Orthodoxy makes the most sence. protestantism is just man made division. the question is latin or eastern Church?

[Hesychios]

truth.

You are inventing.

I suggest that you start over and restate your arguments so that it is very clear what you are presupposing about the Orthodox and why you feel that way. Your contentions are all chopped up.

 

[steve_b]

Free press is hardly a religious belief, and if it is to be coupled with religion it would be protestantism, not Catholicism.

the point was not about free press = a religious belief.

 

[Nine_Two]

the point was not about free press = a religious belief.

Then if you’re refering to hemesphere’s of the world it is irrelevent as you’re both talking about the West.

 

[prodromos]

Your first point was the following

Would you expect a Franciscan monastery to publish details of any of their brotherhood, let alone one who left their flock?

Then I must presume your answer to be in the negative, since none of the information I read regarding your two examples was published by the Catholic Church. If this is not what you intended then perhaps you can point me to where Catholic monasteries publish details of the members of their brotherhood or sisterhood.

Next, I said if I showed Orthodox priests who left to become Catholics how would that advance the conversation? You KNOW there are Orthodox priests who have become Catholic. But how does it advance this discussion

From your question, you seemed to think I mentioned Catholic priests who had become Orthodox as a polemic device rather than simply to backup my explanation as to why you could not find any other information about Fr. Paul Ballester-Convollier. If I gave you the names of the others I know, I doubt you would find any information on them either. I’ve explained why I brought them up and still you are coming at me with guns blazing. If you are unable or unwilling to accept my explanation then that is not my problem. However to answer your question, it would not advance the conversation as there would be no point in you bringing them up, unlike me.

You mean regarding the East West issue of free press and how the free flow of information differs dramatically between the two?

Ah yes, I’ve experienced first hand how ‘freely’ information flows in the West compared to the East. When NATO was bombing Serbia in 1999 we got to see first hand what was happenning while living in Greece and it was in stark contrast to the depiction of the same events on CNN. A friend’s parents came from England for a visit during that time and came with a strong anti-Serbian bias due to the reports they had been seeing. One viewing of the events on the news in Greece left them in deep shock, and they stated afterwards how ashamed they now felt to be called British.
If you would like to provide some of your own examples to justify your statement then by all means provide them. Based on my experience it seems to be a statement made out of ignorance.

John

 

[prodromos]

the point was not about free press = a religious belief.

What was the point?

 

[steve_b]

Then I must presume your answer to be in the negative, since none of the information I read regarding your two examples was published by the Catholic Church.

what I gave you is available in more sources than the individuals themselves. The guy you posted, wrote a hit piece and gave no valid references.
p:

If this is not what you intended then perhaps you can point me to where Catholic monasteries publish details of the members of their brotherhood or sisterhood.

the guy you presented had no evidence to back up what he said.
p:

From your question, you seemed to think I mentioned Catholic priests who had become Orthodox as a polemic device rather than simply to backup my explanation as to why you could not find any other information about Fr. Paul Ballester-Convollier.

Nothing he said in the article you posted was substantiated. It was probably the worst hearsay article I’ve read. Why did you even bring him up?
p:

If I gave you the names of the others I know, I doubt you would find any information on them either. I’ve explained why I brought them up and still you are coming at me with guns blazing.

Here’s what I know about the guy you quoted.

• He says he was a Franciscan from a monastary in Spain. What monastary?
• He says he was reordering library cartalogs. Since these were so important, which catalogues were they? Names? Authors?
• He says he came accross an article dated1647. “This article described a decision of the Holy Inquisition that anathematized as heretic any who dared believe, accept or preach to others that he supported the apostolic validity of the Apostle Paul.” What’s the name of the article? Who wrote it?
• Then he says “However, my disturbance and my surprise became greater after researching and confirming that the decision of the Holy Inquisition that was referred to in the article was authentic.” Oh really! What article? What author? What date? What makes it authentic?
• Then he says “In fact already during two earlier occasions, namely in 1327 and 1331, the Popes John 22nd and Clemens 6th had condemned and anathematized any one who dared deny that the Apostle Paul during his entire apostolic life, was totally subordinate to the ecclesiastic monarchal authority of the first Pope and king of the Church, namely the Apostle Peter.” Pope Clement VI wasn’t pope till 1342. So how could he as pope condemn anyone in 1327 or 1331? Can you show where a pope called St Peter king of the Church? It is true that Paul went to see Peter twice, once to make sure his preaching was correct and he wasn’t running in vain.
• Then he writes “And a lot later Pope Pius 10th, in 1907 and Benedict 15th, in 1920, had repeated the same anathemas and the same condemnations”. Where? What document?

he wrote a sloppy hit piece.
p:

If you are unable or unwilling to accept my explanation then that is not my problem.

posting his article was poor judgement on your part
p:

Ah yes, I’ve experienced first hand how ‘freely’ information flows in the West compared to the East. When NATO was bombing Serbia in 1999 we got to see first hand what was happenning while living in Greece and it was in stark contrast to the depiction of the same events on CNN. A friend’s parents came from England for a visit during that time and came with a strong anti-Serbian bias due to the reports they had been seeing. One viewing of the events on the news in Greece left them in deep shock, and they stated afterwards how ashamed they now felt to be called British.

Are you defending Slobodan Milosevic the Butcher of the Balkans and his Serbian army? Are you denying his war crimes? Are you saying news in Greece was on his side?
p:

If you would like to provide some of your own examples to justify your statement then by all means provide them. Based on my experience it seems to be a statement made out of ignorance.

I was over in Yugoslavia in 1999.

 

[josie_L]

Not according to Gabriel and Josie it seems.

Please back up your inane comment with proof.

 

[Mickey]

And the Rock renames Simon to Rock

“Rock” is St Peter’s confession. St John was the one whom Jesus loved. Does that mean he did not love the others? Of course not.

And Simon the Rock, would confirm and strengthen THEM [Lk 22:32].and Feed and rule over Our Lord’s sheep [Jn 21:16,] all of them.

All the Apostles and their successors would be shepherds for the Lord’s flock.

Notice Jesus doesn’t say one of the apostles won’t be greater.

LOL! Apologetics by omission!

As far as minister and servant of all, look up the term “servant of the servants of God”. (Servus Servorum Dei)

Is that similar to “Vicar of Chirst”?

 

[josie_L]

First, Quartodecimans were not (as far as I know) ever considered heretics, at least not by the church at large. It was a calendar issue, or in Latin terms a question of discipline, not theology. If in fact it was a heresy, not only Polycarp, but John the Beloved Disciple would be implicated as heretics, and possibly even Saint Paul (who founded the Asian churches) as well.

If bishop Victor of Rome actually thought that the Asian dioceses were heretics, I would say in retrospect his judgmental abilities look very poor.

If you have better information on that I would appreciate a reference.

I already posted the information (post #670) expressly taken from an Orthodox website:

The decisive legislation on this matter was promulgated at the Second Ecumenical Council (A.D. 381) in its 7th Canon:

"Those heretics who come over to orthodoxy and to the society of those who are saved we receive according to the prescribed rite and custom: we receive Arians, Macedonians, Novatianists who call themselves ‘pure and better,’ Quatrodecimans, otherwise known as Tetradites, as well as Appolinarians on condition that they offer libelli (i.e., recantations in writing) and anathematize every heresy that does not hold the same beliefs as the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God, and then they should be marked with the seal, that is, anointed with chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. And as they are marked with the seal, we say, ‘seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.’ As for Eunomians, however, who are baptized with a single immersion, Montanists, who are called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who teach that Father and Son are the same person, and who commit other abominable things, and [those belonging to] any other heresies — for there are many of them here, especially among the people coming from the country of the Galatians, — all of them that want to adhere to Orthodoxy we are willing to accept as Greeks *.[27]

holy-trinity.org/ecclesio…ption-ch1.html*

Pope St. Victor was right in that he defended the apostolic tradition (as the successor to Peter it was his job to be the rock of the Church) from innovation, (it was because of his efforts in curtailing this heresy that resulted in the condemnation and eventual removal of this practice).

Second, Iraneaus as well as many others did oppose bishop Victor when he wanted to excommunicate the church of Asia. In fact it is clear that Victor backed down. So whatever Ireneaus meant about agreeing with the church of the city of Rome, it did not mean Universal Jurisdiction as understood since 1870AD

They opposed his decision to excommunicate the Asian churches not his authority to do so, i.e., they were not denying that he had the authority to excommunicate but rather his decision to ex-communicate (St. Irenaeus agreed with Rome that the Quatrodecimans were practicing heresy) because it was not considered prudent. And universal jurisdiction on the part of many popes and fathers of the Church was expressly stated (I will provide you with the evidence later this evening).

3-2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world

] and cannot be suggested as a support to that claim.

As I stated above, I will provide you with the patristic evidence this evening.

 

[josie_L]

“Rock” is St Peter’s confession. St John was the one whom Jesus loved. Does that mean he did not love the others? Of course not.

¨
Mickey, I made certain to quote quite a few church fathers (without even coming close to exhausting the plethora of fathers who quote Peter as the rock upon which the Church is built) and yet you cannot even acknowledge this fact.

Edit: There are in fact two ecumenical councils that directly associate Peter as rock and foundation of the Church therefore it cannot be solely his confession (furthermore you cannot separate the confession from the one who confessed it, St. Peter Chrysologus said this).

 

[Mickey]

¨
Mickey, I made certain to quote quite a few church fathers (without even coming close to exhausting the plethora of fathers who quote Peter as the rock upon which the Church is built) and yet you cannot even acknowledge this fact.

And I have multitudes of quotes showing that the majority of Fathers see the Rock as St Peter’s confession. I told you I am finished playing “Church Fathers quotes wars”. Furthermore, your quotes pay great honour to the Holy apostle St Peter. Your quotes do nothing to prove that Popes of Rome will be supreme infallible pontiffs based on Matt 16:18 (as you always try to retroactively read into the passage).

 

[steve_b]

“Rock” is St Peter’s confession.

Rock is Simon’s new name, given to him by Jesus.
But you’ve already known this. You don’t seperate the man from his faith.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1362595&postcount=43
m:

All the Apostles and their successors would be shepherds for the Lord’s flock.
LOL! Apologetics by omission!

Peter was made their leader, not by vote but by appointment from God. That’s just quoting scripture.
m:

Is that similar to “Vicar of Chirst”?

Why do you ask? You know the answer to that.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1362438&postcount=38

 

[Mickey]

But you’ve already known this. You know the answer to that.

This is the third time, in your desparation, that you feel the need to do this. Very odd and creepy.

 

[steve_b]

This is the third time, in your desparation, that you feel the need to do this. Very odd and creepy.

I’m just quoting you.

 

[Mickey]

I’m just quoting you.

It is like stalking. Extremely creepy. :sad_yes:

 

[Nine_Two]

Please back up your inane comment with proof.

My sincere Apologies, I made that post without going back to reread the posts and for some reason my memory inserted you into it (possibly because I’d just read something you wrote elsewhere and your name was fresh on my mind). Regardless of why I added you in there, it was a stupid thing to say. I am sorry and ask that you would forgive me.

 

[josie_L]

My sincere Apologies, I made that post without going back to reread the posts and for some reason my memory inserted you into it (possibly because I’d just read something you wrote elsewhere and your name was fresh on my mind). Regardless of why I added you in there, it was a stupid thing to say. I am sorry and ask that you would forgive me.

Apology accepted, nine-two. God bless.

 

[josie_L]

And I have multitudes of quotes showing that the majority of Fathers see the Rock as St Peter’s confession. I told you I am finished playing “Church Fathers quotes wars”. Furthermore, your quotes pay great honour to the Holy apostle St Peter. Your quotes do nothing to prove that Popes of Rome will be supreme infallible pontiffs based on Matt 16:18 (as you always try to retroactively read into the passage).

No, you don’t have a multitude of quotes from the fathers citing that the rock is solely Peter’s confession because it doesn’t exist.

 

[josie_L]

So whatever Ireneaus meant about agreeing with the church of the city of Rome, it did not mean Universal Jurisdiction as understood since 1870AD

3-2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world and cannot be suggested as a support to that claim.

Universal jurisdiction was a prerogative of popes (John 21:15) that was consistently supported by popes as well as many Church fathers. Moreoever, there is a plethora of evidence indicating that the pope was indeed infallible in that there was no recourse to his decisions, i.e., no higher authority of appeal within the Church, and all conciliar decisions needed to be ratified (as evidenced by history and tradition) by the pope before they could be made into law.

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828 a.d.):

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Roman pontiffs) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 (Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30)

Theodore the Studite (759-826 a.d.)

Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See. (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

Peter of Chrysologus (c. A.D. 400-450)

“We exhort you in every respect, honourable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome.”

Flavian (Patriarch of Constantinople, d. A.D. 449)

• to Pope Leo I

“The whole question needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God’s help completely suppress the heresy which has arisen and the disturbance which it has caused; and so the convening of a council which is in any case difficult will be rendered superfluous.”

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. 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, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (575 - 593 A.D.) to the Archbishop of the Georgian monks who had a colony in his city:

"As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, Chief of the Apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the churches. ‘Thou are Peter, etc.’ To this same Peter He has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who on the first most holy and venerable See are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible."

to be continued. . .

 

[josie_L]

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (ca. 638 a.d)

Traverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See, where are the foundation of the orthodox doctrine, make clearly knows to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to be then until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgment and destroyed from the foundation. . . . the new heresy." (Sophoronius [quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Martin I at Lateran council]
, Mansi, x, 893).

St. Isidore of Seville

**We know who is in charge in the Church of Christ to the extent that we reverently, humbly, and devoutly profess more especially to give due obedience in all things to the Roman Pontiff as God’s Vicar. **Whoever proudly resists this principle, we decree, is altogether outside the fellowship of the faithful as a heretic. (Isidore, Ep. ad Claud. ducem)

Three councils in Africa, in their Synodical letter sent to Pope Theodore, and read in the Council of Rome under Martin I a.d. 646: - 'No one can doubt that there is in the Apostolic See a great unfailing fountain, pouring forth waters for all Christians; whence rich streams proceed, bountifully irrigating the whole Christian world; to which See also, in honour of blessed Peter, the decrees of the Fathers gave special veneration in searching out the things of God, which ought by all means to be carefully examined; and above all, and justly, is, as well to condemn evils as to commend things that are to be praised. For by the ancient discipline it is ordained that whatsoever be done, even in provinces remote and afar off, shall neither be treated or nor accepted, unless it be first brought to the knowledge of your August See, so that a just sentence may be confirmed by its authority, and and that the other Churches may thence receive the original preaching as from its native source, and that the mysteries of saving faith may remain in uncorrupt purity throughout the various regions of the world. (Epist. Synod. ad Pap. Theod. lect. in Concil. Rom. ann. 649, sub. P. Mart.)

St. Gregory the Great (ca. 590 a.d.):

Gregory receives this oath from a bishop returning from schism: “And therefore after I discovered the snare of division by which I was held, I** humbly and spontaneously was led by divine grace to return to the unity of the apostolic see (Rome)** and lest I be thought to return not through a pure intention but deceitfully, I swear, under pain of the loss of my order, and under the bond of anathema, and promise to thee, and through thee to Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, and to his vicar, the most blessed Gregory or his successors , that I will never, through anyone’s persuasion or in any other way return to schism, from which I have been delivered through the mercy of our redeemer, **but shall always remain, throughout all things, in the unity of the holy Catholic Church and the communion of the Roman Pontiff.” **(St. Gregory the Great, Register of Epistles , Book XII, Ep. 7).

Pope Pelagius II (ca. 579-590 a.d. ):

"Since the authority of convoking General synods by a singular privilege has been delivered to the Apostolic See of Blessed Peter, and we do not read that any synod was ever considered ratified which was not supported by Apostolic authority." (Pope Pelagius II, Ep. 6 ad Orient)

Roman Synod in 531 writing to Pope Boniface II:

“Nor is it lawful for us to dissent in any way from the height of Your Apostleship, whom Christ our Lord willed, in his place, to be the head of us all on earth.” (Ep. ad Bonif.)

Emperor Justinian I (520-533 a.d.)

“Nor do we allow that any of these things, concerning ecclesiastical institution, should fail to be brought before his Holiness, as being the head of all the holy priests of God, and because as often as heretics have arisen in these parts, have been repressed by the sentence and judgment of that Holy See.” (Justinian Epist. ad Epiphan. Cod. Justinian, lib. i. n. 7)

“Yielding honour to the Apostolic See, and to your Holiness, and honouring your holiness, as one ought to honour a father. . . we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness. . . For we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all holy churches.” (Justinian, Epist. ad Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. i. tit. 1)

St. Avitus

“You know that the Synodal laws have it that if any doubt arise in matters pertaining to the state of the Church, we have recourse to the Bishop of the Roman Church as to our head.” (Avitus, Fragm. i., p. 746, t.x. Galland.)

Pope St. Gelasius (ca. 492 a.d.)

The first See both confirms every synod by its authority, and guards by its continuous rule, by reason, to wit, of its supremacy, which, received by the Apostle Peter from the mouth of the Lord, the Church nevertheless seconding, it both always has held and retains. . . We will not pass over in silence what every Church throughout the world knows, that the See of the Blessed Apostle Peter has the right to absolve from what has been bound by the sentence of any prelates whatsoever, in that it has the right of judging of the whole Church; neither is it lawful for any one to pass judgment on its judgment, seeing that the canons have willed that it may be appealed to from any part of the world, but that from it no one be permitted to appeal." (Gelasius, Epist. xiii, ad Episc. Dardum, p. 1200, Labbe; and Thiel, Epist. xxvi. n. 5, tom. i. p. 399)

to be continued. . .