OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 01:25:24 AM *
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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Have a Laugh...  (Read 11224 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,530


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 05, 2003, 01:07:57 PM »

Orthodoc,

You are the only born Orthodox I’ve ever known who is so fixated on possessing the capitalized form of Catholic.

Quote
As long as you make statements like the above you will never fully comprehend what Orthodoxy is.

Whatever.

Quote
If I remember correctly, your present priest was an ex RC priest. [snipped]

Disclosing online what one thinks is personal info about one’s opponent is low-troll behavior. FWIW, the person you’re thinking of never was an RC priest.

Quote
Now, on to the title 'Papal Catholic'.

Insulting in about the same illiterate fashion as some racists who call people ‘black Negroes’. Redundant and stupid.

Quote
It never ceases to amaze me how people can come in here or elsewhere and make claims supporting allegiance or support to what they call 'the chair of Peter', the 'Supreme Pontiff',  'the 'Universal Bishop', the 'Vicar of Christ on Earth'
 

‘Chair of Peter’ appears in the writings of the Church Fathers (St Cyprian, for example). The others IIRC are postschism creations.
Logged

Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #46 on: February 05, 2003, 01:49:55 PM »

Serge<<IIRC>>

IIRC???  I noticed you used this elsewhere on this forum as well, Serge.  Some of us, myself included, have no idea what this stands for.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,530


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #47 on: February 05, 2003, 01:51:26 PM »

IIRC = If I remember correctly.
Logged

Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #48 on: February 05, 2003, 01:57:41 PM »

IIRC = If I remember correctly.

Thanks.  IIRC you also used this on the IC thread, so I thought the "RC" part in some way referred to RC's.   Grin

Hypo-Ortho

Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #49 on: February 06, 2003, 10:19:16 PM »

I don't care what term Orthodoc uses but what bugs me is when the terms start getting piled together, like "Eastern Rite Papal Catholic."  Remember, we agreed that Eastern Catholics are Eastern Catholics.  Or those with a predilection can call Roman Catholics "Papal Catholics".  I just think it makes more sense to refer to Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics and to Eastern Catholics as Eastern Catholics or Eastern-Rite Catholics.  Orthodox Christians I know here at St. Vlad's refer to themselves as "Orthodox Christians", "Orthodox", "Eastern Orthodox", "Greek Orthodox", "Russian Orthodox",  but never have I heard "Orthodox Cathoolic" used by someone here at St. Vlad's.  I respect Orthodoc's desire to use the term himself and don't have a problem with it but of course I'll still stand by the idea that it confuses people.  

Hey maybe we can all do an experiment where we'll make a survey that you can all print out online from our site in multiple copies, take it to your local parishes, which has two questions:

1. Which of the following best describes you:

a) Orthodox
b) Orthodox Christian
c) Eastern Orthodox
d) Greek/Russian Orthodox
e) Orthodox Catholic

2.  Which of the following best describes people who follow John Paul II, the Pope of Rome?

a) Catholic
b) Roman Catholic
c) Papal Catholic
d) Papist
e) Roman Catholic Religious Organization Member
f) heretic ;-) (just kidding)

In Christ,

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
sinjinsmythe
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 737



« Reply #50 on: February 06, 2003, 10:24:51 PM »

I don't care what term Orthodoc uses but what bugs me is when the terms start getting piled together, like "Eastern Rite Papal Catholic."  Remember, we agreed that Eastern Catholics are Eastern Catholics.  Or those with a predilection can call Roman Catholics "Papal Catholics".  I just think it makes more sense to refer to Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics and to Eastern Catholics as Eastern Catholics or Eastern-Rite Catholics.  Orthodox Christians I know here at St. Vlad's refer to themselves as "Orthodox Christians", "Orthodox", "Eastern Orthodox", "Greek Orthodox", "Russian Orthodox",  but never have I heard "Orthodox Cathoolic" used by someone here at St. Vlad's.  I respect Orthodoc's desire to use the term himself and don't have a problem with it but of course I'll still stand by the idea that it confuses people.  

Hey maybe we can all do an experiment where we'll make a survey that you can all print out online from our site in multiple copies, take it to your local parishes, which has two questions:

1. Which of the following best describes you:

a) Orthodox
b) Orthodox Christian
c) Eastern Orthodox
d) Greek/Russian Orthodox
e) Orthodox Catholic

2.  Which of the following best describes people who follow John Paul II, the Pope of Rome?

a) Catholic
b) Roman Catholic
c) Papal Catholic
d) Papist
e) Roman Catholic Religious Organization Member
f) heretic ;-) (just kidding)

In Christ,

anastasios

I am waiting for someone to come out some day and say, "I am a practicing Orthodox neo-pagan Celtic Druid."
Logged

Life is just one disappointment after another.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #51 on: February 07, 2003, 12:12:49 AM »

[Orthodox Christians I know here at St. Vlad's refer to themselves as "Orthodox Christians", "Orthodox", "Eastern Orthodox", "Greek Orthodox", "Russian Orthodox",  but never have I heard "Orthodox Cathoolic" used by someone here at St. Vlad's.  I respect Orthodoc's desire to use the term himself and don't have a problem with it but of course I'll still stand by the idea that it confuses people. ]

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/krehel_orthodox_catholic_faith.htm

Orthodoc

 
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
James the Just
Guest
« Reply #52 on: February 07, 2003, 01:54:06 AM »

Brother Orthodoc

Interesting article from I could see and will review it in more detail tomorrow. Some doors close, which lead to others opening.

Pokoj wejsc Chrystus,
james
Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #53 on: February 07, 2003, 04:05:43 AM »

Thinking about it, it seems to me that 'Roman Catholic' best describes the Byzantine church since they called themselves Romans and they were part of the 'Catholic' church. From the various articles I've read it seems that the church in Rome was assimilated by the Borg, er Franks and there is little, if anything 'Roman' about the papal church today.

Alas, language is dictated by popular usage and not necessarily by what is 'correct'. Even if we were to take Rome to court and prove that their use of the term 'catholic' was monopolistic, it would have about as much impact as the current series of court cases appears to be having on Microsoft.

While historically, the word 'catholic' is an adjective, I think most people using it today understand it as a noun, so it is actually a new word in its modern use. No wonder people get confused when you try and use it as an adjective.

My two cents,
John.
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #54 on: February 07, 2003, 10:14:19 AM »

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/krehel_orthodox_catholic_faith.htm

Great link, Orthodoc!  Good Orthodox reply to the RC dogma of the IC of Mary on the link too.  I'm saving it with my "Orthodox Sites" AOL favorites.  Thanks.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #55 on: February 07, 2003, 10:28:17 AM »

anastasios<<
1. Which of the following best describes you:

a) Orthodox
b) Orthodox Christian
c) Eastern Orthodox
d) Greek/Russian Orthodox
e) Orthodox Catholic>>

It depends on who's doing the asking.  If it's another Orthodox CHRISTIAN (not a Jew), I'll simply say "Orthodox."  Most often, I'll say "Orthodox Christian," especially when speaking with misinformed Protestants who might confuse me with a "Roman Catholic" if I said "Orthodox Catholic."  When I'm admitted to the hospital or am in the military, I had better say "Eastern Orthodox" if I want to see an Orthodox priest.  I NEVER say "Greek/Russian Orthodox" because I don't fit into these ethnic categories: I'm an American of Polish and Ukrainian descent.  Sometimes I do say "Orthodox Catholic" (and I know others who do so as well), especially when speaking to a Roman or Eastern Rite Catholic.  At any rate I DO feel that as an Orthodox Catholic Christian,  I belong to the ONE Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to which we refer and in which we profess our belief when we recite the unadulterated Symbol of Faith, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #56 on: February 07, 2003, 12:30:48 PM »

[It depends on who's doing the asking. ]

Good answer Hypo-Ortho.  In regards to this specific issue we think 100% alike.  It does depend upon WHO is asking.
Since in here we are having discussions with mostly people who recognize the ultimate authority of the Papal throne, be they western or eastern, I am and will continue to identitfy myself by what I am, an Orthodox Catholic.  And continue to shake my head in bewilderment  on how people can profess loyality, love, and devotion to the Papal throne and then get insulted when I refer to them as either Roman or Papal Catholics in order to profess my own Catholicity.  Well, what can  say.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #57 on: February 07, 2003, 02:35:18 PM »

Quote
Extremely interesting reading Orthodoc.  I personally like the term Orthodox Catholic which is not the same as Roman Catholic. But thats only my opinion. Cool

JoeS


<<http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/krehel_orthodox_catholic_faith.htm

Orthodoc

 

>>
Logged
dadof10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« Reply #58 on: March 09, 2003, 08:33:42 PM »

Orthodoc Wrote:
"Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matthew 16:18, et. al.) NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM applies these passages to the Roman bishops as Peter's successor. How many Fathers had busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess, Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Theodoric... has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Peter is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter."

I don't think that's true. Here are some quotes from the Fathers that at least drop a "faint hint", and two quotes from two Councils:

Firmilian

"But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

"[Pope] Stephen . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).


Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).


Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).


Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Just a side note. I don't think you would consider Damasus a "Father". If not, could you give me a rebuttal document from about the same time? Surely if the Church didn't hold this doctrine there would be at least a few rebuttals, this is pretty strong language.

 Jerome

"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Council of Chalcedon

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

What do you think of these quotes? Do you consider them accurate?

In Christ,
Mark







Logged

NULL
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,371



« Reply #59 on: March 09, 2003, 09:06:37 PM »

Quote
What do you think of these quotes?

I've heard it said that roughly 20% of the quotes dealing with that passage mention Peter in a way that could easily be understood in the Roman Catholic sense, and that another 20% could be read in a way that could--if approaching the text already convinced of RC arguments--be interpreted in support of Rome (this latter 20% usually say something to the effect that both Peter and his statement of faith were the rock being spoken of). The other 60% are, so it's said, not able to be interpreted in the typical modern RC way. I don't know about the accuracy of the percentages, but I'd say that's more or less reflective of the way I've seen it handled as I've read the Church Fathers.

The first 20%, some of which may or may not express the view held by modern RC's, isn't a problem for Orthodox Christians, as the majority of quotes do not support the typical Roman Catholic interpretation, and neither do the other evidences (historical, word usage, etc). But more importantly, the mind of the Church hasn't handed down this RC interpretation of the verse. Yes, there were Leo's and Gregory the Greats, and yes they are saints in the Church. That doesn't mean we accept everything they said as being infallible (a joke Wink ).

You could similarly pull quotes from the Church fathers where they list ONLY procreation as a reason for having sexual relations, and build your doctrine on that foundation. What individual fathers said, however, are not infallible, only the mind of the Fathers (the witness of the Church catholic) is infallible. Regarding councils, not everything said at councils is infallible, or indeed even binding on Orthodox Christians (though it's not up to each individual Orthodox Christian to make up his mind what is for him to follow and what isn't, and what is doctrinally correct and what isn't). Personally, I think a study of the fourth century Church offers ample proof that the position of Rome was not, for the rest of Christendom, all that Rome thought it to be.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2003, 11:04:16 PM by Paradosis » Logged

Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #60 on: March 10, 2003, 06:41:51 PM »

[I've heard it said that roughly 20% of the quotes dealing with that passage mention Peter in a way that could easily be understood in the Roman Catholic sense, and that another 20% could be read in a way that could--if approaching the text already convinced of RC arguments--be interpreted in support of Rome (this latter 20% usually say something to the effect that both Peter and his statement of faith were the rock being spoken of). The other 60% are, so it's said, not able to be interpreted in the typical modern RC way. I don't know about the accuracy of the percentages, but I'd say that's more or less reflective of the way I've seen it handled as I've read the Church Fathers.]


The following site  contains an Orthodox Debate and  Discourse  on Papal Primacy between and Orthodox Catholic and a Roman Catholic -


Actual Debate (with opening statements by both) -

http://www.gbronline.com/suaidenhouse/orthodoxcatholicdebate.html

Tome of Leo -

http://orthodox.truepath.com/articles/catholicism/ancientwritings/StLeo.htm

Catholic Nun on forged Roman Catholic Documents -

http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Forged.html


St Maximus the Confessor -

http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/maximos1.htm

Orthodoc

« Last Edit: March 10, 2003, 06:46:01 PM by Orthodoc » Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #61 on: March 10, 2003, 07:46:58 PM »

Hey how did you get to post?  Hmmm. We shut the board down today. It must have got jinxed.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,371



« Reply #62 on: March 11, 2003, 02:20:38 AM »

I thank you for the links. Smiley
« Last Edit: March 11, 2003, 02:58:28 AM by Paradosis » Logged

Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #63 on: March 11, 2003, 08:58:48 AM »

Well now that we're officially back online, I second Paradosis in giving thanks for the links!

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #64 on: March 11, 2003, 10:41:18 AM »

[Hey how did you get to post?  Hmmm. We shut the board down today. It must have got jinxed.

anastasios]

I don't know.  In the morning I tried to get in and couldn't.  Later in the day, after I composed the reply and thought I'd try just for the heck of it.  And was surprised that I was able to get in to submit my reply.  About five minutes after  submitting my reply I decided to check and see if it got posted.  Once again, I was unable to get on!

Divine Intervention perhaps?

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
dadof10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« Reply #65 on: March 11, 2003, 01:20:35 PM »

Paradosis,

"But more importantly, the mind of the Church hasn't handed down this RC interpretation of the verse."

Maybe not the Orthodox Church, but certainly the Catholic Church has. One of the two are wrong on this issue.

"What individual fathers said, however, are not infallible, only the mind of the Fathers (the witness of the Church catholic) is infallible."

I'm not saying these individual quotes should be taken as infallible, both our Churches believe things not defined infallibly, either by the Pope or Councils. I was responding to a statement by Orthodoc "Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matthew 16:18, et. al.) NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM applies these passages to the Roman bishops as Peter's successor."

Obviously some members of the early Church DID apply Matt. 16:18 to the Bishop of Rome, and if there were no rebuttals or retractions, and if these quotes are accurate, then we must conclude that the early Church did at least apply the quote to the Bishop of Rome, and look to Rome as an authority.

I'm only asking:
1) Are these quotes accurate?
2) Are there any quotes that say the opposite, or rebuke these authors for teaching "heresy"?

In Christ,
Mark


 

Logged

NULL
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #66 on: March 11, 2003, 01:45:41 PM »

[Obviously some members of the early Church DID apply Matt. 16:18 to the Bishop of Rome, and if there were no rebuttals or retractions, and if these quotes are accurate, then we must conclude that the early Church did at least apply the quote to the Bishop of Rome, and look to Rome as an authority.]

I think most of this is answered in the Orthodox side of the debate in the website I recommended -

Excerpt -



The Question of Matthew 16:18

The strongest argument in favor of Papal primacy outside of normative jurisdiction (that is, jurisdiction extending within the boundaries of the locality) is not supported by the canons of the Universal Church at all. It is supported by a particular reading of St Matthew’s Gospel, Chapter 16. Much noise is made concerning the ‘barque of Peter’ in the Roman Church and so any analysis of Papal primacy mustdeal with this text. The text reads (Douay-Rheims): " And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Without getting into a detailed analysis of the text itself, there is clearly a new assignment given to St Peter: he is given a new name. In all of the Apostolic lists, he is listed first. However, there is little to indicate that he has a power over and above the other apostles: the next verse, "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" indicates that a real change had occurred in Peter.

But-- the change is confirmed to be given to all the apostles by Our Lord Jesus Christ exactly two chapters later: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (Mt 18:18). The only difference is the mention of the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" in Mt 16:19, and while much has been written concerning the nature of the "keys" in question, there is little to no Patristic support for a clear super-apostolic quality given to St Peter. It goes without saying that a ‘universal’ jurisdiction given to the Bishop of Rome, if no parallel quality can be demonstrated in St Peter to begin with, equally lacks Patristic support. Of course, as will be demonstrated later, there is no certainty in the Fathers and Church canons that the only see in the undivided Church that could claim lineage from St Peter was that of Rome to begin with. This is not even to touch upon the varying interpretations of Mt 16:18 given by the Fathers: perhaps this can be touched upon later in the debate.

Another problematic usage is a bizarre interpretation of the repentance of St Peter in Jn 21. Unless called upon it, I maintain that the use of such a passage to defend Papal primacy has no real support in the Fathers of the Church, and will leave it at that. (see St John Chrysostom, Homilies on St John, Homily XXX, Schaff and Wace.)


+++++++

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
dadof10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« Reply #67 on: March 11, 2003, 02:25:18 PM »

Orthodoc,

"The following site  contains an Orthodox Debate and  Discourse  on Papal Primacy between and Orthodox Catholic and a Roman Catholic."

Thanks for the link. I'll read it and get back to you.

As far as the "Tome of Leo", I'm not familiar with the inner workings of the Council. For the sake of argument, throw out that quote and just deal with the rest.

I'm not sure how the "Catholic Nun on forged Roman Catholic Documents" site ties in. Are you saying the quotes I gave are included in the "False Decretals"? I didn't glean that from the website. The documents mentioned are not the ones I listed, nor did I list any quotes from "St Maximus the Confessor". Could you elaborate?  

To me, the most glowing example is this quote:

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Damasus is writing about himself and his office. It's pretty bold. Where are the denounciations?

If say...the Bishop of Antioch wrote along the same lines referring to himself, would there be an outcry?

In Christ,
Mark

 

Logged

NULL
dadof10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« Reply #68 on: March 11, 2003, 02:32:02 PM »

Orthodoc,

The "Exerpt" you give doesn't deal with the quotes I gave. I'll read the whole debate and get back to you.

The bottom line is:

If the Early Church held the Orthodox position on ecclesiology, wouldn't there be at least ONE rebuttal to these quotes?

In Christ,
Mark
Logged

NULL
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,371



« Reply #69 on: March 11, 2003, 02:55:01 PM »

I don't think the Eastern Church was much concerned with what Rome thought of itself in the early Church. As long as it didn't try to put into practice what it was claiming, the Eastern Church just kept on it's way, knowing that SOME Popes would come back to the orthodox view. Perhaps there should have been stronger early rebuttals of the Papal claims (before Photius, I mean), but there weren't, and who am I to say what they should have written? If you look at what happened in the fourth century, however, it's obvious that the Pope's power was limited to his own sphere.

As one example, the Eastern Church, at (what came to be known as) the Second Ecumenical Council, gave a place of high rank to Constantinople. Even at this very council this high rank was put into practice and submitted to be those present. They sent their Canons/Creed to Rome, and what was Rome's response? An utter revolt against the synod: the canons weren't accepted, and certainly not the one dealing with Constantinople being raised in power. And what was the Eastern response to Rome?

















<---  Yep, nothing. Whether they cared, I don't know, but they certainly didn't change their practice and fall in line with Rome's wishes. The canons (or at least the canon dealing with Constantinople) was observed in the east from that time forward... whether Rome liked it or not, and whether Rome accepted it or not. Again, perhaps they should have spoken more openly when some people made such claims... but then the same could be said for Alexandria. If you study what happened, the Church didn't make a move until some of the Patriarchs of Alexandria started actually majorly interfering with the functioning of another Church (ie. Constantinople). We find the same thing with Rome, IMO. It wasn't until the time of Photius, when the Pope started trying to assert some peceived power, that Eastern theologians felt it necessary to speak out against it.

And really, before that, so long as there was a strong emperor, the Roman Church didn't have strong influence in the East anyway. Justinian, for instance, summoned the pope to Constantinople, and essentially put him under house arrest for a half dozen years. Certainly the Pope of Rome wasn't able to be involved in tomfoolery during these times. The Eastern Church did use confusing language at times, saying that "Peter was the rock," and so forth. This, however, doesn't mean that Peter alone was the rock (actually, all Apostles are rocks according to Saint Paul), or that Peter was the only Rock--or even primary rock--spoken of in Matt. 16:18, as a study of the Fathers on this issue would show.

Your question seems to be "if it's wrong, why didn't they refute it?" and to that I can only answer that I don't know. Why do most Orthodox theologians today fail to refute the errors of Protestantism? Why do most western theologians fail to speak out against the usage of contraception? There are various reasons why they might have been silent; I personally think, again, that a lot of it had to do with the hope that Rome would get back on track on its own. As long as they weren't trying to over-step their canon-bestowed boundaries in actual practice, there was no need for concern. Until that time, the Church continued writing generalized ecclesiological texts, and "covered their father's [ie. Rome's) nakedness". They did not want to be the brother who uncovered their father's nakeness, and then went out and told everyone about the sin of their father (Rome .. and don't take this analogy too far Wink ), for such a son had not acted in charity, and therefore had gone astray.

Just some thoughts, take them for what they're worth. I remembering reading Whelton and guys like that before I became Orthodox (while I was still considering Catholicism), and I didn't find it to be very persuasive (polemics get in the way). Then I read guys like Jaroslav Pelikan, which is about as sympathetic to Catholicism as you can get without becoming Catholic, and again it wasn't persuasive. The truth seemed to be me to lie somewhere in the middle. Smiley

Justin

PS. Attached to the "father's nakedness" part, the ecclesiological texts written were, as a whole, rebuttals to Roman primacy. That there was none especially addressed to Rome is not particularly significant.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2003, 02:59:24 PM by Paradosis » Logged

Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #70 on: March 11, 2003, 03:10:47 PM »


Mark:

If you read the websites i recommended along with a previous post I wrote, I think I have been given enough rebuttal.  

When reading the early Church fathers one has to also look at the context in which things were written and what they are addressing.  Also the flowery way things were written in those days. Communications that were threatening were filled with flatering prose in they way they addressed one another..   Read the debate.

I can't think of any other rebuttal for the sites say it all.

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #71 on: March 11, 2003, 04:28:43 PM »

[Your question seems to be "if it's wrong, why didn't they refute it?" and to that I can only answer that I don't know.]

Probably because they didn't take the claims seriouly enough.  During much of the early period Rome was considered as backward or uneducated.  Don't forget the 'dark ages' were during that time period.  

Also, all the ecumenical councils and theology seems to have emanated from the east where the theology of the church was formulated.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
dadof10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« Reply #72 on: March 11, 2003, 08:39:47 PM »

Orthodoc,

O.K. Thanks. I'll read the debate.

In Christ,
mark
Logged

NULL
dadof10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« Reply #73 on: March 14, 2003, 01:25:14 PM »

Paradosis,

"It wasn't until the time of Photius, when the Pope started trying to assert some peceived power, that Eastern theologians felt it necessary to speak out against it."

Could you please elaborate? Maybe a link? Thanks.

"This, however, doesn't mean that Peter alone was the rock (actually, all Apostles are rocks according to Saint Paul), or that Peter was the only Rock--or even primary rock--spoken of in Matt. 16:18, as a study of the Fathers on this issue would show."

Are there other Bishops, maybe from the other four sees, who were referred to by the term "pope"? Are there quotes from the Fathers saying Matt. 16:18 refers to other Bishops?

"Your question seems to be "if it's wrong, why didn't they refute it?"

Exactly. They refuted other abuses, why not this one? Unless they believed it.

"Why do most Orthodox theologians today fail to refute the errors of Protestantism? Why do most western theologians fail to speak out against the usage of contraception?"

There are many documents that do attempt to refute these two abuses. Why are there no documents in opposition to "Papal Primacy"?

In Christ,
Mark









Logged

NULL
dadof10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« Reply #74 on: March 14, 2003, 01:28:44 PM »

Orthodoc,

I've been busy the past few days and have only read the first couple of entries. I'll try to get back with you by Monday.

In Christ,
Mark
Logged

NULL
dadof10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« Reply #75 on: March 16, 2003, 01:42:09 AM »

Orthodoc,

I've just read the debate (twice). I have many questions, maybe you can answer a few. Maybe others can answer some also.

1) You and Paradosis have both said you don't know why there were no "rebuttals" to "Papal supremacy" claims. When dealing with Protestants we both (RC and OC) put forth the Fathers as proof of what the early Church taught. Many of the documents are "Against such and such heresy or heretic". They were REFUTATIONS of heresy, the Fathers were very protective of Orthodoxy. My question is: Doesn't it bother you there were no refutations of claims of Papal supremacy?

2) The Debate didn't deal at all with the quote from Damasas:

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Do you consider it genuine and accurate?

3) In the Debate Jerry (the RC) posed this question to Joe (the OC):

"Jerry’s Question #3


St. Theodore the Studite wrote to Pope Leo III[795-816]:


...O arch-shepherd of the church... save us now... For if they, usurping an authority which does not belong to them, have dared to convene a heretical council, whereas those who follow ancient custom do not even have the right of convening an orthodox one without your knowledge, it seems absolutely necessary, we dare to say to you, that your divine primacy should call together a lawful council, so that the Catholic dogma may drive out heresy and that your primacy may neither be anathematized by these new voices lacking authority...

It is in order to obey your divine authority as chief pastor that we have set forth these things as it befitted our nothingness... [PG 99: 1017-21]

St. Theodore wrote to Pope Paschal[817-824]:


... O apostolic head, divinely established shepherd of Christ’s sheep, doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, rock of the faith on which the Catholic Church has been built. For you are Peter-- you are the successor of Peter, whose throne you grace and direct... To you did Christ our God say, "When you have been converted, strengthen your brethren." Now is the time and the place: help us, you who have been established by God for that purpose... [PG 99: 1152-3]

Do you agree that St. Theodore believed the authority of the Pope was a Divine Rite? If not, why?"

Here was Joe's answer:

"Answer #3
No. St Theodore’s request to Pope Leo III, who, by right of his being first in the episcopate and Orthodox confession, is entirely canonical, since nothing ever happens without the consent of the senior Bishop in a province, barring heresy. (No one disputes that the Pope of Rome was the First Hierarch in the Orthodox Church.) See Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles (referring to any Episcopal actions), Canon 6 of Nicea (referring to Episcopal elections), Canon 25 of the 4th Ecumenical Council (elections must be ratified by the Metropolitan), and Canons 9, 19, and 20 of Antioch. Note his words: whereas those who follow ancient custom do not even have the right of convening an orthodox one without your knowledge. This is in line with the canons spanning over centuries.

As for the second quote: I must note that St Theodore speaks, in many cases, symbolically: This can be demonstrated by noting that the Testament of St Theodore, written in 826 to the superiors of monasteries, also references Matthew 16:19. (See PG 99, col 1821):

22. You shall not take charge of the treasury room nor assume the cares of stewardship, but let your key be the greatest care of souls, of loosing and binding according to the Scriptures (cf. Matt.16:19). (Testament, St Theodore of Studios, translation of Timothy Miller, cit. http://www.doaks.org/typ009.pdf)

I certainly would not go so far as to say that St Theodore believed in a "Divine Right of Papal Primacy", though it is clear he relied on Orthodox Popes and had great respect for them. There’s no evidence, certainly not what’s presented here, to make a Primatial claim."

Do you agree with Joe? It sure seems to me St Theodore the Studite believed in the "divine primacy". Joe's answer wasn't very convincing, although it is the first quote I've seen where Matt.16:18 was used in conjunction with anyone or anything but the Bishop of Rome.

I have other questions, but these are the primary ones.

In Christ,

Mark
« Last Edit: March 16, 2003, 01:43:42 AM by dadof10 » Logged

NULL
dadof10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« Reply #76 on: March 18, 2003, 02:36:18 PM »

Anyone want to tackle the above post? I'm really not looking for a fight, just an honest discussion and answers.

In Christ,
Mark
Logged

NULL
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #77 on: March 18, 2003, 02:48:45 PM »

DadOfTen,

OrthoDoc has removed himself from this site due to disagreements with the Adminstrators on their attitudes towards Roman Catholicism.

Paradosis has just moved to a new city and has very limited time on the Internet -- thus has only had time for a few replies at the forum of the ROCORCafe.com. He also is trying to avoid the more conroversial threads during Great and Holy Lent.

Thus, you may not see replies from these two. Just though someone should let you know.

Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,371



« Reply #78 on: March 19, 2003, 11:32:02 AM »

Yes, though I have a computer, I don't have net access on it yet, and probably won't for some months, so I get very little time on the net (e.g., I have to steal a few minutes on my mother-in-law's computer to go to fora, and then I don't even usually read the threads, but save them to floppy so that I can read them at home on my own computer and compose a response if I think I should), and it's quite a hassel. I should be getting net access back about the same time we are just finishing up Pascha Wink I will try to get back to posting on this forum regularly then!
« Last Edit: March 19, 2003, 11:33:50 AM by Paradosis » Logged

dadof10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« Reply #79 on: March 20, 2003, 05:03:05 PM »

Nicholas and Paradosis,

Thanks for the update. Whenever you or others have the time I would love to discuss it. After Easter is fine.

In Christ,

Mark
Logged

NULL
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,371



« Reply #80 on: March 31, 2003, 02:25:27 PM »

*bump*

Just bumping it up so I don't forget Smiley
Logged

Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.127 seconds with 63 queries.