OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 20, 2014, 08:22:28 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 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What is the Orthodox Church odds with Rome's papacy and how do Catholics...  (Read 4583 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Porter ODoran
Erst Amish Appalachian
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,000


Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy.


« Reply #45 on: August 06, 2014, 01:33:57 AM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

When does scripture ever say all apostles (the word by itself just means more-or-less missionaries, by the way) -- where does the Bible ever say all apostles were the same group or of the same order? That the Twelve are a specific group of apostles is perfectly evident from scripture.
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #46 on: August 06, 2014, 01:34:51 AM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

When does scripture ever say all apostles (the word by itself just means more-or-less missionaries, by the way) -- where does the Bible ever say all apostles were the same group or of the same order? That the Twelve are a specific group of apostles is perfectly evident from scripture.

So is Peter. So I guess we have a Pope then.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,715


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #47 on: August 06, 2014, 01:36:08 AM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

When does scripture ever say all apostles (the word by itself just means more-or-less missionaries, by the way) -- where does the Bible ever say all apostles were the same group or of the same order? That the Twelve are a specific group of apostles is perfectly evident from scripture.

There are also the Seventy Apostles, appointed by Christ, many of whom became bishops.
Logged
Porter ODoran
Erst Amish Appalachian
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,000


Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy.


« Reply #48 on: August 06, 2014, 01:36:52 AM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

You don't Tradition much?

Exactly, what about St. Mary Magdalen, Equal to the Apostles.

Or St. Olga, Equal to the Apostles.

You missed my point entirely and are choosing to focus on titles and semantics.

Only to the 12 Apostles was the power to bind and loose given, and, as Tradition attests to, this power was transferred to the Episcopate through ordination. Why is this so hard a case to make?

Right. Even St. Paul, whose commission was from Christ himself and instruction was directly from the Spirit in the desert, accepted ordination under the hands of the church in Antioch.
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
Porter ODoran
Erst Amish Appalachian
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,000


Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy.


« Reply #49 on: August 06, 2014, 01:38:37 AM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

When does scripture ever say all apostles (the word by itself just means more-or-less missionaries, by the way) -- where does the Bible ever say all apostles were the same group or of the same order? That the Twelve are a specific group of apostles is perfectly evident from scripture.

So is Peter. So I guess we have a Pope then.

St. Peter is "a specific group of apostles"? And this is "perfectly evident from scripture"? Slow down and help us out here.
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 527


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


« Reply #50 on: August 06, 2014, 01:44:31 AM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

When does scripture ever say all apostles (the word by itself just means more-or-less missionaries, by the way) -- where does the Bible ever say all apostles were the same group or of the same order? That the Twelve are a specific group of apostles is perfectly evident from scripture.

So is Peter. So I guess we have a Pope then.

We? Again, this response dances around the points already made. The fact that Christ gave all of the twelve the power to bind and loose has been established.
Logged

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 527


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


« Reply #51 on: August 06, 2014, 01:46:53 AM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

When does scripture ever say all apostles (the word by itself just means more-or-less missionaries, by the way) -- where does the Bible ever say all apostles were the same group or of the same order? That the Twelve are a specific group of apostles is perfectly evident from scripture.

There are also the Seventy Apostles, appointed by Christ, many of whom became bishops.

I don't disagree with you, but does tradition say they ordained of their own power or did they all accept ordination from one of the twelve or one who had been ordained by one of the twelve? I've seen St. Clement of Rome included in lists of the 70 and he received his ordination from St. Peter.
Logged

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,660



« Reply #52 on: August 06, 2014, 01:55:26 AM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

When does scripture ever say all apostles (the word by itself just means more-or-less missionaries, by the way) -- where does the Bible ever say all apostles were the same group or of the same order? That the Twelve are a specific group of apostles is perfectly evident from scripture.

So is Peter. So I guess we have a Pope then.

We? Again, this response dances around the points already made. The fact that Christ gave all of the twelve the power to bind and loose has been established.

But St Peter was the only one who was given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.  Undecided
Logged

Good bye OC.net. I will not post in this forum anymore. I'm thankful to several members here who helped me so much and stood by me. God Bless You All Smiley
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 527


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


« Reply #53 on: August 06, 2014, 01:57:34 AM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

When does scripture ever say all apostles (the word by itself just means more-or-less missionaries, by the way) -- where does the Bible ever say all apostles were the same group or of the same order? That the Twelve are a specific group of apostles is perfectly evident from scripture.

So is Peter. So I guess we have a Pope then.

We? Again, this response dances around the points already made. The fact that Christ gave all of the twelve the power to bind and loose has been established.

But St Peter was the only one who was given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.  Undecided

Only when you apply Sola Scriptura to Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:18 does that claim hold any weight.
Logged

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Porter ODoran
Erst Amish Appalachian
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,000


Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy.


« Reply #54 on: August 06, 2014, 02:00:19 AM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

When does scripture ever say all apostles (the word by itself just means more-or-less missionaries, by the way) -- where does the Bible ever say all apostles were the same group or of the same order? That the Twelve are a specific group of apostles is perfectly evident from scripture.

So is Peter. So I guess we have a Pope then.

We? Again, this response dances around the points already made. The fact that Christ gave all of the twelve the power to bind and loose has been established.

But St Peter was the only one who was given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.  Undecided

You must know it depends on whose tradition you consult. That's the Petrine tradition. In the scripture passages themselves, there's no explicit specification, and so there are even traditions that all the followers of the time were meant, or all the Church for all time. The Orthodox tradition is the oldest, though -- and best too, you won't be surprised if I say. Wink
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 02:02:42 AM by Porter ODoran » Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,426


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #55 on: August 06, 2014, 02:00:36 AM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

When does scripture ever say all apostles (the word by itself just means more-or-less missionaries, by the way) -- where does the Bible ever say all apostles were the same group or of the same order? That the Twelve are a specific group of apostles is perfectly evident from scripture.

So is Peter. So I guess we have a Pope then.

We? Again, this response dances around the points already made. The fact that Christ gave all of the twelve the power to bind and loose has been established.

But St Peter was the only one who was given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.  Undecided

As Sam G showed, the other 11 Apostles received the same authority of St. Peter later on.  We still confess St. Peter to be the chief and first of the Apostles, but the others also had the power to loose and bind (which is what the keys of the kingdom are).  This power was passed on to presbyters and bishops (and maybe deacons to a very limited sense early on).
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 02:01:13 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #56 on: August 06, 2014, 02:06:40 AM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

When does scripture ever say all apostles (the word by itself just means more-or-less missionaries, by the way) -- where does the Bible ever say all apostles were the same group or of the same order? That the Twelve are a specific group of apostles is perfectly evident from scripture.

There are also the Seventy Apostles, appointed by Christ, many of whom became bishops.

I don't disagree with you, but does tradition say they ordained of their own power or did they all accept ordination from one of the twelve or one who had been ordained by one of the twelve? I've seen St. Clement of Rome included in lists of the 70 and he received his ordination from St. Peter.

Please, read Luke 10.1ff.  I says clearly that "the Lord ordained 70 others also..."  St. Peter did, of course, recognized St. Clement (and his predecessor) as Bishop of Rome while he was alive, an interesting observation for those who question whether there an be a "Pope emeritus."  This only shows that the transition from general Apostle to Bishop of a place happened very early on.
Logged
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 527


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


« Reply #57 on: August 06, 2014, 10:15:42 AM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

When does scripture ever say all apostles (the word by itself just means more-or-less missionaries, by the way) -- where does the Bible ever say all apostles were the same group or of the same order? That the Twelve are a specific group of apostles is perfectly evident from scripture.

There are also the Seventy Apostles, appointed by Christ, many of whom became bishops.

I don't disagree with you, but does tradition say they ordained of their own power or did they all accept ordination from one of the twelve or one who had been ordained by one of the twelve? I've seen St. Clement of Rome included in lists of the 70 and he received his ordination from St. Peter.

Please, read Luke 10.1ff.  I says clearly that "the Lord ordained 70 others also..."  St. Peter did, of course, recognized St. Clement (and his predecessor) as Bishop of Rome while he was alive, an interesting observation for those who question whether there an be a "Pope emeritus."  This only shows that the transition from general Apostle to Bishop of a place happened very early on.

Tertullian states that St. Clement of Rome was ordained by St. Peter. I'm not saying Tertullian has to be right, but I'm not aware of any other sources contradicting him. Your assertion that St. Peter would have recognized St. Clement as bishop of Rome is confusing. If you mean that St. Peter accepted him as a bishop (not the bishop) at Rome, then what you've stated makes sense. But, considering that if we're waiting on St. Clement to be sole bishop of Rome (if he ever was), then we're at least waiting until 92 AD, nearly 25 years after St. Peter's martyrdom.

In every translation of Luke 10:1 I've seen, it says that "the Lord appointed..." not "ordained". The Greek word in question is ἀνέδειξεν, which doesn't appear in Luke 6:13 when he chooses the twelve or in Luke 9:1 when he sends them out.
Logged

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #58 on: August 06, 2014, 07:00:21 PM »

Grandiose claims to unity?  I shouldn't waste my time arguing with people whose biases deny what is clearly in front of them.  I'm sorry, I don't understand how you deny the unity of the catholic church.  You can go to a catholic church anywhere in the world, and its the same church - the same doctrines, the same teachings.  I can go to France, Spain, South America, North America, Canada, the Phillipeans, England, Portugal, and its the same Mass, the same seven sacraments, the same moral teaching.  I don't know where you come to believe we are divided.  Can you point out where?  

The huge gulf between the Vatican's teaching on contraceptives and the attitudes of the majority of laity in the Western world (and parts of South America) is a good place to start. That, and the fact that neither Hans Küng nor any other dissident theologian of the 20th century was defrocked or anathematized.

I need to comment on this Sam.

" 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?..."

Catholics and Orthodox are on the same boat, it is not like Orthodox Christians in the West are any better. Polls show that big numbers of Orthodox Christian don't believe in Hell, Heaven and even life after death.

Here are some facts:

Percent that believe in Hell      50.5% ( Oh guess what, I think Hell doesn't exist and Jesus was joking when He talked about it )

Percent that believe in Heaven      73.2%.

Percent that believe in life after death      69.3%.

Percent that attend religious services at least once a week      32.1%.

Now I'm sure the Orthodox Church is so clear that there is Hell, Heaven and life after death.

http://www.thearda.com/Denoms/Families/profilecompare.asp?d=2201&d=&d=&d=&d=

Raylight, the issue dealt with chazman48's claim that the Papacy provides a better way of facilitating unity, not that the Orthodox way was inherently better or worse. In the quote, chazman48 asks if someone to point out to him where the Catholic Church is divided, I was only answering his request. I don't see you going out of your way to rebuke Mor, when his post only pointed out the same thing with pictures.

That being said, I have gone out of my way in the past to defend you on this forum and give you the benefit of the doubt no matter what question you ask or how many presumptions you have carried into your postings on here. Good luck with your search for truth and may God bless you, but I'll be thinking twice before posting on one of your topics again.

Simply because he highlighted an uncomfortable dose of information about your communion and had stats to back it up? The problem clearly is not a catholic or orthodox problem but a western one

His reply was off topic. This forum deals with the Papacy and how Orthodox and Catholics respond to it. If Raylight wants to start a thread about Orthodox unity he can. I agree that this problem is a Western one, in general, but that wouldn't explain why Catholicism's hold on South America is slipping.

he was expanding on a tangent already in existence

To the other part : Protestantism (easy Christianity) is the reason. It seems many people are drawn to an easier form of worship where you're interpretation of scripture and morals can be your rule of faith.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 07:08:54 PM by Wandile » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 527


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


« Reply #59 on: August 06, 2014, 07:04:19 PM »

he was expanding on a tangent already in existence

Raylight's post hit a nerve, I admit.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 07:04:35 PM by Sam G » Logged

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
qawe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 160


« Reply #60 on: August 08, 2014, 08:51:31 PM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

When does scripture ever say all apostles (the word by itself just means more-or-less missionaries, by the way) -- where does the Bible ever say all apostles were the same group or of the same order? That the Twelve are a specific group of apostles is perfectly evident from scripture.

So is Peter. So I guess we have a Pope then.

We? Again, this response dances around the points already made. The fact that Christ gave all of the twelve the power to bind and loose has been established.

But St Peter was the only one who was given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.  Undecided

As Sam G showed, the other 11 Apostles received the same authority of St. Peter later on.  We still confess St. Peter to be the chief and first of the Apostles, but the others also had the power to loose and bind (which is what the keys of the kingdom are).  This power was passed on to presbyters and bishops (and maybe deacons to a very limited sense early on).

Didn't the the Coptic Holy Synod delete this part of the Fraction for the Apostles though?
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,426


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #61 on: August 08, 2014, 09:40:16 PM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

When does scripture ever say all apostles (the word by itself just means more-or-less missionaries, by the way) -- where does the Bible ever say all apostles were the same group or of the same order? That the Twelve are a specific group of apostles is perfectly evident from scripture.

So is Peter. So I guess we have a Pope then.

We? Again, this response dances around the points already made. The fact that Christ gave all of the twelve the power to bind and loose has been established.

But St Peter was the only one who was given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.  Undecided

As Sam G showed, the other 11 Apostles received the same authority of St. Peter later on.  We still confess St. Peter to be the chief and first of the Apostles, but the others also had the power to loose and bind (which is what the keys of the kingdom are).  This power was passed on to presbyters and bishops (and maybe deacons to a very limited sense early on).

Didn't the the Coptic Holy Synod delete this part of the Fraction for the Apostles though?

Hmmm...I don't know.  I would like to know why the Holy Synod would have done that, but as we know, we lived during confusing times, so it could have been reactionary.  We hope these days, we are changing.  My sources not only are patristic, but even the great medieval historian and theologian Bishop Severus of al Ashmumein ibn Muqafa also wrote the same thing, and even he would say that St. Peter is the one who ordained and sent St. Mark to be the first bishop of Alexandria.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 09:41:06 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
qawe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 160


« Reply #62 on: August 09, 2014, 12:24:59 AM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

When does scripture ever say all apostles (the word by itself just means more-or-less missionaries, by the way) -- where does the Bible ever say all apostles were the same group or of the same order? That the Twelve are a specific group of apostles is perfectly evident from scripture.

So is Peter. So I guess we have a Pope then.

We? Again, this response dances around the points already made. The fact that Christ gave all of the twelve the power to bind and loose has been established.

But St Peter was the only one who was given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.  Undecided

As Sam G showed, the other 11 Apostles received the same authority of St. Peter later on.  We still confess St. Peter to be the chief and first of the Apostles, but the others also had the power to loose and bind (which is what the keys of the kingdom are).  This power was passed on to presbyters and bishops (and maybe deacons to a very limited sense early on).

Didn't the the Coptic Holy Synod delete this part of the Fraction for the Apostles though?

Hmmm...I don't know.  I would like to know why the Holy Synod would have done that, but as we know, we lived during confusing times, so it could have been reactionary.  We hope these days, we are changing.  My sources not only are patristic, but even the great medieval historian and theologian Bishop Severus of al Ashmumein ibn Muqafa also wrote the same thing, and even he would say that St. Peter is the one who ordained and sent St. Mark to be the first bishop of Alexandria.

I found a Source: http://tasbeha.org/community/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/168429#Comment_168429
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,641



« Reply #63 on: August 09, 2014, 01:20:10 AM »

Christ gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, not just to Peter.

So women can be Popes? So why all the arguing over altar girls?

The power was only given to the 12, all of whom were male.

You don't read the Bible much?

When does scripture ever say all apostles (the word by itself just means more-or-less missionaries, by the way) -- where does the Bible ever say all apostles were the same group or of the same order? That the Twelve are a specific group of apostles is perfectly evident from scripture.

So is Peter. So I guess we have a Pope then.

We? Again, this response dances around the points already made. The fact that Christ gave all of the twelve the power to bind and loose has been established.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,660



« Reply #64 on: August 09, 2014, 09:08:39 AM »

This is something I found where it says...


" On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome..."

I wonder what was mentioned above, means to Orthodox Christians ?

I really hope the reply would be very easy to understand and about the quote itself. Because I find that usually when I post a question about the papacy or a quote like that, it gets very very complicated, and too many replies that take us to a whole different topic and I end up getting confused. Which doesn't help me to get the answer.


The source for the quote above is http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.ii.v.xvii.html?highlight=the,ecclesiastical,law,required,that,churches,should,pass,no,decisions,contrary,to,views,of,bishop,rome#highlight


« Last Edit: August 09, 2014, 09:09:39 AM by Raylight » Logged

Good bye OC.net. I will not post in this forum anymore. I'm thankful to several members here who helped me so much and stood by me. God Bless You All Smiley
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,427


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #65 on: August 09, 2014, 11:11:47 AM »

This is something I found where it says...


" On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome..."

I wonder what was mentioned above, means to Orthodox Christians ?

I really hope the reply would be very easy to understand and about the quote itself. Because I find that usually when I post a question about the papacy or a quote like that, it gets very very complicated, and too many replies that take us to a whole different topic and I end up getting confused. Which doesn't help me to get the answer.


The source for the quote above is http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.ii.v.xvii.html?highlight=the,ecclesiastical,law,required,that,churches,should,pass,no,decisions,contrary,to,views,of,bishop,rome#highlight




Before the Schism, the Bishop of Rome was part of the Orthodox fold. In Julian's time, what the Bishop of Rome said would in all likelihood have been a defense of Orthodox teaching.
Logged

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

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

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,660



« Reply #66 on: August 09, 2014, 11:40:18 AM »

This is something I found where it says...


" On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome..."

I wonder what was mentioned above, means to Orthodox Christians ?

I really hope the reply would be very easy to understand and about the quote itself. Because I find that usually when I post a question about the papacy or a quote like that, it gets very very complicated, and too many replies that take us to a whole different topic and I end up getting confused. Which doesn't help me to get the answer.


The source for the quote above is http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.ii.v.xvii.html?highlight=the,ecclesiastical,law,required,that,churches,should,pass,no,decisions,contrary,to,views,of,bishop,rome#highlight




Before the Schism, the Bishop of Rome was part of the Orthodox fold. In Julian's time, what the Bishop of Rome said would in all likelihood have been a defense of Orthodox teaching.

So, at that time, no church should pass any decisions that contrary to the views of the Bishop of Rome. But why specially the Bishop of Rome ?
Logged

Good bye OC.net. I will not post in this forum anymore. I'm thankful to several members here who helped me so much and stood by me. God Bless You All Smiley
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,427


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #67 on: August 09, 2014, 11:51:40 AM »

Rome was where Sts. Peter and Paul lived out their last years and were martyred. It was one of the largest cities of the ancient world, a center of trade and culture. It had a large population and was not too far from other key Christian locales of the Near East and Asia Minor. Sort of like a big train station where you can find the train lines that branch out to elsewhere.

At the time, it made sense to have the key Patriarchate there. With the changes over time, the filioque and other differences between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic faiths, the reason to have the Orthodox headquarters in Rome disappeared. It is, of course, still the center for the Roman and Eastern Catholics.
Logged

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

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

http://spcasuncoast.org/
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,426


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #68 on: August 09, 2014, 11:55:36 AM »

Because the Eastern Church was unstable with Arianism and the emperor there was actively imposing the heresy.  So Rome was pretty much a stable bulwark of Christianity at the time. It would make sense to keep the unity of the Church intact by consulting with Rome, even at the expense of the emperor.  Keep in mind, this was all for St. Athanasius.  Pretty much all bishops must agree with St. Athanasius, who Rome backs the most.  Many local Western councils were convened in the presence of St. Athanasius to confirm his Orthodoxy against the Arians.  Therefore, logically, because of the relative stability and Orthodoxy of Rome, all bishops could not make decisions without him.

Likewise, if Rome was unstable and Alexandria helped the Pope of Rome against Western instability, you would probably see canons supporting that any decision be not taken without Alexandria.  Keep in mind Pope Gregory the Great believed Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were all "one see" and no decision can be made without these three.

Today, the Oriental Orthodox have a general agreement that any decision made that would affect the whole communion of the OOs cannot be made by individual churches, but with the consultation of the other sister churches.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2014, 11:58:00 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,660



« Reply #69 on: August 09, 2014, 12:07:28 PM »

biro and minasoliman. Thank you for your direct and clear answer to my question Smiley

Logged

Good bye OC.net. I will not post in this forum anymore. I'm thankful to several members here who helped me so much and stood by me. God Bless You All Smiley
Porter ODoran
Erst Amish Appalachian
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,000


Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy.


« Reply #70 on: August 09, 2014, 01:42:40 PM »

Rome was where Sts. Peter and Paul lived out their last years and were martyred. It was one of the largest cities of the ancient world, a center of trade and culture. It had a large population and was not too far from other key Christian locales of the Near East and Asia Minor. Sort of like a big train station where you can find the train lines that branch out to elsewhere.

At the time, it made sense to have the key Patriarchate there. With the changes over time, the filioque and other differences between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic faiths, the reason to have the Orthodox headquarters in Rome disappeared. It is, of course, still the center for the Roman and Eastern Catholics.

"Omnes viae Romam ducunt." Smiley
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,641



« Reply #71 on: August 09, 2014, 10:49:42 PM »

If you read the quotes, the Eastern Fathers seem to be thinking that it is impossible for Rome to err, thats the point.
Then why did the Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council form a committee of a 100 Fathers to examine the Tome of Archbishop St. Leo of Old Rome for Orthodoxy, rather than accept it as Orthodox from his authorship, before they accepted it?
Logged

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

Posts: 2,709


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #72 on: August 10, 2014, 07:53:13 AM »

From the classic Anglicans to the Abbé Guettée, same old. Clever sophistry. Plausible cases against the Pope, except I have no reason to build a plausible case against him: he defends the apostolic faith. Florence has explained the filioque, and the church's official Greek version of the Creed still doesn't have the insertion.

You could build a logical argument, based on a premise of faith, that the planet Uranus is made of green cheese.

In every age since Christ, among all men in all conditions and all cultures, the Catholic Church simply is.
Logged

Porter ODoran
Erst Amish Appalachian
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,000


Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy.


« Reply #73 on: August 10, 2014, 12:48:11 PM »

From the classic Anglicans to the Abbé Guettée, same old. Clever sophistry. Plausible cases against the Pope, except I have no reason to build a plausible case against him: he defends the apostolic faith. Florence has explained the filioque, and the church's official Greek version of the Creed still doesn't have the insertion.

You could build a logical argument, based on a premise of faith, that the planet Uranus is made of green cheese.

In every age since Christ, among all men in all conditions and all cultures, the Catholic Church simply is.

Not to put to fine a point upon it, but so is the Evil One. I'm sure it sounded clever to you at the time.
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,709


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #74 on: August 10, 2014, 01:35:47 PM »

You're only a catechumen yet you're teaching online. In a good Russian word, prelest.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we don't equate the Orthodox tradition (which is entirely Catholic) with the Evil One. That the Orthodox or Orthodox wannabes equate us with him pretty much explains why I'm Catholic.
Logged

Porter ODoran
Erst Amish Appalachian
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,000


Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy.


« Reply #75 on: August 10, 2014, 01:58:35 PM »

::whoosh::
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,641



« Reply #76 on: August 10, 2014, 03:38:09 PM »

You're only a catechumen yet you're teaching online. In a good Russian word, prelest.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we don't equate the Orthodox tradition (which is entirely Catholic) with the Evil One. That the Orthodox or Orthodox wannabes equate us with him pretty much explains why I'm Catholic.
actually, you're Ultramontanist, and hence not Catholic.

As for your snide remark on the catechumen
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20605.msg308169.html#msg308169

Quote
Alveus Lacuna on April 07, 2009, 01:54:30 PM
I don't care how we are unified, as long as we gave our own American Church that is self-governing.  I don't care about the arguments about who "got here first", who's authority is the "mostest canonical", and whatever else.  Everybody needs to grow up and work out something that will bring us all together in a way that will give us a unified voice in America.  Nobody in this country is going to take us seriously until we are visibly and governmentally unified, not only "mystically" unified.  Americans will actually take note of us if we have an American Orthodox Church.

Actually, I'm not even a part of the church yet, so my opinions do not count!  Give me six more months and then I'll start contributing opinions!


Quote
from: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 02:29:02 PM
Christ appears to St. Martin.
ACCORDINGLY, at a certain period, when he had nothing except his arms and his simple military dress, in the middle of winter, a winter which had shown itself more severe than ordinary, so that the extreme cold was proving fatal to many, he happened to meet at the gate of the city of Amiens a poor man destitute of clothing. He was entreating those that passed by to have compassion upon him, but all passed the wretched man without notice, when Martin, that man full of God, recognized that a being to whom others showed no pity, was, in that respect, left to him. Yet, what should he do? He had nothing except the cloak in which he was clad, for he had already parted with the rest of his garments for similar purposes. Taking, therefore, his sword with which he was girt, he divided his cloak into two equal parts, and gave one part to the poor man, while he again clothed himself with the remainder. Upon this, some of the by-standers laughed, because he was now an unsightly object, and stood out as but partly dressed. Many, however, who were of sounder understanding, groaned deeply because they themselves had done nothing similar. They especially felt this, because, being possessed of more than Martin, they could have clothed the poor man without reducing themselves to nakedness. In the following night, when Martin had resigned himself to sleep, he had a vision of Christ arrayed in that part of his cloak with which he had clothed the poor man. He contemplated the Lord with the greatest attention, and was told to own as his the robe which he had given. Ere long, he heard Jesus saying with a clear voice to the multitude of angels standing round -- "Martin, who is still but a catechumen, clothed me with this robe."
http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth/npnf2-11/sulpitiu/lifeofst.html#tp
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,641



« Reply #77 on: August 10, 2014, 03:40:19 PM »

From the classic Anglicans to the Abbé Guettée, same old. Clever sophistry.
it goes well against Scholasticism and Jesuitry.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2014, 03:40:34 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,641



« Reply #78 on: August 10, 2014, 03:47:25 PM »

This is something I found where it says...


" On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome..."

I wonder what was mentioned above, means to Orthodox Christians ?

I really hope the reply would be very easy to understand and about the quote itself. Because I find that usually when I post a question about the papacy or a quote like that, it gets very very complicated, and too many replies that take us to a whole different topic and I end up getting confused. Which doesn't help me to get the answer.


The source for the quote above is http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.ii.v.xvii.html?highlight=the,ecclesiastical,law,required,that,churches,should,pass,no,decisions,contrary,to,views,of,bishop,rome#highlight




Before the Schism, the Bishop of Rome was part of the Orthodox fold. In Julian's time, what the Bishop of Rome said would in all likelihood have been a defense of Orthodox teaching.

So, at that time, no church should pass any decisions that contrary to the views of the Bishop of Rome. But why specially the Bishop of Rome ?
The canon that Julius invoked does not and did not exist.  Hence his claim tells us more about Ultramontanist pretensions rather than Orthodox ecclesiology.

All roads led to Rome, but that was a secular set up.  It did, however, lead to heretics and Orthodox alike coming together (while they might have been isolated from each other back home) there to do battle.  Thus Rome did not shine as the sun spreading the rays of Orthodoxy to the rest of the world.  Instead, it served as the prism focusing the rays of Orthodoxy from the rest of the world beamed there to serve as the crucible in which the dross of heresy was burned off.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2014, 03:48:26 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
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,660



« Reply #79 on: August 10, 2014, 04:15:28 PM »


The canon that Julius invoked does not and did not exist.  Hence his claim tells us more about Ultramontanist pretensions rather than Orthodox ecclesiology.


Prove it. You can't just claim that he was lying about it. Prove to me that such canon didn't exist back then.

Update: I just checked it more and seems that is true, there was no such canon at the time of Julius. However, the copy written in 450s or so mention such law, which indicate that at that time that law existed.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2014, 04:26:14 PM by Raylight » Logged

Good bye OC.net. I will not post in this forum anymore. I'm thankful to several members here who helped me so much and stood by me. God Bless You All Smiley
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,641



« Reply #80 on: August 11, 2014, 09:57:24 PM »


The canon that Julius invoked does not and did not exist.  Hence his claim tells us more about Ultramontanist pretensions rather than Orthodox ecclesiology.


Prove it. You can't just claim that he was lying about it. Prove to me that such canon didn't exist back then.

Update: I just checked it more and seems that is true, there was no such canon at the time of Julius. However, the copy written in 450s or so mention such law, which indicate that at that time that law existed.
No, it just indicated that Julius claimed such a rule.  It is only mentioned here. Socrates also records the claims of the Arians and Novatians rather straightforward too.
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
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,429



WWW
« Reply #81 on: August 11, 2014, 11:13:25 PM »

Plausible cases against the Pope, except I have no reason to build a plausible case against him: he defends the apostolic faith.

Hrm. Then perhaps you should focus on building a good defense. The reason I converted to Orthodoxy myself is that there were no plausible cases for supreme papal jurisdiction. Protestants are looking at such cases to make the deciding factor for their conversions far more than any anti-Westernism/papalism/etc (such things can be legitimately picked up after conversion without them being a deciding factor for the conversion).

As well, at the time of my conversion the then ruling Pope certainly seemed to defend the Apostolic faith, I didn't see how the same claims could be made for the entirety of the 2000 years of history for the Roman See. It certainly seems that quite a bit of sophistry is needed to explain some of the stickier points of the history of the papacy- far more than is needed to confront Orthodox ecclesiological puzzlers.

Quote
You could build a logical argument, based on a premise of faith, that the planet Uranus is made of green cheese.

Indeed. Though it seems to me that cases for and against the papacy are more related to logical arguments, based on premises of faith, as to what makes a planet. So long, Pluto.

Quote
In every age since Christ, among all men in all conditions and all cultures, the Catholic Church simply is.

I think this is one statement with which everyone on the board can agree. Too bad that isn't the argument. The argument is which church can legitimately claim to be the Catholic Church. Even accepting the claims you've made elsewhere that Orthodoxy is simply a political division caused by the Turks after the fall of Constantinople, we have the multiple strikes against the Roman Church within the very same century. If the Pope is supposed to be the font of unity, he certainly seems to have done a very bad job of it.

This is not to say that Orthodoxy doesn't have some historical strikes against it as well. We have to come up with conclusive arguments as to how councils work when we have the Oriental Orthodox Churches running around (though that could easily be a strike against papalism as the source of unity, as well. Nice job breaking it, Pope St Leo. I kid.). But, as you've pointed out, logical cases can be built off of faulty foundations. There is no absolute surety either way, save the return of Christ Himself to sort this all out (at which point, I suspect, we'll both be in a little trouble- He'll probably say something along the lines of "I'm pretty sure I sorted this whole thing out when Sts James and John tried to take control seating arrangements in the Kingdom").

The more times I see this argument go 'round, the more I'm convinced: a) I'm completely comfortable where I am and don't doubt for a second that I made the right decision; b) even if I did, VII says that I'm perfectly fine where I am, no need to bother moving; and c) which is all for the better, anyway, because if I did move, all I would be gaining would be the pope and a host of bad liturgies (not anti-Westernism. I actually appreciate a good Western liturgy. Too bad they don't exist in America anymore).
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,709


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #82 on: August 12, 2014, 12:04:48 AM »

Thanks for the fisking. Well played even though I don't buy your premise and thus your conclusion.

The more times I see this argument go 'round, the more I'm convinced: a) I'm completely comfortable where I am and don't doubt for a second that I made the right decision; b) even if I did, VII says that I'm perfectly fine where I am, no need to bother moving; and c) which is all for the better, anyway, because if I did move, all I would be gaining would be the pope and a host of bad liturgies (not anti-Westernism. I actually appreciate a good Western liturgy. Too bad they don't exist in America anymore).

Vatican II didn't change our doctrine because that's how councils work. They clarify but they can't revise. If you were never Catholic, then "fine where I am" is somewhat true. Then you're not personally guilty of schism. We don't solicit never-Catholic Orthodox; we want to bring all the Orthodox back at once (and keep their traditions). Not true if you're an ex-Catholic. God judges case by case but just like the church you joined, we believe we're the church; leave at your peril.

Come to us and you'll lose a narrow sectarian mindset (phronema in good Byzantinese) and have a true universality, not a Byzantine pseudo one. I hate the modern liturgies as much as you do, but "good Western liturgies don't exist in America anymore"? I go to a Tridentine Sung Mass most Sundays in my parish; I had no idea that, right here in Philadelphia, it's not in America. Is it technically foreign soil like the UN building? Maybe part of the Vatican City State?
Logged

alexpetros
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 143


Go sábhála Dia Éire.


WWW
« Reply #83 on: August 12, 2014, 01:04:19 AM »

I actually appreciate a good Western liturgy. Too bad they don't exist in America anymore.

I am with fogey on this one, it is still possible to find good Western liturgies, not just in big cities (Chicago) or universities (University of Illlinois), but also in small farm towns no bigger than 4000 people where most are "Apostolic Christians" (Fairbury, IL).
There are even good Western liturgies that use the Mass of Paul VI (small parishes in Bloomington-Normal, IL or Marytown).

The places in parenthesis are places I worshiped as a Catholic, and in the case of Marytown, briefly joined the Franciscan order there, and are all in America, well, specifically Illinois.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 01:04:47 AM by alexpetros » Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,709


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #84 on: August 12, 2014, 01:35:26 AM »

I just don't see dhimmitude, tsardom, or self-hating Western converts as God's plan for the church.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,641



« Reply #85 on: August 12, 2014, 01:43:53 AM »

Thanks for the fisking. Well played even though I don't buy your premise and thus your conclusion.

The more times I see this argument go 'round, the more I'm convinced: a) I'm completely comfortable where I am and don't doubt for a second that I made the right decision; b) even if I did, VII says that I'm perfectly fine where I am, no need to bother moving; and c) which is all for the better, anyway, because if I did move, all I would be gaining would be the pope and a host of bad liturgies (not anti-Westernism. I actually appreciate a good Western liturgy. Too bad they don't exist in America anymore).

Vatican II didn't change our doctrine because that's how councils work. They clarify but they can't revise. If you were never Catholic, then "fine where I am" is somewhat true. Then you're not personally guilty of schism. We don't solicit never-Catholic Orthodox; we want to bring all the Orthodox back at once (and keep their traditions). Not true if you're an ex-Catholic. God judges case by case but just like the church you joined, we believe we're the church; leave at your peril.

Come to us and you'll lose a narrow sectarian mindset (phronema in good Byzantinese) and have a true universality, not a Byzantine pseudo one. I hate the modern liturgies as much as you do, but "good Western liturgies don't exist in America anymore"? I go to a Tridentine Sung Mass most Sundays in my parish; I had no idea that, right here in Philadelphia, it's not in America. Is it technically foreign soil like the UN building? Maybe part of the Vatican City State?
The Vatican has quite a narrow sectarian mindset-its parish might be enormous but it still is quite parochial, lacking the Universality of the Catholic Church.
LOL. Clarification, Vaticanese for voiding Tradition for change.

The Orthodox are ever Catholic. As for the Vatican never soliciting us

let's just say we know better.

Byzantine=pseudo, with nothing to do with Constantinople, New Rome.  Byzantium preceded the move of the capital on top of it, Byzantine is a mere projection of the bastard fruit of the neo-pagan renaissance and ultramontanist pretension on the fallen Empire of the Romans.

Ecumenical Councils do not change doctrine, but your Vatican I sure changed your Constance.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,641



« Reply #86 on: August 12, 2014, 01:55:47 AM »

I just don't see dhimmitude, tsardom, or self-hating Western converts as God's plan for the church.



I seem to recall a medallion struck in celebration of the submission of Brest, with a woman representing the Slavic Church prostrate before the Vatican's pontiff, drunk in a stupor of Westoxification no doubt.
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
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,709


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #87 on: August 12, 2014, 02:03:42 AM »

Pius XII on the sedia gestatoria: the Pope's office is part of the church's infallibility, no more and no less. When I "kiss the Pope's feet" or lift him on his throne, that's what I'm venerating, not Josef Ratzinger or Jorge Bergoglio. Just like literally kissing a Byzantine Rite bishop's or priest's blessing hand: the blessing is from God through the church, not about the cleric.

John Paul II kissing the Koran: as a man, apart from his office (ex cathedra), the Pope makes mistakes and even sins. The saints weren't perfect in this life. I don't have a lick of devotion to JP2 but he wasn't a heretic, according to us, and he gets partial credit for moral support for the fall of Communism.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,641



« Reply #88 on: August 12, 2014, 02:22:34 AM »

Pius XII on the sedia gestatoria: the Pope's office is part of the church's infallibility, no more and no less. When I "kiss the Pope's feet" or lift him on his throne, that's what I'm venerating, not Josef Ratzinger or Jorge Bergoglio. Just like literally kissing a Byzantine Rite bishop's or priest's blessing hand: the blessing is from God through the church, not about the cleric.

John Paul II kissing the Koran: as a man, apart from his office (ex cathedra), the Pope makes mistakes and even sins. The saints weren't perfect in this life. I don't have a lick of devotion to JP2 but he wasn't a heretic, according to us, and he gets partial credit for moral support for the fall of Communism.
I don't know of a single dhimmi ever kissing the Quran.

As for the regalia of the sovereign of Vatican City, emperor wannabes.

Render under Caesar (and that includes the Czar) what is Caesar's.


btw, you assUme your pontiff wasn't acting ex officio.  Since we never get a straight answer of when is in on the cathedra, and Lumen Gentium makes it irrelevant, what is your point?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 02:34:23 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
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,709


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #89 on: August 12, 2014, 07:01:03 AM »

I understand there was plenty of apostasy to Islam under the Turkokratia. The Janissaries were a tax in the form of people: the best Balkan Christian boys were harvested, converted to Islam, and trained for the Sultan's Marine Corps or Special Forces. One martyr saint publicly reverted to Orthodoxy. We venerate him too! Because never-Catholic Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt, and because you have never dogmatized anything un-Catholic, we may liturgically commemorate your post-schism saints in the Greek Catholic churches.

I'm not the kind of Catholic who rushes to make excuses for dumb things churchmen including Popes do, but kissing the Koran while regrettable is not the formal act of apostasy to that faith.

"The Catholic Church has a king? That's dumb." So thought my 11-year-old not-very-Episcopalian self. Then when my parents started going to church again I learned we had bishops who dress like him so it made sense. Anyway, attacking us for having the Pope as the Vicar of Christ is hypocritical. More like you're angry because you think the Byzantine emperor, the tsar, et al., really is. The pot and the kettle, people who live in glass houses, etc. And the Pope's not a tyrant to us. He's actually not that important. The ordinary, everyday, traditional practices are, just like for you. He's just a caretaker who speaks ex officio now and then.
Logged

Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »   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 0.223 seconds with 72 queries.