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

[Nine_Two]

I think the readings from yesterday would be very relevent to the discussion here. When I have a bit more time later on I’m going to have to remember to post them.

 

[steve_b]

That isn’t an argument against anything I stated.

Sure it is
n:

The first thousand years of the Church.

I asked for the history. IOW the proof/evidence for what you say. Give references from, scripture, tradition, with names, dates, events etc.
n:

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.

how many pan-Orthodox synods are there? Do you have a list?

Do you have a link naming the "scattered rights " regarding “primacy” that he has over the others?
n:

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.

I can appreciate your sentiments. I really can. But there is reality to consider. Constantinople is no more. It’s now Istanbul.
n:

Finally the Patriarch of Constantinople is presently based in the Church of St. George in the Phanar district of the city.

Thanks for that information. I just read a few things about it.
n:

However those last two questions have nothing to do with anything.

I think it HAS alot to do with the issue of 1st among equals, a term you prefer to use… Constantinople back in the day, usurped all kinds of authority for itself. Made itself 1st in the East with everyone else behind it. Is that still true today for the Orthodox? How do the Russians feel about that? Just curiouis, do you know how many Orthodox are left in Istanbul?
n:

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

Didn’t Paul go from Athens to Corinth? Yes [Acts 18:1]

was Athens not a “metropolis”? Athens and Corinth are VERY close to each other…~50 miles…That’s the absolute closest to Corinth of all the ones mentioned.

Bottomline, it’s about where the chair of Peter is. All this other stuff about distance and metropolis etc, is a distraction.

.

 

[Mickey]

Mark 10:32-45
At that time, Jesus taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise.” And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him, and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant of James and John. And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

 

[Mickey]

Bottomline, it’s about where the chair of Peter is.

Not really.

1 Cor 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

**Rev. 21:14 **
“….and the wall of the city with its twelve foundations, upon which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb…”

---

---

1 Peter 2:6-8
Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded. **To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner: And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word, neither do believe, whereunto also they are set. ******

 

[Nine_Two]

Mark 10:32-45
At that time, Jesus taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise.” And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him, and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant of James and John. And Jesus called them to him and said to them, "You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Thank you, I didn’t have my bible handy when I was hear earlier, nor could I remember the verses which were read to quickly grab it off the internet.

I bolded the bit I see as most relevent to this conversation (although much more of it is also of interest).

 

[Nine_Two]

I asked for the history. IOW the proof/evidence for what you say. Give references from, scripture, tradition, with names, dates, events etc.

You want proof that the East and West were united at one point? Because that’s what my comment was refering to. Unless you want to argue that Rome has never been orthodox, in which case you’re at odds with your church.

how many pan-Orthodox synods are there? Do you have a list?

I can no more give you a list of all the pan-Orthodox synods than you can give me a list of all the synods in the Catholic Church.

Do you have a link naming the "scattered rights " regarding “primacy” that he has over the others?

To a certain degree. The right to adjudicate over disputes between Bishops is based on it, for example.

I can appreciate your sentiments. I really can. But there is reality to consider. Constantinople is no more. It’s now Istanbul.

Semantics is neither here nor there.

I think it HAS alot to do with the issue of 1st among equals, a term you prefer to use… Constantinople back in the day, usurped all kinds of authority for itself. Made itself 1st in the East with everyone else behind it. Is that still true today for the Orthodox? How do the Russians feel about that? Just curiouis, do you know how many Orthodox are left in Istanbul?

If Rome feels that way, then Rome shouldn’t have recognised the council which declared it Second in rank.

Didn’t Paul go from Athens to Corinth? Yes [Acts 18:1]

was Athens not a “metropolis”? Athens and Corinth are VERY close to each other…~50 miles…That’s the absolute closest to Corinth of all the ones mentioned.

Athens was a secular metropolis, but it was not a metropolis in the context of the church. As I’ve already said, at that point only Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria were Metropolitan Sees.

Bottomline, it’s about where the chair of Peter is. All this other stuff about distance and metropolis etc, is a distraction.
.

That creates a circular argument.
“The Chair of St. Peter hold supremacy over all others because the Chair of St. Peter says so.” I don’t accept it from Evangelicals, or Muslims when they make the same sort of argument, I’m not going to accept it from a Catholic either.

 

[prodromos]

• 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.

Cultural ties are unavoidable. People always gravitate towards who and what they know if they have the choice.
Regarding the trade routes, there were many more stops along the route from Corinth to Asia Minor than from Corinth to Rome. Logistically, Rome may have been closer than the other cities you mention.

This has to do with where the successor to Peter presides.

The evidence suggests rather the successor to Paul.

Paul’s involved with the other churches as well.

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

Were the other companions of Paul still alive? We know for certain that Clement was.

those reasons you mention aren’t solid at all.

• 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.

I’ll deal with this another time as I have to head off to school now.

John

 

[steve_b]

You want proof that the East and West were united at one point?

That’s not what I took issue with. I answer it next
n:

Because that’s what my comment was refering to. Unless you want to argue that Rome has never been orthodox, in which case you’re at odds with your church.

My comment was to your statement.

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

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6423341&postcount=621

It’s the **O]**rthodox part of your statement I wanted you to explain, and secondarily that Rome was granted her status and priviledge by vote of the other sees…
n:

I can no more give you a list of all the pan-Orthodox synods than you can give me a list of all the synods in the Catholic Church.

You mean there are that many pan-Orthodox synods that you can’t list them?

As I understand it, there are synods in your churches, and then there are pan-Orthodox synods. Am I correct? Or is every synod a pan-Orthodox synod?
n:

To a certain degree. The right to adjudicate over disputes between Bishops is based on it, for example.

Do all Orthodox churches agree with this, and abide with his decisions? When you said previously, he had primacy, how do you difine primacy in that case?
n:

Semantics is neither here nor there.

n:

If Rome feels that way, then Rome shouldn’t have recognised the council which declared it Second in rank.

Look,

Rome wasn’t second place. The point was, Constantinople put itself right behind Rome and ahead of all other sees in the East. Making itself 1st in the East.

Do the E Orthodox still consider old Constantinople now Istanbul, 1st among the Orthodox churches?
n:

Athens was a secular metropolis, but it was not a metropolis in the context of the church. As I’ve already said, at that point only Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria were Metropolitan Sees.

Please expand.
n:

That creates a circular argument.
“The Chair of St. Peter hold supremacy over all others because the Chair of St. Peter says so.” I don’t accept it from Evangelicals, or Muslims when they make the same sort of argument, I’m not going to accept it from a Catholic either.

I gave you several sources defending the point. That is not circular.

 

[steve_b]

Not really.

1 Cor 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)

And this Rock, 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity, the one who spoke and all things were made, said to Simon, you are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church. Not even The gates of hell will prevail against it. I give you the keys to the kingdom of God. Whatever you bind and loose on earth is bound and loosed in heaven
m:

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

Rev. 21:14
“….and the wall of the city with its twelve foundations, upon which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb…”

1 Peter 2:6-8
Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded. **To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner: And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word, neither do believe, whereunto also they are set. **

Amen

 

[steve_b]

Cultural ties are unavoidable. People always gravitate towards who and what they know if they have the choice.
Regarding the trade routes, there were many more stops along the route from Corinth to Asia Minor than from Corinth to Rome. Logistically, Rome may have been closer than the other cities you mention.
The evidence suggests rather the successor to Paul.
Were the other companions of Paul still alive? We know for certain that Clement was.


John

Culture, choice, trade routes, logistics, proximity, … That’s a secular argument.

Re: companionship, All of the cities mentioned could be said to be affiliated with Paul. Therefore, Paul would have many companions. Presumably some even in the city of Corinth.

Therefore, this is NOT an issue of companionship. It’s about the authority to settle sedition among bishops. That’s why they went to the chair of Peter.

 

[Mickey]

and on this Rock I will build my Church.

Yes. St Peter’s confession of faith. You are finally understanding.

 

[steve_b]

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).

WHY is Rome the Church everyone is to agree with?

concluding the quote

"tradition derived from the apostles of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. "

So it is tradition, derived from the apostles Peter and Paul, and preached to men by the succession of bishops that regarding the Church of Rome,

" it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, "

i.e. the Church of Rome

"on account of its preeminent authority, "

Where did it get this authority? Tradition derived from the apostles Peter and Paul.

Now, who is to follow this authority? (seems silly to even ask )

“that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere.”

Therefore, by definition, those who follow Rome’s authority, are the faithful everywhere, who have preserved the tradition of Peter and Paul.

Those who do NOT follow Rome’s authority, are the ones Irenaeus is writing against.

Bk 3
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
h:

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.

Irenaeus and Vincent, would jump all over you for not being united to Rome.

 

[steve_b]

Yes. St Peter’s confession of faith. You are finally understanding.

It’s Peter AND his faith.

%between%

 

[steve_b]

Saint Irenaeus was a great Orthodox saint, and we honor him, but he wasn’t prescient, he was not a prophet.

What you mean to say is, he is a great saint revered by the Orthodox
h:

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

When Rome was [O]rthodox? When was that?
h:

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.

You’ve got that backwards

 

[Nine_Two]

That’s not what I took issue with. I answer it next

My comment was to your statement.

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

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6423341&postcount=621

It’s the **O]**rthodox part of your statement I wanted you to explain, and secondarily that Rome was granted her status and priviledge by vote of the other sees…

“Orthodox” meaning Rome was part of the same Church as us. One Orthodox and Catholic Church. You’re reading far to deeply into these things.
And second, Rome was granted her status and privilages by the other sees, as was Constantinople.

You mean there are that many pan-Orthodox synods that you can’t list them?

As I understand it, there are synods in your churches, and then there are pan-Orthodox synods. Am I correct? Or is every synod a pan-Orthodox synod?

Yes, there have been quite a few, and no, not every Synod is pan-Orthodox, pan-Orthodox means “All Orthodox” which is a bit misleading because not every pan-orthodox synod has representation from all the Churches, just many of them.

Do all Orthodox churches agree with this, and abide with his decisions? When you said previously, he had primacy, how do you difine primacy in that case?

I’ve already stated over and over what Primacy is. The Primate is chair among the Bishops.

Look,

Rome wasn’t second place. The point was, Constantinople put itself right behind Rome and ahead of all other sees in the East. Making itself 1st in the East.

No one ever said Rome was second place. Constantinople was granted second place by Councilar decision.

Do the E Orthodox still consider old Constantinople now Istanbul, 1st among the Orthodox churches?

I’ve already answered this several times, yes. I’m not getting why you insist on repeating the same question over and over again.

Please expand.

In What way? “Metropolis” means “Mother City” and was originally (a secular) definition regarding the city which planted colonies, and which was held as the “mother” of those colonies, Athens, having planted many colonies, would have been rightly known as a “Metropolis”, now extend that to an ecclesiastical framework… A Metropolis is now a city with a Church which other Churches regard as a “Mother Church”, originally there were three, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Later Thrace, Pontus, and Jerusalem (as Mother Church of Mother Churches) would be granted the honour, and later again Thrace and Pontus would have their Metropolitan titles merged into Constantinople.

I gave you several sources defending the point. That is not circular.

Making such a final statement as though the case is closed, is circular argument.

 

[Hesychios]

What you mean to say is, he is a great saint revered by the Orthodox.

No, I meant what I said.

Saint Irenaeus was a great Orthodox saint.

When Rome was [O]rthodox? When was that?

Now you are just being silly.

You’ve got that backwards

NO, to commune with Orthodox, you must agree with Orthodox theology.

That is why you will not be offered communion if you visit an Orthodox church, and why Pope Benedict was not offered communion when he visited.

He’s a nice guy, but he is not Orthodox.

 

[Hesychios]

Irenaeus and Vincent, would jump all over you for not being united to Rome.

Actually, in the quartodeciman controversy, Irenaeus sided with the church of Asia, the other church he lists as an Apostolic church example.

If saint Vincent saw what the Latin church had done with dogma, he would probably weep.

 

[steve_b]

Actually, in the quartodeciman controversy, Irenaeus sided with the church of Asia, the other church he lists as an Apostolic church example.

you mean this?

St. Irenæus, while condemning the Quartodeciman practice, nevertheless reproaches Pope Victor (c. 189-99) with having excommunicated the Asiatics too precipitately and with not having followed the moderation of his predecessors. The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians should observe the Holy Day of the Jews, the fourteenth of Nisan, which might occur on any day of the week. Those who kept Easter with the Jews were called Quartodecimans or terountes (observants); but even in the time of Pope Victor this usage hardly extended beyond the churches of Asia Minor. After the pope’s strong measures the Quartodecimans seem to have gradually dwindled away. Origen in the “Philosophumena” (VIII, xviii) seems to regard them as a mere handful of wrong-headed nonconformists.

 

[steve_b]

He’s a nice guy, but he is not Orthodox.

True, and Neither was Irenaeus.

 

[dzheremi]

What is this, the “Everybody tell other Apostolic Churches about their own saints” thread?