OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 03:38:34 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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Pope  (Read 12655 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #495 on: August 27, 2013, 07:36:12 PM »

Well that one's easy. I would think you guys would have understood it by now...for the Orthodox, we are the Catholic Church (and we didn't just start believing this in opposition to your invented doctrines and attempts to abscond with a perfectly good adjective; it is proclaimed outright in our ancient liturgies), which can I suppose for some leave a bit of a lexical gap to be filled. We are the Catholics, you are the...what then? Romans? Latins? As there are historically and currently Orthodox to be found throughout the Western and/or Latinate cultural world (e.g., the Romanians for the EO; the native French and British Orthodox Churches within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Western Europe for the OO; various converts and others in the Americas and Western Europe for both), neither of those are necessarily very satisfying, either. "Vatican" works because really only you guys have it. We have never claimed it, and you can safely assume we probably wouldn't want to. Wink

You know, I tried that approach when I first converted and was told I was wrong...by a lot of people.  We are Orthodox, they are Catholic (Roman, Eastern, Greek, etc.), but we are members in the Catholic Church.  That is how I was instructed to explain it.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #496 on: August 27, 2013, 07:37:04 PM »

BOOM!

and Isa throws fuel on the proverbial heretic-burning fire.
Hey, if it makes the Catholic Church look bad, Isa is all for it.
I always defend the the image of the Catholic Church.

Not my fault the Vatican creates its own image problems.  If "Pastor Aeternus"wants to be the measure of all things, he had better measure up.
Then why do you always call the Catholic Church, "The Vatican?"

Because the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople doesn't claim infallibility.  











What?  That wasn't the answer?  But its used all the time?  I thought it was a blanket response.
are you still hung up on that blanket and nursing mothers?
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
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #497 on: August 27, 2013, 07:38:52 PM »

BOOM!

and Isa throws fuel on the proverbial heretic-burning fire.
Hey, if it makes the Catholic Church look bad, Isa is all for it.
I always defend the the image of the Catholic Church.

Not my fault the Vatican creates its own image problems.  If "Pastor Aeternus"wants to be the measure of all things, he had better measure up.
Then why do you always call the Catholic Church, "The Vatican?"

Because the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople doesn't claim infallibility.  











What?  That wasn't the answer?  But its used all the time?  I thought it was a blanket response.
are you still hung up on that blanket and nursing mothers?
Um, what?  Nursing mothers...the Vatican...Roman Catholic Church?  Huh

Let me try. 

Coffee, cup, sniper rifle.

How did I do?
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #498 on: August 27, 2013, 07:43:25 PM »

You know, I tried that approach when I first converted and was told I was wrong...by a lot of people.  We are Orthodox, they are Catholic (Roman, Eastern, Greek, etc.), but we are members in the Catholic Church.  That is how I was instructed to explain it.

I would think that would get confusing, but then again I do live in New Mexico...

I find it better to point people to our liturgical texts wherein we use "Catholic" as it was originally used in the early Church which composed said texts. Rome's innovative self-understanding, after all, is the reason for any confusion regarding who is an is not Catholic. We are not confused. The Creed is not confusing. Smiley
Logged

Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #499 on: August 27, 2013, 07:47:55 PM »

You know, I tried that approach when I first converted and was told I was wrong...by a lot of people.  We are Orthodox, they are Catholic (Roman, Eastern, Greek, etc.), but we are members in the Catholic Church.  That is how I was instructed to explain it.

I would think that would get confusing, but then again I do live in New Mexico...

I find it better to point people to our liturgical texts wherein we use "Catholic" as it was originally used in the early Church which composed said texts. Rome's innovative self-understanding, after all, is the reason for any confusion regarding who is an is not Catholic. We are not confused. The Creed is not confusing. Smiley

Unfortunately, I am learning this is an abundance of confusion within the Orthodox Church, yet we are quick to call down someone else without correcting our own problems or clarifying our own confusions.  We leave much up to the individual to figure out and hope he or she makes the proper choice, but the problem is most people can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag.  It’s the same old story no matter where you go.
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #500 on: August 27, 2013, 07:51:00 PM »

Alright, then...cool... Undecided Huh
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #501 on: August 27, 2013, 08:08:17 PM »

Well that one's easy. I would think you guys would have understood it by now...for the Orthodox, we are the Catholic Church

Then wouldn't that make you "Eastern Catholics" (except the minute fraction of a percent of you who are Western-Rite)?

(and we didn't just start believing this in opposition to your invented doctrines and attempts to abscond with a perfectly good adjective; it is proclaimed outright in our ancient liturgies), which can I suppose for some leave a bit of a lexical gap to be filled. We are the Catholics, you are the...what then? Romans? Latins?

I prefer not to call myself "Roman". I think you guys would seize upon that as proof that I'm "not really Eastern".

As there are historically and currently Orthodox to be found throughout the Western and/or Latinate cultural world (e.g., the Romanians for the EO; the native French and British Orthodox Churches within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Western Europe for the OO; various converts and others in the Americas and Western Europe for both), neither of those are necessarily very satisfying, either. "Vatican" works because really only you guys have it. We have never claimed it, and you can safely assume we probably wouldn't want to. Wink

So "the Vatican" means everyone in full communion with the Vatican? (Maybe I should start referring to EOs as "the Phanar".  laugh)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #502 on: August 27, 2013, 08:10:28 PM »

Well that one's easy. I would think you guys would have understood it by now...for the Orthodox, we are the Catholic Church

Then wouldn't that make you "Eastern Catholics" (except the minute fraction of a percent of you who are Western-Rite)?

(and we didn't just start believing this in opposition to your invented doctrines and attempts to abscond with a perfectly good adjective; it is proclaimed outright in our ancient liturgies), which can I suppose for some leave a bit of a lexical gap to be filled. We are the Catholics, you are the...what then? Romans? Latins?

I prefer not to call myself "Roman". I think you guys would seize upon that as proof that I'm "not really Eastern".

As there are historically and currently Orthodox to be found throughout the Western and/or Latinate cultural world (e.g., the Romanians for the EO; the native French and British Orthodox Churches within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Western Europe for the OO; various converts and others in the Americas and Western Europe for both), neither of those are necessarily very satisfying, either. "Vatican" works because really only you guys have it. We have never claimed it, and you can safely assume we probably wouldn't want to. Wink

So "the Vatican" means everyone in full communion with the Vatican? (Maybe I should start referring to EOs as "the Phanar".  laugh)
They did that at the council of Ravenna, and it was rightly rejected as inaccurate.  The Vatican, on the other hand, up front defines "Catholic" as being in communion with its supreme pontiff.
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
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #503 on: August 27, 2013, 08:15:02 PM »

Well that one's easy. I would think you guys would have understood it by now...for the Orthodox, we are the Catholic Church

Then wouldn't that make you "Eastern Catholics" (except the minute fraction of a percent of you who are Western-Rite)?

Who is "us guys"? If we're using "Catholic" in its original adjectival sense (which we do), then this question is nonsensical. "Eastern" or "Western" don't matter when we're talking about the one faith that is believed throughout the whole Church.

Quote
(and we didn't just start believing this in opposition to your invented doctrines and attempts to abscond with a perfectly good adjective; it is proclaimed outright in our ancient liturgies), which can I suppose for some leave a bit of a lexical gap to be filled. We are the Catholics, you are the...what then? Romans? Latins?

I prefer not to call myself "Roman". I think you guys would seize upon that as proof that I'm "not really Eastern".

You and I have been over and over this "not really Eastern" idea that has been put in your head by someone, someplace. I'm sorry that it has stuck with you, because it's really bunk.

Quote
So "the Vatican" means everyone in full communion with the Vatican? (Maybe I should start referring to EOs as "the Phanar".  laugh)

Predictably, this does not matter to me, though it will probably not endear you to many others here.  Wink
Logged

JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,193


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


« Reply #504 on: August 27, 2013, 10:39:53 PM »

Well that one's easy. I would think you guys would have understood it by now...for the Orthodox, we are the Catholic Church

Then wouldn't that make you "Eastern Catholics" (except the minute fraction of a percent of you who are Western-Rite)?

(and we didn't just start believing this in opposition to your invented doctrines and attempts to abscond with a perfectly good adjective; it is proclaimed outright in our ancient liturgies), which can I suppose for some leave a bit of a lexical gap to be filled. We are the Catholics, you are the...what then? Romans? Latins?

I prefer not to call myself "Roman". I think you guys would seize upon that as proof that I'm "not really Eastern".

As there are historically and currently Orthodox to be found throughout the Western and/or Latinate cultural world (e.g., the Romanians for the EO; the native French and British Orthodox Churches within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Western Europe for the OO; various converts and others in the Americas and Western Europe for both), neither of those are necessarily very satisfying, either. "Vatican" works because really only you guys have it. We have never claimed it, and you can safely assume we probably wouldn't want to. Wink

So "the Vatican" means everyone in full communion with the Vatican? (Maybe I should start referring to EOs as "the Phanar".  laugh)

Funny thing happened on the way to the forum.....When the Western Roman empire fell there was still the Eastern ROMAN Empire that existed for another 1000 years, al beit worn down by the Crusades and the Ottomans. So, technically, we are also Roman in effect, Catholic in believe, and Orthodox in Faith.  Lets see if I have this right: Eastern Roman Orthodox Catholic Christians......naaa, too long but correct, but I'll settle for just Orthodox for now...... Roll Eyes Cool
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,937



« Reply #505 on: August 27, 2013, 11:41:32 PM »

EROCC.  I like it.  Grin
Logged

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #506 on: August 28, 2013, 06:24:31 AM »

Oh boy. Well I can't seewhy you do not understand while things are so simple. Your arguments fail and you counterarguments also fail. God loves you, why don't turn to Him?
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #507 on: August 28, 2013, 07:53:29 AM »

So "the Vatican" means everyone in full communion with the Vatican?

P.S. I recall a conversation with a fellow Catholic, who absolutely insisted that the Old Catholics are not in communion with the Anglicans. When asked to back that up, she replied: If they were in communion with the Anglicans, then they would be Anglicans!

Perhaps (I didn't ask) she would agree that everyone in full communion with the Vatican is "the Vatican".  Cool
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 1,207


Pray for me, a sinner


« Reply #508 on: August 28, 2013, 09:41:18 AM »

Well that one's easy. I would think you guys would have understood it by now...for the Orthodox, we are the Catholic Church (and we didn't just start believing this in opposition to your invented doctrines and attempts to abscond with a perfectly good adjective; it is proclaimed outright in our ancient liturgies), which can I suppose for some leave a bit of a lexical gap to be filled. We are the Catholics, you are the...what then? Romans? Latins? As there are historically and currently Orthodox to be found throughout the Western and/or Latinate cultural world (e.g., the Romanians for the EO; the native French and British Orthodox Churches within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Western Europe for the OO; various converts and others in the Americas and Western Europe for both), neither of those are necessarily very satisfying, either. "Vatican" works because really only you guys have it. We have never claimed it, and you can safely assume we probably wouldn't want to. Wink
Though we wouldn't mind having St. Peter's back  At least the grotto of St. Peter's tomb.  Not sure about the baroque structure erected above it.  Come to think of it, how symbolic!

Lol back? It was never yours to begin with Wink
Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #509 on: August 28, 2013, 10:17:26 AM »

Well that one's easy. I would think you guys would have understood it by now...for the Orthodox, we are the Catholic Church (and we didn't just start believing this in opposition to your invented doctrines and attempts to abscond with a perfectly good adjective; it is proclaimed outright in our ancient liturgies), which can I suppose for some leave a bit of a lexical gap to be filled. We are the Catholics, you are the...what then? Romans? Latins? As there are historically and currently Orthodox to be found throughout the Western and/or Latinate cultural world (e.g., the Romanians for the EO; the native French and British Orthodox Churches within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Western Europe for the OO; various converts and others in the Americas and Western Europe for both), neither of those are necessarily very satisfying, either. "Vatican" works because really only you guys have it. We have never claimed it, and you can safely assume we probably wouldn't want to. Wink
Though we wouldn't mind having St. Peter's back  At least the grotto of St. Peter's tomb.  Not sure about the baroque structure erected above it.  Come to think of it, how symbolic!

Lol back? It was never yours to begin with Wink
Quote
Major basilicas...are also called patriarchal basilicas, seemingly as representative of the great ecclesiastical provinces of the world thus symbolically united in the heart of Christendom.
Roll Eyes
Quote
St. John Lateran is the cathedral of the pope, the Patriarch of the West.
St. Peter's is assigned to the Patriarch of Constantinople
St. Paul's to the Patriarch of Alexandria,
St. Mary Major to the Patriarch of Antioch.
St. Lawrence-outside-the-Walls is also reckoned as a greater basilica because it is specially attributed to the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Of course, in addition to when the bishop sitting on the cathedra of St. John Lateran was among the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.
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: 1,207


Pray for me, a sinner


« Reply #510 on: August 28, 2013, 10:24:10 AM »

Well that one's easy. I would think you guys would have understood it by now...for the Orthodox, we are the Catholic Church (and we didn't just start believing this in opposition to your invented doctrines and attempts to abscond with a perfectly good adjective; it is proclaimed outright in our ancient liturgies), which can I suppose for some leave a bit of a lexical gap to be filled. We are the Catholics, you are the...what then? Romans? Latins? As there are historically and currently Orthodox to be found throughout the Western and/or Latinate cultural world (e.g., the Romanians for the EO; the native French and British Orthodox Churches within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Western Europe for the OO; various converts and others in the Americas and Western Europe for both), neither of those are necessarily very satisfying, either. "Vatican" works because really only you guys have it. We have never claimed it, and you can safely assume we probably wouldn't want to. Wink
Though we wouldn't mind having St. Peter's back  At least the grotto of St. Peter's tomb.  Not sure about the baroque structure erected above it.  Come to think of it, how symbolic!

Lol back? It was never yours to begin with Wink
Quote
Major basilicas...are also called patriarchal basilicas, seemingly as representative of the great ecclesiastical provinces of the world thus symbolically united in the heart of Christendom.
Roll Eyes
Quote
St. John Lateran is the cathedral of the pope, the Patriarch of the West.
St. Peter's is assigned to the Patriarch of Constantinople
St. Paul's to the Patriarch of Alexandria,
St. Mary Major to the Patriarch of Antioch.
St. Lawrence-outside-the-Walls is also reckoned as a greater basilica because it is specially attributed to the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Of course, in addition to when the bishop sitting on the cathedra of St. John Lateran was among the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.

Seems like you guys are guilty of the same thing

Prior to the schism St. Peter's Basilica was the Patriarch of Constantinople's designated church in Rome. Needless to say he lost access to it following the break. Likewise the Patriarch of Constantinople seized all of the Roman Churches in his city, and "byzantinized" them.

The Ecumenical Patriarch has no interest in claiming the present St. Peter's Basilica. The original St. Peter's Basilica, which was built by Constantine, fell apart due to neglect during the Avignon papacies. It eventually had to be leveled so that a new building could be erected. The current structure was completed in 1626 AD.

on top of that :

Quote
Patriarchal basilica refers to those churches at Rome ceremonially assigned to one of the Patriarchs It must be distinguished from the concept of a major basilica which is a canonical class of church which includes four of the five patriarchal basilicas (excluding St Lawrence's) but which has been more generally extended to include any of several churches in which the high altar is reserved to the Pope or his representative.

the "patriarchs" referred to in the title Patriarchal Basilicas were the Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs who lived as ornaments of the Papal Court and are now abolished, not the Eastern Patriarchs of those same cities. later, they came to be associated with the actual Eastern Patriarchs of the same cities, though confusion over the nature of their association with the churches and which of several the Eastern Catholic (or Orthodox) Patriarchs of the same city the title applied to, led Pope Benedict to re-designate the churches "papal basilicas" though the traditional associations with the Five Ancient Patriarchates remain.
http://romanchurches.wikia.com/wiki/Patriarchal_basilica

The EP never owned it, Rome did and always has but designates it to others. It was never yours.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 10:54:51 AM by Wandile » Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
Eurasian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #511 on: August 28, 2013, 10:28:34 AM »

Prior to the schism St. Peter's Basilica was the Patriarch of Constantinople's designated church in Rome. Needless to say he lost access to it following the break. Likewise the Patriarch of Constantinople seized all of the Roman Churches in his city, and "byzantinized" them.

Could someone provide some background information (or a link) about the pre-schism practice of patriarchal churches in Rome? And why were there Roman churches in Constantinople? Did the patriarchs also have churches in other patriarchal cities, such as Alexandria, or was it a specifically Roman custom?
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,536


« Reply #512 on: August 28, 2013, 10:31:19 AM »

Prior to the schism St. Peter's Basilica was the Patriarch of Constantinople's designated church in Rome. Needless to say he lost access to it following the break. Likewise the Patriarch of Constantinople seized all of the Roman Churches in his city, and "byzantinized" them.

Could someone provide some background information (or a link) about the pre-schism practice of patriarchal churches in Rome? And why were there Roman churches in Constantinople? Did the patriarchs also have churches in other patriarchal cities, such as Alexandria, or was it a specifically Roman custom?

Google: metochion
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #513 on: August 28, 2013, 10:38:57 AM »

And why were there Roman churches in Constantinople?

I don't know the full answer, but it's not surprising given how close Greece and Italy are.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Eurasian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #514 on: August 28, 2013, 10:57:05 AM »

Google: metochion

Thank you. Apologies for my ignorance.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #515 on: August 28, 2013, 11:09:21 AM »

Prior to the schism St. Peter's Basilica was the Patriarch of Constantinople's designated church in Rome. Needless to say he lost access to it following the break. Likewise the Patriarch of Constantinople seized all of the Roman Churches in his city, and "byzantinized" them.

Could someone provide some background information (or a link) about the pre-schism practice of patriarchal churches in Rome? And why were there Roman churches in Constantinople? Did the patriarchs also have churches in other patriarchal cities, such as Alexandria, or was it a specifically Roman custom?
They still do. They are called metochia.  Like much everything else, the Vatican has distorted the institution to conform to the innovation of Ultramontanism.

This is Alexandria's in the Patriarchate of Moscow
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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #516 on: August 28, 2013, 11:22:16 AM »

Well that one's easy. I would think you guys would have understood it by now...for the Orthodox, we are the Catholic Church (and we didn't just start believing this in opposition to your invented doctrines and attempts to abscond with a perfectly good adjective; it is proclaimed outright in our ancient liturgies), which can I suppose for some leave a bit of a lexical gap to be filled. We are the Catholics, you are the...what then? Romans? Latins? As there are historically and currently Orthodox to be found throughout the Western and/or Latinate cultural world (e.g., the Romanians for the EO; the native French and British Orthodox Churches within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Western Europe for the OO; various converts and others in the Americas and Western Europe for both), neither of those are necessarily very satisfying, either. "Vatican" works because really only you guys have it. We have never claimed it, and you can safely assume we probably wouldn't want to. Wink
Though we wouldn't mind having St. Peter's back  At least the grotto of St. Peter's tomb.  Not sure about the baroque structure erected above it.  Come to think of it, how symbolic!

Lol back? It was never yours to begin with Wink
Quote
Major basilicas...are also called patriarchal basilicas, seemingly as representative of the great ecclesiastical provinces of the world thus symbolically united in the heart of Christendom.
Roll Eyes
Quote
St. John Lateran is the cathedral of the pope, the Patriarch of the West.
St. Peter's is assigned to the Patriarch of Constantinople
St. Paul's to the Patriarch of Alexandria,
St. Mary Major to the Patriarch of Antioch.
St. Lawrence-outside-the-Walls is also reckoned as a greater basilica because it is specially attributed to the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Of course, in addition to when the bishop sitting on the cathedra of St. John Lateran was among the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.

Seems like you guys are guilty of the same thing

Prior to the schism St. Peter's Basilica was the Patriarch of Constantinople's designated church in Rome. Needless to say he lost access to it following the break. Likewise the Patriarch of Constantinople seized all of the Roman Churches in his city, and "byzantinized" them.
The EP didn't have to seize them: aside from metochia, they were his, as are all Churches in a bishop's diocese.

We may have overlapping jurisdictions, but it took the Vatican to turn that aberration into "normalcy."

The Ecumenical Patriarch has no interest in claiming the present St. Peter's Basilica. The original St. Peter's Basilica, which was built by Constantine, fell apart due to neglect during the Avignon papacies. It eventually had to be leveled so that a new building could be erected. The current structure was completed in 1626 AD.
Yes, I alluded to that in my original post.  Like the Vatican seizing the Cathedral of Lviv and destroying it, and building a baroque structure on top of it, also symbolic for the UGCC's mother church.

on top of that :

Quote
Patriarchal basilica refers to those churches at Rome ceremonially assigned to one of the Patriarchs It must be distinguished from the concept of a major basilica which is a canonical class of church which includes four of the five patriarchal basilicas (excluding St Lawrence's) but which has been more generally extended to include any of several churches in which the high altar is reserved to the Pope or his representative.

the "patriarchs" referred to in the title Patriarchal Basilicas were the Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs who lived as ornaments of the Papal Court and are now abolished, not the Eastern Patriarchs of those same cities. later, they came to be associated with the actual Eastern Patriarchs of the same cities, though confusion over the nature of their association with the churches and which of several the Eastern Catholic (or Orthodox) Patriarchs of the same city the title applied to, led Pope Benedict to re-designate the churches "papal basilicas" though the traditional associations with the Five Ancient Patriarchates remain.
http://romanchurches.wikia.com/wiki/Patriarchal_basilica

The EP never owned it, Rome did and always has but designates it to others. It was never yours.
since the Vatican claims every church throughout the world, why would St. Peter's be different.

It was seized when the pope of Rome adopted heresy and went into schism.  No different to what his Crusaders did in seizing churches, the source of those "Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs."
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 11:23:28 AM 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
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: 1,207


Pray for me, a sinner


« Reply #517 on: August 28, 2013, 11:31:14 AM »

Well that one's easy. I would think you guys would have understood it by now...for the Orthodox, we are the Catholic Church (and we didn't just start believing this in opposition to your invented doctrines and attempts to abscond with a perfectly good adjective; it is proclaimed outright in our ancient liturgies), which can I suppose for some leave a bit of a lexical gap to be filled. We are the Catholics, you are the...what then? Romans? Latins? As there are historically and currently Orthodox to be found throughout the Western and/or Latinate cultural world (e.g., the Romanians for the EO; the native French and British Orthodox Churches within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Western Europe for the OO; various converts and others in the Americas and Western Europe for both), neither of those are necessarily very satisfying, either. "Vatican" works because really only you guys have it. We have never claimed it, and you can safely assume we probably wouldn't want to. Wink
Though we wouldn't mind having St. Peter's back  At least the grotto of St. Peter's tomb.  Not sure about the baroque structure erected above it.  Come to think of it, how symbolic!

Lol back? It was never yours to begin with Wink
Quote
Major basilicas...are also called patriarchal basilicas, seemingly as representative of the great ecclesiastical provinces of the world thus symbolically united in the heart of Christendom.
Roll Eyes
Quote
St. John Lateran is the cathedral of the pope, the Patriarch of the West.
St. Peter's is assigned to the Patriarch of Constantinople
St. Paul's to the Patriarch of Alexandria,
St. Mary Major to the Patriarch of Antioch.
St. Lawrence-outside-the-Walls is also reckoned as a greater basilica because it is specially attributed to the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Of course, in addition to when the bishop sitting on the cathedra of St. John Lateran was among the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.

Seems like you guys are guilty of the same thing

Prior to the schism St. Peter's Basilica was the Patriarch of Constantinople's designated church in Rome. Needless to say he lost access to it following the break. Likewise the Patriarch of Constantinople seized all of the Roman Churches in his city, and "byzantinized" them.
The EP didn't have to seize them: aside from metochia, they were his, as are all Churches in a bishop's diocese.

We may have overlapping jurisdictions, but it took the Vatican to turn that aberration into "normalcy."

The Ecumenical Patriarch has no interest in claiming the present St. Peter's Basilica. The original St. Peter's Basilica, which was built by Constantine, fell apart due to neglect during the Avignon papacies. It eventually had to be leveled so that a new building could be erected. The current structure was completed in 1626 AD.
Yes, I alluded to that in my original post.  Like the Vatican seizing the Cathedral of Lviv and destroying it, and building a baroque structure on top of it, also symbolic for the UGCC's mother church.

on top of that :

Quote
Patriarchal basilica refers to those churches at Rome ceremonially assigned to one of the Patriarchs It must be distinguished from the concept of a major basilica which is a canonical class of church which includes four of the five patriarchal basilicas (excluding St Lawrence's) but which has been more generally extended to include any of several churches in which the high altar is reserved to the Pope or his representative.

the "patriarchs" referred to in the title Patriarchal Basilicas were the Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs who lived as ornaments of the Papal Court and are now abolished, not the Eastern Patriarchs of those same cities. later, they came to be associated with the actual Eastern Patriarchs of the same cities, though confusion over the nature of their association with the churches and which of several the Eastern Catholic (or Orthodox) Patriarchs of the same city the title applied to, led Pope Benedict to re-designate the churches "papal basilicas" though the traditional associations with the Five Ancient Patriarchates remain.
http://romanchurches.wikia.com/wiki/Patriarchal_basilica

The EP never owned it, Rome did and always has but designates it to others. It was never yours.
since the Vatican claims every church throughout the world, why would St. Peter's be different.

It was seized when the pope of Rome adopted heresy and went into schism.  No different to what his Crusaders did in seizing churches, the source of those "Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs."
Do you have a hard time with the concept of ownership?

LOL how can we seize what's ours? We OWN it. We designated it to you ceremonially, but still we OWNED it and still OWN it. We can do with it what we please. It was never yours   Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 11:33:09 AM by Wandile » Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #518 on: August 31, 2013, 10:31:29 PM »

Well that one's easy. I would think you guys would have understood it by now...for the Orthodox, we are the Catholic Church (and we didn't just start believing this in opposition to your invented doctrines and attempts to abscond with a perfectly good adjective; it is proclaimed outright in our ancient liturgies), which can I suppose for some leave a bit of a lexical gap to be filled. We are the Catholics, you are the...what then? Romans? Latins? As there are historically and currently Orthodox to be found throughout the Western and/or Latinate cultural world (e.g., the Romanians for the EO; the native French and British Orthodox Churches within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Western Europe for the OO; various converts and others in the Americas and Western Europe for both), neither of those are necessarily very satisfying, either. "Vatican" works because really only you guys have it. We have never claimed it, and you can safely assume we probably wouldn't want to. Wink
Though we wouldn't mind having St. Peter's back  At least the grotto of St. Peter's tomb.  Not sure about the baroque structure erected above it.  Come to think of it, how symbolic!

Lol back? It was never yours to begin with Wink
Quote
Major basilicas...are also called patriarchal basilicas, seemingly as representative of the great ecclesiastical provinces of the world thus symbolically united in the heart of Christendom.
Roll Eyes
Quote
St. John Lateran is the cathedral of the pope, the Patriarch of the West.
St. Peter's is assigned to the Patriarch of Constantinople
St. Paul's to the Patriarch of Alexandria,
St. Mary Major to the Patriarch of Antioch.
St. Lawrence-outside-the-Walls is also reckoned as a greater basilica because it is specially attributed to the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Of course, in addition to when the bishop sitting on the cathedra of St. John Lateran was among the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.

Seems like you guys are guilty of the same thing

Prior to the schism St. Peter's Basilica was the Patriarch of Constantinople's designated church in Rome. Needless to say he lost access to it following the break. Likewise the Patriarch of Constantinople seized all of the Roman Churches in his city, and "byzantinized" them.
The EP didn't have to seize them: aside from metochia, they were his, as are all Churches in a bishop's diocese.

We may have overlapping jurisdictions, but it took the Vatican to turn that aberration into "normalcy."

The Ecumenical Patriarch has no interest in claiming the present St. Peter's Basilica. The original St. Peter's Basilica, which was built by Constantine, fell apart due to neglect during the Avignon papacies. It eventually had to be leveled so that a new building could be erected. The current structure was completed in 1626 AD.
Yes, I alluded to that in my original post.  Like the Vatican seizing the Cathedral of Lviv and destroying it, and building a baroque structure on top of it, also symbolic for the UGCC's mother church.

on top of that :

Quote
Patriarchal basilica refers to those churches at Rome ceremonially assigned to one of the Patriarchs It must be distinguished from the concept of a major basilica which is a canonical class of church which includes four of the five patriarchal basilicas (excluding St Lawrence's) but which has been more generally extended to include any of several churches in which the high altar is reserved to the Pope or his representative.

the "patriarchs" referred to in the title Patriarchal Basilicas were the Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs who lived as ornaments of the Papal Court and are now abolished, not the Eastern Patriarchs of those same cities. later, they came to be associated with the actual Eastern Patriarchs of the same cities, though confusion over the nature of their association with the churches and which of several the Eastern Catholic (or Orthodox) Patriarchs of the same city the title applied to, led Pope Benedict to re-designate the churches "papal basilicas" though the traditional associations with the Five Ancient Patriarchates remain.
http://romanchurches.wikia.com/wiki/Patriarchal_basilica

The EP never owned it, Rome did and always has but designates it to others. It was never yours.
since the Vatican claims every church throughout the world, why would St. Peter's be different.

It was seized when the pope of Rome adopted heresy and went into schism.  No different to what his Crusaders did in seizing churches, the source of those "Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs."
Do you have a hard time with the concept of ownership?
No, I have a hard time with usurpation. Do you?
LOL how can we seize what's ours? We OWN it. We designated it to you ceremonially, but still we OWNED it and still OWN it. We can do with it what we please. It was never yours   Roll Eyes
Not the baroque structure, like I said.  Just the site-and the Orthodox Temple erected for Orthodox service that you tore down.
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
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #519 on: August 31, 2013, 10:35:55 PM »

I saw a Catholic that explained it this way.. and I'm sure the Orthodox on here will disagree.   I don't know if he's right or not, but he seemed to make sense:

"As far as I can tell, the distinction that the modern Orthodox make between "primacy" and "supremacy" did not exist as such in the early Church. Words and concepts change meaning over time. The Early Church Fathers would not have needed to make a distinction, as the meaning was already understood.

For example, the word "man" in the sense that it was used to speak of humanity in a general sense, but over time acquired a more restricted meaning. Now, we say "humanity" instead, and use "man" mostly as a synonym for "male".

My best guess is that for the Early Church Fathers, elaborating on primacy was unnecessary. It would be like a scientist elaborating on why mathematics is useful to prove a theory. It is assumed that mathematics can be used as a method of proof. The scientist could explain it, but it would be superfluous."

Similarly to how a lot were silent on the Trinity, until Arius and others started attacking the divinity of Christ.  Why can we not place the Papal claims in the same understanding?
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #520 on: August 31, 2013, 11:04:43 PM »

I saw a Catholic that explained it this way.. and I'm sure the Orthodox on here will disagree.   I don't know if he's right or not, but he seemed to make sense:

"As far as I can tell, the distinction that the modern Orthodox make between "primacy" and "supremacy" did not exist as such in the early Church. Words and concepts change meaning over time. The Early Church Fathers would not have needed to make a distinction, as the meaning was already understood.

For example, the word "man" in the sense that it was used to speak of humanity in a general sense, but over time acquired a more restricted meaning. Now, we say "humanity" instead, and use "man" mostly as a synonym for "male".

My best guess is that for the Early Church Fathers, elaborating on primacy was unnecessary. It would be like a scientist elaborating on why mathematics is useful to prove a theory. It is assumed that mathematics can be used as a method of proof. The scientist could explain it, but it would be superfluous."

Similarly to how a lot were silent on the Trinity, until Arius and others started attacking the divinity of Christ.  Why can we not place the Papal claims in the same understanding?
Because the record indicates otherwise.  Whenever the bishop of Rome tried to exercise a supremacy, he was rebuked by the Church. No such action took place when he exercised primacy.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2013, 11:05:27 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
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #521 on: August 31, 2013, 11:06:46 PM »

I saw a Catholic that explained it this way.. and I'm sure the Orthodox on here will disagree.   I don't know if he's right or not, but he seemed to make sense:

"As far as I can tell, the distinction that the modern Orthodox make between "primacy" and "supremacy" did not exist as such in the early Church. Words and concepts change meaning over time. The Early Church Fathers would not have needed to make a distinction, as the meaning was already understood.

For example, the word "man" in the sense that it was used to speak of humanity in a general sense, but over time acquired a more restricted meaning. Now, we say "humanity" instead, and use "man" mostly as a synonym for "male".

My best guess is that for the Early Church Fathers, elaborating on primacy was unnecessary. It would be like a scientist elaborating on why mathematics is useful to prove a theory. It is assumed that mathematics can be used as a method of proof. The scientist could explain it, but it would be superfluous."

Similarly to how a lot were silent on the Trinity, until Arius and others started attacking the divinity of Christ.  Why can we not place the Papal claims in the same understanding?

Good question.  Even before the Scriptures were canonized, even before the Creed was finalized, the claims were made.

Quote
In the 2nd century (AD 189), the assertion of the primacy of the Church of Rome may be indicated in St. Irenaeus of Lyon's Against Heresies (3:3:2): "With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree... and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."

Quote
This passage in Irenaeus [from Against Heresies 3:4:1] illuminates the meaning of his remarks about the Church of Rome: if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches. Rome's vocation [in the pre-Nicene period] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition -- that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine -- and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome...—Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff, The Primacy of Peter (c. 1992)[10]

Quote
The first bishop to claim primacy in writing was Pope Stephen I (254-257). The timing of the claim is significant, for it was made during the worst of the tumults of the 3rd century. There were several persecutions during this century, and they hit the Church of Rome hard.

Quote
Pope Damasus I (366-384) was first to claim that Rome's primacy rested solely on Peter, and was the first pope recorded to have referred to the Roman church as "the Apostolic See". The prestige of the city itself was no longer sufficient; but in the doctrine of apostolic succession the popes had an unassailable position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_development_of_the_doctrine_of_papal_primacy

Quote
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies, 3, 3:2 – 189 AD)

http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/cf4h.htm
« Last Edit: August 31, 2013, 11:09:09 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #522 on: August 31, 2013, 11:57:45 PM »

I saw a Catholic that explained it this way.. and I'm sure the Orthodox on here will disagree.   I don't know if he's right or not, but he seemed to make sense:

"As far as I can tell, the distinction that the modern Orthodox make between "primacy" and "supremacy" did not exist as such in the early Church. Words and concepts change meaning over time. The Early Church Fathers would not have needed to make a distinction, as the meaning was already understood.

For example, the word "man" in the sense that it was used to speak of humanity in a general sense, but over time acquired a more restricted meaning. Now, we say "humanity" instead, and use "man" mostly as a synonym for "male".

My best guess is that for the Early Church Fathers, elaborating on primacy was unnecessary. It would be like a scientist elaborating on why mathematics is useful to prove a theory. It is assumed that mathematics can be used as a method of proof. The scientist could explain it, but it would be superfluous."

Similarly to how a lot were silent on the Trinity, until Arius and others started attacking the divinity of Christ.  Why can we not place the Papal claims in the same understanding?
Because the record indicates otherwise.  Whenever the bishop of Rome tried to exercise a supremacy, he was rebuked by the Church. No such action took place when he exercised primacy.

From all of the Catholics I've talked to,  they can't understand the difference between primacy and supremacy..  to them it's the same thing.  When Orthodox speak of acknowledging one without the other, confusion erupts..

Were these historical Popes who tried to "exercise a supremacy", acting within a Vatican-2 Framework...    like  JP II, Benedict XVI, or Francis..?  Or were they literally "throwing their weight around", instead of acting as spiritual Father to the Latins and a brother to the Eastern churches?  "A Servant of the servants of God." 

God knows there have been some horrible Bishops of every stripe within Christendom...
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #523 on: September 01, 2013, 02:45:50 AM »

I saw a Catholic that explained it this way.. and I'm sure the Orthodox on here will disagree.   I don't know if he's right or not, but he seemed to make sense:

"As far as I can tell, the distinction that the modern Orthodox make between "primacy" and "supremacy" did not exist as such in the early Church. Words and concepts change meaning over time. The Early Church Fathers would not have needed to make a distinction, as the meaning was already understood.

For example, the word "man" in the sense that it was used to speak of humanity in a general sense, but over time acquired a more restricted meaning. Now, we say "humanity" instead, and use "man" mostly as a synonym for "male".

My best guess is that for the Early Church Fathers, elaborating on primacy was unnecessary. It would be like a scientist elaborating on why mathematics is useful to prove a theory. It is assumed that mathematics can be used as a method of proof. The scientist could explain it, but it would be superfluous."

Similarly to how a lot were silent on the Trinity, until Arius and others started attacking the divinity of Christ.  Why can we not place the Papal claims in the same understanding?
Because the record indicates otherwise.  Whenever the bishop of Rome tried to exercise a supremacy, he was rebuked by the Church. No such action took place when he exercised primacy.

From all of the Catholics I've talked to,  they can't understand the difference between primacy and supremacy..  to them it's the same thing.  When Orthodox speak of acknowledging one without the other, confusion erupts...
We are not the ones confused.
Were these historical Popes who tried to "exercise a supremacy", acting within a Vatican-2 Framework...    like  JP II, Benedict XVI, or Francis..?  Or were they literally "throwing their weight around", instead of acting as spiritual Father to the Latins and a brother to the Eastern churches?  "A Servant of the servants of God." 

God knows there have been some horrible Bishops of every stripe within Christendom...
The Ultramontanists, for instance, will say Bp. St. Victor acted as spiritual Father.  The rest of the Church condemned him for throwing his weight around.
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: 1,207


Pray for me, a sinner


« Reply #524 on: September 01, 2013, 03:13:02 AM »

Well that one's easy. I would think you guys would have understood it by now...for the Orthodox, we are the Catholic Church (and we didn't just start believing this in opposition to your invented doctrines and attempts to abscond with a perfectly good adjective; it is proclaimed outright in our ancient liturgies), which can I suppose for some leave a bit of a lexical gap to be filled. We are the Catholics, you are the...what then? Romans? Latins? As there are historically and currently Orthodox to be found throughout the Western and/or Latinate cultural world (e.g., the Romanians for the EO; the native French and British Orthodox Churches within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Western Europe for the OO; various converts and others in the Americas and Western Europe for both), neither of those are necessarily very satisfying, either. "Vatican" works because really only you guys have it. We have never claimed it, and you can safely assume we probably wouldn't want to. Wink
Though we wouldn't mind having St. Peter's back  At least the grotto of St. Peter's tomb.  Not sure about the baroque structure erected above it.  Come to think of it, how symbolic!

Lol back? It was never yours to begin with Wink
Quote
Major basilicas...are also called patriarchal basilicas, seemingly as representative of the great ecclesiastical provinces of the world thus symbolically united in the heart of Christendom.
Roll Eyes
Quote
St. John Lateran is the cathedral of the pope, the Patriarch of the West.
St. Peter's is assigned to the Patriarch of Constantinople
St. Paul's to the Patriarch of Alexandria,
St. Mary Major to the Patriarch of Antioch.
St. Lawrence-outside-the-Walls is also reckoned as a greater basilica because it is specially attributed to the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Of course, in addition to when the bishop sitting on the cathedra of St. John Lateran was among the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.

Seems like you guys are guilty of the same thing

Prior to the schism St. Peter's Basilica was the Patriarch of Constantinople's designated church in Rome. Needless to say he lost access to it following the break. Likewise the Patriarch of Constantinople seized all of the Roman Churches in his city, and "byzantinized" them.
The EP didn't have to seize them: aside from metochia, they were his, as are all Churches in a bishop's diocese.

We may have overlapping jurisdictions, but it took the Vatican to turn that aberration into "normalcy."

The Ecumenical Patriarch has no interest in claiming the present St. Peter's Basilica. The original St. Peter's Basilica, which was built by Constantine, fell apart due to neglect during the Avignon papacies. It eventually had to be leveled so that a new building could be erected. The current structure was completed in 1626 AD.
Yes, I alluded to that in my original post.  Like the Vatican seizing the Cathedral of Lviv and destroying it, and building a baroque structure on top of it, also symbolic for the UGCC's mother church.

on top of that :

Quote
Patriarchal basilica refers to those churches at Rome ceremonially assigned to one of the Patriarchs It must be distinguished from the concept of a major basilica which is a canonical class of church which includes four of the five patriarchal basilicas (excluding St Lawrence's) but which has been more generally extended to include any of several churches in which the high altar is reserved to the Pope or his representative.

the "patriarchs" referred to in the title Patriarchal Basilicas were the Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs who lived as ornaments of the Papal Court and are now abolished, not the Eastern Patriarchs of those same cities. later, they came to be associated with the actual Eastern Patriarchs of the same cities, though confusion over the nature of their association with the churches and which of several the Eastern Catholic (or Orthodox) Patriarchs of the same city the title applied to, led Pope Benedict to re-designate the churches "papal basilicas" though the traditional associations with the Five Ancient Patriarchates remain.
http://romanchurches.wikia.com/wiki/Patriarchal_basilica

The EP never owned it, Rome did and always has but designates it to others. It was never yours.
since the Vatican claims every church throughout the world, why would St. Peter's be different.

It was seized when the pope of Rome adopted heresy and went into schism.  No different to what his Crusaders did in seizing churches, the source of those "Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs."
Do you have a hard time with the concept of ownership?
No, I have a hard time with usurpation.
LOL so that answers my question Roll Eyes

LOL how can we seize what's ours? We OWN it. We designated it to you ceremonially, but still we OWNED it and still OWN it. We can do with it what we please. It was never yours   Roll Eyes
Not the baroque structure, like I said.  Just the site-and the Orthodox Temple erected for Orthodox service that you tore down.

As was said in another thread, a lot of people see through you and your posts

None of it was yours. You never owned any of it. It was designated to you ceremonially
 just like the other cathedrals to other patriarchs. Buts I've already come to terms that when Isa is wrong, reasoning goes out the window and his "anti-Catholicism ... Oh wait... He can't even say the word catholic in reference us... I mean Anti-Vatican mode" kicks in and just starts throwing all kinds of wild accusations and assertion

I've provided ample evidence that it was not owned by you. The viewers of this thread can decide for themselves.

So for the benefit of you sleeping with a calm mind at night, you are free to believe what you just wrote  Wink
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 03:20:56 AM by Wandile » Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
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: 1,207


Pray for me, a sinner


« Reply #525 on: September 01, 2013, 03:25:16 AM »

I saw a Catholic that explained it this way.. and I'm sure the Orthodox on here will disagree.   I don't know if he's right or not, but he seemed to make sense:

"As far as I can tell, the distinction that the modern Orthodox make between "primacy" and "supremacy" did not exist as such in the early Church. Words and concepts change meaning over time. The Early Church Fathers would not have needed to make a distinction, as the meaning was already understood.

For example, the word "man" in the sense that it was used to speak of humanity in a general sense, but over time acquired a more restricted meaning. Now, we say "humanity" instead, and use "man" mostly as a synonym for "male".

My best guess is that for the Early Church Fathers, elaborating on primacy was unnecessary. It would be like a scientist elaborating on why mathematics is useful to prove a theory. It is assumed that mathematics can be used as a method of proof. The scientist could explain it, but it would be superfluous."

Similarly to how a lot were silent on the Trinity, until Arius and others started attacking the divinity of Christ.  Why can we not place the Papal claims in the same understanding?
Because the record indicates otherwise.  Whenever the bishop of Rome tried to exercise a supremacy, he was rebuked by the Church. No such action took place when he exercised primacy.
That's a lie

LOL how about the issue between St Cyprian and the Pope of the time? Who won out?

The east sometimes didn't listen. True. Even some bishops today don't listen. What does that prove? Disobedience. What was explained surely makes sense but as orthodox you have to disagree.
Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,033


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #526 on: September 01, 2013, 06:05:45 AM »

Because the record indicates otherwise.  Whenever the bishop of Rome tried to exercise a supremacy, he was rebuked by the Church. No such action took place when he exercised primacy.
That's a lie

"Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenæus..."
-Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History V.24:9

LOL how about the issue between St Cyprian and the Pope of the time? Who won out?

St. Cyprian.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 06:16:01 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
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: 1,207


Pray for me, a sinner


« Reply #527 on: September 01, 2013, 06:20:44 AM »

LOL how about the issue between St Cyprian and the Pope of the time? Who won out?

St. Cyprian.

That's incorrect history lol

Most of the African churched accepted the decision of Pope Stephen that the heretics were validly bapstised and do not need a second baptism

it is noteworthy that the church--and eventually most of the African Church as well--did accept Pope Stephen's position. St. Cyprian (who was sometimes called the "African Pope" due to his considerable influence) was a strong opponent of the idea of valid heretic Baptism - he would not even use the word "Baptism" in this context (he referred to those who were "made wet by heretics.

St Cyprian lost
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 06:22:37 AM by Wandile » Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
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: 1,207


Pray for me, a sinner


« Reply #528 on: September 01, 2013, 06:30:24 AM »

Because the record indicates otherwise.  Whenever the bishop of Rome tried to exercise a supremacy, he was rebuked by the Church. No such action took place when he exercised primacy.
That's a lie

"Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenæus..."
-Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History V.24:9

We have a few instances of this. Isa said "whenever" and the case of St Cyprian proved contrary to this amongst other cases
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 06:31:27 AM by Wandile » Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,033


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #529 on: September 01, 2013, 07:19:54 AM »

LOL how about the issue between St Cyprian and the Pope of the time? Who won out?

St. Cyprian.

That's incorrect history lol

Most of the African churched accepted the decision of Pope Stephen that the heretics were validly bapstised and do not need a second baptism

it is noteworthy that the church--and eventually most of the African Church as well--did accept Pope Stephen's position. St. Cyprian (who was sometimes called the "African Pope" due to his considerable influence) was a strong opponent of the idea of valid heretic Baptism - he would not even use the word "Baptism" in this context (he referred to those who were "made wet by heretics.

St Cyprian lost

No. The baptism of heretics isn't valid. Pope Victor lost.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 07:20:33 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #530 on: September 01, 2013, 08:03:05 AM »

Yes they rebuked Victor questioning his decision.  It cannot be said they questioned his authority however via his apostolic office.  Christianity meanwhile goes on to produce its greatest saints and the Roman church still affirms one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism as long as its in a Trinitarian fashion and not heretical even if by only a single immersion or sprinkling....
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #531 on: September 01, 2013, 08:28:53 AM »

I must be honest here about two things. 

First, if it were not for this and one other thread I would have never started research in the way I am now engaged.  Like I said, when you argue against something one should at least have a basic understanding of the thing you deny, which apparently some here do not.

Second, the more I research the more I am actually finding in favor of Rome.  As you can imagine, this is somewhat shocking and disturbing at the same time.  I'm really not sure how I should feel about this right now.  I don't want to make a rushed decision so I will keep researching, but like I said, the inadequate arguments here cause people to wonder and they either choose not to care or do research.  Keep this in mind.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #532 on: September 01, 2013, 08:33:20 AM »

Were these historical Popes who tried to "exercise a supremacy", acting within a Vatican-2 Framework...    like  JP II, Benedict XVI, or Francis..?  Or were they literally "throwing their weight around", instead of acting as spiritual Father to the Latins and a brother to the Eastern churches?  "A Servant of the servants of God." 

You're thinking of Thomas Aquinas.

 Smiley

Returning to silent mode ...
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 1,207


Pray for me, a sinner


« Reply #533 on: September 01, 2013, 08:34:42 AM »

LOL how about the issue between St Cyprian and the Pope of the time? Who won out?

St. Cyprian.

That's incorrect history lol

Most of the African churched accepted the decision of Pope Stephen that the heretics were validly bapstised and do not need a second baptism

it is noteworthy that the church--and eventually most of the African Church as well--did accept Pope Stephen's position. St. Cyprian (who was sometimes called the "African Pope" due to his considerable influence) was a strong opponent of the idea of valid heretic Baptism - he would not even use the word "Baptism" in this context (he referred to those who were "made wet by heretics.

St Cyprian lost

No. The baptism of heretics isn't valid. Pope Victor lost.

Pope Stephen you mean, and NO Stephen won. This is a historical fact that is indisputable. Historians both orthodox and catholic and even secular acknowledge this. Research for yourself

Your account of the dispute between Pope Stephen and St Cyprian is ahistorical. What Pope Stephen taught was that with the right baptismal formula taught in the bible, their baptism was valid. Most of the church especially the African Church, after a few years of continued dispute, accepted Stephens teaching and there is no evidence of St Cyprian ever bringing up this issue again after the dispute.

Its very easy to revise history to make peace with a wrong position Wink
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 08:41:42 AM by Wandile » Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #534 on: September 01, 2013, 09:32:39 AM »

Do you have a hard time with the concept of ownership?
No, I have a hard time with usurpation.
LOL so that answers my question Roll Eyes
LOL how can we seize what's ours? We OWN it. We designated it to you ceremonially, but still we OWNED it and still OWN it. We can do with it what we please. It was never yours   Roll Eyes
Not the baroque structure, like I said.  Just the site-and the Orthodox Temple erected for Orthodox service that you tore down.
As was said in another thread, a lot of people see through you and your posts
Since I post up front and crystal clear-unlike your "magisterium"-people should see.

None of it was yours. You never owned any of it. It was designated to you ceremonially
It was maintained by Orthodox Christians as an Orthodox shrine, over which the patron and sponsor of the Orthodox built a Basilica for Orthodox worship.

just like the other cathedrals to other patriarchs.
Not the ones ceremoniously removed from the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.

Buts I've already come to terms that when Isa is wrong, reasoning goes out the window and his "anti-Catholicism ... Oh wait... He can't even say the word catholic in reference us... I mean Anti-Vatican mode" kicks in and just starts throwing all kinds of wild accusations and assertion
We can see through you too:

I've provided ample evidence that it was not owned by you. The viewers of this thread can decide for themselves.
That they can.  At least, those who can distinguish between assertion and evidence.
So for the benefit of you sleeping with a calm mind at night, you are free to believe what you just wrote  Wink
You're sleeping? Explains a lot.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 09:35:06 AM 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #535 on: September 01, 2013, 09:40:38 AM »

Yes they rebuked Victor questioning his decision.  It cannot be said they questioned his authority however via his apostolic office.

Ah, the Jesuitry of the Vatican, where the rebuke of a presumed authority constitutes an affirmation of that authority-as long as the authority in question is the Vatican.

So I guess we have to acknowledge Satan's authority over Moses, as the Archangel Michael asked the Lord to rebuke him when he tried to assert it.
Christianity meanwhile goes on to produce its greatest saints and the Roman church still affirms one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism as long as its in a Trinitarian fashion and not heretical even if by only a single immersion or sprinkling....

« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 09:41:03 AM 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #536 on: September 01, 2013, 09:44:04 AM »

I must be honest here about two things. 

First, if it were not for this and one other thread I would have never started research in the way I am now engaged.  Like I said, when you argue against something one should at least have a basic understanding of the thing you deny, which apparently some here do not.

Second, the more I research the more I am actually finding in favor of Rome.  As you can imagine, this is somewhat shocking and disturbing at the same time.  I'm really not sure how I should feel about this right now.  I don't want to make a rushed decision so I will keep researching, but like I said, the inadequate arguments here cause people to wonder and they either choose not to care or do research.  Keep this in mind.
So you are confusing yourself even further.  Good job!

Read Hefele BEFORE July 18, 1870
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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #537 on: September 01, 2013, 09:49:21 AM »

LOL how about the issue between St Cyprian and the Pope of the time? Who won out?

St. Cyprian.

That's incorrect history lol

Most of the African churched accepted the decision of Pope Stephen that the heretics were validly bapstised and do not need a second baptism

it is noteworthy that the church--and eventually most of the African Church as well--did accept Pope Stephen's position. St. Cyprian (who was sometimes called the "African Pope" due to his considerable influence) was a strong opponent of the idea of valid heretic Baptism - he would not even use the word "Baptism" in this context (he referred to those who were "made wet by heretics.

St Cyprian lost

No. The baptism of heretics isn't valid. Pope Victor lost.

Pope Stephen you mean, and NO Stephen won. This is a historical fact that is indisputable. Historians both orthodox and catholic and even secular acknowledge this. Research for yourself
LOL. Physician, heal thyself.  The consensus and fact remains that Abp. St. Stephen backed down.
Your account of the dispute between Pope Stephen and St Cyprian is ahistorical.
LOL.  So is your sentence here: Bp. St. Stephen-and his successors for centuries-never had the title "pope."  At the time, the Church bestowed that title only on the Bishop of Alexandria.
What Pope Stephen taught was that with the right baptismal formula taught in the bible, their baptism was valid. Most of the church especially the African Church, after a few years of continued dispute, accepted Stephens teaching and there is no evidence of St Cyprian ever bringing up this issue again after the dispute.
Because Bp. Stephen and Rome shut up and backed down.
Its very easy to revise history to make peace with a wrong position Wink
you provide ample proof of that.
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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #538 on: September 01, 2013, 09:51:15 AM »

Because the record indicates otherwise.  Whenever the bishop of Rome tried to exercise a supremacy, he was rebuked by the Church. No such action took place when he exercised primacy.
That's a lie

"Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenæus..."
-Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History V.24:9

We have a few instances of this. Isa said "whenever" and the case of St Cyprian proved contrary to this amongst other cases
Already answered.  Btw, we have an admission from you on Bp. St. Victor?

Yes, contrary to your assertion, the evidence shows "whenever."
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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #539 on: September 01, 2013, 09:55:58 AM »

I saw a Catholic that explained it this way.. and I'm sure the Orthodox on here will disagree.   I don't know if he's right or not, but he seemed to make sense:

"As far as I can tell, the distinction that the modern Orthodox make between "primacy" and "supremacy" did not exist as such in the early Church. Words and concepts change meaning over time. The Early Church Fathers would not have needed to make a distinction, as the meaning was already understood.

For example, the word "man" in the sense that it was used to speak of humanity in a general sense, but over time acquired a more restricted meaning. Now, we say "humanity" instead, and use "man" mostly as a synonym for "male".

My best guess is that for the Early Church Fathers, elaborating on primacy was unnecessary. It would be like a scientist elaborating on why mathematics is useful to prove a theory. It is assumed that mathematics can be used as a method of proof. The scientist could explain it, but it would be superfluous."

Similarly to how a lot were silent on the Trinity, until Arius and others started attacking the divinity of Christ.  Why can we not place the Papal claims in the same understanding?

Good question.  Even before the Scriptures were canonized, even before the Creed was finalized, the claims were made.

Quote
In the 2nd century (AD 189), the assertion of the primacy of the Church of Rome may be indicated in St. Irenaeus of Lyon's Against Heresies (3:3:2): "With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree... and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."

Quote
This passage in Irenaeus [from Against Heresies 3:4:1] illuminates the meaning of his remarks about the Church of Rome: if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches. Rome's vocation [in the pre-Nicene period] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition -- that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine -- and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome...—Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff, The Primacy of Peter (c. 1992)[10]

Quote
The first bishop to claim primacy in writing was Pope Stephen I (254-257). The timing of the claim is significant, for it was made during the worst of the tumults of the 3rd century. There were several persecutions during this century, and they hit the Church of Rome hard.

Quote
Pope Damasus I (366-384) was first to claim that Rome's primacy rested solely on Peter, and was the first pope recorded to have referred to the Roman church as "the Apostolic See". The prestige of the city itself was no longer sufficient; but in the doctrine of apostolic succession the popes had an unassailable position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_development_of_the_doctrine_of_papal_primacy

Quote
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies, 3, 3:2 – 189 AD)

http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/cf4h.htm
Ah, the Ultramontanist quote mines.  A sure place to dig up the truth on their claims. Roll Eyes

I'm pressed for time, but if you would look at the passage in question, despite saying "it would be too long" St. Irenaeus goes on-after the quotation mark of the mine, of course-to enumerate other sees.

Even the Protestant Schaeff got this correct: Rome was not the sun dispensing its light to other sees, but a prism, where all the rays from the sees focused to burn off heresy like dross in the forge of the capital.  All roads led to Rome, and Orthodoxy and heresy met there, where they entered its arena for truth to overcome falsehood.
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
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »   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 0.226 seconds with 72 queries.