Catholics "R" Wrong

[Nicea325]

Cyprian and Pope Leo both said so.

U-huh and neither deny or reject the papacy either-do they?

 

[Wisely]

LMAO more than you! Ah no, refering to a bishop from Alexandria!

Alexandria? Of course there is a reasonable answer to that:

The Canons of the Council of Sardica.

 

[Nicea325]

These are all non-issues when you realize that you’re not debating with a Protestant. The Orthodox don’t deny that Peter was special.

This is called an eisegesis. Nobody for a thousand years ever read Acts 15 in this manner. St. John Chrysostom, a great doctor of the Church, taught that James was vested with the authority to make the judgment (which he does, notice that Peter does not make any judgment) as bishop of Jerusalem, not Peter.

The problem is that your interpretations are colored by what is called Peter syndrome. Whenever you see the name Peter, you automatically associate him with Rome, when in fact, the earliest Christian writers, like Cyprian, associated Peter with the episcopacy in general. This is what caused one Easterner to make a quip that the Italians have “made him who was teacher of the world into bishop of one city”. The Eastern Christians just never saw Peter as being exclusively the property of Rome. This, for example, is why references to Peter as being the leader of the apostles still remain to this day in our hymns, because we see no conflict between that idea and with being out of communion with Rome.

And the problem is that your interpretation is colored by what is called “first among equals” syndrome… and?

 

[Bballer32]

Can you back up your exegesis with a Church father?

It doesn’t really make a difference in the end, however, because I’m not disputing that Peter was first of the Apostles. Our hymnography confirms as much, so I don’t know why you’re wasting your time arguing against a position that I’m not supporting.

Ya… Moses. He’s the one that lead the Israelites out of Egypt and was the one who wrote down Deuteronomy under the impression of the Holy Spirit. He was a true Leader of God. He was a single leader under God of the Israelites. Then Aaron and his successors btw

 

[Bballer32]

so I don’t know why you’re wasting your time arguing against a position that I’m not supporting.

You know… i haven’t had a really good argument like this for a long time so i just enjoy learning

 

[beehumble]

It is simple to see, really. Moses was made head of God’s household - God said so. Miriam did not like Moses having universal judgment, so she quibbled about it, and God struck her with leprosy.

Peter was given the chair of Moses - that is, Jesus made him the head of the ‘household’ of God. Woe to those Christians who quibble with it. There can only be one head of a household appointed by God - God has said it, and so it is.

God bless you. Happy Easter!

 

[Bballer32]

It is simple to see, really. Moses was made head of God’s household - God said so. Miriam did not like Moses having universal judgment, so she quibbled about it, and God struck her with leprosy.

Peter was given the chair of Moses - that is, Jesus made him the head of the ‘household’ of God. Woe to those Christians who quibble with it. There can only be one head of a household appointed by God - God has said it, and so it is.

God bless you. Happy Easter!

110% agree with this… Happy Easter

 

[Newsy]

These are all non-issues when you realize that you’re not debating with a Protestant. The Orthodox don’t deny that Peter was special.

This is called an eisegesis. Nobody for a thousand years ever read Acts 15 in this manner. St. John Chrysostom, a great doctor of the Church, taught that James was vested with the authority to make the judgment (which he does, notice that Peter does not make any judgment) as bishop of Jerusalem, not Peter.

The problem is that your interpretations are colored by what is called Peter syndrome. Whenever you see the name Peter, you automatically associate him with Rome, when in fact, the earliest Christian writers, like Cyprian, associated Peter with the episcopacy in general. This is what caused one Easterner to make a quip that the Italians have “made him who was teacher of the world into bishop of one city”. The Eastern Christians just never saw Peter as being exclusively the property of Rome. This, for example, is why references to Peter as being the leader of the apostles still remain to this day in our hymns, because we see no conflict between that idea and with being out of communion with Rome.

Peter didn’t originate in Rome. He was seen as the leader of the Apostles. The Early Christians associated him with the episcopacy, I agree. But, why did they reference Peter instead of the episcopacy? Why is Peter singled out so many times? You have said that you view Peter as the leader of the Apostles, why then do you disagree with the “Chair of Peter”? We see in Acts 1 that the Office, not the man, is a gift from God. We agree on the importance of Apostolic Succession, why do you reject the idea of Peter’s Office being special today?

I guess I just don’t understand the Orthodox position. Many have accused Catholics of “Peter syndrome”, yet they seem to have an issue any time “Rome” is brought up. Please explain to me the problem with the Pope, according to the Orthodox position.

 

[Newsy]

That is a misrepresentation of Orthodox ecclesiology. We admit that there is primacy within the Church, to which Apostolic Canon 34 bears witness. We do not, however believe that primacy is divinely established. Following the ecclesiology of Cyprian and other pre-nicene Christians, we recognize that all bishops are ontologically equal (as Cyprian says, all bishops derive their authority from Peter), and that the hierarchy above the rank of bishop exists only for the good order of the Church. As I mentioned earlier, there is no inconsistency with the Old Testament: Christ is our high priest, and the bishops are also high priests, as the image of Christ, temporally manifesting the heavenly and eternal Church in the local diocese.

How do you explain the bolded portions. You say primacy is not divinely established, but is in place for the good of the Church. It would seem to me, that God knew what was best for the Church. I think He built in everything that was “good for the order of the Church”. Are you saying that men devised this hierarchy? Why would the Divinely established Church need “improvement” from men?

 

[Wisely]

Just to clear some things up:
(Correct me if I’m wrong)

The Orthodox believe that the fullness of the Church is in the diocese, unlike Roman Catholics who believe the diocese is a part of the “universal church”. In this way, the Church (diocese) finds unity in Peter who is the Bishop who sits on the Chair of Peter.

^Here ends the divine primacy.

Now, we have a lot of Peters so here comes the man-made administrative primacy.

Bishop > Archbishop/Metropolitan > Patriarch > Ecumenical Patriarch/Pope

 

[Nicea325]

hahahaha oh my i was just going to say that… great minds think a like

 

[Nicea325]

Firstsly, we do not know if noetic beings like angels have bishops. Let’s not venture into speculation.

Secondly, if you read that passage again, it should be clear that Cyprian is making a parallel. He says that the Church is built upon the Bishops, right after saying that the Church is built upon Peter. In his mind, the bishops each succeed Peter.

Bishop is merely an office just like angel is an office. Men are bishops and pure spiritual creatures are angels. Angelic ranks parallels the hierachy within the church and in the end…only one is in charge. As I have said,why would it be totally out of God’ character to have one in charge of his Church? Why do so many people today try and convey a"democratic" church?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Bishop is merely an office just like angel is an office. Men are bishops and pure spiritual creatures are angels. Angelic ranks parallels the hierachy within the church and in the end…only one is in charge. As I have said,why would it be totally out of God’ character to have one in charge of his Church? Why do so many people today try and convey a"democratic" church?

Why you think you can extrapolate from angels to men is beyond me. You are treading on dangerous territory.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ya… Moses. He’s the one that lead the Israelites out of Egypt and was the one who wrote down Deuteronomy under the impression of the Holy Spirit. He was a true Leader of God. He was a single leader under God of the Israelites. Then Aaron and his successors btw

Moses was not a Church Father, in the common usage of that term, he was a prophet of the Old Testament. I am asking you to provide a Church father who supports your interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Bballer32]

Moses was not a Church Father, in the common usage of that term, he was a prophet of the Old Testament. I am asking you to provide a Church father who supports your interpretation of Scripture.

Here’s Cyprian for you

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep’ (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"

There may be little talk on the primacy of Peter among the Church Father’s for one reason. They don’t deny the Chair of St. Peter or the Authority he has over all.

 

[Newsy]

Just to clear some things up:
(Correct me if I’m wrong)

The Orthodox believe that the fullness of the Church is in the diocese, unlike Roman Catholics who believe the diocese is a part of the “universal church”. In this way, the Church (diocese) finds unity in Peter who is the Bishop who sits on the Chair of Peter.

^Here ends the divine primacy.

Now, we have a lot of Peters so here comes the man-made administrative primacy.

Bishop > Archbishop/Metropolitan > Patriarch > Ecumenical Patriarch/Pope

So, how many “Churches” did Jesus establish? If each diocese is a ‘complete’ Church, with its own Peter, then how many did Jesus establish? This idea seems to go against the idea of “Let them be one, as you and I are one”. Why would Paul and Barnabus travel to Jerusalem, if they had the fullness in their own diocese/area? Your diagram seems to be very close to the one the Protestants use. Is this an official stance by the Orthodox Church?

Your explanation still does not address why God’s Church would need any man made “improvements”. I am really trying to see the Orthodox view, but I don’t know any Orthodox, so I am asking this here.

 

[Wisely]

So, how many “Churches” did Jesus establish? If each diocese is a ‘complete’ Church, with its own Peter, then how many did Jesus establish? This idea seems to go against the idea of “Let them be one, as you and I are one”. Why would Paul and Barnabus travel to Jerusalem, if they had the fullness in their own diocese/area? Your diagram seems to be very close to the one the Protestants use. Is this an official stance by the Orthodox Church?

Your explanation still does not address why God’s Church would need any man made “improvements”. I am really trying to see the Orthodox view, but I don’t know any Orthodox, so I am asking this here.

The Apostles established various churches. The Church of Rome, the Church of Armenia, The Church of Alexandria, the Church of Athens etc.
Their sense of unity is based on mutual love and understanding. In the Early Church, Rome was senn as a center of unity because it was the Church that loved the most.

And something else: What’s the Body of Christ? The Eucharist or the Church? I say both are one and the same (In a certain way). In the Roman Mass, you recieve part of the Eucharist the priest broke. Do you recieve part of Christ or the full Chirst in that little part? Ok, same with the Church.

 

[Nicea325]

The Apostles established various churches. The Church of Rome, the Church of Armenia, The Church of Alexandria, the Church of Athens etc.
Their sense of unity is based on mutual love and understanding. In the Early Church, Rome was senn as a center of unity because it was the Church that loved the most.

And something else: What’s the Body of Christ? The Eucharist or the Church? I say both are one and the same (In a certain way). In the Roman Mass, you recieve part of the Eucharist the priest broke. Do you recieve part of Christ or the full Chirst in that little part? Ok, same with the Church.

:ehh::ehh:

 

[Nicea325]

Why you think you can extrapolate from angels to men is beyond me. You are treading on dangerous territory.

And why you ignore it and cannot comprehend a parallel comparison is beyond me? Perhaps it is a dodge or you cannot see it? Angels have ranks-yes or no? The church is also based on rank: Christ, bishops, priests, deacons and laity. Someone is always first and above all others, so why you cannot see it is beyond me. And why you trying to convey “democratic” church which in itself is already a dangerous position.

 

[Newsy]

The Apostles established various churches. The Church of Rome, the Church of Armenia, The Church of Alexandria, the Church of Athens etc.
Their sense of unity is based on mutual love and understanding. In the Early Church, Rome was senn as a center of unity because it was the Church that loved the most.

No one disputes that the Apostles established churches, they were all part of** the Church.** Rome loved the most? Rome was the center because that is where Peter, with his special role, resided and was martyred. Rome was the place where many were martyred, including Paul. I don’t think it had anything to do with loving the most.

And something else: What’s the Body of Christ? The Eucharist or the Church? I say both are one and the same (In a certain way). In the Roman Mass, you recieve part of the Eucharist the priest broke. Do you recieve part of Christ or the full Chirst in that little part? Ok, same with the Church.

Isn’t your Eucharist the same as ours?
This has nothing to do with the questions I asked you. I guess you are losing me.