On this rock I build My Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter truthlovingorthodox
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I did not come here to discredit that the roman church was established by God but it is not like before and corruption can occur just as in the orthodox church who presume to know all that the church believed when different fathers have different opinions

You can see an orthodox response to that here

http://www.saintjonah.org/articles/maximos1.htm

He did not consider rome infallible
 
Last edited:
Nice try, but simply wrong. Did it take the Orthodox 1000 years to realize this? Were those who went before you so dense, so incompetent that they got it all wrong?

Nonsense!

You agree with the reformers as to the supposed nature of Peter’s confession, but your ancestors in the Orthodox Church vehemently (and correctly) did not!

Explain why Christ did not found His Church on the same exact confession by Martha.

Problem.
 
Last edited:
Curious about the “corruption” considering:
For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her
Click to expand...
And yes, I’m sure there is an Orthodox response and counter-argument, since that passage so bluntly supports the Roman view of primacy (supremacy*, infallibility, and of course, due to its apostolic basis in Peter).

Did you read through the passages for yourself or did you just quickly look for a counter argument?

*By supremacy, I mean more than a mere honorary “first among equals.”
 
Last edited:
truthlovingorthodox said:
You see I am asking God to reveal the truth and yet I have no absolute proof but I have absolute proof Jesus is God.
Click to expand...
Just curious, where is your absolute proof that Jesus is God?
truthlovingorthodox said:
You can’t say you know protestants will not be saved if they are not invincibly ignorant just because the church says that unless you really believe that. Otherwise it is a big sin. To judge them.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church does not , nor does she teach us, to judge the state of anyone’s soul. We can judge their actions but in the end only God has the final say on who is and isn’t saved.
truthlovingorthodox said:
I have to know the gospel better so I can defend myself
Click to expand...
If you want to know the gospel better don’t you think your best option would be to learn from a teacher who has been handed on the true meaning of the Gospel message instead of trying to figure it out on your own.

Even St. Paul appealed to the Apostles to confirm that he was teaching the TRUE Gospel message…

Galatians 2:2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.
truthlovingorthodox said:
The meaning of loosing and binding is having the ability to reveal God’s forgiveness or to declare what He can reveal to man. If you think they have super power to allow some things and not allow and God will accept. Why don’t they just let protestants be saved?
Click to expand...
I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of binding and loosing. This power is still only efficacious because it is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church doesn’t even make the claim her own members are saved, without a revelation from God, confirming it is God’s will. Why would you expect her to just make a blanket claim that all are saved.

God Bless
 
Nothing but twisting ideas. The gates of hades need not prevail on them with the Holy Spirit who can guide them into all truth which they get from faith in Jesus but do they always listen to it or men?

If the orthodox and catholic did not accept protestants if they were like now then I doubt Jesus founded your churches but I thought He did. If they did not before it was because the kingdom was present with power before
 
@truthlovingorthodox

When you say you are Coptic Orthodox, do you mean of the “Oriental Orthodox” communion?
 
Yes. I go there. But I have problem to remain orthodox if it does not accept other christians. Jesus said it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God that is someone. That is someone who does not come to God as a child and willing to be instructed by the Lord Himself
 
Last edited:
The thing is, the “Eastern” Orthodox, the “Oriental” Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church all claim to be the “orthodox” Church of the East.

How do we know which is the true church?

The argument for each one boils down to this: “The true Church is the Church that accepts the true councils.”

But how do we know what are the true councils? “You know the true councils by the True Church.”

See how that is a circular argument?

From the Catholic perspective, you can have an independent basis for the truth: the unifying rock of Peter, as the visible source for full Catholic communion. Whoever is in communion with Rome is in commmunion with the Catholic Church. As, again, Maximus himself said:
If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).
Click to expand...
Where Peter is, there is the Church.

But there is no objective basis to judge between the other three ancient communions (Assyrian Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox).
 
Last edited:
the oriental church does not claim to be the church of the east I think. I think they just accept the title because it is given
 
I didn’t mean the formal title “Church of the East” (often associated with modern Assyrian Church).

I’m talking about the fact that all three of these Eastern communions claims to be the true Church, with full continuity from apostolic period.

Again, there is no objective basis to judge between the other three ancient communions (Assyrian Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox).

It’s circular reasoning: True Church accepts true councils. True councils are accepted by the true Church.
 
Last edited:
They accept the roman catholic church as apostolic and one of the churches founded by st peter and some even believe in primacy of the roman bishop just as st maximous you quoted probably did. oBut they do not believe they have kept the teachings of the apostles without error
 
Last edited:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

See, in this chart (that I made for convenience), all four ancient communions (Catholic, E Orthodox, O Orthodox, Assyrian Church) all have continuity with the apostolic age.

But only one, by each’s own definition, can be the “Church of Christ” in the fullest sense. How do we know how to discern which communion out of the four is? I think you have to look for Peter.

Or if you prefer, which communion is “more orthodox” (if you don’t like the idea of choosing the one “Church of Christ” from the four).
 
Last edited:
They all taught the same thing before the first split. Everyone has his own interpretation about what the fathers wrote during that time. But you should first go to the bible.
Jesus says call no one on earth your teacher. This means all what they say must be supported by the words of Jesus Himself and not add traditions that are binding on all. Even St James said they all stumble. The apostles today are certainly not as qualified as the ancient apostles
 
Last edited:
I’m not exactly sure how that applies to the current conversation.

I don’t see how the fallibility of men, even the Church’s pastors, is important here.

The Roman bishop’s charism of infallibility is just that: a charism, a gift for the sake of the Church’s unity. It’s not a personal power, and it’s not personally attributable to the man. It’s a consequence of his office. Because Peter is the head of the Apostles, he can speak for them. That’s what the Pope does, as Peter’s successor: He speaks for the Church. And because the Church cannot be led into hell (per Christ’s own promise), then the Pope will not speak for the Church in a way that leads the Church away. I.e., the faith of the Church will not be allowed to err.
 
That is true unless he says something as factual and not just his belief what the church taught
 
So you agree the bishop of Rome is infallible on occasion, due to his office?
 
Yes he is trusted like st paul who said yet not the Lord speaks but I and the Lord has given me trust… but as you said he can stumble sometimes
 
To answer the OP: the spiritual descendants of the apostles haven’t yet managed to destroy the Church before selecting a new successor to St. Peter. That being said, without one individual to be the “voice” of the Church (or, as St. Chrysostom says, “the mouth of the disciples”), we would be tossed into confusion. Not just in matters of doctrine, but as far as identifying the one true Church is concerned. Jesus left us with a visible leadership- with a single visible leader- for our benefit.
 
Yes but how do you define Church…The body of Christian followers? Then Jesus Church is fallible since its members are, correct?
 
Thanks for your response I do believe God give Peter a trust and the keys of the kingdom perhaps but he is not infallible. He has a role to lead the others not from himself but to open the scriptures correctly. Therefore he must not say he is infallible even paul said he was not and he was a great teacher of christianity.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top