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

[excaliber]

So you would expect me to fill pages of quotations just so you could establish that you like the context? Is it really necessary to do so anyway when what they say is obvious as a heart attack within the quote itself? For example, if I read that Hitler says the following:

***"The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness ***
Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer
and this:

***“We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.”***A History of National Socialism by Konrad Heiden

What do you glean from these two quotes? What are Hitler’s thoughts on Catholicism and Islam? You’re a smart guy. What do I see here? A guy who isn’t a fan of organized religion, especially Christianity and Islam. He has turned his national socialism into a religion. Pretty clear cut. Do I need to supply the whole book or pages and pages?

The bottom line is that I hear many Orthodox and a few Protestants complain, “I hate it when people put quotes on here!” yada yada but I have to say from a Catholic point of view I’m tired of hearing “You’re not showing the whole context!” That seems to be the new cheesy way out of dealing with a quote you don’t like. Go back and look at the quotations I posted. Honestly, Andrew. Do they seem to have a grey area? Do they need much more context?

I’d like you to show me the context that I’m keeping out that misleads?

The difference is that hitler was the athority on what hitler thought.

So yes go ahead and quote Jesus Christ giving infalibility to peter and all roman bishops.
You don’t have any…that’s the difference.

But you can quote people who contradict each other…and are not the athority on the matter anyway.

 

[excaliber]

Was there any question moses had the athority over isreal? no God did not leave any doubt.
How about aaron the high priest? Well we know for a fact he had athority from God.
I could go on and on about samuel and david etc…no question of there athority.

Even the profits could perform miracles as proof of there athority from God.

If it wasent important to be able to prove your athority was from God…then why did God make it so obvious when he gave someone athority?

The Pope of Rome is in a whole new ball park. Having a miracle of infalibility…without Christ saying anything a bout it…or it being writen in scripture…or being told this by an angel…we just assume he dose because peter was an outstanding apostle.

I just don’t understand it, 9 pages and no solid proof of infalibility…but all Christians must believe it as part of the faith because some men say so…not even one council of all churches vouched for the Roman bishop having this charism.

And some how this news of how it always was sliped the attention of the whole eastern half of christendom.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The difference is that hitler was the athority on what hitler thought.

So yes go ahead and quote Jesus Christ giving infalibility to peter and all roman bishops.
You don’t have any…that’s the difference.

But you can quote people who contradict each other…and are not the athority on the matter anyway.

I have already given you what Jesus said. didnt i?

Jesus promised the HS would lead the Church into all Truth. do you need more than that?

 

[excaliber]

I have already given you what Jesus said. didnt i?

Jesus promised the HS would lead the Church into all Truth. do you need more than that?

Then you and Orthodoxy agree.

Or are you still stating that one man is infalible?

If so, your statement above dose not prove one man to be infalible…it prooves the whole church is infalible…which is what Orthodoxy says.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Then you and Orthodoxy agree.

Or are you still stating that one man is infalible?

If so, your statement above dose not prove one man to be infalible…it prooves the whole church is infalible…which is what Orthodoxy says.

yes, but there is more to it than you know. now that you understand that Church cannot teach error. we can go to the issue of the pope. do you deny that Jesus select St Peter to be first among equals? what does this mean to yuo?

if Jesus all knowing decided to have One Apostle in Charge, who am i to disagree?
the role of the pope is the most misunderstood by many. why? because proud people cannot understand authority today. people have become rebellious toward authority,
specially religious authority. people uses God and His Word to make themselves all authority overthemselves. when the brothers cannot agree on issues the pope is the one to settle the issue. God knows what He is doing. we dont. the EO cannot sit to settle an issue because there is no one to help them. like i said before some of them has come to the pope not too long ago for help to settle issues among them. do you see they have not complete separated themselves from Rome. the Pope has helped them many times including when they were being persecuted by muslims. dont kiddy yourself. they still come to the pope for help. i wish i could find an article that i read long ago written by an Orthodox. calling the orthodox ungratefull children. because they would come to Rome for help and after all was said and done they would forget all about and go on bad mouthing the pope. i dont know if i can still find.

 

[excaliber]

yes, but there is more to it than you know. now that you understand that Church cannot teach error. we can go to the issue of the pope. do you deny that Jesus select St Peter to be first among equals? what does this mean to yuo?

if Jesus all knowing decided to have One Apostle in Charge, who am i to disagree?
the role of the pope is the most misunderstood by many. why? because proud people cannot understand authority today. people have become rebellious toward authority,
specially religious authority. people uses God and His Word to make themselves all authority overthemselves. when the brothers cannot agree on issues the pope is the one to settle the issue. God knows what He is doing. we dont. the EO cannot sit to settle an issue because there is no one to help them. like i said before some of them has come to the pope not too long ago for help to settle issues among them. do you see they have not complete separated themselves from Rome. the Pope has helped them many times including when they were being persecuted by muslims. dont kiddy yourself. they still come to the pope for help. i wish i could find an article that i read long ago written by an Orthodox. calling the orthodox ungratefull children. because they would come to Rome for help and after all was said and done they would forget all about and go on bad mouthing the pope. i dont know if i can still find.

I don’t know that Christ made peter first…I know peter and paul are viewed as great apostles but how would that prove one of them infalible?

Wasent honor given to bishops based on the location of the church?

And wouldent Antioch have a strong argument to posses infalibility if there was such a thing…Peter was there FIRST…didn’t paul actualy get the church started in rome…so it would be paul that started the church in rome. But when peter was marterd, it was the church in antioch that would have been next in line right…

But dosent matter because infalibility has yet to be prooven to belong to only one person.

 

[LionHeart777]

…didn’t paul actualy get the church started in rome…so it would be paul that started the church in rome.

I don’t believe so excaliber, read the beginning of Romans and I believe St. Paul writes to them without having been there yet.

peace

Nick

Also, regarding the infallibility of one man, as Jimmy Akin pointed out in a tract on this site, the Jewish High Priests were granted a certain charism related to prophecy, I believe ending with Caiphas.

 

[excaliber]

I don’t believe so excaliber, read the beginning of Romans and I believe St. Paul writes to them without having been there yet.

peace

Nick

Also, regarding the infallibility of one man, as Jimmy Akin pointed out in a tract on this site, the Jewish High Priests were granted a certain charism related to prophecy, I believe ending with Caiphas.

You are probably right didn’t peter start 3 churches Antioch Rome and one other?

 

[josie_L]

The quartodecimens never were outside the Church. They were never condemned by anyone. They existed till the fourth century in the east and they were in perfect union with the Church.

I don’t think that’s the reality of the situation

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*

Now let’s move on to the next reference:

I can’t speak of the Nestorians because I haven’t seen any references to how the Nestorians were recieved.

They were received into the Church through repentance and repudiation of their heresies (take note of the fact that monophysism was condemned as per ecumenical canon law). And take into account that all groups were treated uniformly, i.e., you do not have the ridiculous inconsistency of rebaptism, chrismation, and/or repentance that Catholics are subjected to when entering into Orthodoxy.

The last word in the legislation of the Universal Church with respect to the reception into Orthodoxy of those coming from heresy or schism is Canon 95 of the 6th Ecumenical Council.

Its first part is a verbatim repetition of Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council and merely adds a note about the need to re-baptize the followers of Paul of Samosata (in this case referring to Canon 19 of the First Ecumenical Council). The second part lists the heresies that arose after the Second Ecumenical Council: Manicheans, Marcionites, and other similar ones, in which almost nothing remained that could be called Christian, and they were to be received through baptism. Nestorians and Monophysites (followers of Eutychus, Dioscoros and Severus) were to be received through repentance and repudiation of their heresies, after which they were to be admitted to Holy Communion.

holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch1.html

And:

I would like to see the actual words of Mark of Ephesus.

Take note of the fact that not even Arians were rebaptized into the Church (and they denied Christ’s divinity) but Catholics today are being rebaptized into Orthodoxy:

"The rite for the reception of Latins into the Orthodox Church was now completely changed. It is known that in accordance with Patriarch Philaret Nikitich’s Conciliar Statute, Latins were re-baptized in Russia. Even though at the time of Patriarch Nikon, upon the insistence of Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, who was then in Moscow, it was twice decreed at the Council that Latins would not be re-baptized in the future, the deeply rooted custom of re-baptizing remained in practice. This is why Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich proposed that the Great Council should discuss and make a decision on this question. The Council fathers carefully reviewed Patriarch Philaret Nikitich’s statute and came to the conclusion that the laws were incorrectly interpreted and applied to the Latins. They then referred to earlier Council statutes whereby it was forbidden

to re-baptize even Arians and Macedonians in the event of their coming into Orthodoxy, and even more so, the fathers said, Latins must not be re-baptized. They referred to the Council of the four Eastern Patriarchs held in Constantinople in 1484, which decreed not to re-baptize Latins upon their coming into Orthodoxy, but only to anoint them with Chrism, and which even composed the actual rite for their reception into the Church. They referred to the wise Mark of Ephesus who, in his epistle addressed to all Orthodox, offers the same teaching and decreed:

‘Latins must not be re-baptized but only after their renunciation of their heresies and confession of sins, be anointed with Chrism and admit them to the Holy Mysteries and in this way bring them into communion with the holy, catholic Eastern Church, in accordance with the sacred canons (Chapter 6)’."[64]

Since 1718 the Spiritual Council [Synod] decreed not to re-baptize Protestants who were baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity.[65] From that time the Russian Church never returned to the re-baptism of Latins, Lutherans, Anglicans and Calvinists. **Later the Russian Church decreed that confirmed Roman Catholics and chrismated Armenians be received by the third rite, i.e., through confession and repudiation of heresy. **
holy-trinity.org/ecclesio…ption-ch2.html

to be continued. . .

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**With the way you expect everything to be explicit in Scripture and with the sola scriptura type rationale you have in your posts, I almost think you’d be better off with Protestantism than Orthodoxy.I don’t remember Jesus ever saying in Scripture: “This is my Body. You will call this the Eucharist and it is my real presence. Not symbolic or pneumatic but tangiable presence.” The Church has taken the tradition and what little there is of Scripture and has preserved the doctrine of the Eucharist. We don’t see a radical devotion to icons and all the mysticism surrounding that in Scripture. Yet that’s ok. We don’t see in Scripture the St. Basilesque idea that honor or veneration of the icon always passes to its archetype either? We see unleavened bread for the passover not leavened. There is baptism in Scripture yet I fail to see where chrismation is evident. We see that bishops and priests in Scripture may marry yet bishops cannot marry in Orthodoxy. There are many things we don’t see in Scripture and yet, because of holy tradition and development within the Church guided by the Holy Spirit there is nothing wrong with these things. The papacy is no different. No, if you’re looking for a verse where Jesus says, “Peter will be the Pope and he will be infallible,” then you’re right, no dice. He doesn’t say the entire Church is infallible either, which Orthodox believe. He doesn’t mandate that his bishops wear ZZ Top beards or white papal outfits either. I take the many cases of obvious papal leadership and the final authority that the Holy Father obviously has in case after case throughout early Church history, Matthew 16 and its obvious context and exclusivity, Christ’s admonition to Peter regarding His sheep, the leadership Peter had throughout Acts, how all “fell silent” at Peter’s declarations, and the myriad of quotations (that Orthodox like to ignore in here) that point to Peter being the “source of unity” for the Church and “the Chair” and the final say in all things ecclesiastical and moral. It’s not said in one convenient Bible verse.

What I will say is that the Roman Church behaved horribly with that 1054 schism. The excommunication was absurd, the sacking of Constantinople was disgusting, the theft of many Orthodox Eastern treasures was appauling, and the diocesan appointment of Latin bishops in Greek areas was inappropriate. I think Rome handled things poorly on many occasions and I think there have been some bad popes. I thank God for John Paul II being my pope and then Benedict XVI being my pope now. The twentieth and twenty-first centuries have had some good ones. But their impeccability isn’t the issue because they’re not impeccable. They’re infallible.**

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**In my opinion and analysis of history I see several reasons for the divorce between East and West. For one thing the emperor got too much ecclesiastical power after the West fell to barbarianism in 476 AD. There were several issues between Constantinople and the emperor. When Emperor Constantius appointed an Arian heretic (because Constantius II was a semi-Arian himself) it’s funny how Pope Julian is the one who excommunicated the patriarch that Constantius II installed! Don’t you find that powerful evidence that the Pope could overstep a jurisdiction and act unilaterally? It wasn’t until Chrysostome that the schismatic state of Constantinople was ended. I find that interesting.

During the Great Schism’s build up we see a corrupt opportunist as Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius. He carried a lot of baggage and is fascinating to read about. He was a pope-hater like Photius. He took advantage of Pope Leo’s capture by the Normans and did nothing to help. It was during this time that Bishop Leo of Okhirada, a Byzantine bishop in Bulgaria wrote this nasty and inflammatory letter to the Holy Father and all Latin bishops denouncing the use of unleavened bread in the Mass calling Latin liturgical practices “Judaistic.” He told the Pope, “straighten yourself out! Correct your errors! Abandon unleavened bread and observance of the Sabbath to the Jews, use of meat with blood in it to the pagans and the barbarians, in order to put yourself in accord with us in true Orthodoxy!” There’s nothing like getting an absurd command like that from an obscure Eastern bishop when you’re sick and captured by Normans! We all know what happened with Cardinal Humbert and how the schism ensued, sadly. But my point is that tensions ran high, the Orthodox did little to support the Pope when he needed aid, and Cerularius used the situation opportunistically, politically. The Orthodox characterization I hear all the time of the Pope being a brother in Christ, an equal, not infallible, but a brother, doesn’t seem apparent here. It seems like a chance to kick him while he’s down. And Humbert’s disgusting use of a pseudo-excommunication was obviously not valid as it wasn’t signed by a pope and the pope was dead anyway. Sad that the Orthodox couldn’t have looked at the source, the stupidity of the situation, the futility of it and not doing a tit-for-tat, ‘oh yeah, well two can play at this excommunication game’ mentality. This 1054 divorce occured thanks to a rogue in Humbert and an inept patriarch in Cerularius. Much of the hate between East and West was prejudices about using Latin or Greek in liturgy, leaven or unleavened, bad feelings about boundaries and what happened in Constantinople after the crusades, etc. and political egos! And while the pope’s away the cat will play…that’s my take.

In the 720’s AD it was the Byzantine Emperor who started a campaign of iconoclasm. An Orthodox Emperor leading the charge against icons! Pope Gregory III led the charge against iconoclasm and formally condemned it! He sent a letter to Constantinople saying as much. I have the full letter in front of me here that Gregory wrote to Leo. It’s powerful! A Latin Pope doing a theological smackdown on an Emperor in the East. The defender and champion of the icons, the pope. And in the 780’s it was Pope Hadrian who conversed with the Empress Mother and Regent, Irene, trying to restore the images in another iconoclasm fiasco. Always those popes sticking up the icons!

Honestly, Excalibur, you seem totally sold on Orthodoxy. I think it’s time you go meet with an Orthodox priest or bishop and plan on some chrismation in your future. You sound like you’ve deep sixed your Catholic faith, I’m sad to say. You seem sold so no need for more debate. You’re not going to convince any of us any more than we seem able to convince you.**

Was there any question moses had the athority over isreal? no God did not leave any doubt.
How about aaron the high priest? Well we know for a fact he had athority from God.
I could go on and on about samuel and david etc…no question of there athority.

Even the profits could perform miracles as proof of there athority from God.

If it wasent important to be able to prove your athority was from God…then why did God make it so obvious when he gave someone athority?

The Pope of Rome is in a whole new ball park. Having a miracle of infalibility…without Christ saying anything a bout it…or it being writen in scripture…or being told this by an angel…we just assume he dose because peter was an outstanding apostle.

I just don’t understand it, 9 pages and no solid proof of infalibility…but all Christians must believe it as part of the faith because some men say so…not even one council of all churches vouched for the Roman bishop having this charism.

And some how this news of how it always was sliped the attention of the whole eastern half of christendom.

 

[josie_L]

Was there any question moses had the athority over isreal? no God did not leave any doubt.
How about aaron the high priest? Well we know for a fact he had athority from God.
I could go on and on about samuel and david etc…no question of there athority.

Even the profits could perform miracles as proof of there athority from God.

If it wasent important to be able to prove your athority was from God…then why did God make it so obvious when he gave someone athority?

The Pope of Rome is in a whole new ball park. Having a miracle of infalibility…without Christ saying anything a bout it…or it being writen in scripture…or being told this by an angel…we just assume he dose because peter was an outstanding apostle.

I just don’t understand it, 9 pages and no solid proof of infalibility…but all Christians must believe it as part of the faith because some men say so…not even one council of all churches vouched for the Roman bishop having this charism.

And some how this news of how it always was sliped the attention of the whole eastern half of christendom.

Name me one bishop of Rome in the first millenia that taught and championed heresy (i.e., bound the peoples to heresy through a council) before the schism of East from West?

Edit: Ecumenical councils spoke of the primacy of Rome but since councils spoke only of those doctrines contested by heretics I don’t see how papal infallibility would come up (although now that the Orthodox are free to hold an ecumenical council then I see no reason why they shouldn’t denounce papal infallibility as heresy, i.e., they have not formally addressed this heresy as the pre-millenium Church did). Also, church fathers spoke quite frequently of Rome’s spotless and (and sometimes they used the word “infallible”) pristine record of Orthodoxy.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You quote to me where bishops are forbidden to marry and priests can, where unleavened bread is forbidden (even though Jesus used it!), where the theology of icons “not made by hands” exist in Scripture, show me where Peter is not in charge, show me why the Filioque is explicitely forbidden and is evil in Scripture, show me a place where Peter makes a final declaration and is declared wrong by the other apostles, show me where chrismation existed in the Scriptures, etc. The fact is that not all theological beliefs by Mother Church, East and West, are explicit in Scripture. You’re applying a Protestant mentality to prove Orthodoxy? I have never seen that approach? All I can say is this, Peter is set apart. When Jesus gives him the keys and the commision, it is unique and in different context. When Christ asks Peter, "do you love me more than these (the other apostles) He takes Peter aside and gives him the commision again to feed his sheep. Funny how Peter is always pulled away and given unique leadership roles and commissions!? But I won’t just look for some Scriptural precise declaration, I’ll look at scripture and history holistically as well as what the Fathers and even the East said until tensions flared, politics ensued, barbarians came, and times changed.

So yes go ahead and quote Jesus Christ giving infalibility to peter and all roman bishops.
You don’t have any…that’s the difference.

But you can quote people who contradict each other…and are not the athority on the matter anyway.

 

[searn77]

So you would expect me to fill pages of quotations just so you could establish that you like the context? Is it really necessary to do so anyway when what they say is obvious as a heart attack within the quote itself? For example, if I read that Hitler says the following:

***"The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness ***
Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer
and this:

***“We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.”***A History of National Socialism by Konrad Heiden

What do you glean from these two quotes? What are Hitler’s thoughts on Catholicism and Islam? You’re a smart guy. What do I see here? A guy who isn’t a fan of organized religion, especially Christianity and Islam. He has turned his national socialism into a religion. Pretty clear cut. Do I need to supply the whole book or pages and pages?

The bottom line is that I hear many Orthodox and a few Protestants complain, “I hate it when people put quotes on here!” yada yada but I have to say from a Catholic point of view I’m tired of hearing “You’re not showing the whole context!” That seems to be the new cheesy way out of dealing with a quote you don’t like. Go back and look at the quotations I posted. Honestly, Andrew. Do they seem to have a grey area? Do they need much more context?

I’d like you to show me the context that I’m keeping out that misleads?

Just as a side note, here are some examples of quotes getting taken out of context:
the-highway.com/Matt16.18_Webster.html
The article is about early church fathers view of the rock of Matthew 16:18.

Regardless of what you think of the article, there is a point to be made. The author reads the quotes of the fathers and still understands them in a different way than other Catholic apologists understands them, or at least in a different way than what the author says the other Catholic apologists understands them.

I’m just trying to prove a point that there are two different views on the papacy that have derived from the same quotes of the same church fathers.

And my main problem about the whole “quoting church fathers” thing is that I have seen numerous threads arguing for and against the present Catholic view on the papacy by quoting early church fathers. Then there’s someone who counter-quotes the last quote of the early church father to prove his view. Then there’s a counter-quote to that. And out of what seems to be 100s of threads I’ve seen that tried to argue for or against the Catholic view of the papacy using quotes from church fathers, I have never found anyone (including myself) that has been convinced of the other person’s interpretation of the father. I have just never seen it.

And I personally don’t care to try and show the correct context of any quote from the early church fathers that I have seen in any threads because 1) I probably don’t know the context, 2) I don’t think it’ll do any good at all and 3) I don’t want to deal with it.

But to answer your questions, Yes, I do believe the quotes have a grey area and Yes, I do think they need to show more context. I can read different quotes out of context from the entire bible to think that all one needs is faith and not works. Or maybe I’ll read other quotes and come to the conclusion that one needs works and not faith. But if you read the quotes dealing with these topics in light of the other scriptures and church tradition, you’ll come up with the correct view on this topic.

But with this topic, it seems to be 2 different church traditions so it’s not an easy answer to come across.

Anyway, there’s my rant on the subject of context

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This short article was written by Fr. Ray Ryland some years back about the Orthodox view of Catholicism. I think it’s great…

"**About A.D. 96, for example, in the pontificate of Clement I, a faction in the Church in Corinth created a schism by ousting some bishops and presbyters. Pope Clement wrote a strongly worded letter to that church. He begins his letter apologizing for his delay “in giving our attention to the subjects of dispute in your community.” Vigorous persecution under Nero and Domitian had prevented the Church at Rome from intervening earlier.

Clement immediately addresses the perpetrators of the schism, calling their action “that execrable and godless schism so utterly foreign to the elect of God.” He reproves them for presuming to assert authority over successors of the apostles. Their action, he says, is “no small sin.” He does not ask for more details in order to make his judgment. He simply passes judgment on the schismatics and orders them to submit to their pastors.

In what one author has called “the epiphany of the Roman primacy,” Clement commands the schismatics to be “obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit.” He warns them, “But should any disobey what has been said by him [Christ] through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger.”

Clement hardly could assert more strongly his assurance that the Holy Spirit is speaking through him and therefore that he speaks with the voice of Christ. He concludes by saying he has sent three legates to Corinth to investigate. From other sources we know the schism was healed by Clement’s action.

Had the Church at Corinth appealed to Clement to settle the schism? Clement’s apology for the delay in intervening suggests it had. The Corinthians were not simply seeking help from some authoritative person. Were that true, they could have appealed to the apostle John, still living and in a city (Ephesus) much closer to Corinth than was Rome. No, they appealed to the successor of Peter. At the end of the first century, Rome’s authority and responsibility for settling such matters was already recognized.

No local church could exercise authority over another local church? The Corinthians never heard of this notion. They held Clement’s letter in almost as high esteem as they did sacred Scripture. Eusebius tells us that 70 years after Clement sent his letter, the Church at Corinth was still reading aloud from it every Sunday during the liturgy.

Petrine authority was not a papal invention to impose a theological straitjacket on the unsuspecting East. No, that authority was always a lifeline to the truth. Again and again by that lifeline Easterners were rescued from the Frankensteinian heresies they created but could not overcome."**

 

[josie_L]

**

What I will say is that the Roman Church behaved horribly with that 1054 schism. The excommunication was absurd, the sacking of Constantinople was disgusting, the theft of many Orthodox Eastern treasures was appauling, and the diocesan appointment of Latin bishops in Greek areas was inappropriate. I think Rome handled things poorly on many occasions and I think there have been some bad popes. I thank God for John Paul II being my pope and then Benedict XVI being my pope now. The twentieth and twenty-first centuries have had some good ones. But their impeccability isn’t the issue because they’re not impeccable. They’re infallible.**

But it was no different than the horrible way in which Michael Cerularius had the consecrated unleavened hosts thrown out of a Latin church to be desecrated, i.e., trampled upon (which I believe was the reason that the prelates acted so angrily and rashly).

The Crusades began in the 1090’s, which was 40 years after the Orthodox desecrated the latin Eucharist and holy books (because they were in Latin rather than Greek). The Byzantine patriarch attacked the Latin churches in Constantinople - Latin-speaking churches which existed since the time of Constantine; and he declared that their Eucharist was invalid because the Romans use unleven (rather than leven) bread – something that the Western Church (along with the Armenian Church) had always done since the time of the Apostles (Jesus Himself used unleven bread at the Last Supper, since it was a Passover feast and there would not have been any leven bread in Jerusalem at the time). But, the Eastern Patriarch Cerularius tried to force the Byzantine rite on the Romans living in the Eastern Empire. So, he took armed soldier into the Latin churches in Constantinople, and had them open the Tabernacles and throw the consecreated Eucharist in the streets. This is a historical fact. It is discussed by both Kallistos Ware and by Meyendorff in their books. And this is why Rome (a church which continued to permit and encourage Byzantine worship in its own city) served Cerularius with a bull of excommunication in 1054. Cerularius did this because the Franks who were vassals of the Roman Empire were gaining political power in the Balkans and so the Emperor and Patriarch wanted to brand them as heretics and thus reject their authority in the Balkans.

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/1054_orthodox_catholic_split.htm

Secondly, I second the motion that the sacking of Constantinople was disgusting but it may have been in response to the massacre of the Latins in 1182 which was just as savage (possibly more so since many more were supposedly killed and 4000 others were sold into slavery).

Horrible and utterly indefensible as the sack [of 1204] was, it should in justice be remembered that it was not totally unprovoked; more than once (as in the massacre of 1182) the Greeks of Constantinople had treated the Latins there as they were now being treated . . . Historians who wax eloquent and indignant - with considerable reason - about the sack of Constantinople . . . rarely if ever mention the massacre of the Westerners in Constantinople in 1182 (only 22 years before) . . . a nightmarish massacre of thousands [about 2000 Greeks were killed in Constantinople in 1204, according to secular historian Will Durant], . . . in which the slaughterers spared neither women nor children, neither old nor sick, neither priest nor monk. Cardinal John, the Pope’s representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog; children were cut out of their mother’s wombs; bodies of dead Westerners were exhumed and abused; some 4,000who escaped death were sold into slavery to the Turks. {Carroll, ibid., pp. 157, 131}

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/crusade_sacking_constantinopole.htm

That eastern treasures were taken was due to the fact that crusaders were promised a monetary reward for their efforts in bringing Alexius (the legitimate emperor to the throne whose father was blinded by his uncle, the usurper) back on the throne, however, he failed to live up to these promises (supposedly the coffers were empty but apparently they were not).

Edit: I’m not excusing their behaviour just adding context to the situation.

p.s. Here is a article you might be interested in reading: davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/crusade_sacking_constantinopole.htm

God bless Scott.

 

[excaliber]

**In my opinion and analysis of history I see several reasons for the divorce between East and West. For one thing the emperor got too much ecclesiastical power after the West fell to barbarianism in 476 AD. There were several issues between Constantinople and the emperor. When Emperor Constantius appointed an Arian heretic (because Constantius II was a semi-Arian himself) it’s funny how Pope Julian is the one who excommunicated the patriarch that Constantius II installed! Don’t you find that powerful evidence that the Pope could overstep a jurisdiction and act unilaterally? It wasn’t until Chrysostome that the schismatic state of Constantinople was ended. I find that interesting.

During the Great Schism’s build up we see a corrupt opportunist as Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius. He carried a lot of baggage and is fascinating to read about. He was a pope-hater like Photius. He took advantage of Pope Leo’s capture by the Normans and did nothing to help. It was during this time that Bishop Leo of Okhirada, a Byzantine bishop in Bulgaria wrote this nasty and inflammatory letter to the Holy Father and all Latin bishops denouncing the use of unleavened bread in the Mass calling Latin liturgical practices “Judaistic.” He told the Pope, “straighten yourself out! Correct your errors! Abandon unleavened bread and observance of the Sabbath to the Jews, use of meat with blood in it to the pagans and the barbarians, in order to put yourself in accord with us in true Orthodoxy!” There’s nothing like getting an absurd command like that from an obscure Eastern bishop when you’re sick and captured by Normans! We all know what happened with Cardinal Humbert and how the schism ensued, sadly. But my point is that tensions ran high, the Orthodox did little to support the Pope when he needed aid, and Cerularius used the situation opportunistically, politically. The Orthodox characterization I hear all the time of the Pope being a brother in Christ, an equal, not infallible, but a brother, doesn’t seem apparent here. It seems like a chance to kick him while he’s down. And Humbert’s disgusting use of a pseudo-excommunication was obviously not valid as it wasn’t signed by a pope and the pope was dead anyway. Sad that the Orthodox couldn’t have looked at the source, the stupidity of the situation, the futility of it and not doing a tit-for-tat, ‘oh yeah, well two can play at this excommunication game’ mentality. This 1054 divorce occured thanks to a rogue in Humbert and an inept patriarch in Cerularius. Much of the hate between East and West was prejudices about using Latin or Greek in liturgy, leaven or unleavened, bad feelings about boundaries and what happened in Constantinople after the crusades, etc. and political egos! And while the pope’s away the cat will play…that’s my take.

In the 720’s AD it was the Byzantine Emperor who started a campaign of iconoclasm. An Orthodox Emperor leading the charge against icons! Pope Gregory III led the charge against iconoclasm and formally condemned it! He sent a letter to Constantinople saying as much. I have the full letter in front of me here that Gregory wrote to Leo. It’s powerful! A Latin Pope doing a theological smackdown on an Emperor in the East. The defender and champion of the icons, the pope. And in the 780’s it was Pope Hadrian who conversed with the Empress Mother and Regent, Irene, trying to restore the images in another iconoclasm fiasco. Always those popes sticking up the icons!

Honestly, Excalibur, you seem totally sold on Orthodoxy. I think it’s time you go meet with an Orthodox priest or bishop and plan on some chrismation in your future. You sound like you’ve deep sixed your Catholic faith, I’m sad to say. You seem sold so no need for more debate. You’re not going to convince any of us any more than we seem able to convince you.**

Stop trying to make it seem like I am being unreasonable,or that my mind was made up before the thread. It took a lot for me to leave the Jehovahs witnesses…lots of study and solid proofs. There is no one here that couldn’t provide proof for any protestant that The Catholic Church has apostolic athority…or that the Eucharist is what Jesus said it was…
So why is it that papal infalibility has to be understood without the same evidence that you can give for ANY major teaching?

EVERY major teaching has got strong evidence…not contradicting quotes and a lot of assumptions. Dose it make me a sola scriptura because I need some testimony to offset the testimony of the Eastern Orthodox who are just as old?

 

[excaliber]

Ok we have gone 10 pages, let me sum up what we have got so far.
LET ME KNOW IF I MISSED ANYTHING…OR IF I AM NOT BEING REASONABLE.

Scripture= there is no scripture that directly states anything about PAPAL infalibility, however there are scriptures that state its imposible for the whole Church to fall intio herasy. All we have to show us exactly HOW The Church is infalible is a Council held in the book of Acts which has the bishops coming to an agreement, it says nothing of one oppinion being over all others…it says nothing of there need for one particular person to ok the decision to make the council valid…diferent bible translations say diferent things as to when the assembly fell silent when people were speaking.

We have Jesus talking about building his Church on the rock, Jesus did not say exactly what that rock was but we have only 2 possible conclusions. The rock could be st.peter himself, if that was the case that WOULD make him the leader, and we could possible assume that some level of infalibility would automaticaly come with that…and any leader can chosse his succesor.

OR we can listen to the Orthodox side, and look at the whole context st.peter had just confesed Christ to be The Son Of God…so st.peters confesion, which was the whole topic of discusion at the time could have been the rock. Which would mean then that Jesus Christ is the rock on which The Church is built not any man. There are also a number of other scriptures that say God is a rock.

We have the scripture about the keys of the kingdom, the only problem is that it could mean
Anything. Dose it make him first among equals, do all apostles have the same keys?
Do all bishops have a share in the keys? Do they mean that The Church would be run like an earthly government? Christ said that the rulers of the nations lord it over eachother,but he said it would not be that way with them and he said they were all brothers…dose that mean they were all equal? I don’t know I still have to find out? This seems to be the Roman Catholics strongest position.

Quotes= both east and west can hurl quotes at eachother till the cows come home, but we never get anywhere.

Tradition= West says its part of tradition…East says its not…another tie.

To be blunt, I would truly join both churches…but its the churches themselves that won’t let me…so its not my fault I’m put in this confusing situation now is it?

 

[Stephen168]

. And RCIA is a mess, and you know you have a problem when people come out of RCIA not knowing anything…

It appears in your case that is true.

In my son-in-laws case it was not.

 

[LionHeart777]

excaliber,

I can relate to your East/West crossroads. I was coming from an Evangelical Theologocal point of view when I was at that crossroads. I would just pray and seek God and study of the issues is beneficial but don’t drive yourself “crazy” in the process. I believe that I’m heading where God wants me to be by entering the (lung of) the Church that is in communion with the successor of St. Peter; but I’m not infallible. It is a leap of faith. For me there is evidence of the Papacy outside of Scripture; albeit circumstantial. There is also evidence in Scripture IMO but not everyone takes those passages the same way: only the Catholic Church (including all different Rites I believe.) As I had stated, if it was a power grab than it was arguably an early one in my mind. Please just think long and hard before you break communion with Rome. Definately seek pastoral advice as I am not your pastor. Also, perhaps you might consider conversation with Eastern Catholics?

Also a couple of things:

1. re: St. Peter being the rock or his confession being the rock- I think that at least some Catholics view this as a “both/and” rather than an “either/or.”
2. re: St. Peter in Antioch. I believe he was a Bishop there, I can’t say whether he started it or not? I don’t know? But I would say that, at least in my admittedly limited reading of the ECF’s (in comparison to others), I don’t see the Bishop of Antioch acting as the Bishop of Rome did- I would say unilaterally in sees that aren’t his- if I’m not mistaken. I had the same ? about Peter and Antioch when I was at the East/West split. Unfortunately, it is a reality- that there is a schism

P.S. The courage and obedience I believe you displayed in your decision to leave the JW’s is admirable and commendable.

May God bless and guide you!