Author Topic: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?  (Read 11653 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

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
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • 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
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • 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: 2,892
  • 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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

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: 2,892
  • 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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 701
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: 35,785
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • 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: 1,362
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: 2,892
  • 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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,892
  • 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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 18,433
  • You're my guardian angel hiding in the woods
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Enemy State Orthodox Church Abroad
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
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • 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: 701
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
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • 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: 701
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: 1,664
  • 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: 701
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: 701
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: 701
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: 701
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: 701
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: 35,785
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • 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

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,039
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
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
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • 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: 701
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: 3,812
  • 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
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • 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: 701
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 ?