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

[Nine_Two]

I think you meant Jesus.

Indeed I did.

Yes it’s plural. That doesn’t change my point. Explained later

It does because it means Christ isn’t bestowing anything on any one of them.

The word I quoted is hegeomai

1. 
   *]yes it’s a verb
   *]yes it’s present tense
   *]it is active voice
   *]it is a participle which means it can be used like a verb or noun

1. 
   Jesus is going to reveal something about this that the apostles weren’t aware of.
   I said Hegemon, the English word which shares a meaning, only difference is the English word is a noun. It is no more incorrect in this case than your latinized writting of the dictionary form of the word Christ used (he didn’t use that form, as such on the most pedantic level both of us were saying something else, however I had assumed it would easily be figured out). While there is no contention that it is a verb, when you speak of it in the “present tense” you are speaking as though St. Peter was already leader of a Church which didn’t exist yet. Seems problematic.
   Your next point that it is in the active voice is incorrect, ομαι (dictionary form) and οντος (The form used in Luke) are the middle voice.
   Your final point is also incorrect. A participle cannot be used as a verb or a noun, it shares certain properties with nouns, but is not useable as a noun. Had it been intended as a noun it would have been in its noun form.
   

   The apostles were arguing about who was greatest among THEM, (each other).

   Yep, and Christ addressed them all when he said whoever wishes to lead must serve.
   

   Jesus says
   
   “but he that is greatest among you (plural) let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that serves.” Who is Jesus talking about? He’s surely not having to justify Himself at this point. The apostles already know who He is. So who is Jesus refering to?

   It takes quite a bit of eisegesis to actually read that as refering to any individual. One could just as easily claim that since John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved” that clearly Jesus didn’t love the rest of his apostles, and thus we know John was sent to be leader.
   Avoid eisegesis and try to make your points in context.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Catholic Church didn’t/doesn’t excuse Honorius.

Might want to read some of what your fellow Catholics are saying about him then.

Have you looked into your own history? You DON’T want to go here.

c’mon, put your sword down.

The difference is we believe our Patriarchs to be sinners, and not infallible in any way shape or form.

 

[Mickey]

Thanks, Micky. I think it’d be a great idea if we pray for each other the rest of Lent and pray for God to bless both of us.

Great Idea! And I will light candles for you also. Please light candles for me and my family.

I have a lot of room for growth…

I have more than 11,000 posts covering six years. You would think I could do a little better.

I don’t know your story and how/why you became Orthodox and my story is a crazy one you don’t know. Maybe we can share sometime.

No matter what, God knows we both have sincere reasons for our beliefs and the only thing you and I both want is to do the right thing and serve The Lord.

Amen.

I hope you have a blessed Lent and keep me in your prayers as I will you. You’re a good man with a good heart. We’ll all just try to show our best sides, especially yours truly. God bless you!

It is also evident that you are a good and devout man. I will keep you in my prayers during Lent and beyond. May God bless you abundantly.

 

[the_typist]

Why is everyone fighting? I didn’t have to read all of these posts to add my own 2 cents. I am neither catholic nor orthodox. My brother in law is orthodox. My aunt is catholic. My late father in law was a protestant pastor. I used to go to a protestant church but I can’t stand all the fighting of the churches. Why are all of you brothers and sisters of Christ arguing over who is right and who is wrong? If the orthodox fits you then become orthodox. If the catholic church fits you then attend the catholic church. If you prefer protestant churches then go to a protestant church. All of this fighting is enough to turn anybody away from God.

I’m not afraid to die, I’m afraid to stand before God. We are all sinners. Live the way you can. Just try not to sin too much.

 

[josie_L]

And that there is no recourse to the man’s judgment, no matter whom he is or what he thinks. Whether he is a holy and prayerful man or not, whether he is thinking rightly or not, whether he is dissolute and corrupt or not, whether he keeps concubines, sells church offices, wages war or condones other sins, or even if he is a heretic. He is to be the head of the church, there is no recourse to his judgment and he cannot be removed, or even remonstrated with.

There has never been an impeccable man (with the exception of Our Lord) to walk the earth, much less in the church, so no one expects to see one in any bishops chair, anywhere. Orthodox believers will refuse to follow such a man, and this is what saved Holy Orthodoxy in times past.** For Catholics though, there is no recourse, they must obey the heretic/simoniac/adulterous/bi-polar/what-have-you Pope in all matters of church administration and practice.**

You are wrong Michael, a pope can be deposed if he is found to be heretical (in fact he excommunicates himself).

Can a council depose the pope?

This question is a legitimate one, for in the history of the Church circumstances have arisen in which several pretenders contended for papal authority and councils were called upon to remove certain claimants. The Councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope on two main grounds:

ob mores (for his conduct or behaviour, e.g. his resistance to the synod)
ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy).

In point of fact, however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience.

But the question assumes another aspect when a number of claimants pretend to be the rightful occupants of the Apostolic See, and the right of each is doubtful. In such a case the council, according to Bellarmine (Disputationes, II xix, de Conciliis) has a right to examine the several claims and to depose the pretenders whose claims are unfounded. This was done at the Synod of Constance. But during this process of examination the synod is not yet Ecumenical; it only becomes so the moment the rightful pope assents to its proceedings. It is evident that this is no instance of a legitimate pope being deposed by a legitimate council, but simply the removal of pretender by those on whom he wishes to impose will.

Not even John XXIII could have been deposed at Constance, had his election not been doubtful and himself suspected of heresy. John XXIII, moreover, abdicated and by his abdication made his removal from the Apostolic See lawful. In all controversies and complaints regarding Rome the rule laid down by the Eighth General Synod should never be lost sight of: "If a universal synod be assembled and any ambiguity or controversy arise concerning the Holy Church of the Romans, the question should be examined and solved with due reverence and veneration, in a spirit of mutual helpfulness; no sentence should be audaciously pronounced against the supreme pontiff of the elder Rome" (can. xxi. Hefele, IV, 421-22).

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

These fallible men who have already held that particular office then, make a very poor case for universal jurisdiction, on behalf of any bishop of any See (Rome or elsewhere). It cannot be seen how Jesus would have wanted the entire church under the absolute control of a single very peccable heretic (much less the various other aberrations that have somehow snared the prize through history).

Jesus made it quite clear that he would have a head shepherd ruling in official (not honorary) capacity, here is something for you to chew on:

Matthew 24:45

45"Who then is the faithful and wise servant (the pope), whom the master (Jesus) has put in charge of the servants (brother bishops) in his household (the Church) to give them their food at the proper time?

Didn’t Jesus expressly state to Peter to “feed my sheep” (as well as tend, which means rule, and 'strengthen the brethren")?

Edit: Even St. John Chrysostom stated as much when he equated Peter with this very scripture/role, i.e. the faithful and wise servant . . . . .

Moreover, during the council of Chalcedon it was iterated that the bishop of Rome was 'archbishop of all the churches":

And in the third place the writings of that blessed man, Leo, Archbishop of all the churches, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, show what the true faith is. Likewise the holy Synod holds this faith, this it follows— nothing further can it add nor can it take anything away.

newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm

In that very same council, other comments were made by the synod that imply universal jurisdiction:

“head of all the Churches”,
“ecumenical archbishop”,
“ecumenical patriarch”,
“archbishop of all the Churches”,
the** “most apostolic bishop who is the ruler of the whole Church”,**
and “who presided over the Council as head over the members”
and “appointed for all men the interpreter of the voice of Blessed Peter”.

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/philioca.htm

 

[AMDGtoo]

The_typist, you should know (the Orthodox, who you are considering, do and so should your Catholic side) that all Churches are not equal. It is not okay to treat Churches like there is no difference. In fact, treating all Churches as “just the same” is considered a heresy.

 

[steve_b]

It does because it means Christ isn’t bestowing anything on any one of them.

Jesus has already bestowed unique honor on Peter. The reason the apostles are in a silly argument is because Satan is sifting them. That’s what Satan does, he divides. And he hates authority and obedience to authority. So he trys to undo what Jesus has already done to this point regarding the preparation for Peter to lead the apostles.

Jesus says Peter is the one to strengthen and confirm the apostles. Jesus says He prays especially for Peter in order to accomplish his role that he’s given… How can you say Jesus isn’t bestowing anything on one man?
NT:

I said Hegemon,

And I said hegeomai
NT:

A participle cannot be used as a verb or a noun, it shares certain properties with nouns, but is not useable as a noun. Had it been intended as a noun it would have been in its noun form.

Go back and look at what I said.

I said "it can be used like a verb or noun "
NT:

Yep, and Christ addressed them all when he said whoever wishes to lead must serve.

That doesn’t fit Peter.

Did Peter

• wish to lead? No.
• did he seek leadership? No.
• did anyone lobby for him to sit on the right or left side of Jesus? No
• get voted into his position? No

Peter was selected and appointed by God…

In fact it is the Father who really selected Peter. As Jesus said

Jn 5:19
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
Jn 6:
38* For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;

Jn 8:29
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."
Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.
Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."
Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
One could say, Peter is the Father’s choice

And since Satan is already sifting the apostles, and Satan’s mantra is “I will not serve” it makes sense that he attacks the apostles on the issue of authority and has them arguing who is the greatest among them. God has already selected Peter.
NT:

It takes quite a bit of eisegesis to actually read that as refering to any individual.

I was thinking it takes quite a bit of eisegesis to argue against refering to an individual.
NT:

One could just as easily claim that since John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved” that clearly Jesus didn’t love the rest of his apostles, and thus we know John was sent to be leader.

Except that It’s John who records Jesus saying to Peter that it is Peter who will feed and rule Our Lord’s sheep.
NT:

Avoid eisegesis and try to make your points in context.

I would say the same to you.

 

[Hesychios]

You are wrong Michael, a pope can be deposed if he is found to be heretical (in fact he excommunicates himself).

There is no mechanism for it.

Please cite the canons which show the procedures to follow if someone in the church believes the Pope is a heretic.

I can assure you there are none.

 

[Hesychios]

You are wrong Michael, a pope can be deposed if he is found to be heretical (in fact he excommunicates himself).

There is no mechanism for it.

Please cite the canons which show the procedures to follow if someone in the church believes the Pope is a heretic.

I can assure you there are none.

In fact, the opposite is true. There are multiple reinforcements to the Popes supreme authority in the church, and there is no recourse to his judgment.

Actually, the last time it was tried provoked the great Western Schism, and the official line of succession for the Popes of today traces through the one whom his own Cardinals tried to dump in the first place.

 

[AMDGtoo]

There are multiple reinforcements to the Popes supreme authority in the church, and there is no recourse to his judgment.

Wow! I didn’t think anyone of the Orthodox didn’t have faith in the Holy Spirit to protect the Church. Correction. I had to. It’s a fact that human pride caused the schism and the schism was/is a reality. I guess I just find it hard to believe that there isn’t more faith.

 

[Nine_Two]

Wow! I didn’t think anyone of the Orthodox didn’t have faith in the Holy Spirit to protect the Church.

We do have faith in the Holy Spirit to protect the Church. We don’t believe the Catholic Church to be The Church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the Orthodox believe the Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church, just not through the papacy and magisterium. They believe the Holy Spirit protects the Church through councils and the wider actions of the entire Church, not just one man.

Wow! I didn’t think anyone of the Orthodox didn’t have faith in the Holy Spirit to protect the Church. Correction. I had to. It’s a fact that human pride caused the schism and the schism was/is a reality. I guess I just find it hard to believe that there isn’t more faith.

 

[AJTheMan]

2)The idea of one bishop above all others is not logical…OR directly proclaimed in the bible…or Tradishion with a capitol “T”. If the Church needed ONE bishop to govern a global church, then Christ choosing 12 apostles makes no sence…he would have only needed ONE APOSTLE which would have been peter, the rest would have been diciples under peter.
Not 12 men with the same title…for example you don’t have 12 kings with one king over other kings…no you have one king…then all others have a completely different title and job function.

This is a good argument. The only problem I see with it is that Jesus clearly did not make all apostles equal. Peter was the only one who he told to establish a church that could not be destroyed by evil. None of the others were told this.

I remain unconvinced of the idea of Patriarchs. The Primacy of Peter amongst apostles is pretty clear in the bible. The idea that his office would be Prime amongst other Bishops makes sense in this context.

 

[josie_L]

There is no mechanism for it.

Didn’t my heading say “Can a council depose a Pope”?

Please cite the canons which show the procedures to follow if someone in the church believes the Pope is a heretic.

I cited the eight ecumenical council which lays down the rule that if the Church of Rome should go astray then it can be done albeit prudently and with great caution. Moreover, in the history of the Church we have seen more than one attempt to excommunicate the pope, notwithstanding the fact that the ones who did were either heretical and/or unworthy of their bishopric (Dioscorus, Photius. . . etc.). This leads me to believe that we don’t need a canon per se (unless Photius and others like him were violating Church law by excommunicating the bishop of Rome). **Moreover, do we have a canon that stipulates how one should depose of the other patriarchs)? **

I can assure you there are none.

Please reply to the question above because if there is no canon that stipulates the procedure to follow then why do you assume there should be one for the pope?

In fact, the opposite is true. There are multiple reinforcements to the Popes supreme authority in the church, and there is no recourse to his judgment.

Yes, there are reinforcements in that God has ensured that upon the “rock” Peter, the gates of Hell shall not prevail (petrine promise).

Actually, the last time it was tried provoked the great Western Schism, and the official line of succession for the Popes of today traces through the one whom his own Cardinals tried to dump in the first place.

Didn’t that have something to do with politics rather than theology, i.e., we are speaking now of legitimate popes (not antipopes) and the possibility of their being deposed?

 

[Nine_Two]

Didn’t that have something to do with politics rather than theology, i.e., we are speaking now of legitimate popes (not antipopes) and the possibility of their being deposed?

Most of the Antipopes were men who had been elected Pope in accordance with Church law and later deposed. Not only did they refuse to allow themselves to be deposed but they usually ended up with the backing of significant portions of the Catholic World. The Great Western Schism was a situation like this, in which two Popes were elected by rival conclaves of Cardinals, then in an attempt to make peace those two were “deposed” and a third was elected.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Um, didn’t I recall that one of the criticisms of the Catholic Bishop of Rome is that he has recognized some Saints alone (I assume that the other four early patriarchs–that of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople were supposed to be “in” on the choice or something). Well, what about Photius? Haven’t the Eastern Orthodox decided that Photius (who started the hatred that led to the Great Schism, and did so against Jesus’ express wishes for unity) decided to make Photius a Saint even though the Church of Rome (the fifth ancient church and the one headed by the successor of Peter, who Jesus personally chose to head the Church) was not included in the decision?

Here’s what New Advent has to say about Photius:

newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm

I’ve read the entry of the Britannica Enclyopedia and it’s about the same.

 

[josie_L]

Actually no.

The Orthodox believers overturned every heresy and took the church back from the ‘development of doctrine’ thinkers. We are happy that most of the time in the first millenium the bishops of Rome saw it our way.

Actually, yes, since the only thing that was standing in the way of implementing heretical conciliar decisions is the fact that the Popes did not ratify them, otherwise, please specify (no vague answers please because these are historical realities which should have concrete answers), i.e., stating “orthodox believers overturned every heresy” doesn’t tell me anything? Basically, I’m asking how and/or what mechanisms were used to prevent these decisions from being implemented? Here were some of the heretical councils of which I speak:

There are a number of councils which espoused ideas that could have ended Christianity.

1. Antioch (in 341, where about 100 Eastern bishops approved of straight Arianism)

1. Sirmium (in 351, where another 100 or so Eastern bishops espoused semi-Arianism),

1. the Robber Council of Ephesus (in 449-450 which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox doctrine),

1. numerous “councils” in Constantinople (which included the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox),

1. and the councils of Constantinople of 638 and 639 which approved of the Ecthesis, embracing Monothelitism.

All these Councils could have been defined historically as “Ecumenical,” if it were not for Rome’s refusal to cooperate with them.

davidmacd.com/catholic/or…an_council.htm

 

[josie_L]

Most of the Antipopes were men who had been elected Pope in accordance with Church law and later deposed. Not only did they refuse to allow themselves to be deposed but they usually ended up with the backing of significant portions of the Catholic World. The Great Western Schism was a situation like this, in which two Popes were elected by rival conclaves of Cardinals, then in an attempt to make peace those two were “deposed” and a third was elected.

Again my understanding was that this was politically driven rather than theological, moreover, Michael’s claim (Hesychios) is that Catholics have no recourse if a heretical pope is appointed legitimately. So the question really being asked is: can a legitimate pope if heretical be deposed by a legitimate council? I answered Michael, yes, as per the eight ecumenical council.

Edit: The cardinals had elected Urban VI as Pope, and it was only after their dis satisfaction that they elected another pope. The former was the true heir, however, and the latter wasn’t.

Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession.

newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm

 

[Hesychios]

Didn’t that have something to do with politics rather than theology, i.e., we are speaking now of legitimate popes (not antipopes) and the possibility of their being deposed?

The great western schism began as one Pope was ‘deposed’ by the very Cardinals who elected him, apparently because he was acting irrational (I don’t know what mental illness he would have been diagnosed with, possibly he was bi-polar/schisophrenic). However, the Cardinals had to flee from Rome for their own safety to elect another man.

He (Pope Urban VI) simply named new Cardinals, and then there were two sets!

Later, both colleges of Cardinals ‘deposed’ their Popes and jointly elected a third man.

The two other Popes simply named new colleges of Cardinals and continued on as before, as the European church continued to fragment.

The suppression of all three Papacies was accomplished through a council, but today a council can only be called by a Pope, he sets the agenda and must approve it’s findings. This is according to the canons of the Latin Catholic church (the canons which are, not composed by councils as originally, but composed and codified by the Papal staff on behalf of the Popes).

Thus, no mechanism to remove a man that doesn’t want to go.

Older Conciliar decrees have no force in the Latin church (although they do in the Orthodox church), they have been superseded, the Code of Canons governs policy and practice for the Latin church.

To demonstrate that a Pope can be removed, you have to cite the appropriate canons.

 

[Nine_Two]

Um, didn’t I recall that one of the criticisms of the Catholic Bishop of Rome is that he has recognized some Saints alone (I assume that the other four early patriarchs–that of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople were supposed to be “in” on the choice or something). Well, what about Photius? Haven’t the Eastern Orthodox decided that Photius (who started the hatred that led to the Great Schism, and did so against Jesus’ express wishes for unity) decided to make Photius a Saint even though the Church of Rome (the fifth ancient church and the one headed by the successor of Peter, who Jesus personally chose to head the Church) was not included in the decision?

Here’s what New Advent has to say about Photius:

newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm

I’ve read the entry of the Britannica Enclyopedia and it’s about the same.

Declaring saints was never something which all the Patriarchs had to do together, and it has never been a criticism of Rome that its Bishop unilaterally recognised some saints, that has been how things have been done all along, an individual Church would recognise a saint, and then the rest would follow suit. That’s still how it’s done in the Orthodox Communion.

Additionally blaming St. Photius for everything is incorrect, and you should keep in mind that he is venerated as a saint by your fellow Catholics in the Eastern Churches.