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

[jimmy]

Only those who held heretical or innovative beliefs/customs disagreed with or questioned the primacy of the bishop of Rome (including Firmillian).

p.s. Hi Scott

And Cyprian, and the council of Carthage of 254, and of 255.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Correct me if I’m wrong, Jimmy, but aren’t Maronites in communion with Rome?

Excommunication says nothing of authority. What p. Victor did is perfectly in line with the Orthodox view of the Church. As I said, excommunication is simply breaking communion (just look at the word ex-communication). Any church could break communion with any other according to the eastern understanding. Only according to the west is it a statement of authority over the other church. You can’t show that it is even a statement of authority according to P. Victor.

 

[jimmy]

Correct me if I’m wrong, Jimmy, but aren’t Maronites in communion with Rome?

I thought you knew my situation. I am in a state of questioning and have been for a litte while now. I have been moving ore toward the Orthodox in my thought.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I have read enough of the quotes that are used to support the papacy to know that they are often taken out of context. The best is when people try to quote Cyril of Firmillian to support their ideas of the papacy.

yet, who have prevailed? does EO rebaptize heretics?

 

[wisdomseeker]

The reason the discusion on infalability go on without ever being solved…unlike discusions on the athority of the church, The Trinity,baptism, faith or works etc…
Is because there is enuf information in scripture or some athoritative source on the matter.
So a discusion on those issues can always be solved.

However Papal infalability is a discusion that is never solved but come up again and again because there are no scriptures or any athoritative information that directly says anything about all bishops in rome being infalible. So we end up with a bunch of quotes from one father taking the western side…then a father taking the eastern side and it just goes back and forth. Because scriptures can be found that say something or the other about peter, but none will say he was infalible. So we end up with scriptures that need a long bridge of outside information to get infalibility out of them.

Technicaly The Orthodox are just as old, and it dose not look like the early church was as the Roman Catholic church is today. So if the burden of proof is on the Roman catholics…its like being in a trial where the prosecution has no major evidence…but has a million quotes of he said she said and a lot of stretching of evidence to get to there conclusion…that trial would simply go on and on because one is inocent till proven guilty.

first tell me what infallibility means to you? maybe this is what confusing to you. tell me what do you understand for infallibility? define the term to us.

 

[jimmy]

yet, who have prevailed? does EO rebaptize heretics?

The tradition according to the EO is that non-Orthodox baptisms are invalid and therefore they rebaptize heretics. Sometimes they apply the concept of oikonomia which basically means that the rules aren’t necessarily applied and what is missing is supplied.

What does that have to do with it anyway? The question isn’t whether Cyril or Stephen was correct, it is whether the fathers accepted the papal claims (Cyril in this case).

 

[wisdomseeker]

The tradition according to the EO is that non-Orthodox baptisms are invalid and therefore they rebaptize heretics. Sometimes they apply the concept of oikonomia which basically means that the rules aren’t necessarily applied and what is missing is supplied.

What does that have to do with it anyway? The question isn’t whether Cyril or Stephen was correct, it is whether the fathers accepted the papal claims (Cyril in this case).

and when they started this process? was before or after 1050?

it has a lot to do. for example protestants has formed a whole new religion, are they correct? they dont accept the Pope. they also repabtize Catholics. are they correct?

 

[jimmy]

and when they started this process? was before or after 1050?

it has a lot to do. for example protestants has formed a whole new religion, are they correct? they dont accept the Pope. they also repabtize Catholics. are they correct?

Whether someone is correct on a particular issue is irrelevant to whether they are correct on another unconnected issue. Whether Cyril or Stephen was correct on the issue of rebaptism is irrelevant to whether Stephen was protected from error by some charism of infallibility or had universal jurisdiction.

The east has always rebaptized heretics. For example, the fourth lateran council in 1213 tried to condemn the Greeks for rebaptizing Latins. I can’t speak of specific examples other than that.

 

[josie_L]

Excommunication says nothing of authority. What p. Victor did is perfectly in line with the Orthodox view of the Church. As I said, excommunication is simply breaking communion (just look at the word ex-communication). Any church could break communion with any other according to the eastern understanding. Only according to the west is it a statement of authority over the other church. You can’t show that it is even a statement of authority according to P. Victor.

Ex-communication was not simply breaking communion, it meant that the person who was excommunicating believed you to be heretical (that was the case with the Asian churches/quatrodecimans), and had the right to deem you heretical. Moreover, being that the Church in Rome was the principal Church it’s rulings could not be gainsayed, i.e., if other bishops were to ex-communicate and/or strip bishops of their sees than they (those who were excommunicated and/or exiled) had recourse to the bishop of Rome (this is supported by history). Therefore, had Pope Victor attempted to deliver on his words he would have excommunicated the Asian Churches so that they were outside of the Church of Christ.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Whether someone is correct on a particular issue is irrelevant to whether they are correct on another unconnected issue. Whether Cyril or Stephen was correct on the issue of rebaptism is irrelevant to whether Stephen was protected from error by some charism of infallibility or had universal jurisdiction.

The east has always rebaptized heretics. For example, the fourth lateran council tried to condemn the Greeks for rebaptizing Latins.

well, it should matter. as we know in the beginning when the issue of being circunsized to become a Christian arose. the issue had to be settled. and it did. and everyone agreed.

i would say that the Church must still settle issues within dont you think? and who settles the issue?

 

[jimmy]

Ex-communication was not simply breaking communion, it meant that the person who was excommunicating believed you to be heretical (that was the case with the Asian churches/quatrodecimans), and had the right to deem you heretical. Moreover, being that the Church in Rome was the principal Church it’s rulings could not be gainsayed, i.e., if other bishops were to ex-communicate and/or strip bishops of their sees than they (those who were excommunicated and/or exiled) had recourse to the bishop of Rome (this is supported by history). Therefore, had Pope Victor attempted to deliver on his words he would have excommunicated the Asian Churches so that they were outside of the Church of Christ.

You are bringing in a modern western understanding and assume it is ancient. The only thing in your post that is correct is that the excommunicating bishop deemed the other to be heretical. The fact though is that the P. Victor incident in no way supports any concept of universal jurisdiction or papal supremacy.

 

[wisdomseeker]

You are bringing in a modern western understanding and assume it is ancient. The only thing in your post that is correct is that the excommunicating bishop deemed the other to be heretical. The fact though is that the P. Victor incident in no way supports any concept of universal jurisdiction or papal supremacy.

well then show us that the pope througout history had no authority over all the Church.

 

[jimmy]

well, it should matter. as we know in the beginning when the issue of being circunsized to become a Christian arose. the issue had to be settled. and it did. and everyone agreed.

i would say that the Church must still settle issues within dont you think? and who settles the issue?

Issues are settled when they need to be. Both east and west have settled issues since the break of 1054. The hesychast controvercy is an example in the east. I am sure you know many in the west. The EO still exist and they are profoundly united on matters of faith. They might not have the type of unity that Rome sees as necessary, but they will remain a strong witness simply because they have a unity of faith that is not present in the west.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I actually do read everyone’s quotes! lol Maybe I’m just a ding-a-ling but I don’t consider quotations useless in an debate/discussion over matters such as these. It’s a cheesy way out to say “bahh, it’s taken out of context.” I hear that all the time in here, usually from Orthodox, and they never actually prove the real context that the Catholic is supposedly manipulating? It’s probably the most-overused excuse to not face the quotes and answer them. I never hear anyone answer the quotes, just dismiss 'em and say, ‘out of context.’ When pressed what context they truly held, you never hear an answer…

I hear Obama apologists always saying the “context, context!” argument. Then you switch to Rush Limbaugh and hear “he took me out of context!” I think context is becoming the greatest diversionary tactic in the world today!

My post isn’t specifically about your quotes. I haven’t read your quotes. I have grown a little synical towards posts that quote the fathers so I tend not to even read them. This is partly because when people quote the fathers they are just cuting and pasting from Catholic Answers or some other site, and partly because they are often taken out of context.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Nope, Jimmy, I sure didn’t know. I wouldn’t have asked you, turkey, if I knew already!
What issues, readings, or experiences have prompted the change if you don’t mind me asking? I won’t be offended if you don’t explain. Just curious. I’ve questioned my faith as a Catholic before and everyone knew about it on here really. It happens.

I thought you knew my situation. I am in a state of questioning and have been for a litte while now. I have been moving ore toward the Orthodox in my thought.

 

[jimmy]

well then show us that the pope througout history had no authority over all the Church.

You ask me to prove a negative. Hasn’t logic shown that to be an impossible task?

I think that the history of heresies and schisms is an evidence against the concept of papal supremacy and papal infallbility. The fact that Dioscorus of Alexandria, and the whole Alexandrian church after him rejected the Church of Rome as heretical is an evidence against the papal claims. Same with the schism with the EO. Why didn’t all the heretics and schismatics simply submit to the will of Rome as obedient children? And these aren’t individual men, but whole Churches. Somehow the papal claims never reached these churches.

 

[josie_L]

And Cyprian, and the council of Carthage of 254, and of 255.

Yes, but Cyprian was wrong and introduced innovation (to rebaptize all heretics who came into the Church irregardless of their trinitarian baptism with water), furthermore, his council of Carthage in 255 and 256 were not ratified by the pope (and thank goodness for that). Here is an orthodox website which bespeaks of Cyprian’s errors:

Christianity saw no small number of heresies during the 3rd and 4th centuries, and the originators of the heresies were bishops or prominent presbyters. How to treat those who came to Orthodoxy from those heresies? By what method should they be received? There was an immediate difference of views about this problem within the Orthodox Church. Some insisted that they be received only through baptism, i.e., not to recognize their previous baptism as valid even though it was correct in form (i.e., corresponding to the baptism performed in the Orthodox Church). Others maintained a more tolerant view, accepting as valid that baptism, which was performed by some heretics, since it was performed in the name of the Holy Trinity, and did not require that those coming into Orthodoxy from heresy be re-baptized. A stricter line was taken by Tertullian (himself a Montanist), St. Cyprian of Carthage, Firmilian of Caesarea, and Elanus of Tarsus. St. Cyprian, a proponent of the strict line, convoked two councils in this matter (255-256) and insisted that heretics be received by no other way than baptism.** St. Stephen, Pope of Rome (253-257) could be considered to hold a more tolerant view, and his position, according to the famous Hefele, was supported by Eastern bishops. At the same time as St. Cyprian along with a council of 71 bishops insisted that heretics lack any grace and for this reason their sacred acts are invalid, Pope St. Stephen received penitent heretics with the laying of a bishop’s hand on their heads.** He did this in accord with the tolerant practice, which was held by other Western bishops. We read an ancient decree of the Council in Arles (Canon 8):

“If anyone shall come from heresy to the Church, they shall ask him to say the Creed; and if they shall perceive that he was baptized into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost [in Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto esse baptizatum] he shall have hands laid upon him only so that he may receive the Holy Ghost. But if he was not baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, let him be baptized.”[18]

Having learned about the decrees of the Council in Carthage under St. Cyprian’s chairmanship, which demanded the re-baptism of heretics coming into the Church, at first Pope St. Stephen demanded a repeal of these decrees, threatening excommunication and, since the repeals did not take place, he later excommunicated St. Cyprian.[19]

**It is interesting to note that Eastern canonists treat the decisions of the Carthage councils critically. Thus, Zonaras commenting on Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council, which calls for the reception of certain kinds of heretics without re-baptism, notes the decree of St. Cyprian, about which he says:

“Thus, the opinions of the Fathers gathered at the council with the great Cyprian do not refer to all heretics and all schismatics. Because the Second Ecumenical Council, as we just pointed out, makes an exception for certain heretics and grants its sanction for their reception without repeating the baptism, demanding only their anointing with the Holy Chrism provided that they renounced their own heresies and all other heresies.”

Balsamon calls the decrees of the Council at Carthage “not mandatory and as such ineffective.”[20]**

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

It is ironic that you should be quoting Pope St. Stephen refering to innovation when those were the words he delivered to St. Cyprian.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Issues are settled when they need to be. Both east and west have settled issues since the break of 1054. The hesychast controvercy is an example in the east. I am sure you know many in the west. The EO still exist and they are profoundly united on matters of faith. They might not have the type of unity that Rome sees as necessary, but they will remain a strong witness simply because they have a unity of faith that is not present in the west.

i have a great admiration for the EO. no problem there. but as we see, issues in the East was handled by the pope. as we see many of the Fathers refering to the Church in Rome. do you have anything different?

did St Basil of Caesarea, the successor of Firmillian accept the practice of rebaptizing?

 

[LionHeart777]

The question I have is, how is that a claim of authority? Excommunication is simply breaking communion.

Hello Jimmy.

I thought that the one doing the excommunicating had (or at least claimed the authority.) Perhaps I’m incorrect in believing so.

I have a question though, if in your previous post you were referring to this quote of Firmilillian in his letter to St. Cyprian:

“In this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and evident stupidity of Stephen: that although he glories so much in the place of his bishopric, and contends that he holds the succession of Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church have been laid, he should introduce many other rocks and establish the new building of numerous Churches, since he defends with his authority that Baptism is found in them! There is no doubt that they who are baptized make up the number of the Church. He, however, that approves their Baptism, affirms from the fact of their having been baptized that the Church is also there (6). He that betrays and deserts unity does not realize that the truth of the Christian rock is being obscured by him and, in a certain way, destroyed.”

From: Jurgens, William A. The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 1, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota: 1970. Page 245.

What are your thoughts on this passage?

Also, related to the text are some questions I have.

1. Why does Pope St. Stephen, according to Firmillian, “…[glory] so much in the place of his bishopric…” ?
2. Also why, if I’m not mistaken, does the fact that Pope St. Stephen “…contends that he holds the succession of Peter…”, have any relevance if there is not something unique (or at least claimed that there is something unique) about the Bishop who succeeds St. Peter?

–Nick

 

[wisdomseeker]

You ask me to prove a negative. Hasn’t logic shown that to be an impossible task?

I think that the history of heresies and schisms is an evidence against the concept of papal supremacy and papal infallbility. The fact that Dioscorus of Alexandria, and the whole Alexandrian church after him rejected the Church of Rome as heretical is an evidence against the papal claims. Same with the schism with the EO. Why didn’t all the heretics and schismatics simply submit to the will of Rome as obedient children? And these aren’t individual men, but whole Churches. Somehow the papal claims never reached these churches.

well, lets see we have given you many writings about the claims of the Church of Rome but you reject them all. so i asked you to give us something to show us as to why you dont accept these writings.