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

[Mickey]

One more reason to understand the role of ST Peter in teh Church. our Lord seems to have a special interest in St Peter. so, how do you explain that our Lord said to St Peter: feed my Lamb, attend My sheep. 3X.

Our Lord and Saviour had a special interest in all His Apostles. In fact, He has a special interest in all mankind. St Peter has denied Him three times and Our Lord uses this triple affirmation to restore him. Why was St Peter grieved the third time?

Contrary to the apologetics of the schismatic Church of Rome, this verse does not set the stage for a supreme infallible pontiff.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Our Lord and Saviour had a special interest in all His Apostles. In fact, He has a special interest in all mankind. St Peter has denied Him three times and Our Lord uses this triple affirmation to restore him. Why was St Peter grieved the third time?

Contrary to the apologetics of the schismatic Church of Rome, this verse does not set the stage for a supreme infallible pontiff.

Yes sir.

:bowdown::bowdown2:

 

[mackbrislawn]

wisdomseeker;6341721:

In scripture the conclusions of councils were seen as infallible because of Gods guidance…

Yes, we think that it is scriptural that councils are seen as infallible. But why do we think of the pope as infallible? Because of the declaration of a council!

 

[Harpazo]

Yes, we think that it is scriptural that councils are seen as infallible. But why do we think of the pope as infallible? Because of the declaration of a council!

Yes, but if he were truly infallible in regards to faith and morals as your church claims, why didn’t he just make a proclamation? Why did a council do it? Do Catholics believe in conciliarism?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[mackbrislawn]

Yes, but if he were truly infallible in regards to faith and morals as your church claims, why didn’t he just make a proclamation? Why did a council do it? Do Catholics believe in conciliarism?

In Christ,
Andrew

He couldn’t just make a proclamation himself, because that would be circular. Therefore a council is required.
Everyone believes in the infallibility of councils already, that’s a given. Even if the popes were always infallible and most people believed it, to make everyone believe it requires an infallible council.
Of course I was being a little facetious, poking a little fun. Because if someone says they believe in the infallibility of councils, but not in the infallibility of the pope, they then have to admit they don’t believe in the infallibility of councils.
Conciliarism?
It’s true, if I had been a bishop at the council, I most likely would have voted against it.
Of course, it requires an ecumenical council, not just any old council. I suppose Orthodox and Protestants would not consider that council to have been ecumenical.

 

[josie_L]

My friend you are ignorant of Orthodox practice and teaching. The idea of baptizing converts certainly is not “new” and it has been practiced at times by most if not all of the local Churches including the Church of Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

You do practice re-baptism, moreover, you baptize Catholics which according to the council of Constantinople held in 1484 (by all four patriarchs) forbade such actions:

"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

Now take note of the fact that not even Arians and Macedonians were to be re-baptized into Orthodoxy, and yet Catholics in many instances are being re-baptized.

I notice you pulled your source from an Orthodox site condemning ecumenism (oh the irony). Did you take the time to read the patristic and canonical justifications for baptizing converts? I am assuming probably not so here it goes.

No, actually it’s not ironic, in fact, it proves a point I’ve been making and that is the inconsistent views prevailing in different Orthodox autocephalous churches and/or dioceses. And I read only part of the article because being aware of the canons and patristic quotes concerning re-baptism I am well aware of the invalidity of St. Cyprian’s views that all heretics need to be re-baptized because no sacraments outside the Church are grace-filled. That view was condemned by Pope St. Stephen and his tolerant views upheld in the second (canon 7) and sixth council (canon 95). Either way the issue of re-baptism during the early church supports the view that baptisms outside of the Church were recognized and thus valid if in the trinitarian form with water.

 

[josie_L]

Ever wonder why Christ asks three times? St Peter denied Him three times. Christ is restoring St Peter to his apostolic ministry. Also, do a study on the word “love” being used in these verses (Gr).

You will discover why St Peter was grieved when Christ asked him the third time.

St. Peter did not lose his apostolic ministry (otherwise the other apostles with the exception of John would have lost their ministry as well for abandoning Jesus), in fact, Jesus knowing Peter would deny him, still told him to “strengthen the brethren” in Luke 22;32 (the first of two occasions wherein Jesus said this).

Edit: Do a study on the phrase “strenghten the brethren” and “tend” (which in Greek also means “rule”).

 

[josie_L]

The Orthodox Church does not “recognize” the grace of any sacraments performed outside the Church.

Yours in Christ
Joe

The Russian Orthdox Church recognizes our sacraments, moreover, the misapplication of eikonomia is at the root of the issue concerning re-baptism, read this excerpt:

**There have been two promising steps forward resulting from the North American Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogues: **

1. the Eastern Orthodox signatories to a detailed study and “Consultation Statement” on the Filioque (October 25, 2003) are in agreement that the Filioque doctrine (i.e., the affirmation that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son [Filioque]) should no longer be stigmatized as “heretical”;

1. and as a result of the Agreed Statement on “Baptism and ‘Sacramental Economy’” issued by the North American Orthodox Catholic Theological Consultation (June 3, 1999), the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I has been formally asked to withdraw the 1755 [patriarchal] decree denying the validity of Catholic baptisms!

In that “Agreed Statement” the Orthodox signatories joined in clearly repudiating the influential teaching of the Athonite monk Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain whose work, the Pedalion (1783), had reinforced the erroneous doctrine that had spread among many Orthodox that Catholic baptisms were invalid. As the “Agreed Statement” observed:

“In an atmosphere of heightened tension between Orthodoxy and Catholicism following the Melkite Union of 1724, and of intensified proselytism pursued by Catholic missionaries in the Near East and in Hapsburg-ruled Transylvania, the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V issued a decree in 1755 requiring the baptism of Roman Catholics, Armenians, and all others presently outside the visible bounds of the Orthodox Church, when they seek full communion with it. This decree has never been formally rescinded, but subsequent rulings by the Patriarchate of Constantinople (e.g., in 1875, 1880, and 1888) did allow for the recognition of new communicants by chrismation rather than baptism. Nevertheless, these rulings left rebaptism as an option subject to ‘pastoral discretion’. In any case, by the late nineteenth century a comprehensive new sacramental theology had appeared in Greek-speaking Orthodoxy which provided a precise rationale for such pastoral discretion; for the source of this new rationale, we must examine the influential figure of St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (1748-1809).

The Orthodox world owes an immense debt to this Athonite monk, who edited and published the Philokalia (1783), as well as numerous other works of a patristic, pastoral and liturgical nature. In the Pedalion (1800), his enormously influential edition of -and commentary on- canonical texts. Nicodemus gave form and substance to the requirement of rebaptism decreed by Cyril V. Thoroughly in sympathy with the decree of 1755, and moved by his attachment to a perceived golden age in the patristic past, he underscored the antiquity and hence priority of the African Councils and Apostolic Canons, and argued strenuously, in fact, for the first-century provenance of the latter. Nicodemus held up these documents, with their exclusivist ecclesiology, as the universal voice of the ancient Church. In so doing, he systematically reversed what had been the normative practice of the Eastern Church since at least the 4th century… [As a result of Nicodemus’ understanding of ‘sacramental economy’], much of Greek-speaking Orthodoxy [has justified] the rebaptism of Western Christians, or for their reception by chrismation or profession of faith, without in either case attributing to their baptism any reality in its own right”.

Those Orthodox who have denied the validity of baptism in non-Orthodox Churches (whose sacraments outside Eastern Orthodoxy are regarded as devoid of grace) are sharply taken to task in the “Agreed Statement”:

“The Nicodemean interpretation is still promoted in important theological and monastic circles. Although these voices in the Orthodox world are significant ones, we do not believe that they represent the tradition and perennial teaching of the Orthodox Church on the subject of baptism… It is rather an eighteenth century innovation motivated by the particular historical circumstances operative in those times. It is not the teaching of Scripture, of most of the Fathers, or of later Byzantine canonists, nor is it the majority position of the Orthodox churches today”.

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/dialogue.htm

 

[josie_L]

LOL! He was a heretic! Failure to speak against a particular heresy, can be view as supporting said heresy. Hence, teaching heresy.

Papal infallibility entails that he teach authoritatively which Honorius did not do, in fact, I think this applies best to your statement:

But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, "To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine."

 

[excaliber]

I have made several conclusions.

1. I am very confused.
2. It is not my fault. There are 3 Catholic Churches!! Christ directly said we should be one, did he not?

There are many ways to solve problems, but breaking comunion is was not an option. But because bishops charged to care for the flock broke comunion anyway…we have 3 large flocks of sheep that Christ died for going in 3 diferent directions…oriental…roman…orthodox. The sheep are what’s important…that’s the whole reason for the bishops existance! No sheep no need for a bishop. So the bishops defeted there whole purpose by causing this huge confusion among Christ sheep.

And I believe they sin still by finding a way to continue to be out of comunion even today.
We canot fix this problem, but the bishops can…but have not.

I pray for the unification of The schisms. And for every Christian that is discouraged…confused…misslead…or even stumbled by these 3 divisions. I say let that individuals bishop have full responsibility, no blame should be put on the sheep at all.

Christ said “Come to me and I will refresh you” Matthew 11:28

He did not say…Come to me and be stressed out over trying to figure out 3 major schisms AND a protestant rebelion.

So since the bishops could not prevent spliting Christ sheep 3 ways, let them answer to Christ…not us.

 

[Nine_Two]

Excaliber.

It can be quite confussing, sadly polemics are not helpful in figuring things out, in fact they will often make things worse. History has shown that the more extreme positions on issues are almost always heretical. Unfortunetly on this board you are unlikely to get anything but polemics on this issue.

I recommend if you have questions about the views of any of the three groups you’re talking about you either PM a forum member who is a member of one of them with questions and comments, or find a board dedicated to discussion of that religion (The Apologetics board on this forum being a good one for Catholicism).

This is board is a good place to talk about the basics and learn a bit about the faiths, but not a very good place to get the specifics.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I have made several conclusions.

1. I am very confused.

Many of us have come to a cross road; You can never go wrong if you listen and follow Jesus on whom he built his Church. No matter how pride of men try to distort the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Rock of Jesus Christ remains unchanged. Mt 16:14-19, John 21:15-17. I am amazed how new intrepretations to these scriptures invented by men try to change what God has joined together, these past 2000 years in the Catholic church.

The tear (schism) comes from pride of men on both sides, although these pride men have allowed the gates of hell to cause rift, we have the promise from Jesus himself that these gates from hell will never prevail. It is here where the lay faithful hears our Shepherds voice and follow him not men of pride who protest what God has joined together.

I pray that wisdom be granted to those who seek God’s True Shepherd in Christ, and are able to decipher between what is of man (Ceasar) and what is God’s.

Remember the True presence of Jesus Christ in his Sacraments especially his Eucharist is not what causes this tear, it is pride of men with authority. In short the Apostolic Catholic Faith remains intact (Rock), despite from a minority new opposing views.

I feel as you do, praying that all will come to full communion, but the road is narrow, and the road to destruction is wide. There is only one faith, one Lord, one baptism. God’s sheep will always hear his voice when man puts aside his pride. It does’nt take a great “intellect” to become a member in the body of Jesus Christ, only Love of God. I pray wisdom reveals this.

Peace be with you

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What’s not your fault? Your being confused?
2) It is not my fault. There are 3 Catholic Churches!! Christ directly said we should be one, did he not?

There are many ways to solve problems, but breaking comunion is was not an option. But because bishops charged to care for the flock broke comunion anyway…we have 3 large flocks of sheep that Christ died for going in 3 diferent directions…oriental…roman…orthodox. The sheep are what’s important…that’s the whole reason for the bishops existance! No sheep no need for a bishop. So the bishops defeted there whole purpose by causing this huge confusion among Christ sheep.

And I believe they sin still by finding a way to continue to be out of comunion even today.
We canot fix this problem, but the bishops can…but have not.

I pray for the unification of The schisms. And for every Christian that is discouraged…confused…misslead…or even stumbled by these 3 divisions. I say let that individuals bishop have full responsibility, no blame should be put on the sheep at all.

Christ said “Come to me and I will refresh you” Matthew 11:28

He did not say…Come to me and be stressed out over trying to figure out 3 major schisms AND a protestant rebelion.

So since the bishops could not prevent spliting Christ sheep 3 ways, let them answer to Christ…not us.

 

[Mickey]

St. Peter did not lose his apostolic ministry

He denied Christ three times–then abandoned Him. His bitter tears of repentance are a great lesson for us.

(otherwise the other apostles with the exception of John would have lost their ministry as well for abandoning Jesus)

The other apostles were afraid, but they did not deny verbally deny Christ.

Do a study on the phrase “strenghten the brethren” and “tend” (which in Greek also means “rule”).

Enlighten me. But first do a study on the Greek usage of “love” in John 21.

 

[Mickey]

Papal infallibility entails that he teach authoritatively which Honorius did not do, in fact, I think this applies best to your statement:

LOL! I love the hoops that you are forced to jump through when it comes to Honorius. Succeeeding bishops of Rome and councils continued to call him a heretic. They did not say that he is a heretic (but he did not teach the heresy he believed in so he retains his infallibility).

If someone is a heretic, it means that they followed a heresy ( or allowed it to thrive). Do you not think that his heresy (just by the mere fact that he embraced it) did not cause others to embrace the heresy?

 

[Mickey]

There are 3 Catholic Churches!!

There is one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. It is the very Church that Christ established 2000 years ago. She did not split from anyone. She does not compromise. She does not innovate doctrines.

May God bless you!

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!

 

[josie_L]

He denied Christ three times–then abandoned Him. His bitter tears of repentance are a great lesson for us.

The other apostles were afraid, but they did not deny verbally deny Christ.

Enlighten me. But first do a study on the Greek usage of “love” in John 21.

Mickey, he did not deny Jesus as Christ, he denied that he knew Him, i.e., Peter never disbelieved that Jesus was the Son of the living God, so he was if anything a coward not an apostate. Moreover, whether or not the apostles did not deny Christ verbally they abandoned him just like Peter. And as I mentioned before, Jesus knowing that Peter would disown him (i.e. pretend he did not know Him), still told him to “strengthen the brethren” the very same words he used again in John 21:15-20.

Edit: Remember that Peter’s actions were done before he and the others had received the Holy Spirit (or before the Church was born) which Jesus said would lead them into all truth. In other words, it was at this point that Peter would use his power to loose and bind.

 

[josie_L]

LOL! I love the hoops that you are forced to jump through when it comes to Honorius. Succeeeding bishops of Rome and councils continued to call him a heretic. They did not say that he is a heretic (but he did not teach the heresy he believed in so he retains his infallibility).

If someone is a heretic, it means that they followed a heresy ( or allowed it to thrive). Do you not think that his heresy (just by the mere fact that he embraced it) did not cause others to embrace the heresy?

Honorius was not condemned as a monothelite but for negligence, i.e., at most we can condemn him for being a private heretic but not one who ever declared or imposed authoritatively that heresy. Your responses show a lack of understanding of what papal infallibility entails. Moreover, Pope Agatho states in the very same council of Constantinople (the fifth one) wherein Honorius was branded a heretic that no ERROR had touched the apostolic see which was the seat of Peter, that is, Honorius never taught heresy authoritatively (ex-cathedra).

 

[excaliber]

Ok how about the Orthodox and Roman Catholic bibles, they are different right?

If they are that means eather Orthodox or Roman Catholic have added or subtracted from the faith.

So who is the guilty party?

Is there anyway to find out for sure who’s bible books are not correct?

 

[Mickey]

he did not deny Jesus as Christ, he denied that he knew Him,

Correct.

Peter never disbelieved that Jesus was the Son of the living God, so he was if anything a coward not an apostate.

They were all cowards–except for St John. St Peter added the verbal denial.

And as I mentioned before, Jesus knowing that Peter would disown him (i.e. pretend he did not know Him), still told him to “strengthen the brethren” the very same words he used again in John 21:15-20.

Jesus Christ knows that St Peter is about to deny Him thrice. He prays for him so that his faith may not fail–so that he does not fall into despair and hang himself like Judas. Then of course we see Jesus Christ restoring St Peter’s Apostolic standing at the end of St John’s Gospel–the triple affirmation for the triple denial–because St Peter wept and repented instead of falling into despair and suicide. This would serve as an example to the others–to strengthen them.

Remember that Peter’s actions were done before he and the others had received the Holy Spirit (or before the Church was born) which Jesus said would lead them into all truth. In other words, it was at this point that Peter would use his power to loose and bind.

All the Apostles had the authority to loose and bind.