M
Mickey
Guest
I am not trying to spin anything. I look at Scripture, Tradition, Church Fathers, and the first seven Ecumenical Councils—and I see the Holy Orthodox Church.
You are entitled to your opinion.
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
R
rad
Guest
Dear Shlomey, This was your quote from the holy Council of Chalcedon,
““After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” (ibid., session 2).”
But this is NOT the complete quote. You have taken out the part where the Council gives equal praise to Saint Cyril who was the Patriarch of Alexandria.
Here it is in its entirety without any deduction,
" the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers." Council of Chalcedon, Session II (A.D. 451).
P
Peter_J
Guest
Rad,
I think you are right in saying that quote does not prove Supremacy.
However, I think it does at least indicate Primacy: note that it says “Peter has spoken thus through Leo”, not “Peter has spoken thus through Leo and Cyril”.
I think you are right in saying that quote does not prove Supremacy.
However, I think it does at least indicate Primacy: note that it says “Peter has spoken thus through Leo”, not “Peter has spoken thus through Leo and Cyril”.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Peter,
You are talking about the issue that I keep trying to bring up. I think that we cannot deny that Peter had primacy, and it was real. Further, I think that we can see it though the ages. This primacy was not due to city status, nor was it ceremonial. Now, if this primacy is the same as suprimacy, I am not asking. All that I want to know is why the Orthodox do not see the same thing we see.
You are talking about the issue that I keep trying to bring up. I think that we cannot deny that Peter had primacy, and it was real. Further, I think that we can see it though the ages. This primacy was not due to city status, nor was it ceremonial. Now, if this primacy is the same as suprimacy, I am not asking. All that I want to know is why the Orthodox do not see the same thing we see.
Z
Zuvelekis
Guest
for what I know there are three bigest differences . I’ m orthodox too. The filoque , if the the holy spirit comes from the Father and Son as the Catholics believe or if it comes only from the Father as the Orthodox believe. Second the immaculate conception of Maria : for the Catholics She was born without the original sin , for the orthodox also She had the original sin , but She never sined in her life She has been vergin all her life with Her strength and with the help of God. Third orthodox don’t have a pope . The Pope is for the Orthodox “only” the Bishop of Rome.
I think on Maria the Catholics have a better teological view. For the filoque I don’t Know , for the pope is good that Catholics have a Father who takes important decisions, but I don’ t know if he can be called infallible, for the orthodox only Jesus is infallible. It depends, he is infallible in truth of faith but orthodox take this dogma as wanting more power.Sorry for my english too.The important is that we are all Christians and our Churches are both apostolic, than they split in 1054 more for political reasons than teological reasons. God bless you all.
I think on Maria the Catholics have a better teological view. For the filoque I don’t Know , for the pope is good that Catholics have a Father who takes important decisions, but I don’ t know if he can be called infallible, for the orthodox only Jesus is infallible. It depends, he is infallible in truth of faith but orthodox take this dogma as wanting more power.Sorry for my english too.The important is that we are all Christians and our Churches are both apostolic, than they split in 1054 more for political reasons than teological reasons. God bless you all.
A
Amadeus
Guest
I thought the (Eastern) Orthodox believed that the Church was infallible, solemnly exercised through an ecumenical council?
This should be the case if Our Lord, Jesus Christ, did will that His Church be clothed with the charism of His infallibility.
The Catholic Church also believes that the infallibility of Our Lord was infused by Him in His Church (which, to us Catholics, subsists in the Catholic Church of today) and is exercised solemnly through (1) an ecumencial council.
However, the Catholic Church believes that ther are 2 other organs by which the infallibility of the Church is exercised:
(2) Through the world’s bishops in union with the Pope; and
(3) Through the Pope, singularly, in his capacity as the Church’s universal pastor teaching ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, which is the Catholic dogma of Papal Infallibility.
Z
Zuvelekis
Guest
In the past also the Church did mistakes Pope John Paul the second told is to us. Also Ortthodox did mistakes killing in the name of God is a mistake, a sin. A big sin for me.
- Status