W
Orthodoxy makes the most sence. protestantism is just man made division. the question is latin or eastern Church?
- Status
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Just like you would ask a protestant to provide evidence of sola scriptura. We both know the idea is there with a little imagination. But they can’t directly provide scripture for it because it dosent exist…its just an idea that sounds good.
So I am forced to treat infalability the same as the idea of sola scriptura. Unless there is evidence to show that infalability was taught from peters time till today.
and i ask again. what kind of proof would do for you? what is it that you want to see in the Bible?
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
**Hi Excalibur,
Cool name by the way! Yes, the Eastern Orthodox did have their own certificates of forgiveness that in my opinion are similar to indulgences. I’m not saying Wikipedia is the number one source of all time but I like it for some things. Read the following link because it’s user-friendly…**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences#Eastern_Orthodox_Church
excaliber:
I wrote about problems in the Roman Catholic Church because problems were mentioned about Orthodoxy. You said Orthodox have letters of forgiveness as a teaching? Do you have evidence? I thought this was a problem in the west.
**Arianism was one heresy from a lengthy list of heretical nonsense that the papacy led the charge against. And in modernity, which church would you say has the loudest and most clear voice against
gay ‘marriage’
unjust wars
abortion/sanctity of life
euthanasia
the culture of death
divorce/remarriage
communism
trial marriages/cohabitation
pre-marital sex
**Would you say the Eastern Orthodox have led the charge in these issues? Would you say it’s the primates of Orthodoxy, the metropolitans and bishops and priests in Orthodoxy that brought down the Soviets in Poland? Was it Orthodoxy that has led the fight against Roe v Wade in the U.S.? Or how about charity? Which church has sought to truly spread the faith worldwide and make the church truly “catholic” as the Fathers called it? How about Catholic Charities and the amazing job they’ve done in cataclysms like Haiti? Pretty tough to be the Catholics in being catholic and missionary, holy, on the side of God, and against the devil in my opinion. The Orthodox bishops are not united but spread out and autocephalous which has its downsides. The Pope and Magisterium are a powerful warrior against modern heresy. ****
Arianism was a problem, but it dosent proove papal infalability.
You see I have Orthodox telling me that papal infalability developed later in the west… And here I have no solid biblical evidence that showes anything other then what they are saying.
I’ll address this momentarily
Cool name by the way! Yes, the Eastern Orthodox did have their own certificates of forgiveness that in my opinion are similar to indulgences. I’m not saying Wikipedia is the number one source of all time but I like it for some things. Read the following link because it’s user-friendly…**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences#Eastern_Orthodox_Church
I wrote about problems in the Roman Catholic Church because problems were mentioned about Orthodoxy. You said Orthodox have letters of forgiveness as a teaching? Do you have evidence? I thought this was a problem in the west.
**Arianism was one heresy from a lengthy list of heretical nonsense that the papacy led the charge against. And in modernity, which church would you say has the loudest and most clear voice against
gay ‘marriage’
unjust wars
abortion/sanctity of life
euthanasia
the culture of death
divorce/remarriage
communism
trial marriages/cohabitation
pre-marital sex
**Would you say the Eastern Orthodox have led the charge in these issues? Would you say it’s the primates of Orthodoxy, the metropolitans and bishops and priests in Orthodoxy that brought down the Soviets in Poland? Was it Orthodoxy that has led the fight against Roe v Wade in the U.S.? Or how about charity? Which church has sought to truly spread the faith worldwide and make the church truly “catholic” as the Fathers called it? How about Catholic Charities and the amazing job they’ve done in cataclysms like Haiti? Pretty tough to be the Catholics in being catholic and missionary, holy, on the side of God, and against the devil in my opinion. The Orthodox bishops are not united but spread out and autocephalous which has its downsides. The Pope and Magisterium are a powerful warrior against modern heresy. ****
Arianism was a problem, but it dosent proove papal infalability.
You see I have Orthodox telling me that papal infalability developed later in the west… And here I have no solid biblical evidence that showes anything other then what they are saying.
I’ll address this momentarily
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Not sure if that kind comment was addressed to me or Gabriel or both but thanks in any case, Anna! 
E
excaliber
Guest
H
Harpazo
Guest
Glory to Jesus Christ!
If you are interested in dialogging about Orthodoxy or have sincere questions, I would suggest visiting an Orthodox forum. Sadly, you’ll find much misinformation about Orthodoxy here from well-meaning Catholics. I don’t think this is the place for you to get an accurate representation from Orthodoxy. I guarantee most, if not all of these people have set foot in an Orthodox church for Divine Services or read Orthodox books. I wish you the best on your journey. Feel free to PM any time.
In Christ,
Andrew
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Excalibur, I ask you to chew on these quotes for a minute or two. Look at the source of these comments, great men of the Early Church. And ask if you can glean infallibility from them. God bless you
"T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
–Tertullian
Note that the gift of the keys, in Tertullian’s mind, is not to the entire Church but to Peter!!
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon Peter, who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Clement 221 AD
Now I know you know the importance and prominence of a great man like Clement. He’s an Early Father par excellance and look at what he says of Peter. “Sure foundation of his doctrine!” How can Clement say that Peter had a sure foundation of doctrine if he’s open to error and heresy himself (Peter)?
And the Anglicans and Orthodox will frequently use Cyprian as an example of someone who fenced with the Pope (Stephen) and supposedly didn’t buy into infalliblity, but this quote gives me pause in that argument:…and although he [Jesus] assigns a like power to all the apostles, **yet he founded a single chair **[cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.
Or look at what Origen had to say:
…a great difference and a preeminence in the things Jesus said to Peter, compared with the second class of apostles. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
—Origen
This conciliar statement always struck me as well:
"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Council of Ephesus, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
. . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love**, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
–Ignatius of Antioch*
"T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
–Tertullian
Note that the gift of the keys, in Tertullian’s mind, is not to the entire Church but to Peter!!
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon Peter, who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Clement 221 AD
Now I know you know the importance and prominence of a great man like Clement. He’s an Early Father par excellance and look at what he says of Peter. “Sure foundation of his doctrine!” How can Clement say that Peter had a sure foundation of doctrine if he’s open to error and heresy himself (Peter)?
And the Anglicans and Orthodox will frequently use Cyprian as an example of someone who fenced with the Pope (Stephen) and supposedly didn’t buy into infalliblity, but this quote gives me pause in that argument:…and although he [Jesus] assigns a like power to all the apostles, **yet he founded a single chair **[cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.
Or look at what Origen had to say:
…a great difference and a preeminence in the things Jesus said to Peter, compared with the second class of apostles. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
—Origen
This conciliar statement always struck me as well:
"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Council of Ephesus, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
. . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love**, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
–Ignatius of Antioch*
E
excaliber
Guest
I’ll address this momentarily
I wish I could go by what you say…but its a circular argumant that would never end…
People that live where Orthodox are the majority could argue that they have more influence
In there lands. Also Roman Catholics have the most charities because they are by far the largest richest Christian group…this dose not mean Orthodox are not duing charity work…or making a stand against immorality.
That is the basic…we are the true church because we are most dominant argument. But Orthodox would simply say that it was the sword that spread catholosism.
None of this proofs Papal infalability.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
These are compelling as well and I highly suggest you read them, the context, and look at the author! The Orthodox idea that the pope was a humble servant-turned dictator who invented infallibility for his own gains and maniachal lust for power doesn’t seem consistent with my forementioned quotes or these here…
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
–Irenaeus (the great ECF)
**Can you get over that last part, the Roman Church with whom “all must agree!!” Sounds pretty infallible to me! **
“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).
**–Cyprian **
Can you get over that? "Sacerdotal (priestly) unity has its SOURCE in Peter’s chair?! Compelling argument that he was and is infallible. If Peter’s Chair is the source of unity, then by breaking from it obviously Orthodoxy has lost its unity and is the lost sheep, not the Catholic Church
“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
**–Optatus of Milevus **
Again, it’s amazing how the “unity maintained by all” is with “the Chair in which Peter sat!” Again I submit it is the loss of unity with Peter that causes bishops to be out of step with unity in the Church. The Orthodox broke from Peter, the true source of unity according to Optatus, Ireneus, Cyprian, Origen, and the rest. So who is out of unity and who remains the Church?
Think long and hard before feeling like you’re in a cult by being a Catholic. Think long and hard about walking away from Peter’s Chair, the principle place of unity, the Rock hewn and established by the Lord. Thing whether you want to walk away from this 2,000 year old glorious institution that is the only true, LOUD, proud voice against the modern heresies of relativism, abortion, the culture of death, idolatry, scientifically unethical practices, the same Church whose pope helped topple communism. I have walked away from her and the emptiness in my heart because of my hardened heart was miserable. I walked the Stations of the Cross last night with my wife and children. Those Stations are so blessed, I cannot imagine walking away from them or Peter! God bless you, Excalibur, think long and hard, pray and I seriously suggest you read Warren Carroll’s book “The Building of Christendom” before you bail. Give it a chance, give Peter’s Chair a chance. Quo Vadis??
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
–Irenaeus (the great ECF)
**Can you get over that last part, the Roman Church with whom “all must agree!!” Sounds pretty infallible to me! **
“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).
**–Cyprian **
Can you get over that? "Sacerdotal (priestly) unity has its SOURCE in Peter’s chair?! Compelling argument that he was and is infallible. If Peter’s Chair is the source of unity, then by breaking from it obviously Orthodoxy has lost its unity and is the lost sheep, not the Catholic Church
“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
**–Optatus of Milevus **
Again, it’s amazing how the “unity maintained by all” is with “the Chair in which Peter sat!” Again I submit it is the loss of unity with Peter that causes bishops to be out of step with unity in the Church. The Orthodox broke from Peter, the true source of unity according to Optatus, Ireneus, Cyprian, Origen, and the rest. So who is out of unity and who remains the Church?
Think long and hard before feeling like you’re in a cult by being a Catholic. Think long and hard about walking away from Peter’s Chair, the principle place of unity, the Rock hewn and established by the Lord. Thing whether you want to walk away from this 2,000 year old glorious institution that is the only true, LOUD, proud voice against the modern heresies of relativism, abortion, the culture of death, idolatry, scientifically unethical practices, the same Church whose pope helped topple communism. I have walked away from her and the emptiness in my heart because of my hardened heart was miserable. I walked the Stations of the Cross last night with my wife and children. Those Stations are so blessed, I cannot imagine walking away from them or Peter! God bless you, Excalibur, think long and hard, pray and I seriously suggest you read Warren Carroll’s book “The Building of Christendom” before you bail. Give it a chance, give Peter’s Chair a chance. Quo Vadis??
H
Harpazo
Guest
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
And did you bother to carefully read, one by one, the quotes I posted before this one? Can you seriously say they don’t point toward Papal infallibility, really?
People that live where Orthodox are the majority could argue that they have more influence
In there lands. Also Roman Catholics have the most charities because they are by far the largest richest Christian group…this dose not mean Orthodox are not duing charity work…or making a stand against immorality.
That is the basic…we are the true church because we are most dominant argument. But Orthodox would simply say that it was the sword that spread catholosism.
Try thinking the other way. The popes were able to convert their conquerers! The barbarians were converted NOT by the sword but by the Catholic Church. The Church did spread by the sword but not always directly. Men like Clovis and Charlemagne were politicians, right? They converted many by the sword but would you have preferred they remain worshippers of Odin and Thor and continued to celebrate Samhain and sacrifice the blood of children? Would you have preferred they continue to be druids and barbaric pagans? Orthodoxy didn’t convert the Communists. Catholics were able to convert their conquerers. Ironically Pope John Paul II did more to end communism than any Orthodox person did.
None of this proofs Papal infalability.
Come on Excalibur, let’s work on that spelling!
I wish I could go by what you say…but its a circular argumant that would never end…
People that live where Orthodox are the majority could argue that they have more influence
In there lands. Also Roman Catholics have the most charities because they are by far the largest richest Christian group…this dose not mean Orthodox are not duing charity work…or making a stand against immorality.
That is the basic…we are the true church because we are most dominant argument. But Orthodox would simply say that it was the sword that spread catholosism.
Try thinking the other way. The popes were able to convert their conquerers! The barbarians were converted NOT by the sword but by the Catholic Church. The Church did spread by the sword but not always directly. Men like Clovis and Charlemagne were politicians, right? They converted many by the sword but would you have preferred they remain worshippers of Odin and Thor and continued to celebrate Samhain and sacrifice the blood of children? Would you have preferred they continue to be druids and barbaric pagans? Orthodoxy didn’t convert the Communists. Catholics were able to convert their conquerers. Ironically Pope John Paul II did more to end communism than any Orthodox person did.
None of this proofs Papal infalability.
Come on Excalibur, let’s work on that spelling!
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
i agree. this has been discussed here time and time again to no avail. let them decide.
i just wonder how the EO explain what Jesus said to St Peter: feed my lambs, attend my sheep." 3 times. how is St Peter tend God’s sheep today? unless God’s sheep was only in Peter’s time.
J
josie_L
Guest
Once you see that Peter was the person chosen by Jesus to protect and care for the flock in its entirety (John 21:15-19) you will understand that papal infallibility is a necessity, i.e., Christ could not make Peter head of a Church (or say such things as “you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church”) if he was not in possession of certain charisms that would prevent him and his successors from committing the entire church to heretical beliefs. Here is Isaiah 22;22
Just like Eliakim Peter was given the keys to the kingdom in a singular and unique manner (just recall that in Matthew 18:18 when Jesus hands the power of loosing and binding he does so with Peter included in this group, and so either separately or in a group Peter has the power to loose and bind). Moreover, if one looks to Tradition (which gives primacy to Rome, i.e., he is the direct successor of Peter) and church history we see how it is to Rome that orthodox and unorthodox alike seek to affirm their stance/beliefs, i.e., even Eastern fathers confess the orthodoxy of the Church in Rome:
Notice how he uses the words of “open” and “shut” like in Isaiah 22:22 to reference the Church in Rome, i.e., the bishop of Rome. And recollect that Jesus mentioned that there would be a ruler of the household (God’s household is the Church), and according to St. John Chrysostom (as well as others) that ruler was Peter:
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Usually I find such a response when people don’t like what they read in the quotes! Are you suggesting that I’m taking them out of context? And I appreciate your “let’s be honest” admonition. I always strive to be. No one in here will accuse me of lying or being a shrinking violet…
If you feel you can’t convince me, and I can’t convince you, what, and I ask this respectfully trust me (!), is your purpose in coming to CAF? If you don’t have an open mind and are not Catholic you would just want to argue or try and convert Catholics to Orthodoxy? What’s the motivation? Hey, sometimes the cows do come home!
If you feel you can’t convince me, and I can’t convince you, what, and I ask this respectfully trust me (!), is your purpose in coming to CAF? If you don’t have an open mind and are not Catholic you would just want to argue or try and convert Catholics to Orthodoxy? What’s the motivation? Hey, sometimes the cows do come home!
E
excaliber
Guest
You are correct, I have seen it with my own eyes…both Orthodox and Roman Catholics both
Posting quote after endless quote and knowone gets anywhere. Plus aren’t these falible men we end up quoting?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
ok, so if they are all falible, how do you determine the Truth? just how? do we need in infallibility to tell us or we become infallible ourselves and declare we have it right?
i have asked you a few question but got no answer. this usually goes on in here. people say things but when asked question they cannot answer.
J
josie_L
Guest
Fallible men indeed, but you might be interested in reading what St. Vincent of Lerins has to say about finding truth amidst Tradition and the Church fathers in his “Commonitory”, here is an excerpt of it:
Edit: There is not one orthodox father that ever denied Rome had primacy (more than just one of honour if history is to be taken seriously).
E
excaliber
Guest
I tried to answer that we don’t need one infalible man if we don’t change anything.
And handle all major issues in councils just as the early church.
H
Harpazo
Guest
Jews, Muslims and even Atheists can pull quotes from the Bible to support their views and condemn Christians (and often times they do. Just throwing a quote out there to support your position does no one any good. It just shows that you can copy/paste. I find that reading the quote in its proper context, in conjunction with the whole of Tradition does everyone a much greater service.Usually I find such a response when people don’t like what they read in the quotes! Are you suggesting that I’m taking them out of context? And I appreciate your “let’s be honest” admonition. I always strive to be. No one in here will accuse me of lying or being a shrinking violet…
If you feel you can’t convince me, and I can’t convince you, what, and I ask this respectfully trust me (!), is your purpose in coming to CAF? If you don’t have an open mind and are not Catholic you would just want to argue or try and convert Catholics to Orthodoxy? What’s the motivation? Hey, sometimes the cows do come home!
As to why I’m here at CAF, I love to dialogue about Christianity (and other things like politics and society) with people. I’m not here to convert anyone, nor do I want people to try to convert me. A forum is supposed to be a place of discussion, which is what I like about CAF (in spite of certain flaws from other members, excluding yourself).
In Christ,
Andrew
- Status