Author Topic: Disproving simply papacy  (Read 4822 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pravoslavac

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Disproving simply papacy
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:56:17 AM »
Patriarch of Antioch who presided over 2nd Ecumenical Council was not in communion with the pope of Rome. LOL

In ya face Latins!
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 08:05:17 AM by Pravoslavac »
"Bullets comrades! Not candies! Bullets will save us from the US imperialists!" - Comrade Kim Jong Il

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2015, 10:07:32 AM »
God bless!

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2015, 10:20:05 AM »
WOW my world just got rocked. How stupid i have been yo believe in the Catholic Faith. I guess I'm becoming eastern orthodox then. Where do I sign up? ::)
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2015, 10:36:39 AM »
Now for then true facts:

It is not true that St. Meletius was out of communion with Rome during the Council of Constantinople (which at that time did not yet obtain Ecumenical status). The Meletian party had, on the advice of St. Basil, appealed to Rome before the Council of Constantinople on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. If they were not in communion with Rome, why would they do this? In fact, the response of Pope St. Damasus (known as the Tome of Damasus) formed part of the basis of the Council of Constantinople's Decrees on the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline 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: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2015, 10:44:38 AM »
Quote
on the advice of St. Basil
But why would they need his advice, if the Roman Pontiff was so supreme? Wouldn't he be the go-to guy no matter what?

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 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: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #5 on: December 08, 2015, 10:47:35 AM »
Quote
In fact, the response of Pope St. Damasus (known as the Tome of Damasus) formed part of the basis of the Council of Constantinople's Decrees on the divinity of the Holy Spirit
While they outright ignored his opinion of the illegitimacy of the appointed bishops.

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 Pravoslavac

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #6 on: December 08, 2015, 11:23:31 AM »
1st Ecumenical Council. Even that pope's Council in 320 condemned Aries's heresy, Ecumenical Council was needed in 325 again to condemned it. If in today's Roman-Catholic Church someone is accused of heresy by the pope, that would be definitive.
 Also 4th canon of the 1st Ecumenical Council says that bishops are appointed locally, and this goes against Roman-Catholic canon law that elects pope world-wide and that says that pope can intervene against the election of local bishop in area anywhere.

Oh no i didn't!

« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 11:24:17 AM by Pravoslavac »
"Bullets comrades! Not candies! Bullets will save us from the US imperialists!" - Comrade Kim Jong Il

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #7 on: December 08, 2015, 11:26:22 AM »


Or, more in character with the forum...


Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #8 on: December 08, 2015, 04:47:31 PM »
Quote
on the advice of St. Basil
But why would they need his advice, if the Roman Pontiff was so supreme? Wouldn't he be the go-to guy no matter what?

PP

Normally Rome is used as a last resort even in the Catholic Church today. The eastern churches tnd to try solve their issues internally.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #9 on: December 08, 2015, 04:50:24 PM »
Quote
In fact, the response of Pope St. Damasus (known as the Tome of Damasus) formed part of the basis of the Council of Constantinople's Decrees on the divinity of the Holy Spirit
While they outright ignored his opinion of the illegitimacy of the appointed bishops.

PP

Actually its more nuanced than that.

It is not true that St. Meletius was out of communion with Rome during the Council of Constantinople...

it is a fact that in 382, a year after the Council of Constantinople, Rome tried to broker peace between the Paulinist and Meletian parties, with the condition that both parties agree that the Church in Antioch should be headed by whoever outlived the other. It is a fact that the Meletian party agreed to these terms. It is a fact that the Paulinist party did not agree. So if Rome had a beef with anyone, it would be with the Paulinist party.

It is a fact that the Council Fathers submitted the Acts of the then-local Council of Constantinople to Pope St. Damasus for confirmation in 382. If the Meletian party was not in communion with Rome at this time (as the Paulinist line was still existing), why would they bother to do this?

Rome did not break communion with anyone during the Meletian schism. The only ones who actively broke communion with each other were the Paulinist and Meletian parties within Antioch. All other parties were merely "guilty by association."

The whole situation can be summarized factually like this:
Fact (1) The "Meletian Schism" between the Paulinists and Meletians started about 361 A.D.

Fact (2) Rome did not grant explicit approval of Paulinus until 374 A.D.

Fact (3) The only bishop present in Antioch claiming to be head bishop during this time was Paulinus, as St. Meletius was in exile.

Fact (4) Pope St. Damasus letter of approval to Paulinus does not mention in the least that he rejected St. Meletius. This however does beg the question; Was Pope Damasus' letter of approval of Paulinus a sign of rejecting the Meletian party, or was the Pope simply concerned about the Church in Antioch having a head bishop (since St. Meletius was in exile)?

Fact (5) St. Basil did not accept Pope St. Damasus letter to Paulinus as a sign that the Pope was rejecting communion with the Meletian party, but continued in his efforts to win Rome's explicit approval for the Meletian party.

Fact (6) The dispute between the Meletian and Paulinist parties (and their respective supporters) was couched in polemics about the doctrinal heterodoxy of the other party (i.e., it was not a merely ecclesiastical dispute).

Fact (7) The Meletian party appealed to Rome on the question of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit in 376 A.D. Again we then have to ask; If the Meletian party regarded the Paulinists to be heterodox, and Rome was supposedly in communion with the Paulinists, why would they appeal to Rome on a matter of doctrine?

Fact (8 ) Everyone, particularly St. Basil (as reflected in his letters), regarded Rome's positive response to the Meletian delegation (in spring, 377 A.D.) as a sign of communion with the Meletian party.

Fact (9) St. Meletius returned from exile in 378 A.D.

Fact (10) The Council of Constantinople under the influence of the Meletians submitted their Acts to Pope St. Damasus for confirmation in 382 A.D.

The Meletians and Paulinists accused each other of heterodoxy. Everyone wanted to be in communion with Rome. The Paulinists claimed that the explicity approval of Paulinus by Pope Damasus was a sign that Rome rejected the Meletians. But the Meletians obviously did not accept this, since they appealed to Rome on a matter of doctrine. The Meletians in turn used the positive doctrinal response of Rome to their delegation as a sign that Rome was in communion with them.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 05:00:54 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #10 on: December 08, 2015, 05:13:53 PM »
1st Ecumenical Council. Even that pope's Council in 320 condemned Aries's heresy, Ecumenical Council was needed in 325 again to condemned it. If in today's Roman-Catholic Church someone is accused of heresy by the pope, that would be definitive.
In theory yes, in practicality no... You also need to consider how the expression of papal authority developed. Today we have reached its summit and fulfillment and we know how it should be expressed in the day to day running of the church. However in times of great dispute, people still reject papal proclamations. One only needs to look at the bull of Unam Sanctam or the Old Catholics rejection of Vatican 1.


Quote
Also 4th canon of the 1st Ecumenical Council says that bishops are appointed locally, and this goes against Roman-Catholic canon law that elects pope world-wide and that says that pope can intervene against the election of local bishop in area anywhere.

Firstly canon law changes so this is a weak argument. Secondly what is locally? The diocese? Patriarchate? The eastern catholic churches within their own territories elect their own bishops. But either way the Papal confirmation of bishops was development from the time of Pope Gregory the great (I.e. Pre-schism) and got accepted as canon law. The rule can change tomorrow but its necessary rule I think.

Quote
Oh no i didn't!



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

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

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

Offline Pravoslavac

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #11 on: December 08, 2015, 05:53:08 PM »
1st Ecumenical Council. Even that pope's Council in 320 condemned Aries's heresy, Ecumenical Council was needed in 325 again to condemned it. If in today's Roman-Catholic Church someone is accused of heresy by the pope, that would be definitive.
In theory yes, in practicality no... You also need to consider how the expression of papal authority developed. Today we have reached its summit and fulfillment and we know how it should be expressed in the day to day running of the church. However in times of great dispute, people still reject papal proclamations. One only needs to look at the bull of Unam Sanctam or the Old Catholics rejection of Vatican 1.


Quote
Also 4th canon of the 1st Ecumenical Council says that bishops are appointed locally, and this goes against Roman-Catholic canon law that elects pope world-wide and that says that pope can intervene against the election of local bishop in area anywhere.

Firstly canon law changes so this is a weak argument. Secondly what is locally? The diocese? Patriarchate? The eastern catholic churches within their own territories elect their own bishops. But either way the Papal confirmation of bishops was development from the time of Pope Gregory the great (I.e. Pre-schism) and got accepted as canon law. The rule can change tomorrow but its necessary rule I think.

Quote
Oh no i didn't!



Lol

So you didn't keep your traditions as you had received them as Apostle Paul commanded, you used this deviation that you call development to allow popes to rule Europe. And Eastern Catholics don't matter.

Hello Latin, Take that!
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 05:55:11 PM by Pravoslavac »
"Bullets comrades! Not candies! Bullets will save us from the US imperialists!" - Comrade Kim Jong Il

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2015, 05:57:32 PM »
1st Ecumenical Council. Even that pope's Council in 320 condemned Aries's heresy, Ecumenical Council was needed in 325 again to condemned it. If in today's Roman-Catholic Church someone is accused of heresy by the pope, that would be definitive.
In theory yes, in practicality no... You also need to consider how the expression of papal authority developed. Today we have reached its summit and fulfillment and we know how it should be expressed in the day to day running of the church. However in times of great dispute, people still reject papal proclamations. One only needs to look at the bull of Unam Sanctam or the Old Catholics rejection of Vatican 1.


Quote
Also 4th canon of the 1st Ecumenical Council says that bishops are appointed locally, and this goes against Roman-Catholic canon law that elects pope world-wide and that says that pope can intervene against the election of local bishop in area anywhere.

Firstly canon law changes so this is a weak argument. Secondly what is locally? The diocese? Patriarchate? The eastern catholic churches within their own territories elect their own bishops. But either way the Papal confirmation of bishops was development from the time of Pope Gregory the great (I.e. Pre-schism) and got accepted as canon law. The rule can change tomorrow but its necessary rule I think.

Quote
Oh no i didn't!



Lol

So you didn't keep your traditions as you had received them as Apostle Paul commanded, you used this deviation to allow popes to rule Europe. And Eastern Catholics don't matter.

Hello Latin, Take that!

The tradition referenced by St Paul is the Tradition of Faith (belief comprising of doctrine, dogma and scripture). Not how we dress in mass or how we conduct administrative affairs. You think the eastern orthodox haven't abandoned or replaced any older canons with new ones? LOL

By your own standard you just disproved your own church
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Pravoslavac

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2015, 06:15:42 PM »
1st Ecumenical Council. Even that pope's Council in 320 condemned Aries's heresy, Ecumenical Council was needed in 325 again to condemned it. If in today's Roman-Catholic Church someone is accused of heresy by the pope, that would be definitive.
In theory yes, in practicality no... You also need to consider how the expression of papal authority developed. Today we have reached its summit and fulfillment and we know how it should be expressed in the day to day running of the church. However in times of great dispute, people still reject papal proclamations. One only needs to look at the bull of Unam Sanctam or the Old Catholics rejection of Vatican 1.


Quote
Also 4th canon of the 1st Ecumenical Council says that bishops are appointed locally, and this goes against Roman-Catholic canon law that elects pope world-wide and that says that pope can intervene against the election of local bishop in area anywhere.

Firstly canon law changes so this is a weak argument. Secondly what is locally? The diocese? Patriarchate? The eastern catholic churches within their own territories elect their own bishops. But either way the Papal confirmation of bishops was development from the time of Pope Gregory the great (I.e. Pre-schism) and got accepted as canon law. The rule can change tomorrow but its necessary rule I think.

Quote
Oh no i didn't!



Lol

So you didn't keep your traditions as you had received them as Apostle Paul commanded, you used this deviation to allow popes to rule Europe. And Eastern Catholics don't matter.

Hello Latin, Take that!

The tradition referenced by St Paul is the Tradition of Faith (belief comprising of doctrine, dogma and scripture). Not how we dress in mass or how we conduct administrative affairs. You think the eastern orthodox haven't abandoned or replaced any older canons with new ones? LOL

By your own standard you just disproved your own church

Yea sure, Apostle Paul spent his entire life time teaching and preaching about super bishop of Rome and his infallability. And after years of thinking, the light illuminated his face and he called it The Vicar of Christ and he will excommunicate angels.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 06:20:35 PM by Pravoslavac »
"Bullets comrades! Not candies! Bullets will save us from the US imperialists!" - Comrade Kim Jong Il

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: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #14 on: December 08, 2015, 06:36:39 PM »
Sorry Wandile. You quoted what I said, then didn't address it.

I said,
Quote
While they outright ignored his opinion of the illegitimacy of the appointed bishops.

Which both Orthodox and Roman Catholics stipulate to.

Quote
Not how we dress in mass or how we conduct administrative affairs
So THATS what the schism is about. Got it.

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

Online Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,347
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #15 on: December 08, 2015, 06:36:54 PM »
Yea sure, Apostle Paul spent his entire life time teaching and preaching about super bishop of Rome and his infallability. And after years of thinking, the light illuminated his face and he called it The Vicar of Christ and he will excommunicate angels.

Yea sure, Apostle Paul spent his entire life time teaching and preaching about iconodulism, Palamism, and Byzantine Pentarchy.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #16 on: December 08, 2015, 06:41:52 PM »
1st Ecumenical Council. Even that pope's Council in 320 condemned Aries's heresy, Ecumenical Council was needed in 325 again to condemned it. If in today's Roman-Catholic Church someone is accused of heresy by the pope, that would be definitive.
In theory yes, in practicality no... You also need to consider how the expression of papal authority developed. Today we have reached its summit and fulfillment and we know how it should be expressed in the day to day running of the church. However in times of great dispute, people still reject papal proclamations. One only needs to look at the bull of Unam Sanctam or the Old Catholics rejection of Vatican 1.


Quote
Also 4th canon of the 1st Ecumenical Council says that bishops are appointed locally, and this goes against Roman-Catholic canon law that elects pope world-wide and that says that pope can intervene against the election of local bishop in area anywhere.

Firstly canon law changes so this is a weak argument. Secondly what is locally? The diocese? Patriarchate? The eastern catholic churches within their own territories elect their own bishops. But either way the Papal confirmation of bishops was development from the time of Pope Gregory the great (I.e. Pre-schism) and got accepted as canon law. The rule can change tomorrow but its necessary rule I think.

Quote
Oh no i didn't!



Lol

So you didn't keep your traditions as you had received them as Apostle Paul commanded, you used this deviation to allow popes to rule Europe. And Eastern Catholics don't matter.

Hello Latin, Take that!

The tradition referenced by St Paul is the Tradition of Faith (belief comprising of doctrine, dogma and scripture). Not how we dress in mass or how we conduct administrative affairs. You think the eastern orthodox haven't abandoned or replaced any older canons with new ones? LOL

By your own standard you just disproved your own church

Yea sure, Apostle Paul spent his entire life time teaching and preaching about super bishop of Rome and his infallability. And after years of thinking, the light illuminated his face and he called it The Vicar of Christ and he will excommunicate angels.

You sarcastic humour needs more practice.

Tradition properly so called in scripture is not canons of councils but rather faith. Canons can change and get outdated, faith can't.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #17 on: December 08, 2015, 06:49:51 PM »
Sorry Wandile. You quoted what I said, then didn't address it.

I said,
Quote
While they outright ignored his opinion of the illegitimacy of the appointed bishops.

Which both Orthodox and Roman Catholics stipulate to.

I answered it just in more detail. Read my reply and you will see that Rome never considered anybody illegitimate in fact Rome acknowledged both claims and tried to resolve the schism by saying both likes can exist until one of the claimants die. The one who lives on holds the chair and the other line must acknowledge the holder.

But even if Rome held Meletus as illegitimate and the Meletians ignored Rome... This only shows disobedience and human recourse to assurity if ones position. Like I said even post schism people have ignored papal bulls despite the Latin church believing in papal supremacy. Humans will be humans. If someone is disobedient to authority placed above them, they must account to God at judgement.

Quote
Quote
Not how we dress in mass or how we conduct administrative affairs
So THATS what the schism is about. Got it.

PP

LOL I was not even talking about what caused the schism. I was defining what tradition properly is.
You got to the schism all on your own.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 06:52:27 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Pravoslavac

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #18 on: December 08, 2015, 06:50:00 PM »
So every at best "odd" change in the Church that goes against the Holy Tradition, Roman-Catholics justify with this development of the faith? That's so cool. So popes decided to develop their teachings and ways by proclaiming universal jurisdiction against the will of the 4 Eastern Patriarchs and then they act all suprised because they lost communion with the East.
"Bullets comrades! Not candies! Bullets will save us from the US imperialists!" - Comrade Kim Jong Il

Offline Pravoslavac

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #19 on: December 08, 2015, 06:52:46 PM »
7 Ecumenical Councils deny papacy.

Ecumenical Councils were called by the Emperor, not by the pope. Popes were mostly not even present at the Holy Councils.

1st Ecumenical Council. Even that pope's Council in 320 condemned Aries's heresy, Ecumenical Council was needed in 325 again to condemned it. Also 4th canon of the 1st Ecumenical Council says that bishops are appointed locally, and this goes against Roman-Catholic canon law that elects pope world-wide and that says that pope can intervene against the election of local bishop in area anywhere.

2nd Ecumenical Council was presided by Patriarch Melitius of Antioch, who was not even in communion with Rome.

3rd Ecumenical Council summoned Nestorius to answer for his teaching, even though he was already condemned as heretic by Pope Celastine I. So the Church did not consider pope's condemnation as definitive. In today's Roman-Catholic Church, if pope someone condemned as heretic, that would be definitive, unlike in those time when Rome was in communion with the Orthodox Catholic Church.

4th Ecumenical Council was called, even against the expressed wish of the Pope of Rome. In today Roman-Catholic Church, so called Ecumenical Council could not be called against the expressed wish of the pope.

5th Ecumenical Council. Pope of Rome Vigalius defended the Three Chapters. Assembled bishops condemned Three Chapters (written by Theodore, Theodorit and Ibas), while pope Vigalius defended Three Chapters. Holy Council threatened to defrock Pope Vigalius. Then Pope Vigalius repented and blamed devil for his mistake. Also 5th Ecumenical Council was summoned without the assent of the Pope of Rome.

6th Ecumenical Council proclaimed Pope Honorius of Rome and Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople heretics, and cast them out from the Church. In 11th Century, when Rome it-self removed itself from the Church, rejected Holy 6th ecumenical Council and proclaimed Pope Honorius not heretic.

The holy Council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time Patriarch of this royal God-protected city to Cyrus, who was the bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.

7th Ecumenical Council declared its adhesion to the anathema in it's decree of faith. Thus an Ecumenical Council could rule on the faith of a Pope and expel him from the Church.

Council of Constantinople 880 condemned Filioque and Papacy. This Council was rejected officially in 11th century by Rome, because this Council disagreed with this new post-schism Rome.

The 14 Synods Rome claims are Ecumenical, which Rome held after breaking away from the Church were completely of new nature. They had no opposition to the Pope of Rome, and if i am not wrong, they were all called by Pope and they were all presided by Pope, which was not the case when Rome was part of the Orthodox Catholic Church, when Pope was mostly not present, nor Pope presided, some were even called against the expressed wish of the Pope. As i have listed it already.

Oh no pope you didn't!
"Bullets comrades! Not candies! Bullets will save us from the US imperialists!" - Comrade Kim Jong Il

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #20 on: December 08, 2015, 07:03:01 PM »
So every at best "odd" change in the Church that goes against the Holy Tradition, Roman-Catholics justify with this development of the faith? That's so cool. So popes decided to develop their teachings and ways by proclaiming universal jurisdiction against the will of the 4 Eastern Patriarchs and then they act all suprised because they lost communion with the East.

4? Rome never recognised the pentarchy when we were in communion remember? From the time of Chalcedon. Rome had recognised two eastern patriarchs (Alexandria and Jerusalem). LOL in fact the REAL patriarch of Alexandria doesn't recognise the pentarchy to this day and even the byzantine Alexandrian patrairch rejected this notion of pentarchy but once egyot became Muslim, the byzantine Alexandrian Pope lost influence and in essence became a satellite for the EP this Alxeandrian conformity was more so forced upon Alexandria. Antioch was the same situation hence they even got Byzantinised completely.

Secondly development of doctrine is orthodox. It's the deeper understanding of revealed truths. That's what Rome was doing from the Catholic Perspective.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Pravoslavac

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #21 on: December 08, 2015, 07:05:55 PM »
So every at best "odd" change in the Church that goes against the Holy Tradition, Roman-Catholics justify with this development of the faith? That's so cool. So popes decided to develop their teachings and ways by proclaiming universal jurisdiction against the will of the 4 Eastern Patriarchs and then they act all suprised because they lost communion with the East.

4? Rome never recognised the pentarchy when we were in communion remember? From the time of Chalcedon. Rome had recognised two eastern patriarchs (Alexandria and Jerusalem). LOL in fact the REAL patriarch of Alexandria doesn't recognise the pentarchy to this day and even the byzantine Alexandrian patrairch rejected this notion of pentarchy but once egyot became Muslim, the byzantine Alexandrian Pope lost influence and in essence became a satellite for the EP this Alxeandrian conformity was more so forced upon Alexandria. Antioch was the same situation hence they even got Byzantinised completely.

Secondly development of doctrine is orthodox. It's the deeper understanding of revealed truths. That's what Rome was doing from the Catholic Perspective.

Actually when Latins sacked Constantinople and established Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, then Rome recognized Canon which states that Constantinople is second to Rome in honor because Constantinople is New Rome. LOL

And at the Eastern Catholic Councils, 4 Eastern Orthodox ancient Patriarchates were represented.

Real Patriarchate of Alexandria? The Coptic one? You shared for 1000 years communion with the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch in Alexandria, not with the Coptic.



Forbidden epithet removed from post  -PtA

Pravoslavac, you've been warned before to avoid using such epithets as the one I removed above. Seeing that you're obviously trolling us, I'm inclined to believe that you know that what you're doing is unacceptable and that you're doing it deliberately. I am therefore bumping you back up to the maximum warning I can give you without muting you and am going to make a formal recommendation that you be muted/banned. You obviously haven't learned anything from your previous warnings.

If you wish to appeal this warning, please PM me.

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: December 10, 2015, 01:06:35 AM by PeterTheAleut »
"Bullets comrades! Not candies! Bullets will save us from the US imperialists!" - Comrade Kim Jong Il

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #22 on: December 08, 2015, 07:08:37 PM »
LOL I'm so done with you. I could reply to each of the councils but this is not a dialogue, this is like talking to fundamentalist protestants who have no recourse to reasonable discussion (whether both parties disagree or not) but just reiterate old sermons and copy paste arguments and when that fails them... They just shout the same things louder and add the good old "heretic".

One thing I will say is you have made me laugh today. Thanks you and I don't mean that as an insult.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 07:13:41 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #23 on: December 08, 2015, 07:11:23 PM »
So every at best "odd" change in the Church that goes against the Holy Tradition, Roman-Catholics justify with this development of the faith? That's so cool. So popes decided to develop their teachings and ways by proclaiming universal jurisdiction against the will of the 4 Eastern Patriarchs and then they act all suprised because they lost communion with the East.

4? Rome never recognised the pentarchy when we were in communion remember? From the time of Chalcedon. Rome had recognised two eastern patriarchs (Alexandria and Jerusalem). LOL in fact the REAL patriarch of Alexandria doesn't recognise the pentarchy to this day and even the byzantine Alexandrian patrairch rejected this notion of pentarchy but once egyot became Muslim, the byzantine Alexandrian Pope lost influence and in essence became a satellite for the EP this Alxeandrian conformity was more so forced upon Alexandria. Antioch was the same situation hence they even got Byzantinised completely.

Secondly development of doctrine is orthodox. It's the deeper understanding of revealed truths. That's what Rome was doing from the Catholic Perspective.

Actually when Latins sacked Constantinople and established Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, then Rome recognized Canon which states that Constantinople is second to Rome in honor because Constantinople is New Rome. LOL

And at the Uniate Councils, 4 Eastern Orthodox ancient Patriarchates were represented.

Real Patriarchate of Alexandria? The Coptic one? You shared for 1000 years communion with the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch in Alexandria, not with the Coptic.

Read my post again ... Either you are seriously not trying or you don't speak English too well. I assume its the latter for the sake of you being genuine
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 07:12:16 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Pravoslavac

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #24 on: December 08, 2015, 07:13:28 PM »
And once more Orthodoxy prevails! Shaved ones lose again!

Now i go back home after another Victory!
"Bullets comrades! Not candies! Bullets will save us from the US imperialists!" - Comrade Kim Jong Il

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #25 on: December 08, 2015, 07:14:54 PM »
And once more Orthodoxy prevails! Shaved ones lose again!

Now i go back home after another Victory!

Just like how you prevailed at Florence during the debates? LOL anyway its late this side. Goodnight brother
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 07:16:12 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline truthseeker32

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 643
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA-Denver
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #26 on: December 08, 2015, 07:17:54 PM »
How these conversations (almost) always progress:

Step 1: Player 1 asserts evidence for his position
Step 2: Player 2 asserts counter evidence that calls Player 1's argument into question
Step 3: Player 1 offers additional evidence that rebuts Player 2's counter argument.
Step 4: Repeat steps 2 and 3 far too many times.
Step 5: Both parties leave unconvinced and more frustrated than when they began.

... however, this time is an exception. Lol... shaved ones.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 07:18:41 PM by truthseeker32 »

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,600
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #27 on: December 08, 2015, 07:27:48 PM »
Snotty trolls never converted anybody.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline Pravoslavac

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #28 on: December 08, 2015, 07:31:10 PM »
And once more Orthodoxy prevails! Shaved ones lose again!

Now i go back home after another Victory!

Just like how you prevailed at Florence during the debates? LOL anyway its late this side. Goodnight brother

We gained great saint at that Robber Synod, while you gained more shame and only made us more aware that no good will come from Rome for us. One useful robber Council indeed. Led by blackmails instead Holy Spirit. LOL

Good night and don't forget to shave your beard tonight. You must not look like Jesus at any cost.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 07:31:57 PM by Pravoslavac »
"Bullets comrades! Not candies! Bullets will save us from the US imperialists!" - Comrade Kim Jong Il

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,017
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #29 on: December 08, 2015, 07:52:36 PM »

Secondly development of doctrine is orthodox. It's the deeper understanding of revealed truths. That's what Rome was doing from the Catholic Perspective.

That is what is now being proclaimed. However, there was a time (19th Century) when Cardinal Newman could maintain without contradiction that the beliefs and praxis of the Apostolic Church were merely the starting point of a series of theological developments that evolved over the centuries. Cardinal Newman was not talking about "deeper understanding" of the truths revealed during the Apostolic Age. He was candidly describing the practice of the Roman Catholic Church to establish new dogma all on its own, particularly because the Pope as the First Bishop without Equals and the infallible Vicar of Christ had the authority to do so, even if innovations were (and are )couched by standard phraseology that pay homage to the Apostolic Church and the Holy Spirit.

This fundamental error notwithstanding, I must say that you remind me of Rush Limbaugh's bragging that he is able to argue successfully even with one arm tied behind his back. You have clearly proven your superiority to Pravolavac:police:
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 07:53:38 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) »

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,720
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #30 on: December 08, 2015, 08:31:15 PM »


"Et super hanc petram..."

Video: https://twitter.com/aschwibach/status/674295906133504000






"And upon this rock..."

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #31 on: December 08, 2015, 08:34:01 PM »

Secondly development of doctrine is orthodox. It's the deeper understanding of revealed truths. That's what Rome was doing from the Catholic Perspective.

That is what is now being proclaimed. However, there was a time (19th Century) when Cardinal Newman could maintain without contradiction that the beliefs and praxis of the Apostolic Church were merely the starting point of a series of theological developments that evolved over the centuries. Cardinal Newman was not talking about "deeper understanding" of the truths revealed during the Apostolic Age. He was candidly describing the practice of the Roman Catholic Church to establish new dogma all on its own, particularly because the Pope as the First Bishop without Equals and the infallible Vicar of Christ had the authority to do so, even if innovations were (and are )couched by standard phraseology that pay homage to the Apostolic Church and the Holy Spirit.

This fundamental error notwithstanding, I must say that you remind me of Rush Limbaugh's bragging that he is able to argue successfully even with one arm tied behind his back. You have clearly proven your superiority to Pravolavac:police:

The Church hasn't changed on this matter. I suspect that you misunderstand Cardinal Newman. He asserted that the fullness of christian faith has been revealed since the beginning but in seed from. From there we learn and understand deeper to proclaim new dogmas about truths contained in the seed. Hence the bible does not speak about the holy trinity explicitly ( That truth is there contsiemd in seed form) but through our understanding that scripture calls all three persons God and that God is one, the church developed an understanding of doctrine that God is a trinity. Because Christ was fully God and fully man, through development of this doctrine (hypostatic union) a new dogma was proclaimed that a will pertained to each nature due to each nature being fully present and unmixed in Christ. If all this was known from the beginning, there would have been no controversies.

Even before our present day and before Cardinal Newmans (In 434 A.D. To be precise) St. Vincent of Lerins wrote the following:

But some one will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith....what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 08:38:18 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Pravoslavac

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #32 on: December 08, 2015, 08:40:53 PM »
Didn't you go to sleep?

See, never trust Latins. xD
"Bullets comrades! Not candies! Bullets will save us from the US imperialists!" - Comrade Kim Jong Il

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #33 on: December 08, 2015, 09:02:15 PM »


Or, more in character with the forum...




Meh, I'm still waiting for the Catbert icon.

At any rate, the suggestion that the extremely orthodox Roman church of the fourth century was somehow opposed to orthodoxy is rather misleading.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline orthonorm

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,715
  • Ad Aluminum!
  • Faith: DSM 5
  • Jurisdiction: Apostle to the Church of ASD
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #34 on: December 08, 2015, 09:05:44 PM »
Snotty trolls never converted anybody.

I am immediately ready to drop agustin as my spiritual father and sit at the feet of this treasure of the old world.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,806
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #35 on: December 08, 2015, 09:07:11 PM »
Angelic Hierarchy:

1. Pasadi
2. Augustin
3. Pravoslavac
4. Maria
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,600
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #36 on: December 08, 2015, 09:32:14 PM »


Or, more in character with the forum...




Meh, I'm still waiting for the Catbert icon.

At any rate, the suggestion that the extremely orthodox Roman church of the fourth century was somehow opposed to orthodoxy is rather misleading.

Of course it is. This thread was started by a troll, to deliberately ridicule others. It was then joined by people who post monkey pictures. I guess that makes things better.

It's Reddit for church boys.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #37 on: December 08, 2015, 10:12:15 PM »
Didn't you go to sleep?

See, never trust Latins. xD


Didn't say I was sleeping. Just said its late. I'm only sleeping now.
Thirdly I'm African not Latin. My religion is catholic.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #38 on: December 09, 2015, 10:10:05 AM »
Angelic Hierarchy:

1. Pasadi
2. Augustin
3. Pravoslavac
4. Maria
QFT

Although, I think Pravoslavac may be moving up.
God bless!

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: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #39 on: December 09, 2015, 10:12:29 AM »
Quote
Read my reply and you will see that Rome never considered anybody illegitimate in fact Rome acknowledged both claims and tried to resolve the schism by saying both likes can exist until one of the claimants die
No. See https://books.google.com/books?id=NswF2j8IISMC&pg=PA103#v=onepage&q&f=false as a reference. Damasus openly supported someone else for the see. You're simply wrong here. No question about it. Rome clearly thought of the bishops as illegitimate, and the Eastern bishops ignored him, because it wasn't his place.

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 Jedi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Rockford Diocese
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #40 on: December 09, 2015, 03:38:04 PM »

4? Rome never recognised the pentarchy when we were in communion remember? From the time of Chalcedon. Rome had recognised two eastern patriarchs (Alexandria and Jerusalem).
[/quote]

I'm not sure if I am reading your post correctly.  Are you saying that Rome did not recognize a pentarchy of patriarchal prominence?   Conciliator statements about the Petrine sees (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) having prominence (which never happened due to historical developments), I think indicate a sense of the importance of the earlest sees; there is more convoluted development with conciliar acknowledgement of the importance of the See of Constantinople, but would you really say, by that point, that Rome never acknowledged an existing pentarchy? 

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #41 on: December 09, 2015, 04:12:39 PM »
Quote

4? Rome never recognised the pentarchy when we were in communion remember? From the time of Chalcedon. Rome had recognised two eastern patriarchs (Alexandria and Jerusalem).

I'm not sure if I am reading your post correctly.  Are you saying that Rome did not recognize a pentarchy of patriarchal prominence?   Conciliator statements about the Petrine sees (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) having prominence (which never happened due to historical developments), I think indicate a sense of the importance of the earlest sees; there is more convoluted development with conciliar acknowledgement of the importance of the See of Constantinople, but would you really say, by that point, that Rome never acknowledged an existing pentarchy?

Rome rejected the idea of pentarchy since before the schism as Rome never accepted canon 28 of chalcedon. Constantinople was seen as important but not a patriarchate. Further the idea of patriarchs never really gained traction in the west.  Rome recognised Petrine prominence and on that account primacy in the church ordered Rome then Alexandria then Antioch. Only after the schism did canon 28 get accepted when the Catholics installed their own Latin patriarch of Constantinople.

As late of Pope Gregory the Great, it can be seen how the Roman bishops viewed Constantinople and her claims to prominence in the Church. Further people always speak of the great schism as Rome against 4 equal patriarchal sees of importance  but in reality. it was simply a split between Rome and Constantinople . The Islamic conquests of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch in the 7th century left Constantinople the only practical authority in the East, and afterward the concept of a "pentarchy" retained little more than symbolic significance.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 04:28:32 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #42 on: December 09, 2015, 04:41:01 PM »
Petrine prominence =/= Rome supremacy
God bless!

Offline Pravoslavac

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #43 on: December 09, 2015, 05:30:47 PM »
Quote

4? Rome never recognised the pentarchy when we were in communion remember? From the time of Chalcedon. Rome had recognised two eastern patriarchs (Alexandria and Jerusalem).

I'm not sure if I am reading your post correctly.  Are you saying that Rome did not recognize a pentarchy of patriarchal prominence?   Conciliator statements about the Petrine sees (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) having prominence (which never happened due to historical developments), I think indicate a sense of the importance of the earlest sees; there is more convoluted development with conciliar acknowledgement of the importance of the See of Constantinople, but would you really say, by that point, that Rome never acknowledged an existing pentarchy?

Rome rejected the idea of pentarchy since before the schism as Rome never accepted canon 28 of chalcedon. Constantinople was seen as important but not a patriarchate. Further the idea of patriarchs never really gained traction in the west.  Rome recognised Petrine prominence and on that account primacy in the church ordered Rome then Alexandria then Antioch. Only after the schism did canon 28 get accepted when the Catholics installed their own Latin patriarch of Constantinople.

As late of Pope Gregory the Great, it can be seen how the Roman bishops viewed Constantinople and her claims to prominence in the Church. Further people always speak of the great schism as Rome against 4 equal patriarchal sees of importance  but in reality. it was simply a split between Rome and Constantinople . The Islamic conquests of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch in the 7th century left Constantinople the only practical authority in the East, and afterward the concept of a "pentarchy" retained little more than symbolic significance.

Rome vs Constantinople only? lol yea sure, that is why Russian Church, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cypress... they are all in communion with Rome, oh wait, they all supported Constantinople from the start of these Churches. And of course the ancient Eastern Patriarchs, which you like to say that they are unimportant because they were reduced in numbers because of Islam, but when even smaller communions of Eastern Catholics are mentioned, then they are praised as something very important. Hypocrisy.
"Bullets comrades! Not candies! Bullets will save us from the US imperialists!" - Comrade Kim Jong Il

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #44 on: December 09, 2015, 09:32:47 PM »
Quote

4? Rome never recognised the pentarchy when we were in communion remember? From the time of Chalcedon. Rome had recognised two eastern patriarchs (Alexandria and Jerusalem).

I'm not sure if I am reading your post correctly.  Are you saying that Rome did not recognize a pentarchy of patriarchal prominence?   Conciliator statements about the Petrine sees (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) having prominence (which never happened due to historical developments), I think indicate a sense of the importance of the earlest sees; there is more convoluted development with conciliar acknowledgement of the importance of the See of Constantinople, but would you really say, by that point, that Rome never acknowledged an existing pentarchy?

Rome rejected the idea of pentarchy since before the schism as Rome never accepted canon 28 of chalcedon. Constantinople was seen as important but not a patriarchate. Further the idea of patriarchs never really gained traction in the west.  Rome recognised Petrine prominence and on that account primacy in the church ordered Rome then Alexandria then Antioch. Only after the schism did canon 28 get accepted when the Catholics installed their own Latin patriarch of Constantinople.

As late of Pope Gregory the Great, it can be seen how the Roman bishops viewed Constantinople and her claims to prominence in the Church. Further people always speak of the great schism as Rome against 4 equal patriarchal sees of importance  but in reality. it was simply a split between Rome and Constantinople . The Islamic conquests of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch in the 7th century left Constantinople the only practical authority in the East, and afterward the concept of a "pentarchy" retained little more than symbolic significance.

Rome vs Constantinople only? lol yea sure, that is why Russian Church, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cypress... they are all in communion with Rome, oh wait, they all supported Constantinople from the start of these Churches. And of course the ancient Eastern Patriarchs, which you like to say that they are unimportant because they were reduced in numbers because of Islam, but when even smaller communions of Eastern Catholics are mentioned, then they are praised as something very important. Hypocrisy.

Yes it was Rome and Constantinople. At the inception of the mutual excommunications up until before the sack of Constantinople, the antiochan patriarchs admonished both Rome and Constantinople and told them to solve their dispute. In the eyes of Antioch, it was a dispute between Rome and Constantinople. In fact by this time even in the east latins and Greeks were communing each other on the ground. The schism hadn't taken full effect yet. Further the Russian church only formally stopped being in communion with Rome around the 12th century as Russians kings were still getting confirmed by religious figures of significance and this included the Roman bishop. One example of this is Prince Daniil (r. 1238–1264) who accepted a crown as a "Rex Rusiae" ("King of Russia") from the Roman papacy, apparently doing so without breaking with Constantinople.

Further I mentioned the eastern Catholics not for patriarchal significance but for ecclesiastical order in the Catholic Church. Any history book can tell you pentarchy was an ideal that never materialized. Eastern scholars today say as much . For the two main reasons of the west never accepting it and the east really only having one ecclesiastical power (Constantinople) as Alexandria was killed by the Muslim invasion and Antioch was divided due to the schism between melkites and non-chalcedonians added with Muslim invasions , the flock was small and too insignificant for amy real influence. Hence the behavior of these two can be seen evidently as mere satellites of the EP. They did whatever the EP told them to do even going sk far as to adopt the rite of Constantinople. The EP was practically an eastern pope and hel way more authority and influence than he does today.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #45 on: December 09, 2015, 09:33:57 PM »
Petrine prominence =/= Rome supremacy

It is the foundation for roman supremacy. But you know this already. That is the Catholic point of view.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Pravoslavac

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #46 on: December 09, 2015, 10:13:31 PM »
Quote

4? Rome never recognised the pentarchy when we were in communion remember? From the time of Chalcedon. Rome had recognised two eastern patriarchs (Alexandria and Jerusalem).

I'm not sure if I am reading your post correctly.  Are you saying that Rome did not recognize a pentarchy of patriarchal prominence?   Conciliator statements about the Petrine sees (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) having prominence (which never happened due to historical developments), I think indicate a sense of the importance of the earlest sees; there is more convoluted development with conciliar acknowledgement of the importance of the See of Constantinople, but would you really say, by that point, that Rome never acknowledged an existing pentarchy?

Rome rejected the idea of pentarchy since before the schism as Rome never accepted canon 28 of chalcedon. Constantinople was seen as important but not a patriarchate. Further the idea of patriarchs never really gained traction in the west.  Rome recognised Petrine prominence and on that account primacy in the church ordered Rome then Alexandria then Antioch. Only after the schism did canon 28 get accepted when the Catholics installed their own Latin patriarch of Constantinople.

As late of Pope Gregory the Great, it can be seen how the Roman bishops viewed Constantinople and her claims to prominence in the Church. Further people always speak of the great schism as Rome against 4 equal patriarchal sees of importance  but in reality. it was simply a split between Rome and Constantinople . The Islamic conquests of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch in the 7th century left Constantinople the only practical authority in the East, and afterward the concept of a "pentarchy" retained little more than symbolic significance.

Rome vs Constantinople only? lol yea sure, that is why Russian Church, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cypress... they are all in communion with Rome, oh wait, they all supported Constantinople from the start of these Churches. And of course the ancient Eastern Patriarchs, which you like to say that they are unimportant because they were reduced in numbers because of Islam, but when even smaller communions of Eastern Catholics are mentioned, then they are praised as something very important. Hypocrisy.

Yes it was Rome and Constantinople. At the inception of the mutual excommunications up until before the sack of Constantinople, the antiochan patriarchs admonished both Rome and Constantinople and told them to solve their dispute. In the eyes of Antioch, it was a dispute between Rome and Constantinople. In fact by this time even in the east latins and Greeks were communing each other on the ground. The schism hadn't taken full effect yet. Further the Russian church only formally stopped being in communion with Rome around the 12th century as Russians kings were still getting confirmed by religious figures of significance and this included the Roman bishop. One example of this is Prince Daniil (r. 1238–1264) who accepted a crown as a "Rex Rusiae" ("King of Russia") from the Roman papacy, apparently doing so without breaking with Constantinople.

Further I mentioned the eastern Catholics not for patriarchal significance but for ecclesiastical order in the Catholic Church. Any history book can tell you pentarchy was an ideal that never materialized. Eastern scholars today say as much . For the two main reasons of the west never accepting it and the east really only having one ecclesiastical power (Constantinople) as Alexandria was killed by the Muslim invasion and Antioch was divided due to the schism between melkites and non-chalcedonians added with Muslim invasions , the flock was small and too insignificant for amy real influence. Hence the behavior of these two can be seen evidently as mere satellites of the EP. They did whatever the EP told them to do even going sk far as to adopt the rite of Constantinople. The EP was practically an eastern pope and hel way more authority and influence than he does today.

Indeed it took some time for all Eastern Churches to join Constantinople, informations and everything else was traveling very slowly unlike today. Crusaders persecuting Orthodox Patriarchates in the East did not help Rome's cause. No Eastern Church as a whole recognized Rome, Rome did some dirty moves to divide some Churches, like in Ukraine and Syria, but for example Melkites joined Rome because they needed validation, not because they believe Rome has true teachings. Even now they keep anti-Latin saints in their calendar, hypocrisy.

During 1054 crisis, Patriarch of Antioch Peter III was on Constantinople's side theologically, he believed Constantinople was right, but he had more tolerant view, he believed that Rome should be allowed keep azima, Peter III used to say "If you want all, you will lose all." (Want all - want from Rome to change all).
"Bullets comrades! Not candies! Bullets will save us from the US imperialists!" - Comrade Kim Jong Il

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #47 on: December 09, 2015, 10:58:23 PM »
Well this thread has solved our problems. Schism over.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #48 on: December 10, 2015, 12:10:26 AM »
There is no evidence for the Papacy anywhere. If there was, then there would be no need for a joint Alexandrian and Roman declaration of faith against Nestorianism. Which did happen.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline 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: Disproving simply papacy
« Reply #49 on: December 10, 2015, 06:17:15 PM »
Quote
There is no evidence for the Papacy's claims about supremacy anywhere
There ya go.

I wouldn't say that there is no evidence, however I would say that some evidence has been skewed in favor of the papacy, just like today, clear facts are skewed by political parties to get their own points across.

That being said, anyone who says that the Papcy's claims are true in an "open-and-shut case" type of manner are simply being either dishonest, or incredibly partisan.

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