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

[John_Larocque]

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

I think this particular tradition - the divison of Hell into four houses and the limited salvation of Holy Saturday - goes back to Aquinas, although some of that goes back to Augustine. Aquinas, confronted with the teaching that only baptized go to heaven, postulated in a “limbo” for unbaptized children, as opposed to placing them in Hell. There is an Orthodox council in Jerusalem that actually sided with Augustine on this issue!

Some of the Orthodox material I’ve perused comes close to “hope for a universal salvation” worldview (while leaving intact free will), and I recently came across some von Balthasar (favourite of the last two Roman pontiffs) whose approach was quite similar. There is a very recent book from +Hilarion of Volokolamsk has a book out now from SVS Press on Holy Saturday, which should be interesting reading. I have found his previous forays, both online and his book on St. Isaac of Nineveh, enlightening. This is a favourite tgpic of his.

byzcath.org/index.php/news-mainmenu-49/2860-english-version-of-archbishop-hilarions-book-christ-the-conqueror-of-hell-the-descent-into-hades-from-an-orthodox-perspective-comes-off-the-press

orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx

http://www.mospat.ru/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/PB-CHCOAL-194x300.jpg

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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?

Hello Nine Two Christ descended into Hell (english) Sheol (hebrew) Hades (greek) they all mean the same place. This proves from scripture that Jesus did not go into Gehenna (firey Hell) Lake of fire where there is nashing and grinding of teeth, no one gets out of Gehenna, nor did Jesus have a need to go to heaven to release any captives. Jesus went to the abode of the dead. The Hebrews call it “Sheol”, the Greek translators called it Hades, after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, this abode of the dead is called purgatory where Jesus cleanses us, makes us spotless and without wrinkle before we enter the presence of God after death.

Jesus, and Mary visits the souls in purgatory. This is not an officially proclaimed doctrine by the Catholic Church (yet), although it is believed by many of the faithful.

In short when Jesus suffered and was crucified and died went to hell to release the captives. This is a biblical doctrine of the Catholic Church. The purging of the soul comes after the resurrection; when scripture again is fulfilled when the blood of Jesus “purged” with hysopp to the soul in order to be spotless before God, for nothing goes before God unclean. Purgatory is for the souls on their way into heaven, but go through a testing by fire (symbolic) which burns off those works from the soul that are not worthy to enter heaven, these will get burned off, but those works worthy of the Kingdom of God, will remain and be given a crown once the soul reaches the presence of God.

The souls before the resurrection in death heard Jesus word and lived, the baptised souls who go to sleep hear the voice of Jesus, and are purged of any wrinkles or spots and made clean before the Father in heaven. So yes we profess Jesus descended into hell, in his death, and now visits the souls in purgatory after the resurrection.

Peace be with you

 

[John_Larocque]

Gabriel, please view the above link:
orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx

There’s a lot of patristic material in there!

 

[steve_b]

Christ bestowed Peter with special responsibility, that is undisputed, what those mean for anyone afterwards is, and should be the focus of any inquiry.

Are you suggesting Peter’s unique position to the Church, ended with the death of Peter?
n:

Christ also bestowed special responsibility on other apostles. This does not mean iniquality, but simply different missions.

You’re ignoring the singular leadership role Jesus gave to Peter “alone”.
n:

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 think you misread my comment. It was Fr Ambrose who used to post here. NOT St Ambrose.
n:

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.

Are you reading the same letter I’m reading?

Have you gotten to these parts yet? Clement’s remarks in blue.

the following shows Corinth asked the Church of Rome for help. Clement uses “we” and “us” to show he is the one speaking for the Church
we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect ofGod, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury

Clement’s direction
“You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, …”

If all bishops are the same, this next statement from Clement would be highly offensive for bishops in Greece to submit to Clement’s correction from Rome.

“Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue”

Clement next is speaking as vicar of Christ, AND as spokesman for the Church when he says “us”. He’s also lowering the boom

“If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him (Jesus) through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin…”

“Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you.”
Clement in that last statement was

• expecting resolution as he laid out.
• And he expects speedy verification back to him, that it has happened.

n:

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.

The point was connecting Ignatius and Irenaeus statements.

Do Nothing in the Church without the bishop (Ignatius)
All must agree with the Church of Rome (Irenaeus)

Ergo all must agree with the bishop of Rome.

 

[the_typist]

All you people do is argue and bicker over who is right and who is wrong! You both use Scripture to back your stance. I think you are both divided. I am through with this place…

Matt

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Isn’t it obvious that we’re divided since we had what is called “The Great Schism” in 1054? Isn’t it common knowledge that Catholics and Orthodox are, sadly and unfortunately, divided?

All you people do is argue and bicker over who is right and who is wrong! You both use Scripture to back your stance. I think you are both divided. I am through with this place…

Matt

 

[AMDGtoo]

All you people do is argue and bicker over who is right and who is wrong! You both use Scripture to back your stance. I think you are both divided. I am through with this place…

Matt

Yes, we’re divided–that’s a sad reality, but maybe by our “talking” with each other, we will eventually return to the unity that Jesus wanted. While there’s life, there’s hope.

You take care.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel, please view the above link:

orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx

 

[Nine_Two]

All you people do is argue and bicker over who is right and who is wrong! You both use Scripture to back your stance. I think you are both divided. I am through with this place…

Matt

So instead of arguing scripture back and forth should we keep ourselves isolated from each other?

We all know we disagree with each other, we’d be very surprised if there wasn’t disagreement.

 

[Nine_Two]

Are you suggesting Peter’s unique position to the Church, ended with the death of Peter?

No I was suggesting that such is the question we should be asking, as this is where Orthodox vary with Catholics. What you said is what I believe, but it is not what I was saying.

You’re ignoring the singular leadership role Jesus gave to Peter “alone”.

And what verse is this? And please don’t mention a random participle three verses before Jesus addresses Peter again.

I think you misread my comment. It was Fr Ambrose who used to post here. NOT St Ambrose.

Indeed I did misread who said it. The point still stands.

Are you reading the same letter I’m reading?

Why? Did your edition not have him talking about how the existance of the Phoenix is proof of the resurection? That’s chapter 12.

Have you gotten to these parts yet? Clement’s remarks in blue.

Don’t know, it would be helpful if you’d cite chapter and verse numbers so I could look them up.

At any rate your interpretations seem to be reading your view into the text, but if you could cite those portions that would be most helpful, then I could answer them.

The point was connecting Ignatius and Irenaeus statements.

Do Nothing in the Church without the bishop (Ignatius)
All must agree with the Church of Rome (Irenaeus)

They aren’t statements which need a connection.

Ergo all must agree with the bishop of Rome.

If one person says “Chedder Cheese is the best kind of cheese” and another says “Cheese is the best food in the world” does that mean that if we are to accept what these people say, we must accept that chedder cheese is the best food in the world? Just because one person said one thing, doesn’t mean it should be coupled with the words of another.

 

[Hesychios]

• Irenaeus in his work “Against Heresies” all must agree with the Church of Rome. Bk 3 Ch 3 Vs 2-3

You take this term out of context, one should read the whole set of books, which is a great resource for understanding gnosticism.

What he actually wrote was very interesting.

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches …

After which he cites Rome. This was (of course) before Rome embraced some fundamental errors (some of which have been discussed elsewhere).

Next, he cites the church he was raised in, the church of Asia and it’s Apostolic roots. I am sure he could agree with another great Father, Saint Vincent:

Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.
Vincent of Lerins

Saint Vincent’s position sounds so fresh and relevant to Orthodox, it could have been written today. We still adhere to his basic unifying principle.

Saint Irenaeus was a great Orthodox saint, and we honor him, but he wasn’t prescient, he was not a prophet. He was speaking to the people of his own day about problems in that day and in that we concur with him: when Rome was Orthodox it would be necessary to be in agreement. We still hold to this principle: to commune with Orthodox, you need to agree. He could not have predicted what would happen to the church in the city of Rome in the coming centuries, which by any reckoning does not adhere to the Vincentian canon. And he could not have known how his words would be used in the future to justify schism from Orthodoxy.

 

[steve_b]

And what verse is this? And please don’t mention a random participle three verses before Jesus addresses Peter again.

Don’t worry,

• Jesus renames Simon to Rock (Peter)
• Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom directly to the one He renames Peter (Rock)
• Jesus says whatever Peter alone binds and looses is bound and loosed in heaven
• Jesus said Peter is to confirm and strengthen the apostles (if the apostles then the Church is presumed here also)
• Jesus after He told Peter this, prayed for total unity. That means no one is to be seperated, and particularly as it relates to seperation from Peter
• Jesus said Peter is to feed and rule His sheep. Anybody left out here? Doesn’t this suggest Peter is the one all are subject to if they are considered Our Lord’s sheep?

Peter didn’t do ANY of this by himself. He didn’t seek any of this. I’m sure he was happy just being a fisherman. But he was chosen for this position. Chosen by God for this office. And the office lasts for as long as the world exists.

And Jesus says He prays in a special way for the holder of this office.
n:

Why? Did your edition not have him talking about how the existance of the Phoenix is proof of the resurection? That’s chapter 12.

I think you mean ch 25. And he doesn’t say it’s proof. He’s telling a familiar story to THEM. But he switches away from Greek mythology to ch 26 and 27 where he talks of the true resurrection. I think you will agree, the tone of Clement in his letter is stern but pastoral.
n:

Don’t know, it would be helpful if you’d cite chapter and verse numbers so I could look them up.

Here’s the passages I quoted and where they came from. I think if you go back and look at my commentary the commentary fits the passage. As you know, the chapters are no more than a paragraph or 2.

:
we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect ofGod, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury [ch 1 opening]

You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent ch 57 opening ]

Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue"[ch 57]

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him (Jesus) through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin[ch 59]

“Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you.” ch 65]

n:

If one person says “Chedder Cheese is the best kind of cheese” and another says “Cheese is the best food in the world” does that mean that if we are to accept what these people say, we must accept that chedder cheese is the best food in the world?

You have crafted a logical conclusion. Assuming the people making those statements are qualified to make the claim, then the conclusion is true.
n:

Just because one person said one thing, doesn’t mean it should be coupled with the words of another.

If there is consistancy in what is said, and the people saying it are qualified in what they say, then it can be used to build a case.

 

[Nine_Two]

Don’t worry,

• Jesus renames Simon to Rock (Peter)
• Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom directly to the one He renames Peter (Rock)
• Jesus says whatever Peter alone binds and looses is bound and loosed in heaven
• Jesus said Peter is to confirm and strengthen the apostles (if the apostles then the Church is presumed here also)
• Jesus after He told Peter this, prayed for total unity. That means no one is to be seperated, and particularly as it relates to seperation from Peter
• Jesus said Peter is to feed and rule His sheep. Anybody left out here? Doesn’t this suggest Peter is the one all are subject to if they are considered Our Lord’s sheep?

Peter didn’t do ANY of this by himself. He didn’t seek any of this. I’m sure he was happy just being a fisherman. But he was chosen for this position. Chosen by God for this office. And the office lasts for as long as the world exists.

And Jesus says He prays in a special way for the holder of this office.

None of those imply “Singular leader”, I’ll stick with First Among Equals

I think you mean ch 25. And he doesn’t say it’s proof. He’s telling a familiar story to THEM. But he switches away from Greek mythology to ch 26 and 27 where he talks of the true resurrection. I think you will agree, the tone of Clement in his letter is stern but pastoral.

You’re probably right that it is Chapter 25, as Chapter 12 didn’t sound right to me, but rather than looking in the book when I couldn’t remember where it was I did a quick internet search, clearly I’ll have to double check that the two match up next time.
And the context was not one of mythology. 25.2: “For there is a bird called the Phoenix”, not “There is a tale of” or “You have heard the stories”. Regardless this is getting off the topic and was a point I made only to assert that the epistle should not be considered to be on the same level as scripture.

Here’s the passages I quoted and where they came from. I think if you go back and look at my commentary the commentary fits the passage. As you know, the chapters are no more than a paragraph or 2.

I’ll be able to track down the verses.

we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect ofGod, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury [ch 1 opening]

Interesting, my translation (Ehrman) makes no mention of this, nor am I quite able to reconcile it with the original text, insofar as I am able to read it. I looked at a bunch of online readings, out of four, two of them (Wake and Donaldson) have it, while two do not (Lightfoot and Hoole). This leads me to conclude given the differences, that there are likely two different manuscripts, an earlier and a later, which given the use of the text would not be unsurprising, however I can find no mention of it. Additionally this point needs to be taken in concert with the fact that there is no surety that St. Clement wrote this. The tradition that says he did didn’t appear until 100 years later, meaning “Us” could have been an individual in Rome, whether in an official capacity or not, who was being asked for his opinion on the matter. I would quite expect that a man considered even by the sole living Apostle to be head of the Church would at least sign his letters.

You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent ch 57 opening ]

Essentially the thesis of his letter. Both Orthodox and Catholic the world over can agree that this is what Churches in schism do indeed need to do.

Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue"[ch 57]
Why would that be offensive in the East?

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him (Jesus) through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin[ch 59]
He’s certainly speaking as a spokesman for the Church, but I don’t see any claim that Rome alone is given wisdom from which to speak by Christ. Nor do I see a claim that the Bishop of Rome is a standin (Vicar) for Christ.

“Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you.” ch 65]

That last bit is in the indicitive, not the imperitive, meaning it’s a request, not a command. Certainly the author wanted it to happen, but he was not ordering them to do anything.

You have crafted a logical conclusion. Assuming the people making those statements are qualified to make the claim, then the conclusion is true.

The problem is that there is no reason to believe that one was speaking in light of the other.

If there is consistancy in what is said, and the people saying it are qualified in what they say, then it can be used to build a case.

Except they’re saying two very different things, that just don’t happen to conflict. You’re turning them into the same thing.

 

[steve_b]

None of those imply “Singular leader”

It implies primacy of leadership.

• Jesus renames only Simon. He calls him Rock that he will build His Church on.
• The keys of the kingdom are only mentioned being given to Peter.
• Jesus said Peter is the one to confirm and strengthen the apostles.
• Jesus used rule with only one apostle. It was to Peter

n:

I’ll stick with First Among Equals

you know where that came from right?

scroll down to "I. The origin and development of the expression "
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
n:

… was a point I made only to assert that the epistle should not be considered to be on the same level as scripture.

Agreed. No argument. Although the Corinthians would read the letter in their liturgy, not as scripture but for a reminder.
n:

Interesting, my translation (Ehrman) makes no mention of this, nor am I quite able to reconcile it with the original text, insofar as I am able to read it. I looked at a bunch of online readings, out of four, two of them (Wake and Donaldson) have it, while two do not (Lightfoot and Hoole).

Not a Catholic in the bunch
n:

This leads me to conclude given the differences, that there are likely two different manuscripts, an earlier and a later, which given the use of the text would not be unsurprising, however I can find no mention of it.

No mention of what?
n:

Additionally this point needs to be taken in concert with the fact that there is no surety that St. Clement wrote this. The tradition that says he did didn’t appear until 100 years later,

Irenaeus mentions Clement as the author AND his letter to Corinth, in his “Against Heresies”

here
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

it appears that Irenaeus considers this common knowledge for those who are not gnostics.
n:

meaning “Us” could have been an individual in Rome, whether in an official capacity or not, who was being asked for his opinion on the matter. I would quite expect that a man considered even by the sole living Apostle to be head of the Church would at least sign his letters.

I personally wouldn’t make that a hill to die on. Afterall, how many letters and books of the NT got signed by their author?
n:

Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue"[ch 57]

Why would that be offensive in the East?

Taking the term you prefer “1st among equals”, is there any importance to the one who is 1st? Not particularly. One bishop isn’t over another in that system so It’s a meaningless title.

Applying it to what we’re talking about, what force would the bishop in Italy have over bishops and clerics in Greece under that system? None.
n:

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him (Jesus) through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin[ch 59]
He’s certainly speaking as a spokesman for the Church, .

Consider

• St John the apostle is still alive at the writing of this letter.
• It’s probable that John hasn’t written Revelation yet.
• John is living a whole lot closer to Corinth than Clement is over in Rome
• There are lots of other Churches in the broader region around Corinth that were started by an apostle. Therefore they have valid bishops that could handle this issue. Why didn’t Corinth go to any of these for help? They were much closer in proximity to Corinth than Rome. Why not go to John?

Clement is successor to Peter. As Irenaeus says of him, Clement had the teaching of the apostles still ringing in his ears. He is not just speaking for the Church, he also expects results from the Corinthians
n:

Nor do I see a claim that the Bishop of Rome is a standin (Vicar) for Christ.

When Clement says “If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him (Jesus) through us”

Isn’t Clement speaking for Jesus?
n:

That last bit is in the indicitive, not the imperitive, meaning it’s a request, not a command. Certainly the author wanted it to happen, but he was not ordering them to do anything.

He wanted speedy resolution, AND he wanted word immediately that the resolution occured. That’s NOT a request it’s a command
n:

The problem is that there is no reason to believe that one was speaking in light of the other.

Except they’re saying two very different things, that just don’t happen to conflict. You’re turning them into the same thing.

you’re trying to make a distinction where there is no difference

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’d be really interested to know what the Orthodox take is on the Marian apparitions? In most of these apparitions like Fatima, Medjugorjea, Lourdes, and many others Mary extolls the Catholic Church and makes references to many Catholic things like purgatory, the Holy Father, the rosary, and other Catholic ideas. Do Orthodox think these apparitions are bogus or trumped-up by the Catholic Church? What is the opinion of Orthodox Christians in this forum and this thread as to the legitimacy and/or meaning of these events? They always have a strong Catholic character, theme, and vocabulary about them…

 

[Harpazo]

I’d be really interested to know what the Orthodox take is on the Marian apparitions? In most of these apparitions like Fatima, Medjugorjea, Lourdes, and many others Mary extolls the Catholic Church and makes references to many Catholic things like purgatory, the Holy Father, the rosary, and other Catholic ideas. Do Orthodox think these apparitions are bogus or trumped-up by the Catholic Church? What is the opinion of Orthodox Christians in this forum and this thread as to the legitimacy and/or meaning of these events? They always have a strong Catholic character, theme, and vocabulary about them…

In my opinion, they do not sound like the same Theotokos I see depicted in the Holy Scriptures and in the writings of early Saints and in liturgical services. There is an article on Orthodox Info that discusses the subject directly. I tend to agree with most of what the author has to say.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dzheremi]

I’ve never understood the many Marian apparitions, either, and have really struggled with some of the other things mentioned in that article as well, such as devotions to particular body parts of Jesus or Mary (sorry, this just seems crazy and weird to me; why exactly is it okay to vivisect our Savior or the Holy Mother just because some lady in France had a vision back in the 1700s or whatever?).

The one exception that I can think of off-hand would be the apparitions of Mary at Zeitun, Egypt. I think it should be treated differently (and viewed in a more positive light) because it did not say anything. It did not come to confirm particular contentious points of Catholic dogma, or to preach impending doom, or anything like that.

Anyone can claim to have a vision. Isn’t there some place in the Bible where we are told to test the spirits? Last time I checked, Catholic Bibles have 1 John 4:1.

 

[prodromos]

I’d be really interested to know what the Orthodox take is on the Marian apparitions? In most of these apparitions like Fatima, Medjugorjea, Lourdes, and many others Mary extolls the Catholic Church and makes references to many Catholic things like purgatory, the Holy Father, the rosary, and other Catholic ideas. Do Orthodox think these apparitions are bogus or trumped-up by the Catholic Church? What is the opinion of Orthodox Christians in this forum and this thread as to the legitimacy and/or meaning of these events? They always have a strong Catholic character, theme, and vocabulary about them…

I have read of many apparitions of Panagia in the Orthodox Church, and while the character of her visits are fairly standard, usually personal in nature, either to individuals or to the inhabitants of a monastery or a city (such as Constantinople), none of them match the character of the popular apparitions in the Catholic Church. This suggests to me that the latter visitations are quite likely not of the same person.

John

 

[prodromos]

The one exception that I can think of off-hand would be the apparitions of Mary at Zeitun, Egypt. I think it should be treated differently (and viewed in a more positive light) because it did not say anything. It did not come to confirm particular contentious points of Catholic dogma, or to preach impending doom, or anything like that.

It is, however quite unlike her visitations within the Orthodox Church. She has always been quite recogniseably human, not to the best of my knowledge as a glowing woman shaped apparition. I really don’t know what to make of that one

Anyone can claim to have a vision. Isn’t there some place in the Bible where we are told to test the spirits? Last time I checked, Catholic Bibles have 1 John 4:1.

Indeed, the testing of apparitions is another common thread in those experienced in the Orthodox Church. Once during the Divine Liturgy in a church on Mt Athos one of the monks felt a majestic presence pass close by him but could not see anything. Close by to him, however was the Elder Paisios, a very holy monk. He was able to see the apparition and the first thing he did was to request of the apparition to say, “Through the prayers of our holy fathers, Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us and save us.”. This is something the demons will not repeat. If someone knocks on the door of a monk’s cell, he will respond by saying the first half of the expression, “Through the prayers…” and wait for the person outside to say the second half before he will his door. Their attitude is always one of wariness born of humility. Their assumption being that they are worthless sinners and completely unworthy of being visited by any of the saints, let alone Panagia, so they always assume it is likely to be a demon trying to trick them through falling into pride.

John

 

[Nine_Two]

It implies primacy of leadership.

• Jesus renames only Simon. He calls him Rock that he will build His Church on.

And five verses later Christ calls St. Peter “Satan”, and comments that “you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” To me this quite contradicts the idea that he was appointing St. Peter as sole ruler of the Church just a few verses before.

• The keys of the kingdom are only mentioned being given to Peter.

Even the Catholic Church holds they were given to all the apostles, it simply believes the Church was given “special” keys. If you wish to argue the Catholic viewpoint you should at least present what is held by the Church.

• Jesus said Peter is the one to confirm and strengthen the apostles.

Depends on how you mean “confirm”, he certainly never had the right to decide who were apostles. As long as you don’t mean that I’ll agree. The problem of course is that St. Peter is not synonymous with the Papacy, although this privilege was extended to the Orthodox Bishops of Rome.

• Jesus used rule with only one apostle. It was to Peter

Then it was quite a waste for him to have more, wasn’t it?

you know where that came from right?

scroll down to "I. The origin and development of the expression "
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

That site seems to be talking about the term “Sister Churches”. The Term “First Among Equals” is (In Latin and Greek) quite an old term.

Not a Catholic in the bunch

Doesn’t really matter. I disagree with the theology of the man who translated the copy I have, yet I will not say insinuate that this compromises his knowledge of Greek. Additionally the Greek text is easily available (my edition is bilingual, but you can get the Greek online) to check against anything you believe to be erronous.

No mention of what?

Corinths request for help.

Irenaeus mentions Clement as the author AND his letter to Corinth, in his “Against Heresies”.

here
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

it appears that Irenaeus considers this common knowledge for those who are not gnostics.

Actually that quote mentions a letter was sent “from the Church of Rome” during the time of Clement.

I personally wouldn’t make that a hill to die on. Afterall, how many letters and books of the NT got signed by their author?

First off we should take out the qualifier books, since those weren’t always signed.20/22 Letters are signed. The two exceptions are Hebrews and 1 John.

Taking the term you prefer “1st among equals”, is there any importance to the one who is 1st? Not particularly. One bishop isn’t over another in that system so It’s a meaningless title.

Not quite meaningless, though certainly nothing compared to Supreme Ruler or somesuch.

Applying it to what we’re talking about, what force would the bishop in Italy have over bishops and clerics in Greece under that system? None.

Correct, as it should be, however he does have certain perogatives other Bishops might not.

Consider

• St John the apostle is still alive at the writing of this letter.
• It’s probable that John hasn’t written Revelation yet.
• John is living a whole lot closer to Corinth than Clement is over in Rome
• There are lots of other Churches in the broader region around Corinth that were started by an apostle. Therefore they have valid bishops that could handle this issue. Why didn’t Corinth go to any of these for help? They were much closer in proximity to Corinth than Rome. Why not go to John?

Clement is successor to Peter. As Irenaeus says of him, Clement had the teaching of the apostles still ringing in his ears. He is not just speaking for the Church, he also expects results from the Corinthians

The problem is that this is based on a whole bunch of assumptions. Where was St. John at this time? If he was already in exile then there is no way he could help. Additionally there were three major metropolitan cities which emerged, Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. While I haven’t checked the distances, looking at a map, Rome certainly appears to be the closest of these to Corinth and probably would have been the See which they’d appeal to for help. The modern “Borders” between East and West are something which came later, and are mostly based on the borders of the Eastern and Western halves of the Roman Empire.

When Clement says “If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him (Jesus) through us”

Isn’t Clement speaking for Jesus?

As any Bishop might.

He wanted speedy resolution, AND he wanted word immediately that the resolution occured. That’s NOT a request it’s a command

You’re right, looking over it again he does command they be sent back.

you’re trying to make a distinction where there is no difference

And I could speak contrary regarding you. I’m not sure this line of argument can lead anywhere more. I would point out that Harpazo made and excellent reply regarding St. Ireneus.