OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 22, 2014, 02:57:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why We Reject Peter "the Rock"?  (Read 5700 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« on: September 19, 2005, 08:44:37 PM »

Hey everyone, I'm not clear on our church's position on why we do not recognize St. Peter as the head of the Apostles. Some Catholics were talking to me and that in the Bible, it usually mentions "the Apsotles and Peter" or "Peter with the rest of the Apostles". I didn't ask for verses because I remember seeing these verses in the gospels.

Also was Christ talk SOLELY to Peter when he said "Whatever you bind on earth...shall be retained ....and whateber you don't shall not be forgiven..." or was Christ talking to ALL of the Apostles??

What about christ giving the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter?

Thanks n God bless y'all,
                                  Timos
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2005, 11:05:04 PM »

Also was Christ talk SOLELY to Peter when he said "Whatever you bind on earth...shall be retained ....and whateber you don't shall not be forgiven..." or was Christ talking to ALL of the Apostles??

What about christ giving the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter?

Thanks n God bless y'all,
                                  Timos

I don't have the Bible sources right now, but concerning those two questions, it was granted to all the Apostles eventually.  There is something in the Book of Acts that also gives the keys of heaven to the Apostles.

God bless.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2005, 11:10:02 PM »

I've answered this before, but am currently too lazy to look it up...so I'm going to type it out again.  Which makes PERFECT sense, I know...

St. Peter was indeed the rock Christ referred to, but only, as I believe Augustine (the poster on the forum; not the Father) termed it, in a derivative sense.  Some of the Church Fathers believed St. Peter himself was the rock; others thought it was only his confession of Christ as the Son of God.  So we're hardly receiving a consensus on the subject.  Basically, what it comes down to is this: St. Peter has the title, "Chief of the Apostles."  He was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  As long as he keeps secure his profession of faith, he will remain the rock of the Church.  If he renounces this profession, he's no longer the rock.  So as an answer to the question, "What's the rock: St. Peter or his confession?" the real answer is: Yes.

Or, in the words of Rich Mullins, "How can you separate a man from his convictions without destroying both?"
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2005, 12:54:11 AM »

The Title of this thread needs to be fixed.  We do not reject St. Peter nor do we reject him as "the Rock."  He is both accepted as a Church father and the Rock, but not a jurisdictional Pope over the other Apostles.

Emmanuel Clapsis writes:

Quote
In Matthew 16:19, Peter is explicitly commissioned to "bind and loose"; later, in Matthew 18:18, Christ directly promises all the disciples that they will do the same. Similarly, the foundation upon which the Church is built is related to Peter in Matthew 16:16, and to the whole apostolic body elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Eph. 2:10).It is thus possible to conclude that, although the distinctive features of Peter's ministry are stressed, his ministry is that of an apostle and does not distinguish him from the ministry of the other apostles. In addition, the New Testament does not contain an explicit record of the transmission of Peter's leadership, nor is the transmission of apostolic authority in general very clear. As a result, the Petrine texts of the New Testament have been subjected to differing interpretations from the time of the Church Fathers on.

And in summary at the end of this article, he writes:

Quote
In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God's Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25‑27).

I tend to agree with his views.

God bless.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2005, 12:54:44 AM by minasoliman » Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2005, 08:48:51 PM »

If that is so, why can't we be humble and just let them say what they want about who is highest and what not? As long as Rome professes (in the future) Orthodoxy whats the big deal who is the head and the second and the third?

The idea that first comes Rome, then Polis, then Alex, then Antioch, then Jerusalem, and finally Moscow is really political and belongs in the Medieval times when empires ruled Europe and the Mddle East.

Why can't we just let Rome be the head honcho WITHOUT bullying us around of course and forget who comes first and who comes last?

As for Rome, why can't they be humble and not care so much about being at the top.

Where does the verse "He who comes first will be last and he who goes last will be first" tie in with church politics??



Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2005, 03:06:08 AM »

If that is so, why can't we be humble and just let them say what they want about who is highest and what not? As long as Rome professes (in the future) Orthodoxy whats the big deal who is the head and the second and the third?

The idea that first comes Rome, then Polis, then Alex, then Antioch, then Jerusalem, and finally Moscow is really political and belongs in the Medieval times when empires ruled Europe and the Mddle East.

Why can't we just let Rome be the head honcho WITHOUT bullying us around of course and forget who comes first and who comes last?

As for Rome, why can't they be humble and not care so much about being at the top.

Where does the verse "He who comes first will be last and he who goes last will be first" tie in with church politics??


I agree to everything you said, with emphasis put on what I bolded and underlined.  Unfortunately, their idea of being first is that their word goes or else.  There is no ecumenism in Papalism.  What the Pope says is dogma and canon.  Anyone who disagrees is anathema.  That is what we don't want, and we accept the anathema so long as we follow Christ, which is one of the reasons we're divided.

God bless.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2005, 03:07:13 AM by minasoliman » Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2005, 12:56:47 PM »

o right, thanks for clarifying that. I wonder why Antioch is not boastign the same things since it was also established by Peter?? Perhaps because Rome doesn't have a double Patriarchate whereas Antioch has a double Orthodox patriarchate both claiming they are the truth....to me they're both orthodox of Antioch just using different languages and Rites...big deal.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2005, 01:57:17 PM »

o right, thanks for clarifying that. I wonder why Antioch is not boastign the same things since it was also established by Peter?? Perhaps because Rome doesn't have a double Patriarchate whereas Antioch has a double Orthodox patriarchate both claiming they are the truth....to me they're both orthodox of Antioch just using different languages and Rites...big deal.

That's the same debate I use with Roman Catholics.  If Rome is infallible because of St. Peter, then they have to agree that the Antiochian Orthodox patriarchs are as well (who both, by the way, accept one another's sacraments fully, as if they were sister churches).

God bless.
Logged

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

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

Posts: 59


« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2005, 05:54:19 PM »

That's the same debate I use with Roman Catholics.ÂÂ  If Rome is infallible because of St. Peter, then they have to agree that the Antiochian Orthodox patriarchs are as well (who both, by the way, accept one another's sacraments fully, as if they were sister churches).

God bless.

I dont get this. Why do both HAVE TO have infallibility?
Cause of ordination?

~Victor
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2005, 06:56:26 PM »

Because the argument that the modern Roman popes have infalibility is based upon the relationship of the see of Rome with Saint Peter.  Thus it is worth pointing out that Saint Peter is not solely attached to Rome. 
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,397


« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2005, 06:59:24 PM »

I was reading a similar discussion on the Indiana List somewhat recently.

Someone mentioned that they though a bigger problem to the RCC coming back to Orthodoxy than Papal claims and Dogma is liturgical discipline.  It's just so varied, hard to manage and flat out poor in many cases.
Logged
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 884


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2005, 07:41:54 PM »

Timos, ask your Catholic friends why James was the first bishop of the Church of Jerusalem rather than Peter if Christ gave him the keys of the Kingdom?  If that was true, why wasn't Peter the first bishop?  Also, James headed the first council (which makes sense since he was the bishop).  Also, Paul won out over Peter over the issue of whether Gentiles had to be circumcised and follow other Jewish customs in order to be Christian.  If Peter had truly been "the Rock" and the keys of the Kingdom had been given to Peter, then none of this would have been the case.  It is pretty clear that neither Peter or the Apostles had that interpretation of Christ's words.
Logged
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2005, 09:14:31 PM »

Then what the flibberty-jibber did Christ mean when he said these things to Peter? And why did He single out Peter alone?

Katherine other posters beforeyou have said that yes Peter is the Rock in that his confession of Faith was. And that yes Christ did give the keys of the kigdom of heaven to Peter because he was the leader of the apostles...but these "keys" get passed out to the rest of the apostles too or else that means anyone not baptised directly under Paul or Roman/Antiochian/wherever else Peter went does not have succesion from Christ...thats what Rome thinks...so that means they don't believe that the other Apostles have the keys to the kingdom or else it wouldn't be a big deal to them. Yet if the other Apostles don't have the keys to the kingdom of heaven then Christ was wrong in telling ALL the Apostles to go out and preach the Good News...and in our Faith Christ God is never wrong.

A vpart of the NT that comes to my mind is when ppl were arguing who is greater Peter or Paul...and in the end no one is under Peter, no one is under Paul. Rather everyone is under Christ (God).
Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2005, 04:23:48 AM »

Peter is the "type" of the Apostles. Whatever is promised to Peter is in reality promised to all the Apostles. Peter was also singled out in one case because only he had denied Christ. It was not necessary for Christ to say some of the things He said to Peter to the other Apostles because they had not denied Him.

John
Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2005, 10:16:08 AM »

I wrote about this topic some time ago here.ÂÂ  In summary, the claims of Roman Catholicism re. the Papacy do not logically follow from the scriptural and patristic sources they cite.

I'm of the opinion that the origins of later schismatical "papism" (as in divisive and uniquely western held doctrines regarding the Papacy) can be found in the pre-schism period, and in some cases early on (late fourth century), and have a few different sources, but chiefly tie into the waining fortunes of Rome, both as a political and ecclessiastical "force".  Thus, a "spiritual" rationale was increasingly given as to why Rome's old recognition/priveleges were not simply a matter of custom (which later gained canonical basis - implicit to this being the consent of other Churches) but came by divine right.  This novel opinion became increasingly popular after the west no longer had a co-reigning Caesar of her own, and anarchy was unleashed throughout western Europe - the Popes themselves now not simply playing the role of arch-pastor in religious matters, but also for all practical purposes assuming the civilizing/unifying role once played by the western co-Emperor (Caesar) who remained in Rome after the Imperial seat was moved to Constantinople (by Emperor Constantine) in the early fourth century.  ÃƒÆ’‚ The height of this can be seen later on, when the Pope literally was not only an ecclessiastical figure, but also a secular ruler as well - a king, with lands, drawing taxes, in possession of an army, etc.  In fact the Papal States existed well into the 19th century, and a fragment remains in the existance of Vatican City itself, which is a sovereign monarchy headed by the Pope, participating in the United Nations like any number of nations.  This is precisely why right up to Pope Paul VI, the Papal Court was hardly different in it's oppulence and signs of temporal power than any other old world monarchy of ages past (Pope carried around on the sedia gestatoria, surrounded by his soldiers and attendants, wearing a crown etc.)

Frankly, talk amongst Orthodox in later times of being "second" or "third" Rome is a flirtation with the same worldly temptation - this shouldn't be shocking, since it has to be remembered that the Popes were doing the same things themselves while still part of the Orthodox communion.

« Last Edit: September 22, 2005, 10:17:36 AM by Augustine » Logged
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2005, 03:13:56 PM »

Because the argument that the modern Roman popes have infalibility is based upon the relationship of the see of Rome with Saint Peter.ÂÂ  Thus it is worth pointing out that Saint Peter is not solely attached to Rome.ÂÂ  

So, Peter is only infallible because of Rome?  Huh

~Victor
Logged
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2005, 03:19:22 PM »

Timos, ask your Catholic friends why James was the first bishop of the Church of Jerusalem rather than Peter if Christ gave him the keys of the Kingdom?ÂÂ  If that was true, why wasn't Peter the first bishop?ÂÂ  Also, James headed the first council (which makes sense since he was the bishop).ÂÂ  Also, Paul won out over Peter over the issue of whether Gentiles had to be circumcised and follow other Jewish customs in order to be Christian.ÂÂ  If Peter had truly been "the Rock" and the keys of the Kingdom had been given to Peter, then none of this would have been the case.ÂÂ  It is pretty clear that neither Peter or the Apostles had that interpretation of Christ's words.


Why did he have to be the first bishop? And why in Jerusalem? The Council of Jerusalem was ended by James but Peter is the one that stood up. That may mean nothing to some but if the scriptures said James scratched his ears, I would venture into finding out why. Grin

~Victor
« Last Edit: September 22, 2005, 03:25:43 PM by Victor » Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2005, 03:39:09 PM »

It is interesting that Papal Infallibility didn't exist at the time of the schism, yet some Latins seem to think this is essential in any union.  You can of course always accuse the Orthodox of being polemical, but what about the large opposition to Vatican I within the Latin church?  I personally would take heed to St. Gregory the Great saying that any bishop that claims himself to be universal is the precursor of the anti-Christ.... or else look to Pope Honorius as your model of papal infalibility. 
Logged
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2005, 04:27:03 PM »

It is interesting that Papal Infallibility didn't exist at the time of the schism, yet some Latins seem to think this is essential in any union.ÂÂ  You can of course always accuse the Orthodox of being polemical, but what about the large opposition to Vatican I within the Latin church?ÂÂ  I personally would take heed to St. Gregory the Great saying that any bishop that claims himself to be universal is the precursor of the anti-Christ.... or else look to Pope Honorius as your model of papal infalibility.ÂÂ  

I'm sorry. I seem to have missed where you answered my question. I hope you don't think I'm trying to debate with you. Just had questions.  Smiley

~Victor
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2005, 04:36:11 PM »

Logic would dictate that Jerusalem was the very center of the early (within the first years of Pentecost) church.  So if Saint Peter was the infallible leader with jurisdiction over the entire church he would have exercised it in Jerusalem. 
Logged
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2005, 05:14:56 PM »

Logic would dictate that Jerusalem was the very center of the early (within the first years of Pentecost) church.ÂÂ  So if Saint Peter was the infallible leader with jurisdiction over the entire church he would have exercised it in Jerusalem.ÂÂ  

Why would you think he HAD TO excercise his authority? Authority is only excercised if needed. I'm not following.

~Victor
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2005, 06:00:38 PM »

Your argument could go onto absurdity.  If Papal authority is such an important "dogma" why would it never have shown up in the early church?  Like St. Vincet of Lerins the Orthodox adhere to the true Catholic faith, that was believed from ancient times by the entire church. 

So why would the church need to suddenly claim an infallible pope at Vatican I, when St. Peter - nor any early Roman Pope - never claimed such an authority?
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2005, 08:34:47 PM »

Dear Victor,

It's very simple.  St. Peter is worthy of veneration for being the first to confess Christ as the Son of the Living God.  But as soon as others followed St. Peter's example, all others "received the keys."

But it's not because of him that his successors should be "infallible" in the Church's desicions.  St. Peter was also the first Patriarch of Antioch, and Antioch was fourth in honor (not even second).  Alexandria, the successor of not even one of the twelve, was higher in honor than Antioch.

The point of honor in Church history was politics, not Apostolic.  If the Church was born today, Washington DC would have probably had the same Papal honor as Rome back then.

God bless you.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2005, 03:58:45 AM »


Why would you think he HAD TO excercise his authority? Authority is only excercised if needed. I'm not following.


One could ask why the church went to all the trouble and expense of assembling bishops from all over the world for councils when all they had to do was send a letter to the Pope for his infallible ruling Roll Eyes

John
Logged
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2005, 12:03:50 PM »

Your argument could go onto absurdity.ÂÂ  If Papal authority is such an important "dogma" why would it never have shown up in the early church?ÂÂ  Like St. Vincet of Lerins the Orthodox adhere to the true Catholic faith, that was believed from ancient times by the entire church.ÂÂ  

So why would the church need to suddenly claim an infallible pope at Vatican I, when St. Peter - nor any early Roman Pope - never claimed such an authority?

Let's agree to disagree. My mind may be playing tricks on me but I can only tell you I have read early church quotes and historians that show Papal authority. Here are some:

Socrates wrote that Julius rebuked the Eusebians on the grounds that:
 
...it is unlawful to legislate for the churches without the consent of the bishop of Rome [HE II, 17 ]

Sozomen records that Julius criticized the Eusebians for failing to convoke him to the council at Antioch:
 
...because it is a law that actions taken without the consent of the bishop of Rome are invalid. [HE III, 10]

St. Theodore the Studite who called Rome:

... the chief throne in which Christ placed the keys of faith: against which the gates of hell, namely the mouths of heretics, have not prevailed up to now, nor shall they ever prevail, according to the promise of Him who does not lie [PG 99: 1281].

I was only asking a question and I may have asked it in the wrong forum and I apologize. Once again, I did not come here to debate you. I was only trying to understand why Peter had to be the Patriach of Jerusalem.

May the Charity continue
~Victor


Logged
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #25 on: September 23, 2005, 12:21:15 PM »


Quote
Dear Victor,

It's very simple.  St. Peter is worthy of veneration for being the first to confess Christ as the Son of the Living God.  But as soon as others followed St. Peter's example, all others "received the keys."

Thank you minasoliman.
No confession was necessary for the others? And can you provide something that shows that the keys were passed on?

Quote
But it's not because of him that his successors should be "infallible" in the Church's desicions.  St. Peter was also the first Patriarch of Antioch, and Antioch was fourth in honor (not even second).  Alexandria, the successor of not even one of the twelve, was higher in honor than Antioch.

The point of honor in Church history was politics, not Apostolic.  If the Church was born today, Washington DC would have probably had the same Papal honor as Rome back then.

God bless you.

Much of the church issues had politics behind it, not just those that deal with the papacy. Many times Councils were held to have Constatine know what the Church teaches. He was the political push behind it. I'm sure we can agree that God is able to bring about something good from some unpure motive.

What I really want to know is why Peter had to be the bishop of Jerusalem if:
1. The Church was surely to expand.
2. Peter is "first among equals" and has "primacy of honor". Seems to me it would cause a problem for you EOs as well.
3. Christ had just finished telling them that the first is last and last is first in his kingdom. Quite possible that Peter just passed up the opportunity.

I hope I don't sound inflammatory or uncharitable. But I hope you can at least respect my question and observation as a Roman Catholic.

The Least
~Victor
Logged
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #26 on: September 23, 2005, 12:26:47 PM »

One could ask why the church went to all the trouble and expense of assembling bishops from all over the world for councils when all they had to do was send a letter to the Pope for his infallible ruling Roll Eyes

John

Very good question. But unfortunately that's not exactly how it works. Many times popes involved receive overwhelming solicitation from bishops, priests, and laymen, urging them to make declarations. It was anything but a solely "top-down" act of arbitrary power. To some extent you can see it's the "consciousness of the Church" speaking thru the head.

Prodromos, I couldn't possibly do the Papacy justice in one or two post. Hope that at least strikes some curiousity.

God Bless
~Victor
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 23, 2005, 12:55:41 PM »

Dear Victor,

Quote
Thank you minasoliman.
No confession was necessary for the others? And can you provide something that shows that the keys were passed on?

Absolutely, a confession is at least necessary to be a Christian, let alone bishop.  St. Peter was the first to confess, which deserves great attention.  But this doesn't mean he is the sole head of the Church.

I've already provided a quote from my second post in this thread to prove it.  In it, the author compares two Biblical verses:

Quote
And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
(Matt. 16:19)

Quote
Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Matt. 18:18

In the second verse he was talking to the disciples, who began in the start of the chapter by asking "Who will be greatest in the kingdom of Heaven?"

And when I say politics, I do not mean the word as something bad.  Rome was chosen because it was a big city.  Plain and simple.

The argument about Jerusalem I have never used, however, it seems applicable, considering that Jerusalem is an important city (up until today as a matter of fact).  The argument that I use the most is Antioch.  If you agree that Rome is high in honor because of St. Peter, then you must agree that Antioch is as well, which contradicts the canons and beliefs of the Holy Fathers.

God bless.
Logged

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

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

Posts: 59


« Reply #28 on: September 23, 2005, 04:39:14 PM »

Dear Victor,

Absolutely, a confession is at least necessary to be a Christian, let alone bishop.ÂÂ  St. Peter was the first to confess, which deserves great attention.ÂÂ  But this doesn't mean he is the sole head of the Church.

I've already provided a quote from my second post in this thread to prove it.ÂÂ  In it, the author compares two Biblical verses:
 (Matt. 16:19)
 Matt. 18:18

In the second verse he was talking to the disciples, who began in the start of the chapter by asking "Who will be greatest in the kingdom of Heaven?"

And when I say politics, I do not mean the word as something bad.ÂÂ  Rome was chosen because it was a big city.ÂÂ  Plain and simple.

The argument about Jerusalem I have never used, however, it seems applicable, considering that Jerusalem is an important city (up until today as a matter of fact).ÂÂ  The argument that I use the most is Antioch.ÂÂ  If you agree that Rome is high in honor because of St. Peter, then you must agree that Antioch is as well, which contradicts the canons and beliefs of the Holy Fathers.

God bless.

A couple concerns still remain:
1. Peter was isolated and the language used was singular rather then plural when Christ gave him the keys.
2. It would of been of little effort for the Holy Spirit to add the "key" comment when talking to the apostles.
3. The key in the Old Testament was not one of collegiality, but was given to ONE person.

~Victor
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #29 on: September 23, 2005, 05:12:43 PM »

The notion that seems to be hard to accept for many Latins is the nuances of the patristic position.  We believe in a primacy within the episcopate, thus status of the Ecumenical Patriarch as the primus inter pares of the Orthodox Church.  We hold to a primacy, but we reject Papism.  Catholics proof text the fathers to find a quote supporting the primacy of Saint Peter - and then they turn that around to mean Vatican I style despotism.  How could the fathers of supported something that noone had even thought of then as it was so ridiculous?
Logged
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #30 on: September 23, 2005, 05:29:17 PM »

The notion that seems to be hard to accept for many Latins is the nuances of the patristic position.ÂÂ  We believe in a primacy within the episcopate, thus status of the Ecumenical Patriarch as the primus inter pares of the Orthodox Church.ÂÂ  We hold to a primacy, but we reject Papism.ÂÂ  Catholics proof text the fathers to find a quote supporting the primacy of Saint Peter - and then they turn that around to mean Vatican I style despotism.ÂÂ  How could the fathers of supported something that noone had even thought of then as it was so ridiculous?

Pesky Catholics. Although, two of the quotes were historians. Oh well, I guess RC's can provide X amount of ECF quotes and it will only be seen as some Protestant type of proof texting the primacy with ECF. This only turns into finger pointing and perhaps you should read what some of these men had to say. Not just their quotes. Some quotes are pretty clear though.  Wink

Peace
~Victor
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 23, 2005, 07:07:17 PM »

A couple concerns still remain:
1. Peter was isolated and the language used was singular rather then plural when Christ gave him the keys.
2. It would of been of little effort for the Holy Spirit to add the "key" comment when talking to the apostles.
3. The key in the Old Testament was not one of collegiality, but was given to ONE person.

~Victor

1.ÂÂ  And the second time, the language used was plural and not singular, thus the isolation was a result of one man's confession, but all the others' confession lead to the same result.
2.ÂÂ  It was Christ, not the Holy Spirit that commented.ÂÂ  As for the argument, I do not understand the argument, let alone the strength of it.ÂÂ  Why are you testing the "effort" of Christ in commenting on certain things?
3.ÂÂ  Did you read Matt. 16:19?ÂÂ  It defined having the keys as binding and loosing.ÂÂ  Being given a key means having a bishopric authority.ÂÂ  The second time, it was promised to be granted to all others.

Here's ONE concern that I have on Petrine Papalism:

Why did Antioch get fourth in honor when its patriarchs were also successors of St. Peter?

God bless.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2005, 07:08:22 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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

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

Posts: 59


« Reply #32 on: September 23, 2005, 07:12:44 PM »

1.ÂÂ  And the second time, the language used was plural and not singular, thus the isolation was a result of one man's confession, but all the others' confession lead to the same result.
2.ÂÂ  It was Christ, not the Holy Spirit that commented.ÂÂ  As for the argument, I do not understand the argument, let alone the strength of it.ÂÂ  Why are you testing the "effort" of Christ in commenting on certain things?
3.ÂÂ  Did you read Matt. 16:19?ÂÂ  It defined having the keys as binding and loosing.ÂÂ  Being given a key means having a bishopric authority.ÂÂ  The second time, it was promised to be granted to all others.

Here's ONE concern that I have on Petrine Papalism:

Why did Antioch get fourth in honor when its patriarchs were also successors of St. Peter?

God bless.

Either you missed my point or I failed to understand. Let's try again. Here is the singularilty:

Matthew 16:17-19
Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this [Christ’s identity] was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

That's pretty clear to me. Sounds pretty singular too. The binding and loosing was given to the rest. But not the keys.

~Victor

Logged
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #33 on: September 23, 2005, 08:48:51 PM »

Why did Antioch get fourth in honor when its patriarchs were also successors of St. Peter?

God bless.

Hey Minasoliman. The importance of a See was/is not dependant uon who established it. Rather, it depends on how important the city is secularly. Thus Rome automatically gets first place because Rome back then was the capital of the empire. Then when Constantinople became the capital of the Roman Empire, technically Constantinople became the 1st most important of the sees. However, Rome didn't want to give up it's 1st place status...

I also want to point out but not get this thread off track: Some say that Alexandria should've been 2nd after Rome and then should come Constantinople...because of how at one point Alexandria was the  2nd most important city of the empire besides the capital Rome itself. However, Constantinople also layed claim to the Empire, thus Alexandria was forced to become third which not too many Alexandrians were qutie pleased about.


Now I got a qestion:

Why does it matter who comes first and second and so on??? Why??? What bearing does it have on our faith, dogma, on anything??? Unity perhaps? Wouldn't pure ecumenicity be pure unity?

Even if we don't believe in the Pope, we still believe in ranking church sees by their cities. Thats just stupid...unless I'm missing something...
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #34 on: September 23, 2005, 10:45:29 PM »

. The binding and loosing was given to the rest. But not the keys.



Hmmm....I thought keys were for binding and loosing.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 23, 2005, 11:22:25 PM »

Either you missed my point or I failed to understand. Let's try again. Here is the singularilty:

Matthew 16:17-19
Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this [Christ’s identity] was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

That's pretty clear to me. Sounds pretty singular too. The binding and loosing was given to the rest. But not the keys.

~Victor



Dude,

You missed my point and refused to answer my question.

St. Peter confessed.ÂÂ  So he was addressed singularly.ÂÂ  LATER ON, IN MATTHEW, CHAPTER 18, VERSE 18, it wasn't singular anymore.ÂÂ  The keys would be granted to any bishop who confesses Christ.ÂÂ  And you need keys to bind and loose.ÂÂ  "Keys" have a spiritual meaning.  Keys means authority.  A bishop is authoritative.  Without keys, you have no power to retain or forgive or excommunicate sinners or heretics.

God bless you.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2005, 11:36:25 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 23, 2005, 11:30:02 PM »

Hey Minasoliman. The importance of a See was/is not dependant uon who established it. Rather, it depends on how important the city is secularly. Thus Rome automatically gets first place because Rome back then was the capital of the empire. Then when Constantinople became the capital of the Roman Empire, technically Constantinople became the 1st most important of the sees. However, Rome didn't want to give up it's 1st place status...

I also want to point out but not get this thread off track: Some say that Alexandria should've been 2nd after Rome and then should come Constantinople...because of how at one point Alexandria was theÂÂ  2nd most important city of the empire besides the capital Rome itself. However, Constantinople also layed claim to the Empire, thus Alexandria was forced to become third which not too many Alexandrians were qutie pleased about.


Now I got a qestion:

Why does it matter who comes first and second and so on??? Why??? What bearing does it have on our faith, dogma, on anything??? Unity perhaps? Wouldn't pure ecumenicity be pure unity?

Even if we don't believe in the Pope, we still believe in ranking church sees by their cities. Thats just stupid...unless I'm missing something...


Dear Timos,

That is exactly the point I want to show Victor.  But unfortunately, he hasn't answered my question about Antioch.

As for your last question, the only point for honor is when ecumenical councils take place, for organization's sake.  This was a tradition that began from Nicea, which had Rome as first and Alexandria as second.  In Constantinople, as you have said, this changed, and Constantinople became second.  This PROVES that the choices were not something done out of the honor of Apostles, but rather how important the cities were worldwide.

God bless.
Logged

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

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

Posts: 59


« Reply #37 on: September 25, 2005, 02:37:12 AM »

Dude,

You missed my point and refused to answer my question.

St. Peter confessed.ÂÂ  So he was addressed singularly.ÂÂ  LATER ON, IN MATTHEW, CHAPTER 18, VERSE 18, it wasn't singular anymore.ÂÂ  The keys would be granted to any bishop who confesses Christ.ÂÂ  And you need keys to bind and loose.ÂÂ  "Keys" have a spiritual meaning.ÂÂ  Keys means authority.ÂÂ  A bishop is authoritative.ÂÂ  Without keys, you have no power to retain or forgive or excommunicate sinners or heretics.

God bless you.

Thanks, but apparently your tradition interprets it in such a fashion. I believe Rome. Thank you for the dialogue.ÂÂ  Smiley
As for my answers to Antioch, well they would be similar as to Jerusalem.
How about taking a look at the quotes I provided. Some answers for that?

The Least
~Victor
« Last Edit: September 25, 2005, 02:40:25 AM by Victor » Logged
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #38 on: September 25, 2005, 02:48:38 AM »

Victor, are you a Mountain Troll or one of those Lowlands Trolls?
Logged

Lord have mercy.
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #39 on: September 25, 2005, 03:42:16 AM »

Victor, are you a Mountain Troll or one of those Lowlands Trolls?

Sorry, I don't speak French. Please clarify.

~Victor
Logged
djrak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191

"Do not put out the Spirit's fire" - 1 Thess 5:19


WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 25, 2005, 08:02:12 AM »

The difference between the 2 approaches i think is not only wether it was given to Peter or all the desciples.
The more important difference is the understanding of "authority". While with catholics it is mere dictatorship and heritage, with orthodox it is not that limited/superficial (excuse my boldness), with orthodox there is training and sanctification involved and although ordination alone gives the priest/bishop "authority" but the impact of spiritual awareness and faith of one is what matters more than anything.
Although a non-believing or non-spiritual priest can baptize and the child will be baptized despite the unbelief of priest/parents and godparents, the impact of the faith of those would have much stronger consequences on the child's baptism and growth as a believer.
The Lord said may it be done according to your faith, and that is how one binds/loosens ->according to their faith.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2005, 08:03:28 AM by djrak » Logged

"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" - John 14:9
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 25, 2005, 03:27:44 PM »

Dear Victor,

I assume the quotes you talk about are the ones that started with Socrates' assertations.  I will answer them one by one.  In the meantime, however, I seem to miss your point on your answer to Antioch.  Jerusalem's patriarchs succeeded from the line of St. James.  Antioch's patriarchs were from St. Peter (no different from Rome).

Could you please elaborate?

Now on to the "quotes:"

Socrates wrote that Julius rebuked the Eusebians on the grounds that:
 
...it is unlawful to legislate for the churches without the consent of the bishop of Rome [HE II, 17 ]

Reading the text from here:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-02/Npnf2-02-07.htm#P651_266599

I find that the quote however says something slightly different:

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

In the context of this quote, the Synod assembled at Antioch assumed itself to be of ecumenical status.  But, as I have showed you, ecumenical status is not granted unless Rome gets in the picture.  Rome wasn't even invited to begin with, let alone ask permission.  We have seen examples from the patriarchs of Alexandria in the past, such as Pope Alexander and Pope Cyril, who took Rome's permission to lead ecumenical councils.

Therefore, Rome is mentioned due to something that required ecumenical attention.  Rome is highest in honor because of the ecume, not because of St. Peter.  There is no mention here of St. Peter as the cause of Rome's honor.  It was the church canon that resulted in her honor.

Quote
Sozomen records that Julius criticized the Eusebians for failing to convoke him to the council at Antioch:
 
...because it is a law that actions taken without the consent of the bishop of Rome are invalid. [HE III, 10]

Taken into context from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-02/Npnf2-02-21.htm#P3426_1451014

Quote
The bishops of Egypt,35 having sent a declaration in writing that these allegations were false, and Julius having been apprised that Athanasius was far from being in safety in Egypt, sent for him to his own city. He replied at the same time to the letter of the bishops who were convened at Antioch, for just then he happened to have received their epistle,36 and accused them of having clandestinely introduced innovations contrary to the dogmas of the Nicene council, and of having violated the laws of the Church, by neglecting to invite him to join their Synod; for he alleged that there is a sacerdotal canon which declares that whatever is enacted contrary to the judgment of the bishop of Rome is null.

This is the same exact situation.  Sozomenus agrees with Socrates that Rome did not receive its honor that it was given by canon law, NOT by St. Peter.  And this honor has nothing to do with individual churches, but the ecumenical churches together.  The Eusebian Council assembled was not an ecumenical coucil, but by being contrary to Nicea, and not including the ecume, ESPECIALLY Rome, it was thus automatically null.

Quote
St. Theodore the Studite who called Rome:

... the chief throne in which Christ placed the keys of faith: against which the gates of hell, namely the mouths of heretics, have not prevailed up to now, nor shall they ever prevail, according to the promise of Him who does not lie [PG 99: 1281].

Forgive me.  St. Theodore the Studite is not a saint in the Oriental Orthodox tradition.  I would like to add however that Petrine primacy has been rejected in the fifth century ever since the Chalcedonian schism.  There were fears that such primacy was lurking in the Church of Rome since then.

Perhaps, someone else more suitable than me can answer you on this quote.

God bless.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 25, 2005, 04:18:20 PM »

On a side note, perhaps, the idea back then that Rome has always kept the right and Orthdox faith.

But with the innovations lately by the Roman Popes, why should we continue to trust Rome?  St. Theodore perhaps did not expect the Rome of today.

But this is just my contemplation.

God bless.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2005, 04:18:45 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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

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

Posts: 59


« Reply #43 on: September 26, 2005, 01:37:45 PM »

Quote
Dear Victor,

I assume the quotes you talk about are the ones that started with Socrates' assertations.  I will answer them one by one.  In the meantime, however, I seem to miss your point on your answer to Antioch.  Jerusalem's patriarchs succeeded from the line of St. James.  Antioch's patriarchs were from St. Peter (no different from Rome).

Could you please elaborate?

minasoliman,
Thank you for your response.
I do not hold to the belief that the city is of any importance in regards to succession. From a political/economical/logistics/honorific standpoint I agree with you and Timos. The city certainly can and is of importance. But it is of little importance in regards to passing down the key of succession. I can’t say I have ever read an ECF attaching the keys to all twelve. Perhaps you can provide an ECF that interpreted in such a fashion. I would appreciate it. Hope this clarifies things.

Quote
In the context of this quote, the Synod assembled at Antioch assumed itself to be of ecumenical status.  But, as I have showed you, ecumenical status is not granted unless Rome gets in the picture.  Rome wasn't even invited to begin with, let alone ask permission.  We have seen examples from the patriarchs of Alexandria in the past, such as Pope Alexander and Pope Cyril, who took Rome's permission to lead ecumenical councils.

Therefore, Rome is mentioned due to something that required ecumenical attention.  Rome is highest in honor because of the ecume, not because of St. Peter.  There is no mention here of St. Peter as the cause of Rome's honor.  It was the church canon that resulted in her honor.

minasoliman, we’ll have to agree to disagree. At every instance there was an objection from Rome. And yes, sometimes Rome wasn’t included (although they always let them know). Why? For one thing there was much politics involved. For example, Dioscurus, Bishop of Alexandria, joined with Eutyches to rid themselves of St. Flavian (Bishop of Constantinople). Having Rome get involved would of ruined their plot. Both Bishops came from different theological camps and were just not in agreement. Luckily Dioscurus was able to get the emperor on his side. The Robber Council was held and Flavian eventually died. In return Pope Leo wrote the Tome and vindicated St. Flavian. I don’t think you can attribute this to mere honor.

Quote
This is the same exact situation.  Sozomenus agrees with Socrates that Rome did not receive its honor that it was given by canon law, NOT by St. Peter.  And this honor has nothing to do with individual churches, but the ecumenical churches together.  The Eusebian Council assembled was not an ecumenical coucil, but by being contrary to Nicea, and not including the ecume, ESPECIALLY Rome, it was thus automatically null.

So it took canon law to give something like honor to the city of Rome? Is that what you are saying?

Quote
Forgive me.  St. Theodore the Studite is not a saint in the Oriental Orthodox tradition.  I would like to add however that Petrine primacy has been rejected in the fifth century ever since the Chalcedonian schism.  There were fears that such primacy was lurking in the Church of Rome since then.

Perhaps, someone else more suitable than me can answer you on this quote.

God bless.

I’m assuming you meant supremacy and not primacy. From my understanding EO do believe in St. Peter having primacy of honor. If it’s supremacy that you meant then I would appreciate if you provided the document and who attended.

Peace
~Victor
Logged
Armando
Dead among the living
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 187

I gave up dreaming a long time ago...


« Reply #44 on: September 26, 2005, 02:09:42 PM »

First of all, the reason Antioch does not have the same authority as Rome is because St. Peter died in Rome (Vatican Hill).
Secondly, I can hardly believe that the Church of Rome that every Eastern Church Father said would never turn away from truth,
has fallen to heresy. Thirdly, I think that the Papacy had its dark moments but the Pope as he is now should be accepted from Orthodoxy.

I mean, it's not heretic to believe that one Bishop has more authority than others. It is a matter of politics really!
Logged

Ten years have passed, the girl I loved
is now a woman, but I am still a child...
-Sad-ending fairytale, Miltos Paschalidis
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.141 seconds with 73 queries.