Orthodoxy and the Papacy.

[bobzills]

Did, he though. He never changed the Creed he made a new one. The original is the Nicene Creed, the new is the Nicene-Constantinoplian Creed.

The original N-C creed did not contain the filioque. That was changed later on by the insertion of the filioque into the creed.

 

[ForeverAdam]

the keys was given to one man only, Peter.

This is not what St. Augustine states. He believes that St. Peter was given the keys and emphasized as the shepherd of the sheep in order to represent the oneness of the Church and its power and role, and not to be given something the other apostles and their successors don’t possess. The tradition of limiting the keys of the kingdom to only Peter is the result of a partial reading of the Holy Fathers, as the Fathers continually affirm that St. Peter was a representative of the Church (which includes bishops) and what was given to him is mentioned as also belonging to the other apostles.

obviously all the all the others had some authority because they were in communion with Peter i doubt very much if they refuse obedience to the teachings they would have any authority among them. they were all instructed to go out and teach the Word of god. we have to realize back then the ways of communication was difficult.is not like now we are one phone call away. but they all knew that Peter had authority over them not as a tyrant but as servant among them to settle dispute and other issues. it was the beginning of the Church, troubles would come later. heresies begin to arise as the Church grew, dissentions, enviness, disobidience, false teachings. if there was no authority over them, if everyone claimed authority for themselves then who could say anything that the other was wrong if they all had the same authority? they couldnt. see my point? since no one was over nobody then one could just follow whatever. if they were all equals who is to say who is wrong? it cant. we believe the Church is the Kingdom of God on earth, how many kings do we have? One.( Jesus) whom we cannot see. therefore it makes sense that Jesus would have somebody in charge not to reign by himself but with his cabinets.

Orthodoxy doesn’t deny that St. Peter was the leader of the apostles and, through his leadership, enabled them to act as one in the service of their common apostolic grace and mission. In fact, the local, regional and universal organs of primacy in Orthodoxy function in the same fashion, today. In short, view St. Peter as the first Orthodox patriarch. Patriarchs have certain roles in the Church, but they don’t possess any more ontological grace or power than other bishops. They simply direct their common episcopal authority in the service of the equality and oneness of the Church. The same goes for the role of St. Peter among the apostles.

the bishops in communion with him. (Isaiah 22). infallibility is necessary not that Peter was infallible as man neither as any pope can be considered infallibe as man. but infallibility to us as the assurance that Jesus has chosen someone in His church whom He uses to give His mensage in truth. do you understand the confusion in christianity today, we are being mocked by the world. because everyone is buyng a Bible and open a church, there is no authority, why? they are all equals among themselves who can tell them no. nobody. i just remember the argument between oral roberts and joel osteen. oral roberts says that osteen can not be a pastor he has no education, olsteen tells on tv he is not only a pastor but a reverend now.

However, up to the 20th century, Roman Catholic writings mention the possibility of the Pope becoming a heretic (the tradition of papal fallibility still remains on the books in Catholicism). If post-Vatican I Roman Catholics (including Popes) admit the possibility of papal heresy, the apostolic infallibility of St. Peter obviously isn’t present in the Bishop of Rome, and by extension the ancient Church couldn’t have viewed the Pope as the final arbiter of truth as you do. In fact, the ancient Church saw Holy Tradition as lived and preserved in the apostolic churches as their authority. They never unconditionally pointed to one bishop for infallible truth, since they believed he could err like any other bishop.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Alexius]

Pope St Gregory the Great (540-604)
“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others”

No offence, but couldn’t this equally apply to the Ecumenical Patriarch, since that title literally means “universal bishop.”

It seems the doctrine of Papal Infallibility developed as a result of the question of concensus. The conclusion was reached that the Truth does not need concensus to be declared as such…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[prodromos]

No offence, but couldn’t this equally apply to the Ecumenical Patriarch, since that title literally means “universal bishop.”

“Ecumenical” in the context of the capital of the Roman Empire in the first millennium (Constantinople) meant “of the Empire’s capital” or “of the court of the Emperor”. There was also an Ecumenical Librarian and other such titles. None of them meant “universal”, that is a Latin mistranslation caused by the fact that Latin has only one quarter the vocabulary of Greek.

John

 

[Mickey]

**St Gregory the Great (540-604) writing to the Bishop of Alexandria: **
“Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, ‘as you have commanded me.’ I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity”.

---

 

[wisdomseeker]

With reference to the question of innovations and divorce and remarriage, the Catholic Church has introduced one of the most incredible innovations since Vatican II, the easy to get marriage annulment. Marriage annulments are granted on the basis of the most trivial of reasons. Take a look at the marriage annulment statistics in the USA and tell me what you make of these statistics.

Innovation. hunnnnnmmmmmm! i gues it started with Moses when he permitted people to divorce. or we can use Scriptures in which Jesus gives the Church the power of binding and loosing. could these be a possibilities?

 

[bobzills]

Innovation. hunnnnnmmmmmm! i gues it started with Moses when he permitted people to divorce. or we can use Scriptures in which Jesus gives the Church the power of binding and loosing. could these be a possibilities?

Scripture says: “. . . whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her” (Mk 10:1-12; Lk.16:18; 1 Cor.7:10-11).
The Catholic Church tribunals are handing out an unprecedented number of marriage annulments today.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Scripture says: “. . . whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her” (Mk 10:1-12; Lk.16:18; 1 Cor.7:10-11).
The Catholic Church tribunals are handing out an unprecedented number of marriage annulments today.

yes i quite understand that. wht can the Church do? we cant make people stay together. perhaps our churches are to be blamed for all this. begining with the separation of the Body of
Christ.

 

[bobzills]

yes i quite understand that. wht can the Church do? we cant make people stay together. perhaps our churches are to be blamed for all this. begining with the separation of the Body of
Christ.

The question was raised concerning the Orthodox position on divorce and remarriage. But if Catholics are asked to get a divorce by the Church tribunals, even before they apply for an annulment, and if annulments are granted for the most trivial of reasons, how does this process differ that much from the Orthodox practice, except that in the Orthodox Church, as I understand it, it would be a sin to get a divorce.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Can you show me any evidence in the first millenium where a Pope infallibly proclaimed dogma independent of an Ecumenical Council? Can you show me where such a concept was even possible?

Pope St. Innocent I (408 AD)

“If cases of greater importance are to be heard [at a council], they are, as the synod decrees and as happy custom requires, after episcopal judgment, to be referred to the Apostolic See” (Letters 2:3:6)

The Pope always has the last word on everything. It doesn’t matter if someone disagrees, they cannot argue with the Pope.

But can he invent new tradition?

No.

 

[holdencaulfield]

However, up to the 20th century, Roman Catholic writings mention the possibility of the Pope becoming a heretic (the tradition of papal fallibility still remains on the books in Catholicism). If post-Vatican I Roman Catholics (including Popes) admit the possibility of papal heresy, the apostolic infallibility of St. Peter obviously isn’t present in the Bishop of Rome, and by extension the ancient Church couldn’t have viewed the Pope as the final arbiter of truth as you do. In fact, the ancient Church saw Holy Tradition as lived and preserved in the apostolic churches as their authority. They never unconditionally pointed to one bishop for infallible truth, since they believed he could err like any other bishop.

Popes can still be heretics. Pope Paul VI is a good example.

 

[holdencaulfield]

The question was raised concerning the Orthodox position on divorce and remarriage. But if Catholics are asked to get a divorce by the Church tribunals, even before they apply for an annulment, and if annulments are granted for the most trivial of reasons, how does this process differ that much from the Orthodox practice, except that in the Orthodox Church, as I understand it, it would be a sin to get a divorce.

Yes, however you do allow Contraception.

 

[jam070406]

This is not what St. Augustine states. He believes that St. Peter was given the keys and emphasized as the shepherd of the sheep in order to represent the oneness of the Church and its power and role, and not to be given something the other apostles and their successors don’t possess. The tradition of limiting the keys of the kingdom to only Peter is the result of a partial reading of the Holy Fathers, as the Fathers continually affirm that St. Peter was a representative of the Church (which includes bishops) and what was given to him is mentioned as also belonging to the other apostles.

Orthodoxy doesn’t deny that St. Peter was the leader of the apostles and, through his leadership, enabled them to act as one in the service of their common apostolic grace and mission. In fact, the local, regional and universal organs of primacy in Orthodoxy function in the same fashion, today. In short, view St. Peter as the first Orthodox patriarch. Patriarchs have certain roles in the Church, but they don’t possess any more ontological grace or power than other bishops. They simply direct their common episcopal authority in the service of the equality and oneness of the Church. The same goes for the role of St. Peter among the apostles.

However, up to the 20th century, Roman Catholic writings mention the possibility of the Pope becoming a heretic (the tradition of papal fallibility still remains on the books in Catholicism). If post-Vatican I Roman Catholics (including Popes) admit the possibility of papal heresy, the apostolic infallibility of St. Peter obviously isn’t present in the Bishop of Rome, and by extension the ancient Church couldn’t have viewed the Pope as the final arbiter of truth as you do. In fact, the ancient Church saw Holy Tradition as lived and preserved in the apostolic churches as their authority. They never unconditionally pointed to one bishop for infallible truth, since they believed he could err like any other bishop.

God bless,

Adam

Catholic teaching does not say a Pope can teach heresy to the universal Church while speaking ex cathedra. Please stop misrepresenting the Faith and teachings of the Church in your deceptive attempt to discredit it.

Why do you also continue to quote St. Augustine to further your argument? Do you also believe his teaching on Original Sin?
Or will you continue to pick and choose?

 

[jam070406]

**St Gregory the Great (540-604) writing to the Bishop of Alexandria: **
“Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, ‘as you have commanded me.’ I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity”.

---

You mean this isn’t what Orthodox would deem as just “flowery talk”?

 

[jam070406]

Can you show me any evidence in the first millenium where a Pope infallibly proclaimed dogma independent of an Ecumenical Council?

Pope Damasus I

“Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the 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; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

 

[jam070406]

The question was raised concerning the Orthodox position on divorce and remarriage. But if Catholics are asked to get a divorce by the Church tribunals, even before they apply for an annulment, and if annulments are granted for the most trivial of reasons, how does this process differ that much from the Orthodox practice, except that in the Orthodox Church, as I understand it, it would be a sin to get a divorce.

What basis or evidence do you have for such a presumptuous claim? (in bold)

 

[jam070406]

**St Gregory the Great (540-604) writing to the Bishop of Alexandria: **
“Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, ‘as you have commanded me.’ I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity”.

---

St. Gregory The Great

“As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See?” (Epp., IX, xxvi,)

 

[bobzills]

What basis or evidence do you have for such a presumptuous claim? (in bold)

I have the book: Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn. This book is “Designed as a practical companion to the author’s previous volume, The Invalid Marriage, this resource for tribunals, students and pastoral ministers contains 15 fictional marriage cases. These reflect the basic grounds for marital nullity established in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.”
Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn
Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an “I don’t need anyone else” attitude.
Saving one’s salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one’s body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one’s parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert’s term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one’s spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one’s (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died.
Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier.
About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn’t want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner’s mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.
marysadvocates.org/wrennreasons.html

 

[jam070406]

I have the book: Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn. This book is “Designed as a practical companion to the author’s previous volume, The Invalid Marriage, this resource for tribunals, students and pastoral ministers contains 15 fictional marriage cases. These reflect the basic grounds for marital nullity established in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.”
Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn
Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an “I don’t need anyone else” attitude.
Saving one’s salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one’s body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one’s parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert’s term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one’s spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one’s (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died.
Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier.
About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn’t want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner’s mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.
marysadvocates.org/wrennreasons.html

Fr. Wrenn’s list contradicts Vatican authoritative teaching and is DISSENTING.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Popes can still be heretics.

Right. Now if a Pope can err (outside of making dogmas) how can you continue to argue that appeals to the Pope in doctrinal disputes, and acclamations lauding the faith of Rome and her bishop, in the ancient Church, mean that the Pope was the final arbiter of truth in the Church? If any Pope can become a heretic, the force of these appeals and acclamations are greatly denudated. In fact, the possibility of any Pope becoming a heretic in any matter of faith places the quotes that you and many of your churchmen are fond of providing into the context of ecclesial custom, appeals and praise to any orthodox bishop, who like the Pope, can err at any time. These words cannot possess an additional ecclesiological significance without an affirmation that fallible bishops can be made the final arbiter of truth in the Church (an affirmation, which isn’t sound).

Pope Paul VI is a good example.

I’m surprised you would say this about a Pope. Does it bother you that every bishop in the Western Church accepted this pope’s supposed heresy at one time?

God bless,

Adam