OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 26, 2014, 07:25:44 AM *
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 5714 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #45 on: September 26, 2005, 02:32:46 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!

Both East and West have had politics. That's just what tends to happen when you have a group of men, sadly. But I'm sure both EO and RC can agree that out of a bunch of corrupt men, truth will prevail.

~Victor
Logged
Mo the Ethio
Proud Capitalist
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος!
Posts: 453



« Reply #46 on: September 26, 2005, 06:49:48 PM »


...... but the Pope as he is now should be accepted from Orthodoxy.



WHAT WAS I THINKING !!!!!!!!!!  OK, DUDE. YOUR SHREWD ARGUMENT HAS WON ME OVER! Roll Eyes
 THE POPE AS HE NOW IS Huh?    NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Logged

"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."
- John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,283


Mzack.


« Reply #47 on: September 26, 2005, 07:17:36 PM »

Quote
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.

Actually, I can't think of a single Father who said that. Admittedly, some did go overboard in their praise (as was customary, rhetorically speaking, in those times), though many (like Cyprian) would later regret having gone as far as they did, or leastwise saw that their former praises had to some extent cut their own legs out from under themselves when they needed to argue a point with Rome. I can't remember any Father ever saying that Rome would never fall away from truth though. Some indeed said that Rome had never, till their time, fallen into error; but again, I can't recall one saying that she would never do so.

Quote
I mean, it's not heretic to believe that one Bishop has more authority than others.

Well, actually... . . Wink

Quote
It is a matter of politics really!

Indeed it is. Rome wants the power for itself, though it assures everyone that it will equitably delegate the power as God wants. The Orthodox on the other hand have this funny idea about following the Apostles and Fathers, and paradoxically considering all Bishops as equal even if some have primacy's of honor (not power). The primacy should be validatory (= affrming, supporting), not authoritarian. A sees power should flow first from God's approval and grace, and second from the Church's (ie. all the bishops) communion and agreement in mind and spirit. It should not be the other way around, where all the other Churches are approved and have grace because they are in communion with a particular see. And this is why the issue is not merely political, but papism is a theological error. There are politicians on both sides, and there are in fact papists on both sides, but only one side has tried to dogmatize papal principles.

Well now, I shall release control of the soapbox, for the next person to use! Smiley
« Last Edit: September 26, 2005, 07:19:04 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #48 on: September 26, 2005, 07:43:24 PM »

Quote
And yes, sometimes Rome wasn’t included (although they always let them know). Why? For one thing there was much politics involved.

Have you ever thought that maybe Rome didn’t include itself for political reasons of its own? No sooner than did the Council of Chalcedon commence , and the assembly gather, that the first charge laid against St Dioscorus was made by the Roman legates. Paschasinus, one of the Roman legates, had objected to the fact that St Dioscorus was sitting at the right hand of the emperors, and attempted to blackmail the imperial officers to evict St Dioscorus, excluding him from the council as ordered by Leo of Rome, otherwise he and his colleagues would withdraw from the assembly . When asked for the reason behind such a request, Lucentius, Paschasinus’ associate, answered that St Dioscorus was on trial, and present at the Council only to give an account of how “‘he had seized the office of judge and dared to conduct a council, without the authorization of the apostolic see, a thing which has never happened and which ought not to happen.”  With respect to whether such did in fact happen, we find that the council of 381 had been held without Rome’s participation, not to say authorization.  Furthermore, such unwarranted reasoning would condemn the subsequent Council of 553  which had in fact taken place against Rome’s wishes . Fr. V.C. Samuel in thus looking for the basis of this claim asserted by the Roman legates, states that “it was indeed embarrassing for Rome, with its papal claims, to admit the council of 449. But the argument adopted here cannot be defended in the light of history…The words of Lucentius were therefore meant to assert Rome’s claim of universal supremacy over the Church, a point already made by Paschasinus by the words, ‘the head of all churches’.”  

Iris Habib El Masri states: "It is amazing that in the face of this flagrant pretentiousness, none produced the letter of convocation that had been signed by the late Emperor Theodosius, neither did anyone say that only the Emperors of the Orient could authorise such Council convocation.ÂÂ  Marcianus sat silently listening though he had insisted on fixing the time and place of that very council wherein such prevarication was uttered. One of the dismayed bishops simply remarked: “If you are come to judge, why do you, then, accuse?” To maintain peace and evade a needless disturbance…Dioscorus left his place, and sat beside the civil judges in the midst of the church."

Quote
For example, Dioscurus, Bishop of Alexandria, joined with Eutyches to rid themselves of St. Flavian (Bishop of Constantinople)

Come on, that’s weak. Are you going to provide substantial evidence for your claims, or are you going to impute intentions upon figures without any reasonable basis, and distort the facts as they are plainly read? The plain historical reading of the event is clear: St Dioscorus, presiding over a Council convened by the Emperor St Theodosius the Great, examined the case of Eutyches, who was acquitted Conciliarly for providing an Orthodox Confession of faith. Consequently Flavian was justly ex-communicated. If you want to claim some sort of a personal agenda, bias, or "plot", please give us some evidence that may suggest any of this.

Quote
Having Rome get involved would of ruined their plot.

Words like “plot” suggest a conspiracy theory of which you have no evidence; we would like to see claims from you borne out by the facts please. The only “plot” one may reasonably interpret in the facts of history, is one on behalf of Leo. The facts that support this include his misgivings concerning Ephesus II (449) before it even commenced, his inconsistent attitude towards Eutyches depending on whether the situation surrounding Eutyches was in the favour of Rome or not, his involvement in a theological dispute (i.e. Alexandrian vs. Antiochian) of which he had absolutely no knowledge or understanding, his undivided support of the Nestorian heretic Theodoret, the level of authority by which he and his legates attempted to assert his tome even prior to Ephesus II etc etc I could go on, but I will wait for you to refute my doubts regarding your ability to substantially answer to even one of these charges.

Quote
Both Bishops came from different theological camps and were just not in agreement.

Yeah, one of these theological camps (i.e. the Alexandrian interpretation of the formulary reunion as held by St Dioscorus) was consonant with the normative Orthodox tradition of the time, and another (i.e. the Antiochene interpretation of the formulary reunion underlying the decisions made at Constantinople 448) was not. The grievous error at Chalcedon, was that it didn’t even bother (in the name of justice and truth) investigating this, it commenced upon the false presumption of the Antiochene interpretation.

Quote
Luckily Dioscurus was able to get the emperor on his side.

Yes, the Emperor at that time was undoubtedly Orthodox; may his prayers be with us all. Amen.

Quote
The Robber Council was held and Flavian eventually died.

I have no idea why you bring up the event of Chalcedon and the death of Flavian as if they have any relevance to anything.

Quote
In return Pope Leo wrote the Tome and vindicated St. Flavian.

Please learn the facts of history. That tome was written well before the death of Flavian. It was written before the convocation of Ephesus II even. It was written and asserted once Leo perceived a threat to the self-attributed supremacy of his see (hence his misgivings and personal agenda against Ephesus II before it even commenced — just by virtue of the fact that the Pope of Alexandria himself was to resolve this theological dispute, as opposed to one who knows nothing of, and has nothing to do with the theological dispute in question in the first place).

…By the way, the Tome of Leo vindicated Nestorius as well (or is that St Nestorius in your case?)

Quote
I don’t think you can attribute this to mere honor.

You’re right, hence the political motivations behind Rome’s activities relating to Ephesus II + Chalcedon 449. Thank you for proving the Oriental Orthodox position.

Peace.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2005, 07:46:24 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,280


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


WWW
« Reply #49 on: September 27, 2005, 01:19:43 AM »

Dear Victor,

Look what you got yourself into.  And I thought Catholics were more "understanding" than our brethren the EO's, considering that you've accepted communion with the Assyrian Church.

And the facts you seem to bring were twisted.  Ephesus 449 was convened without any disagreement by the Pope of Rome, and he even sent his delegates there, with the Tome to be read.  St. Dioscorus had nothing but respect for Leo, and always requested the reading of the Tome.  There was no "hidden" agenda by St. Dioscorus.

Ephesus was only rejected after the Pope of Rome didn't get what he wanted.  Seems to me, Pope Leo was a very inconsistent guy.  And don't even get started with the Tome.  That's a whole other baggage by itself.  And you make it sound like that because we had the emperor's side, that we are automatically heretics or "wrong."  What of Marcian and Leo, and Marcian's persecution on the non-Chalcedonians?  What is "wrong"?

As a matter of fact, it is this first schism that proves the fallability of the role of the Pope of Rome.  And the Pope of Rome continues to be fallible.  His ruling on the celibacy of priests, the addition of the filioque (contradicting post-Chalcedonian Popes of Rome), the Immaculate Conception, and the cruel history of persecutions it went through (not to mention, there are still many Catholic priests who try to justify the burning at the stake punishment).

Again, why should we trust the Pope of Rome?  I wish I wasn't this "anti-Roman" for our Church seems to have good relations with the Church of Rome.  However, it is an ugly sight to find Rome erring in so many ways, it's just incredible.  And what makes today's Pope acceptable to Orthodoxy?  Has he denounced many of the things the early Popes of Rome erred from?  Perhaps, it's easy to denounce and ask forgiveness from the results of the Crusades or inquisitions.  But what about Immaculate Conception, the filioque, and the celibacy of priests?

Now, here's what's interesting.  Rome is high in primacy because St. Peter died there?  So it's not even about who "received the keys."  It's about where this person died.  And why so?  Is there a doctrine or a church father in history that says because St. Peter died there, that therefore it must be highest in honor and primacy?

I'll do some further research to answer more of your questions.

In the meantime, I have a question.  How is a bishop who is not Roman have the power to bind and loose if the only one with the key is Rome?  Does another bishop get this power from Rome or Christ?  Does the Holy Spirit give every succession same Apostolic grace except Rome, which is given super-Apostolic grace different from all others?  Why then is Constantinople second?  Is it because St. Andrew, the brother of St. Peter died there?  What about Alexandria?  The nephew of the Primate died there too?  Is this why the first three received honor?

God bless.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2005, 01:39:54 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.
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #50 on: September 27, 2005, 11:49:08 AM »

I can see I have gotten myself into a mess and in return I got "that is weak" and that I am being dishonest. I don't think I was. If this is how the discussion will continue, then I will desist.

Thanks for the time.

Charity in Christ
~Victor
« Last Edit: September 27, 2005, 11:50:41 AM by Victor » Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #51 on: September 27, 2005, 04:37:38 PM »

Quote

What of Marcian and Leo, and Marcian's persecution on the non-Chalcedonians? What is "wrong"?

Again, why should we trust the Pope of Rome?

 And what makes today's Pope acceptable to Orthodoxy?

Has he denounced many of the things the early Popes of Rome erred from?

Perhaps, it's easy to denounce and ask forgiveness from the results of the Crusades or inquisitions. But what about Immaculate Conception, the filioque, and the celibacy of priests?

Rome is high in primacy because St. Peter died there?

So it's not even about who "received the keys." It's about where this person died. And why so?

Is there a doctrine or a church father in history that says because St. Peter died there, that therefore it must be highest in honor and primacy?

How is a bishop who is not Roman have the power to bind and loose if the only one with the key is Rome?

 Does another bishop get this power from Rome or Christ?

Does the Holy Spirit give every succession same Apostolic grace except Rome, which is given super-Apostolic grace different from all others?

Why then is Constantinople second?

Is it because St. Andrew, the brother of St. Peter died there?

What about Alexandria?

The nephew of the Primate died there too?

Is this why the first three received honor?

Victor,

Please, please...feel free to answer these questions. You have posted numerous times on Orthodox-Catholic relations, and in the past you have not answered questions like these.

Please, help us understand the viewpoint of the RC church by answering the questions posed to you, in response to the questions you posed and were answered here.

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #52 on: September 27, 2005, 05:44:05 PM »

Chris, I'm gonna continue posting and hopefully get a chance to answer some of the questions. Although I can't say I know the answers to all of them. But when I see emotions flaring and charity being slowly tossed out the window I desist. If you think I haven't answered any questions, then I can only ask that you go back and read my posts. I'm not here to pick a fight. I have a very good friend who is Orthodox and we talk constantly. I defend where I can and desist and stay silent where I don't know. That's all I can muster until I learn more.

The Least In Christ
~Victor
Logged
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #53 on: October 19, 2005, 02:42:26 PM »

Dear Victor,


And the facts you seem to bring were twisted.ÂÂÂ  Ephesus 449 was convened without any disagreement by the Pope of Rome, and he even sent his delegates there, with the Tome to be read.ÂÂÂ  St. Dioscorus had nothing but respect for Leo, and always requested the reading of the Tome.ÂÂÂ  There was no "hidden" agenda by St. Dioscorus.

Ephesus was only rejected after the Pope of Rome didn't get what he wanted.ÂÂÂ  Seems to me, Pope Leo was a very inconsistent guy.ÂÂÂ  And don't even get started with the Tome.ÂÂÂ  That's a whole other baggage by itself.ÂÂÂ  And you make it sound like that because we had the emperor's side, that we are automatically heretics or "wrong."ÂÂÂ  What of Marcian and Leo, and Marcian's persecution on the non-Chalcedonians?ÂÂÂ  What is "wrong"?

As a matter of fact, it is this first schism that proves the fallability of the role of the Pope of Rome.ÂÂÂ  And the Pope of Rome continues to be fallible.ÂÂÂ  His ruling on the celibacy of priests, the addition of the filioque (contradicting post-Chalcedonian Popes of Rome), the Immaculate Conception, and the cruel history of persecutions it went through (not to mention, there are still many Catholic priests who try to justify the burning at the stake punishment).

Again, why should we trust the Pope of Rome?ÂÂÂ  I wish I wasn't this "anti-Roman" for our Church seems to have good relations with the Church of Rome.ÂÂÂ  However, it is an ugly sight to find Rome erring in so many ways, it's just incredible.ÂÂÂ  And what makes today's Pope acceptable to Orthodoxy?ÂÂÂ  Has he denounced many of the things the early Popes of Rome erred from?ÂÂÂ  Perhaps, it's easy to denounce and ask forgiveness from the results of the Crusades or inquisitions.ÂÂÂ  But what about Immaculate Conception, the filioque, and the celibacy of priests?





    Dear Mina
     I agree with you.No canon give any primacy to Rome because  of St Peter.The only reason Rome was first because of political ground,so as Constantinople.Neither of this got  first and second right  because it have  anything to do with any apostles.If Rome got primacy what about Antioch which was the first throne of St Peter.And during  apostolic synod we can see St Peter didn't have infallibility.if we look through the history of early church none of the patriarch claimed supremacy.They lead the church together  with love of Christ,the divine binding of this love lead them into one direction.Synods where not just lead by one patriarch each synod lead by different partial or from different part of the Christendom.canon laws of general synod gave supremacy to each patriarch in their own patriarchate.
              The greed  and misunderstanding of  pope Leo lead the Christendom to schisms and separation.Did they gain anything Constantinople which stood with Rome  separated from Rome in the long run when Rome started unaccepted theology like the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son.These sort of teaching still continue so its not an easy thing to accept Papal infability and then in the long run start other theologycal issues.And in future Orthodox will loose the secrate faith they kept  years under persecution.That will be the great disrespect to the holy fathers who gave their life keep the true faith and pass it us.
         May be  Rome have more members but that dose not mean they hold the true faith.Submitting  to Papal ineffability will result in loose of  true faith of Orthodox.Primacy of St Peter and primacy of Rome we see now is different as we allready seen through others message that  first  position of Rome was not because of St Peters supremacy but due to political importance.Especially when such powers where actually used   for separation and torture of church.I am sure that wont come from true St Peter's  supremacy.
Logged

NULL
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 0.07 seconds with 37 queries.