Author Topic: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?  (Read 10302 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Christopher McAvoy

  • Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 466
    • St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary
True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« on: October 07, 2015, 01:42:21 AM »
Yesterday on a separate forum there was a comment made elsewhere about it being one thing to suspend belief that Pope Francis is Pope and quite another to suspend belief in the the papacy altogether. It was than said by a Roman catholic fellow that Orthodoxy is schism and heresy combined, because it does not have communion with the current papacy but also because it denies the papacy altogether.

I have always felt that there was an acknowledgement and respect of the papacy before 1054 by the Orthodox Church and that it has never actually been "denied". If the Orthodox Church considers Pope Leo and Pope Gregory of Rome to be important church fathers and prayed for Roman popes historically, I do not think that is denying the papacy. It seems to me that the Orthodox Church has never denied the value of the Pope of Rome but has simply not felt a need to address the Pope of Rome or replace him after he ceased to be Orthodox, except insofar as the Patriarch of constantinople or Moscow has been a 2nd or 3rd Rome.

what say you?
« Last Edit: October 07, 2015, 01:45:36 AM by Christopher McAvoy »
"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,411
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Freemason Homo Church Infiltrator
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2015, 02:00:55 AM »
Orthodoxy has a Pope.  NBD.



Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2015, 08:10:10 AM »
We deny the Roman Catholic redefinition of the Papacy. If you are referring to the historic Papacy, then no.

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline ZealousZeal

  • Cosmic Knowledge Fish
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,980
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2015, 08:46:19 AM »
I feel like it's such an odd question in a sense. What is the papacy? Is it the Bishop of Rome? It would be silly to deny that the Bishop of Rome exists. Is it a Bishop of Rome who speaks infallibly on the faith and has "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered"? Then, yeah, not so much. We don't believe in that.
You want your belt to buckle, not your chair.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,320
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2015, 09:07:55 AM »
Orthodoxy denies the dogmas of Papal supremacy and infallibility, which means we fall under the anathemas of Vatican I. So there's a case to be made that we are heretics from the Catholic point of view, though nowadays almost everyone in the Catholic Church seems to be scrambling to interpret Vatican I to mean anything other than what it actually says.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2015, 09:13:52 AM »
I feel like it's such an odd question in a sense. What is the papacy? Is it the Bishop of Rome? It would be silly to deny that the Bishop of Rome exists. Is it a Bishop of Rome who speaks infallibly on the faith and has "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered"? Then, yeah, not so much. We don't believe in that.
^
Yep, this. We deny his claim of supremacy and infallibility. That is all. If he were to retract that, it would go a great way in rebuilding the divide. Of course, he can't really do that because it has been set in stone by one of their ecumenical counsels which puts them in a bit of a catch-22.
God bless!

Offline Christopher McAvoy

  • Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 466
    • St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2015, 12:05:08 PM »
Thanks. I think the answer would be "No, Orthodoxy does not deny the historic purpose of the papacy but it does deny particular post 11th century , particularly 19th century developments in it's role". Still I suppose I see how one can interpret it as it denying the the papacy if one thinks about it in a very absolute way, but from a historic point of view it does not deny it. Have a great day.

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,721
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2015, 01:34:48 PM »
I feel like it's such an odd question in a sense. What is the papacy? Is it the Bishop of Rome? It would be silly to deny that the Bishop of Rome exists. Is it a Bishop of Rome who speaks infallibly on the faith and has "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered"? Then, yeah, not so much. We don't believe in that.
^
Yep, this. We deny his claim of supremacy and infallibility. That is all. If he were to retract that, it would go a great way in rebuilding the divide. Of course, he can't really do that because it has been set in stone by one of their ecumenical counsels which puts them in a bit of a catch-22.

It's a Catch-22 for them, certainly, but I doubt we would be generous with them were they to collectively repent of it and return to an orthodox understanding of the papacy.  We'd probably be suspicious, ask them how it is possible for them to repent, conclude it is a trap, etc. 

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2015, 01:40:43 PM »
I feel like it's such an odd question in a sense. What is the papacy? Is it the Bishop of Rome? It would be silly to deny that the Bishop of Rome exists. Is it a Bishop of Rome who speaks infallibly on the faith and has "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered"? Then, yeah, not so much. We don't believe in that.
^
Yep, this. We deny his claim of supremacy and infallibility. That is all. If he were to retract that, it would go a great way in rebuilding the divide. Of course, he can't really do that because it has been set in stone by one of their ecumenical counsels which puts them in a bit of a catch-22.

It's a Catch-22 for them, certainly, but I doubt we would be generous with them were they to collectively repent of it and return to an orthodox understanding of the papacy.  We'd probably be suspicious, ask them how it is possible for them to repent, conclude it is a trap, etc.
Well, there is certainly a lot of water under that bridge, but no one will know how that would ever work out unless the Pope renounces those doctrines. Notice me not holding my breath for that to happen.
God bless!

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2015, 10:51:38 PM »
I don't think you can say that Orthodoxy denies the role of the papacy as a first among equals, however, it does deny the doctrine that the bishop of Rome has authority that is "both episcopal and immediate" over the entire Church. When most Roman Catholics think of the papacy, they think of the latter of the two definitions.
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Amatorus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,105
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2015, 11:08:22 PM »
How sore are we supposed to be about the Fourth Crusade still?

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2015, 11:08:53 PM »
How sore are we supposed to be about the Fourth Crusade still?
:laugh:
God bless!

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2015, 11:38:27 PM »
How sore are we supposed to be about the Fourth Crusade still?

Less sore about the sacking of Constantinople, more sore about the establishment of Latin hierarchies to replace our own.
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,320
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2015, 09:07:44 AM »
How sore are we supposed to be about the Fourth Crusade still?

2 minutes of hate is the prescribed daily devotion.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline Amatorus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,105
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2015, 10:57:15 AM »
How sore are we supposed to be about the Fourth Crusade still?

Less sore about the sacking of Constantinople, more sore about the establishment of Latin hierarchies to replace our own.

Emperor Baudouin II did nothing wrong!

Offline Severian

  • My posts on this site don't necessarily reflect my current position on any given subject.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,642
  • Pat. St. Severus, pray for my family & friends
    • St. Severus of Antioch's Writings
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox Christian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #15 on: October 08, 2015, 05:18:01 PM »
"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,609
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #16 on: October 08, 2015, 06:03:56 PM »
How sore are we supposed to be about the Fourth Crusade still?

2 minutes of hate is the prescribed daily devotion.

If we're talking about the Bolt Thrower album, I'm not angry at all.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,411
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Freemason Homo Church Infiltrator
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2015, 07:02:20 AM »
Orthodoxy has a Pope.  NBD.


*Ahem* ;)



Oh, hey, he's dressed like someone of the Byzantine faith.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Severian

  • My posts on this site don't necessarily reflect my current position on any given subject.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,642
  • Pat. St. Severus, pray for my family & friends
    • St. Severus of Antioch's Writings
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox Christian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2015, 07:03:55 AM »
^The Roman Imperial court regalia is pretty cool, I must admit.
"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2015, 07:55:47 AM »
True and false.

True: Orthodoxy has a Pope. The Pope of Alexandria. Orthodoxy further accepts the Bishop of Rome's historic Papacy.

False: Orthodoxy does not accept the Papacy as defined by Vatican I & Vatican II, and how the Roman Church has defined herself.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 07:57:38 AM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #20 on: December 08, 2015, 09:45:40 AM »
Orthodoxy is the natural environment of the Papacy. Because Rome abandoned it, it has been submitting the many churches under it to a false form of papacy.

The First-Among-Equals in the Church:

* Is not infallible in any circunstance;
* Does not have universal jurisdiction over the whole church;
* Does not have ordinary or extraordinary powers over any church besides his own see;
* Cannot act in the name of the Church in motu proprio;
* Does not have an intransferable power;

* Has actual ecclesiastical presiding power over ad hoc ecumenical councils convened to counter some heresy - organizational and logistics authority can rely on supporting lay authority or local bishop;

* Could have actual organizational power over a standing synod of legates of all Canonical Orthodox Churches - that would be something new due to contemporary technology, but in spirit of the ecclesiology of the Church. This standing synod of legates presided by the first-among-equals would deal mainly with issues of canonical order, acting as liasson between regions with canonical issues, their mother churches and the First See;

* Can speak in the name of the Church when repeating the consensual opinion of the collegiate of Patriarchs (real ex cathedra, as per Mat 16:18, John 21:18)

* Can receive appeals for official canonical advice. He *may* use his authority restricted to the synod of legates and/or ecumenical council to enforce that;

* He must use his enormous non-formal influence, the natural "soft power" of the position, for the greater good of the faithful (John 21:15-17);

* Can loose his role as First-Among-Equals to the next in line in the dyptics if confirming his see and equally misguided predescessors in a heretic teaching after much admonition from his brother patriarchs.

Rome could return by agreeing with the above and annulling the Anathemas of Vatican I regarding the papacy, annulling Unam Sanctam and all statements in agreement with them.

We could have a "Joint Declaration" defining the Orthodox filioque outside the Symbolf of Faith but that also mandates the original unchanged symbol to be the norm.

 I think we would expect some changes in Novus Ordo to prevent certain abuses as well as to make it more in line with the West's own 1st millenium liturgical traditions.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 09:52:59 AM by Fabio Leite »
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #21 on: December 08, 2015, 10:52:04 AM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2016, 09:13:10 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2016, 09:18:58 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this
So Jesus came to start a rock band. I'll remember that the next time I hear someone preach that rock music is of the devil.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2016, 09:28:11 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2016, 09:34:30 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,016
  • wat?
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #26 on: January 03, 2016, 09:35:16 PM »
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

You forgot the part about how the singer wanted to change from traditional folk to deathcore music.



Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #27 on: January 03, 2016, 09:37:44 PM »
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

You forgot the part about how the singer wanted to change from traditional folk to deathcore music.
which singer are you referring to?

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2016, 09:39:31 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same
We do. We just don't see the Bishop of Rome as the sole successor to St. Peter.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #29 on: January 03, 2016, 09:45:02 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same

Where is St. Peter, that I may do so?

According to the Holy Apostles, Christ is the Head of the Church. The Holy Spirit continued Christ’s earthly presence as Helper (some translations say Comforter) and Teacher of mankind. The absolute need for an absolutely singular mortal Head of the Church would seem to be an innovation at best, a heretical misapprehension of the Gospel at worst.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2016, 09:48:35 PM by Porter ODoran »
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2016, 09:50:24 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same
We do. We just don't see the Bishop of Rome as the sole successor to St. Peter.
I believe for the first 1000 or so years of the Church the east recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St Peter, the difference being they believe the pope over stepped his authority, that he is merely first among equals? are you saying the pope is not even that?

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #31 on: January 03, 2016, 09:51:52 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same

Where is St. Peter, that I may do so?

According to the Holy Apostles, Christ is the Head of the Church. The Holy Spirit continued Christ’s earthly presence as Helper (some translations say Comforter) and Teacher of mankind. The absolute need for an absolutely singular mortal Head of the Church would seem to be an innovation at best, a heretical misapprehension of the Gospel at worst.
so you reject apostolic succession? after St Peter died the church changed so that there isn't a leader among the bishops anyore? is this your belief?

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #32 on: January 03, 2016, 09:52:21 PM »
I believe for the first 1000 or so years of the Church the east recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St Peter, the difference being they believe the pope over stepped his authority, that he is merely first among equals? are you saying the pope is not even that?

Were Antioch and Alexandria in schism throughout that millennium, then?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #33 on: January 03, 2016, 09:55:32 PM »
so you reject apostolic succession? after St Peter died the church changed so that there isn't a leader among the bishops anyore? is this your belief?

Apostolic succession is not the same thing as Petrine succession. Bishops are the leaders of the Church. You make many assumptions based on the way you've been taught, and so your arguments aren't going to make sense to others.

Has no one given you grief about being a sedevacantist but making your kind of arguments? I guess it would just be too easy.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #34 on: January 03, 2016, 09:55:51 PM »
I believe for the first 1000 or so years of the Church the east recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St Peter, the difference being they believe the pope over stepped his authority, that he is merely first among equals? are you saying the pope is not even that?

Were Antioch and Alexandria in schism throughout that millennium, then?
why would they be in schism?

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #35 on: January 03, 2016, 09:59:02 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same
We do. We just don't see the Bishop of Rome as the sole successor to St. Peter.
I believe for the first 1000 or so years of the Church the east recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St Peter, the difference being they believe the pope over stepped his authority, that he is merely first among equals? are you saying the pope is not even that?
What evidence do you have to support your belief that for the first millennium the Eastern Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St. Peter? I'd always read that for the first thousand years the Eastern Church recognized many successors to St. Peter outside of Rome.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #36 on: January 03, 2016, 11:44:51 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same
We do. We just don't see the Bishop of Rome as the sole successor to St. Peter.
I believe for the first 1000 or so years of the Church the east recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St Peter, the difference being they believe the pope over stepped his authority, that he is merely first among equals? are you saying the pope is not even that?
What evidence do you have to support your belief that for the first millennium the Eastern Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St. Peter? I'd always read that for the first thousand years the Eastern Church recognized many successors to St. Peter outside of Rome.
here's  a good article by Fr Ray Ryland that I believe speaks to this issue,let me know your thoughts

About A.D. 96, for example, in the pontificate of Clement I, a faction in the Church in Corinth created a schism by ousting some bishops and presbyters. Pope Clement wrote a strongly worded letter to that church. He begins his letter apologizing for his delay "in giving our attention to the subjects of dispute in your community." Vigorous persecution under Nero and Domitian had prevented the Church at Rome from intervening earlier.

Clement immediately addresses the perpetrators of the schism, calling their action "that execrable and godless schism so utterly foreign to the elect of God." He reproves them for presuming to assert authority over successors of the apostles. Their action, he says, is "no small sin." He does not ask for more details in order to make his judgment. He simply passes judgment on the schismatics and orders them to submit to their pastors.

In what one author has called "the epiphany of the Roman primacy," Clement commands the schismatics to be "obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit." He warns them, "But should any disobey what has been said by him [Christ] through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger."

Clement hardly could assert more strongly his assurance that the Holy Spirit is speaking through him and therefore that he speaks with the voice of Christ. He concludes by saying he has sent three legates to Corinth to investigate. From other sources we know the schism was healed by Clement’s action.

Had the Church at Corinth appealed to Clement to settle the schism? Clement’s apology for the delay in intervening suggests it had. The Corinthians were not simply seeking help from some authoritative person. Were that true, they could have appealed to the apostle John, still living and in a city (Ephesus) much closer to Corinth than was Rome. No, they appealed to the successor of Peter. At the end of the first century, Rome’s authority and responsibility for settling such matters was already recognized.

No local church could exercise authority over another local church? The Corinthians never heard of this notion. They held Clement’s letter in almost as high esteem as they did sacred Scripture. Eusebius tells us that 70 years after Clement sent his letter, the Church at Corinth was still reading aloud from it every Sunday during the liturgy.

Petrine authority was not a papal invention to impose a theological straitjacket on the unsuspecting East. No, that authority was always a lifeline to the truth. Again and again by that lifeline Easterners were rescued from the Frankensteinian heresies they created but could not overcome.


Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2016, 05:13:53 AM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same
We do. We just don't see the Bishop of Rome as the sole successor to St. Peter.
I believe for the first 1000 or so years of the Church the east recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St Peter, the difference being they believe the pope over stepped his authority, that he is merely first among equals? are you saying the pope is not even that?
What evidence do you have to support your belief that for the first millennium the Eastern Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St. Peter? I'd always read that for the first thousand years the Eastern Church recognized many successors to St. Peter outside of Rome.
here's  a good article by Fr Ray Ryland that I believe speaks to this issue,let me know your thoughts

About A.D. 96, for example, in the pontificate of Clement I, a faction in the Church in Corinth created a schism by ousting some bishops and presbyters. Pope Clement wrote a strongly worded letter to that church. He begins his letter apologizing for his delay "in giving our attention to the subjects of dispute in your community." Vigorous persecution under Nero and Domitian had prevented the Church at Rome from intervening earlier.

Clement immediately addresses the perpetrators of the schism, calling their action "that execrable and godless schism so utterly foreign to the elect of God." He reproves them for presuming to assert authority over successors of the apostles. Their action, he says, is "no small sin." He does not ask for more details in order to make his judgment. He simply passes judgment on the schismatics and orders them to submit to their pastors.

In what one author has called "the epiphany of the Roman primacy," Clement commands the schismatics to be "obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit." He warns them, "But should any disobey what has been said by him [Christ] through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger."

Clement hardly could assert more strongly his assurance that the Holy Spirit is speaking through him and therefore that he speaks with the voice of Christ. He concludes by saying he has sent three legates to Corinth to investigate. From other sources we know the schism was healed by Clement’s action.

Had the Church at Corinth appealed to Clement to settle the schism? Clement’s apology for the delay in intervening suggests it had. The Corinthians were not simply seeking help from some authoritative person. Were that true, they could have appealed to the apostle John, still living and in a city (Ephesus) much closer to Corinth than was Rome. No, they appealed to the successor of Peter. At the end of the first century, Rome’s authority and responsibility for settling such matters was already recognized.

No local church could exercise authority over another local church? The Corinthians never heard of this notion. They held Clement’s letter in almost as high esteem as they did sacred Scripture. Eusebius tells us that 70 years after Clement sent his letter, the Church at Corinth was still reading aloud from it every Sunday during the liturgy.

Petrine authority was not a papal invention to impose a theological straitjacket on the unsuspecting East. No, that authority was always a lifeline to the truth. Again and again by that lifeline Easterners were rescued from the Frankensteinian heresies they created but could not overcome.
Personally, I have no problem with the primacy of Rome as the Early Church, the Early Fathers, and early Rome all understood it. I reject how popes after the fall of Old Rome reinterpreted that early primacy to justify their increasingly pompous claims to universal supremacy. I reject how Pope Pius IX railroaded his doctrine of papal infallibility through Vatican I in 1870. I reject what the Roman Catholic Church became as a consequence of Vatican I. For those doctrines I reject I see no basis in the Early Church's understanding of the place of primacy they granted the Church of Rome. I also don't see Rome's early primacy as solely an inheritance they received from St. Peter, for other churches of that time could lay equal claim to the heritage of St. Peter their founder. Petrine authority isn't a property unique to Rome.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2016, 10:06:38 AM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #39 on: January 04, 2016, 01:25:44 PM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view?
AFAIK, yes, it is the official Orthodox view. If being founded by St. Peter is the only qualification a church needs for primacy, why does the Church in Antioch not have the same primacy, seeing that she has an equally valid claim to being founded by St. Peter?

Quote
I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
St. Cyprian's teaching that every orthodox bishop sits in St. Peter's chair. What do you have to support your claim?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2016, 01:33:53 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #40 on: January 04, 2016, 01:38:03 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same
We do. We just don't see the Bishop of Rome as the sole successor to St. Peter.
I believe for the first 1000 or so years of the Church the east recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St Peter, the difference being they believe the pope over stepped his authority, that he is merely first among equals? are you saying the pope is not even that?
What evidence do you have to support your belief that for the first millennium the Eastern Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St. Peter? I'd always read that for the first thousand years the Eastern Church recognized many successors to St. Peter outside of Rome.
here's  a good article by Fr Ray Ryland that I believe speaks to this issue,let me know your thoughts

About A.D. 96, for example, in the pontificate of Clement I, a faction in the Church in Corinth created a schism by ousting some bishops and presbyters. Pope Clement wrote a strongly worded letter to that church. He begins his letter apologizing for his delay "in giving our attention to the subjects of dispute in your community." Vigorous persecution under Nero and Domitian had prevented the Church at Rome from intervening earlier.

Clement immediately addresses the perpetrators of the schism, calling their action "that execrable and godless schism so utterly foreign to the elect of God." He reproves them for presuming to assert authority over successors of the apostles. Their action, he says, is "no small sin." He does not ask for more details in order to make his judgment. He simply passes judgment on the schismatics and orders them to submit to their pastors.

In what one author has called "the epiphany of the Roman primacy," Clement commands the schismatics to be "obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit." He warns them, "But should any disobey what has been said by him [Christ] through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger."

Clement hardly could assert more strongly his assurance that the Holy Spirit is speaking through him and therefore that he speaks with the voice of Christ. He concludes by saying he has sent three legates to Corinth to investigate. From other sources we know the schism was healed by Clement’s action.

Had the Church at Corinth appealed to Clement to settle the schism? Clement’s apology for the delay in intervening suggests it had. The Corinthians were not simply seeking help from some authoritative person. Were that true, they could have appealed to the apostle John, still living and in a city (Ephesus) much closer to Corinth than was Rome. No, they appealed to the successor of Peter. At the end of the first century, Rome’s authority and responsibility for settling such matters was already recognized.

No local church could exercise authority over another local church? The Corinthians never heard of this notion. They held Clement’s letter in almost as high esteem as they did sacred Scripture. Eusebius tells us that 70 years after Clement sent his letter, the Church at Corinth was still reading aloud from it every Sunday during the liturgy.

Petrine authority was not a papal invention to impose a theological straitjacket on the unsuspecting East. No, that authority was always a lifeline to the truth. Again and again by that lifeline Easterners were rescued from the Frankensteinian heresies they created but could not overcome.

Your author is interpreting St. Clement of Rome in a way his epistles just won't bear. Orthodox accept and are familiar with the epistles, I myself have read them a few times, and there's no way with basic reading comprehension to say the burden of the letters was Roman superiority, or even that the letters are about Rome or St. Clement at all. He is writing a letter to that parish about that parish's problems, he is otherwise offering the Church at large a variety of edification, in other words, he is writing in the vein of the epistles of the Apostles.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #41 on: January 04, 2016, 01:41:01 PM »
Oh and ironically for you his most explicit burden in the epistle your author is quoting from is that the parish obey their bishop.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2016, 03:05:11 AM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP
it's kind of like this , the owner of the band who put the members together from the beginning left the lead singer in charge, then later on the other members decided hey you are not a real leader, you're just first among equals..they reject the owner of the band by doing this

So Catholics' hierarchism and monarchism extends even to pop music? Do you also need a leader before you can start to look for the food court in the mall?
the pop music analogy was in reference to the other poster, why you would make that comment is beyond me...my leader is Christ, I accept that he made St Peter leader of the Church,you should do the same
We do. We just don't see the Bishop of Rome as the sole successor to St. Peter.
I believe for the first 1000 or so years of the Church the east recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St Peter, the difference being they believe the pope over stepped his authority, that he is merely first among equals? are you saying the pope is not even that?
What evidence do you have to support your belief that for the first millennium the Eastern Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as sole successor to St. Peter? I'd always read that for the first thousand years the Eastern Church recognized many successors to St. Peter outside of Rome.
here's  a good article by Fr Ray Ryland that I believe speaks to this issue,let me know your thoughts

About A.D. 96, for example, in the pontificate of Clement I, a faction in the Church in Corinth created a schism by ousting some bishops and presbyters. Pope Clement wrote a strongly worded letter to that church. He begins his letter apologizing for his delay "in giving our attention to the subjects of dispute in your community." Vigorous persecution under Nero and Domitian had prevented the Church at Rome from intervening earlier.

Clement immediately addresses the perpetrators of the schism, calling their action "that execrable and godless schism so utterly foreign to the elect of God." He reproves them for presuming to assert authority over successors of the apostles. Their action, he says, is "no small sin." He does not ask for more details in order to make his judgment. He simply passes judgment on the schismatics and orders them to submit to their pastors.

In what one author has called "the epiphany of the Roman primacy," Clement commands the schismatics to be "obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit." He warns them, "But should any disobey what has been said by him [Christ] through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger."

Clement hardly could assert more strongly his assurance that the Holy Spirit is speaking through him and therefore that he speaks with the voice of Christ. He concludes by saying he has sent three legates to Corinth to investigate. From other sources we know the schism was healed by Clement’s action.

Had the Church at Corinth appealed to Clement to settle the schism? Clement’s apology for the delay in intervening suggests it had. The Corinthians were not simply seeking help from some authoritative person. Were that true, they could have appealed to the apostle John, still living and in a city (Ephesus) much closer to Corinth than was Rome. No, they appealed to the successor of Peter. At the end of the first century, Rome’s authority and responsibility for settling such matters was already recognized.

No local church could exercise authority over another local church? The Corinthians never heard of this notion. They held Clement’s letter in almost as high esteem as they did sacred Scripture. Eusebius tells us that 70 years after Clement sent his letter, the Church at Corinth was still reading aloud from it every Sunday during the liturgy.

Petrine authority was not a papal invention to impose a theological straitjacket on the unsuspecting East. No, that authority was always a lifeline to the truth. Again and again by that lifeline Easterners were rescued from the Frankensteinian heresies they created but could not overcome.

Calling Clement I "the epiphany of the Roman primacy" is beyond absurd.

He's a brief list of a several observations I made after reading the text:
1. All references to Rome are in the plural ("us", "we", etc...).
2. The Church of Corinth asked the Church of Rome to intervene.
3. "Pillars" is used to describe both Peter and Paul, who are treated as equals in the only explicit reference to them.
4. In using a military analogy for the church, Clement refers to Christ as the king and the presbyters (plural) as his generals.
5. In the defending the right of the lawful presbyters of Corinth to govern their Church, Clement describes the appointment of bishops by the apostles, but makes no mention of any one bishop being entrusted with the care of the entire Church.
6. He encourages the dissenting members of the Church of Corinth to submit to a conciliar decision made by the presbyters of Church of Corinth itself and not Rome.

Dealing with some of the points you brought up directly, the reference to the Holy Sprit speaking through St. Clement is as follows:
Quote
For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter

Clement refers to "the things written by us", and makes no reference to his personal authority. In my opinion, the content of Clement I was dictated by a council of the presbyters of the Church of Rome, and thus the reference to the Holy Spirit is meant to show that the decision was unanimous and is a reference to the Apostolic Council described in Acts 15.

There's no evidence the Church of Corinth wrote to St. John, but there's also no evidence they didn't or at least didn't try to but were unable to because of either the persecutions referenced at the beginning of Clement I or St. John's exile on Patmos. Suggesting the Church of Corinth wrote to the Bishop of Rome over St. John assumes the evidence we have is all there is.

St. Clement's letter was held in high regard by the Church of Corinth because of his personal connection with the city. St. Clement was a co-laborer with St. Paul and helped the latter found the Church of Corinth.

"lifeline to truth" *cough cough* Vigilus and Honorius *cough cough*



« Last Edit: January 05, 2016, 03:08:45 AM by Sam G »
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #43 on: January 05, 2016, 08:08:38 AM »
The second person singular might be a "royal we" (if it is, then it's most likely a feature of the translation and not the original Greek).



Oh boy, here comes Vigilus/Honorius rabbit hole #6587...
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #44 on: January 05, 2016, 11:08:49 AM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
Before St. Peter went to Rome and he was the Bishop of Antioch, did Antioch have papal supremacy? Did Antioch lose papal supremacy when St. Peter departed?
God bless!

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #45 on: January 05, 2016, 12:33:21 PM »
The second person singular might be a "royal we" (if it is, then it's most likely a feature of the translation and not the original Greek).

He's the original Greek of the passage invoking the Holy Spirit:
Quote
χαραν γαρ και αγαλλιασιν ημιν παρεξετε, εαν υπηκοοι γενομενοι τοις υφ ημων γεγραμμενοις δια του αγιου πνευματος εκκοψητε την αθεμιτον του ζηλους υμων οργην κατα την εντευξιν ην εποιησαμεθα περι ειρηνης και ομονοιας εν τηδε τη επιστολη.

From what I've been able to find online, the key word is ημων, which is rendered by Strong's Concordance as "our company, us, we".

Oh boy, here comes Vigilus/Honorius rabbit hole #6587...

My sincere apologies.
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #46 on: January 05, 2016, 02:53:37 PM »
Oh boy, here comes Vigilus/Honorius rabbit hole #6587...

My sincere apologies.
No need to apologize. Volnutt is just being unreasonably disagreeable.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #47 on: January 05, 2016, 03:04:35 PM »
Oh boy, here comes Vigilus/Honorius rabbit hole #6587...

My sincere apologies.
No need to apologize. Volnutt is just being unreasonably disagreeable.

I am not. I'm just just expressing how sick I am of seeing these threads go down that path. I think it's better to discuss the Papal claims in theory than it is to get bogged down in those two examples that have been done to death and neither side can agree on the interpretation of.

But no, Sam. There's no need to apologize to me. You've done nothing wrong.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #48 on: January 05, 2016, 03:06:06 PM »
The second person singular might be a "royal we" (if it is, then it's most likely a feature of the translation and not the original Greek).

He's the original Greek of the passage invoking the Holy Spirit:
Quote
χαραν γαρ και αγαλλιασιν ημιν παρεξετε, εαν υπηκοοι γενομενοι τοις υφ ημων γεγραμμενοις δια του αγιου πνευματος εκκοψητε την αθεμιτον του ζηλους υμων οργην κατα την εντευξιν ην εποιησαμεθα περι ειρηνης και ομονοιας εν τηδε τη επιστολη.

From what I've been able to find online, the key word is ημων, which is rendered by Strong's Concordance as "our company, us, we".

Ok. I suppose your reading makes more sense than as a plural of majesty then.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,721
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #49 on: January 05, 2016, 05:06:52 PM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
Before St. Peter went to Rome and he was the Bishop of Antioch, did Antioch have papal supremacy? Did Antioch lose papal supremacy when St. Peter departed?

Actually he was first at Rome, then went to Jerusalem at the council of Jerusalem after the Jews were banished from Rome over debates concerning one "Chrestus"... After the Council he went to Antioch and then back to Rome.

Its sad many people done know this. Then again many people don't know he even went to Antioch
« Last Edit: January 05, 2016, 05:07:30 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #50 on: January 05, 2016, 05:12:09 PM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
Before St. Peter went to Rome and he was the Bishop of Antioch, did Antioch have papal supremacy? Did Antioch lose papal supremacy when St. Peter departed?

Actually he was first at Rome, then went to Jerusalem at the council of Jerusalem after the Jews were banished from Rome over debates concerning one "Chrestus"... After the Council he went to Antioch and then back to Rome.

Its sad many people done know this. Then again many people don't know he even went to Antioch
Where did you get this info?
God bless!

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,721
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #51 on: January 05, 2016, 05:25:29 PM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
Before St. Peter went to Rome and he was the Bishop of Antioch, did Antioch have papal supremacy? Did Antioch lose papal supremacy when St. Peter departed?

Actually he was first at Rome, then went to Jerusalem at the council of Jerusalem after the Jews were banished from Rome over debates concerning one "Chrestus"... After the Council he went to Antioch and then back to Rome.

Its sad many people done know this. Then again many people don't know he even went to Antioch
Where did you get this info?

A few years back I stumbled on this information. It detailed a timeline linking quotes and biblical quotes and historical events to show a neat chronology of his travels as far as we know. I'm looking for it as we speak.

Although I will be first to admit it was a neat theory but, just theory that is not very popular although when I read it, it was highly convincing. I'm quite comfortable with Peter not being at Rome first though. But I really want to find that information.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2016, 05:29:21 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #52 on: January 05, 2016, 07:15:21 PM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
Before St. Peter went to Rome and he was the Bishop of Antioch, did Antioch have papal supremacy? Did Antioch lose papal supremacy when St. Peter departed?
wherever St Peter was he had supremacy, the dispute comes about after his death, Rome is where he died ,so not sure what you are arguing..do you agree with St Irenaeus?

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority.

St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,721
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #53 on: January 05, 2016, 11:55:16 PM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
Before St. Peter went to Rome and he was the Bishop of Antioch, did Antioch have papal supremacy? Did Antioch lose papal supremacy when St. Peter departed?

Actually he was first at Rome, then went to Jerusalem at the council of Jerusalem after the Jews were banished from Rome over debates concerning one "Chrestus"... After the Council he went to Antioch and then back to Rome.

Its sad many people done know this. Then again many people don't know he even went to Antioch
Where did you get this info?

A few years back I stumbled on this information. It detailed a timeline linking quotes and biblical quotes and historical events to show a neat chronology of his travels as far as we know. I'm looking for it as we speak.

Although I will be first to admit it was a neat theory but, just theory that is not very popular although when I read it, it was highly convincing. I'm quite comfortable with Peter not being at Rome first though. But I really want to find that information.

Do you need Urim and Thummim to read the plates on which this information is engraved? 

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #54 on: January 06, 2016, 12:09:54 AM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
Before St. Peter went to Rome and he was the Bishop of Antioch, did Antioch have papal supremacy? Did Antioch lose papal supremacy when St. Peter departed?

Actually he was first at Rome, then went to Jerusalem at the council of Jerusalem after the Jews were banished from Rome over debates concerning one "Chrestus"... After the Council he went to Antioch and then back to Rome.

Its sad many people done know this. Then again many people don't know he even went to Antioch
Where did you get this info?

A few years back I stumbled on this information. It detailed a timeline linking quotes and biblical quotes and historical events to show a neat chronology of his travels as far as we know. I'm looking for it as we speak.

Although I will be first to admit it was a neat theory but, just theory that is not very popular although when I read it, it was highly convincing. I'm quite comfortable with Peter not being at Rome first though. But I really want to find that information.

You're argument relies on sola scriptura, considering the tradition identifies the Roman Church as being founded by both Peter and Paul. St. Ireneaus explicitly says the episcopacy was entrusted to Linus by both apostles.
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #55 on: January 06, 2016, 02:33:20 AM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
Before St. Peter went to Rome and he was the Bishop of Antioch, did Antioch have papal supremacy? Did Antioch lose papal supremacy when St. Peter departed?
wherever St Peter was he had supremacy, the dispute comes about after his death, Rome is where he died ,so not sure what you are arguing..do you agree with St Irenaeus?
I don't think St. Peter had much supremacy if St. Paul could confront him and tell him to get his act together.

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority.
Of course, most of the local churches agreed with Rome's position on the Quartodeciman controversy, which is probably why Pope Victor was granted that authority to act as he did--he was seen as representing the consensus of the Church. (They just didn't share his zeal to go as far as he wanted to go to enforce the consensus view.)

St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
You don't know how many times that quote has been beaten to death on this forum. Every Catholic who tries to win a debate with us ends up citing that quote sooner or later. You Catholics like to bring up this quote as if it proves Rome's centrality to the Church. But what if it happens that St. Irenaeus was citing Rome as merely the most visible example of the orthodoxy all churches with apostolic succession share?

BTW, as outspoken as St. Irenaeus was against heresies, I doubt he would have counseled us to agree with Rome even if doing so means following Rome into heresy.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 02:36:50 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,250
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #56 on: January 06, 2016, 03:22:16 AM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
Before St. Peter went to Rome and he was the Bishop of Antioch, did Antioch have papal supremacy? Did Antioch lose papal supremacy when St. Peter departed?
wherever St Peter was he had supremacy, the dispute comes about after his death, Rome is where he died ,so not sure what you are arguing..do you agree with St Irenaeus?

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority.

St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)

Anyone who has even the slightest clue about Carolingian history knows full well that the idea of Rome was more or less constructed north of the Alps in the early Middle Ages and then exported to Rome gradually over the 9th and 10th centuries.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 03:23:22 AM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,721
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #57 on: January 06, 2016, 04:18:46 AM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
Before St. Peter went to Rome and he was the Bishop of Antioch, did Antioch have papal supremacy? Did Antioch lose papal supremacy when St. Peter departed?

Actually he was first at Rome, then went to Jerusalem at the council of Jerusalem after the Jews were banished from Rome over debates concerning one "Chrestus"... After the Council he went to Antioch and then back to Rome.

Its sad many people done know this. Then again many people don't know he even went to Antioch
Where did you get this info?

A few years back I stumbled on this information. It detailed a timeline linking quotes and biblical quotes and historical events to show a neat chronology of his travels as far as we know. I'm looking for it as we speak.

Although I will be first to admit it was a neat theory but, just theory that is not very popular although when I read it, it was highly convincing. I'm quite comfortable with Peter not being at Rome first though. But I really want to find that information.

You're argument relies on sola scriptura, considering the tradition identifies the Roman Church as being founded by both Peter and Paul. St. Ireneaus explicitly says the episcopacy was entrusted to Linus by both apostles.

That's of irrelevance. St Linus could have been made a bishop by St John but who he succeeds is what is of importance. He succeeded peter in his chair where he sat for some 20 Odd years and laid down his life there. That is where roman primacy stems from. Where peter left his chair and it is fortified by the blood of Peter and Paul ,who according to St. John Chrysostom, will walk the streets of Rome at the resurrection. He said this is what makes Rome great.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 04:21:29 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,721
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #58 on: January 06, 2016, 04:20:23 AM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
Before St. Peter went to Rome and he was the Bishop of Antioch, did Antioch have papal supremacy? Did Antioch lose papal supremacy when St. Peter departed?

Actually he was first at Rome, then went to Jerusalem at the council of Jerusalem after the Jews were banished from Rome over debates concerning one "Chrestus"... After the Council he went to Antioch and then back to Rome.

Its sad many people done know this. Then again many people don't know he even went to Antioch
Where did you get this info?

A few years back I stumbled on this information. It detailed a timeline linking quotes and biblical quotes and historical events to show a neat chronology of his travels as far as we know. I'm looking for it as we speak.

Although I will be first to admit it was a neat theory but, just theory that is not very popular although when I read it, it was highly convincing. I'm quite comfortable with Peter not being at Rome first though. But I really want to find that information.

Do you need Urim and Thummim to read the plates on which this information is engraved?

Huh?
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,411
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Freemason Homo Church Infiltrator
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #59 on: January 06, 2016, 06:18:40 AM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
Before St. Peter went to Rome and he was the Bishop of Antioch, did Antioch have papal supremacy? Did Antioch lose papal supremacy when St. Peter departed?

Actually he was first at Rome, then went to Jerusalem at the council of Jerusalem after the Jews were banished from Rome over debates concerning one "Chrestus"... After the Council he went to Antioch and then back to Rome.

Its sad many people done know this. Then again many people don't know he even went to Antioch
Where did you get this info?

A few years back I stumbled on this information. It detailed a timeline linking quotes and biblical quotes and historical events to show a neat chronology of his travels as far as we know. I'm looking for it as we speak.

Although I will be first to admit it was a neat theory but, just theory that is not very popular although when I read it, it was highly convincing. I'm quite comfortable with Peter not being at Rome first though. But I really want to find that information.

Do you need Urim and Thummim to read the plates on which this information is engraved?

Huh?

Mor, lol.

 

OR

Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #60 on: January 06, 2016, 02:24:41 PM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
Before St. Peter went to Rome and he was the Bishop of Antioch, did Antioch have papal supremacy? Did Antioch lose papal supremacy when St. Peter departed?

Actually he was first at Rome, then went to Jerusalem at the council of Jerusalem after the Jews were banished from Rome over debates concerning one "Chrestus"... After the Council he went to Antioch and then back to Rome.

Its sad many people done know this. Then again many people don't know he even went to Antioch
Where did you get this info?

A few years back I stumbled on this information. It detailed a timeline linking quotes and biblical quotes and historical events to show a neat chronology of his travels as far as we know. I'm looking for it as we speak.

Although I will be first to admit it was a neat theory but, just theory that is not very popular although when I read it, it was highly convincing. I'm quite comfortable with Peter not being at Rome first though. But I really want to find that information.

You're argument relies on sola scriptura, considering the tradition identifies the Roman Church as being founded by both Peter and Paul. St. Ireneaus explicitly says the episcopacy was entrusted to Linus by both apostles.

That's of irrelevance. St Linus could have been made a bishop by St John but who he succeeds is what is of importance. He succeeded peter in his chair where he sat for some 20 Odd years and laid down his life there. That is where roman primacy stems from. Where peter left his chair and it is fortified by the blood of Peter and Paul ,who according to St. John Chrysostom, will walk the streets of Rome at the resurrection. He said this is what makes Rome great.

As you have a habit of doing Wandile, you've manged to ignore the central claim of my argument (that both Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome). For the record, Linus was ordained by Paul. Why is St. Ireneaus only authoratative when he seemingly supports you're preconcieved view?
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #61 on: January 06, 2016, 02:55:16 PM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
Before St. Peter went to Rome and he was the Bishop of Antioch, did Antioch have papal supremacy? Did Antioch lose papal supremacy when St. Peter departed?
wherever St Peter was he had supremacy, the dispute comes about after his death, Rome is where he died ,so not sure what you are arguing..do you agree with St Irenaeus?

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority.

Emphasis mine.

So if the Pope has the right to essentially do anything he wants to (sending people to Hell over what day they chose to do Easter on), why can't Paul IV make a "Protestantized Mass?" How do you know you aren't putting your own innovative opinions over his authority?
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 02:58:32 PM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #62 on: January 06, 2016, 10:21:36 PM »
1870 for sure the orthodox are against, but obviously,there were other major issues before that we should attack, is your claim that Petrine primacy not unique to Rome the official Orthodox view? I don't think it's unanimous within the orthodox community, I always thought the orthodox outright reject Petrine primacy. what do you have to support this claim?
Before St. Peter went to Rome and he was the Bishop of Antioch, did Antioch have papal supremacy? Did Antioch lose papal supremacy when St. Peter departed?
wherever St Peter was he had supremacy, the dispute comes about after his death, Rome is where he died ,so not sure what you are arguing..do you agree with St Irenaeus?
I don't think St. Peter had much supremacy if St. Paul could confront him and tell him to get his act together.

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority.
Of course, most of the local churches agreed with Rome's position on the Quartodeciman controversy, which is probably why Pope Victor was granted that authority to act as he did--he was seen as representing the consensus of the Church. (They just didn't share his zeal to go as far as he wanted to go to enforce the consensus view.)

St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
You don't know how many times that quote has been beaten to death on this forum. Every Catholic who tries to win a debate with us ends up citing that quote sooner or later. You Catholics like to bring up this quote as if it proves Rome's centrality to the Church. But what if it happens that St. Irenaeus was citing Rome as merely the most visible example of the orthodoxy all churches with apostolic succession share?

BTW, as outspoken as St. Irenaeus was against heresies, I doubt he would have counseled us to agree with Rome even if doing so means following Rome into heresy.

you don't know how many times the orthodox try to wiggle their way out of that quote, your "if" is based on what exactly?
And I agree that he wouldn't have Christians follow Rome if they were in heresy...that's beside the point
the fact which as a good Christian you should just accept is clear
" For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority"
Rome is the 1st see, it has authority over the other sees, just as St Peter was head of all the apostles

you write
"I don't think St. Peter had much supremacy if St. Paul could confront him and tell him to get his act together"

nonsense as Catholics don't say That St Peter was a dictator, after reading what   St John Chrysostom writes about the issue there shouldn't be any debate really, I would like to concentrate   on the other  issues the orthodox differ from Catholics, where can I get a good website outlining all the differences? Rome is the 1st see , ST Peter was head of the apostles shouldn't have to be argued..it's clear cut

Again, he remarks how St. Paul "gives up to Peter the first place." (Hom 4 in Acta 3, vol IX, 46[37]; Hom 65[66] in Matt 4, vol VII, 622[648], ibid Hom 50[51], 506[515]; Hom 35 in 1 Cor 5, vol X, 303[329]; Hom 8 in Acta 1, vol IX, 71-72[64-65]).

"After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial) after so great a sin, He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the HEADSHIPOF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, and, what is more than all, He showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for saith he: 'Peter lovest thou Me more than these?'" (Hom 5 de Poen 2, vol II, 308[311])


Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey." (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

"See the unanimity of the apostles," he says, on Acts 2:4: "they give up to Peter the office of preaching, for it would not do for all to preach." "Hear how this same John, who now comes forward (to ask for a seat at Christ's right hand) in the Acts of the Apostles, always gives up the first place to Peter both in preaching and in working miracles. Afterwards James and John were not thus. Everywhere they gave up the first place to Peter, and in preaching they set him first, though he seemed of rougher manners than the others."

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #63 on: January 06, 2016, 10:27:12 PM »
St. Andrew was evidently the first disciple (Joh i.40ff); he then told St. Peter, his brother, about Jesus. In the instance where Christ calls them from their fishing-vessel, they are called together, the account simply saying that Christ saw "the two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew ..."
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #64 on: January 07, 2016, 12:13:12 AM »

you don't know how many times the orthodox try to wiggle their way out of that quote, your "if" is based on what exactly?
And I agree that he wouldn't have Christians follow Rome if they were in heresy...that's beside the point
the fact which as a good Christian you should just accept is clear
" For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority"
Rome is the 1st see, it has authority over the other sees, just as St Peter was head of all the apostles

Emphasis mine.

It's not beside the point, it's the whole point. None of what you're saying deals with the possibility of Rome falling into heresy, which is exactly what the Orthodox allege happened. Even if Papal Supremacy was true, Papal Infallibility would not necessarily follow- unless you assume that without Rome God is incapable of governing His Church.

Why does Christ need Rome so much that "Rome falling into heresy" is a universe shattering paradox? It seems to me to be at best a lack of faith in God and at worst, idolatry.

Quote from: sedevacantist
you write
"I don't think St. Peter had much supremacy if St. Paul could confront him and tell him to get his act together"

nonsense as Catholics don't say That St Peter was a dictator

How is the ability to unilaterally cut off entire regions over the date they celebrate Easter not a dictatorship?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 12:15:08 AM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #65 on: January 07, 2016, 12:35:44 AM »
St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
You don't know how many times that quote has been beaten to death on this forum. Every Catholic who tries to win a debate with us ends up citing that quote sooner or later. You Catholics like to bring up this quote as if it proves Rome's centrality to the Church. But what if it happens that St. Irenaeus was citing Rome as merely the most visible example of the orthodoxy all churches with apostolic succession share?

BTW, as outspoken as St. Irenaeus was against heresies, I doubt he would have counseled us to agree with Rome even if doing so means following Rome into heresy.

you don't know how many times the orthodox try to wiggle their way out of that quote,
You read the current papal claims into that quote from St. Irenaeus, something we've never done, and then accuse us of "wiggling" out of the "clear implications" of that quote. We don't deny the implications of that quote and what they mean for Roman primacy, but we don't straitjacket our reading of St. Irenaeus into Rome's current definition of papal authority. Where in that quote from St. Irenaeus do you see papal infallibility, for instance?

your "if" is based on what exactly?
  • St. Irenaeus wrote to western Christians.
  • The Church of Rome was the only church of Apostolic foundation in the West.

I don't put this forward as the correct interpretation of your St. Irenaeus quote to contradict your interpretation. I just posit this interpretation as an alternative  that disproves your claim that St. Irenaeus must only be read to support your current papal claims to supreme universal jurisdiction.

And I agree that he wouldn't have Christians follow Rome if they were in heresy...that's beside the point
Actually, the hypothetical situation of Rome falling into heresy (and the recognition from our side that she in fact did) is central to the point.

the fact which as a good Christian you should just accept is clear
" For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority"
Rome is the 1st see, it has authority over the other sees, just as St Peter was head of all the apostles
Let's look at the rest of that statement you cut in half: "inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere." When Rome fell into heresy, she ceased to be a member of the Church and forfeited her primacy. As such, Rome no longer has any authority within the Church.

you write
"I don't think St. Peter had much supremacy if St. Paul could confront him and tell him to get his act together"

nonsense as Catholics don't say That St Peter was a dictator,
Whether he was a dictator or not has no bearing on my point.

after reading what   St John Chrysostom writes about the issue there shouldn't be any debate really, I would like to concentrate   on the other  issues the orthodox differ from Catholics, where can I get a good website outlining all the differences? Rome is the 1st see , ST Peter was head of the apostles shouldn't have to be argued..it's clear cut
I don't see anyone arguing here that St. Peter wasn't the chief of the Apostles. Where do you see anyone arguing this? The only thing I'm arguing is that St. Peter's headship within the Apostolic choir doesn't translate to Roman superiority over the universal episcopacy.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #66 on: January 07, 2016, 09:45:47 PM »
St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
You don't know how many times that quote has been beaten to death on this forum. Every Catholic who tries to win a debate with us ends up citing that quote sooner or later. You Catholics like to bring up this quote as if it proves Rome's centrality to the Church. But what if it happens that St. Irenaeus was citing Rome as merely the most visible example of the orthodoxy all churches with apostolic succession share?

BTW, as outspoken as St. Irenaeus was against heresies, I doubt he would have counseled us to agree with Rome even if doing so means following Rome into heresy.

you don't know how many times the orthodox try to wiggle their way out of that quote,
You read the current papal claims into that quote from St. Irenaeus, something we've never done, and then accuse us of "wiggling" out of the "clear implications" of that quote. We don't deny the implications of that quote and what they mean for Roman primacy, but we don't straitjacket our reading of St. Irenaeus into Rome's current definition of papal authority. Where in that quote from St. Irenaeus do you see papal infallibility, for instance?

your "if" is based on what exactly?
  • St. Irenaeus wrote to western Christians.
  • The Church of Rome was the only church of Apostolic foundation in the West.

I don't put this forward as the correct interpretation of your St. Irenaeus quote to contradict your interpretation. I just posit this interpretation as an alternative  that disproves your claim that St. Irenaeus must only be read to support your current papal claims to supreme universal jurisdiction.

And I agree that he wouldn't have Christians follow Rome if they were in heresy...that's beside the point
Actually, the hypothetical situation of Rome falling into heresy (and the recognition from our side that she in fact did) is central to the point.

the fact which as a good Christian you should just accept is clear
" For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority"
Rome is the 1st see, it has authority over the other sees, just as St Peter was head of all the apostles
Let's look at the rest of that statement you cut in half: "inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere." When Rome fell into heresy, she ceased to be a member of the Church and forfeited her primacy. As such, Rome no longer has any authority within the Church.

you write
"I don't think St. Peter had much supremacy if St. Paul could confront him and tell him to get his act together"

nonsense as Catholics don't say That St Peter was a dictator,
Whether he was a dictator or not has no bearing on my point.

after reading what   St John Chrysostom writes about the issue there shouldn't be any debate really, I would like to concentrate   on the other  issues the orthodox differ from Catholics, where can I get a good website outlining all the differences? Rome is the 1st see , ST Peter was head of the apostles shouldn't have to be argued..it's clear cut
I don't see anyone arguing here that St. Peter wasn't the chief of the Apostles. Where do you see anyone arguing this? The only thing I'm arguing is that St. Peter's headship within the Apostolic choir doesn't translate to Roman superiority over the universal episcopacy.
you write
"I don't think St. Peter had much supremacy if St. Paul could confront him and tell him to get his act together"

then

"I don't see anyone arguing  here that St. Peter wasn't the chief of the Apostles"

what exactly is your definition of supremacy?

for me it's simple ,St Peter is the chief apostle, Rome is the chief (1st) see, it is not a first among equals (not even sure what that means) , like St. Irenaeus says ,all the other churches must agree with this church
you write not if they fall into heresy, I agree, Rome has fallen into heresy, we disagree on the when

why not discuss the why's , why do the orthodox say Rome fell into heresy, filioque etc..lets tackle those issues and lets agree, St Peter is the chief, I don't want to hear about St Paul rebuking him, his 3 fold denial , Rome is not the 1st see..bogus arguements



Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #67 on: January 07, 2016, 11:31:16 PM »
Quote
(not even sure what that means)

In that may lie your problem.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,662
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #68 on: January 07, 2016, 11:44:31 PM »
Its kind of like this: There is a band of 5 guys. They play music for a long time together, then the Lead Guitarist leaves the other 4 band members because he's a glory-hog. The other band members keep playing music as the same band they always have. The ex-lead guitarist tries to start a new band under the same name, but everyone knows its not the same band, no matter how hard he says it is.

Welcome to the papacy argument.

PP

I've always used the example of the 5 pointed star..... One point broke away leaving the remaining 4 to pursue Orthodoxy.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #69 on: January 08, 2016, 01:18:41 AM »
Quote
(not even sure what that means)

In that may lie your problem.
no problem here, I have the true faith..feel free to give your version of what first among equals actually means

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #70 on: January 08, 2016, 01:23:33 AM »
You've recently posted in this thread what your username already advertised, that you have no use for the Pope yourself. This means your flooding of threads with defense of the Roman See is empty, and possibly even your malicious idea of fun.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #71 on: January 08, 2016, 01:54:22 AM »
Quote
(not even sure what that means)

In that may lie your problem.
no problem here, I have the true faith..feel free to give your version of what first among equals actually means
So, who sits in the chair of St. Peter in your mind these days?
God bless!

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #72 on: January 08, 2016, 02:36:15 AM »
St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
You don't know how many times that quote has been beaten to death on this forum. Every Catholic who tries to win a debate with us ends up citing that quote sooner or later. You Catholics like to bring up this quote as if it proves Rome's centrality to the Church. But what if it happens that St. Irenaeus was citing Rome as merely the most visible example of the orthodoxy all churches with apostolic succession share?

BTW, as outspoken as St. Irenaeus was against heresies, I doubt he would have counseled us to agree with Rome even if doing so means following Rome into heresy.

you don't know how many times the orthodox try to wiggle their way out of that quote,
You read the current papal claims into that quote from St. Irenaeus, something we've never done, and then accuse us of "wiggling" out of the "clear implications" of that quote. We don't deny the implications of that quote and what they mean for Roman primacy, but we don't straitjacket our reading of St. Irenaeus into Rome's current definition of papal authority. Where in that quote from St. Irenaeus do you see papal infallibility, for instance?

your "if" is based on what exactly?
  • St. Irenaeus wrote to western Christians.
  • The Church of Rome was the only church of Apostolic foundation in the West.

I don't put this forward as the correct interpretation of your St. Irenaeus quote to contradict your interpretation. I just posit this interpretation as an alternative  that disproves your claim that St. Irenaeus must only be read to support your current papal claims to supreme universal jurisdiction.

And I agree that he wouldn't have Christians follow Rome if they were in heresy...that's beside the point
Actually, the hypothetical situation of Rome falling into heresy (and the recognition from our side that she in fact did) is central to the point.

the fact which as a good Christian you should just accept is clear
" For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority"
Rome is the 1st see, it has authority over the other sees, just as St Peter was head of all the apostles
Let's look at the rest of that statement you cut in half: "inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere." When Rome fell into heresy, she ceased to be a member of the Church and forfeited her primacy. As such, Rome no longer has any authority within the Church.

you write
"I don't think St. Peter had much supremacy if St. Paul could confront him and tell him to get his act together"

nonsense as Catholics don't say That St Peter was a dictator,
Whether he was a dictator or not has no bearing on my point.

after reading what   St John Chrysostom writes about the issue there shouldn't be any debate really, I would like to concentrate   on the other  issues the orthodox differ from Catholics, where can I get a good website outlining all the differences? Rome is the 1st see , ST Peter was head of the apostles shouldn't have to be argued..it's clear cut
I don't see anyone arguing here that St. Peter wasn't the chief of the Apostles. Where do you see anyone arguing this? The only thing I'm arguing is that St. Peter's headship within the Apostolic choir doesn't translate to Roman superiority over the universal episcopacy.
you write
"I don't think St. Peter had much supremacy if St. Paul could confront him and tell him to get his act together"

then

"I don't see anyone arguing  here that St. Peter wasn't the chief of the Apostles"

what exactly is your definition of supremacy?

for me it's simple ,St Peter is the chief apostle, Rome is the chief (1st) see, it is not a first among equals (not even sure what that means) , like St. Irenaeus says ,all the other churches must agree with this church
You don't agree with Rome, so why are you telling us to?

you write not if they fall into heresy, I agree, Rome has fallen into heresy, we disagree on the when
Then how come your Church hasn't fallen completely apart if you're no longer in communion with Rome? (Who knows? Maybe it has fallen apart.)

why not discuss the why's , why do the orthodox say Rome fell into heresy, filioque etc..lets tackle those issues
But that's not the original purpose of this thread. The question is this: Do we Orthodox deny the papacy. No, we do not. The papacy denies us.

and lets agree, St Peter is the chief, I don't want to hear about St Paul rebuking him, his 3 fold denial , Rome is not the 1st see..bogus arguements
Sorry, sir, but you don't get to tell us what arguments to make or not make.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2016, 02:37:34 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #73 on: January 08, 2016, 08:25:45 PM »
Quote
(not even sure what that means)

In that may lie your problem.
no problem here, I have the true faith..feel free to give your version of what first among equals actually means
So, who sits in the chair of St. Peter in your mind these days?
either it's empty or it's an anti pope who occupy's the chair

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #74 on: January 08, 2016, 08:32:18 PM »
St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
You don't know how many times that quote has been beaten to death on this forum. Every Catholic who tries to win a debate with us ends up citing that quote sooner or later. You Catholics like to bring up this quote as if it proves Rome's centrality to the Church. But what if it happens that St. Irenaeus was citing Rome as merely the most visible example of the orthodoxy all churches with apostolic succession share?

BTW, as outspoken as St. Irenaeus was against heresies, I doubt he would have counseled us to agree with Rome even if doing so means following Rome into heresy.

you don't know how many times the orthodox try to wiggle their way out of that quote,
You read the current papal claims into that quote from St. Irenaeus, something we've never done, and then accuse us of "wiggling" out of the "clear implications" of that quote. We don't deny the implications of that quote and what they mean for Roman primacy, but we don't straitjacket our reading of St. Irenaeus into Rome's current definition of papal authority. Where in that quote from St. Irenaeus do you see papal infallibility, for instance?

your "if" is based on what exactly?
  • St. Irenaeus wrote to western Christians.
  • The Church of Rome was the only church of Apostolic foundation in the West.

I don't put this forward as the correct interpretation of your St. Irenaeus quote to contradict your interpretation. I just posit this interpretation as an alternative  that disproves your claim that St. Irenaeus must only be read to support your current papal claims to supreme universal jurisdiction.

And I agree that he wouldn't have Christians follow Rome if they were in heresy...that's beside the point
Actually, the hypothetical situation of Rome falling into heresy (and the recognition from our side that she in fact did) is central to the point.

the fact which as a good Christian you should just accept is clear
" For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority"
Rome is the 1st see, it has authority over the other sees, just as St Peter was head of all the apostles
Let's look at the rest of that statement you cut in half: "inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere." When Rome fell into heresy, she ceased to be a member of the Church and forfeited her primacy. As such, Rome no longer has any authority within the Church.

you write
"I don't think St. Peter had much supremacy if St. Paul could confront him and tell him to get his act together"

nonsense as Catholics don't say That St Peter was a dictator,
Whether he was a dictator or not has no bearing on my point.

after reading what   St John Chrysostom writes about the issue there shouldn't be any debate really, I would like to concentrate   on the other  issues the orthodox differ from Catholics, where can I get a good website outlining all the differences? Rome is the 1st see , ST Peter was head of the apostles shouldn't have to be argued..it's clear cut
I don't see anyone arguing here that St. Peter wasn't the chief of the Apostles. Where do you see anyone arguing this? The only thing I'm arguing is that St. Peter's headship within the Apostolic choir doesn't translate to Roman superiority over the universal episcopacy.
you write
"I don't think St. Peter had much supremacy if St. Paul could confront him and tell him to get his act together"

then

"I don't see anyone arguing  here that St. Peter wasn't the chief of the Apostles"

what exactly is your definition of supremacy?

for me it's simple ,St Peter is the chief apostle, Rome is the chief (1st) see, it is not a first among equals (not even sure what that means) , like St. Irenaeus says ,all the other churches must agree with this church
You don't agree with Rome, so why are you telling us to?

you write not if they fall into heresy, I agree, Rome has fallen into heresy, we disagree on the when
Then how come your Church hasn't fallen completely apart if you're no longer in communion with Rome? (Who knows? Maybe it has fallen apart.)

why not discuss the why's , why do the orthodox say Rome fell into heresy, filioque etc..lets tackle those issues
But that's not the original purpose of this thread. The question is this: Do we Orthodox deny the papacy. No, we do not. The papacy denies us.

and lets agree, St Peter is the chief, I don't want to hear about St Paul rebuking him, his 3 fold denial , Rome is not the 1st see..bogus arguements
Sorry, sir, but you don't get to tell us what arguments to make or not make.
I'm not telling you what arguments to make, I'm stating we should now agree on St Peter as being chief apostle, Rome as the 1st see....other orthodox have continued to argue these basic points, not saying you , now once we come to this basic understanding we can move on to the meat and potatoes, we agree on the papacy then, the papacy doesn't agree with us....we differ on the time..I say you're off about 900 years or so

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #75 on: January 08, 2016, 08:37:31 PM »
you wrote "Then how come your Church hasn't fallen completely apart if you're no longer in communion with Rome? (Who knows? Maybe it has fallen apart.)"
The Church is in a crisis,we are at the end times, this has been prophesised by true popes I belong to the true Catholic Church, Christ said when He comes back will there be any faith, I just don't see many with the true faith in this world

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #76 on: January 08, 2016, 08:50:32 PM »
you wrote "Then how come your Church hasn't fallen completely apart if you're no longer in communion with Rome? (Who knows? Maybe it has fallen apart.)"
The Church is in a crisis,we are at the end times, this has been prophesised by true popes I belong to the true Catholic Church, Christ said when He comes back will there be any faith, I just don't see many with the true faith in this world

"True Popes" who are prophesying contrary to Christ's promises, then. The Church cannot fail until she is greeted by her Lord in the air.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #77 on: January 08, 2016, 09:21:02 PM »
I'm not telling you what arguments to make, I'm stating we should now agree on St Peter as being chief apostle, Rome as the 1st see....
I don't disagree with those claims. I just disagree with you on what those claims mean.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #78 on: January 10, 2016, 04:04:03 PM »
you wrote "Then how come your Church hasn't fallen completely apart if you're no longer in communion with Rome? (Who knows? Maybe it has fallen apart.)"
The Church is in a crisis,we are at the end times, this has been prophesised by true popes I belong to the true Catholic Church, Christ said when He comes back will there be any faith, I just don't see many with the true faith in this world

"True Popes" who are prophesying contrary to Christ's promises, then. The Church cannot fail until she is greeted by her Lord in the air.
 

 indefectibility (the promise of Christ to always be with His Church, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is.  The indefectibility of the Church requires that at least a remnant of the Church will exist until the end of the world, and that a true pope will never authoritatively teach error to the entire Church.  It does not exclude antipopes posing as popes (as we’ve had numerous times in the past, even in Rome) or a counterfeit sect that reduces the adherents of the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the last days.  This is precisely what is predicted to occur in the last days and what happened during the Arian crisis.   
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."2 
Further, it should be noted that the Church has defined that heretics are the gates of Hell which Our Lord mentioned in Matthew 16! 
Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”3 
Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”4 
St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.”5 (Intro. To Catena Aurea.) 
Answers to Objections 299
Notice that heretics are the gates of Hell.  Heretics are not members of the Church.  That’s why a heretic could never be a pope.  The gates of Hell (heretics) could never have authority over the Church of Christ.  It’s not those who expose the heretical Vatican II antipopes who are asserting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church; it’s those who obstinately defend them as popes, even though they can clearly be proven to be manifest heretics. 
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”6 
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306:  "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."   
There is not one teaching of the Catholic Church that can be quoted which is contrary to the fact that there is presently a counterfeit sect which has reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the days of the Great Apostasy, which is presided over by antipopes who have falsely posed as popes.  Those who assert that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church assert that the Catholic Church officially endorses false religions and false doctrines.  This is impossible and would mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #79 on: January 11, 2016, 09:50:43 AM »
Quote
(not even sure what that means)

In that may lie your problem.
no problem here, I have the true faith..feel free to give your version of what first among equals actually means
So, who sits in the chair of St. Peter in your mind these days?
either it's empty or it's an anti pope who occupy's the chair
So you believe that we are heretics for believing that no one can claim supremacy over the Church when you believe the same exact thing? Most interesting...
God bless!

Offline byhisgrace

  • AOCB
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,265
  • Memory Eternal to my Younger Brother
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #80 on: January 11, 2016, 10:58:05 AM »
No. Sedevacantists believe that Rome has supremacy and infallibility, but only if it is occupied by the true Pope.
Oh Holy Apostle, St. John, pray for us

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #81 on: January 11, 2016, 11:00:49 AM »
No. Sedevacantists believe that Rome has supremacy and infallibility, but only if it is occupied by the true Pope.
I was being facetious. My point is that right now, he does not believe anyone has that authority, and there is pretty much no way all the little sedevacantist groups could ever get together and come up with a formula whereby a "true Pope" could ever be obtained again.
God bless!

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #82 on: January 11, 2016, 11:06:40 AM »
No. Sedevacantists believe that Rome has supremacy and infallibility, but only if it is occupied by the true Pope.

A dead god is not much of a god.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,721
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #83 on: January 11, 2016, 01:35:15 PM »
No. Sedevacantists believe that Rome has supremacy and infallibility, but only if it is occupied by the true Pope.

A dead god is not much of a god.



Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us!

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 997
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #84 on: January 11, 2016, 02:11:02 PM »
Quote
EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH
But you are SEDEVATICANTIS, YOU DON'T AGREE WITH POPE FRANCIS, i don't understand why you require us to agree with him....
(I want to note for the sake of fairness that the Rome of St Irenaeus's time is not identical with today's Rome)

No. Sedevacantists believe that Rome has supremacy and infallibility, but only if it is occupied by the true Pope.
That statement is absurd in itself, either Rome is this special place with special supremacy & infallibility or NOT

If true popes can be replaced by false popes, what makes sedevacantis think it happened in 1960 ? Why not 1054 ?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2016, 02:36:54 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #85 on: January 11, 2016, 03:29:29 PM »
St. Andrew was evidently the first disciple (Joh i.40ff); he then told St. Peter, his brother, about Jesus. In the instance where Christ calls them from their fishing-vessel, they are called together, the account simply saying that Christ saw "the two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew ..."

This brings up an interesting point. If physical, worldly order was the only consideration (and let's be honest, there is a practical reason that the heart of the Roman Empire also became the chief see) then we would have expected St. Andrew to be the chief Apostle, wouldn't we?

So, we must remember that Peter was the chief of the Apostles first and foremost because of his confession. Hypothetically, if after falling away St. Peter had not bounced back, then another Apostle (perhaps St. Andrew, perhaps Sts. John or James, son of Zebedee) would have taken his place at the head of choir.

So, if Catholics are correct in saying that the Pope of Rome is the only successor of St. Peter, then why should they get all bent out of shape at the prospect of Peter falling away again? It's the confession of faith, not the person making it.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #86 on: January 11, 2016, 09:59:30 PM »
Quote
(not even sure what that means)

In that may lie your problem.
no problem here, I have the true faith..feel free to give your version of what first among equals actually means
So, who sits in the chair of St. Peter in your mind these days?
either it's empty or it's an anti pope who occupy's the chair
So you believe that we are heretics for believing that no one can claim supremacy over the Church when you believe the same exact thing? Most interesting...
no I believe you are heretics for not being Catholic, I am Catholic..today the Vatican is not catholic..so to be clear I believe in the papacy,that Rome has primacy, not first among equals like you falsely believe, give me a good website that points out all the so called heresy's of the Roman Church from 1000 years ago and we can discuss..or feel free  to  point them out , if a thread of this kind hasn't been started already I'll be glad to start one

Offline Theophania

  • Ecumenical Dissipation Association *OF* America
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,811
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #87 on: January 11, 2016, 10:01:34 PM »
We are Catholic :)
It's common knowledge that you secretly want to be born in early 17th century Russia.  As a serf or a royal, I know not.  Chances are serf.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #88 on: January 11, 2016, 10:09:01 PM »
Quote
(not even sure what that means)

In that may lie your problem.
no problem here, I have the true faith..feel free to give your version of what first among equals actually means
So, who sits in the chair of St. Peter in your mind these days?
either it's empty or it's an anti pope who occupy's the chair
So you believe that we are heretics for believing that no one can claim supremacy over the Church when you believe the same exact thing? Most interesting...
no I believe you are heretics for not being Catholic, I am Catholic..today the Vatican is not catholic..so to be clear I believe in the papacy,that Rome has primacy, not first among equals like you falsely believe, give me a good website that points out all the so called heresy's of the Roman Church from 1000 years ago and we can discuss..or feel free  to  point them out , if a thread of this kind hasn't been started already I'll be glad to start one

Why should your claim to be Catholic hold any more water than the Orthodox one? Obviously Papal Supremacy is not as important as you claim it to be if you think the Catholic Church has made it just fine without the Pope for the last 50+ years. At least the Orthodox are consistent in claiming that a Supreme Pontiff was never needed.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #89 on: January 11, 2016, 10:41:47 PM »
Quote
EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH
But you are SEDEVATICANTIS, YOU DON'T AGREE WITH POPE FRANCIS, i don't understand why you require us to agree with him....
(I want to note for the sake of fairness that the Rome of St Irenaeus's time is not identical with today's Rome)

No. Sedevacantists believe that Rome has supremacy and infallibility, but only if it is occupied by the true Pope.
I'm telling you to agree with Francis? when  did I do that? I'm telling you to convert to the true Catholic faith. There was no heresy from the Roman Church 1000 years ago,so you are outside the Catholic Church...but it's not too late..that's what I'm saying
That statement is absurd in itself, either Rome is this special place with special supremacy & infallibility or NOT

If true popes can be replaced by false popes, what makes sedevacantis think it happened in 1960 ? Why not 1054 ?

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #90 on: January 11, 2016, 10:46:56 PM »
Quote
EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH
But you are SEDEVATICANTIS, YOU DON'T AGREE WITH POPE FRANCIS, i don't understand why you require us to agree with him....
(I want to note for the sake of fairness that the Rome of St Irenaeus's time is not identical with today's Rome)

No. Sedevacantists believe that Rome has supremacy and infallibility, but only if it is occupied by the true Pope.
That statement is absurd in itself, either Rome is this special place with special supremacy & infallibility or NOT

If true popes can be replaced by false popes, what makes sedevacantis think it happened in 1960 ? Why not 1054 ?
you obviously don't understand what infallibility implies, I would be hypocritical if I said the greek orthodox are in error for simply rejecting Rome, I'm saying the orthodox had no reason to split from Rome, there was no heresy from Rome 1000 years ago

In Luke chapter 22, we find another very important, but often overlooked passage in the Bible which proves Catholic teaching on the Papacy.

Luke 22:24-32 “And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve… And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”

This passage is fascinating. It contains a number of important truths. First of all, there is a strife among the Apostles about who will be the greatest. Jesus explains that His Kingdom is not like that of the Gentiles. So Jesus is talking about how His Kingdom or Church is structured.

Jesus then says that Satan has desired to sift all the apostles in the plural, but that He has prayed for Peter [singular] that Peter’s faith fail not.

Luke 22:31-32 “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you [plural], that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee [singular], that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”

It’s important to note that when Jesus says “Satan hath desired to have you,” the “you” is in the plural. This is clear in the original Greek text, but not in the English. Satan desired to have all the Apostles, Jesus says; but He prayed for Simon Peter alone, that his faith fail not. Peter, the one who receives the keys of the Kingdom, also has an unfailing faith, according to the words of Jesus. Jesus says this only about Peter, clearly separating him from the rest.

The word “infallible” means cannot fail. Thus, we see, right in Luke 22, the roots of the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the pope. This teaching on the infallibility of the pope does not mean that a true pope, as the successor of Peter, can never make a mistake. It does not mean that he cannot sin. What it means is that when a true pope teaches authoritatively on faith or morals to the entire Church (i.e., from the Chair of Peter), Jesus will not let that teaching fail. For if He did, then the Church would itself be led into error and fail. Vatican Council 1 (a dogmatic Catholic council) put it this way:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, 1870 A.D. “So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair…”

It’s an unfailing faith of the Office of Prime Minister/Pope which has been established in Peter and will carry on through his successors in that office. Even in the very early Church, the fathers saw this passage in Luke 22 as another proof for the Papacy.

St. Ambrose (4th century), In Ps. 43, n. 40: “Peter, after having been tempted by the Devil, is set over the Church. The Lord… chose him as the pastor of the Lord’s flock. For to him He said, But thou when converted confirm thy brethren [Luke 22].”


Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #91 on: January 11, 2016, 11:00:47 PM »
Quote
EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH
But you are SEDEVATICANTIS, YOU DON'T AGREE WITH POPE FRANCIS, i don't understand why you require us to agree with him....
(I want to note for the sake of fairness that the Rome of St Irenaeus's time is not identical with today's Rome)

No. Sedevacantists believe that Rome has supremacy and infallibility, but only if it is occupied by the true Pope.
That statement is absurd in itself, either Rome is this special place with special supremacy & infallibility or NOT

If true popes can be replaced by false popes, what makes sedevacantis think it happened in 1960 ? Why not 1054 ?
you obviously don't understand what infallibility implies, I would be hypocritical if I said the greek orthodox are in error for simply rejecting Rome, I'm saying the orthodox had no reason to split from Rome, there was no heresy from Rome 1000 years ago

In Luke chapter 22, we find another very important, but often overlooked passage in the Bible which proves Catholic teaching on the Papacy.

Luke 22:24-32 “And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve… And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”
No, that text does not prove Roman teaching on the papacy. It proves only that Jesus may have intended for Peter to be chief of the Apostles. It does not prove that the pope of Rome is successor to St. Peter in a way that no other bishop is. It does not prove that the pope is infallible even in certain circumstances. It does not prove that Rome has supreme jurisdiction over the Christian world. These Roman teachings on the papacy just aren't present in this passage from St. Luke's Gospel.

This passage is fascinating. It contains a number of important truths. First of all, there is a strife among the Apostles about who will be the greatest. Jesus explains that His Kingdom is not like that of the Gentiles. So Jesus is talking about how His Kingdom or Church is structured.

Jesus then says that Satan has desired to sift all the apostles in the plural, but that He has prayed for Peter [singular] that Peter’s faith fail not.

Luke 22:31-32 “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you [plural], that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee [singular], that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”

It’s important to note that when Jesus says “Satan hath desired to have you,” the “you” is in the plural. This is clear in the original Greek text, but not in the English. Satan desired to have all the Apostles, Jesus says; but He prayed for Simon Peter alone, that his faith fail not. Peter, the one who receives the keys of the Kingdom, also has an unfailing faith, according to the words of Jesus. Jesus says this only about Peter, clearly separating him from the rest.

The word “infallible” means cannot fail. Thus, we see, right in Luke 22, the roots of the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the pope.
No, we most certainly do not see that!

This teaching on the infallibility of the pope does not mean that a true pope, as the successor of Peter, can never make a mistake. It does not mean that he cannot sin. What it means is that when a true pope teaches authoritatively on faith or morals to the entire Church (i.e., from the Chair of Peter), Jesus will not let that teaching fail. For if He did, then the Church would itself be led into error and fail. Vatican Council 1 (a dogmatic Catholic council) put it this way:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, 1870 A.D. “So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair…”

It’s an unfailing faith of the Office of Prime Minister/Pope which has been established in Peter and will carry on through his successors in that office. Even in the very early Church, the fathers saw this passage in Luke 22 as another proof for the Papacy.

St. Ambrose (4th century), In Ps. 43, n. 40: “Peter, after having been tempted by the Devil, is set over the Church. The Lord… chose him as the pastor of the Lord’s flock. For to him He said, But thou when converted confirm thy brethren [Luke 22].”
I'm sorry, but that quote from St. Ambrose doesn't support the current papal claims to infallible authority.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2016, 11:01:09 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,721
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #92 on: January 11, 2016, 11:07:00 PM »
Ialmisryatha!  Come, lord ialmisry!

Offline byhisgrace

  • AOCB
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,265
  • Memory Eternal to my Younger Brother
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #93 on: January 11, 2016, 11:18:28 PM »
If true popes can be replaced by false popes, what makes sedevacantis think it happened in 1960 ? Why not 1054 ?
Maybe because he is convinced that the Filioque and Immaculate Conception are true for reasons other than the authority of Rome.
Oh Holy Apostle, St. John, pray for us

Offline byhisgrace

  • AOCB
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,265
  • Memory Eternal to my Younger Brother
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #94 on: January 11, 2016, 11:24:47 PM »
Ialmisryatha!  Come, lord ialmisry!
lol  ;D
Oh Holy Apostle, St. John, pray for us

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 997
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #95 on: January 12, 2016, 03:17:22 AM »
Quote
The word “infallible” means cannot fail. Thus, we see, right in Luke 22, the roots of the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the pope. This teaching on the infallibility of the pope does not mean that a true pope, as the successor of Peter, can never make a mistake. It does not mean that he cannot sin. What it means is that when a true pope teaches authoritatively on faith or morals to the entire Church (i.e., from the Chair of Peter), Jesus will not let that teaching fail. For if He did, then the Church would itself be led into error and fail. Vatican Council 1 (a dogmatic Catholic council) put it this way:

I hope you realize the absurdity of this game of words, its like saying only orthodox popes can preach true faith in a fansy way, which is essentially true but you insist on being fansy.

What am i saying is that if there can be anti popes or false popes then the guaranteed papal infallibility is a non-sense... infact if false popes can overcome Rome's see for so long, obviously the gates of hell have prevailed over Rome, and if that is the case, Rome have nothing to do with St Peter.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 03:18:05 AM by Vanhyo »

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,250
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #96 on: January 12, 2016, 03:48:30 AM »

The word “infallible” means cannot fail. Thus, we see, right in Luke 22, the roots of the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the pope. This teaching on the infallibility of the pope does not mean that a true pope, as the successor of Peter, can never make a mistake. It does not mean that he cannot sin. What it means is that when a true pope teaches authoritatively on faith or morals to the entire Church (i.e., from the Chair of Peter), Jesus will not let that teaching fail. For if He did, then the Church would itself be led into error and fail. Vatican Council 1 (a dogmatic Catholic council) put it this way:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, 1870 A.D. “So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair…”

I'd like to somewhat echo Vanhyo.

What sort of truism are you preaching here good sir?: A pope is only the true pope when he is not a heretic. If he is a heretic then he doesn't hold the seat. Therefore, the pretender cannot be infallible. This is like saying "2+2=4 but only if 4=2+2." Of course such a statement is true, but it is practically redundant. It's like saying, "You're dead when you die herpa derpa derp."

All in all though, I highly doubt the notion of infallibility, even at the counciliar level. I have a feeling that the search for infallibility is nothing more than an effort to gain some sort of easy checklist of beliefs and to feel assured without further personal investigation for a deeper understanding. I see no reason why one would look for a checklist of what is or isn't correct belief, other than pure arbitrary convenience. If you presuppose as granted that there is a God, there is a Holy Spirit, that there is a tradition, and that there is a revealed scripture, then why must you feel the need to skip the steps to arrive at the conclusion of a council's arguments? It is one thing to read the conclusion and thesis. But it is quite another thing to say that a conclusion and thesis are justified in their own right separate from the argument. Yet, nevertheless, by the very virtue of the creation of these conclusions and theses, this is simply irrational. Therefore, we have arrived at the all-important point, in that we are mainly dealing with honorifics. Simply put, theological truths are only purported to be infallible out of respect, not because they positively are.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 997
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #97 on: January 12, 2016, 07:14:53 AM »
Quote
Luke 22:24-32 “And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve… And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”

How is that exactly helpful for your claims ? It is the papacy that claims supremacy, infallibility and immediate power & authority over every bishop, not the Orthodox.

Infact if you look in the history of the Church you will notice that the See of Constantinople in the begining was the least important See (the smallest and most insignificant) and today it holds the first place in the hierarchy of the Church, isn't that amazing ?






Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #98 on: January 12, 2016, 08:23:56 AM »
Quote
The word “infallible” means cannot fail. Thus, we see, right in Luke 22, the roots of the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the pope. This teaching on the infallibility of the pope does not mean that a true pope, as the successor of Peter, can never make a mistake. It does not mean that he cannot sin. What it means is that when a true pope teaches authoritatively on faith or morals to the entire Church (i.e., from the Chair of Peter), Jesus will not let that teaching fail. For if He did, then the Church would itself be led into error and fail. Vatican Council 1 (a dogmatic Catholic council) put it this way:

I hope you realize the absurdity of this game of words, its like saying only orthodox popes can preach true faith in a fansy way, which is essentially true but you insist on being fansy.

What am i saying is that if there can be anti popes or false popes then the guaranteed papal infallibility is a non-sense... infact if false popes can overcome Rome's see for so long, obviously the gates of hell have prevailed over Rome, and if that is the case, Rome have nothing to do with St Peter.

Well, hang on there. The RC position requires that the Church can survive during periods in between the death of the old Pope and the election of the new (that's what the term sede vacante means, after all. "The chair is empty") and periods in which the true Pope is hard to determine. The Western Schism lasted from 1378 to 1417 in which first two and then three different men claimed to be Pope at the same time, after all. If, as sedevacantist seems to be saying, the current apostasy dates from the election of Pope John XXIII in 1958, then that's 58 years without a true Pope versus 39 years for the Western Schism (if it was in fact a true interregnum, the Catholic Church currently claims that the true Popes were always Urban IV and his successors). Not too much of a difference (yet).

Now, we can still be skeptical of the credibility of all this and I would say rightly so as it sounds a little too convenient (at least for straight up sedevacantism. The various conclavists, who have just gone and elected their own Pope, seem a little more consistent to me theologically). But I don't think it's, strictly speaking, incoherent.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #99 on: January 12, 2016, 09:11:45 PM »
Quote
Luke 22:24-32 “And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve… And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”

How is that exactly helpful for your claims ? It is the papacy that claims supremacy, infallibility and immediate power & authority over every bishop, not the Orthodox.

Infact if you look in the history of the Church you will notice that the See of Constantinople in the begining was the least important See (the smallest and most insignificant) and today it holds the first place in the hierarchy of the Church, isn't that amazing ?
so according to you St Peter didn't have authority over the whole church? and no pope is claiming to be the greatest...Constantinople is outside of the Church, so it isn't amazing at all but sad

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #100 on: January 12, 2016, 10:20:42 PM »
Quote
The word “infallible” means cannot fail. Thus, we see, right in Luke 22, the roots of the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the pope. This teaching on the infallibility of the pope does not mean that a true pope, as the successor of Peter, can never make a mistake. It does not mean that he cannot sin. What it means is that when a true pope teaches authoritatively on faith or morals to the entire Church (i.e., from the Chair of Peter), Jesus will not let that teaching fail. For if He did, then the Church would itself be led into error and fail. Vatican Council 1 (a dogmatic Catholic council) put it this way:

I hope you realize the absurdity of this game of words, its like saying only orthodox popes can preach true faith in a fansy way, which is essentially true but you insist on being fansy.

What am i saying is that if there can be anti popes or false popes then the guaranteed papal infallibility is a non-sense... infact if false popes can overcome Rome's see for so long, obviously the gates of hell have prevailed over Rome, and if that is the case, Rome have nothing to do with St Peter.
no you're wrong,just because it's possible for a pope to be heretic doesn't negate infallibility

, what Christ instituted in St. Peter (i.e., THE OFFICE OF THE PAPACY) must endure always until the end of ages.  What is the Office of the Papacy?  The Office of the Papacy is the office of St. Peter which is occupied by every true and lawful Bishop of Rome.  This means and guarantees that every time there is a true and valid occupant of the office he is endowed by Christ with infallibility (in his authoritative and binding teaching capacity), he is endowed with supreme
jurisdiction over the universal Church, and he is the visible head of the Church.  That remains true for every true and lawful occupant of the Papal Office until the end of time.  This doesn’t mean that the Church will always have such an occupant, as Church history and more than 200 papal vacancies prove, nor does it mean that antipopes reigning from Rome are an impossibility (such as Antipope Anacletus II, who reigned in Rome from 1130-1138


St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:  "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.  Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.  This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #101 on: January 12, 2016, 10:44:50 PM »
Quote
The word “infallible” means cannot fail. Thus, we see, right in Luke 22, the roots of the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the pope. This teaching on the infallibility of the pope does not mean that a true pope, as the successor of Peter, can never make a mistake. It does not mean that he cannot sin. What it means is that when a true pope teaches authoritatively on faith or morals to the entire Church (i.e., from the Chair of Peter), Jesus will not let that teaching fail. For if He did, then the Church would itself be led into error and fail. Vatican Council 1 (a dogmatic Catholic council) put it this way:

I hope you realize the absurdity of this game of words, its like saying only orthodox popes can preach true faith in a fansy way, which is essentially true but you insist on being fansy.

What am i saying is that if there can be anti popes or false popes then the guaranteed papal infallibility is a non-sense... infact if false popes can overcome Rome's see for so long, obviously the gates of hell have prevailed over Rome, and if that is the case, Rome have nothing to do with St Peter.
no you're wrong,just because it's possible for a pope to be heretic doesn't negate infallibility

, what Christ instituted in St. Peter (i.e., THE OFFICE OF THE PAPACY) must endure always until the end of ages.  What is the Office of the Papacy?  The Office of the Papacy is the office of St. Peter which is occupied by every true and lawful Bishop of Rome.  This means and guarantees that every time there is a true and valid occupant of the office he is endowed by Christ with infallibility (in his authoritative and binding teaching capacity), he is endowed with supreme
jurisdiction over the universal Church, and he is the visible head of the Church.  That remains true for every true and lawful occupant of the Papal Office until the end of time.  This doesn’t mean that the Church will always have such an occupant, as Church history and more than 200 papal vacancies prove, nor does it mean that antipopes reigning from Rome are an impossibility (such as Antipope Anacletus II, who reigned in Rome from 1130-1138


St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:  "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.  Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.  This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

That's a No True Scotsman fallacy. A true Pope always teaches rightly and if he teaches wrongly then he wasn't really Pope.

At best this makes Papal Infallibility useless as a guide to truth, at worst it makes it incoherent garbage. So, to use the only two examples of ex cathedra pronouncements that all Catholics acknowledge (and setting aside the problem that not having a list of all of them creates) the orthodoxy of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary must be established by other means anyway. The Pope pronouncing them ex cathedra is meaningless because for all you know, he was just a heretic making himself an antipope.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,721
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #102 on: January 12, 2016, 11:18:49 PM »

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 997
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #103 on: January 13, 2016, 03:09:45 AM »
Quote
Constantinople is outside of the Church, so it isn't amazing at all but sad
Outside of which church ? The old catholics, the novus ordo or one of the many sede vacantis sects ?

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 997
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #104 on: January 13, 2016, 04:30:19 AM »
Quote
so according to you St Peter didn't have authority over the whole church?
Well, this is an excellent misleading question.

I hesitate whether non-orthodox Rome have anything to do with St Peter to begin with...

The other part of your question is far more complicated.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #105 on: January 13, 2016, 10:50:22 PM »
Quote
The word “infallible” means cannot fail. Thus, we see, right in Luke 22, the roots of the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the pope. This teaching on the infallibility of the pope does not mean that a true pope, as the successor of Peter, can never make a mistake. It does not mean that he cannot sin. What it means is that when a true pope teaches authoritatively on faith or morals to the entire Church (i.e., from the Chair of Peter), Jesus will not let that teaching fail. For if He did, then the Church would itself be led into error and fail. Vatican Council 1 (a dogmatic Catholic council) put it this way:

I hope you realize the absurdity of this game of words, its like saying only orthodox popes can preach true faith in a fansy way, which is essentially true but you insist on being fansy.

What am i saying is that if there can be anti popes or false popes then the guaranteed papal infallibility is a non-sense... infact if false popes can overcome Rome's see for so long, obviously the gates of hell have prevailed over Rome, and if that is the case, Rome have nothing to do with St Peter.
no you're wrong,just because it's possible for a pope to be heretic doesn't negate infallibility

, what Christ instituted in St. Peter (i.e., THE OFFICE OF THE PAPACY) must endure always until the end of ages.  What is the Office of the Papacy?  The Office of the Papacy is the office of St. Peter which is occupied by every true and lawful Bishop of Rome.  This means and guarantees that every time there is a true and valid occupant of the office he is endowed by Christ with infallibility (in his authoritative and binding teaching capacity), he is endowed with supreme
jurisdiction over the universal Church, and he is the visible head of the Church.  That remains true for every true and lawful occupant of the Papal Office until the end of time.  This doesn’t mean that the Church will always have such an occupant, as Church history and more than 200 papal vacancies prove, nor does it mean that antipopes reigning from Rome are an impossibility (such as Antipope Anacletus II, who reigned in Rome from 1130-1138


St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:  "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.  Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.  This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

That's a No True Scotsman fallacy. A true Pope always teaches rightly and if he teaches wrongly then he wasn't really Pope.

At best this makes Papal Infallibility useless as a guide to truth, at worst it makes it incoherent garbage. So, to use the only two examples of ex cathedra pronouncements that all Catholics acknowledge (and setting aside the problem that not having a list of all of them creates) the orthodoxy of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary must be established by other means anyway. The Pope pronouncing them ex cathedra is meaningless because for all you know, he was just a heretic making himself an antipope.

not sure what your faith is, but hopefully this article clears things up

Benedict XVI, as Joseph Ratzinger, was a leading modernist theologian at Vatican II, and left a long paper trail of his errors. He was the chief architect of a new theology of the Church which posits a “People of God” and a “Church of Christ” not identical with the Roman Catholic Church — a Super-Church or a Frankenchurch created from “elements” of the true Church that are possessed either fully (by Catholics) or partially (by heretics and schismatics).  The bond holding this ecumenical beast together is Ratzinger’s notion of the Church as “communion.” As a cardinal and John Paul II’s chief doctrinal advisor, he developed this idea in the 1992 CDF Letter on Communion, the 2000 Declaration Dominus Jesus, the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the 1997 Catechism. Here are some typical propositions from Ratzinger’s teaching: Article truncated to enforce forum rules mandating compliance with Fair Use provisions to U.S. copyright law--the rest can be read by following the link provided below.

Link provided by poster: www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=103

-PtA
« Last Edit: January 18, 2016, 07:33:16 PM by PeterTheAleut »

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,721
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #106 on: January 13, 2016, 10:52:20 PM »
sedevacantist,

Do you produce your own Youtube videos?  Perhaps in an even monotone, accompanied by pictures of meadows? 

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #107 on: January 13, 2016, 11:03:59 PM »

In Luke chapter 22, we find another very important, but often overlooked passage in the Bible which proves Catholic teaching on the Papacy.

Luke 22:24-32 “And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve… And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”
[/quote]
No, that text does not prove Roman teaching on the papacy. It proves only that Jesus may have intended for Peter to be chief of the Apostles. It does not prove that the pope of Rome is successor to St. Peter in a way that no other bishop is. It does not prove that the pope is infallible even in certain circumstances. It does not prove that Rome has supreme jurisdiction over the Christian world. These Roman teachings on the papacy just aren't present in this passage from St. Luke's Gospel.

[[/quote]
that text was for infallibility, why do you write "may have intended for Peter to be chief of the Apostles"....I thought we already established as fact that St Peter is 100% chief of the apostles, do we have to rehash those arguments again?
do you disagree with the points that Jesus prayed for Jesus alone in this instance to protect him from satan, how can you not see this as the basis for infallibility? grant it Catholics don't say this passage alone proves infallibility

from catholic encyclopedia

Merely remarking for the present that the texts in which Christ promised infallible guidance especially to Peter and his successors in the primacy might be appealed to here as possessing an a fortiori value, it will suffice to consider the classical texts usually employed in the general proof of the Church's infallibility; and of these the principal are:
•Matthew 28:18-20;
•Matthew 16:18;
•John 14, 15, and 16;
•I Timothy 3:14-15; and
•Acts 15:28 sq



Without infallibility there could be no finality regarding any one of the great truths which have been identified historically with the very essence of Christianity; and it is only with those who believe in historical Christianity that the question need be discussed. Take, for instance, the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. If the early Church was not infallible in her definitions regarding these truths, what compelling reason can be alleged today against the right to revive the Sabellian, or the Arian, or the Macedonian, or the Apollinarian, or the Nestorian, or the Eutychian controversies, and to defend some interpretation of these mysteries which the Church has condemned as heretical?

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #108 on: January 13, 2016, 11:09:03 PM »
Quote
The word “infallible” means cannot fail. Thus, we see, right in Luke 22, the roots of the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the pope. This teaching on the infallibility of the pope does not mean that a true pope, as the successor of Peter, can never make a mistake. It does not mean that he cannot sin. What it means is that when a true pope teaches authoritatively on faith or morals to the entire Church (i.e., from the Chair of Peter), Jesus will not let that teaching fail. For if He did, then the Church would itself be led into error and fail. Vatican Council 1 (a dogmatic Catholic council) put it this way:

I hope you realize the absurdity of this game of words, its like saying only orthodox popes can preach true faith in a fansy way, which is essentially true but you insist on being fansy.

What am i saying is that if there can be anti popes or false popes then the guaranteed papal infallibility is a non-sense... infact if false popes can overcome Rome's see for so long, obviously the gates of hell have prevailed over Rome, and if that is the case, Rome have nothing to do with St Peter.
no you're wrong,just because it's possible for a pope to be heretic doesn't negate infallibility

, what Christ instituted in St. Peter (i.e., THE OFFICE OF THE PAPACY) must endure always until the end of ages.  What is the Office of the Papacy?  The Office of the Papacy is the office of St. Peter which is occupied by every true and lawful Bishop of Rome.  This means and guarantees that every time there is a true and valid occupant of the office he is endowed by Christ with infallibility (in his authoritative and binding teaching capacity), he is endowed with supreme
jurisdiction over the universal Church, and he is the visible head of the Church.  That remains true for every true and lawful occupant of the Papal Office until the end of time.  This doesn’t mean that the Church will always have such an occupant, as Church history and more than 200 papal vacancies prove, nor does it mean that antipopes reigning from Rome are an impossibility (such as Antipope Anacletus II, who reigned in Rome from 1130-1138


St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:  "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.  Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.  This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

That's a No True Scotsman fallacy. A true Pope always teaches rightly and if he teaches wrongly then he wasn't really Pope.

At best this makes Papal Infallibility useless as a guide to truth, at worst it makes it incoherent garbage. So, to use the only two examples of ex cathedra pronouncements that all Catholics acknowledge (and setting aside the problem that not having a list of all of them creates) the orthodoxy of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary must be established by other means anyway. The Pope pronouncing them ex cathedra is meaningless because for all you know, he was just a heretic making himself an antipope.

not sure what your faith is, but hopefully this article clears things up

Benedict XVI, as Joseph Ratzinger, was a leading modernist theologian at Vatican II, and left a long paper trail of his errors. He was the chief architect of a new theology of the Church which posits a “People of God” and a “Church of Christ” not identical with the Roman Catholic Church — a Super-Church or a Frankenchurch created from “elements” of the true Church that are possessed either fully (by Catholics) or partially (by heretics and schismatics).  The bond holding this ecumenical beast together is Ratzinger’s notion of the Church as “communion.” As a cardinal and John Paul II’s chief doctrinal advisor, he developed this idea in the 1992 CDF Letter on Communion, the 2000 Declaration Dominus Jesus, the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the 1997 Catechism. Here are some typical propositions from Ratzinger’s teaching: • Schismatic bodies are “particular Churches” united to the Catholic Church by “close bonds.” (Communion 17). • The universal church is the “body of [particular] churches.” (ibid. 8)
— 3 —
• Schismatic churches have a “wounded” existence. (ibid. 17) • The “universal Church becomes present in them [the particular churches] in all her essential elements.” (ibid. 17). • The Church of Christ is “present and operative” in churches that reject the papacy. (Dominus Jesus 17) • One becomes a member of the “People of God” by baptism. (Catechism 782) • This whole People of God participates in the office of Christ. (ibid. 783) • Christ’s Body, the Church, is “wounded.” (ibid. 817) • Christ’s Spirit uses schismatic and heretical bodies as “means of salvation.” (ibid. 819) • Each “particular Church” is “Catholic,” but some are “fully Catholic.” (ibid. 832, 834)  These teachings are contrary to an article of divine and Catholic faith: “I believe in one Church.” “One” in the Creed refers to that property of the Church by which she is “undivided in herself and separated from any other” in faith, discipline and worship. Ratzinger’s teachings are also contrary the teaching of the Church Fathers and the universal ordinary magisterium that heretics are “outside Catholic communion and alien to the Church.” (Pope Leo XIII)  Church Cannot Give Evil  Such lists could probably continue for pages. Our point is that each item can be categorized either as an error (a contradiction or change in substance of teachings of the pre-Vatican II magisterium) or as an evil (something offensive to God, harmful to the salvation of souls). But the same faith that tells us that the changes are wrong also tells us that the Church cannot defect in her teaching or give evil.  One of the essential properties of the Catholic Church is her indefectibility. This means, among other things, that her teaching is “immutable and always remaining the same.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch.) It is impossible for her to contradict her own teaching.  Further, another essential property of Christ’s Church is her infallibility. This does not apply (as some traditional Catholics seem to think) only to rare ex cathedra papal pronouncements like those defining the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Infallibility also extends to the Church’s universal disciplinary laws.  The principle, set forth in classic dogmatic theology texts such as Salaverri (I:722), Zubizarreta (I:486), Herrmann (I:258), Schultes (314–7) and Abarzuza (I:447), is typically explained as follows: The Church’s infallibility extends to… ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living.… But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.… If the Church should make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer
— 4 —
be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life. [Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology. 2:91. His emphasis.]

 It is impossible, then, for the Church to give something evil through her laws — including laws regulating worship.  A recognition, on one hand, that the post-Vatican II hierarchy has officially sanctioned errors and evils, and a consideration, on the other, of the Church’s essential properties thus lead us to a conclusion about the authority of the post-Vatican II hierarchy: Given the Church’s indefectibility in her teaching (her teaching cannot change) and the Church’s infallibility in her universal disciplinary laws (her liturgical laws cannot compromise doctrine or harm souls), it is impossible that the errors and evils we have catalogued could have proceeded from what is in fact the authority of the Church. There must be another explanation. Loss of Office through Heresy  The only explanation for these errors and evils that preserves the doctrines of the Church’s indefectibility and infallibility is that the clerics who promulgated them somehow lost as individuals the authority of the offices in the Church they otherwise appeared to possess — or that they never possessed such authority before God in the first place. Their pronouncements became juridically void and could not bind Catholics — just as the decrees of the bishops in England who accepted the Protestant heresy in the 16th century became void and empty of authority for Catholics.  Such a loss of authority flows from a general principle in Church law: public defection from the Catholic Faith automatically deprives a person of all ecclesiastical offices he may hold. If you think about it, it makes sense: It would be absurd for someone who did not truly profess the Catholic Faith to have authority over Catholics who did.  The principle that someone who defects from the Faith automatically loses his office applies to pastors, diocesan bishops and other similar church officials. It also applies to a pope. Loss of Papal Office  Theologians and canonists such as St. Robert Bellarmine, Cajetan, Suarez, Torquemada, and Wernz and Vidal maintain, without compromising the doctrine of papal infallibility, that even a pope (as an individual, of course) may himself become a heretic and thus lose the pontificate. Some of these authors also maintain that a pope can become a schismatic.  In his great treatise on the Roman Pontiff, St. Robert Bellarmine, for example, asks the question: “Whether a heretical pope can be deposed.” Note first, by the way, that his question assumes a pope can in fact become a heretic. After a lengthy discussion, Bellarmine concludes: A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a
— 5 —
Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. [De Romano Pontifice. II.30. My emphasis.]  Bellarmine cites passages from Cyprian, Driedonus and Melchior Cano to support his position. The basis for this teaching, he says finally, is that a manifest heretic is in no way a member of the Church — neither of its soul nor its body, neither by an internal union nor an external one.  Other great canonists and theologians after Bellarmine have likewise supported this position. Wernz-Vidal’s Ius Canonicum, an eight-volume work published in 1943 which is perhaps the most highly respected commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law, states: Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church.… A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church. [II:453. His emphasis.]
I don't see any links to the source from which you quoted this. To obviate violations of copyright law, would you please PM me a link to the source? You should be able to fulfill this request within the next 72 hours.

Thanks.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 11:09:27 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #109 on: January 13, 2016, 11:10:34 PM »
no you're wrong,just because it's possible for a pope to be heretic doesn't negate infallibility

<snip>

Yeah, sorry, but you're gonna have to give me the tl;dr version. Life's too short to do more than skim that kind of poorly formatted text vomit.

From what I could surmise, it has nothing to do with my point anyway. I know that you believe that a Pope who tries to pawn off heresy as the teaching of the Church automatically excommunicates himself. The issue is, how can you tell what's heresy and what's not? If you know something is true only because the Pope says it or signs off on it, then logically the Pope can make heresy into truth just by speaking it ex cathedra. Hence the contradiction. There has to be some standard outside of the Pope's control by which his statements can be judged, but the RCC says that the Pope cannot be judged.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 11:15:16 PM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #110 on: January 13, 2016, 11:14:16 PM »
Without infallibility there could be no finality regarding any one of the great truths which have been identified historically with the very essence of Christianity; and it is only with those who believe in historical Christianity that the question need be discussed. Take, for instance, the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. If the early Church was not infallible in her definitions regarding these truths, what compelling reason can be alleged today against the right to revive the Sabellian, or the Arian, or the Macedonian, or the Apollinarian, or the Nestorian, or the Eutychian controversies, and to defend some interpretation of these mysteries which the Church has condemned as heretical?

One infallible man is not needed to make the Church infallible.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #111 on: January 13, 2016, 11:25:35 PM »

In Luke chapter 22, we find another very important, but often overlooked passage in the Bible which proves Catholic teaching on the Papacy.

Luke 22:24-32 “And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve… And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”
No, that text does not prove Roman teaching on the papacy. It proves only that Jesus may have intended for Peter to be chief of the Apostles. It does not prove that the pope of Rome is successor to St. Peter in a way that no other bishop is. It does not prove that the pope is infallible even in certain circumstances. It does not prove that Rome has supreme jurisdiction over the Christian world. These Roman teachings on the papacy just aren't present in this passage from St. Luke's Gospel.

that text was for infallibility, why do you write "may have intended for Peter to be chief of the Apostles"....I thought we already established as fact that St Peter is 100% chief of the apostles, do we have to rehash those arguments again?
You're missing the point. It's not about whether Jesus intended St. Peter to be the chief of the apostles. It's about whether that role grants St. Peter infallibility. It's about whether that role passes on to Rome and grants Rome supreme, infallible authority over all the other bishops.

do you disagree with the points that Jesus prayed for Jesus alone in this instance to protect him from satan, how can you not see this as the basis for infallibility?
In-fail-ibility does not equal infallibility.

grant it Catholics don't say this passage alone proves infallibility

from catholic encyclopedia

Merely remarking for the present that the texts in which Christ promised infallible guidance especially to Peter and his successors in the primacy might be appealed to here as possessing an a fortiori value, it will suffice to consider the classical texts usually employed in the general proof of the Church's infallibility; and of these the principal are:
•Matthew 28:18-20;
•Matthew 16:18;
•John 14, 15, and 16;
•I Timothy 3:14-15; and
•Acts 15:28 sq



Without infallibility there could be no finality regarding any one of the great truths which have been identified historically with the very essence of Christianity; and it is only with those who believe in historical Christianity that the question need be discussed. Take, for instance, the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. If the early Church was not infallible in her definitions regarding these truths, what compelling reason can be alleged today against the right to revive the Sabellian, or the Arian, or the Macedonian, or the Apollinarian, or the Nestorian, or the Eutychian controversies, and to defend some interpretation of these mysteries which the Church has condemned as heretical?
Why do you think the infallibility of the Church, which I do not deny, is a property held also by Rome apart from the Church?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 997
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #112 on: January 14, 2016, 03:18:57 AM »
Quote
I don't see any links to the source from which you quoted this. To obviate violations of copyright law, would you please PM me a link to the source? You should be able to fulfill this request within the next 72 hours.

Thanks.
L O L  :police:

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 997
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #113 on: January 14, 2016, 04:24:24 AM »
Quote
immutable and always remaining the same.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch.) It is impossible for her to contradict her own teaching.  Further, another essential property of Christ’s Church is her infallibility.
Well well, finally something that you have got right.

But doesn't it bother you that after 1500 years of separation and hostility, the only difference between The Orthodox Church and the anti-chalcedonians is the Christological definition of Chalcedon ? Doesn't that ring a bell for you the Rome ADDED and CHANGED to the faith ?

As far as the Orthodox Church is concerned, you are not a traditionalist but rather a 11 or 15 century modernist.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #114 on: January 14, 2016, 09:59:07 AM »
I always like when weirdos like sedevacantist show up on the forum. It makes me feel better about my own life choices.


Regardless of what you may think of another poster, you should be able to argue against his opinions without using such schoolyard insults. You've been on this forum long enough to know better, so I'm giving you this 5-point warning to be more careful to avoid posting personal insults or other ad hominem arguments on the Public Forum again. If you wish to appeal this warning, please PM me.

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: January 14, 2016, 10:47:33 AM by PeterTheAleut »
God bless!

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #115 on: January 14, 2016, 10:38:08 AM »
Quote
I don't see any links to the source from which you quoted this. To obviate violations of copyright law, would you please PM me a link to the source? You should be able to fulfill this request within the next 72 hours.

Thanks.
L O L  :police:
Moderator actions are not to be laughed at in public. Don't do this again.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 997
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #116 on: January 14, 2016, 02:18:53 PM »
@PeterTheAleut

I just realized my comment can look rude and disrespectful, i want to note that wasn't my intend, i have respect for law, order and authority.

I Apologize for that comment.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #117 on: January 14, 2016, 03:04:59 PM »
@PeterTheAleut

I just realized my comment can look rude and disrespectful, i want to note that wasn't my intend, i have respect for law, order and authority.

I Apologize for that comment.
Apology accepted. :) I figured you weren't laughing at my directive itself, that you were more likely laughing at what sedevacantist did. It's still good to be careful about appearances when quoting a mod directive, though.

Thanks for your consideration.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #118 on: January 14, 2016, 05:36:17 PM »
Glad to see that, after being absent for over a month, my dear OC.NET is still being kind, and allowing absurdly ridiculous arguments supporting Ultramontanism to be uttered.

Missed yall.

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #119 on: January 14, 2016, 08:56:04 PM »
no you're wrong,just because it's possible for a pope to be heretic doesn't negate infallibility

<snip>

Yeah, sorry, but you're gonna have to give me the tl;dr version. Life's too short to do more than skim that kind of poorly formatted text vomit.

From what I could surmise, it has nothing to do with my point anyway. I know that you believe that a Pope who tries to pawn off heresy as the teaching of the Church automatically excommunicates himself. The issue is, how can you tell what's heresy and what's not? If you know something is true only because the Pope says it or signs off on it, then logically the Pope can make heresy into truth just by speaking it ex cathedra. Hence the contradiction. There has to be some standard outside of the Pope's control by which his statements can be judged, but the RCC says that the Pope cannot be judged.
you wrote " If you know something is true only because the Pope says it "
when did I write this? I'm a sedevacantist , I disagree with the popes since 1958

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #120 on: January 14, 2016, 09:00:14 PM »
Quote
immutable and always remaining the same.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch.) It is impossible for her to contradict her own teaching.  Further, another essential property of Christ’s Church is her infallibility.
Well well, finally something that you have got right.

But doesn't it bother you that after 1500 years of separation and hostility, the only difference between The Orthodox Church and the anti-chalcedonians is the Christological definition of Chalcedon ? Doesn't that ring a bell for you the Rome ADDED and CHANGED to the faith ?

As far as the Orthodox Church is concerned, you are not a traditionalist but rather a 11 or 15 century modernist.
why would I care what the Orthodox Church would think of my position?
what and when exactly did Rome change the faith according to you?

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #121 on: January 14, 2016, 09:06:46 PM »

In Luke chapter 22, we find another very important, but often overlooked passage in the Bible which proves Catholic teaching on the Papacy.

Luke 22:24-32 “And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve… And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”
No, that text does not prove Roman teaching on the papacy. It proves only that Jesus may have intended for Peter to be chief of the Apostles. It does not prove that the pope of Rome is successor to St. Peter in a way that no other bishop is. It does not prove that the pope is infallible even in certain circumstances. It does not prove that Rome has supreme jurisdiction over the Christian world. These Roman teachings on the papacy just aren't present in this passage from St. Luke's Gospel.

that text was for infallibility, why do you write "may have intended for Peter to be chief of the Apostles"....I thought we already established as fact that St Peter is 100% chief of the apostles, do we have to rehash those arguments again?
You're missing the point. It's not about whether Jesus intended St. Peter to be the chief of the apostles. It's about whether that role grants St. Peter infallibility. It's about whether that role passes on to Rome and grants Rome supreme, infallible authority over all the other bishops.

do you disagree with the points that Jesus prayed for Jesus alone in this instance to protect him from satan, how can you not see this as the basis for infallibility?
In-fail-ibility does not equal infallibility.

grant it Catholics don't say this passage alone proves infallibility

from catholic encyclopedia

Merely remarking for the present that the texts in which Christ promised infallible guidance especially to Peter and his successors in the primacy might be appealed to here as possessing an a fortiori value, it will suffice to consider the classical texts usually employed in the general proof of the Church's infallibility; and of these the principal are:
•Matthew 28:18-20;
•Matthew 16:18;
•John 14, 15, and 16;
•I Timothy 3:14-15; and
•Acts 15:28 sq



Without infallibility there could be no finality regarding any one of the great truths which have been identified historically with the very essence of Christianity; and it is only with those who believe in historical Christianity that the question need be discussed. Take, for instance, the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. If the early Church was not infallible in her definitions regarding these truths, what compelling reason can be alleged today against the right to revive the Sabellian, or the Arian, or the Macedonian, or the Apollinarian, or the Nestorian, or the Eutychian controversies, and to defend some interpretation of these mysteries which the Church has condemned as heretical?
Why do you think the infallibility of the Church, which I do not deny, is a property held also by Rome apart from the Church?
so we agree on the  infallibility of the Church, I believe that the see of Rome is the 1st see, the pope is the leader of the Church so how can I not believe that infallibility naturally extends to the head of the church , you write apart from the Church,  you'll have to clarify

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #122 on: January 14, 2016, 09:10:14 PM »
Emperor Valentinian III, AD 445

"The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by the dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler. "(,Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess p 335f)


I agree with this greek father, maybe this makes me a weirdo

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #123 on: January 14, 2016, 09:22:30 PM »

In Luke chapter 22, we find another very important, but often overlooked passage in the Bible which proves Catholic teaching on the Papacy.

Luke 22:24-32 “And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve… And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”
No, that text does not prove Roman teaching on the papacy. It proves only that Jesus may have intended for Peter to be chief of the Apostles. It does not prove that the pope of Rome is successor to St. Peter in a way that no other bishop is. It does not prove that the pope is infallible even in certain circumstances. It does not prove that Rome has supreme jurisdiction over the Christian world. These Roman teachings on the papacy just aren't present in this passage from St. Luke's Gospel.

that text was for infallibility, why do you write "may have intended for Peter to be chief of the Apostles"....I thought we already established as fact that St Peter is 100% chief of the apostles, do we have to rehash those arguments again?
You're missing the point. It's not about whether Jesus intended St. Peter to be the chief of the apostles. It's about whether that role grants St. Peter infallibility. It's about whether that role passes on to Rome and grants Rome supreme, infallible authority over all the other bishops.

do you disagree with the points that Jesus prayed for Jesus alone in this instance to protect him from satan, how can you not see this as the basis for infallibility?
In-fail-ibility does not equal infallibility.

grant it Catholics don't say this passage alone proves infallibility

from catholic encyclopedia

Merely remarking for the present that the texts in which Christ promised infallible guidance especially to Peter and his successors in the primacy might be appealed to here as possessing an a fortiori value, it will suffice to consider the classical texts usually employed in the general proof of the Church's infallibility; and of these the principal are:
•Matthew 28:18-20;
•Matthew 16:18;
•John 14, 15, and 16;
•I Timothy 3:14-15; and
•Acts 15:28 sq



Without infallibility there could be no finality regarding any one of the great truths which have been identified historically with the very essence of Christianity; and it is only with those who believe in historical Christianity that the question need be discussed. Take, for instance, the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. If the early Church was not infallible in her definitions regarding these truths, what compelling reason can be alleged today against the right to revive the Sabellian, or the Arian, or the Macedonian, or the Apollinarian, or the Nestorian, or the Eutychian controversies, and to defend some interpretation of these mysteries which the Church has condemned as heretical?
Why do you think the infallibility of the Church, which I do not deny, is a property held also by Rome apart from the Church?
so we agree on the  infallibility of the Church, I believe that the see of Rome is the 1st see, the pope is the leader of the Church so how can I not believe that infallibility naturally extends to the head of the church ,
On what logical basis do you draw the conclusion that the leader enjoys the same infallibility granted to the whole organization, even when acting alone and not in concert with the rest of the organization?

you write apart from the Church,  you'll have to clarify
"... and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." - From the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility, Vatican I, 1870
« Last Edit: January 14, 2016, 09:24:57 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #124 on: January 14, 2016, 09:25:16 PM »
Emperor Valentinian III, AD 445

"The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by the dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler. "(,Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess p 335f)


I agree with this greek father, maybe this makes me a weirdo

I don't think an Emperor counts as a Church Father.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #125 on: January 14, 2016, 09:26:19 PM »
Emperor Valentinian III, AD 445

"The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by the dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler. "(,Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess p 335f)


I agree with this greek father, maybe this makes me a weirdo

I don't think an Emperor counts as a Church Father.
Definitely not Emperor Valentinian III.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #126 on: January 14, 2016, 09:36:58 PM »
no you're wrong,just because it's possible for a pope to be heretic doesn't negate infallibility

<snip>

Yeah, sorry, but you're gonna have to give me the tl;dr version. Life's too short to do more than skim that kind of poorly formatted text vomit.

From what I could surmise, it has nothing to do with my point anyway. I know that you believe that a Pope who tries to pawn off heresy as the teaching of the Church automatically excommunicates himself. The issue is, how can you tell what's heresy and what's not? If you know something is true only because the Pope says it or signs off on it, then logically the Pope can make heresy into truth just by speaking it ex cathedra. Hence the contradiction. There has to be some standard outside of the Pope's control by which his statements can be judged, but the RCC says that the Pope cannot be judged.
you wrote " If you know something is true only because the Pope says it "
when did I write this? I'm a sedevacantist , I disagree with the popes since 1958

You said (emphasis mine):

Quote
Without infallibility there could be no finality regarding any one of the great truths which have been identified historically with the very essence of Christianity; and it is only with those who believe in historical Christianity that the question need be discussed. Take, for instance, the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. If the early Church was not infallible in her definitions regarding these truths, what compelling reason can be alleged today against the right to revive the Sabellian, or the Arian, or the Macedonian, or the Apollinarian, or the Nestorian, or the Eutychian controversies, and to defend some interpretation of these mysteries which the Church has condemned as heretical?

Your responses to Peter indicate that you think the Church cannot be infallible without an infallible Pope. Ergo, you believe the only way to ultimately know whether something is true or not is if the Pope is there to guarantee it (whether by saying it himself or by not speaking against it, yes?)

So, by your own logic, Vatican II is not heretical because the Pope was there to promulgate it. If you think there is some other measure of the Church's infallible teaching, such that Vatican II could be heretical despite Papal authority, then why is Papal Infallibility even necessary in the first place?
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #127 on: January 15, 2016, 12:00:34 AM »
Emperor Valentinian III, AD 445

"The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by the dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler. "(,Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess p 335f)


I agree with this greek father, maybe this makes me a weirdo

I don't think an Emperor counts as a Church Father.
Definitely not Emperor Valentinian III.

fair enough,

 to recap, we both agree on the infallibility of the Church, what I think you're saying is that certainly this infallibility extends to the leader (pope) but not to the extent Vatican 1 has decreed with the following "... and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."
is this the major problem you have with Vatican 1 ?


if Emperor Valentinian is not considered a greek father how about this lad

St. Maximus the Confessor, of Constantinople, AD 650,

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world. "(Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess pp 354f)

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 997
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #128 on: January 15, 2016, 07:39:08 AM »
why would I care what the Orthodox Church would think of my position?
I don't know, you enter into a forum named ORTHODOXCHRISTIANITY, i would think, at the very least, you want to chat about things...
what and when exactly did Rome change the faith according to you?
It was a gradual process, which each addition/change Rome separating more from the Orthodox Church

It was somewhere in the 11th century when they earned synodical anathema for adding to The Creed, despite a strict prohibition.

Rome continued to change, alter and further alienating itself from The Orthodox Church till we arrive at V2 which seem like complete mess.
Quote
"The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by the dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler.

Okey, lets try this again, WHY DONT YOU ACCEPT POPE FRANCIS THEN ?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2016, 07:50:15 AM by Vanhyo »

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #129 on: January 15, 2016, 10:50:26 AM »
Emperor Valentinian III, AD 445

"The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by the dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler. "(,Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess p 335f)


I agree with this greek father, maybe this makes me a weirdo

I don't think an Emperor counts as a Church Father.
Definitely not Emperor Valentinian III.

fair enough,

 to recap, we both agree on the infallibility of the Church, what I think you're saying is that certainly this infallibility extends to the leader (pope) but not to the extent Vatican 1 has decreed with the following "... and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. That's merely what you wish I was saying. I don't believe that the infallibility of the Church extends to any single individual or thing acting either within or over the Church.

Quote
is this the major problem you have with Vatican 1 ?
No

Quote
if Emperor Valentinian is not considered a greek father how about this lad

St. Maximus the Confessor, of Constantinople, AD 650,

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world. "(Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess pp 354f)
Much has been attributed to St. Maximos by ultramontanists like yourself, but I'm not sure it's true that he said all that. Besides, even if he did, do you really think he's the only Greek Father who ever taught anything? What of the many Fathers such as St. Mark of Ephesus who rejected papal supremacy?

BTW, St. Maximos is a highly esteemed saint and theologian in both East and West, so I think it highly demeaning to his venerated memory that you call him a lad. I wish you wouldn't do that.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2016, 10:54:14 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,542
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #130 on: January 15, 2016, 05:42:06 PM »
St. Maximus the Confessor, of Constantinople, AD 650,

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world. "(Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess pp 354f)
Much has been attributed to St. Maximos by ultramontanists like yourself, but I'm not sure it's true that he said all that.
Not to mention that the quote, whoever said it, is woefully ignorant of the Holy Canons and Definitions of All Holy Synods-whose Sacred Canons and Definitions we still have and NONE give universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the Churches of God. The last Ecumenical Council before St. Maximos, the Fifth, most decisively demonstrates that.
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

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 584
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #131 on: January 15, 2016, 07:12:54 PM »
Emperor Valentinian III, AD 445

"The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by the dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler. "(,Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess p 335f)


I agree with this greek father, maybe this makes me a weirdo

I don't think an Emperor counts as a Church Father.
Definitely not Emperor Valentinian III.

fair enough,

 to recap, we both agree on the infallibility of the Church, what I think you're saying is that certainly this infallibility extends to the leader (pope) but not to the extent Vatican 1 has decreed with the following "... and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. That's merely what you wish I was saying. I don't believe that the infallibility of the Church extends to any single individual or thing acting either within or over the Church.

Quote
is this the major problem you have with Vatican 1 ?
No

Quote
if Emperor Valentinian is not considered a greek father how about this lad

St. Maximus the Confessor, of Constantinople, AD 650,

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world. "(Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess pp 354f)
Much has been attributed to St. Maximos by ultramontanists like yourself, but I'm not sure it's true that he said all that. Besides, even if he did, do you really think he's the only Greek Father who ever taught anything? What of the many Fathers such as St. Mark of Ephesus who rejected papal supremacy?

BTW, St. Maximos is a highly esteemed saint and theologian in both East and West, so I think it highly demeaning to his venerated memory that you call him a lad. I wish you wouldn't do that.
when I wrote Emperor V was a greek father you objected, calling St Maximos a lad is because I don't know what you would call him, you can strike "lad" from the record
 I'm trying  to get the opinions of greek fathers who agreed with my position, obviously there are others who disagree, it would be like you finding a latin father who agreed somewhat with your position, so i think we should get to the bottom of that quote to see if it's authentic, feel free to show me why you think it's not authentic....as for infallibility I will get back t it when i have more time

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,250
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #132 on: January 16, 2016, 05:44:58 PM »
"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world. "(Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess pp 354f)

If this is the quote I am thinking of, then it is undoubtedly a forgery. If I recall correctly, it comes from a mss. in Latin found by a Russian monk. To say the least, it has interpolations. And the language is definitely not from the early Middle Ages. No one used the terms "universal and supreme dominion" during that period when describing the powers of the papacy.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2016, 05:45:30 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #133 on: January 18, 2016, 11:44:51 AM »
Emperor Valentinian III, AD 445

"The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by the dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler. "(,Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess p 335f)


I agree with this greek father, maybe this makes me a weirdo

I don't think an Emperor counts as a Church Father.
Especially that Emperor.

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,542
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #134 on: January 18, 2016, 01:09:03 PM »
Emperor Valentinian III, AD 445

"The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by the dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler. "(,Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess p 335f)


I agree with this greek father, maybe this makes me a weirdo
no, just an Ultramontanist. You all are so selective in your outrage against Caesaropapism (an invention of the Vatican).

Btw, he was Emperor of the West, born (and dying) in Italy, from a family from Spain. Does he become a "greek father" by calling him "El Greco"?
« Last Edit: January 18, 2016, 01:15:35 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Re: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?
« Reply #135 on: January 18, 2016, 02:50:54 PM »
Quote
Btw, he was Emperor of the West, born (and dying) in Italy, from a family from Spain. Does he become a "greek father" by calling him "El Greco"?
Sounds greek to me :)
« Last Edit: January 18, 2016, 02:51:05 PM by primuspilus »
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker