21:15-17. Therefore, St Peter’s  denial of Christ poses no problem at all for Catholic teaching on the papacy.
Ah, a little problem for the Vatican in that He had already conferred the Power of the Keys on ALL the Disciples (except St. Thomas, and of course, Judas) in John 20:22.

And, the problem that John 21 deals with St. Peter's denial and his repentance therefrom, to confess his love for Christ once denied:
Quote
So when they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these? He says unto Him, Yea, Lord, You know that I love You.
1. There are indeed many other things which are able to give us boldness towards God, and to show us bright and approved, but that which most of all brings good will from on high, is tender care for our neighbor. Which therefore Christ requires of Peter. For when their eating was ended, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these? He says unto Him, Yea, Lord, You know that I love You.

He says 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; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.

When then having been asked once and again, he called Him to witness who knows the secrets of the heart, and then was asked even a third time, he was troubled, fearing a repetition of what had happened before, (for then, having been strong in assertion, he was afterwards convicted,) and therefore he again betakes himself to Him.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.
St. John the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom must have not gotten the memo, because the only thing they have to say about young and old
Quote
When you were young, you girded yourself, and walked whither you would, but when you are old, others shall gird you, and carry you whither you will not.
And yet this he did will, and desired; on which account also He has revealed it to him. For since Peter had continually said, I will lay down my life for You John 13:37, and, Though I should die with You, yet will I not deny You Matthew 26:35: He has given him back his desire. What then is the, Whither you will not? He speaks of natural feeling, and the necessity of the flesh, and that the soul is unwillingly torn away from the body. So that even though the will were firm, yet still even then nature would be found in fault. For no one lays aside the body without feeling, God, as I said before, having suitably ordained this, that violent deaths might not be many. For if, as things are, the devil has been able to effect this, and has led ten thousand to precipices and pits; had not the soul felt such a desire for the body, the many would have rushed to this under any common discouragement. The, whither you will not, is then the expression of one signifying natural feeling.

But how after having said, When you were young, does He again say, When you are old? For this is the expression of one declaring that he was not then young; (nor was he; nor yet old, but a man of middle age. ) Wherefore then did He recall to his memory his former life? Signifying, that this is the nature of what belongs to Him. In things of this life the young man is useful, the old useless; but in Mine, He says, not so; but when old age has come on, then is excellence brighter, then is manliness more illustrious, being nothing hindered by the time of life. This He said not to terrify, but to rouse Him; for He knew his love, and that he long had yearned for this blessing. At the same time He declares the kind of death. For since Peter ever desired to be in the dangers which were for His sake, Be of good cheer, He says, I will so satisfy your desire, that, what you suffered not when young, you must suffer when you are old. Then the Evangelist, to rouse the hearer, has added,

As to an alleged distinction between clergy and the Faithful:
Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say. The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.
When St. Paul on behalf of the Apostles turns the Church over to their successors, the bishops, Acts 20, he uses the exact word "poimane" in verse 28 "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."  So they are placed by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church.  Notice in all the final instructions of Acts not a word about "submit yourselves to Peter."

Traditions of ruling houses die out when the dynasty goes extinct.  You are working at cross purposes, here and elsewhere, trying to prove the necessity of your visible head when you call yourself a member of a decapitated church, with no means of sewing a head back on.  You preach the gospel of a dead god, while we are shown to hold to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Maybe you should try your luck with the Mormons or the Jehovah Witnesses.  They are founded on deus ex machina.
Cyprian the Bishop By J. Patout Burns
http://books.google.com/books?id=egbXJlUgAW8C&pg=PA158&dq=cyprian+all+bishops+successors+peter&hl=en#v=onepage&q=cyprian%20all%20bishops%20successors%20peter&f=false
As he put it
Quote
The doctrine of St. Cyprian upon the point before us is extremely full and clear from many passages of his treatises and epistles. A remarkable passage from the treatise "de Unitate Ecclesiae," has been quoted above, in which he says plainly, that "Christ gave to all the Apostles equal authority," and that "all the other Apostles were what Peter was, endowed with an equal participation of honour and power."

In other places he says, "There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded by the voice of the Lord on Peter." This doctrine is thus repeated in the Epistle of Cornelius to St. Cyprian: "Nor are we ignorant that there is one God, one Christ, the Lord whom we have confessed, one Holy Ghost, that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church." This assertion, which at the first sight might seem to favour the modern claims of the Roman see, is thus interpreted in the treatise "de Unitate:" "The Episcopate is one; of which every individual (Bishop) participates possessing it entire. And again, elsewhere: "From Christ there is one Church, divided throughout the whole world into many members; and one Episcopate, diffused by the 'concordant numerosity' of many Bishops'." Thus the Episcopate is "single and indivisible," but held in equal truth and fulness by many. All alike hold under the promise made to St. Peter'. That promise was addressed to him personally, "to manifest unity;" but in him, was addressed alike to all. There are many shepherds, but the flock is one; in order that if any member of our college (Bishops) endeavour to make heresy, and tear the flock of Christ, the rest may assist, and like good shepherds, collect the Lord's sheep into the flock. All shepherds hold by no other right than that of legitimate and successive ordination. Yet St. Peter himself, whom the Lord chose first and on whom He built His Church, when afterwards Paul disputed with him about circumcision, did not claim any thing to himself so insolently or arrogantly as to say that he held a primacy, or that he ought rather to be obeyed by the present and future generation.
The sayings of the great forty days, between the resurrection and ascension ... By George Moberly
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=the+episcopate+is+one+episcopatum+unum&id=XIQrAAAAYAAJ&ots=8gPpU-mje5#v=onepage&q=the%20episcopate%20is%20one%20episcopatum%20unum&f=false
On St. Cyprian, consider his translation of the letter of Firmilian into Latin:

Ah, yes. His translation into Latin of Firmilian's letter for Rome shows that:

17. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of [Arbp.] Stephen [of Old Rome], that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity...
24. Consider with what want of judgment you dare to blame those who strive for the truth against falsehood. For who ought more justly to be indignant against the other?—whether he who supports God’s enemies, or he who, in opposition to him who supports God’s enemies, unites with us on behalf of the truth of the Church?—except that it is plain that the ignorant are also excited and angry, because by the want of counsel and discourse they are easily turned to wrath; so that of none more than of you does divine Scripture say, “A wrathful man stirreth up strifes, and a furious man heapeth up sins.”For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all[/u]; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace, although he warned, and said, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiv.html

What causes me pain Ialm is the confusion and the doubt. There seem to be some major points in favor of both sides, and I cannot help but be overwhelmed at times when I consider how limited I am. I've even come to the point of considering gnosticism because of all of this (a phenomenon which has manifested itself not only to me but to 3 other RC friends of mine who were/are investigating the EOC). The people of God were not meant to be put through this unnecessary struggle, and it further pains me that this is the state of Christendom. The thought of throwing even more of my friends and family into that same doubt and confusion should I discover the truth of Orthodoxy is yet another painful burden to bear. But our Lord said that "anyone who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." I have no other choice but to attempt perseverance with the help of our Lord. May He have mercy on me.

And thank you very much for the quotes and information you posted, I will look into them when I have more time on my hands.

God bless you.
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2013, 07:49:30 PM »

What causes me pain Ialm is the confusion and the doubt. There seem to be some major points in favor of both sides, and I cannot help but be overwhelmed at times when I consider how limited I am. I've even come to the point of considering gnosticism because of all of this (a phenomenon which has manifested itself not only to me but to 3 other RC friends of mine who were/are investigating the EOC). The people of God were not meant to be put through this unnecessary struggle, and it further pains me that this is the state of Christendom. The thought of throwing even more of my friends and family into that same doubt and confusion should I discover the truth of Orthodoxy is yet another painful burden to bear. But our Lord said that "anyone who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." I have no other choice but to attempt perseverance with the help of our Lord. May He have mercy on me.

And thank you very much for the quotes and information you posted, I will look into them when I have more time on my hands.

God bless you.
The confusion and doubt troubles me as well. I was a lot more at peace when I thought there were essentially two choices: Protestantism and the Church (RCC), but the fact that it is actually Protestantism and the Churches that all claim to be the Church and trace their roots back to the Apostles (Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Assyrian Church of the East) is more complicated and makes the true path less clear. I envy the people who have chosen one of those Churches and are absolutely sure that their Church is THE Church. Frankly, I'm not sure I will ever have that confidence again.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2013, 04:49:36 AM »

"As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."

This might shed some light upon this quote. In Antiquity, when you requested something, you showered him with superlative compliments. St. Jerome was especially fond of Cicero. You shouldn't take this quote too seriously
« Last Edit: May 20, 2013, 04:49:51 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Milliardo
Saviour Gundam Pilot
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 88


Saviour Gundam Pilot

Milliardo
« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2013, 06:11:44 AM »

With that said here is a quote from St. Jerome which seems to support the Catholic claim:

 "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."

As I have always said, that was true then; it cannot be said to be true now. Regarding Matthew 16, Jesus' promise was to the Church, not to Peter alone. If one would read the passage, Jesus promised the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church; He did not say it will not prevail against Peter. We must read St. Jerome's quote here in the context of how it was during his time--that is, Rome being Orthodox then. Such a greeting would make sense during his time as it was true back then. Today that is not so.
Logged
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,570


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2013, 07:56:15 AM »

God is working in all the churches.
if you want the depths of God's love, go to the orthodox or catholic churches.
if you want correct theology, go to the orthodox church.
but if you think God wants you to stay in the catholic church until he fixes our mistakes and brings us into communion (don't hold your breath!) then you can stay there.

i know some very fine catholics who don't go around spreading dodgy teaching (eg. they are the only true church, they can change the creed when they want without asking the other apostolic churches for their opinion) and who live a Godly life and are great examples to us all. but your church is having some trouble at the moment, so i think you should only stay there if you truly believe it is part of your spiritual journey to remain there.

there is only one God, and Christianity is true. but there are some in non orthodox churches who have not yet found the right moment to join an orthodox church because of their family, friends, church members etc.

so i think the answer to your questions is different for different people at different times.
the main thing is to love God and to keep searching until you are in the right place.
and then when you get there, don't be too shocked to find it is not perfect, as none of us are in heaven yet, and the church is imperfect because of the people in it.

may God guide you and give you peace, and have a look in the other orthodox - catholic threads for more information.
God bless u,
mabsoota (former protestant who also seriously considered the catholic church)
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2013, 10:00:14 PM »

Hello brethren,

Before I post the quote, I ask that if you are tempted to post a pithy and/or ironic response, please restrain yourself from posting. My friends and I have been researching Orthodoxy for some time now and have grieved intensely over the schism and our possible duty of having to leave the Catholic Church, and these comments which these and other forums are rife and plagued with are the absolute most awful and insensitive remarks possible converts have to deal with in searching for the true Church of Christ. If possible, I would like to restrict this thread to those who are truly interested in helping me and others who are struggling with this painful process out.

With that said here is a quote from St. Jerome which seems to support the Catholic claim:

 "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."

As I'm sure many of you are aware already, there are numerous quotes found within the Church Fathers of this nature, but this one in particular brings out one of the more complex issues with the Matthew 16:18 debacle. He, like other Fathers, seem to refer to one Chair of Peter while ascribing to it a perpetual ministry of divine assurance in one See. I've been wrestling with the fact that my RC friend brings up frequently that the Church was founded upon ONE MAN and that the Keys were given to ONE MAN, and that this last point is given the assurance that the gates of hell would not prevail against that ONE CHURCH. With the Peter syndrome set aside, it isn't entirely ridiculous to see how the RC interpretation came about considering the central role of Peter (especially in Matthew 16, Luke 22 and John 21) and his death in Rome which is widely attested to, as being foundational for a LOVING GUARANTEE from God that a particular Church would never err. St. Cyprian says:

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal UNITY has its SOURCE; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance."


There is little doubt that you have come across these passages and others like them before. For that I am sorry, but as I said previously, I am immensely grieved and the responses here, in books and in other forums are lacking regarding certain quotations and RC concepts that are not for the moment fully reconciled with my conscience. Thank you in advance for your charitable responses.

God bless you,

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan. I can relate to a lot of what you're going through. (For quite a while my profile said "Melkite (inquirer into Orthodoxy)" -- and in some sense that describes me still.)

I see you've already gotten a lot of good responses. I just want to mention something that no one has mentioned yet (I don't think). Namely, it strikes me that you have such a sense of urgency to act ... given that you are unsure, don't you think that God wants you take your time, and convert if/when you're confident that you should?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2013, 11:13:42 PM »

No rush. Slow down.
Logged
Sam G
High Elder
******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Old Rite)
Posts: 612


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« Reply #15 on: October 16, 2013, 08:40:50 PM »

The best thing I found (and I haven't read the rest of the posts in this thread so I do apologize if someone else has brought this up) is to look at the claims of the first Vatican council when it comes to the papacy, then compare this to the writings of the Church fathers. The justification of papal primacy in their definition relies exclusively on Matthew 16:18 and goes on to to assert that all of the Holy Fathers of the early Church submitted to this primacy of both honor and jurisdiction from the very beginning of the Church.  Basically if one of the Church fathers can be shown to have not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome then the claims of Vatican I can be proven false.  And so it follows if even one decree from a council is proven false, then the Roman Catholic Church is not infallible.  (I don't think that by the Vatican I definition the Church Fathers had to be in complete agreement or general consensus on the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 but the fact that they are in neither doesn't help the Roman Catholic cause)       
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 08:41:53 PM by Sam G » Logged

All of my hope, I place in thee, O Mother of God; do preserve me under they shelter.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #16 on: October 17, 2013, 05:31:49 AM »

Hey my advice to you is to pray, pray abs pray some more! Don't rush this decision. Do things in Gods time, bot your own.

with regards to the quotes... Your faith cannot be built on a quote. The early church was very divided on a number of issues. In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did. 

I advise you to focus on the truth of the doctrines that each church teaches. See if they conform to tradition. For me , Catholicism was an outright winner. For some, reaching such a conclusion is not as easy. I recommend you read the works of Scott Hann as they address the quotes of the fathers and the evidence for the catholic position.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #17 on: October 17, 2013, 11:15:04 AM »

My feeling after all these years is that we're kind of like the splinters of that broken mirror in "The Snow Queen" by Hans Christian Anderson. Each Church reflects the glory of God, but in an incomplete way.

If we ever get put back together again we'd be able to shine with a perfect reflection. That will take some serious action on His part first, though.  Wink
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


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


« Reply #18 on: October 17, 2013, 02:00:04 PM »

My feeling after all these years is that we're kind of like the splinters of that broken mirror in "The Snow Queen" by Hans Christian Anderson. Each Church reflects the glory of God, but in an incomplete way.

If we ever get put back together again we'd be able to shine with a perfect reflection. That will take some serious action on His part first, though.  Wink

Nice!! Wink
Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #19 on: October 17, 2013, 02:09:35 PM »

What causes me pain Ialm is the confusion and the doubt. There seem to be some major points in favor of both sides, and I cannot help but be overwhelmed at times when I consider how limited I am. I've even come to the point of considering gnosticism because of all of this (a phenomenon which has manifested itself not only to me but to 3 other RC friends of mine who were/are investigating the EOC). The people of God were not meant to be put through this unnecessary struggle, and it further pains me that this is the state of Christendom. The thought of throwing even more of my friends and family into that same doubt and confusion should I discover the truth of Orthodoxy is yet another painful burden to bear. But our Lord said that "anyone who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." I have no other choice but to attempt perseverance with the help of our Lord. May He have mercy on me.

And thank you very much for the quotes and information you posted, I will look into them when I have more time on my hands.

God bless you.
The confusion and doubt troubles me as well. I was a lot more at peace when I thought there were essentially two choices: Protestantism and the Church (RCC), but the fact that it is actually Protestantism and the Churches that all claim to be the Church and trace their roots back to the Apostles (Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Assyrian Church of the East) is more complicated and makes the true path less clear. I envy the people who have chosen one of those Churches and are absolutely sure that their Church is THE Church. Frankly, I'm not sure I will ever have that confidence again.

Actually Protestantism isn't truly an option. The idea of Apostolic Succession and hierarchy as well as tradition along with the Bible was established Church doctrine when the Church was one. Protestantism is simply a rejection of those things.

I think the Nestorian Church is pretty unlikely. I mean, there are only 100,000 alive.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #20 on: October 17, 2013, 02:16:47 PM »

With that said here is a quote from St. Jerome which seems to support the Catholic claim:

 "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Arc of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."

As I have always said, that was true then; it cannot be said to be true now. Regarding Matthew 16, Jesus' promise was to the Church, not to Peter alone. If one would read the passage, Jesus promised the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church; He did not say it will not prevail against Peter. We must read St. Jerome's quote here in the context of how it was during his time--that is, Rome being Orthodox then. Such a greeting would make sense during his time as it was true back then. Today that is not so.

St. Jerome spoke the truth, at the time. Again, taking all of the quotes from the Fathers in context, the rock is the Faith upon which Peter was seated. Not Peter upon which the Faith was seated. Rome was indeed the Orthodox Church for hundreds of years while the East was in heresy. So, I think an Orthodox worldview would agree with the quote, but in it's proper context.

This understanding is in the EO liturgy today when commemorating of St. Peter the Aleut:   
 
Quote
O Peter, upon the rock of thy faith hath Christ built His Church,
    and in the streams of thy blood hath He hallowed our land.
    In thee thy people hath been sanctified, O Aleut;

St. Peter the Aleut was murdered by Catholic Colonialists in Alaska for refusing to denounce his culture and his Orthodoxy, and adopt Roman Catholicism. Without taking the Fathers as a whole you can get various interpretations from it. In other areas, St. Jerome clearly affirms the Orthodox view that the rock is the Faith. St. Augustine holds this view too.

Cyrillic is equally correct that we need to recognize people writing in the past used rhetoric like they were at war with each other. St. Ignatius said for example: "heretics and schismatics will not inherit the Kingdom of God" but is he judging all of them before the Great Day? I think he's just using rhetoric to illustrate the enormity of heresy and schism. Not literally condemning them all to hell, I think an Ecumenical Council would have that job.

Unlike Wandile I think the RC Church could only really be the True Church if the Pope was truly supreme, and that, given his supremacy, he could innovate in matters of doctrine. For example, the understanding of Atonement in the West is utterly foreign to Judaism. This is one of the reasons Jews reject Christ. Because of this Western, non-Jewish understanding of the Atonement. Funny thing, the Orthodox Church never taught this 'Vicarious Atonement' and so, doesn't have the view that the West does on it. Unless the Pope has supremacy, he has no right to modify the doctrines of the Church to the extant that it loses the Jewish understanding of the Atonement and takes on a completely different understanding that is completely Western. This is just one example, others would be Purgatory, Indulgences, the Filioque, Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 02:33:42 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,828


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 17, 2013, 04:03:26 PM »

I think the Nestorian Church is pretty unlikely. I mean, there are only 100,000 alive.

What's the official minimum number of members required for a Church to be considered "possibly the One True Church™"? 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #22 on: October 17, 2013, 04:05:40 PM »

I think the Nestorian Church is pretty unlikely. I mean, there are only 100,000 alive.

What's the official minimum number of members required for a Church to be considered "possibly the One True Church™"? 
100,001
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,828


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 17, 2013, 04:16:27 PM »

What's the official minimum number of members required for a Church to be considered "possibly the One True Church™"? 
100,001

Tongue

Actually, mine was a serious question.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #24 on: October 17, 2013, 04:20:16 PM »

What's the official minimum number of members required for a Church to be considered "possibly the One True Church™"? 
100,001

Tongue

Actually, mine was a serious question.

Oops. Sorry, I thought it was a playful question. As we say, "My bad."  Wink
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #25 on: October 17, 2013, 04:55:04 PM »

I think the Nestorian Church is pretty unlikely. I mean, there are only 100,000 alive.

What's the official minimum number of members required for a Church to be considered "possibly the One True Church™"? 
100,001

Lies, we all know that 100,002 is the limit (it's divisible by three after all, as a sign of the Holy Trinity, unlike 100,001 which is only divisible by 11 and 9091).
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #26 on: October 17, 2013, 05:04:29 PM »

I think the Nestorian Church is pretty unlikely. I mean, there are only 100,000 alive.

What's the official minimum number of members required for a Church to be considered "possibly the One True Church™"? 
100,001

Lies, we all know that 100,002 is the limit (it's divisible by three after all, as a sign of the Holy Trinity, unlike 100,001 which is only divisible by 11 and 9091).

All I know is that I am not getting a plane ticket to Iraq to go to Church every Sunday. Seriously, I can't afford it.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 05:05:13 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 17, 2013, 05:09:41 PM »

I think the Nestorian Church is pretty unlikely. I mean, there are only 100,000 alive.

What's the official minimum number of members required for a Church to be considered "possibly the One True Church™"? 
100,001

Lies, we all know that 100,002 is the limit (it's divisible by three after all, as a sign of the Holy Trinity, unlike 100,001 which is only divisible by 11 and 9091).

All I know is that I am not getting a plane ticket to Iraq to go to Church every Sunday. Seriously, I can't afford it.

Actually, AFAIR, their Patriarchate is in Chicago.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #28 on: October 17, 2013, 06:40:02 PM »

I think the Nestorian Church is pretty unlikely. I mean, there are only 100,000 alive.

What's the official minimum number of members required for a Church to be considered "possibly the One True Church™"? 
100,001

Lies, we all know that 100,002 is the limit (it's divisible by three after all, as a sign of the Holy Trinity, unlike 100,001 which is only divisible by 11 and 9091).

All I know is that I am not getting a plane ticket to Iraq to go to Church every Sunday. Seriously, I can't afford it.
Well, we do have Chaldean Catholics here in the states. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #29 on: October 17, 2013, 06:41:04 PM »

I think the Nestorian Church is pretty unlikely. I mean, there are only 100,000 alive.

What's the official minimum number of members required for a Church to be considered "possibly the One True Church™"? 
100,001

Lies, we all know that 100,002 is the limit (it's divisible by three after all, as a sign of the Holy Trinity, unlike 100,001 which is only divisible by 11 and 9091).

All I know is that I am not getting a plane ticket to Iraq to go to Church every Sunday. Seriously, I can't afford it.
Well, we do have Chaldean Catholics here in the states. Smiley
There is a Maronite Church where I live.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Daniel Smith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOAA
Posts: 121


« Reply #30 on: October 17, 2013, 06:54:58 PM »

AS a former Roman catholic, and currently a catechumen in the Greek Orthodox Church, allow me to share what I discovered in the Orthodox View of the Papacy:

Often, in Orthodox apologetics, we encounter a rather curious, and frankly anti-patristic stance: The notion that The Bishop of Rome, as successor to St. Peter is just the same as any other bishop without any difference whatsoever. This rather "Low Petrine" view of Peter and his successors often causes faithful Orthodox who read the fathers conscientiously a great deal of confusion, because so many speak so highly of the Bishop of Rome and certainly accord him a particular kind of headship. I myself would have converted earlier from Roman Catholicism if I did not witness this unjustified "leveling of the playing field" when discussing Orthodox Rome.

That said, I solemnly reject any Papal notions of Supremacy in the sense of the Pope being more than a bishop, and I also reject the idea that the Pope has a legally defined universal Jurisdiction that is immediately of divine origin and empowers him to potentially cause confusion by unrestrained communication amongst the churches. These are "Absolutist" and Ultramontane views foreign to the fathers and the Orthodox Popes.

 I posit what the fathers posited, and especially Pope St. Leo: A high View of Peter and the Bishop of Rome that is nevertheless subject to the overall patristic consensus, the canons and is of SYNODICAL origin. Moreover, as we shall see, St. Leo himself states that the Bishops of the greater cities were given greater authority on account of the city.

 First, we must synthesize:

 It is the patristic teaching of St. Irenaeus, St. Leo and the council of Chalcedon that on account of Romes Secular Status of imperial center, she has received the Primacy.

St. Irenaeus says:

"as it would be very tedious to enumerate in such a work the succession of all the Churches, we will trace that of the very great and very ancient Church and known of all, which was founded and established at Rome by the two very glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; which possesses a tradition that comes from the Apostles as much as the Faith declared to men, and which has transmitted it to us through the succession of her Bishops; by that, we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where they should; for every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go toward [convenire] that Church, because of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries."

The faithful would convene at Rome because it was the imperial center, and as such men from all nations, and therefore every apostolic tradition, would arrive and go to the Church of Rome which retained these traditions of the apostles from every country.

So we see the Church of Rome was great in the eyes of Irenaeus because of its Apostolic founders, and it carried influence because its faith was truly catholic, having inherited from abroad the various traditions of the apostles. I.E. The Church of Rome has greatness and priority on account of its being founded by the chief apostles, AND being at the center of the empire, in the imperial city.

Again, the Council of Chalcedon expressed, as we know, in its 28th canon:

"Following in every detail the decrees of the holy fathers, and taking cognizance of the canon just read of the 150 bishops dearly beloved of God who gathered under Theodosius the Great, emperor of pious memory, in the imperial city of Constantinople, New Rome, we ourselves have also decreed and voted the same things concerning the prerogatives of the most holy Church of the same Constantinople, New Rome.  For the fathers rightly acknowledged the prerogatives of the throne of the Elder Rome because it was the Imperial City, and moved by the same consideration the 150 bishops beloved of God awarded the same prerogatives to the most holy throne of the New Rome, rightly judging that the city which is honored by the imperial authority and the senate and enjoys the same [civil] prerogatives as the imperial city of the Elder Rome, should also be magnified in ecclesiastical matters as she is, being second after her."

Now, St. Leo says in his 14th Letter to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonika:

"The connection of the whole body makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful: and this connection requires the unanimity indeed of the whole body, but it especially demands harmony among the priests. And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honourable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head."

This passage of St. Leo is absolutely essential for understanding the growing Orthodox Papal emphasis on Primacy. It establishes two things:

1. St. Leo obviously did not oppose the 28th canon of Chalcedon on the basis of its principle for determining rank, because he himself establishes the same principle; he opposed it because he felt it was a canonical violation. This is of epic importance, because of the wily claims of Roman apologists. St. Leo did not ever object to the councils reasoning regarding HIS OWN primacy, but in lowering Alexandria and Antioch to the 3rd and 4th positions within the Pentarchy, contravening the 6th canon of Nicea.

2. It establishes a truly ordered hierarchy that is neither fully pyramidal, nor is it a leveled playing field: I will call it, vanguardal, based on St. Leos terminology, using the word "converge", and not "submit." The vanguard. the wedge shaped formation taken by soldiers on the battle field is certainly a model of both strong and centralized unity, and conciliarity. We could say the church throughout the ages is like a bunch of bishops marching in vanguard formation: Certainly, one takes the lead at various levels, and the others follow, certainly there is a sense in which one is head and all follow that head as equals in episcopal dignity, but not episcopal rank. When some bishops are taken out by the arrows of heresy, the bishops simply reorder their formation, and the church suffers no change. If even the Leader, the Primate and head be struck, then those who were immediately behind him simply step forward, as we trudge onward toward the heavenly Jerusalem.

We should also acknowledge that earlier in this letter, St. Leo calls these various levels of episcopal ministry within the church Petrine when he specifically says the Role of Peter amongst the apostles is the model for the Role of Metropolitan amongst bishops. This should be even more revelatory about his understanding of himself amongst metropolitans and archbishops. So every Metropolitan and Every Patriarch and the Primatial Patriarch (Whether old Rome or New) is exercising a ministry based upon St. Peter's example, and is truly Petrine in that sense.

Now, the question may become: "Ok, great Rome was the first, and as the first played a unique role, analogous to the Role Peter played amongst the apostles, and the Metropolitan plays in his synod. But what does that mean?"

What it means is that Apostolic Canon 34 is very significant:

"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."

In other words, when a Pope is Orthodox, he has a true priority and primacy within the Orthodox church. This means that, on account of his primacy and his position as first, that those affairs that are of universal scope (like heresy that gets out of control, or generally rampant disorder spreading in the church) are truly his legitimate concern.

Simultaneously, he does not have the right to micromanage Patriarchs, metropolitans and bishops. His immediate authority and jurisdiction is limited to his own diocese. As is any Archbishop, Metropolitan or Patriarch.

But nevertheless, a Metropolitan, while not having the right to micromanage his bishops, is still RESPONSIBLE for his entire metropolis. It is his duty to see it rightly ordered, and his bishops duty to do nothing without his consent. On the Patriarchal level, it is the Patriarchs business to administer his own diocese, and not be a burden to the metropolitans of his synod, who nevertheless, are not to initiate any activity that could have ramifications outside of his own diocese without Patriarchal consent. The patriarch has a real RESPONSIBILITY for his entire patriarchate, and it is his DUTY to see it well ordered. The same is true of the Primatial Bishop, the Protos of the church. The Primatial bishop has NO BUSINESS interfering in the lives of bishops and patriarchs when there is nothing of universal concern. Nevertheless, it is his DUTY as the FIRST, as the IMAGE of the whole, as the Spiritual head and icon of the church's unity to preoccupy himself with the things that are of universal concern to the church. By doing this properly, he will truly be the servant of the servants of God.

It is in THIS context that we can understand why it is absolutely ESSENTIAL for ORTHODOX Popes to sign off on things like ecumenical councils; because nothing ought to be done without their consent given that they occupy the first place, and being Orthodox, have the most important say, following apostolic canon 34. This explains the objections of the Papal legates at Chalcedon regarding the Robber council of Ephesus, where they accuse Dioscorus of holding a council without the consent of the apostolic see, something unheard of. This is not Papal supremacy, this is the practical effects of a real and working primacy. The fathers CLEARLY testify to the effects of this real and working primacy, and as an Orthodox Christian, I personally am a little embarrassed by other Orthodox who certainly ignore the historical record by seeking to downplay the role of the Orthodox popes. We can AFFIRM the principle of Papal primacy as orthodox and speak in perfectly glowing terms about the primacy and headship of the Pope , of the necessity of having his consent in matters pertaining to the whole church (when he is Orthodox) without being embarrassed to be Orthodox. This is one of those cases where we have to make fine distinctions, and honestly, not many people want to.

Let's allow ALL the fathers to shape our phronema, and ALL the things they unanimously held, let us also hold without prejudice, all without falling into the Heresy of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility.

Well, to wrap up, allow me to quote the 14th century saint, St. Symeon of Thessaloniki :

St. Symeon of the Thessaloniki ca. 1381-1429

"We should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. But only let them show that he is true to the faith of Peter and his successors; then let him have all the privileges of Peter, let him be first, the head of all and the supreme hierarch. Only let him be faithful to the Orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agathon, Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we too shall call him apostolic father and the first among hierarchs; then we will be under his authority not only as under Peter, but the very Saviour Himself." (PG 145, 120 AC)
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2013, 07:31:13 PM »

Too much to read! Lazy mode activated, shutting down. . .
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


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


« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2013, 10:37:59 AM »

Too much to read! Lazy mode activated, shutting down. . .

+1
Logged

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

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

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #33 on: October 18, 2013, 10:42:17 AM »

I read it but disagree with it. Why should Rome have anything to say in the East? They never had much authority in the East and thousand years of schism and ridiculous papal claims don't exactly help.

The "First" in the Church is Christ, not the bishop who lives close to the Tiber.

Aren't terms like "Low Petrine" inventions of mardukm?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 10:48:48 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #34 on: October 18, 2013, 10:52:56 AM »

I read it but disagree with it. Why should Rome have anything to say in the East? They didn't have much authority in the East and thousand years of schism and ridiculous papal claims don't exactly help.

Aren't terms like "Low Petrine" inventions of mardukm?

umm because Rome is the mother of all churches, the head church that presides and oversees the whole church as a leader should... Now I'm not saying Rome should micromanage everything in the east but rather it has the authority to interfere when needs must. Or else what good is having a head church if it has no authority to fix problems where they arise and keep the order?

oh and no those petrine categories are not made up by mardukum. I've heard them being thrown around.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #35 on: October 18, 2013, 10:58:03 AM »

The "First" in the Church is Christ, not the bishop who lives close to the Tiber.

Straw Man  Roll Eyes

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the head too. Yet it defies logic for Christ to set up a church with a hierarchy but not to have a visible leader too. Hence the Bishop of Rome is called Vicar of Christ , the visible head of the bishops and church so too as Peter was head of the apostles.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 10:58:57 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,381


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #36 on: October 18, 2013, 11:14:13 AM »

I read it but disagree with it. Why should Rome have anything to say in the East? They didn't have much authority in the East and thousand years of schism and ridiculous papal claims don't exactly help.

Aren't terms like "Low Petrine" inventions of mardukm?

umm because Rome is the mother of all churches, the head church that presides and oversees the whole church as a leader should... Now I'm not saying Rome should micromanage everything in the east but rather it has the authority to interfere when needs must. Or else what good is having a head church if it has no authority to fix problems where they arise and keep the order?

oh and no those petrine categories are not made up by mardukum. I've heard them being thrown around.

Maybe I'm completely wrong, but the Church in Jerusalem is the mother church.  And no, a bishop rules a diocese as he sees fit.  If problems arise, there are local councils.  Brother bishops help one another and admonish errant bishops, but don't interfere as they see fit. 
Logged

sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #37 on: October 18, 2013, 11:19:32 AM »

The "First" in the Church is Christ, not the bishop who lives close to the Tiber.

Straw Man  Roll Eyes

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the head too. Yet it defies logic for Christ to set up a church with a hierarchy but not to have a visible leader too. Hence the Bishop of Rome is called Vicar of Christ , the visible head of the bishops and church so too as Peter was head of the apostles.

And yet, St. Peter deferred to St. James the Just while he was in Jerusalem. If St. Peter was the Head of the Apostles, why then did he not preside over the Council of Jerusalem?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #38 on: October 18, 2013, 11:22:03 AM »

The "First" in the Church is Christ, not the bishop who lives close to the Tiber.

Straw Man  Roll Eyes

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the head too. Yet it defies logic for Christ to set up a church with a hierarchy but not to have a visible leader too. Hence the Bishop of Rome is called Vicar of Christ , the visible head of the bishops and church so too as Peter was head of the apostles.

And yet, St. Peter deferred to St. James the Just while he was in Jerusalem. If St. Peter was the Head of the Apostles, why then did he not preside over the Council of Jerusalem?
I have never understood this argument. I don't see St. Peter saying, "Oh, I am sorry James, you are right and I am wrong. My mistake. Thanks for correcting me."
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #39 on: October 18, 2013, 11:24:16 AM »

The "First" in the Church is Christ, not the bishop who lives close to the Tiber.

Straw Man  Roll Eyes

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the head too. Yet it defies logic for Christ to set up a church with a hierarchy but not to have a visible leader too. Hence the Bishop of Rome is called Vicar of Christ , the visible head of the bishops and church so too as Peter was head of the apostles.
Your raise a good point. I have observed many Eastern Orthodox Posters here argue that Christ is not the head of our Church. I've always thought it was a silly argument. Of course Christ is. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have visible representatives on earth. We would equally ask, whos is the head of the local Church? The Bishop or Christ? Of course such a question sets up a false dichotoy.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,381


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #40 on: October 18, 2013, 11:25:37 AM »

The "First" in the Church is Christ, not the bishop who lives close to the Tiber.

Straw Man  Roll Eyes

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the head too. Yet it defies logic for Christ to set up a church with a hierarchy but not to have a visible leader too. Hence the Bishop of Rome is called Vicar of Christ , the visible head of the bishops and church so too as Peter was head of the apostles.

And yet, St. Peter deferred to St. James the Just while he was in Jerusalem. If St. Peter was the Head of the Apostles, why then did he not preside over the Council of Jerusalem?
I have never understood this argument. I don't see St. Peter saying, "Oh, I am sorry James, you are right and I am wrong. My mistake. Thanks for correcting me."

No, but St. James made the judgement.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #41 on: October 18, 2013, 11:27:03 AM »

The "First" in the Church is Christ, not the bishop who lives close to the Tiber.

Straw Man  Roll Eyes

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the head too. Yet it defies logic for Christ to set up a church with a hierarchy but not to have a visible leader too. Hence the Bishop of Rome is called Vicar of Christ , the visible head of the bishops and church so too as Peter was head of the apostles.

And yet, St. Peter deferred to St. James the Just while he was in Jerusalem. If St. Peter was the Head of the Apostles, why then did he not preside over the Council of Jerusalem?
I have never understood this argument. I don't see St. Peter saying, "Oh, I am sorry James, you are right and I am wrong. My mistake. Thanks for correcting me."

No, but St. James made the judgement.
And? He's an Apostle. Of course he can. I equally say, "Everyone quieted down to listen to St. Peter which proves he was really the in charge." I don't think arguments from the council of Jerusalem prove one position or the other.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 11:27:18 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #42 on: October 18, 2013, 11:27:10 AM »

The "First" in the Church is Christ, not the bishop who lives close to the Tiber.

Straw Man  Roll Eyes

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the head too. Yet it defies logic for Christ to set up a church with a hierarchy but not to have a visible leader too. Hence the Bishop of Rome is called Vicar of Christ , the visible head of the bishops and church so too as Peter was head of the apostles.

And yet, St. Peter deferred to St. James the Just while he was in Jerusalem. If St. Peter was the Head of the Apostles, why then did he not preside over the Council of Jerusalem?
I have never understood this argument. I don't see St. Peter saying, "Oh, I am sorry James, you are right and I am wrong. My mistake. Thanks for correcting me."

I was talking more about jurisdiction. Rome claims that it has universal, ordinary, immediate jurisdiction due to St. Peter being the head of the Apostles. But then why was the Apostolic council presided by St. James and not St. Peter?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #43 on: October 18, 2013, 11:29:30 AM »

The "First" in the Church is Christ, not the bishop who lives close to the Tiber.

Straw Man  Roll Eyes

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the head too. Yet it defies logic for Christ to set up a church with a hierarchy but not to have a visible leader too. Hence the Bishop of Rome is called Vicar of Christ , the visible head of the bishops and church so too as Peter was head of the apostles.

And yet, St. Peter deferred to St. James the Just while he was in Jerusalem. If St. Peter was the Head of the Apostles, why then did he not preside over the Council of Jerusalem?
I have never understood this argument. I don't see St. Peter saying, "Oh, I am sorry James, you are right and I am wrong. My mistake. Thanks for correcting me."

I was talking more about jurisdiction. Rome claims that it has universal, ordinary, immediate jurisdiction due to St. Peter being the head of the Apostles. But then why was the Apostolic council presided by St. James and not St. Peter?

There is no evidence indicating which Apostle presided over the council. When St. Peter started talking the debate ended. There was clearly some deference to Peter. I'm not saying this proves that Peter was the Prince of the Apostles. All I am saying is that the Council of Jerusalem does not give enough evidence to argue either the Eastern Orthodox or the Catholic position.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 11:30:02 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #44 on: October 18, 2013, 11:33:38 AM »

I don't see how it defies logic. It is the bond of love, not a specific hierarch, that keeps the Church together. And if it is the job of the Papacy to keep the Church united it didn't do its job very well (see the 30.000+ denominations that the Reformation spawned).

And this...

Yet it defies logic for Christ to set up a church with a hierarchy but not to have a visible leader too.

Hence the Bishop of Rome is called Vicar of Christ

...is a good example of the non sequitur-fallacy.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 11:34:12 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #45 on: October 18, 2013, 11:34:27 AM »

I don't see how it defies logic, since it is the bond of love and not a specific hierarch who keeps the Church together. And if it is the job of the Papacy to keep the Church united it didn't work very well (see the 30.000+ denominations that the Reformation spawned).

And this...

Yet it defies logic for Christ to set up a church with a hierarchy but not to have a visible leader too.

Hence the Bishop of Rome is called Vicar of Christ

...is a good example of the non sequitur-fallacy.
What is fallacious is to argue that Catholics do not believe Christ is the head of the Church.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #46 on: October 18, 2013, 11:35:33 AM »

I never said that.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #47 on: October 18, 2013, 11:36:46 AM »

I never said that.
No, you didn't. I am running on only about two hours of sleep. Apologies.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #48 on: October 18, 2013, 11:37:26 AM »

I never said that.
No, you didn't. I am running on only about two hours of sleep. Apologies.

It's OK  Smiley
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,828


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #49 on: October 18, 2013, 11:57:29 AM »

It is the patristic teaching of St. Irenaeus, St. Leo and the council of Chalcedon that on account of Romes Secular Status of imperial center, she has received the Primacy.

St. Irenaeus says:

"as it would be very tedious to enumerate in such a work the succession of all the Churches, we will trace that of the very great and very ancient Church and known of all, which was founded and established at Rome by the two very glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; which possesses a tradition that comes from the Apostles as much as the Faith declared to men, and which has transmitted it to us through the succession of her Bishops; by that, we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where they should; for every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go toward [convenire] that Church, because of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries."

Apologists for the Roman papacy always invoke this passage of St Irenaeus as if it settles the matter.  It's tempting, because Irenaeus was the spiritual "grandson", if you will, of the apostle St John, so such a view can claim antiquity if accurate.  But what does this quote really demonstrate?  It's no surprise, really, that Irenaeus, himself a bishop in the West, would look to the only Western Church with apostolic origins and foundation, the Church which is also in the most important city of the Empire, as a standard against which to compare.  You might be able to argue a primacy in the West from Irenaeus based on apostolicity, but in the East?  "Apostolic sees" are a dime a dozen in the East: St Thomas himself can be linked to the Churches of Persia, India, and (through the apostles SS Bartholomew and Thaddeus), the Church in Armenia, and he's just one of the Twelve. 

For St Irenaeus, it is important for any local Church to be a faithful steward of the faith handed down from the apostles.  To this end, it is not just the Church of Rome about which he speaks:

Quote
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10 There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

Against Heresies, 3.3.4
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

And yet, there is no "Ephesine primacy". 

Irenaeus is contrasting the various heretics and their "churches" with the Church of Christ, existing in many places of diverse cultures, but preserving the same faith and tradition handed down by the apostles.  In the West, of course attention will be paid to Rome.  But it's not so much about Peter for Irenaeus, it's about the apostles. 

Quote
The faithful would convene at Rome because it was the imperial center, and as such men from all nations, and therefore every apostolic tradition, would arrive and go to the Church of Rome which retained these traditions of the apostles from every country.

How do you mean?

I won't address the rest of your post (re: Leo of Rome, Chalcedon, etc.) because I'd prefer to see the EO answer it.  It is not an uncommon feeling among the OO that "papal supremacy" began in the fifth century with Leo, and got a boost from the Chalcedonian East (even if they later came to reject it).  As you lay it out, it's difficult for me to see how the OO are unjustified in having such feelings.  But perhaps there's more to it than what you have said. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #50 on: October 18, 2013, 11:58:58 AM »

The "First" in the Church is Christ, not the bishop who lives close to the Tiber.

Straw Man  Roll Eyes

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the head too. Yet it defies logic for Christ to set up a church with a hierarchy but not to have a visible leader too. Hence the Bishop of Rome is called Vicar of Christ , the visible head of the bishops and church so too as Peter was head of the apostles.

How so? If Christ's Church is moved by the Spirit of God, there is no reason to have infallible authority over the Church. If the Pope was indeed necessary to be part of the 'Catholic Church' for 1000 years, why isn't it so clearly spelled out in the councils? 'Anathema is on those who deny the authority of the Holy Apostolic See, upon which Christ built His Church and gave the power to bind and loose.' That's not in the Ecumenical councils, and considering the Church's authority was being overturned during the time that the councils were convened, if the Pope of Rome was necessary to keep order and authority in the early Church, why wasn't his authority mentioned so clearly?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 11:59:47 AM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #51 on: October 18, 2013, 12:05:13 PM »

I've read many Orthodox writers on this subject and the consensus seems to be that they're not so much opposed to the basic idea of the Pope as the "first among equals" (the equals being the other Patriarchs) but more opposed to the growing amount of authority given to the Pope over the centuries. Just *having* a Pope, to settle disputes and cast the deciding vote in councils, etc. does not seem to have been a huge problem for the original Christians.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #52 on: October 18, 2013, 12:22:15 PM »

Maybe I'm completely wrong, but the Church in Jerusalem is the mother church.

Not Mother in the sense as original church but mother in the sense of one who takes care of the family. Various fathers called Rome the mother of all churches and the source of sacerdotal unity.

Quote
 And no, a bishop rules a diocese as he sees fit.  If problems arise, there are local councils.  Brother bishops help one another and admonish errant bishops, but don't interfere as they see fit.  

Yet even this is not enough sometimes. Then you need a leader for that. So too as there must be a leader of the faithful at each parish (priest), and so with a diocese (bishop), same with major geographic regions (patriarch) , the same applies for the church (Head Bishop).

God does not change. So too in the Old testament priesthood there was a hierarchy with the High Priest as head, so too the priesthood today has Peter as its head, Bishop of Rome.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 12:25:10 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,828


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #53 on: October 18, 2013, 12:23:21 PM »

There is no evidence indicating which Apostle presided over the council. When St. Peter started talking the debate ended. There was clearly some deference to Peter.I'm not saying this proves that Peter was the Prince of the Apostles. All I am saying is that the Council of Jerusalem does not give enough evidence to argue either the Eastern Orthodox or the Catholic position.

If Acts 15 truly does not give enough evidence to argue either the EO or RC position, very well.  But let's stick to what Scripture says and not misrepresent it.  It doesn't at all imply what I bolded above.  It merely says:

Quote
Acts 15

6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”  

Perhaps the debate had already ended when Peter decided to speak, or the above could simply mean that a lot of debating went on before Peter presented his view.  But it's certainly not the case that Peter's intervention is what stopped the debate; you have to read that into the text if you want it to be there, just as you have to read "deference" into it.  

And none of this stops me from affirming Peter as foremost among the apostles.    
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,828


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #54 on: October 18, 2013, 12:24:24 PM »

So too in the Old testament priesthood there was a hierarchy with the High Priest as head, so too the priesthood today has Peter as its head, Bishop of Rome.

You haven't gotten around to Hebrews, have you? 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #55 on: October 18, 2013, 12:25:47 PM »

Orthodoxy has a High Priest.

« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 12:26:26 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #56 on: October 18, 2013, 12:29:36 PM »

So too in the Old testament priesthood there was a hierarchy with the High Priest as head, so too the priesthood today has Peter as its head, Bishop of Rome.

You haven't gotten around to Hebrews, have you? 

I've read the letter to the Hebrews. Why bring it up?
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #57 on: October 18, 2013, 12:31:20 PM »

Orthodoxy has a High Priest.



So I guess you are alleging that or at least inferring that Catholicism doesn't believe Christ to be our head? The high priest in the order of Melchizedek?
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #58 on: October 18, 2013, 12:33:09 PM »

So I guess you are alleging that or at least inferring that Catholicism doesn't believe Christ to be our head? The high priest in the order of Melchizedek?

No. I'm suggesting that we don't need more than one High Priest.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 12:33:33 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #59 on: October 18, 2013, 12:35:17 PM »

So too in the Old testament priesthood there was a hierarchy with the High Priest as head, so too the priesthood today has Peter as its head, Bishop of Rome.

You haven't gotten around to Hebrews, have you? 

I've read the letter to the Hebrews. Why bring it up?

Quote from: Hebrews 7
20 This was confirmed with an oath; for others who became priests took their office without an oath, 21 but this one became a priest with an oath, because of the one who said to him,

‘The Lord has sworn
    and will not change his mind,
“You are a priest for ever”’—

22 accordingly Jesus has also become the guarantee of a better covenant.

23 Furthermore, the former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. 25 Consequently he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people; this he did once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests those who are subject to weakness, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 12:38:04 PM by Romaios » Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #60 on: October 18, 2013, 12:37:39 PM »

So I guess you are alleging that or at least inferring that Catholicism doesn't believe Christ to be our head? The high priest in the order of Melchizedek?

No. I'm suggesting that we don't need more than one High Priest.

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood Undecided
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #61 on: October 18, 2013, 12:40:02 PM »

So too in the Old testament priesthood there was a hierarchy with the High Priest as head, so too the priesthood today has Peter as its head, Bishop of Rome.

You haven't gotten around to Hebrews, have you? 

I've read the letter to the Hebrews. Why bring it up?

Quote from: Hebrews 7
20 This was confirmed with an oath; for others who became priests took their office without an oath, 21 but this one became a priest with an oath, because of the one who said to him,

‘The Lord has sworn
    and will not change his mind,
“You are a priest for ever”’—

22 accordingly Jesus has also become the guarantee of a better covenant.

23 Furthermore, the former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. 25 Consequently he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people; this he did once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests those who are subject to weakness, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever.

Again, Catholicism doesn't deny this  Undecided nor is this against the catholic position of a vicar of Christ
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #62 on: October 18, 2013, 12:42:55 PM »

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood Undecided

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #63 on: October 18, 2013, 12:45:43 PM »

There is no evidence indicating which Apostle presided over the council. When St. Peter started talking the debate ended. There was clearly some deference to Peter.I'm not saying this proves that Peter was the Prince of the Apostles. All I am saying is that the Council of Jerusalem does not give enough evidence to argue either the Eastern Orthodox or the Catholic position.

If Acts 15 truly does not give enough evidence to argue either the EO or RC position, very well.  But let's stick to what Scripture says and not misrepresent it.  It doesn't at all imply what I bolded above.  It merely says:

Quote
Acts 15

6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”  

Perhaps the debate had already ended when Peter decided to speak, or the above could simply mean that a lot of debating went on before Peter presented his view.  But it's certainly not the case that Peter's intervention is what stopped the debate; you have to read that into the text if you want it to be there, just as you have to read "deference" into it.  

And none of this stops me from affirming Peter as foremost among the apostles.    
Fair enough. I concede that point.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #64 on: October 18, 2013, 12:50:42 PM »

Yeah rereading Acts 15, I can see how it's indecisive either way. I guess I assumed St. James would've presided since it was his See and he gave the final verdict/decree.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 12:52:02 PM by sheenj » Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #65 on: October 18, 2013, 12:52:42 PM »

So I guess you are alleging that or at least inferring that Catholicism doesn't believe Christ to be our head? The high priest in the order of Melchizedek?

No. I'm suggesting that we don't need more than one High Priest.

And yet you know that Protestants use the same verses (from Hebrews) to prove that we don't need ANY priests. It's all in the interpretation.  Cool
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #66 on: October 18, 2013, 12:58:45 PM »

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood Undecided

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 01:07:29 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #67 on: October 18, 2013, 01:00:00 PM »

So I guess you are alleging that or at least inferring that Catholicism doesn't believe Christ to be our head? The high priest in the order of Melchizedek?

No. I'm suggesting that we don't need more than one High Priest.

And yet you know that Protestants use the same verses (from Hebrews) to prove that we don't need ANY priests. It's all in the interpretation.  Cool

exactly... Maybe we should all become protestant I guess. I pick evangelical Grin
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #68 on: October 18, 2013, 01:00:52 PM »

Somehow I have a feeling we won't be able to sort our the problem of Orthodox vs. Catholic Ecclesiology in this thread.  Cheesy
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #69 on: October 18, 2013, 01:23:33 PM »

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood Undecided

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?
I'll just repeat what I said. If the Pope of Rome has the authority to change and innovate in matters of doctrine, Catholicism is true. Even if his innovations go against the historic teaching of the Church and of Judaism.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 01:25:38 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #70 on: October 18, 2013, 01:31:47 PM »

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar:

Quote from: Matthew 28:20
Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 01:32:07 PM by Romaios » Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #71 on: October 18, 2013, 01:32:45 PM »

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar:

Quote from: Matthew 28:20
Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Amen!
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 01:33:04 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #72 on: October 18, 2013, 01:45:39 PM »

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood Undecided

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?
I'll just repeat what I said. If the Pope of Rome has the authority to change and innovate in matters of doctrine, Catholicism is true. Even if his innovations go against the historic teaching of the Church and of Judaism.

Umm What Catholicism do you know? Huh
The Pope can neither change nor innovate doctrine. He can't go against tradition and is subject to it. This argument is a straw man  Embarrassed
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #73 on: October 18, 2013, 01:47:50 PM »

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar

Then why make Peter head?

Quote from: Matthew 28:20
Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Amen. Catholics believe in the bible too , in case you didn't know Smiley Smiley
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #74 on: October 18, 2013, 01:48:38 PM »

It's all in the interpretation.  Cool

It always is, I guess.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 01:48:51 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

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

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #75 on: October 18, 2013, 01:49:25 PM »

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar

Then why make Peter head?

St. Peter wasn't a vicar of Christ.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #76 on: October 18, 2013, 01:54:41 PM »

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar

Then why make Peter head?

St. Peter wasn't a vicar of Christ.

But he was as he was head. And any head that is not the true head is vicar of the true head...so logic follows
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #77 on: October 18, 2013, 01:55:28 PM »

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar

Then why make Peter head?

So that the sacerdotal power of the Church flowed first from Christ to St. Peter, and then to the apostles, that the unity of the Church and the episcopacy is preserved in the type of Peter, who is made manifest to all pastors of the Church.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #78 on: October 18, 2013, 01:59:43 PM »

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar

Then why make Peter head?

St. Peter wasn't a vicar of Christ.

But he was as he was head. And any head that is not the true head is vicar of the true head...so logic follows

No, the logic does not follow. He is not the vicar of the head, because the head, Christ, is truly present in him, who is a type of the episcopacy and of the whole Church. Christ did not leave a singular vicar because he dwells truly in all who have been ordained to the high priesthood, and in all who have been illumined through Baptism, Chrismation, the Eucharist, and ascesis.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 02:00:04 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #79 on: October 18, 2013, 02:05:41 PM »

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar

Then why make Peter head?

It was a very personal thing: the betrayal, the rivalry with "the beloved disciple", "Do you love me more than these?" > "Feed my lambs".

No pope or bishop ever shared those experiences. As far as office is concerned, every bishop inherited the same apostolic authority of Peter - as St. Cyprian rightly observed.    

Quote from: Matthew 28:20
Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Amen. Catholics believe in the bible too , in case you didn't know Smiley Smiley

They just interpret it differently.  Wink
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #80 on: October 18, 2013, 02:10:31 PM »

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood Undecided

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?
I'll just repeat what I said. If the Pope of Rome has the authority to change and innovate in matters of doctrine, Catholicism is true. Even if his innovations go against the historic teaching of the Church and of Judaism.

Umm What Catholicism do you know? Huh
The Pope can neither change nor innovate doctrine. He can't go against tradition and is subject to it. This argument is a straw man  Embarrassed

It's not a straw man. That's what the Catholic Church did. That's what Vicarious Atonement is, that's what Purgatory is. That's not Orthodox doctrine. Jews don't buy it either.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 02:11:34 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #81 on: October 18, 2013, 02:13:48 PM »

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar

Then why make Peter head?

So that the sacerdotal power of the Church flowed first from Christ to St. Peter, and then to the apostles, that the unity of the Church and the episcopacy is preserved in the type of Peter, who is made manifest to all pastors of the Church.

And according to St Cyprian, where is sacerdotal unity maintained and have its source?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 02:16:46 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #82 on: October 18, 2013, 02:16:01 PM »

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood Undecided

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?
I'll just repeat what I said. If the Pope of Rome has the authority to change and innovate in matters of doctrine, Catholicism is true. Even if his innovations go against the historic teaching of the Church and of Judaism.

Umm What Catholicism do you know? Huh
The Pope can neither change nor innovate doctrine. He can't go against tradition and is subject to it. This argument is a straw man  Embarrassed

It's not a straw man. That's what the Catholic Church did. That's what Vicarious Atonement is, that's what Purgatory is. That's not Orthodox doctrine. Jews don't buy it either.

Those doctrines have been taught long before the schism and are part of the western tradition. Or now is it the case that anything that conflicts the east is heresy?

The Jews have changed a lot of what they believe. Once upon a time they believed in demons,hell and a God man messiah. They aren't so reliable  Undecided
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #83 on: October 18, 2013, 02:21:03 PM »

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar

Then why make Peter head?

St. Peter wasn't a vicar of Christ.

But he was as he was head. And any head that is not the true head is vicar of the true head...so logic follows

No, the logic does not follow. He is not the vicar of the head because the head, Christ, is truly present in him, who is a type of the episcopacy and of the whole Church. did not leave a singular vicar because he dwells truly in all who have been ordained to the high priesthood, and in all who have been illumined through Baptism, Chrismation, the Eucharist, and ascesis.

In answer to the highlighted part, it does follow. A Vicar is one who stands in the place of the head when he is physically absent. And for all intents and purposes, the vicar is head.

with regards to the rest of what you wrote... Catholics believe all that..
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #84 on: October 18, 2013, 02:25:32 PM »

Interestingly enough, I recently found a critical edition of St. Cyprian's De Unitate Ecclesiae which included a somewhat different, undoubtedly interpolated, version that is found in only one manuscript. That version was more favorable to the Papacy and excluded, amongst others, the famous "The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole" and added in more praise of St. Peter and the Pope. Even more interestingly, that version was called version one despite overwhelming evidence against its genuineness.

Then again, the editor was a Jesuit and he did sort of explain it in the footnotes, but still, it makes one wonder, what more could be interpolated about St. Peter?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 02:25:41 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #85 on: October 18, 2013, 02:30:02 PM »

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar

Then why make Peter head?

St. Peter wasn't a vicar of Christ.

But he was as he was head. And any head that is not the true head is vicar of the true head...so logic follows

No, the logic does not follow. He is not the vicar of the head because the head, Christ, is truly present in him, who is a type of the episcopacy and of the whole Church. did not leave a singular vicar because he dwells truly in all who have been ordained to the high priesthood, and in all who have been illumined through Baptism, Chrismation, the Eucharist, and ascesis.

In answer to the highlighted part, it does follow. A Vicar is one who stands in the place of the head when he is physically absent. And for all intents and purposes, the vicar is head.

with regards to the rest of what you wrote... Catholics believe all that..

Christ is not absent. He is present as the sacrifice on the altar every time the liturgy is performed, and in the person of the Bishop or priest, He acts as high priest, empowering them to invoke the Holy Spirit and offer up this sacrifice. Furthermore He is present in all who eat his body and drink his blood, ever abiding in them, transforming them into his body. Perhaps your own ecclesial gathering heretically denies these things and teaches us that the Lord has abandoned his Church, but by faith, we know this not to be true, for we know that He shall forever be with his Church to the ages, not in some symbolic and disincarnate manner which necessitates that he leave a singular vicar, but in very truth, dwelling in those who draw nigh to his Sacred mysteries and partake of them.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #86 on: October 18, 2013, 02:31:41 PM »

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar

Then why make Peter head?

So that the sacerdotal power of the Church flowed first from Christ to St. Peter, and then to the apostles, that the unity of the Church and the episcopacy is preserved in the type of Peter, who is made manifest to all pastors of the Church.

And according to St Cyprian, where is sacerdotal unity maintained and have its source?

In St. Peter, the type of whom, according to Pope St. Leo in his fourth sermon, is proposed to all pastors of the Church.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #87 on: October 18, 2013, 02:35:14 PM »

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood Undecided

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?
I'll just repeat what I said. If the Pope of Rome has the authority to change and innovate in matters of doctrine, Catholicism is true. Even if his innovations go against the historic teaching of the Church and of Judaism.

Umm What Catholicism do you know? Huh
The Pope can neither change nor innovate doctrine. He can't go against tradition and is subject to it. This argument is a straw man  Embarrassed

It's not a straw man. That's what the Catholic Church did. That's what Vicarious Atonement is, that's what Purgatory is. That's not Orthodox doctrine. Jews don't buy it either.

Those doctrines have been taught long before the schism and are part of the western tradition. Or now is it the case that anything that conflicts the east is heresy?

The Jews have changed a lot of what they believe. Once upon a time they believed in demons,hell and a God man messiah. They aren't so reliable  Undecided

No those doctrines were not taught before the schism. The councils of Lyon and Florence were after the schism, as was Anselm of Canterbury.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 02:44:29 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #88 on: October 18, 2013, 02:43:29 PM »

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar

Then why make Peter head?

So that the sacerdotal power of the Church flowed first from Christ to St. Peter, and then to the apostles, that the unity of the Church and the episcopacy is preserved in the type of Peter, who is made manifest to all pastors of the Church.

And according to St Cyprian, where is sacerdotal unity maintained and have its source?

In St. Peter, the type of whom, according to Pope St. Leo in his fourth sermon, is proposed to all pastors of the Church.

St Cyprian of Carthage:

Post ista adhuc pseudoepiscopo sibi ab haereticis constituto nauigare audent, et ad Petri Cathedram adque ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre, nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est, ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum


 With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 02:46:04 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #89 on: October 18, 2013, 02:45:23 PM »

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood Undecided

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?
I'll just repeat what I said. If the Pope of Rome has the authority to change and innovate in matters of doctrine, Catholicism is true. Even if his innovations go against the historic teaching of the Church and of Judaism.

Umm What Catholicism do you know? Huh
The Pope can neither change nor innovate doctrine. He can't go against tradition and is subject to it. This argument is a straw man  Embarrassed

It's not a straw man. That's what the Catholic Church did. That's what Vicarious Atonement is, that's what Purgatory is. That's not Orthodox doctrine. Jews don't buy it either.

Those doctrines have been taught long before the schism and are part of the western tradition. Or now is it the case that anything that conflicts the east is heresy?

The Jews have changed a lot of what they believe. Once upon a time they believed in demons,hell and a God man messiah. They aren't so reliable  Undecided

No those doctrines were not taught before the schism. The council of Lyon was after the schism, as was Anselm of Canterbury.

Is St Augustine post schism?  Undecided Undecided  Undecided
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #90 on: October 18, 2013, 02:46:14 PM »

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Ibid?

Oh you...
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #91 on: October 18, 2013, 02:49:57 PM »

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood Undecided

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?
I'll just repeat what I said. If the Pope of Rome has the authority to change and innovate in matters of doctrine, Catholicism is true. Even if his innovations go against the historic teaching of the Church and of Judaism.

Umm What Catholicism do you know? Huh
The Pope can neither change nor innovate doctrine. He can't go against tradition and is subject to it. This argument is a straw man  Embarrassed

It's not a straw man. That's what the Catholic Church did. That's what Vicarious Atonement is, that's what Purgatory is. That's not Orthodox doctrine. Jews don't buy it either.

Those doctrines have been taught long before the schism and are part of the western tradition. Or now is it the case that anything that conflicts the east is heresy?

The Jews have changed a lot of what they believe. Once upon a time they believed in demons,hell and a God man messiah. They aren't so reliable  Undecided

No those doctrines were not taught before the schism. The council of Lyon was after the schism, as was Anselm of Canterbury.

Is St Augustine post schism?  Undecided Undecided  Undecided

Like Tertullian, St. Augustine taught heresy. And not even St. Augustine believed in Purgatory or the Vicarious Atonement theory. Maybe he used similar language, but he didn't define it.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 02:56:13 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,828


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #92 on: October 18, 2013, 02:51:04 PM »

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Ibid?

Oh you...

Smiley

My favourite part was [at Rome].  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #93 on: October 18, 2013, 03:22:30 PM »

So I guess you are alleging that or at least inferring that Catholicism doesn't believe Christ to be our head? The high priest in the order of Melchizedek?

No. I'm suggesting that we don't need more than one High Priest.

And yet you know that Protestants use the same verses (from Hebrews) to prove that we don't need ANY priests. It's all in the interpretation.  Cool

exactly... Maybe we should all become protestant I guess. I pick evangelical Grin

I guess I could do that pretty easily if I wanted to. Plus one of my cousins is apparently a famous evangelical preacher (http://bobhartley.org/) so I'd have an "in".  Grin
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 03:23:54 PM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #94 on: October 18, 2013, 03:39:24 PM »

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Ibid?

Oh you...

umm want another version? Is there something I'm missing?
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #95 on: October 18, 2013, 03:40:53 PM »

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood Undecided

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?
I'll just repeat what I said. If the Pope of Rome has the authority to change and innovate in matters of doctrine, Catholicism is true. Even if his innovations go against the historic teaching of the Church and of Judaism.

Umm What Catholicism do you know? Huh
The Pope can neither change nor innovate doctrine. He can't go against tradition and is subject to it. This argument is a straw man  Embarrassed

It's not a straw man. That's what the Catholic Church did. That's what Vicarious Atonement is, that's what Purgatory is. That's not Orthodox doctrine. Jews don't buy it either.

Those doctrines have been taught long before the schism and are part of the western tradition. Or now is it the case that anything that conflicts the east is heresy?

The Jews have changed a lot of what they believe. Once upon a time they believed in demons,hell and a God man messiah. They aren't so reliable  Undecided

No those doctrines were not taught before the schism. The council of Lyon was after the schism, as was Anselm of Canterbury.

Is St Augustine post schism?  Undecided Undecided  Undecided

Like Tertullian, St. Augustine taught heresy. And not even St. Augustine believed in Purgatory or the Vicarious Atonement theory. Maybe he used similar language, but he didn't define it.

LOL ok if that's what you have to tell yourself. This discussion lost all intellectual credibility with that whole "like Tertullian..." part
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #96 on: October 18, 2013, 03:41:20 PM »

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Ibid?

Oh you...

umm want another version? Is there something I'm missing?

I've never heard of a patristic work called Ibid....
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #97 on: October 18, 2013, 03:46:47 PM »

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did.  

Absolute nonsense, on two counts.  First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute.  There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.   Secondly, no one of any significance in the East ever believed in the "supremacy" of the Bishop of Rome.  If you are going to throw a bunch of flowery superlative "proof" texts of the Fathers my way to counter this argument, please save yourself some time and read the link provided by Cyrillic about Asianism first.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 03:47:29 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #98 on: October 18, 2013, 03:47:57 PM »

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Ibid?

Oh you...

umm want another version? Is there something I'm missing?

I've never heard of a patristic work called Ibid....

That's the translation source. The quote is from St Cyprian on the unity of the Church. I provided the Latin and English version
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 03:48:25 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #99 on: October 18, 2013, 03:49:51 PM »

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood Undecided

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?
I'll just repeat what I said. If the Pope of Rome has the authority to change and innovate in matters of doctrine, Catholicism is true. Even if his innovations go against the historic teaching of the Church and of Judaism.

Umm What Catholicism do you know? Huh
The Pope can neither change nor innovate doctrine. He can't go against tradition and is subject to it. This argument is a straw man  Embarrassed

It's not a straw man. That's what the Catholic Church did. That's what Vicarious Atonement is, that's what Purgatory is. That's not Orthodox doctrine. Jews don't buy it either.

Those doctrines have been taught long before the schism and are part of the western tradition. Or now is it the case that anything that conflicts the east is heresy?

The Jews have changed a lot of what they believe. Once upon a time they believed in demons,hell and a God man messiah. They aren't so reliable  Undecided

No those doctrines were not taught before the schism. The council of Lyon was after the schism, as was Anselm of Canterbury.

Is St Augustine post schism?  Undecided Undecided  Undecided

Like Tertullian, St. Augustine taught heresy. And not even St. Augustine believed in Purgatory or the Vicarious Atonement theory. Maybe he used similar language, but he didn't define it.

LOL ok if that's what you have to tell yourself. This discussion lost all intellectual credibility with that whole "like Tertullian..." part

Are you saying Tertullian wasn't teaching heresy?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 03:50:06 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #100 on: October 18, 2013, 03:50:32 PM »

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Ibid?

Oh you...

umm want another version? Is there something I'm missing?

I've never heard of a patristic work called Ibid....

That's the translation source. The quote is from St Cyprian on the unity of the Church. I provided the Latin and English version

Ibid implies that there was quote that preceded it, and that implies that the same boring old prooftext-lists have been plagiarized yet again.

"Has its source" is a bad translation of "Unde...exorta est." "From which unity shone" would be more faithful to the original.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 03:53:26 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #101 on: October 18, 2013, 03:55:56 PM »

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did.  

Absolute nonsense, on two counts.  First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute.  There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.
And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes
Further i can provide a lot of quotes showing the western view of the pope but it will juat be diamissed as flowery language so let me nit waste my time

Quote
, no one of any significance in the East ever believed in the "supremacy" of the Bishop of Rome.
Tell that to others like Maximus the confessor.

Quote
if you are going to throw a bunch of flowery superlative "proof" texts of the Fathers my way to counter this argument, please save yourself some time and read the link provided by Cyrillic about Asianism first.

Is this seriously orthodoxy's best argument? To dismiss all evidence as flowey language despite the consistency of the claims made by fathers who never even met each other. Fathers from both the east and the west?

Intellectual dishonesty
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #102 on: October 18, 2013, 03:56:55 PM »

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood Undecided

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?
I'll just repeat what I said. If the Pope of Rome has the authority to change and innovate in matters of doctrine, Catholicism is true. Even if his innovations go against the historic teaching of the Church and of Judaism.

Umm What Catholicism do you know? Huh
The Pope can neither change nor innovate doctrine. He can't go against tradition and is subject to it. This argument is a straw man  Embarrassed

It's not a straw man. That's what the Catholic Church did. That's what Vicarious Atonement is, that's what Purgatory is. That's not Orthodox doctrine. Jews don't buy it either.

Those doctrines have been taught long before the schism and are part of the western tradition. Or now is it the case that anything that conflicts the east is heresy?

The Jews have changed a lot of what they believe. Once upon a time they believed in demons,hell and a God man messiah. They aren't so reliable  Undecided

No those doctrines were not taught before the schism. The council of Lyon was after the schism, as was Anselm of Canterbury.

Is St Augustine post schism?  Undecided Undecided  Undecided

Like Tertullian, St. Augustine taught heresy. And not even St. Augustine believed in Purgatory or the Vicarious Atonement theory. Maybe he used similar language, but he didn't define it.

LOL ok if that's what you have to tell yourself. This discussion lost all intellectual credibility with that whole "like Tertullian..." part

Are you saying Tertullian wasn't teaching heresy?

I'm saying St Augustine didn't 
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #103 on: October 18, 2013, 04:02:03 PM »

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Ibid?

Oh you...

umm want another version? Is there something I'm missing?

I've never heard of a patristic work called Ibid....

That's the translation source. The quote is from St Cyprian on the unity of the Church. I provided the Latin and English version

Ibid implies that there was quote that preceded it, and that implies that the same boring old prooftext-lists have been plagiarized yet again.

"Has its source" is a bad translation of "Unde...exorta est." "From which unity shone" would be more faithful to the original.

"After all this, they yet in addition, having had a false bishop ordained for them by heretics, dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of Peter, and to the principal church, whence the unity of the priesthood [sacerdotal unity] took its rise [or has its source]. They fail to reflect that those Romans are the same as those whose faith was publicly praised by the apostle, to whom unbelief [or error, heresy, perversion of faith] cannot have access. "
(Epistle 59:14; Giles, page 60)
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 04:04:24 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #104 on: October 18, 2013, 04:04:41 PM »

Quote
, no one of any significance in the East ever believed in the "supremacy" of the Bishop of Rome.
Tell that to others like Maximus the confessor.

You know, at one point St. Maximus was imprisoned and his prosecutors were asking him what he was going to do if, when the legates from Rome arrived the next day, they would commune with the (monothelite) Patriarch of Constantinople. He didn't say he would stay in communion with the "Vicar of Christ" no matter what. Quite the contrary. It's in the transcriptions of his trials published here. For him Orthodoxy was above papal supremacy and infallibility.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 04:07:27 PM by Romaios » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #105 on: October 18, 2013, 04:04:56 PM »

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did. 

Absolute nonsense, on two counts.  First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute.  There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.
And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The Eastern Churches (both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian) think otherwise.

Quote
, no one of any significance in the East ever believed in the "supremacy" of the Bishop of Rome.
Tell that to others like Maximus the confessor.

He never believed in an infallible Pope with universal jurisdiction.

Quote
if you are going to throw a bunch of flowery superlative "proof" texts of the Fathers my way to counter this argument, please save yourself some time and read the link provided by Cyrillic about Asianism first.

Is this seriously orthodoxy's best argument? To dismiss all evidence as flowey language despite the consistency of the claims made by fathers who never even met each other. Fathers from both the east and the west?

Intellectual dishonesty

Many of the Fathers were influenced by a certain literary movement called the Second Sophistic. It promoted, among other things, over-the-top language in eulogies - i.e. Asianism.

The adherents of that movement composed, for example, speeches  praising nonsensical things in the most ridiculous superlatives. Some of them are even extant, such as the Praise of the Fruit Fly. If those influenced by the Second Sophistic eloquently praised fruit flies what makes you think that they couldn't exaggerate a little bit in praising a bishop here and there?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 04:08:04 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,828


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #106 on: October 18, 2013, 04:06:52 PM »

(Epistle 59:14; Giles, page 60)

Consult the Book of Giles! 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #107 on: October 18, 2013, 04:09:24 PM »

Quote
, no one of any significance in the East ever believed in the "supremacy" of the Bishop of Rome.
Tell that to others like Maximus the confessor.

You know, at one point St. Maximus was imprisoned and his prosecutors were asking him what he was going to do if, when the legates from Rome arrived the next day, they would commune with the (monothelite) Patriarch of Constantinople. He didn't say he would stay in communion with the "Vicar of Christ" no matter what. Quite the contrary. It's in the transcriptions of his trials published here.
Oh I know. Hypothetical situation based on a lie they told him is not much evidence as the situation assumed Rome fell into the monothelite heresy. As such and accordingly he wouldn't follow Rome into heresy.

And you know he said if you excommunication the roman church and anyone with it, you excommunication in fact, the Catholic Church?
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,828


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #108 on: October 18, 2013, 04:12:17 PM »

...as the situation assumed Rome fell into the monothelite heresy. As such and accordingly he wouldn't follow Rome into heresy.

But according to current Roman Catholic belief, which you say goes back to Christ and the Apostles, how could it be possible for Rome to fall into heresy? 

It may have been a "hypothetical" question posed to Maximus, but his "hypothetical" answer doesn't seem to have included any notion of "But that's impossible, Rome will never lose the faith". 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #109 on: October 18, 2013, 04:13:09 PM »

And you know he said if you excommunication the roman church and anyone with it, you excommunication in fact, the Catholic Church?

Citation needed. Greek if possible.  Grin
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #110 on: October 18, 2013, 04:14:39 PM »

(Epistle 59:14; Giles, page 60)

Consult the Book of Giles! 

Consult the Book of Armaments!
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #111 on: October 18, 2013, 04:21:07 PM »

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did. 

Absolute nonsense, on two counts.  First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute.  There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.
And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The Eastern Churches (both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian) think otherwise.

As Augustine recounts the tale of Cyprian and heretical baptism, he points out how Cyprian later submitted to the authority of the Church:
"Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself. See how much he considered to depend upon the blessing of unity, from which he did not sever himself to avoid the communion of those who disagreed with him; how, though he considered that those who were baptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he was yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in pardon. For thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in writing as follows to Jubaianus: "But some will say, 'What then will become of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?' Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church fallen asleep." (Augustine, On Baptism, II.18)
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,828


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #112 on: October 18, 2013, 04:22:58 PM »

(Epistle 59:14; Giles, page 60)

Consult the Book of Giles! 

Consult the Book of Armaments!

Armaments, ch. 2, vv. 9-21.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #113 on: October 18, 2013, 04:24:25 PM »

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood Undecided

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?
I'll just repeat what I said. If the Pope of Rome has the authority to change and innovate in matters of doctrine, Catholicism is true. Even if his innovations go against the historic teaching of the Church and of Judaism.

Umm What Catholicism do you know? Huh
The Pope can neither change nor innovate doctrine. He can't go against tradition and is subject to it. This argument is a straw man  Embarrassed

It's not a straw man. That's what the Catholic Church did. That's what Vicarious Atonement is, that's what Purgatory is. That's not Orthodox doctrine. Jews don't buy it either.

Those doctrines have been taught long before the schism and are part of the western tradition. Or now is it the case that anything that conflicts the east is heresy?

The Jews have changed a lot of what they believe. Once upon a time they believed in demons,hell and a God man messiah. They aren't so reliable  Undecided

No those doctrines were not taught before the schism. The council of Lyon was after the schism, as was Anselm of Canterbury.

Is St Augustine post schism?  Undecided Undecided  Undecided

Like Tertullian, St. Augustine taught heresy. And not even St. Augustine believed in Purgatory or the Vicarious Atonement theory. Maybe he used similar language, but he didn't define it.

LOL ok if that's what you have to tell yourself. This discussion lost all intellectual credibility with that whole "like Tertullian..." part

Are you saying Tertullian wasn't teaching heresy?

I'm saying St Augustine didn't 

I say, you say. How about demonstrating St. Augustine's supposed teaching of Purgatory and Vicarious Atonement?
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #114 on: October 18, 2013, 04:25:10 PM »

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did. 

Absolute nonsense, on two counts.  First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute.  There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.
And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The Eastern Churches (both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian) think otherwise.

As Augustine recounts the tale of Cyprian and heretical baptism, he points out how Cyprian later submitted to the authority of the Church:
"Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself. See how much he considered to depend upon the blessing of unity, from which he did not sever himself to avoid the communion of those who disagreed with him; how, though he considered that those who were baptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he was yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in pardon. For thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in writing as follows to Jubaianus: "But some will say, 'What then will become of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?' Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church fallen asleep." (Augustine, On Baptism, II.18)

That doesn't even adress my statement.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #115 on: October 18, 2013, 04:29:52 PM »

...as the situation assumed Rome fell into the monothelite heresy. As such and accordingly he wouldn't follow Rome into heresy.

But according to current Roman Catholic belief, which you say goes back to Christ and the Apostles, how could it be possible for Rome to fall into heresy? 

It may have been a "hypothetical" question posed to Maximus, but his "hypothetical" answer doesn't seem to have included any notion of "But that's impossible, Rome will never lose the faith". 

it being hypothetical is important because it assumed Rome HAD fallen into heresy against its own decree at the synod of Rome. So he knew monothelitism was wrong and anybody who accepted it was wrong.

However, in reality he viewed Rome this way:

Quote
The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world".
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #116 on: October 18, 2013, 04:30:38 PM »

Source?
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #117 on: October 18, 2013, 04:34:08 PM »

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did. 

Absolute nonsense, on two counts.  First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute.  There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.
And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The Eastern Churches (both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian) think otherwise.

As Augustine recounts the tale of Cyprian and heretical baptism, he points out how Cyprian later submitted to the authority of the Church:
"Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself. See how much he considered to depend upon the blessing of unity, from which he did not sever himself to avoid the communion of those who disagreed with him; how, though he considered that those who were baptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he was yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in pardon. For thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in writing as follows to Jubaianus: "But some will say, 'What then will become of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?' Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church fallen asleep." (Augustine, On Baptism, II.18)

That doesn't even adress my statement.

let me make this simple.. Does Orthodoxy teach rebaptism?
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,828


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #118 on: October 18, 2013, 04:34:27 PM »

...as the situation assumed Rome fell into the monothelite heresy. As such and accordingly he wouldn't follow Rome into heresy.

But according to current Roman Catholic belief, which you say goes back to Christ and the Apostles, how could it be possible for Rome to fall into heresy? 

It may have been a "hypothetical" question posed to Maximus, but his "hypothetical" answer doesn't seem to have included any notion of "But that's impossible, Rome will never lose the faith". 

it being hypothetical is important because it assumed Rome HAD fallen into heresy against its own decree at the synod of Rome. So he knew monothelitism was wrong and anybody who accepted it was wrong.

However, in reality he viewed Rome this way:

Quote
The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world".

But again, you're not addressing my point.  

If Maximus said all of the above and sincerely believed it (e.g., it wasn't simply a matter of him being influenced by the Second Sophistic), why on earth would he ever accept as a hypothetical that Rome could fall into heresy?  You claim the hypothetical question presumes that Rome did fall, but his answer is not that Rome is incapable of falling because of Christ's promise to Peter or any such Vatican I-esque teaching.  He doesn't respond back "What a stupid question!  As if Rome could ever fall from the faith!  Moron!!"  Why not?  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #119 on: October 18, 2013, 04:35:29 PM »

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did. 

Absolute nonsense, on two counts.  First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute.  There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.
And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The Eastern Churches (both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian) think otherwise.

As Augustine recounts the tale of Cyprian and heretical baptism, he points out how Cyprian later submitted to the authority of the Church:
"Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself. See how much he considered to depend upon the blessing of unity, from which he did not sever himself to avoid the communion of those who disagreed with him; how, though he considered that those who were baptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he was yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in pardon. For thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in writing as follows to Jubaianus: "But some will say, 'What then will become of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?' Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church fallen asleep." (Augustine, On Baptism, II.18)

That doesn't even adress my statement.

let me make this simple.. Does Orthodoxy teach rebaptism?

No, and neither did St. Cyprian.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #120 on: October 18, 2013, 04:39:58 PM »

Source?

Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #121 on: October 18, 2013, 04:41:18 PM »

Source?

Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90

Those Migne volumes have hundreds of folio pages each. Can you be more specific?
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #122 on: October 18, 2013, 04:43:05 PM »

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did. 

Absolute nonsense, on two counts.  First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute.  There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.
And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The Eastern Churches (both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian) think otherwise.

As Augustine recounts the tale of Cyprian and heretical baptism, he points out how Cyprian later submitted to the authority of the Church:
"Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself. See how much he considered to depend upon the blessing of unity, from which he did not sever himself to avoid the communion of those who disagreed with him; how, though he considered that those who were baptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he was yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in pardon. For thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in writing as follows to Jubaianus: "But some will say, 'What then will become of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?' Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church fallen asleep." (Augustine, On Baptism, II.18)

That doesn't even adress my statement.

let me make this simple.. Does Orthodoxy teach rebaptism?

No, and neither did St. Cyprian.

Neither did Pope Stephen. He did teach however that baptism of certain heretics were valid. Cyprian said all heretical baptisms are invalid. Cyprian was clearly wrong on this and other councils prove this in sections that deal with how to accept certain heretics. I'll try get the specific canons
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #123 on: October 18, 2013, 04:43:49 PM »

Cyprian was clearly wrong on this and other councils prove this in sections that deal with how to accept certain heretics. I'll try get the specific canons

Please do.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #124 on: October 18, 2013, 04:49:16 PM »

Source?

Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90

Those Migne volumes have hundreds of folio pages each. Can you be more specific?

So,far that's as specific as I can be. I'll keep searching though
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #125 on: October 18, 2013, 04:51:04 PM »

The Eastern Churches (both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian) think otherwise.

Here is something from Orthodox Wiki on the Councils of Carthage from the third through the fifth centuries.  Fascinating stuff, really. Here was a much-revered Church that was decidedly Western but certainly not Roman.  I wonder if things would have turned out differently for all concerned if the African Church had not been wiped off the face of the earth?


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Councils_of_Carthage
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #126 on: October 18, 2013, 04:51:54 PM »

Source?

Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90

Those Migne volumes have hundreds of folio pages each. Can you be more specific?

So,far that's as specific as I can be. I'll keep searching though

The work you cited is in vol. 91 of PG...  Wink
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #127 on: October 18, 2013, 04:55:04 PM »

The Eastern Churches (both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian) think otherwise.

Here is something from Orthodox Wiki on the Councils of Carthage from the third through the fifth centuries.  Fascinating stuff, really. Here was a much-revered Church that was decidedly Western but certainly not Roman.  I wonder if things would have turned out differently for all concerned if the African Church had not been wiped off the face of the earth?


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Councils_of_Carthage


When Carthage fell Rome lost its great rival in the west and grew arrogant and tried to establish its dominance in the east. History does indeed repeat itself...

Perhaps Church History would have turned out different had the Church of Carthage remained.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 04:57:30 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #128 on: October 18, 2013, 05:00:56 PM »

Cyprian was clearly wrong on this and other councils prove this in sections that deal with how to accept certain heretics. I'll try get the specific canons

Please do.

canon VII of Constantinople (381)

Quote
Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians...and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive...they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, “The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.”  But Eunomians...and Montanists...and Sabellians...all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen.  On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #129 on: October 18, 2013, 05:04:13 PM »

It doesn't say anything about whether the baptism is considered a full baptism or whether it is sanctified in the Church.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #130 on: October 18, 2013, 05:06:58 PM »

Source?

Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90

Those Migne volumes have hundreds of folio pages each. Can you be more specific?

So,far that's as specific as I can be. I'll keep searching though

The work you cited is in vol. 91 of PG...  Wink

The first part is from vol.90 though from what I've seen do far. My bad on the second Undecided
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #131 on: October 18, 2013, 05:07:59 PM »

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar

Then why make Peter head?

So that the sacerdotal power of the Church flowed first from Christ to St. Peter, and then to the apostles, that the unity of the Church and the episcopacy is preserved in the type of Peter, who is made manifest to all pastors of the Church.

And according to St Cyprian, where is sacerdotal unity maintained and have its source?

In St. Peter, the type of whom, according to Pope St. Leo in his fourth sermon, is proposed to all pastors of the Church.

St Cyprian of Carthage:

Post ista adhuc pseudoepiscopo sibi ab haereticis constituto nauigare audent, et ad Petri Cathedram adque ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre, nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est, ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum


 With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Nice try, but the verb operating in that clause, exorta est, is in the perfect/preterite, not the present (the present tense would read unde unitas sacerdotalis exoritur). It is probably best translated as, "the principal church where sacerdotal unity originated," (using the perfect, "has originated," here instead of the preterite makes very little sense grammatically in English).
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #132 on: October 18, 2013, 05:08:55 PM »

And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The fact that the views of Pope Stephen I on the re-baptism of heretics came to be given credence in the Church is really a red herring when it comes to my argument.  My point, one that you cannot deny, is that the entire African episcopate bitterly resented the pope's assumption that he had the right to unilaterally interfere in the affairs of the African Church.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 05:12:31 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #133 on: October 18, 2013, 05:09:32 PM »

It doesn't say anything about whether the baptism is considered a full baptism or whether it is sanctified in the Church.

what the canon shows is that Cyprian was wrong. He held the belief that all heretical baptisms were invalid and thus when coming,into the Church, All heretics to be baptized.

The canon shows that Arians and others did not need to be baptized upon reception while others had to. This is what Pope St.Stephen taught
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 05:11:02 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #134 on: October 18, 2013, 05:11:24 PM »

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar

Then why make Peter head?

So that the sacerdotal power of the Church flowed first from Christ to St. Peter, and then to the apostles, that the unity of the Church and the episcopacy is preserved in the type of Peter, who is made manifest to all pastors of the Church.

And according to St Cyprian, where is sacerdotal unity maintained and have its source?

In St. Peter, the type of whom, according to Pope St. Leo in his fourth sermon, is proposed to all pastors of the Church.

St Cyprian of Carthage:

Post ista adhuc pseudoepiscopo sibi ab haereticis constituto nauigare audent, et ad Petri Cathedram adque ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre, nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est, ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum


 With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Nice try, but the verb operating in that clause, exorta est, is in the perfect/preterite, not the present (the present tense would read unde unitas sacerdotalis exoritur). It is probably best translated as, "the principal church where sacerdotal unity originated," (using the perfect, "has originated," here instead of the preterite makes very little sense grammatically in English).

I've said the same thing above (reply 100) with fewer words but I was ignored. Perhaps you'll have better luck.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 05:12:29 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #135 on: October 18, 2013, 05:15:05 PM »

And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The fact that the views of Pope Stephen I on the re-baptism of heretics (at what time I confess I do not remember, very soon or very much after the fact) came to be given much credence in the Church is really a red herring when it comes to my argument.  My point, one that you cannot deny, is that the entire African episcopate bitterly resented the pope's assumption that he had the right to unilaterally interfere in the affairs of the African Church.

The entire? Oh that's a bold claim
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #136 on: October 18, 2013, 05:19:12 PM »

...as the situation assumed Rome fell into the monothelite heresy. As such and accordingly he wouldn't follow Rome into heresy.

But according to current Roman Catholic belief, which you say goes back to Christ and the Apostles, how could it be possible for Rome to fall into heresy? 

It may have been a "hypothetical" question posed to Maximus, but his "hypothetical" answer doesn't seem to have included any notion of "But that's impossible, Rome will never lose the faith". 

it being hypothetical is important because it assumed Rome HAD fallen into heresy against its own decree at the synod of Rome. So he knew monothelitism was wrong and anybody who accepted it was wrong.

However, in reality he viewed Rome this way:

Quote
The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world".

But again, you're not addressing my point.  

If Maximus said all of the above and sincerely believed it (e.g., it wasn't simply a matter of him being influenced by the Second Sophistic), why on earth would he ever accept as a hypothetical that Rome could fall into heresy?  You claim the hypothetical question presumes that Rome did fall, but his answer is not that Rome is incapable of falling because of Christ's promise to Peter or any such Vatican I-esque teaching.  He doesn't respond back "What a stupid question!  As if Rome could ever fall from the faith!  Moron!!"  Why not?  

Is it so hard to presume that he played along with this. It would certainly help prove how convicted he was about his beliefs.

even I do this despite knowing that whatever is being said to me is an impossibility.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,828


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #137 on: October 18, 2013, 05:27:42 PM »

Is it so hard to presume that he played along with this. It would certainly help prove how convicted he was about his beliefs.

even I do this despite knowing that whatever is being said to me is an impossibility.

I'm asking you, because you're the one claiming that Maximus believed in a Vatican I style papacy when it seems none of the EO see it as so self-evident.  It's your claim, and you ought to back it up with something more than "is it so hard to presume?"  It's not hard to presume a lot, as you know from your vast expertise. 

Maximus is not a saint of my Church, so I don't really have a stake in this matter as both EO and RC do. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #138 on: October 18, 2013, 05:28:31 PM »

...as the situation assumed Rome fell into the monothelite heresy. As such and accordingly he wouldn't follow Rome into heresy.

But according to current Roman Catholic belief, which you say goes back to Christ and the Apostles, how could it be possible for Rome to fall into heresy? 

It may have been a "hypothetical" question posed to Maximus, but his "hypothetical" answer doesn't seem to have included any notion of "But that's impossible, Rome will never lose the faith". 

it being hypothetical is important because it assumed Rome HAD fallen into heresy against its own decree at the synod of Rome. So he knew monothelitism was wrong and anybody who accepted it was wrong.

However, in reality he viewed Rome this way:

Quote
The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world".

Is that so? And what holy canons and definitions from the time of St. Maximus the Confessor gave the Church of Rome supreme dominion over all the holy Churches of God? Name one.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #139 on: October 18, 2013, 05:30:38 PM »

And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The fact that the views of Pope Stephen I on the re-baptism of heretics (at what time I confess I do not remember, very soon or very much after the fact) came to be given much credence in the Church is really a red herring when it comes to my argument.  My point, one that you cannot deny, is that the entire African episcopate bitterly resented the pope's assumption that he had the right to unilaterally interfere in the affairs of the African Church.

The entire? Oh that's a bold claim


Pretty much the case.  You are splitting hairs.  The point is that your contention that no one in the early Western Church disputed Roman supremacy does not stand up under scrutiny.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #140 on: October 18, 2013, 05:36:00 PM »


lol!  Wink
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #141 on: October 18, 2013, 05:57:57 PM »

And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The fact that the views of Pope Stephen I on the re-baptism of heretics (at what time I confess I do not remember, very soon or very much after the fact) came to be given much credence in the Church is really a red herring when it comes to my argument.  My point, one that you cannot deny, is that the entire African episcopate bitterly resented the pope's assumption that he had the right to unilaterally interfere in the affairs of the African Church.

The entire? Oh that's a bold claim


Pretty much the case.  You are splitting hairs.  The point is that your contention that no one in the early Western Church disputed Roman supremacy does not stand up under scrutiny.

The reason I question what you say is because from what I've read, the majority of the African Church sided with the Pope and had no objection to him. Only the few who sided with Cyprian and attended the synods connected with him opposed Pope St.Stephen. This is what I've read hence I said that a bold claim

Secondly I said roman claims were virtually unquestioned, not completely unquestioned. This is true if the west. I noticed in the past that whenever some are in,communion with Rome, they praise Rome with all the claims she makes about herself but as soon as these same people accept a position in opposition to Rome, all of a sudden Rome has no authority and is nothing special. How convenient  Smiley
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 06:10:24 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #142 on: October 18, 2013, 06:03:58 PM »

...as the situation assumed Rome fell into the monothelite heresy. As such and accordingly he wouldn't follow Rome into heresy.

But according to current Roman Catholic belief, which you say goes back to Christ and the Apostles, how could it be possible for Rome to fall into heresy? 

It may have been a "hypothetical" question posed to Maximus, but his "hypothetical" answer doesn't seem to have included any notion of "But that's impossible, Rome will never lose the faith". 

it being hypothetical is important because it assumed Rome HAD fallen into heresy against its own decree at the synod of Rome. So he knew monothelitism was wrong and anybody who accepted it was wrong.

However, in reality he viewed Rome this way:

Quote
The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world".

Is that so? And what holy canons and definitions from the time of St. Maximus the Confessor gave the Church of Rome supreme dominion over all the holy Churches of God? Name one.

He claimed this not me. Secondly he says the source of Rome's authority is also form the Son of God  , himself. Thus confirming claims of previous popes and western saints of a divine origin of the primacy of Rome.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #143 on: October 18, 2013, 06:05:05 PM »

The reason I question what you say is because from what I've read, the majority of the African Church sided with the Pope and had no objection to him.

How do you know that?
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #144 on: October 18, 2013, 06:06:08 PM »

Is it so hard to presume that he played along with this. It would certainly help prove how convicted he was about his beliefs.

even I do this despite knowing that whatever is being said to me is an impossibility.

I'm asking you, because you're the one claiming that Maximus believed in a Vatican I style papacy when it seems none of the EO see it as so self-evident.  It's your claim, and you ought to back it up with something more than "is it so hard to presume?"  It's not hard to presume a lot, as you know from your vast expertise. 

Maximus is not a saint of my Church, so I don't really have a stake in this matter as both EO and RC do. 

I'm letting you know that that is what happened. He played along as is evident in his answer as it served to prive how convicted he was in his opposition to monothelitism
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #145 on: October 18, 2013, 06:06:46 PM »

The reason I question what you say is because from what I've read, the majority of the African Church sided with the Pope and had no objection to him.

How do you know that?

as I said, from what I've read...
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #146 on: October 18, 2013, 06:09:05 PM »

The reason I question what you say is because from what I've read, the majority of the African Church sided with the Pope and had no objection to him.

How do you know that?

as I said, from what I've read...

Sounds vague. I'm still waiting on the source for St. Maximus' quote.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #147 on: October 18, 2013, 06:11:45 PM »

The reason I question what you say is because from what I've read, the majority of the African Church sided with the Pope and had no objection to him.

How do you know that?

as I said, from what I've read...

Sounds vague. I'm still waiting on the source for St. Maximus' quote.

well yea, I've read a lot of stuff

I gave you the source. That's as specific as I can be. All places I see the quote provide the same source and volume number.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 06:12:54 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,828


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #148 on: October 18, 2013, 06:13:41 PM »

I'm letting you know that that is what happened. He played along as is evident in his answer as it served to prive how convicted he was in his opposition to monothelitism

You'll forgive me if I don't believe you're ~1400 years old.  Since, then, you weren't present at this questioning, on what do you base your assertion that "he played along"?  ISTM you are reading that into the situation because you can't explain it any other way; otherwise, I'm sure PG and Ibid would've been cited.    
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #149 on: October 18, 2013, 06:18:13 PM »

I gave you the source. That's as specific as I can be. All places I see the quote provide the same source and volume number.

Don't you think that cherrypicking quotes from a pre-fabricated list, that have been pulled out of context by biased apologists, is a bad way of trying to understand the Fathers?
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #150 on: October 18, 2013, 06:51:26 PM »

The reason I question what you say is because from what I've read, the majority of the African Church sided with the Pope and had no objection to him.

How do you know that?

as I said, from what I've read...

Sounds vague. I'm still waiting on the source for St. Maximus' quote.

well yea, I've read a lot of stuff

I gave you the source. That's as specific as I can be. All places I see the quote provide the same source and volume number.

No, you definitely did not, because the second prooftext you provide isn't from St. Maximus' Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Perhaps you should do your homework and figure out where the quotes are you using are taken from, and if they have been translated correctly.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 06:52:30 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
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 #151 on: October 18, 2013, 08:07:14 PM »

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did. 

Absolute nonsense, on two counts.  First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute.  There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.
And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The Eastern Churches (both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian) think otherwise.

Quote
, no one of any significance in the East ever believed in the "supremacy" of the Bishop of Rome.
Tell that to others like Maximus the confessor.

He never believed in an infallible Pope with universal jurisdiction.

Quote
if you are going to throw a bunch of flowery superlative "proof" texts of the Fathers my way to counter this argument, please save yourself some time and read the link provided by Cyrillic about Asianism first.

Is this seriously orthodoxy's best argument? To dismiss all evidence as flowey language despite the consistency of the claims made by fathers who never even met each other. Fathers from both the east and the west?

Intellectual dishonesty

Many of the Fathers were influenced by a certain literary movement called the Second Sophistic. It promoted, among other things, over-the-top language in eulogies - i.e. Asianism.

The adherents of that movement composed, for example, speeches  praising nonsensical things in the most ridiculous superlatives. Some of them are even extant, such as the Praise of the Fruit Fly. If those influenced by the Second Sophistic eloquently praised fruit flies what makes you think that they couldn't exaggerate a little bit in praising a bishop here and there?
Oh, they did-but only when they talked about other bishops (and they did).  Not when they were talking about the super duper supreme pontiff.

LOL.
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 #152 on: October 18, 2013, 08:07:14 PM »

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Ibid?

Oh you...

umm want another version? Is there something I'm missing?

I've never heard of a patristic work called Ibid....

That's the translation source. The quote is from St Cyprian on the unity of the Church. I provided the Latin and English version

Ibid implies that there was quote that preceded it, and that implies that the same boring old prooftext-lists have been plagiarized yet again.

"Has its source" is a bad translation of "Unde...exorta est." "From which unity shone" would be more faithful to the original.

"After all this, they yet in addition, having had a false bishop ordained for them by heretics, dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of Peter, and to the principal church, whence the unity of the priesthood [sacerdotal unity] took its rise [or has its source]. They fail to reflect that those Romans are the same as those whose faith was publicly praised by the apostle, to whom unbelief [or error, heresy, perversion of faith] cannot have access. "
(Epistle 59:14; Giles, page 60)
The Monothelites had access to Pope Honorius.
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 #153 on: October 18, 2013, 08:07:15 PM »

...as the situation assumed Rome fell into the monothelite heresy. As such and accordingly he wouldn't follow Rome into heresy.

But according to current Roman Catholic belief, which you say goes back to Christ and the Apostles, how could it be possible for Rome to fall into heresy? 

It may have been a "hypothetical" question posed to Maximus, but his "hypothetical" answer doesn't seem to have included any notion of "But that's impossible, Rome will never lose the faith". 

it being hypothetical is important because it assumed Rome HAD fallen into heresy against its own decree at the synod of Rome. So he knew monothelitism was wrong and anybody who accepted it was wrong.

However, in reality he viewed Rome this way:

Quote
The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world".
Is that so? And what holy canons and definitions from the time of St. Maximus the Confessor gave the Church of Rome supreme dominion over all the holy Churches of God? Name one.

He claimed this not me.
IOW, according to you, St. Maximos made unsubstantiated assertions.

You can't prove your case from evidence you trash.

Secondly he says the source of Rome's authority is also form the Son of God  , himself. Thus confirming claims of previous popes and western saints of a divine origin of the primacy of Rome.
"It should be admitted that the above passage only exists in a problematic Latin translation."
http://books.google.com/books?id=oeKOUb6OcG4C&pg=PA196&dq=%22It+should+be+admitted+that+the+above+passage+only+exists+in+a+problematic+Latin+translation.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LMhhUr6HPIPiyAGOmoC4Ag&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22It%20should%20be%20admitted%20that%20the%20above%20passage%20only%20exists%20in%20a%20problematic%20Latin%20translation.%22&f=false

As we know from the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Old Rome wasn't above embellishing in Latin which the Greek speaking Romans didn't know.
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
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #154 on: October 19, 2013, 12:46:47 PM »

The reason I question what you say is because from what I've read, the majority of the African Church sided with the Pope and had no objection to him.

How do you know that?

as I said, from what I've read...

Sounds vague. I'm still waiting on the source for St. Maximus' quote.

well yea, I've read a lot of stuff

I gave you the source. That's as specific as I can be. All places I see the quote provide the same source and volume number.

No, you definitely did not, because the second prooftext you provide isn't from St. Maximus' Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Perhaps you should do your homework and figure out where the quotes are you using are taken from, and if they have been translated correctly.

Where is it from? The letter to Peter?
because whenevr i see the quote, the reference says its from his Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Look the quote says what it says. If it upsets you in any way, I'm sorry but until the quote can be disproven as authentic, it deserved the credibility applied to it.  ...
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #155 on: October 19, 2013, 12:49:16 PM »

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Ibid?

Oh you...

umm want another version? Is there something I'm missing?

I've never heard of a patristic work called Ibid....

That's the translation source. The quote is from St Cyprian on the unity of the Church. I provided the Latin and English version

Ibid implies that there was quote that preceded it, and that implies that the same boring old prooftext-lists have been plagiarized yet again.

"Has its source" is a bad translation of "Unde...exorta est." "From which unity shone" would be more faithful to the original.

"After all this, they yet in addition, having had a false bishop ordained for them by heretics, dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of Peter, and to the principal church, whence the unity of the priesthood [sacerdotal unity] took its rise [or has its source]. They fail to reflect that those Romans are the same as those whose faith was publicly praised by the apostle, to whom unbelief [or error, heresy, perversion of faith] cannot have access. "
(Epistle 59:14; Giles, page 60)
The Monothelites had access to Pope Honorius.

debatable as even maximus the confessor defensed him too. Further the popes who succeeded Honorius said he was guilt of letting heresy spread, not of teaching it. Thirdly anathemas to persona are not infallible , only anathemas to doctrines.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #156 on: October 19, 2013, 12:50:54 PM »

because whenevr i see the quote, the reference says its from his Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Look the quote says what it says. If it upsets you in any way, I'm sorry but until the quote can be disproven as authentic, it deserved the credibility applied to it.  ...

The original Greek text of the letter is gone. It doesn't exist anymore - or, what's more likely - never existed to begin with.
Logged

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

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #157 on: October 19, 2013, 12:52:35 PM »

debatable as even maximus the confessor defensed him too. Further the popes who succeeded Honorius said he was guilt of letting heresy spread, not of teaching it. Thirdly anathemas to persona are not infallible , only anathemas to doctrines.

Pope Honorius' letter to Sergius is undeniably monothelite.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 12:52:49 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #158 on: October 19, 2013, 12:57:20 PM »

I gave you the source. That's as specific as I can be. All places I see the quote provide the same source and volume number.

Don't you think that cherrypicking quotes from a pre-fabricated list, that have been pulled out of context by biased apologists, is a bad way of trying to understand the Fathers?

Taking quotes in entirety are not a bad thing at all. It would be problematic If the only thing quoted was a few verses. But full paragraphs give a good idea of what is being said. Of course knowledge of what the epistle, book or whatever manuscript is addressing is important as well as historical context. I can tell you for sure, the maximus quote are well within the context and mean what is written. But look, I've seen many people play down evidence even when blatantly against them, in order to uphold beliefs.

I just find it shocking that orthodox Christians have a hard time admitting certain writings are in favor of Rome. Where as a lot of Catholics from what I've seen on CAF are ready to admit when a quote or writing is against Catholic claims. Intellectual honesty is needed when discussing the fathers.

but like I said earlier, faith should not be built on a quote.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #159 on: October 19, 2013, 12:59:57 PM »

debatable as even maximus the confessor defensed him too. Further the popes who succeeded Honorius said he was guilt of letting heresy spread, not of teaching it. Thirdly anathemas to persona are not infallible , only anathemas to doctrines.

Pope Honorius' letter to Sergius is undeniably monothelite.

That's what was said about Leos tome. It Ws apparently Nestorian.

Alas just like the Tome of Leo, the letter to sergius can be read in an orthodox light. Maximus highlights this. Further who would know better what was meant than the author himself? Yet in his life honorius neve r claimed to accept the monothelitism as this was against roman tradition.

I guess its how you read the documents
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #160 on: October 19, 2013, 01:01:30 PM »

Alas just like the Tome of Leo, the letter to sergius can be read in an orthodox light. [...] I guess its how you read the documents

The letter abused St. Sophronius for fighting monothelitism. I don't know how one could possibly read something like that in an orthodox light.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #161 on: October 19, 2013, 01:01:53 PM »

And Cyprian lost out in the dispute.  Roll Eyes

The fact that the views of Pope Stephen I on the re-baptism of heretics (at what time I confess I do not remember, very soon or very much after the fact) came to be given much credence in the Church is really a red herring when it comes to my argument.  My point, one that you cannot deny, is that the entire African episcopate bitterly resented the pope's assumption that he had the right to unilaterally interfere in the affairs of the African Church.

The entire? Oh that's a bold claim


Pretty much the case.  You are splitting hairs.  The point is that your contention that no one in the early Western Church disputed Roman supremacy does not stand up under scrutiny.

The reason I question what you say is because from what I've read, the majority of the African Church sided with the Pope and had no objection to him. Only the few who sided with Cyprian and attended the synods connected with him opposed Pope St.Stephen. This is what I've read hence I said that a bold claim

Secondly I said roman claims were virtually unquestioned, not completely unquestioned. This is true if the west. I noticed in the past that whenever some are in,communion with Rome, they praise Rome with all the claims she makes about herself but as soon as these same people accept a position in opposition to Rome, all of a sudden Rome has no authority and is nothing special. How convenient  Smiley

First of all, to assert that something is "virtually" unquestioned is tantamount to saying that something is "almost not questioned at all," which, I think, based on the resentment shown by the prestigious African Church in just this one case, should be enough to convince anyone that your assertions are not correct.  Secondly, "virtually" all serious scholars ( if you will forgive the use of the term), of whichever confessional bias, are united in either implicit or explicit agreement that the concept of papal supremacy was not fully developed or even agreed upon in the West for many centuries.  Your assertions that it went "virtually unchallenged" in the West in the "early Church" are grossly misleading and erroneous simply based on this alone.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 02:12:46 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #162 on: October 19, 2013, 01:02:47 PM »

because whenevr i see the quote, the reference says its from his Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Look the quote says what it says. If it upsets you in any way, I'm sorry but until the quote can be disproven as authentic, it deserved the credibility applied to it.  ...

The original Greek text of the letter is gone. It doesn't exist anymore - or, what's more likely - never existed to begin with.

Alot of things from antiquity exist within a language not of the original. If this were the standard for authenticity, we would dismiss 90% of what we know of the ancient world. Even the bible itself as we don't have originals. Like the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. By your logic its more likely it never existed to begin with.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #163 on: October 19, 2013, 01:04:55 PM »

Alas just like the Tome of Leo, the letter to sergius can be read in an orthodox light. [...] I guess its how you read the documents

The letter abused St. Sophronius for fighting monothelitism. I don't know how one could possibly read something like that in an orthodox light.

Hence subsequent popes said Honorius was guilty of letting heresy spread, NOT of embracing heresy.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 01:05:27 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #164 on: October 19, 2013, 01:12:06 PM »

because whenevr i see the quote, the reference says its from his Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Look the quote says what it says. If it upsets you in any way, I'm sorry but until the quote can be disproven as authentic, it deserved the credibility applied to it.  ...

The original Greek text of the letter is gone. It doesn't exist anymore - or, what's more likely - never existed to begin with.

Alot of things from antiquity exist within a language not of the original. If this were the standard for authenticity, we would dismiss 90% of what we know of the ancient world. Even the bible itself as we don't have originals. Like the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. By your logic its more likely it never existed to begin with.

If a text from the Greek Fathers confirming papal supremacy exists only in a Latin "translation" (or forgery) I get a little suspicious. And no, as a classicist I can say that your post about languages from antiquity makes no sense whatsoever.

Alas just like the Tome of Leo, the letter to sergius can be read in an orthodox light. [...] I guess its how you read the documents

The letter abused St. Sophronius for fighting monothelitism. I don't know how one could possibly read something like that in an orthodox light.

Hence subsequent popes said Honorius was guilty of letting heresy spread, NOT of embracing heresy.

Then they're wrong, because the letter is unmistakably heretical. Even the Roman Catholic Bellarmine said as much.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 01:13:14 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #165 on: October 19, 2013, 05:53:14 PM »

because whenevr i see the quote, the reference says its from his Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Look the quote says what it says. If it upsets you in any way, I'm sorry but until the quote can be disproven as authentic, it deserved the credibility applied to it.  ...

The original Greek text of the letter is gone. It doesn't exist anymore - or, what's more likely - never existed to begin with.

Alot of things from antiquity exist within a language not of the original. If this were the standard for authenticity, we would dismiss 90% of what we know of the ancient world. Even the bible itself as we don't have originals. Like the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. By your logic its more likely it never existed to begin with.

If a text from the Greek Fathers confirming papal supremacy exists only in a Latin "translation" (or forgery) I get a little suspicious. And no, as a classicist I can say that your post about languages from antiquity makes no sense whatsoever.

Alas just like the Tome of Leo, the letter to sergius can be read in an orthodox light. [...] I guess its how you read the documents

The letter abused St. Sophronius for fighting monothelitism. I don't know how one could possibly read something like that in an orthodox light.

Hence subsequent popes said Honorius was guilty of letting heresy spread, NOT of embracing heresy.

Then they're wrong, because the letter is unmistakably heretical. Even the Roman Catholic Bellarmine said as much.

The fathers knew  better. Those popes probably knew people who knew honorius and in Rome honroius was said to be orthodox. even Pope Agatho said all popes of Rome have been orthodox, this included honorius

I haven't got time but here is a link. Read through it

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #166 on: October 19, 2013, 05:55:55 PM »

Perhaps they wanted to defend one of their own. That doesn't suddenly make the infamous letter to Patr. Sergius disappear.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #167 on: October 19, 2013, 05:58:25 PM »

The post about languages makes perfect sense.

if a thing is untrustworthy, probably a forgery or didn't exist at all,  simply because its extent in another language other than the original... Then with such logic, the gospel of Matthew , which was written in Hebrew according to tradition... Probably is a forgery and untrustworthy or probably was never written by Matthew to begin with all because what exists today is a Greek "copy" of the gospel of Matthew, not even in the original tongue.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #168 on: October 19, 2013, 05:59:38 PM »

Perhaps they wanted to defend one of their own. That doesn't suddenly make the infamous letter to Patr. Sergius disappear.


the ecumenical council that condemned Honorius agreed with all that Pope Agatho claimed. Read the link, its explained there. I have to run now Smiley
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #169 on: October 19, 2013, 06:02:45 PM »

then with such logic, the gospel of Matthew , which was written in Hebrew according to tradition... Probably is a forgery and untrustworthy or probably was never written by Matthew to begin with all because what exists today is a Greek "copy" of the gospel of Matthew, not even in the original tongue.

It's hardly part of big-t Tradition.

In either case, it is very suspicious that such an important passage isn't extant in the original language and isn't quoted in other Greek authors. That alone should be a big, red flag. Works have been branded spurious for less.