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

[josie_L]

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.

The apparition of our Lady of Gaudelupe in Mexico led more than 6 million pagan Aztecs to Christianity, wouldn’t this indicate the authenticity of the apparition as being from God, or was this the devil’s doing?

p.s. Moreover, we still have the tilma in evidence some 500 years later (there have been scientific studies done on it that indicate it is similar to the shroud in that the pigmentation is unknown to man).

p.p.s. Last time I checked, these visions and their visionaries (as well as the miracles performed) were vigorously tested by the Church before they were accepted (not all visions have been approved, the most notable of these is Medjugorge).

 

[dzheremi]

The apparition of our Lady of Gaudelupe in Mexico led more than 6 million pagan Aztecs to Christianity, wouldn’t this indicate the authenticity of the apparition as being from God, or was this the devil’s doing?

This is a strange bit of logic. Thousands of people have seen visions of Mary and not converted, as well. Does that mean that such visions were necessarily false or demonic?

p.s. Moreover, we still have the tilma in evidence some 500 years later (there have been scientific studies done on it that indicate it is similar to the shroud in that the pigmentation is unknown to man).

And?

p.p.s. Last time I checked, these visions and their visionaries (as well as the miracles performed) were vigorously tested by the Church before they were accepted (not all visions have been approved, the most notable of these is Medjugorge).

That’s neither here nor there. Not to be crude, but I’d assume that candidates for the priesthood are similarly vetted before being ordained, and yet there seem to be an increasingly public string of problems with that process, judging from recent scandals. Perhaps it is best not to trust absolutely everything to Vatican “experts”. They can approve (or not approve) Medjugorge or Lourdes until the cows come home. I think this is one place where the official Church line actually makes a lot of sense: No Catholic is required to believe in any of these apparitions, approved or not.

 

[josie_L]

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

He is not taking St. Irenaeous’s comment out of context, in fact, St. Irenaeous is stating what position the Roman Church held within the framework of the Universal Church, i.e., it is to her which one should seek to agree with (because she is the successor to Rock and thus the guardian of Christian tradition). This is not simple commentary that St. Irenaeous is making but a fact about the ecclesiology of the Church.

Edit: It is hard to imagine that St. Irenaeous would say such a thing if it was not rooted in tradition and scripture so as to render it’s understanding more explicit, i.e., Peter (and his successors in Rome) is the rock upon which the Church is built.

 

[josie_L]

This is a strange bit of logic. Thousands of people have seen visions of Mary and not converted, as well. Does that mean that such visions were necessarily false or demonic?

You did not answer my question, so I’ll repeat, do you believe that the apparitions of Our Lady of Guadelupe were from God being that more than 6 million pagan Aztecs (who sacrificed to their gods and ate their victims) converted to Catholic Christianity (there are no Aztecs today)?

That’s neither here nor there. Not to be crude, but I’d assume that candidates for the priesthood are similarly vetted before being ordained, and yet there seem to be an increasingly public string of problems with that process, judging from recent scandals.

It is very relevant to the discussion at hand because it takes into account the years and many peoples within and without the Church who have helped elucidate the matter through science, psychological examinations, interrogations . . . etc. For example, the miracles at Lourdes were confirmed (in that they were scientifically unexplained) by an International Medical Tribunal made up of various doctors of different religious and non-religious perspectives. Now ask me why the Church would go to so much trouble if not to ensure that these visions (and miracles) were indeed valid?

As for the scandals, there was a point after Vatican II (and the sexual revolution) wherein liberal theology (as a result of secular ideals) set hold within the Church, thus allowing priests of unorthodox faith and morals to filter into the Church. This is why I believe we are experiencing these issues today.

 

[Madaglan]

The apparition of our Lady of Gaudelupe in Mexico led more than 6 million pagan Aztecs to Christianity, wouldn’t this indicate the authenticity of the apparition as being from God, or was this the devil’s doing?

p.s. Moreover, we still have the tilma in evidence some 500 years later (there have been scientific studies done on it that indicate it is similar to the shroud in that the pigmentation is unknown to man).

p.p.s. Last time I checked, these visions and their visionaries (as well as the miracles performed) were vigorously tested by the Church before they were accepted (not all visions have been approved, the most notable of these is Medjugorge).

Well, the Latin Catholic rites are a little more humane than those of the pagan Aztecs.

 

[steve_b]

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.

Could that be explained by what Jesus said later to all of the apostles? “Satan has asked to sift all of you like wheat”. Was Satan already trying to sift Peter after Jesus renames him Rock and gives him the keys to the kingdom? Makes sense. Who is Satan going to attack 1st, but the one Jesus selects to head His Church.

Did Jesus statement to Peter, change what Jesus did for Peter? NO!
n:

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.

The Church teaches those keys come through Peter to the other bishops united to him. Scripture only refers to Peter receiving the keys.
n:

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.

n:

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.

It talks about the origin AND that the term was never meant to apply to the pope.
n:

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

Irenaeus said

"In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, "

Who has the authority to speak for the Church? It’s the bishop correct? Letters of correction regarding sedition among bishops don’t come from, or go back and forth to, joe six pak in the pews. Do we agree?

Irenaeus was certainly aware of Ignatius letters to the Church at Smyrna where Irenaeus was from. Ignatius says, do nothing regarding the Church without the bishop.

Therefore, since Irenaeus is writing against heresies, gnosticism in particular, and regarding authority and who to obey, he is NOT going to suggest the letter coming from the Church of Rome didn’t come from Clement. Fair to say?
n:

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.

Does the fact a Gospel or letter is not signed by the author disqualify it as valid?
n:

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

It’s pretty much meaningless.
n:

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.

That’s possible. Yet he was able to write the book of revelation and get it to the Church. So somehow he was able to still communicate with the Church.
n:

Additionally there were three major metropolitan cities which emerged, Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria.

Rome was already there and chair of Peter.

Constantinople was 200 years later. And it’s interesting, Constantinople made itself 1st in the East, then the others came behind it. I’m not sure how the sees are officially ranked by the East. But It seems to me Jerusalem was considered last in rank. Alexandria and Antioch it seems to me are 2nd and 3rd. But I could be wrong on that ranking.

Is Constantinople/Istanbul still 1st among the Orthodox today? What about Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem? Where do they rank with each other? 1st among equals just doesn’t make sense. 1st isn’t 1st and all the rest aren’t equal because they are all ranked as well, 2nd 3rd, 4th etc etc etc… not just by count but by status.
n:

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.

Rome is on the West coast of Italy. If one goes by land to get from Greece to Rome the mileage is huge in those days. If by sea, & land, the mileage is cut considerably but still slow and long . However, much closer to Greece if one looks north you have many churches all with valid bishops.

I believe The point is, Corinth went to the chair of Peter.
n:

I would point out that Harpazo made and excellent reply regarding St. Ireneus.

What did he say?

 

[dzheremi]

You did not answer my question, so I’ll repeat, do you believe that the apparitions of Our Lady of Guadelupe were from God being that more than 6 million pagan Aztecs (who sacrificed to their gods and ate their victims) converted to Catholic Christianity (there are no Aztecs today)?

I don’t think it’s a very good question, so no, I didn’t answer it. I have no idea whether or not this particular apparition or any apparition is from God. I find it interesting that you specify “Catholic Christianity” now. Perhaps if the apparition had come to Ethiopia those “pagans” would have been converted to Ethiopian Orthodoxy, or in Uzbekistan to Russian Orthodoxy. Strange, don’t you think?

The assertion that there are “no Aztecs today” rubs me the wrong way. The Aztec empire is long gone, of course, but the descendants of those people are quite numerous. There are about 1.5 million native speakers of Nahuatl (which was the majority language of the Aztec empire) in Mexico today, not to mention the several million more who speak other Uto-Aztecan language. These are the indigenous people of the Mesoamerica, and they are very much alive, thank you. What you have said here is a bit like saying that there are no Assyrians today because they lost their own empire in the 6th century BC. Out of respect to the Assyro-Chaldeans, I am assuming that you would not say such thing.

It is very relevant to the discussion at hand because it takes into account the years and many peoples within and without the Church who have helped elucidate the matter through science, psychological examinations, interrogations . . . etc. For example, the miracles at Lourdes were confirmed (in that they were scientifically unexplained) by an International Medical Tribunal made up of various doctors of different religious and non-religious perspectives. Now ask me why the Church would go to so much trouble if not to ensure that these visions (and miracles) were indeed valid?

With due respect, you are explaining why it is relevant to you, but that does not make it relevant to me. I don’t particularly care what science can or can’t explain. This has absolutely zero impact on my faith. If I had to guess, I would say that the Church probably went through so much trouble because it is essentially a product of western culture (as well as a profound influence upon that same culture), which to some degree requires some sort of scientific “confirmation” of everything. So, the Church behaves as any western institution would behave: There is something we cannot explain - let’s throw some science at it! Science can’t explain it? Whelp, I guess it’s a miracle then! I don’t really understand this, as miracles are their own explanation. They don’t happen but as God wills them to, and science doesn’t answer religious questions either way, so…

As for the scandals, there was a point after Vatican II (and the sexual revolution) wherein liberal theology (as a result of secular ideals) set hold within the Church, thus allowing priests of unorthodox faith and morals to filter into the Church. This is why I believe we are experiencing these issues today.

Sorry. My intent was not to discuss the scandals, only to make the point that having leagues of experts and intense investigation cannot always prevent bad/suspect things from being certified otherwise. I believe this must be the case with at least some apparitions, so I prefer to maintain a critical stance on them.

 

[Nine_Two]

Could that be explained by what Jesus said later to all of the apostles? “Satan has asked to sift all of you like wheat”. Was Satan already trying to sift Peter after Jesus renames him Rock and gives him the keys to the kingdom? Makes sense. Who is Satan going to attack 1st, but the one Jesus selects to head His Church.

Did Jesus statement to Peter, change what Jesus did for Peter? NO!

So Christ telling Peter that he is Satan is the same as when he tells all the apostles that Satan has asked for them? I don’t think so. It is clearly telling us that even the Apostles are frail humans and can fall subject to Satan.

It was a privilage granted by the other sees to Rome when it was Orthodox.

It talks about the origin AND that the term was never meant to apply to the pope.

I didn’t see any mention of that, even when I did a “find” search for the term.

Irenaeus said

"In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, "

Who has the authority to speak for the Church? It’s the bishop correct? Letters of correction regarding sedition among bishops don’t come from, or go back and forth to, joe six pak in the pews. Do we agree?

Irenaeus was certainly aware of Ignatius letters to the Church at Smyrna where Irenaeus was from. Ignatius says, do nothing regarding the Church without the bishop.

Therefore, since Irenaeus is writing against heresies, gnosticism in particular, and regarding authority and who to obey, he is NOT going to suggest the letter coming from the Church of Rome didn’t come from Clement. Fair to say?

Anyone to whom the Bishop of Rome might grant the right to do so would have be able to send letters.

Does the fact a Gospel or letter is not signed by the author disqualify it as valid?

It does not disqualify it, nor does it change the message, but it means more care must be taken when discerning the source.

It’s pretty much meaningless.

His All Holiness Bartholomew I of Constantinople would likely disagree with you on this point, as he presently holds the title.

That’s possible. Yet he was able to write the book of revelation and get it to the Church. So somehow he was able to still communicate with the Church.

He wrote his Apocalypse while on Patmos, however he did eventually get off, and even if it had begun distribution before that there were ships that came to the island every once in a while. But he would have lacked an ability to react in a timely manner.

Rome was already there and chair of Peter.

Constantinople was 200 years later. And it’s interesting, Constantinople made itself 1st in the East, then the others came behind it. I’m not sure how the sees are officially ranked by the East. But It seems to me Jerusalem was considered last in rank. Alexandria and Antioch it seems to me are 2nd and 3rd. But I could be wrong on that ranking.

I didn’t say Constantinople, I said Antioch and Alexandria. Jerusalem wasn’t recognised until later either.

Is Constantinople/Istanbul still 1st among the Orthodox today? What about Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem? Where do they rank with each other? 1st among equals just doesn’t make sense. 1st isn’t 1st and all the rest aren’t equal because they are all ranked as well, 2nd 3rd, 4th etc etc etc… not just by count but by status.

All the Churches are equal, the ranking exists to show who takes precedence in formal meetings. Put it this way, in the UN General Assembly all nations are equal, however not all have an equal position within the chamber. The difference here is that the UN changes who has the best position every year, and the rest are based alphabetically off of that one.

Rome is on the West coast of Italy. If one goes by land to get from Greece to Rome the mileage is huge in those days. If by sea, & land, the mileage is cut considerably but still slow and long . However, much closer to Greece if one looks north you have many churches all with valid bishops.

As I said, the nearest Metropolis other than Rome would have been Antioch.

I believe The point is, Corinth went to the chair of Peter.

Being closer this only makes sense.

What did he say?

He responded to you when you originally made the comment, I suggest going back to read it if you want to reply to it.

 

[jam070406]

So Christ telling Peter that he is Satan is the same as when he tells all the apostles that Satan has asked for them? I don’t think so. It is clearly telling us that even the Apostles are frail humans and can fall subject to Satan.

It tells us that it was Peter that was going to be the one to strengthen the other Apostles. It was the “Rock” that Jesus prayed for.
I don’t understand your point. How does the fact that Peter was subject to sin negate the role Christ gave him? This was before the Eucharist was instituted and before the Holy Spirit came upon them mind you. The Church has never taught that Popes can’t sin but that they are protected by the Holy Spirit when strengthening the flock in the role of shepherd that Jesus left to Peter which is passed on to his successor, the Pope.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So am I right when I say most Orthodox think that the Marian apparitions are either diabolical or a hoax altogether?

 

[trophybearer]

So am I right when I say most Orthodox think that the Marian apparitions are either diabolical or a hoax altogether?

That would pretty much sum up my belief.

 

[prodromos]

So am I right when I say most Orthodox think that the Marian apparitions are either diabolical or a hoax altogether?

They are of an altogether different character to the many visitations of Mary to Orthodox, so it is hard to consider them in the same light.

John

 

[josie_L]

Well, the Latin Catholic rites are a little more humane than those of the pagan Aztecs.

Was the apparition of Mother Mary (wherein we still have the tilma) from God?

 

[josie_L]

I don’t think it’s a very good question, so no, I didn’t answer it. I have no idea whether or not this particular apparition or any apparition is from God. I find it interesting that you specify “Catholic Christianity” now. Perhaps if the apparition had come to Ethiopia those “pagans” would have been converted to Ethiopian Orthodoxy, or in Uzbekistan to Russian Orthodoxy. Strange, don’t you think?

Earlier, you mentioned something about “testing the spirits”, so this is why I posed the question? I wish to know exactly what “testing the spirits” means to you in light of the apparition of “Our Lady of Gaudelupe”, that is, I would think that there can only be two kinds of spirits, the ones that are from God and the ones that are not. Moreover, all the "perhaps if . . " in the world will not change the fact that it happened where it happened. And I specify “Catholic Christianity” now to emphasize the fact that it was indeed the Catholics (through the help of Christ and Mary) who conquered the vicious Aztec empire.

The assertion that there are “no Aztecs today” rubs me the wrong way. The Aztec empire is long gone, of course, but the descendants of those people are quite numerous. There are about 1.5 million native speakers of Nahuatl (which was the majority language of the Aztec empire) in Mexico today, not to mention the several million more who speak other Uto-Aztecan language. These are the indigenous people of the Mesoamerica, and they are very much alive, thank you. What you have said here is a bit like saying that there are no Assyrians today because they lost their own empire in the 6th century BC. Out of respect to the Assyro-Chaldeans, I am assuming that you would not say such thing.

Oh give me a break Dzheremi, it rubs me the wrong way that you can’t answer a simple question about whether or not you believe the apparition was from God? Moreover, when I said there are “no Aztecs today” I meant there are none existing as they were then, i.e., practicing their sacrifices to their gods by ripping their beating hearts out of their bodies (while they were still alive), and throwing them down the temple steps so they could later tear their limbs to EAT them. Do you think those Aztecs still exist today?

With due respect, you are explaining why it is relevant to you, but that does not make it relevant to me. I don’t particularly care what science can or can’t explain. This has absolutely zero impact on my faith. If I had to guess, I would say that the Church probably went through so much trouble because it is essentially a product of western culture (as well as a profound influence upon that same culture), which to some degree requires some sort of scientific “confirmation” of everything. So, the Church behaves as any western institution would behave: There is something we cannot explain - let’s throw some science at it! Science can’t explain it? Whelp, I guess it’s a miracle then! I don’t really understand this, as miracles are their own explanation. They don’t happen but as God wills them to, and science doesn’t answer religious questions either way, so…

So for you science cannot help confirm truths or solidify “miracles” for the Church, i.e., you believe that there is some divide between science and faith? Moreover, my point was to show how cautious the Church is when it comes to validating an apparition, i.e., she uses every means at her disposal (secular or otherwise) to disprove the visions/visionaries if they be fraudulent.

Sorry. My intent was not to discuss the scandals, only to make the point that having leagues of experts and intense investigation cannot always prevent bad/suspect things from being certified otherwise. I believe this must be the case with at least some apparitions, so I prefer to maintain a critical stance on them.

I don’t mind you taking a critical stance, however, you yourself said the Bible asks that we test the spirits, so what criteria would you apply to Gaudelupe in order to test the spirits there?

 

[dzheremi]

Earlier, you mentioned something about “testing the spirits”, so this is why I posed the question? I wish to know exactly what “testing the spirits” means to you in light of the apparition of “Our Lady of Gaudelupe”, that is, I would think that there can only be two kinds of spirits, the ones that are from God and the ones that are not. Moreover, all the "perhaps if . . " in the world will not change the fact that it happened where it happened. And I specify “Catholic Christianity” now to emphasize the fact that it was indeed the Catholics (through the help of Christ and Mary) who conquered the vicious Aztec empire.

I don’t think it’s a very ambiguous verse, so at the risk of further upsetting you all I can think to say is that it means exactly what it says. As not all spirits are from God, you are to test them to determine their origin. Since the verses in 1 John 4 were written in pre-scientific times, it doesn’t seem likely that they mean scientific testing of the type the Vatican apparently orders to confirm its miracles. I rather like the description someone else gave earlier in the thread of the Orthodox method of testing the spirits instead, as it seems to stick closer to the instruction in 1 John 4:3. And my “what ifs” were to say that it seems really arbitrary to me. I am not denying that it happened where it did.

Oh give me a break Dzheremi, it rubs me the wrong way that you can’t answer a simple question about whether or not you believe the apparition was from God?

Because my personal opinion doesn’t matter. I’m quite happy saying I don’t know either way, as this isn’t a pressing issue for me.

Moreover, when I said there are “no Aztecs today” I meant there are none existing as they were then, i.e., practicing their sacrifices to their gods by ripping their beating hearts out of their bodies (while they were still alive), and throwing them down the temple steps so they could later tear their limbs to EAT them. Do you think those Aztecs still exist today?

It was an aside to try to get you to think of the implications of what you write, but no, there are no such Aztecs today.

So for you science cannot help confirm truths or solidify “miracles” for the Church, i.e., you believe that there is some divide between science and faith?

That’s not even close to what I wrote. What I wrote basically said that science has no bearing on my faith, because it doesn’t. I didn’t come to the Church because of its strong scientific tradition, and if I leave I won’t be leaving to get away from it either. Science simply has no bearing on my religious beliefs one way or another. I am glad that the Church is not full of “young earth creationists” or whatever (as those people have the opposite mentality, and are generally actively anti-science), but that doesn’t mean I need some Vatican or other scientists to tell me when it’s okay for me to believe in something. The orthodoxy of the message imparted ought to be the criterion by which any apparition is deemed worthy of belief, and as several new practices have been introduced at the behest of apparitions or those who claim to have seen them, I think that many such apparitions utterly fail that particular test.

Moreover, my point was to show how cautious the Church is when it comes to validating an apparition, i.e., she uses every means at her disposal (secular or otherwise) to disprove the visions/visionaries if they be fraudulent.

And again, unfortunately sometimes all the caution in the world does not do a lick of good. They can be vigilant in their testing and still approve something that should have been best left at the level of a closely-watched folk devotion.

I don’t mind you taking a critical stance, however, you yourself said the Bible asks that we test the spirits, so what criteria would you apply to Gaudelupe in order to test the spirits there?

Again, Josie, why? Why do I have to answer this if I told you already that it absolutely does not matter to me? You can read the Bible and see what it says about how to test the spirits. I am unaware of the apparition in this case having been asked to confess Jesus’ divinity, but as she DID ask Juan Diego to build a church, I suppose we can assume that she would confess it (taking for granted her identity as the very Mother of God). This is all immaterial, though. My point was never to say that any particular apparition is false, only that the manner by which all apparitions are dealt with in the Church does not inspire belief in them for me personally. Heck, some of my ancestors were probably converted by this particular vision, or at least news of it. For the sake of their souls, I hope it inspired true faith in God, whether or not I would personally follow it myself. All I can safely say is that it is a beautiful and very popular story. I never feel bad seeing the icons and statuettes of the Virgin of Guadalupe in my grandmother’s house, for instance, because I know how strongly she believes in God. I think any particular devotion to something not required as an essential part of the faith (which the Vatican affirms apparitions are not) is best left to the individual. As I am very conservative, I choose to honor the Holy Mother of God with a few simple icons in my own home, none of which are in the style of Guadalupe because they were all given to me by Eastern Christians for whom the story of the Virgin of Guadalupe is not relevant. If I were to be given something in the Mexican style, I would incorporate it knowing that I was still seeking the intercession of the same Holy Mother of God, which is far away from any questions on this or that apparition.

 

[steve_b]

So Christ telling Peter that he is Satan is the same as when he tells all the apostles that Satan has asked for them? I don’t think so. It is clearly telling us that even the Apostles are frail humans and can fall subject to Satan.

Did the apostles know that Satan was in the room with them the whole time of the last supper? No. When he got the apostles to argue over who is greatest, did they know it was Satan sifting them? No. When he entered Judas right after receiving the Eucharist, who told them it was Satan? Could the apostles see him? No.

Jesus saw Satan the whole time. Just as Jesus saw him there at Ceserea Philippi when He renames Simon to Rock, and gives him the keys of the kingdom.

Who is Satan going to attack 1st? It’s Peter
n:

It was a privilage granted by the other sees to Rome when it was Orthodox.

Where is the history of this?
n:

I didn’t see any mention of that, even when I did a “find” search for the term.

I gave you the link, I gave you the section to start reading.

From that section

: emphasis mine

1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.

[snip]

if you’re interested, you can finish reading the link from the Vatican

n:

His All Holiness Bartholomew I of Constantinople would likely disagree with you on this point, as he presently holds the title.

• What authority does he have in/over the other Orthodox churches?
• Constantinople doesn’t exist today. Is Istanbul still 1st in the East?
• Hagia Sophia which presumably would be his cathedral is now a museum.

n:

He wrote his Apocalypse while on Patmos, however he did eventually get off, and even if it had begun distribution before that there were ships that came to the island every once in a while. But he would have lacked an ability to react in a timely manner.

The main point is, Corinth went to the chair of Peter for resolution.
n:

I didn’t say Constantinople, I said Antioch and Alexandria. Jerusalem wasn’t recognised until later either.

the Vatican link I gave you explains this development in the East of a new order of dignity among sees caused by Constantinople.
n:

All the Churches are equal, the ranking exists to show who takes precedence in formal meetings. Put it this way, in the UN General Assembly all nations are equal, however not all have an equal position within the chamber. The difference here is that the UN changes who has the best position every year, and the rest are based alphabetically off of that one.

IOW all are not equal
n:

As I said, the nearest Metropolis other than Rome would have been Antioch.

check this map
specialtyinterests.net/map_middle_east.html

Look at all the churches close to Corinth.

• Smyrna,
• Ephesus,
• Pergamum,
• Thyatira,
• Philadelphia,
• Colossae,
• & Antioch.

These are MUCH closer to Corinth than Rome.

Corinth went to Rome because it’s the chair of Peter.

 

[prodromos]

check this map
specialtyinterests.net/map_middle_east.html

Look at all the churches close to Corinth.

• Smyrna,
• Ephesus,
• Pergamum,
• Thyatira,
• Philadelphia,
• Colossae,
• & Antioch.

These are MUCH closer to Corinth than Rome.

Yes, but as we have stated in numerous threads in the past, Rome had regular trade with Corinth due to its strategic location and the fact that Corinth was a Roman colony. Regular trade meant regular communication. The Church in Corinth had been established by Paul who had also established the Church in Rome, another strong link between them, and not least the fact that Clement had been a companion of Paul’s. Three very solid reasons why Corinth would have sought help from Rome which have nothing to do with Peter.

Corinth went to Rome because it’s the chair of Peter.

No mention of Peter in the letter from Clement apart from reference to his martyrdom (and Paul’s) and no evidence from the original Corinth request as it has not survived. Thus the only reason you have for this claim is your say so. Not sufficient evidence I’m afraid.

John

 

[Nine_Two]

Did the apostles know that Satan was in the room with them the whole time of the last supper? No. When he got the apostles to argue over who is greatest, did they know it was Satan sifting them? No. When he entered Judas right after receiving the Eucharist, who told them it was Satan? Could the apostles see him? No.

Jesus saw Satan the whole time. Just as Jesus saw him there at Ceserea Philippi when He renames Simon to Rock, and gives him the keys of the kingdom.

Who is Satan going to attack 1st? It’s Peter

That isn’t an argument against anything I stated.

Where is the history of this?

The first thousand years of the Church.

I gave you the link, I gave you the section to start reading.

From that section

Ok, it is Rome’s right to renounce such honours, just as it has renounced the Patriarchal title. But if it wants to have any standing with the East it’s going to need to reclaim them.

• What authority does he have in/over the other Orthodox churches?
• Constantinople doesn’t exist today. Is Istanbul still 1st in the East?
• Hagia Sophia which presumably would be his cathedral is now a museum.

He has the authority of the Primacy, that is the right to chair pan-Orthodox synods, as well as other scattered rights which have been granted over time which I’m not going to list.
Constantinople does exist today. I know, I was there recently, it is the old City of Istanbul. Just because the Turkish government has decreed that it uses the name Istanbul doesn’t mean we have to break 1400 years of tradition and stop using the term.
Finally the Patriarch of Constantinople is presently based in the Church of St. George in the Phanar district of the city. However those last two questions have nothing to do with anything.

The main point is, Corinth went to the chair of Peter for resolution.

And as I’ve said over and over, it was the nearest Metropolis.

IOW all are not equal

The General Assembly is.

check this map
specialtyinterests.net/map_middle_east.html

Look at all the churches close to Corinth.

• Smyrna,
• Ephesus,
• Pergamum,
• Thyatira,
• Philadelphia,
• Colossae,
• & Antioch.

These are MUCH closer to Corinth than Rome.

Corinth went to Rome because it’s the chair of Peter.

Thanks, been to all of those places, I’m well aware of the distances. Of those only Antioch was considered a Metropolitan See, and according to Google Maps it is twice the distance between it and Corinth as between Rome and Corinth.

 

[steve_b]

Yes, but as we have stated in numerous threads in the past, Rome had regular trade with Corinth due to its strategic location and the fact that Corinth was a Roman colony.

• These cities ( Smyrna, Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, Philadelphia, Colossae, & Antioch ).are ALL on the trade route also.
• They are closer to Corinth than Rome.
• To your point that Corinth is a Roman colony. If you’re going to play the secular card, It’s ALL the Roman empire.

This isn’t about where the successor to Ceasar presides, because it’s not a secular issue. Besides, the sacular is heavily persecuting the Church. This has to do with where the successor to Peter presides. Both are Rome, but it is the latter referance to Rome that is important, not the former…
p:

Regular trade meant regular communication.

In a secular sense, All the cities mentioned had regular trade routes established. Therefore, they had regular communications
p:

The Church in Corinth had been established by Paul who had also established the Church in Rome, another strong link between them, and not least the fact that Clement had been a companion of Paul’s.

Paul’s involved with the other churches as well.

from ALL those locations mentioned, was Clement the only companion of Paul?
p:

Three very solid reasons why Corinth would have sought help from Rome which have nothing to do with Peter.

those reasons you mention aren’t solid at all.
p:

No mention of Peter in the letter from Clement apart from reference to his martyrdom (and Paul’s) and no evidence from the original Corinth request as it has not survived. Thus the only reason you have for this claim is your say so. Not sufficient evidence I’m afraid.

• The evidence for the presidency of the Church of Rome comes from Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Church of Rome.
• Clement of Rome being 3rd successor to Peter comes from Irenaeus, who came from Smyrna. A Church location that received a letter from Ignatius.
• Irenaeus mentions the incident in Corinth that was settled by the Church of Rome in his “Against heresies” Bk 3.
• Since nothing regarding the Church can be done without the bishop,(Ignatius letter to Smyrna) and Clement, 3rd successor to Peter, is the bishop of Rome at the time ( Irenaeus )

then you have the connection why Corinth went to the Church of Rome for help in settling sedition among their bishops, and NOT other churches closer to them. It is the chair of Peter.

 

[Mickey]

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.

Exactly!

He is not taking St. Irenaeous’s comment out of context, in fact, St. Irenaeous is stating what position the Roman Church held within the framework of the Universal Church, i.e., it is to her which one should seek to agree with (because she is the successor to Rock and thus the guardian of Christian tradition).

It is completely out of context.

St Irenaeus states that all must agree with the Church of Rome because that Church has faithfully preserved apostolic tradition ( not because of some inherited supremacy). He says earlier that the same is true with every Church in the world which upholds apostolic tradition. Rome upheld the Orthodox tradition so She is a Church with which all others must agree. Once again, we have a case here where josie (and others) are retroactively reading the 19th century innovation of a supreme infallible pontificate into early Church history.