EO church vs. RC church- one of the last stumbling blocks

[bogoljub]

I am only observing this thread.
But I have a question.
If Christ said he would build his church not on peter but only on his faith…what claim do the orthodox
have of being the ONE true church?
The Catholic church has the same faith that Jesus is the son of God.
Also MANY of the thousands of protestant churches have the same faith, that Jesus is the son of God. Is Christ building his Church on all of them?

God bless !

The true Church is built on the true confession of faith and not on one Bishop ( who can err- as we have seen)!

The orthodox Church never left this true confession and keeps it. You only have to study the early Church history and the writings of the fathers and compare it with the different churches and you will see which church is the apostolic one- the true one.

In CHRIST

 

[excaliber]

You said.
(true confession of faith)
What is this?
And dosent Catholic, Anglican,Orthodox,episcopal, and many protestants have the same
confession of faith?

 

[oneseeker]

Bogoljub raises some good points about the ECF’s teachings on Peter. Does anyone have answers for that? This thread has been really informative.

oneseeker

 

[Alexius]

I would only say that technically speaking the Orthodox Church doesn’t believe in a “visible” Church in the sense that Catholicism does. And their scholars have willingly admitted that if one does believe in such a church, well, then Roman Catholicism is the only logical and consistent ecclisiology.

Lastly, Eastern Orthodoxy and it’s councils, or lack there of, are too strongly linked to civil authority. I believe that they require a king or ruler to call a council together before one can be had. Not to mention the sad lack of further theological development over the past centuries.

It makes perfect sense that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as a result of their love for One Another, which the RCC has always taught.

1.) The Orthodox Church is a “visible” church–I’m not sure how it isn’t…

2.) Ecumenical Councils are not called by Emperors, but by the Bishops. If they were called by the Emperors, then Rome would have also been in the same situation and would have trouble justifying them without an Emperor.

3.) I’m not so sure a “lack” of development is bad. I sure prefer the old houses with firm foundations over the new ones with bad foundations…

4.) The filioque is one of the worst teachings to come out of Christianity. Before you excommunicate me, here is why I say this: First, this is one of the few issues that caused the division between East and West. Second, it was declared, not Ecumenically, but locally at the Council of Toledo. Third, it wasn’t until hundreds of years after said council that such a teaching was actually accepted by a pope. I think it is obvious to all of us why. Four, such a teaching only causes strife within an already delicate situation. Now grantide, I understand the issues present in Western Europe at the time, but I think that things would be much better today had this phrase never been added to the creed.

A perfect example is the filioque clause. It is true that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father which is what the EO hold to. But it is also true that the HS proceeds from the Son as well as the Father which the RC holds to. The RC’s claim is a progression of doctrine.

Anyway good luck. Hope you find home.

Define “proceeds…” Hint: This is not a trick question!

Orthodoxy doesn’t emphasize this because to her dogma is not as paramount as it tends to be in the West. We don’t emphasize the need to have dogmas, as we like to emphasize all the Faith as already under obligation of belief. Besides, we focus primarily on the Ecumenical Council as the chief organ for the confirmation of the Faith to come from (something the Roman Catholic Church also agrees with, at least in principle).

The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t teach that original sin entails personal guilt. However, it is seen as a lack of grace. Insofar as this is not how God wants us to be, this lack of grace is seen as a “stain.” Baptism takes it away by uniting us with God.

I don’t believe that Orthodoxy denies that original sin is a lack of grace and communion with God that is filled in baptism.

(cont . . .)

First, this is a very good presentation.

Orthodoxy doesn’t emphasize Papal Infallibility because it wasn’t used until after it was declared.

I do believe Orthodox and Catholic are much closer in terms of understanding how we are affected by Original Sin than years ago. Even as an Eastern Catholic; however, I reject that there is a “stain” inherent in each of us at birth. This “stain” does not “appear” until we have personally sinned. I follow the Longer Confession of St. Philaret, but I some Orthodox do not like it. I do, for it presents a good layout of Eastern Orthodox theology for Westerners. As for a lack of grace, some accept it, others deny it, I wish I knew. Atleast I know that alot of Orthodox theologians accept it

The Immaculate Conception is understood by Rome to mean that the Holy Theotokos was conceived in a state of communion with God. Orthodoxy would tend to see this as impossible as nobody could have a full relationship with God until the coming of Christ. Thus, the Orthodox Church sees Mary as delivered from the original sin at the Annunciation and not at any time before this. The Immaculate Conception dogma is one of the teachings of Catholicism that I cannot see mirrored in Orthodoxy. I’ll keep studying it though.

God bless,

Adam

I believe the Immaculate Conception to be difficult for even Eastern Catholics. What do you mean by “state of communion?” I don’t like to see the Theotokos as “the Great Exception” as none of us can possibly be born in any state other than mortal.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[excaliber]

So far I am leaning twords the Roman Catholic church.

The number ONE reason is that Jesus changed simons name to Rock and said that is where the church would be built. I did not read that he said profesion of faith, but simons new name ROCK.

The second reason is that The roman Catholic church has made more deciples than any christian group on the face of the planet…It is most succesfull in spreading the gospel. I have next to zero influence from an orthodox church…they don’t have an Ewtn on my cabel network.

The third reason, it seems that it can be proven that arian herasy was taught by orthodox bishops…while Rome stood against it. However th orthodox have Proven absolutely nothing to me about herasy in the west, only that they don’t like the filique etc…
But if the Pope is infalible he had the right to do that.

The orthodox have not proven anything to me.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Orthodoxy doesn’t emphasize Papal Infallibility because it wasn’t used until after it was declared.

Papal infallibility strikes me as a useless and foreign teaching to the ancient and Orthodox Church. Since the Orthodox Church has always believed that all the Faith is under obligation of belief (not only the dogmas) and operates in a conciliar fashion, all the Latin dogma could mean is that the Pope sometimes does a great job in defending the Faith so that his confession of Faith remains a future reference in explaining a teaching. This greatly decreases emphasis on the Pope and puts emphasis on the true Faith. The more Roman Catholics begin to focus less on dogmas and more on the concilar nature of the Church, they too will see papal infallibility as a useless token of a bygone, papal and dogma-oriented age and ignore it.

As for a lack of grace, some accept it, others deny it, I wish I knew. At least I know that a lot of Orthodox theologians accept it

We believe that grace operates on the outside of man before he is baptized. However, grace is able to operate in his soul in a sanctifying manner after he is baptized. Ergo, all infants are conceived and born with the influence of God’s grace. However, sanctifying grace in their soul is not present until baptism. There is no lack of grace insofar as God’s grace influences us outside our soul before baptism. However, there is a lack of God’s grace in its sanctifying aspect *in our soul * before baptism.

I believe the Immaculate Conception to be difficult for even Eastern Catholics. What do you mean by “state of communion?” I don’t like to see the Theotokos as “the Great Exception” as none of us can possibly be born in any state other than mortal.

I say “state of communion” because I believe this is the essential problem with the IC dogma. A lot of people believe that this dogma is about original sin being a stain of personal guilt. However, this is incorrect. Even if Papal Rome were to discount this view of original sin (which she very well appears to have done), she would still believe that the Theotokos was conceived in communion with God through sanctifying grace, i.e., in the state of the baptized at her conception. This is unacceptable to Orthodox Christians because the Holy Fathers teach of no special “salvation by prevention” for the Theotokos and Holy Scripture and the divine services of the Church make clear that Christ is the only sinless one (thus the Theotokos had to suffer original sin in a way Christ didn’t, i.e., she had to suffer lack of communion with God at some point). I see that you are an Eastern Catholic, Alexius. As such, I think you’re forced to accept that the Theotokos is indeed “the Great Exception”, at least in that she, unlike others, was never in the state of the unbaptized.

God bless,

Adam

 

[bogoljub]

Bogoljub raises some good points about the ECF’s teachings on Peter. Does anyone have answers for that? This thread has been really informative.

oneseeker

God bless u !

I will try to give u answers ! Please ask - if you are interested on the Topic of the Primacy I can post more quotes ( there are so much ) even from St. Gregory the great Pope of Rome -who is often quoted as witness for the Super Primacy but it is the contrary, he was against it.

But please notice that the orthodox church never denied that the Patriarch of Rome -the Pope- had a kind of Primacy -there were different reasons for. What the orthodox Church does not accept was the later outcome of this Primacy, it became a kind of Super -Primacy ( like the Pope is Christ on earth), the personified Church, the Super Monarch of the Church …the infallable…and with this outcome we can and will never agree !

That a Pope can err ( like all other Bishops and Patriarchs) we can see from the church history -like the heretic Pope Honorius he was condemned, or you only have to look at the actual rcc and the Problems they suffer----is this a proof for the infallability of the Pope ?

There are many orthodox Popes we honor and venerate in our Services, prayers,

St. Gregory the great Pope
Sr. Sylvester
St. Leo the great Pope of Rome
all great confessors of Orthodoxy !

In CHRIST, our true GOD !

 

[ForeverAdam]

The number ONE reason is that Jesus changed simons name to Rock and said that is where the church would be built. I did not read that he said profesion of faith, but simons new name ROCK.

The true Church is present fully around the world. St. Ignatius of Antioch says that where the bishop (not just the Roman Bishop) is, there is the Catholic Church. This would include many more locations than Rome. And even though Christ named St. Peter the “rock”, all the apostles are called the foundation of the Church in Eph. 2:20. I think these facts lend credence to the Orthodox position that whatever special role that Rome and St. Peter were given entails a primacy among equals and is meant to be a sign that all the Churches and Bishops are one, and is not meant to supplant this equality with monarchial authority.

The second reason is that The roman Catholic church has made more deciples than any christian group on the face of the planet…It is most successful in spreading the gospel. I have next to zero influence from an orthodox church…they don’t have an Ewtn on my cabel network.

Will you become Charismatic when the charismatics eventually outgrow Catholicism or when EWTN goes off the air? Pius XI condemned the idea that truth exists in the largeness of a religious group. It appears like you’ve bought into this very error.

The third reason, it seems that it can be proven that arian herasy was taught by orthodox bishops…while Rome stood against it. However th orthodox have Proven absolutely nothing to me about herasy in the west, only that they don’t like the filique etc…
But if the Pope is infalible he had the right to do that.

This means absolutely nothing. I’ve posted extensively in the past on the fact that the Roman Catholic Church believes that the Pope can fall into public heresy and lose the Papacy. Even* if *this didn’t happen in the first millennium it is immaterial, as your Church believes that it can happen in any case. And, btw, the infallibility of the Pope is about the Pope defining certain doctrines as dogmas. It doesn’t given him a right to create new beliefs, as was clarified at Vatican I. In doing so, Roman Catholic tradition along with Orthodoxy says he will fall into heresy and leave the Church without a Pope for an indefinite period of time. As you can see, the Orthodox stance of refusing to submit to Papal Rome is justified in its principles.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Pons]

God bless !
St. John Chrysostom:
“Behold,” he says, “how **Peter does all things by common consent, and decides nothing by his own authority and power. **. . .” Upon the Acts of the Apostles, 8d hom.

More of St. John Chrysostom’s words in better context, all from Dom John Chapman’s Studies on the Early Papacy (1903). Translated differently, but this is the same passage:

‘And in those days,’ it says, ‘Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples and said’: … having been put in trust by Christ of the flock, and as having precedence of honor, he always begins the discourse. … But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent, nothing imperiously. … He defers the decision to the whole body… Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself? What was the motive? This: that he might not seem to bestow it of favor. And, besides, he was not yet endowed with the Spirit. … Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who was ordained a teacher. … he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and in regard that** prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed.** …** But things are not done in that fashion now; nay, quite the contrary.** … For observe they were a hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body; with good right, as having been put in charge of them; for to him Christ had said: 'And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren’.

Lots of stuff on PhilVaz’s site: bringyou.to/apologetics/apolog.htm#PAPACY Also James Likoudis.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Excaliber:

I don’t think snippets from “quote books” prove points. But just so you know there are quotes the other direction, I submit the following:
“Peter was proncounced blessed by the Lord…the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has NEVER turned away from the path of truth in ANY direction of ERROR, whose AUTHORITY, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced…” Agatho Pope,To Ecumenical Council VI at Constantinople,(A.D. 680),in NPNF2,XIV:328-339
“It was right indeed that he(Paul) should be anxious to see Peter; for he was the first among the apostles, and was entrusted by the Savior with the care of the churches.” Ambrosiaster,Commentary on Galatians,PL 17:344 (A.D. 384),in SPP,62
" ‘Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church’, Wherefore where Peter the Church is…" Ambrose,Commentary on the Psalms,40:30 (AD 395),in DOP,184
“At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church.” Ambrose,Commentary on the Psalms,43:40(AD 397),in GILES,145
“…the chief of the disciples…the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.” Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15(A.D. 337),in SPP,58
“In order that he may show his power, God has endowed none of his disciples with gifts like Peter. But, having raised him with heavenly gifts, he has set him above all. And, as first disciple and greater among the brethren, he has shown, by the test of deeds, the power of the Spirit. The first to be called, he followed at once…The Saviour confided to this man, as some special trust, the whole universal Church, after having asked him three times ‘Lovest thou me?’. And he receive the world in charge…” Asterius,Homily 8(A.D. 400),in GILES,145-146
“Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer.” Augustine,Psalmus contr Partem Donati(A.D. 393),in GILES,182
“Peter bore the person of the church” Augustine, Sermon 149:7(inter A.D. 391-430),in SPP,69
“Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church.” Basil,In Isaias,2:66(A.D. 375),in SPP,55
“Peter is again called 'the coryphaeus of the Apostles” Basil of Seleucia,Oratio 25(ante A.D. 468),in FOC,II:49
" ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’? When Wilfrid spoken thus, the king said, ‘It is true, Colman, that these words were spoken to Peter by our Lord?’ He answered, ‘It is true O king!’ Then says he, ‘Can you show any such power given to your Columba?’ Colman answered, ‘None.’ Then added the king,"Do you both agree that these words were principally directed to Peter, and that the keys of heaven were given to him by our Lord?'They both answered,‘We do.’ " Bede Venerable, AD 700, Ecclesiastical History,3:5(A.D. 700),in RCH,I:271
"ut that great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the authority in faith and priesthood. Tell us therefore, tell us we beg of you, Peter, prince of the Apostles, tell us how the churches must believe in God." Cassian John,Contra Nestorium,3:12(A.D. 430),in SPP,61

 

[Ridgerunner]

Excaliber:

And some more:

“A copy of the letter sent by the holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council to Agatho, the most blessed and most holy pope of Old Rome…Serious illnesses call for greater helps, as you know, most blessed (father); and therefore Christ our true God, who is the creator and governing power of all things, gave a wise physician, namely your God-honoured sanctity, to drive away by force the contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the church. Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up…” Constantinople III Council to Pope Agatho,(A.D. 680),NPNF2,XIV:349
“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith…” Council of Chalcedon,Session III (A.D. 451),in NPNF2,XIV:259-260
" ‘…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?" Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae(Primacy text),4(A.D. 251),in NE,228-229

“He promises to found the church, assigning immovableness to it,as He is the Lord of strength, and over this he sets Peter as shepherd.” Cyril of Alexandria,Commentary on Matthew (A.D. 428),in SPP,74
“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church…” Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,11:3(A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VIII:64
“(Peter)The first of the Apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of disciples.” Chrysostom John,Ad eos qui scandalizati 17(ante A.D. 407),in SEP,74
“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who recieved revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean that unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey” Chrysostom John, De Eleemosyna,3:4(ante A.D. 407),in SEP,74
“[W]e have considered that it ought be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it…”…The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain nor blemish nor anything like it” Damasus Pope, Decree of Damasus,3(A.D. 382), in JUR,I:406

 

[Ridgerunner]

Excaliber:

And yet more:

“[T]he first of the apostles, the solid rock on which the Church was built.” Epiphanius, In Ancorato,9:6 (A.D. 374),in SPP,in 57
“Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter(Kepha), because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me…I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, have given you authority over all my treasures.” Ephraim, Homily 4:1,(A.D. 373),JUR,I:11
“…Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others…” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,2:14 (A.D. 325),in NPNF2,I:115
"And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’ " Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,6:25 (A.D. 325),in NPNF2,I:273
“…folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid…” Firmilian,Epistle To Cyprian,Ep 75(74):17(A.D. 256),in ANF,V:394
“To Peter,that is, to his church, he gave the power of retaining and forgiving sins on earth.” Fulgentius, De Remissione Peccatorum,2:20(A.D. 523),in SPP,71
"The holy Roman Church is senior to the other churches not by virtue of any synodal decrees, but obtained the primacy from Our Lord and Savior in the words of the Gospel,‘Thou art Peter…’ " Gelasius Pope,Decree of Gelasium(A.D. 492),in SPP,166
"Who could be ignorant of the fact that the holy church is consolidated in the solidity of the prince of the Apostles, whose firmness of character extended to his name so that he should be called Peter after the ‘rock’, when the voice of the Truth says, ‘I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven’. To him again is said “When after a little while thou hast come back to me, it is for thee to be the support of thy brethren.” Gregory the Great Pope,Epistle 40(A.D. 604),in SPP,66
“Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the church.” Gregory of Nazianzen,Oration 32:18(A.D. 380),in SPP,56
“The memory of Peter, who is the head of the apostles…he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the savior built his Church.” Gregory of Nyssa,Panegyric on St. Stephen,3(ante A.D. 394),in SPP,56
"lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom…" Hilary de Poiters,On the Trinity,6:20(A.D. 359),in NPNF2,IX:105
“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By this Spirit the rock of the Church was stablished.” Hippolytus,Discourse on the Holy Theophany,9(ante A.D. 235),ANF,V:237
"[T]he statement of Our Lord Jesus Christ who said, ‘Thou art Peter,and upon this rock I will build my Church,’…These (words) which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain.’’ Hormisdas Pope,Libellus professionis fidei,(A.D. 519),in DEN(171),73
“The decrees of the Roman Pontiff, standing upon the supremacy of the Apostolic See, are unquestionable.” Isidore of Seville,(ante A.D. 636),in PL:84
“But you say, the Church was rounded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one(ie. Peter)among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.” Jerome,Against Jovinianus,1 (A.D. 393),in NPNF2,VI:366

 

[Ridgerunner]

Excaliber:

More still:

“As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!” Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18
"lessed Peter preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he under took…And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications,it is of his work and merits whos power lives and whose authority prevails in his See…to him whom they know to be not only the patron ofthis See, but also primate of all bishops. When therefore…beleive that he is speaking whose representative we are:…" Leo the Great(Pope),Sermon 3:3-4(A.D. 442),in NPNF2,XII:117
“[T]he Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery.” Leo the Great(Pope),To Bishops of Vienne,Epistle 10 (A.D. 450),in NPNF2,XII:8
“For the extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of our fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy Councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have possessed that greatest church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it possesses the Keys of right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High” Maximus the Confessor,Opuscula theologica et polemica(A.D. 650),in PG(91:137-144)
"This Peter on whom Christ freely bestowed a sharing in his name. For just as Christ is the rock, as the Apostle Paul taught, so through Christ Peter is made rock, when the Lord says to him: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church…”’ Maximus of Turin,Homily 63(A.D. 408),in SPP,61-62
“[F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardone only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest.” Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum,7:3(A.D. 370),in GILES,120
“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen,Commentary on John,5:3(c.A.D. 232),in ANF,X:347
“[T]he Lord spoke to Peter a little earlier; he spoke to one, that from one he might found unity, soon delivering the same to all.” Pacian,To Sympronianus,Epistle 3:2(AD 372),in GILES,123
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness.‘Peter, the apostle, who is the rock and support of the Catholic Church’ " Paschasinus, Council of Chalcedon,Session III(A.D. 451)in NPNF,XIV:259-260

 

[Ridgerunner]

Excaliber:

There’s still more, a lot more. But you get the point.

 

[Alexius]

We believe that grace operates on the outside of man before he is baptized. However, grace is able to operate in his soul in a sanctifying manner after he is baptized. Ergo, all infants are conceived and born with the influence of God’s grace. However, sanctifying grace in their soul is not present until baptism. There is no lack of grace insofar as God’s grace influences us outside our soul before baptism. However, there is a lack of God’s grace in its sanctifying aspect *in our soul * before baptism.

Yes, then we are in total agreement on this… My only question is, why can’t grace act upon the soul before baptism? Doesn’t this imply some sort of “stain” preventing it?

I say “state of communion” because I believe this is the essential problem with the IC dogma. A lot of people believe that this dogma is about original sin being a stain of personal guilt. However, this is incorrect. Even if Papal Rome were to discount this view of original sin (which she very well appears to have done), she would still believe that the Theotokos was conceived in communion with God through sanctifying grace, i.e., in the state of the baptized at her conception. This is unacceptable to Orthodox Christians because the Holy Fathers teach of no special “salvation by prevention” for the Theotokos and Holy Scripture and the divine services of the Church make clear that Christ is the only sinless one (thus the Theotokos had to suffer original sin in a way Christ didn’t, i.e., she had to suffer lack of communion with God at some point). I see that you are an Eastern Catholic, Alexius. As such, I think you’re forced to accept that the Theotokos is indeed “the Great Exception”, at least in that she, unlike others, was never in the state of the unbaptized.

God bless,

Adam

Agreed again! Yes, as Eastern Catholics, we are supposed to believe in the IC, but many of us have doubts about its validity…

I apologize for critiquing you I thought you were Roman Catholic until I read your profile and saw you aren’t…I didn’t want the Orthodox to get misrepresented…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Alexius]

Excaliber:

There’s still more, a lot more. But you get the point.

Wow!

 

[Pons]

About the identity of the “Rock” foundation of the church - it’s not “Peter vs Peter’s faith/confession”, it’s “Peter because of his faith/confession”. It’s not either/or, it’s both/and, as other posters might put it. False dichotomy, as Chrystosom knew - he, and surely others, referred to both Peter and his confession as the foundation (See my previous link).

 

[Nandarani]

Bogoljub raises some good points about the ECF’s teachings on Peter. Does anyone have answers for that? This thread has been really informative.

oneseeker

CA Home, top left hand side, Church & Papacy.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Yes, then we are in total agreement on this… My only question is, why can’t grace act upon the soul before baptism? Doesn’t this imply some sort of “stain” preventing it?

There is no “stain” of guilt on the soul. However, there is the effect of being conceived out of communion with God. This is one of the effects of original sin and it is removed when we partake of the Death and Resurrection of Christ in Holy Baptism. Roman Catholics tend to see this as a “stain”, insofar as this state is not how God wants us to be. If “stain” is interpreted in this fashion, it may be acceptable to Holy Orthodoxy, even if we prefer not to use such terminology. I think I mentioned this at the beginning of this thread.

I apologize for critiquing you I thought you were Roman Catholic until I read your profile and saw you aren’t…I didn’t want the Orthodox to get misrepresented…

Haha. This is the first time I think I’ve been mistaken for a Roman Catholic. My earlier posts in this thread were in an irenic tone that sought to focus on the common ground that our Churches have. Sorry to have confused you!

God bless,

Adam

 

[Alexius]

There is no “stain” of guilt on the soul. However, there is the effect of being conceived out of communion with God. This is one of the effects of original sin and it is removed when we partake of the Death and Resurrection of Christ in Holy Baptism. Roman Catholics tend to see this as a “stain”, insofar as this state is not how God wants us to be. If “stain” is interpreted in this fashion, it may be acceptable to Holy Orthodoxy, even if we prefer not to use such terminology. I think I mentioned this at the beginning of this thread.

Haha. This is the first time I think I’ve been mistaken for a Roman Catholic. My earlier posts in this thread were in an irenic tone that sought to focus on the common ground that our Churches have. Sorry to have confused you!

God bless,

Adam

Okay, thank you!

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius