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

[Nine_Two]

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

Seems more like “Claiming ones saints for ones own exclusive use.”

 

[dzheremi]

Well, something awful anyway!

 

[prodromos]

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

Your labelling it as such in no way invalidates it. You are unable to argue against these reasons so you dismiss them as ‘secular’, as if this in some way undermines them

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.

Paul mentions Clement specifcally by name as a fellow labourer of the Gospel.

Therefore, this is NOT an issue of companionship. It’s about the authority to settle sedition among bishops.

Clement’s authority comes from being a bishop and a fellow labourer in the Gospel with Paul,

That’s why they went to the chair of Peter.

Rather as Irenaeus puts it, “the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter AND Paul”. It is only later that Paul becomes a hindrance to Rome’s designs and gets dropped from the picture.

John

 

[Mickey]

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

Indeed.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

“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.

 

[Mickey]

For clarification; The creed states “We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”, Never a “one holy orthodox catholic church”?

For clarification: The Holy Orthodox Church has been the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church for 2000 years—and She will continue to be until the end of time.

 

[Nine_Two]

Forgive me for interjecting here; But it just gets too burdensome to read these threads when Orthodox of today wish to rewrite history.

 

[steve_b]

Your labelling it as such in no way invalidates it. You are unable to argue against these reasons so you dismiss them as ‘secular’, as if this in some way undermines them

They don’t trump what I said. Answered below
p:

Paul mentions Clement specifcally by name as a fellow labourer of the Gospel.

Clement’s authority comes from being a bishop and a fellow labourer in the Gospel with Paul,

Rather as Irenaeus puts it,

“the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter AND Paul”.

Yes Clement was a fellow laborer.
Yes he was bishop
Yes that gives him authority

But

• He wasn’t the only laborer with an apostle
• He wasn’t the only bishop.
• He wasn’t the only one with authority.

Therefore, would you agree there has to be something more to why Corinth went to Rome for help to solve sedition among their bishops.

I said earlier the Church @ Smyrna is closer to Corinth than Rome.

• Polycarp, made bishop of Smyrna by apostles,
• labored with the apostles also.
• ergo he had plenty of authority

Irenaeus says

“4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are True.”

Why is Irenaeus saying in his “Against heresies” all must agree with Rome? It is because he says there is a preeminent authority of ONE see, among all other sees. One Church among all the other Churches has preeminent authority. Rome.

Where does Irenaeus say this understanding of preeminent authority came from?

"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 glorius apostles, Peter and Paul "

The part in Red is the part you quoted above.

Irenaeus continues:

“as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere.”

The reason Corinth went to Rome is because

• it’s the tradition from the apostles that every Church agrees with this Church [Rome] on account of its preeminent authority.

And since this is DURING the 1st century, in apostolic times, St John is still alive, this Tradition is already known and practiced by faithful men everywhere and is being handed down by bishops…and is to be preserved. As it is today in the 21st century

All quotes from Bk 3 ch 1

newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
p:

It is only later that Paul becomes a hindrance to Rome’s designs and gets dropped from the picture.

Really???

 

[steve_b]

Forgive me for interjecting here; But it just gets too burdensome to read these threads when Orthodox of today wish to rewrite history.

For clarification; The creed states “We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”, Never a “one holy orthodox catholic church”?

The title Orthodox was introduced from pride of men inorder to indentify a community seperate from the Pope, long after the apostolic age and early Church Fathers, so as to isolate in themselves an independent authority from the Pope who maintains unity within the Apostolic successors in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church world wide.

No matter how man tries to deceive history, rewrite history or introduce new interpretations of fhe scriptures; We have the Words from God from whom he built his Church upon Peter. Matthew 16:14-19. Any thing added to the Words of God or taken away is never from God who is infallible, but comes from man who is fallible.

Peace be with you

 

[Hesychios]

Gabriel of 12;6438354:

…But it just gets too burdensome to read these threads when Orthodox of today wish to rewrite history.

Indeed. Satan is busy sifting.

Rewriting of history?

The ‘sifting’ has been going on a long time, since probably the Donation of Constantine, or perhaps the Psudo-Isadorean decretals.

 

[onacloudyday]

The Orthodox church makes the most sence to me for several reasons.

1. The latin church easily wins a debate against any protestant, because the protestant movment was such a major failure that the only reason to remain protestant is because YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF ORTHODOXY…and you don’t agree with Roman catholosism.

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

1. what one man has the wisdom to govern a global Church, or the moral conduct?
   Before the answer that God would give ONE man this wisdom…first find it in the bible where God states this…HE DOSENT…its just asumed that if something was told to one person to feed his sheep for example, that it wasent ment for all sheapherds…or a key to the kingdom was givin to one apostle…that it didn’t mean all apostles had this athority.
2. Peter had the same title…writings in the same bible with no more weight then any other apostle…peter was not in one city ruling over the lands converted by other apostles…he traveled just like all other apostles and died in rome…but had he not, he probably would have traveled somewhere else to spread the gospel…the whole idea is simply foreign to scripture unless certain scriptures are added to in order to get the papal idea from them.
3. The Church is divine, and dosent need a human head like man made companies.
   Again one man dose not even have the ability to sheapherd a global church…but one man can sheapherd his jurisdiction as a bishop. Just look at the latin Church today…there are liberal bishops, parishes becoming more protestant, huge problems in america as so many latin Catholics don’t know anything about there church because of a blatant problem with schools and RCIA…one man is not close to fixing half these problems.
4. haven’t we already proved that it dosent work anyway, which was the whole reason for the protestant revolt. If it wasent broke martin luther would have had no real valid issues…these were not issues of human imperfection, but actual wrong practises going on in a church that one man is supposed to stop from happening to begin with.
5. simply no point in having other bishops if one is needed,

ok. what now? what do you want with saying all this?

 

[prodromos]

Really???

Yes really!

From the testimony of Hierodeacon Fr. Paul Ballester-Convollier, formerly a Franciscan monk from Spain.
impantokratoros.gr/PaulBallaster_Convolier.en.aspx
My conversion to Orthodoxy began one day while I was reordering the Library catalogues of the monastery I belong to. This monastery belonged to the Franciscan order, founded in my country of Spain. While I was classifying different old articles concerning the Holy Inquisition, I happened to come across an article that was truly impressive, dating back to 1647. This article described a decision of the Holy Inquisition that anathematized as heretic any Christian who dared believe, accept or preach to others that he supported the apostolic validity of the Apostle Paul.
It was about a horrible finding that my mind could not comprehend. I immediately thought to calm my soul that perhaps it was due to a typographical error or due to some forgery, which was not so uncommon in the western Church of that time when the articles were written. However, my disturbance and my surprise became greater after researching and confirming that the decision of the Holy Inquisition that was referred to in the article was authentic.** In fact already during two earlier occasions, namely in 1327 and 1331, the Popes John 22nd and Clemens 6th had condemned and anathematized any one who dared deny that the Apostle Paul during his entire apostolic life, was totally subordinate to the ecclesiastic monarchal authority of the first Pope and king of the Church, namely the Apostle Peter. And a lot later Pope Pius 10th, in 1907 and Benedict 15th, in 1920, had repeated the same anathemas and the same condemnations.**

 

[josie_L]

Yes really!

From the testimony of Hierodeacon Fr. Paul Ballester-Convollier, formerly a Franciscan monk from Spain.
impantokratoros.gr/PaulBallaster_Convolier.en.aspx
My conversion to Orthodoxy began one day while I was reordering the Library catalogues of the monastery I belong to. This monastery belonged to the Franciscan order, founded in my country of Spain. While I was classifying different old articles concerning the Holy Inquisition, I happened to come across an article that was truly impressive, dating back to 1647. This article described a decision of the Holy Inquisition that anathematized as heretic any Christian who dared believe, accept or preach to others that he supported the apostolic validity of the Apostle Paul.
It was about a horrible finding that my mind could not comprehend. I immediately thought to calm my soul that perhaps it was due to a typographical error or due to some forgery, which was not so uncommon in the western Church of that time when the articles were written. However, my disturbance and my surprise became greater after researching and confirming that the decision of the Holy Inquisition that was referred to in the article was authentic.** In fact already during two earlier occasions, namely in 1327 and 1331, the Popes John 22nd and Clemens 6th had condemned and anathematized any one who dared deny that the Apostle Paul during his entire apostolic life, was totally subordinate to the ecclesiastic monarchal authority of the first Pope and king of the Church, namely the Apostle Peter. And a lot later Pope Pius 10th, in 1907 and Benedict 15th, in 1920, had repeated the same anathemas and the same condemnations.**

Where in this article do we have the primary sources (to provide context), moreover, citing a secondary source, i.e., the monk’s testimony, does nothing to validate his statements?

 

[josie_L]

Rewriting of history?

The ‘sifting’ has been going on a long time, since probably the Donation of Constantine, or perhaps the Psudo-Isadorean decretals.

I would think that the sifting began long before this.

 

[josie_L]

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.

No, Irenaues did not side with the quatrodecimans of Asia (it was a heresy). He was in fact in theological accordance with Victor (he disagreed with his wanting to ex-communicate the church of Asia).

 

[steve_b]

Yes really!

From the testimony of Hierodeacon Fr. Paul Ballester-Convollier, formerly a Franciscan monk from Spain.

• Did he go by anyother name than Paul de Ballester-Convallier?
• If he was a prior Franciscan, and had a prior life before Orthodoxy I can’t find anything about him. All the info is on Orthodox sites as an Orthodox.
• Also I can’t find any sources, to substantiate what he said in the article sections you quote… Can you provide specific references?

 

[josie_L]

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.

Taken from an Orthodox website:

The decisive legislation on this matter was promulgated at the Second Ecumenical Council (A.D. 381) in its 7th Canon:

"Those heretics who come over to Orthodoxy and to the society of those who are saved we receive according to the prescribed rite and custom: we receive Arians, Macedonians, Novatianists who call themselves ‘pure and better,’ Quatrodecimans, otherwise known as Tetradites, as well as Appolinarians on condition that they offer libelli (i.e., recantations in writing) and anathematize every heresy that does not hold the same beliefs as the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God, and then they should be marked with the seal, that is, anointed with chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. And as they are marked with the seal, we say, ‘seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.’ As for Eunomians, however, who are baptized with a single immersion, Montanists, who are called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who teach that Father and Son are the same person, and who commit other abominable things, and [those belonging to] any other heresies — for there are many of them here, especially among the people coming from the country of the Galatians, — all of them that want to adhere to Orthodoxy we are willing to accept as Greeks *.[27]

holy-trinity.org/ecclesio…ption-ch1.html*

So basically, Pope St. Victor was right in that he defended the apostolic tradition (as the successor to Peter it was his job to be the rock of the Church) from innovation.

Edit: It was because of his efforts in curtailing this heresy that resulted in the condemnation and eventual removal of this practice.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Mickey;6438446]For clarification: The Holy Orthodox Church has been the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church for 2000 years—and She will continue to be until the end of time.

Your opinion is duly noted; What makes you Catholic is your valid succession and valid sacraments, valid holy orders, what makes you Christian is your faith in the blessed Trinity. What makes you orthodox is your culture and language.

What makes you never orthodox is your new protest against the Church Jesus Built upon Peter. This new protest never comes from the true Orthodoxy of Catholicism since the Apostles.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Rome does not have to make a public claim to Orthodoxy, when she already is Orthodoxy with unbroken succession to Peter and the apostles. If Orthodoxy give the connotations of an unchanged Holy Catholic and Apostlic Faith, then Jesus did well to found his Church upon the (Orthodoxy) Rock (Peter).

If you want to claim to be Catholic? Then why add a new name Orthodox to your first name Catholic, which your second name should be Christian not Orthodox?

Are you saying Jesus is dishonest for saying? Matthew 16:14
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16
11 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The verses that follow are out of context from our discussion. Although your tactic to side step the hard facts are apparent. I have no problem with the verses that follow when Jesus rebukes Satan from the Person of Peter, revealing that Jesus will always protect Peter infallibly when it comes to his Truth. Verses 20-24 reveal Jesus is always with Peter even when Satan comes against him.

For one to understand this?the one must follow the scriptures from the revealed physical and mystical Truth. Why do you cling to the worldly view of depicting that Peter was satan? And you call yourself an Orthodox? How is that an Orthodox who are respected for their mysticsim can borrow an scripture interpretation from an Western Protestant mindset? Unbelievable?

Mark 10:42-45? are you serious? Jesus was addressing James and John never Peter here. James and John were Jocking for position.

What you overlooked was verse 40;40
but to sit at my right or at my left is not mine to give but is for those for whom it has been prepared." Peter was given the speech from God to recognize Jesus, thus God chose Peter, Jesus made it so… Now reread Matthew 16:16
11 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.** For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. ***18
And so I say to you, **you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, **

For correction, there is no need to apply a worldly view to a biblical view of the Kingdom of God. Forcing a worldly government mindset to the things of God, will help you miss the mark every time. I think your Orthodox adopted western protestant scriptural interpretations to protest the authority of Christ placed upon Peter and his successors in the Popes. Maybe you should stick to the Orthodox interpretations of scriptures instead of adopting new ones of today?

Peace be with you.

 

[Madaglan]

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

Is the Poem of the Man-God of God?
Is the Shroud of Turin of God?

The claimed apparition of Mother Mary was not recorded until decades after the event was said to have taken place. A significant number of Catholic priests from the 16th century to modern times have challenged the authenticity of the apparition account, even going so far as to cast doubt on the existence of Juan Diego as a person.

Many people have been drawn closer to Christ and to his Mother through devotion to Our Lady of Gaudalupe.