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

[Mickey]

I don’t think this is going to convince anyone (but yourself) that we are all successors to Peter, in fact, the preponderance of Church fathers knew who the direct successor to Peter is, i.e., the bishop of Rome.

The consensus of Holy Fthers believed that the Rock was St Peter’s confession of faith. And there were many wonderful and pious statements made concerning the glorious Apostle St Peter. But you will find none of the Fathers saying that he was the supreme infallible pontiff of Rome or that all who succeeded him would also be supreme infallible pontiffs.

But make no mistake dear—if you and I confess that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the living God, we too are resting firmly on that foundation of confession of faith–the Rock!

Peace and blessings!

 

[steve_b]

LOL! That’s the second time you have delved into the archives to pull up old posts.

Through much discernment, prayer and study, I have now come to know the fullness of truth of Holy Orthodoxy. And I thank God everyday that my eyes have been opened.

I find it hilarious, (albeit somewhat infantile and desparate), that you resort to this tactic in your frustration.

:coffeeread: Well let’s see.

I’ve asked you on multiple occassions to give your sources, and you’ve told me on multiple occassions you’re not going to do it. Instead you say, go back and look at what you’ve posted because you aren’t going to “do my homework for me”… when you keep popping off about infallibility being a novelty, I decided I’ll go back and look at what you’ve said in the past. Just as you keep telling me to do. So I did. All I did was quote you from the past, and you think I’m infantile for that? I think you’re not quite sure what to do with your flip flop answers.

 

[Mickey]

I’ve asked you on multiple occassions to give your sources,

Yes.

and you’ve told me on multiple occassions you’re not going to do it.

Because I am not going to do your homework.

when you keep popping off about infallibility being a novelty,

Not so much a novelty as an innovation.

I decided I’ll go back and look at what you’ve said in the past.

Which is a little creepy. :whacky:

Just as you keep telling me to do.

I never urged you to go back many years into the archives. That’s creepy. My reference is in this very thread. I told **you **to find it.

All I did was quote you from the past, and you think I’m infantile for that?

Yeah. And creepy! It’s sort of like stalking. :bigyikes:

I think you’re not quite sure what to do with your flip flop answers.

Not so much a flip flop as it is a realization of the truth. It is as if a cloud was lifted from my understanding. It is as if my eyes and ears were opened.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not a fan of digging into the archives and reading people’s past statements either. We all change, grow, change our minds and opinions, have good days and bad days. It’s best to look at where people are NOW and not where they were ten years ago…I agree.

Yes.
Because I am not going to do your homework.
Not so much a novelty as an innovation.
Which is a little creepy. :whacky:

I never urged you to go back many years into the archives. That’s creepy. My reference is in this very thread. I told **you **to find it.
Yeah. And creepy! It’s sort of like stalking. :bigyikes:
Not so much a flip flop as it is a realization of the truth. It is as if a cloud was lifted from my understanding. It is as if my eyes and ears were opened.

 

[josie_L]

The consensus of Holy Fathers believed that the Rock was St Peter’s confession of faith. And there were many wonderful and pious statements made concerning the glorious Apostle St Peter. But you will find none of the Fathers saying that he was the supreme infallible pontiff of Rome or that all who succeeded him would also be supreme infallible pontiffs.

Mickey, there are at least 3 dozen fathers that quote Peter as the rock, moreover, there are two ecumenical councils (Ephesus and Chalcedon) that refer to Peter as rock. Furthermore, those who do say his confession of faith is rock have also stated that Peter is rock (I would think only a few have interpreted it solely as his confession of faith)!! Nevertheless, I’ve already mentioned that Matthew 16:18 is to be interpreted in the grammatical/ historical sense, and any other secondary interpretations of this text cannot supercede the literal.

But make no mistake dear—if you and I confess that** Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the living God,** we too are resting firmly on that foundation of confession of faith–the Rock!

Peace and blessings!

I know that you confess this and I’m happy that’s the case but I know the foundation is Peter himself (and in a secondary sense is his confession of faith).

God bless.

p.s. If the confession of faith is “rock” then Trinitarians Protestants rest firmly on the foundation as well!

 

[Hesychios]

Jesus never set it up that way.

Jesus did name more Apostles than just one. Orthodox bishops are the successors of all the Apostles.

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Saint Ignatius of Antioch 110AD

[Curiously, he does not mention the Pope, not even a nod. This would probably have been Clement of Rome btw.]

Christ is not divided and no one is to be divided from Peter.

Orthodox have Peter’s Faith.

What is Peter if not his Faith? That is what provoked the response from Jesus.

Orthodox follow Peter’s Faith, it makes us stubborn. We are not as imaginative as you all are, we are not so open to New Light. We try to preserve the Faith as received, as best we can. No additions and no subtractions. Which means that if the entire church was supposed to be administered by the bishop of Rome we would know about it, and if there was no recourse to his judgments we would be aware of that.

Read Saint John of Damascus’s An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.

After having been composed about 1400 years ago it is still relevant to us today. It could have been written for us today.

What about Paul’s condemnation against division?

In the early church when one traveled into another diocese, his bishop was the bishop of that place. Likewise when one traveled to another Metropolitan church, one’s patriarch was the patriarch of that place.

When traveling to Antioch, one was subject to the patriarch there and went to his church, when one went to Rome one was subject to the patriarch there and went to his church. Very elegantly simple, the patriarchs were strategic partners, each with his own zone of responsibility.

Later bishops of Rome tried to press the claim that they were above the other Patriarchs. It is not historically supportable, yet that is what we are asked to believe in 2010AD by people like you.

Ultimately we get this (from the church which initiated the great schism):
“… Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam 1302AD

Not according to Patriarch Gregoire Laham, his office is equal to the Papacy, not subject to it. He gets this from the longstanding historical position of his own church. It agrees with the Orthodox.

"… The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ…

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, “servatis servandis”, in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue."
Grégoire III *Laham, *Patriarch of Antioch for the Melchites

Still later, we get a bishop of Rome actually teaching this:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels …"
Cantate Domino 1441AD

It appears that this is the same destiny your church (not the Orthodox church) has taught for the innocent unbaptized infants, miscarried and stillborn.

“We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 464)
Pope Gregory X, *Council of Lyons II, *1274

“People who divide don’t serve Our Lord but their own selfish appetites. Stay away from them” [Rm 16:17…]

This was excellent advice.

“Since God has given us the Papacy, let us enjoy it.”
Pope Leo X

“Those who divide and continue to live like that, will not inherit the kingdom of heaven” [Gal 5:19…21]

“The Excommunication with which Michael Kerularios and his Followers were wounded” pdf]
Cardinal Humberto of Silva Candida

Issued by your church, yet packed with lies. It was the beginning of our separation, made worse in the ensuing centuries by the addition of dogmas above and beyond the Received Apostolic teaching of the church. Things Saint Peter would not have known, things Christ did not teach.

The Latin Catholic church initiated the schism, and continues it by refusing to withdraw it’s own innovative theological additions which depart from the Faith of Peter.

 

[Hesychios]

No one from the Latin Rite makes this false assertion as you do;

It is not outlandish to teach rightly, I don’t know where you get that.

If the bishop does not teach rightly, he must go. That goes for the bishop of Rome as well, he is only human, after all.

But in the case of your church, that is an impossibility. Whether a heretic or dissolute He must be obeyed by Latin Catholic priests and bishops. There is no recourse to his judgment.

Peter’s authority in the Popes throughout history has always been there to excommunicate any and every bishop from the body of Jesus Christ who teaches another gospel than Jesus Christ crucified.

Yet it is the bishops of Rome who have been in heresy for 1000 years now.

How can such a man be removed?

That is why some Catholic Traditionalists can appear to be so schizophrenic. They cannot let go of the fact that a true bishop of Rome might be bad for the church, so they sometimes go to the extreme position of Sede Vacante: he must not be a real Pope, the See is empty.

Not even the Orthodox will claim that, but we can always recognize that he is fallible and might make mistakes. Sometimes serious enough mistakes to warrant examination and possible removal.

Yet there is no mechanism for testing the orthodoxy of a Pope these days. He cannot be tried for heresy, moral corruption or even retired for senility and he is above a Council for the last few centuries.

That’s all new for your church, and it is really unacceptable.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Michael, from your Orthodox point of view the bishops of Rome have been in heresy for 1,000 years, but from the Catholic point of view it is the Orthodox that are schismatic and celebrating illicit Masses. So how does your statement below prove anything? You’re trying to say a Pope can teach heresy and nobody can remove him because he has total dictatorial control over the entire Church and as proof you use the Great Schism as evidence? To a Roman Catholic that doesn’t prove anything? You first have to convince the Catholic that his Church is schismatic to then prove that the pope has been a heretic and should be removed? If we see no schism, there is no need for removal in the first place, right?

And using the sedevecantists from the Mel Gibson’s dad crowd as any proof or example for anything is a bad idea. These people are extremists and prone to conspiracy theories. These are the same types of folks who would think Obama is a foreign spy or that Bush blew up the Trade Center to provoke war. They’re loons. Every religion’s got 'em.

I’d like to hear examples that you could give when a pope taught an outright heresy that was forced on the Catholic faithful and there was no recourse for his removal? I’ve seen you mention this in several posts as a theory but I’ve never seen any explicit examples of the said heresies? If you give examples of the filioque “heresy” or anything like that, it won’t be taken seriously because Catholics don’t believe it to be heresy; I know I don’t. All we ever hear is Honorius so I’d like other examples and especially examples of direct heretical dogmatic teachings that are binding and truly brought sinful teachings to the faithful.

I think with Catholics the best argument is from the vantage point of evidence that popes have taught heresy and not the fact that they can’t be removed.

As to your last point, really papal control to the exclusion of the council has been going on longer than a few centuries, more like five centuries. The Fifth Lateran Council really ended the power of the councils.

It is not outlandish to teach rightly, I don’t know where you get that.

If the bishop does not teach rightly, he must go. That goes for the bishop of Rome as well, he is only human, after all.

But in the case of your church, that is an impossibility. Whether a heretic or dissolute He must be obeyed by Latin Catholic priests and bishops. There is no recourse to his judgment.

**Yet it is the bishops of Rome who have been in heresy for 1000 years now.**How can such a man be removed?

That is why some Catholic Traditionalists can appear to be so schizophrenic. They cannot let go of the fact that a true bishop of Rome might be bad for the church, so they sometimes go to the extreme position of Sede Vacante: he must not be a real Pope, the See is empty.

Not even the Orthodox will claim that, but we can always recognize that he is fallible and might make mistakes. Sometimes serious enough mistakes to warrant examination and possible removal.

Yet there is no mechanism for testing the orthodoxy of a Pope these days. He cannot be tried for heresy, moral corruption or even retired for senility and he is above a Council for the last few centuries.

That’s all new for your church, and it is really unacceptable.

 

[Hesychios]

Michael, from your Orthodox point of view the bishops of Rome have been in heresy for 1,000 years, but from the Catholic point of view it is the Orthodox that are schismatic and celebrating illicit Masses. So how does your statement below prove anything? You’re trying to say a Pope can teach heresy and nobody can remove him because he has total dictatorial control over the entire Church and as proof you use the Great Schism as evidence? To a Roman Catholic that doesn’t prove anything? You first have to convince the Catholic that his Church is schismatic to then prove that the pope has been a heretic and should be removed? If we see no schism, there is no need for removal in the first place, right?

In fact there was a time when bishops of Rome could be removed.

The question is ‘why the change?’

If there ever was a reconciliation between our churches, that concept would have to go.

My mention of the 1000 year heresy was in response to the claim by another poster that the Popes are there, essentially, to police the rest of the church and to excommunicate bishops. One has to read my statement in the context of the other post. From the Orthodox perspective then, that claim is meaningless (in fact, any bishop or synod can and probably should excommunicate another as soon as they are aware of a problem, and need not wait for the ‘home office’ to act).

It was, in fact, the case that so much power was concentrating in the hands of Popes that many abuses in the church took flight. I think one significant example was the granting of dispensations for bishops to hold more than one See, and even underage people were made bishops! These dispensations came at a price, so now we have the ‘sin’ of Simony as well, of which both Popes and many bishops were guilty.

Yet these ‘dispensations’ were the equivalent to a Pope stating it’s not really a sin at all!

Historically, this is a major backdrop to the catastrophe of the Reformation. So these scandals can be seen to have also caused many to doubt and even fall away. Poor stewardship.

This is the some of the fruit of Papal Universal Jurisdiction, which I contend was never the intent of Jesus.

That is why I am on this argument over the removal of Popes, the theory of Papal Universal Jurisdiction makes these truly peccable men untouchable even today, for any reason, and it is the same with or without the infallibility claim in play.

 

[josie_L]

Jesus did name more Apostles than just one. Orthodox bishops are the successors of all the Apostles.

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Saint Ignatius of Antioch 110AD

[Curiously, he does not mention the Pope, not even a nod. This would probably have been Clement of Rome btw.]

This quote from Ignatius of Antioch only delineates the relationship of those under the authority of the bishop, it does not delineate, however, the relationship between bishops.

p.s. I think we have more than enough information to suggest that the authority of the bishop of Rome was far greater than that of the other bishops (scripturally, traditionally, and historically speaking).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Mickey;6410406]Christ paid the price. There is heaven or hell. Your fiery middle state of purgatory is an invention. Purgatory is not Scriptural.

But then, that has been debated here infinitely.

Ok, Mickey I’ll bite for on this topic for a short clarification; Tell me after the deluge, where did the dead go before Jesus Christ was born? Did they go to heaven? did they go to hell? or did they go elsewhere? The elsewhere is what you are falsely denying.

Let me explain; Scripture teaches of Hell (english) sheol (hebrew) hades (greek) gehenna (greek), purge (Psalm 51:6-10), sanctification, purify, Abrahams boosom (Luke 16:22-26) to name a few places from the abode of the dead from scripture. You do the homework.

Now 1John 3:2-3 speaks of those who hope in Jesus Christ purifies himself for Jesus is pure. Purgatory is in the bible, Purgatory is taught in scripture, and Apostolic Tradition.

Mt.22:12 mentions NOTHING UNCLEAN can enter the presence of God. So those who die in a state of grace with venial sin cannot be cleansed or purged with hyssop (Psalm 51:6-10) by Jesus in his blood before entering the presence of God?

Do not be deceived no more about the gospel being preached to the dead (1 Peter 4:6), for if these are not in heaven or hell, then where and why did Jesus go down to the abode of the dead (purgatory) to release the captives free who died since the flood before Jesus Christ came?

Before you enter into a spirit of protest please contimplate this scripture;

John 5:25
Amen, amen, I say to you, the hour is coming and is now here when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

Peace be with you

 

[Nine_Two]

So you’re claiming that after his death, Christ decended into purgatory, and not hell, which is what is explicitly stated by the theology of both our Churches?

 

[TheosisM]

So you’re claiming that after his death, Christ decended into purgatory, and not hell, which is what is explicitly stated by the theology of both our Churches?

By “hell” you mean “hades” right?

 

[John_Larocque]

The traditional Catholic teaching, as I understand it, is that he descended to the “Limbo of the fathers” (upper Hades if you prefer) and that heaven was only opened up to them… and nobody else.

 

[steve_b]

Jesus did name more Apostles than just one. Orthodox bishops are the successors of all the Apostles.

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Saint Ignatius of Antioch 110AD

Curiously, he does not mention the Pope, not even a nod. This would probably have been Clement of Rome btw.]
Orthodox have Peter’s Faith.

Taking this chronologically

• Jesus bestowed special duties on Peter. It’s undisputed.
• if all the apostles had equal responsibility, Jesus wouldn’t have bestowed special duties on Peter.
• You remember Fr Ambrose. We had our disagreements, but on this point I completely agreed with him. 1st among equals is a nonsense term. If one is 1st then all aren’t equal. If all are equal, one can’t be 1st.
• Clement of Rome ~ 80 a.d. 3rd successor to Peter, asked by Corinth Greece to settle the sedition among thir bishops. This was during apostolic times. St John is still alive and living closer to Corinth than Clement was over in Rome. So we already see the pope during apostolic times, settling Church matters in other countries
• If Ignatius of Antioch, is going to be true to his teaching and what he wrote above in his letter to the Smyrneans,(Church location where Polycarp and Irenaeus came from) do you think he would go against this point “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop” when writing his letter to the Church of Rome? I don’t think so. I think it’s assumed the bishop of Rome got the letter. Especially since Ignatius is asking the Church of Rome, not to interfere on his behalf to stop or save him from the martyrdom he desired. Do we agree?

Jesus prayed for unity among His apostles as He and His Father are one so they must be one… i.e. translated as perfect unity in the whole Church ALSO…

If one has the fullness of the faith, they will be, and remain, united to Peter. Schism from Peter is a sign of disobedience to Jesus and a loss of faith by the one who is divided.
h:

What is Peter if not his Faith? That is what provoked the response from Jesus.

Peter was also obedient to Jesus. That demonstrates his faith
h:

Orthodox follow Peter’s Faith, it makes us stubborn.

You’re seperated from Peter, which makes stubborn in that case, a negative.
h:

We are not as imaginative as you all are, we are not so open to New Light. We try to preserve the Faith as received, as best we can. No additions and no subtractions. Which means that if the entire church was supposed to be administered by the bishop of Rome we would know about it, and if there was no recourse to his judgments we would be aware of that.

c’mon H, you know the history.

• Irenaeus, ~ 180 a.d. from Smyrna,
• Polycarp ~ 130 a.d., from Smyrna, disciple of John the apostle. Irenaeus met and heard Polycarp preach.
• Irenaeus in his work “Against Heresies” all must agree with the Church of Rome. Bk 3 Ch 3 Vs 2-3
• Ignatius of Antioch, ~110 a.d. said the Church of Rome holds the presidency. As you know he wrote 6 letters to the Church in 6 locations. No other Church did Ignatius say held the presidency.
• Therefore, Irenaeus is saying NOT agreeing with the Church of Rome is a characteristic of those who were following various heresies at the time.

h:

Read Saint John of Damascus’s An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.

After having been composed about 1400 years ago it is still relevant to us today.

If a work comes to the right conclusions, no matter the date, a work can be relevant.
h:

It could have been written for us today. In the early church when one traveled into another diocese, his bishop was the bishop of that place. Likewise when one traveled to another Metropolitan church, one’s patriarch was the patriarch of that place.

I gave you this back on post 474. It goes over the issue of authority and its history of “patriarch” etc

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
h:

Later bishops of Rome tried to press the claim that they were above the other Patriarchs.

It was the East who LATER tried to press their equality to the pope. That’s the point of the previous Vatican link

before there WERE patriarchs and metropolitans, Clement of Rome was settling sedition among the bishops in Corinth during apostolic times…

[snip]

I’ll try and get to the rest later

 

[Nine_Two]

By “hell” you mean “hades” right?

Yep.

Although unless you want to claim that Christ was proclaiming the correctness of Greek religion, the two are synonymous.

 

[Nine_Two]

The traditional Catholic teaching, as I understand it, is that he descended to the “Limbo of the fathers” (upper Hades if you prefer) and that heaven was only opened up to them… and nobody else.

Interesting, I didn’t know that. I’m curious where in Holy Tradition that comes from, do you happen to know?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Hesychios;6412832]
Yet it is the bishops of Rome who have been in heresy for 1000 years now.
How can such a man be removed?

Did Jesus remove Peter when he denied him 3 times? What happened to Judas when he betrayed Jesus? Which (Bishop) Apostles was Kept and which Apostle (Bishop) was lost? You are at liberty to isolate yourself with your opinions, but the facts and history do not support your theory of opinions that the Bishops of Rome have been in heresy for 1000 years now? Reread your accusation, does it sound a bit extreme and out of context from reality?

That is why some Catholic Traditionalists can appear to be so schizophrenic. They cannot let go of the fact that a true bishop of Rome might be bad for the church, so they sometimes go to the extreme position of Sede Vacante: he must not be a real Pope, the See is empty.

No one denies that the gates of hell will come against Peter and the Catholic Church and history records the gates of hell have not and will never prevail, because Jesus Christ is faithful to his Word, thus “Viva La Papa” in Jesus Christ, with unbroken succesion from St.Peter.

That’s all new for your church, and it is really unacceptable.

]

With your permission please allow me to address the meat of the subject and make clear here that your opinions and protests against Peter’s God given authority residing the Popes throughout history are a new invention. The Popes have always been recognized as Peter’s successor’s since apostolic times. What you protest does not come from the early Eastern Orthodox Church’s including the Eastern Emperors who ruled over the Patriarch of Constantinople subjecting themselves to a Church and State union. Which the Pope could never do, because the Popes served their only King of Kings Jesus Christ even while facing death or the threat of death.

Let us be realistic here about this subject and compare the Reign of Christ from our Magistrates and successors of the Apostles;

1. Since the pride of men entered the body of Christ among her brethren. The Orthodox has structured itself into an “Autocephany” (self headed) which can be compared to the “united nations” of Patriarchs which is a man made institution. This authocephany is not by a Divine revealed mandate from the scriptures as Mt. 16:14-19 reveals Jesus building a Monarchy as he, Jesus himself sits as King in heaven binding and loosing over his Church as his Vicar “Rock” Peter binds and loose on earth over the flock Jesus gave Peter see John 21:15-17.

2.Orthodoxy sole authority rests on a synod of Bishops and a primemate. But the primate (Patriarch) has no power in himself or very little over the faith and morals of the Church. Jesus never designed such a structure to shepherd his flock, your authority comes from man not God. To add insult to injury, your synod authority makes you a Church and State that gives authority to the civil government power where your authoritative synod takes place. This is a shame to the Jesus Christ who is head over his body, not a civil government. The Rock of Jesus Christ in Peter is built by divine command not man as your “autocephalous” creates a new authority as a man made institution.

3.Your “Subornaiia” has created in your church community a conciliar, which can be compared to a Church communism. Yes “communism” although on the surface it appears biblical, every one sharing authority, possesions, gifts, property etc., but in reality History has proven your “Soborvost” has created a civil government of the people (communists) who begin to control the Church making a harlot of her at first and then removing her belief in God from their “Synod” societies.

Thank God for Pope John Paul II who cut the head off the communist beast so that Orthodoxy can breathe life into her children again. Peter in the Pope today calls his lost brethren back home to the faith. But some refuse and protest his God given authority.

In summary, I believe Orthodoxy “IMHO” confuse civil government authority, rule, with God’s given authority and shepherds. Your false claims of a Pope being supreme human comes from your carnal understanding what God has divinely built upon Peter.

The Church Jesus built is never a democracy, the Church Jesus built is a Monarchy where Jesus is our head. Peter and the Popes is her Shepherd as Jesus divinely placed here on earth until Jesus returns.

Orthodoxy is inventing a new democratic Church, which never existed. The reason you don’t have the early Church protesting the Popes as your Church community does today, is for the fact they already believed and recognized the Pope’s as having Peter’s authority divinely given by Jesus himself.

Peace be with you

 

[Nine_Two]

Taking this chronologically

• Jesus bestowed special duties on Peter. It’s undisputed.
• if all the apostles had equal responsibility, Jesus wouldn’t have bestowed special duties on Peter.
• You remember Fr Ambrose. We had our disagreements, but on this point I completely agreed with him. 1st among equals is a nonsense term. If one is 1st then all aren’t equal. If all are equal, one can’t be 1st.
• Clement of Rome ~ 80 a.d. 3rd successor to Peter, asked by Corinth Greece to settle the sedition among thir bishops. This was during apostolic times. St John is still alive and living closer to Corinth than Clement was over in Rome. So we already see the pope during apostolic times, settling Church matters in other countries
• If Ignatius of Antioch, is going to be true to his teaching and what he wrote above in his letter to the Smyrneans,(Church location where Polycarp and Irenaeus came from) do you think he would go against this point “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop” when writing his letter to the Church of Rome? I don’t think so. I think it’s assumed the bishop of Rome got the letter. Especially since Ignatius is asking the Church of Rome, not to interfere on his behalf to stop or save him from the martyrdom he desired. Do we agree?

Christ bestowed Peter with special responsibility, that is undisputed, what those mean for anyone afterwards is, and should be the focus of any inquiry.
Christ also bestowed special responsibility on other apostles. This does not mean iniquality, but simply different missions.
I’m sure St. Ambrose, if he said that, would be surprised by a modern day boardroom, which is lead by a First Among Equals, something which has meaning in the context.
I’m reading the Epistles of St. Clement as part of my Lentel reading. I have a hard time believing that St. Clement actually wrote it, and it seems history is on my side. The writter of the first epistle (which I am currently reading) seems to accept hearsay as proof of his world views (ie his tale of the Phoenix), and generally doesn’t seem aware of much more than tales of the areas outside his immediate surroundings. The fact that the early church considered it pseudononymous - the reason it was rejected as scripture - does nothing to help its cause. Additionally there is no evidence of Corinth asking for intervention in the matter. Finally in the opening sentence he refers to both Churchs as “paroikoi” - a phrase which by this time meant “passing through” or as is popularly translated “sojourning”, the author didn’t believe there was any permanence to the establishment to the Church, and made no attempt to assert authority over Corinth.
As for St. Ireneus, it is agreed by the Orthodox that nothing can be done without the bishop of the place. I’m not sure how you’re reading into a letter that any reference to bishop in that sense means the Bishop of Rome.

Jesus prayed for unity among His apostles as He and His Father are one so they must be one… i.e. translated as perfect unity in the whole Church ALSO…

So why’d you guys leave that unity?

If one has the fullness of the faith, they will be, and remain, united to Peter. Schism from Peter is a sign of disobedience to Jesus and a loss of faith by the one who is divided.

That’s a Catholic innovation. Schism from the Body of Christ, not from Peter, is disobedience to Christ.

Peter was also obedient to Jesus. That demonstrates his faith

Peter also committed apostacy, the difference between him and his “successors” is that he repented.

You’re seperated from Peter, which makes stubborn in that case, a negative.

Not at all, my bishop, and the bishops of every Orthodox person here holds succession from St. Peter. The See of St. Peter has unfortunately seperated itself from us.

If a work comes to the right conclusions, no matter the date, a work can be relevant.

You mean any work which agrees with you is relevent, but ones that don’t are irrelevent?

It was the East who LATER tried to press their equality to the pope. That’s the point of the previous Vatican link

All Orthodox know that is the point of view of the Vatican. Restating it doesn’t change facts.

before there WERE patriarchs and metropolitans, Clement of Rome was settling sedition among the bishops in Corinth during apostolic times…

I’ve already touched on this, but will take it further, just because the titles of Patriarchs and Metropolitans didn’t yet exist (as did the title of Pope), doesn’t mean that certain sees in the East weren’t already considered more important than others.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Michael, from your Orthodox point of view the bishops of Rome have been in heresy for 1,000 years, but from the Catholic point of view it is the Orthodox that are schismatic and celebrating illicit Masses.

Hey gurney? Here’s a little history for you; did you know Michael Caerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, defied pope Saint Leo IX and the emperor, and struck Leo IX’s name from the diptychs, or commemoration in the Liturgy. Yes, the early Church 800’s a.d? prayed for the Popes in the liturgy as we do today.

This was the century when Pope Saint Nicholas I was fighting the illegal Patriarch of Constantinople, Photius in order to reseat the great St. Ignatius to his rightful see, of which the illegal Patriarch Photius had taken it from St. Ignatius, because Ignatius was exiled by the emperor, for the fact that St. Ignatius had refused the Eucharist to the emperor’s relative (uncle Bardas Ceasar) when it was revealed the uncle was living in incest with his daughter in law (Eudokia).

Recorded history proves that the Pope was recoqnized as Shepherd over the Church Jesus built.

Peace be with you