Author Topic: True or False: Orthodoxy denies the papacy ?  (Read 11643 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 701
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.

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,784
  • 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 #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

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,039
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
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: 1,362
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

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,039
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
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
  • 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 #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: 701
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: 701
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
  • 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 #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.

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,784
  • 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 #102 on: January 12, 2016, 11:18:49 PM »

Offline Vanhyo

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,039
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
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

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,039
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
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: 701
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 »

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,784
  • 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 #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: 701
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
  • 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 #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
  • 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 #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

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,039
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
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

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,039
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
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

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,039
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
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: 701
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: 701
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: 701
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: 701
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
  • 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 #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
  • 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 #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: 701
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

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,039
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
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: 41,744
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: 701
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: 1,362
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: 41,744
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