K
Kook
Guest
I suggest Vladimir Soloviev’s book on the Russian Church and the Papacy.
I also second the above criticism of Romanides.
I also second the above criticism of Romanides.
- Status
G
Gregory_I
Guest
Keep clear of ROme:
Here is one Example of Rome’s Self Betrayal:
a remark by the future imperfect yet still Orthodox Pope Sylvester II in 997:
“The judgement of God is higher than that of Rome… When Pope Marcellinus offered incense to Jupiter [in 303], did all the other bishops have to do likewise? If the bishop of Rome himself sins against his brother or refuses to heed the repeated warnings of the Church, he, the bishop of Rome himself, must according to the commandments of God be treated as a pagan and a publican; for the greater the dignity, the greater the fall. If he {the bishop of Rome} declares us unworthy of his communion because none of us will join him against the Gospel, he will not be able to separate us from the communion of Christ.”
That Pope Leo IX…was a truly papist pope is proved by his words:
“If anywhere in the universe any people proudly disagrees with the Roman Church, it can no longer be called or considered to be a Church – it is already an assemblage of heretics, a conventicle of schismatics, a synagogue of Satan”.
Explain the contradiction in light of the Fathers and I’ll cross myself.
JOhn Chrysostom:
And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd…For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 54.2-3; pp. 332-334).
He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Chrysostom, On Matthew, Homily 82.3, p. 494).
Augustine:
Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Sermon 229).
And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, ***the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. ***This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation…Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).
Here is one Example of Rome’s Self Betrayal:
a remark by the future imperfect yet still Orthodox Pope Sylvester II in 997:
“The judgement of God is higher than that of Rome… When Pope Marcellinus offered incense to Jupiter [in 303], did all the other bishops have to do likewise? If the bishop of Rome himself sins against his brother or refuses to heed the repeated warnings of the Church, he, the bishop of Rome himself, must according to the commandments of God be treated as a pagan and a publican; for the greater the dignity, the greater the fall. If he {the bishop of Rome} declares us unworthy of his communion because none of us will join him against the Gospel, he will not be able to separate us from the communion of Christ.”
That Pope Leo IX…was a truly papist pope is proved by his words:
“If anywhere in the universe any people proudly disagrees with the Roman Church, it can no longer be called or considered to be a Church – it is already an assemblage of heretics, a conventicle of schismatics, a synagogue of Satan”.
Explain the contradiction in light of the Fathers and I’ll cross myself.
JOhn Chrysostom:
And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd…For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 54.2-3; pp. 332-334).
He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Chrysostom, On Matthew, Homily 82.3, p. 494).
Augustine:
Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Sermon 229).
And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, ***the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. ***This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation…Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).
G
Gregory_I
Guest
Before you say it’s uncalled for it’s out of concern to this guys salvation and in response to his desire to become a uniate that this is posted, not polemics. And I have everything in quotes and references by “Roman” Catholic Popes and saints…
J
jam070406
Guest
Greg, you should really spend some time learning Catholic teaching before you go shotgunning quotes and telling people to “Keep clear of Rome”
Your first quote says the Pope cannot go against, or disgree, with Church Teaching. This has always been believed and still is. Perhaps you should study this area of Catholic teaching.
Pius IX lays out that the Church, which cannot be disagreed with (even by him) is the Holy See at Rome. Not too much different then what St. Maximus the Confessor says in his quote below.
Now cross yourself.
Your other quotes have been dealt with in detail in the past. Perhaps do a forum search. In brief, Catholics don’t view Peter’s confession as an either/or situation.
Here are just a few examples:
+++Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18] On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
+++St. Maximus the Confessor, of Constantinople, AD 650,
"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell never prevail against her, that she has the keys of orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. " ( Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess p 272)
Welcome to the forums,
God bless!
G
Gregory_I
Guest
The issue is that none of these quotes demonstrate that peter had ANY kind of “Universal supremacy and immediate all-reaching jurisdiction.” Prima, si, pero NO SUp-primacy!
As An Orthodox Catholic I would agree one hundred percent with the quotes you provided because they do not agree with pope pius IX’s dogma. And I have been Roman Catholic, I know what they teach. It is fine to teach that the Pope never betrays the faith, because the tradition that has been accepted since the 11th century by Rome has been one of innovation peculiar only to ROME!
So of Course rome hasn’t betrayed THAT…but that goes without saying. Pope Sylvester II tought the pope can err, and that if he did he should be shunned at all costs to not join with him in error.
Gregory VII however taught that one not at peace with the ROman Church is a heretic in Dictatus Papae.
It is no feat to be faithful to your own innovations, but it would be a feat of faith to abandon an old way of thinking for Orthodoxy!
Rome has taught heresy and so must be shunned.
As An Orthodox Catholic I would agree one hundred percent with the quotes you provided because they do not agree with pope pius IX’s dogma. And I have been Roman Catholic, I know what they teach. It is fine to teach that the Pope never betrays the faith, because the tradition that has been accepted since the 11th century by Rome has been one of innovation peculiar only to ROME!So of Course rome hasn’t betrayed THAT…but that goes without saying. Pope Sylvester II tought the pope can err, and that if he did he should be shunned at all costs to not join with him in error.
Gregory VII however taught that one not at peace with the ROman Church is a heretic in Dictatus Papae.
It is no feat to be faithful to your own innovations, but it would be a feat of faith to abandon an old way of thinking for Orthodoxy!
Rome has taught heresy and so must be shunned.
J
jam070406
Guest
What heresy has Rome taught? And by what authority do you have to declare it so?The issue is that none of these quotes demonstrate that peter had ANY kind of “Universal supremacy and immediate all-reaching jurisdiction.” Prima, si, pero NO SUp-primacy!
So of Course rome hasn’t betrayed THAT…but that goes without saying. Pope Sylvester II tought the pope can err, and that if he did he should be shunned at all costs to not join with him in error.
Gregory VII however taught that one not at peace with the ROman Church is a heretic in Dictatus Papae.
It is no feat to be faithful to your own innovations, but it would be a feat of faith to abandon an old way of thinking for Orthodoxy!
Rome has taught heresy and so must be shunned.
Also, what authority do you have to claim Pius IX erred? The Church was given authority to loose or bind, no? If Pius IX was given this authority granted from God do you not incur the wrath of almighty God to deny His will? This could be an issue of one’s own pride.
Furthermore, If one sticks with Rome they are being faithful to the words of the Fathers that stated one must be in communion with the Holy See to truly be orthodox.
Please explain what Rome teaches that is so problematic as to risk your immortal soul by not being in communion with her? You refuse to believe God could grant the Pope of Rome authority over the whole Chuch. You said it yourself.
Do you believe authority is granted from God? If so, do you believe we will be held accountable for denying the authority God granted?
If not, do you believe the office of the Papacy is not of God? And if not, what then? Antichrist? Can Satan drive out Satan? And by what evidence can you give that the Office of the Pope is not of God but of Antichrist, based on scriptural and patristic evidence describing the characteristics of Antichrist? And not Orthodox or Protestant claims based on polemics.
These are questions to ponder.
I’d like to hear your feedback.
D
davymax3
Guest
How so?
Apparently not.
I don’t understand this point. Can you elaborate?
yea sure. No Roman Catholic disagrees with this. However, Sylvester did not say that the Pope could err ex cathedra. Thus, this is irrelevant.
Okay… You’re making our point here. When did any church father say otherwise?
As the previous poster asked, what heresy? Or in other words, what was firmly established before the schism, that they church has done a turn about on?
G
Gregory_I
Guest
Forgive me, Zeal takes over knowledge, allow me to elucidate…
G
Gregory_I
Guest
The Roman church has espoused canonical heresy by disregarding the canons of Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon and the Reunion council of Photius in 879 where papal legates were in attendance and trampled under foot the acts and decrees of Pope John VIII by unilaterally inserting, in 1009 the filioque into the creed, after centuries of censuring it and condemning the addition.
Nicea II Canon I:
That the sacred Canons are in all things to be observed.
Canon II.
That he who is to be ordained a Bishop must be steadfastly resolved to observe the canons, otherwise he shall not be ordained.
The Roman church is also guilty of violating the Ecumenical canons of the first synod of constantinople:
Canon II.
“The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and ***let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs.*B] And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the 177synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice.”
Compare this with Pius IX:
"Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."
The Synod of Antioch:. (Given Ecumenical sanction by chalcedon: Chalcedon Canon I.
“We have judged it right that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, should remain in force.”)
Canon XIII
"No bishop shall presume to pass from one province to another, and ordain persons to the dignity of the ministry in the Church, not even should he have others with him, unless he should go at the written invitation of the metropolitan and bishops into whose country he goes. But if he should, without invitation, proceed irregularly to the ordination of any, or to the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs which do not concern him, the things done by him are null, and he himself shall suffer the due punishment of his irregularity and his unreasonable undertaking, by being forthwith deposed by the holy Synod."
Ecumenical council of ephesus, Canon VIII:
"…Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that ***in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: ***every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is here determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect."
Chalcedon: Canon XXVIII.
“…concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For** the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.** And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople…”
And ephesus: Canon VII.
When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized."
1136, a Roman bishop, Anselm of Havelberg, visited Constantinople on a diplomatic mission, and while there engaged in a public debate with the Orthodox archbishop of Nicomedia, Nicetas. Anselm put forth the traditional claims for Roman supremacy: Peter founded the church at Rome, and Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter.
Nicetas replied that the Holy Spirit did not descend on Peter alone at Pentecost but on all the apostles. All Christians had the right to be consulted about matters of faith and practice. One speech in particular sums up well the Orthodox views of the matter:
**"We *do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy *amongst the five sister patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at an ecumenical council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office. … How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory, wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a church, and the Roman see would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves."
Nicea II Canon I:
That the sacred Canons are in all things to be observed.
Canon II.
That he who is to be ordained a Bishop must be steadfastly resolved to observe the canons, otherwise he shall not be ordained.
The Roman church is also guilty of violating the Ecumenical canons of the first synod of constantinople:
Canon II.
“The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and ***let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs.*B] And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the 177synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice.”
Compare this with Pius IX:
"Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."
The Synod of Antioch:. (Given Ecumenical sanction by chalcedon: Chalcedon Canon I.
“We have judged it right that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, should remain in force.”)
Canon XIII
"No bishop shall presume to pass from one province to another, and ordain persons to the dignity of the ministry in the Church, not even should he have others with him, unless he should go at the written invitation of the metropolitan and bishops into whose country he goes. But if he should, without invitation, proceed irregularly to the ordination of any, or to the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs which do not concern him, the things done by him are null, and he himself shall suffer the due punishment of his irregularity and his unreasonable undertaking, by being forthwith deposed by the holy Synod."
Ecumenical council of ephesus, Canon VIII:
"…Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that ***in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: ***every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is here determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect."
Chalcedon: Canon XXVIII.
“…concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For** the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.** And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople…”
And ephesus: Canon VII.
When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized."
1136, a Roman bishop, Anselm of Havelberg, visited Constantinople on a diplomatic mission, and while there engaged in a public debate with the Orthodox archbishop of Nicomedia, Nicetas. Anselm put forth the traditional claims for Roman supremacy: Peter founded the church at Rome, and Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter.
Nicetas replied that the Holy Spirit did not descend on Peter alone at Pentecost but on all the apostles. All Christians had the right to be consulted about matters of faith and practice. One speech in particular sums up well the Orthodox views of the matter:
**"We *do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy *amongst the five sister patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at an ecumenical council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office. … How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory, wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a church, and the Roman see would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves."
D
davymax3
Guest
I appreciate all the quotes. But you haven’t explained your position. Would you please write what exactly is contradictory? I mean that with all due respect. I, being a Roman Catholic, maybe just don’t see the contradiction as apparent. Thank you.
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
(Emphasis added)
Wouldn’t that more accurately be
???
While this may be your preferred sentiment or school of thought (judging by the six-guns a’ blazin’ your first and only 8 posts to date have been for us here at CAR, I would wager you take the harder line…)
That being said, if and when Orthodox clergy, hierarchs, delegations offer sentiments not totally in line with this your preferred personal opinion out of the many existing, how can one be sure which to go by? Or from there are we to expect that such divergence of opinion represents the unfortunate and regrettable distancing of those who would utter such opions from TRUE Orthodoxy?
S
Stephentlig
Guest
scripturecatholic.com/church_qa.html#tradition-9
God bless you on your journey back to the complete truth.
Stephen<3
God bless you on your journey back to the complete truth.
Stephen<3
J
jam070406
Guest
Gregory I,
I agree with davymax3, I don’t see it either. Could you provide the Church’s position and definition of canonical heresy?
As for the quote at the end you provided, that sounds like someone filled with emotion, bitterness, anger & pride. Not showing fruits of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps a spirit of schism.
So you shouldn’t put any weight in such a quote.
Could you imagine the response if Pope Benedict XVI were “thundering down from on high”…blah blah…
Just think about his recent comments on condoms and the media firestorm that followed.
Also, could you go back and answer the questions about authority in my previous post?
And… please provide some documentation to back up the claim that “all Christians have the right to be consulted” for something to be approved. This sounds like an Eastern Orthodox innovation.
Thanks,
God bless.
I agree with davymax3, I don’t see it either. Could you provide the Church’s position and definition of canonical heresy?
As for the quote at the end you provided, that sounds like someone filled with emotion, bitterness, anger & pride. Not showing fruits of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps a spirit of schism.
So you shouldn’t put any weight in such a quote.
Could you imagine the response if Pope Benedict XVI were “thundering down from on high”…blah blah…
Just think about his recent comments on condoms and the media firestorm that followed.Also, could you go back and answer the questions about authority in my previous post?
And… please provide some documentation to back up the claim that “all Christians have the right to be consulted” for something to be approved. This sounds like an Eastern Orthodox innovation.
Thanks,
God bless.
J
jimmy
Guest
I think GregoryI’s point is pretty clear. He is saying that universal jurisdiction and papal supremacy are contrary to the fathers.
jam, I tend to lean toward Gregory’s view of ecclesiology and I have to say that your reasoning in the post above seems to be circular. You have based your arguement on the idea that Rome is the reference point for orthodoxy and therefore can not be judged. Therefore how does Gregory have the right to judge the Pope? But Gregory rejects Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility as innovations and therefore they are heresy to be condemned. It could easily be asked what gives you the authority to say that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals or that he has universal jurisdiction. Then we have entered some form of relativism in relation to the true faith. You must simply accept the words of the pope then because they are the words of the pope.
We could also say that many of the popes were simply filled with pride, anger, and emotion when they made their claims of authority. The question is whether what is said is true or false, not whether it is said with emotion. Should we condemn Cyril’s theology because there was a lot of emotion throughout his writings? How about Augustine’s polemics against the Pelagians?
jam, I tend to lean toward Gregory’s view of ecclesiology and I have to say that your reasoning in the post above seems to be circular. You have based your arguement on the idea that Rome is the reference point for orthodoxy and therefore can not be judged. Therefore how does Gregory have the right to judge the Pope? But Gregory rejects Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility as innovations and therefore they are heresy to be condemned. It could easily be asked what gives you the authority to say that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals or that he has universal jurisdiction. Then we have entered some form of relativism in relation to the true faith. You must simply accept the words of the pope then because they are the words of the pope.
We could also say that many of the popes were simply filled with pride, anger, and emotion when they made their claims of authority. The question is whether what is said is true or false, not whether it is said with emotion. Should we condemn Cyril’s theology because there was a lot of emotion throughout his writings? How about Augustine’s polemics against the Pelagians?
J
jam070406
Guest
No jimmy, I base them on faith, belief and trust in the Church started by Christ that bears witness to it. Do you blame me for this?
So jimmy, in your opinion, if the Papacy was not instituted by Christ, as understood by the Catholic Church today, is the Papacy now a tool of Satan?
as for your other argument, perhaps, we could say the popes were filled with Holy Spirit and Truth and we need to put faith and trust in that, based on the witness of the Church. And perhaps the said opposition that I criticized for acting in emotion chooses to deny this truth. Or perhaps, based on your argument, Luther was right.
I guess we’ll know at our judgement day.
J
jam070406
Guest
or jimmy…perhaps the Freemasons are right. They also hate the Papacy and it’s claims. Afterall, according to them the Pope wants to dominate the world and promote his “outdated” morality and “obsolete” belief in Divine revelation and Jesus Christ.
But then, again, begs the question, can satan drive out satan?
But then, again, begs the question, can satan drive out satan?
J
jimmy
Guest
There is nothing wrong with that. But you must realize that the Eastern Orthodox base their arguements upon faith as well.
Your arguement begins with the authority of Rome and questions the authority of Gregory to question that authority. Gregory rejects the whole base for the authority of Rome so your arguement is meaningless from his perspective. According to the EO Rome does not have the authority which is inherent in the arguement you use.
I never said that.
Luther wasn’t wrong because of the emotion in his polemics; he was wrong because he espoused heresy. Heresy is heresy no matter how you profess it and truth is truth no matter how you profess it.
EO believe their saints were filled with the Holy Spirit and consequently Truth so the same must apply either way. If you are going to assume the Holy Spirit was present when the pope declared that the Greeks worship demons or that no man can be saved unless he is in submission to the Roman Pontiff then why shouldn’t Gregory(or any other EO Christian) assume that the Holy Spirit was present to Nicetas when he made his statements? You have to remember that according to the EO epistemology that God is the only one who is infallible and also that through communion with God the saints gain knowledge of the Truth.
J
jam070406
Guest
I understand all that.
I’ll ask one more time:
you and Gregory claim that there is no such thing as Papal Infallibilty or Universal jurisdiction, it is (in his words and yours) an innovation of Pius IX, therefore, do you believe that Pius IX was not protected, lead, or guided by the Holy Spirit and was in fact influenced by Satan?
J
jimmy
Guest
Do you think St. John Chrysostom was influenced by Satan when he said Mary sinned? How about St. Cyril when he said there was only one nature of Christ after the union? You answer those and you will have my answer.
J
jam070406
Guest
We can look to look to Church teaching to correct St. John & St. Cyril. The same Church Pius IX said one must be in communion with.
Gregory I and you seem to believe that Pius IX was a heretic and taught heresy. He even implies a sinister motive, which one can only conclude to be satanic influence. Because of this, Gregory I refuses to be in communion with Rome and warns others to avoid Rome thus further dividing the Body of Christ. You agreed with his position. Neither of you have presented any sufficient evidence, given by authority of the Church, that condemns PIus IX or what you claim are “innovations”.
- Status