If Rome is wrong, where do you go?

[flyersfan1088]

Still waiting for a reply to post #69

 

[Isa_Almisry]

What is wrong with your reply in my opinion is that the Orthodox and the Catholic do not understand what the “church” is/

The Body of Christ, who IS God the Word.

It is not the Word of God embodied.

The Bible is a manual, not a recipe book.

The Church predated the Bible, wrote the Bible. She is the context of the Bible.

Taking the Bible out of the context of the Church is like taking a heart out of the body. You can presreve it in a jar, with pumps and such, but not really a living heart then, is it?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes we do. It’s a visible institution, not an invisible body of believers.

On this we are fully agreed. Christ is not the invisible man.

And whether one sees the Latin church as a severed limb, a gangerous limb, a sick limb, or a healthy limb, it is undoubtly visibly belongs to that Body.

 

[Volodymyr]

Brothers:

This question is perhaps better addressed to non-Catolics who are looking for Truth Church of Jesus Christ. Catolics believe that Monarchical Bishop of Rome is also infallible so from their view “Rome cannot be wrong.” is only obvious answer.

But churches of Christ are also Orthodox churches is point of Isa. But this is not arguable from teleological Catolic view; for them “infallible” therefore all Catolic answers must be correct and past must be like their view of present. This is a sad fact of this discussion.

Better just to state how we differ and learn from each other.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I have no idea what you wanted me to get out of all of that, but it still does nothing to dispel the original quote from Optatus. Here’s what did jump off the page though

“We thus learn the claims of the pope to impose on the whole Church by his authority as successor of Peter, a custom derived by the Roman Church from Apostolic tradition.”

This on a page dedicated to a man who died in 269A.D.
Don’t EO claim universal jurisdiction was invented by Rome just before the Schism?

You still have failed to show why the quote does not apply.

I quote New Advant here, to avoid side arguments. In many ways, it leaves much to be desired.

Before your quote:

Rome has not preserved the Apostolic traditions unchanged, for it differs from Jerusalem as to the observances at Easter and as to other mysteries. “I am justly indignant with Stephen’s obvious and manifest silliness, that he so boasts of his position, and claims that he is the successor of St. Peter on whom were laid the foundations of the Church; yet he brings in many other rocks, and erects new buildings of many Churches when he defends with his authority the baptism conferred by heretics; for those who are baptized are without doubt numbered in the Church, and he who approves their baptism affirms that there is among them a Church of the baptized.… Stephen, who declares that he has the Chair of Peter by succession, is excited by no zeal against heretics” (c. xvii). “You have cut yourself off–do not mistake–since he is the true schismatic who makes himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For in thinking that all can be excommunicated by you, you have cut off yourself alone from the communion of all” (c. xxiv).

and after:

Firmilian tells the Africans that with them the custom of rebaptizing may be new, but in Cappadocia it is not, and he can answer Stephen by opposing tradition to tradition, for it was their practice from the beginning (c. xix); and some time since, he had joined in a council at Iconium with the bishops of Galatia and Cilicia and other provinces, and had decided to rebaptize the Montanists (c. vii and xix).

No, we don’t think the Popes invented the vatican papacy c. 1054. It was a long time in coming. As I stated, we can see beginnings with Victor at the end of the second century. And the Church’s response to him resembles Firmilians: Churches have Apostolic Tradition which they neither derived nor owe to Rome. In the West, that was different: there they were Rome’s daughters, not sisters as in the East.

As for applying, the quotes of Ephraim have been posted, where he lauds St. Peter. What has not been posted, is the proof that he meant Rome and not Antioch, which was his patriarchate. Even New Rome looked to Antioch, and not to Old Rome, to suppliment its Apostolic roots.

 

[flyersfan1088]

On this we are fully agreed. Christ is not the invisible man.

And whether one sees the Latin church as a severed limb, a gangerous limb, a sick limb, or a healthy limb, it is undoubtly visibly belongs to that Body.

You can’t avoid an opportunity, can you? While you see us as severed, gangrenous, sick, we see it as we are, the root.
No amount of my debating will convince you of this, just as your poisonous attacks will not convince me of your position. In fact, reading your posts has actually made my convictions stronger. Thank you for that.

 

[flyersfan1088]

What has not been posted, is the proof that he meant Rome and not Antioch

Well shouldn’t you post this, then? Not that I don’t trust you, but you could be making it up hoping you didn’t called out. I could be wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well shouldn’t you post this, then? Not that I don’t trust you, but you could be making it up hoping you didn’t called out. I could be wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time.

Wouldn’t be the first time for whom?

I don’t know of St. Ephraim making a reference to Rome, so what am I supposed to post?

 

[flyersfan1088]

Wouldn’t be the first time for whom?

I don’t know of St. Ephraim making a reference to Rome, so what am I supposed to post?

First time for me.

I misunderstood. I thought you were saying there WAS a quote, and I didn’t post it.
Actually the quote itself says the chair is in Rome, not Antioch. It’s the very first sentence. He says the chair is in Rome, and anyone who sets up another chair in opposition to Rome is schismatic.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t recall there being a reference in the quotes offered. Is there another one?

 

[flyersfan1088]

I don’t recall there being a reference in the quotes offered. Is there another one?

Re-read post #34
Why are you talking about St. Ephraim?

 

[abcd]

Yes we do. It’s a visible institution, not an invisible body of believers.

Hey, we are visible. At least I was last time I looked in the mirror.

 

[abcd]

When, in 784, the imperial secretary Patriarch Tarasius was appointed successor to the Patriarch Paul IV, he accepted on the condition that the images should be restored and intercommunion reestablished (none of the patriarchs had accepted the Latrocinium of the Iconoclasts). The Council called was Nicea II, and Pope Adrian was invited, who sent legates.

The Emperor Constantine IV abadonded Monotheletism as the state creed, and called a local council, with no intention that it would be ecumenical. From the Sacras it appears that he had summoned all the Metropolitans and bishops of the jurisdiction of Constantinople, and had also informed the Patriarch of Antioch that he might send Metropolitans and bishops. A long time before he had written to Pope Agatho on the subject. When the synod assembled however, it assumed at its first session the title “Ecumenical.” All five patriarchs were represented, Alexandria and Jerusalem having sent deputies although they were at the time in the hands of the Muslims. So, the five patriarchs in concert (including Rome) convened the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

The weakness and subserviency of Mennas (the sole EP, or for that matter, Eastern Patriarch, ever confirmed by a Pope of Rome (i.e. Agapetus), and twice excommunicated by Rome) were the immediate cause of all the violence and confusion over the Three Chapters. When EP Eutychius succeeded him, he presented his professor of faith to Vigilius and, in union with other Eastern bishops, urged the calling of a general council under the presidency of the pope. When Vigilius refused, Eutychius went ahead and held the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

During a local synod in Constantinople, Eutyches was denounced as a heretic by the bishop of Dorylaeum, Eusebius, with the demand that he be removed from his office. The then archbishop, Flavian of Constantinople, did not wish to consider the matter as a result of the great prestige that Eutyches enjoyed (second only to his own) but finally relented, and so Eutyches was condemned as a heretic by the synod. However, the emperor Theodosius II and the Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, did not accept the decision of the synod because Eutyches had repented and confessed his orthodoxy. Dioscorus held his own synod reinstating Eutyches, and the emperor called a council to be held in Ephesus. The Robber Council ensued, with the emperor supporting and exiling bishops by Pope Dioscorors’ specifications. With the new emperor, those bishops exiled for adhering to EP Flavian and Pope Leo Rome regrouped at Chalcedon, to reinstate the decree of the council that condemned Eutyches (btw, Dioscoros and the Non-Chalcedonians would later anathematize Eutyches as well).

Pope Cyril, who had previously deposed another EP (John Chrysostom) at the synod of the oak, agitated for Nestorius’ deposition, which occured at Ephesus, which was run according to Cyril’s specifications.

Constantinople I was called by Theodosius, who also made it’s Creed the State Creed. His biggest contribution, however, was letting the Orthodox Catholic bishops return from exile.

Nicea I was called by Constantine.

So, maybe I should reword: which of the Ecumenical Councils were called like Vatican I or II were called, by order of the pope of Rome. None.

According to history, Constantine was taught about Chrisitianity but he could still be ruthless and the coins still had the pagan Roman gods on them along with the sun god on his own ring. So, it is debatable if he was truly a Chrisitan or not.

 

[Mickey]

In fact, reading your posts has actually made my convictions stronger. Thank you for that.

Interesting. Reading Isa’s posts have actually assisted me to be a better Orthodox Christian. Thank you Isa!

 

[moondweller]

Only one problem with this.

The Bible doesn’t show Christ writing the Bible.

It does show Him founding the Church.

The manual is basically useless unless you have the car.

He might very well have the car. And it might very well be that its Manufacturer is neither Rome nor Constantinople.

It might just be that both Rome and Constantinople need to get back to the Manual - which you deem “useless” on its own merit.

“We’re the manufacturer of the Car”

NO! We are.

NO! We are!

NO! NO! NO! We are!"

Could it actually be that neither of you are?

 

[LilyM]

He might very well have the car. And it might very well be that its Manufacturer is neither Rome nor Constantinople.

It might just be that both Rome and Constantinople need to get back to the Manual - which you deem “useless” on its own merit.

“We’re the manufacturer of the Car”

NO! We are.

NO! We are!

NO! NO! NO! We are!"

Could it actually be that neither of you are?

Well, certainly He gave Peter and Peter only the keys … and you absolutely need THOSE, regardless of who maufactured the car even

 

[moondweller]

The Church predated the Bible

But not Christ.

wrote the Bible

The Church didn’t write the Bible. Men did - inspired by God the Holy Spirit.

She is the context of the Bible.

Here’s the core problem of both Rome and Constantinople. Neither of you are the “context” of the Bible. Christ is, who predated both of you and your historical, continual, struggle for power.

Taking the Bible out of the context of the Church is like taking a heart out of the body. You can presreve it in a jar, with pumps and such, but not really a living heart then, is it?

Taking Christ out of the context of the Bible and replacing Him with Rome or Constantinople removes the life out of any Church. All you have left is either dead “orthodoxy,” or dead “sacramentalism.”

 

[abcd]

Well, certainly He gave Peter and Peter only the keys … and you absolutely need THOSE, regardless of who maufactured the car even

From a strictly scriptural point of view, the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is divorced from its proper biblical context. The Roman Church states that Matthew 16 teaches that the Church is built upon Peter and therefore upon the bishops of Rome in an exclusive sense. What is seldom ever mentioned is the fact that Ephesians 2:20 uses precisely the same language as that found in Matthew 16 when it says the Church is built upon the apostles and prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. The same greek word for build upon in Matthew 16 is employed in Ephesians 2:20. This demonstrates that from a biblical perspective, even if we were to interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be the person of Peter, the New Testament does not view the apostle Peter to be unique in this role. Christ is the foundation and the Church is built upon all the apostles and prophets in the sense of being built upon their teaching. And in addition, the Roman Catholic interpretation imports a meaning into the Matthew 16 text that is completely absent. This text says absolutely nothing about infallibility or about successors.

 

[DLC]

We do not look to Rome or even to Allah. We must look the Bible for all of our answers.2 Tim 3:16

If Rome is wrong, go to Makkah and Madinah for the correct answers.

 

[LilyM]

From a strictly scriptural point of view, the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is divorced from its proper biblical context. The Roman Church states that Matthew 16 teaches that the Church is built upon Peter and therefore upon the bishops of Rome in an exclusive sense. What is seldom ever mentioned is the fact that Ephesians 2:20 uses precisely the same language as that found in Matthew 16 when it says the Church is built upon the apostles and prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. The same greek word for build upon in Matthew 16 is employed in Ephesians 2:20. This demonstrates that from a biblical perspective, even if we were to interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be the person of Peter, the New Testament does not view the apostle Peter to be unique in this role. Christ is the foundation and the Church is built upon all the apostles and prophets in the sense of being built upon their teaching. And in addition, the Roman Catholic interpretation imports a meaning into the Matthew 16 text that is completely absent. This text says absolutely nothing about infallibility or about successors.

From a strictly scriptural point of view Ephesisans 2:20 mentions ‘the prophets’ as part of that foundation right alongside the Apostles. Are you really suggesting that these ‘prophets’, whether OT or otherwise, are exactly as significant as the Apostles to whom alone Christ gave the power to bind and loose heaven? Of course not.

So also, among the Apostles, the other 11 are not as significant as Peter to whom alone Christ gave the Keys of the Kingdom, and the task of feeding the lambs and sheep and whom ***alone ***He actually NAMES ‘Rock’! Why not call them ALL ‘Cephases’ if they are equally as important as each other?

As for infallibility - it’s not exactly rocket science to figure out that His Church can’t at one and the same time be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit and capable of teaching error. So clearly the Apostles were infallible.

And clearly - as Jesus gave the Apostles free reign to bind and loose heaven, so the idea of passing on their powers in their fullness to their successors must be valid - endorsed by heaven itself, since Acts shows them choosing a replacement for Judas.

Why do this if it was unnecessary for the Apostles to have successors to carry on their work? Was Matthias treated as any the less an Apostle (or Paul for that matter) even though they weren’t of the original 12? Not a bit.