Papal Problems...:(

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alexius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
East_and_West said:
The point is that no matter how the schism happened, both protestants and EOs are broken off from the Churhc established by Jesus Christ. Nice try Michael, but the EO position, that it is the Church established by Jesus, is simply untenable.
Click to expand...
This is one of the three great discredited and non-Biblical Solas of the West:

Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Roma

The word ALONE does not appear in the New Testament in reference to Peter. All bishops are successors to all of the Apostles, including Peter. All have the keys. All teach, bind and loose.

The Orthodox churches have an unwavering uniformity of belief, so much so that they, as a group and without conditions, even receive a specific mention in your catechism:
838
With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

But why?

Why this special understanding? We have no Pope, and never have had a Pope, we have not needed one. We have held this faith of ours under suppression and expoitation from hostile princes, alien ideologies, triumphal non-Orthodox and non-Christian oppressors and other rampages of the Evil One. Yet we have maintained the Faith under the watchful gaze of Jesus Christ Our Lord.

What little difference we may have between us, was added by your church, not by ours. It’s your job to fix it, we can’t do it for you.

We continue to place our trust in Him, and Him alone.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael
 
Hesychios said:
This is one of the three great discredited and non-Biblical Solas of the West:

Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Roma
Click to expand...
The doctrine of sola Roma does not exist in Catholicism. So why create this staw man arguement.
Hesychios said:
The Orthodox churches have an unwavering uniformity of belief, so much so that they, as a group and without conditions, even receive a specific mention in your catechism:
838
With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”
Click to expand...
Right. Its funny. But from what I have seen on line if something is not explicitly defined in one of the Councils, there are just about as many EO views as there are EO Christians. I don’t buy this whole, “uniformity of belief” nonsense.
As for the CCC quote, A. The CCC can be wrong when talking about other religions and B. I agree with the quote you compare EOs to other break away groups.
Hesychios said:
We have held this faith of ours under suppression and expoitation from hostile princes, alien ideologies, triumphal non-Orthodox and non-Christian oppressors and other rampages of the Evil One. Yet we have maintained the Faith under the watchful gaze of Jesus Christ Our Lord.
Click to expand...
What a coincidence. We can say the same thing.
Hesychios said:
What little difference we may have between us, was added by your church, not by ours. It’s your job to fix it, we can’t do it for you.
Click to expand...
Complete distortion of reality. The East continually grew away from the truth as her anti-latinism increased.
Hesychios said:
We continue to place our trust in Him, and Him alone.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael
Click to expand...
If that were true you would join the Church he established.
 
Hesychios said:
This is one of the three great discredited and non-Biblical Solas of the West:

Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Roma

The word ALONE does not appear in the New Testament in reference to Peter. All bishops are successors to all of the Apostles, including Peter. All have the keys. All teach, bind and loose.

The Orthodox churches have an unwavering uniformity of belief, so much so that they, as a group and without conditions, even receive a specific mention in your catechism:
838
With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

But why?

Why this special understanding? We have no Pope, and never have had a Pope, we have not needed one. We have held this faith of ours under suppression and expoitation from hostile princes, alien ideologies, triumphal non-Orthodox and non-Christian oppressors and other rampages of the Evil One. Yet we have maintained the Faith under the watchful gaze of Jesus Christ Our Lord.

What little difference we may have between us, was added by your church, not by ours. It’s your job to fix it, we can’t do it for you.

We continue to place our trust in Him, and Him alone.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael
Click to expand...
what unity? if some of you dont even speak to each other. the CC have to interveeing sometimes. each claim independecy from each other. where is that in the Bible? that we are to be independent from each other?
Jesus didnt have to say sola Peter for that was only one Peter disciple. that is kind of ignorant.
 
Alexius said:
When I say that the Pope’s Infallibility is “separate” from the the Church’s, I mean that he may speak both without the Church’s approval and without a council to back him. That is specified in the Vatican I declaration.

I say that he may act over an Ecumenical Council because 1) he may declare without one and 2) he may just declare something in the middle of the council without its completion. It seems that before the Schism, the other bishops didn’t just wait around for the Pope to approve of something or declare the dogma–it acted together and in some cases, without him (only his legates).
Click to expand...
Vatican canon also specifies that if the papacy is vacant in the middle of a council, they must await the new pope to continue and ratify their decision. A sort of “demise of the tiara.”
 
East_and_West said:
What a silly conclusion. Eastern Orthodoxy is really more akin to protestantism with its lack of central authority or really any way for determining what is a council and what is not a council, or, furthermore, it lack of ability to define dogma.
Click to expand...
Yes, these accusations and allegations are thrown up over and over, yet never with any substantiation.

Amazing, how do we do it? No central authority and yet the same Faith for 2,000 years.

Unlike the West, we have not been so swamped in heresies in schism the last millenium to need Councils to define dogma.
 
East_and_West said:
So is Easten Orthodoxy. Both are break off groups. Sounds like one more thing you both have in common. Why don’t you both come back to your mother Church. 😃
Click to expand...
Mickey did.

How come, unlike Rome and her Protestant siblings/progeny, we alone have the original Creed?
 
wisdomseeker said:
follow the pope. where the pope is there is Jesus, there is The Church.
Has anybody read this before? this is what defines the True Church among so many others.

Amen brother!
Click to expand...
I believe…from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son…One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church…Amen.

That’s what defines the True Church among so many others.
 
Mickey said:
It almost sounds like St Ignatius of Antioch–but it cannot be–because St Ignatius never mentions a Pope. 🤷
Click to expand...
He never mentions a bishop of Rome either, the only place where he doesn’t.🤷
 
LilyM said:
I personally prefer St Augustine -

"jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est"

". . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See [Rome], whence rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished."

HE certainly knew who had supreme authority in the Church in his day, which is why the councils didn’t bother sending to Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch or Alexandria. Hard to believe no-one else recognised Rome’s supremacy as he and the Councils did 🙂
Click to expand...
He and his councils were in Rome’s patriarchate, not Constantinople, etc.

And the incident you are talking about, he and the councils had condemned Pelagius when Rome had refused to.

Btw, somewhere there is a analysis, that that is actually not a quote of Augustine’s.
 
LilyM said:
If Rome wasn’t universal, supreme or infallible, if its primacy was merely one of honour, then why, pray tell (as I pointed out) did these councils not bother sending to Alexandria (which was probably closer than Rome to Hippo, one of the councils in question!) or Jerusalem, Constantinople or Antioch, for second, third, fourth or fifth opinions - at least AFTER Rome made its decision if not beforehand? You know, to give those Patriarchs their rightful say and rightful dues? Especially on a matter as important as the canon of scripture, which is what these councils were primarily deciding? 🤷
Click to expand...
No, the issue was Pelagianism.

I have already answered the rest. I will just point out that in this Rome was tardy: the councils had already condemned Pelagianism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top