H
Hesychios
Guest
What? Your special “only one Peter disciple”?
You will have to do better than that.
- Status
You will have to do better than that.
E
East_and_West
Guest
Sounds more like Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism
Protestants got rid of the preisthood and the sacraments and replaced it with the novelty of sola scriptura and sola fide.
The only charges that you have made up that would matter in the least would be the creation of indulgences and a change in conciliar model to Papal model. However, both charges are false. Indulgences are not created, just a coralary of what we already believe about binding and loosing. Futhermore, it is the east that moved fruther and further away from an authentic understanding of the Papacy as time went on.
Again, sounds more like you are talking about the EOs than Catholics.
The OO Church and the EO Church? They don’t agree on how many councils are ecumenical as well as a host of other things.
PUre historical revisionsim. I realize that the East has always been a bit rebelious, probably why the great heresies come from the East, but that rebelliousness, which is akin to protestantism is the downfall of the EO Church. How sad.
M
Mickey
Guest
It is not the East that came up with the strange innovation of the doctrine of supreme papal infallibility in 1870.
Whoa–hey now–the protestants are your rebellious children. Don’t blame that one on us.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Wonderful Leo
Through the Council of Chalcedon He Pulled the East Back in Line
By Rev. Ray Ryland
“How the Pope Caught a Robber” (This Rock, June 1998) discussed the infamous “Robber Synod” of Ephesus of A.D. 449. It was occasioned by the heresy of Eutyches, heresy later known as “Monophysitism,” one-nature-ism. Overreacting against Nestorianism (two persons in the one Christ), Eutyches taught that in the Incarnation Christ took human nature but swallowed it up, so to speak, in his divine nature. The council was called to impress on Eutyches and his followers the condemnation of Monophysitism issued by Pope Leo. Instead the heretics took over the council and deposed leading bishops who held to the orthodox faith.
“In condemning the Eutychian heresy, Pope Leo issued his famous Tome, setting forth the Church’s faith that the incarnate Lord is fully God, fully man, two natures in one divine person. The patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, who ruled the Robber Synod with an iron hand, refused to allow the pope’s Tome to be read. Pope Leo condemned the council and declared its members to be deposed from their offices as bishops. This settled the fate of the Robber Synod.”
the Council’s statement deposing Dioscorus:
“Wherefore Leo, the most holy and blessed Archbishop of great and older Rome, by us and by the present holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and worthy of all praise, the blessed Apostle Peter, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of his episcopate and deprived him of all sacerdotal dignity” (italics added"it’s Leo, acting through the Council, who deposed Dioscorus.
Through the Council of Chalcedon He Pulled the East Back in Line
By Rev. Ray Ryland
“How the Pope Caught a Robber” (This Rock, June 1998) discussed the infamous “Robber Synod” of Ephesus of A.D. 449. It was occasioned by the heresy of Eutyches, heresy later known as “Monophysitism,” one-nature-ism. Overreacting against Nestorianism (two persons in the one Christ), Eutyches taught that in the Incarnation Christ took human nature but swallowed it up, so to speak, in his divine nature. The council was called to impress on Eutyches and his followers the condemnation of Monophysitism issued by Pope Leo. Instead the heretics took over the council and deposed leading bishops who held to the orthodox faith.
“In condemning the Eutychian heresy, Pope Leo issued his famous Tome, setting forth the Church’s faith that the incarnate Lord is fully God, fully man, two natures in one divine person. The patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, who ruled the Robber Synod with an iron hand, refused to allow the pope’s Tome to be read. Pope Leo condemned the council and declared its members to be deposed from their offices as bishops. This settled the fate of the Robber Synod.”
the Council’s statement deposing Dioscorus:
“Wherefore Leo, the most holy and blessed Archbishop of great and older Rome, by us and by the present holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and worthy of all praise, the blessed Apostle Peter, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of his episcopate and deprived him of all sacerdotal dignity” (italics added"it’s Leo, acting through the Council, who deposed Dioscorus.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
"COUNCIL MINUS PAPACY EQUALS CHAOS "
By RAY RYLAND
East and West
Piece on Athanasius when he appeals to the pope.
“The Arian bishops’ strategy was to convert the emperor to their heresy and persuade him to call councils to carry out their attack on orthodoxy. Heretical bishops and the emperor sought to replace the supreme authority of the See of Peter with that of the state. Had they succeeded, they would have laid the groundwork for the eventual emergence of independent national churches, loosely federated. This is the institutional form that developed in the East after those churches broke with Rome. It is the institutional form of Eastern Orthodoxy today.”
Do you still claim to be the true church?
By RAY RYLAND
East and West
Piece on Athanasius when he appeals to the pope.
“The Arian bishops’ strategy was to convert the emperor to their heresy and persuade him to call councils to carry out their attack on orthodoxy. Heretical bishops and the emperor sought to replace the supreme authority of the See of Peter with that of the state. Had they succeeded, they would have laid the groundwork for the eventual emergence of independent national churches, loosely federated. This is the institutional form that developed in the East after those churches broke with Rome. It is the institutional form of Eastern Orthodoxy today.”
Do you still claim to be the true church?
A
Alexios
Guest
Gosh, there is so much wrong in this one sentence I had to have a good laugh.
Huh? Those two Communions haven’t been united in 1700 years! And as Mardukm will tell you, OOxy and Catholicism share a lot in common which neither shares with EOxy. And if you’re so concerned with labeling unleavened bread as “changing the faith” like you did in the quote above about Catholics, then I’m sure you’re having a heck of a time reasoning with yourself as to why you think you’re part of the “True Church” with Armenians who are Oriental Orthodox AND USE UNLEAVENED BREAD.
Oh. My. Goodness. Come on.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
this is very interesting. ecumenical council as you claim is your soul authority. sounds like protestants sola scripture.
but what you both miss is that to the Church guided by the HS through the pope (Magisterium) was given the authority to their enterpretation.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Yes, Fr. Ryland. A good source of revisionism on the East and other matters.
He missed something above. Not by Leo alone, as ultramontanism would have it.
Fr. Ryland also leaves out that the Tome was inspected by a committee of the council of 200, before it was accepted. They did not just look at the return address.
Yes. Leo want the council to just impliment his Tome. Ephesus II refused to do so (btw, Leo complained why the patriarch of Constantinople did not have the presidency at the council, yet he would complain later of canon XXVIII of Chalcedon, and complained later still that his suffragans accepted it), and did the Fathers of Chalcedon. Instead of adopting the Tome as their decision, they wrote their own definition.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Problem: all those Churches were in existence LOOOONG before 1054.
The True Church of the Fathers.
Btw, who took the secular title “Pontifex Maximus”? Who changed the church into a state?
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
yes. A number of OO on www.orthodoxchristianity.net, Armenians, Ethiopians, Mar Thoma, etc. and Copts have all gotten a chuckle out of Mardukm’s analysis.
Haven’t been formally united in 1700 years. yet they share the same faith. How’s that?
No, although Rome has only been separated from us formally for a thousand years, she has far more than twice the differences that we have with the OO, separated formally for almost twice as long. Which why there is partial recognition of their Mysteries as our Mysteries, something not extended to Rome.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Only with a Latin twist.
I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
No mention of a pope.
L
LilyM
Guest
Point being neither Augustine nor likely anyone else at the Councils appears to have cared two hoots whether the patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem et al ratified these decisions, nor did he (or they) declare ‘the case is closed’ when Constantinople, Jerusalem or anyone other than the Holy See of Rome spoke. Only Rome - sola Roma - indeed, and God be thanked for it.
I don’t think any Pope has ever even attempted to declare a teaching IN OPPOSITION to a Council decision. Not before 1870 nor after. I’d love you to show me where they have done so.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Proof? Again you are ignoring an important point: they were in Rome’s patriarchate, not Constantinople, etc.
By the time we are speaking of, Constantinople had spoken with the Creed, and they cared about that.
And in fact the councils you refer to contradicted Pope Zosimos of Rome, as he befrieded Pelagius, while the African councils were busy condemning him. Btw, the Jerusalem decision was to send Pelagius back to Rome because he was a Latin from the West.
The ones imposing filioque.
P
prodromos
Guest
M
Mickey
Guest
Amen.
M
Mickey
Guest
Sola Roma??? Did this spawn the reformation principles?
Certainly not before. But once infallibility was dogmatized in 1870, it did not matter anymore for Rome–the Council was rendered useless. The Pope certainly could declare something “ex-cathedra” if he wished–separate from any kind of council.
H
Hesychios
Guest
It has been pointed out above that these two local councils were in the west. That means an appeal to Roma for them was perfectly in keeping with Patriarchal ecclesiology.
Had they appealed to another Patriarch that Patriarch would probably have refused to hear it, kindly directing them to their own Patriarch.
This example proves nothing as far as Supreme Jurisdiction of the Pope. And, BTW, the churches in North Africa did not have the GIRM, Canons codified by Roma or appointment of their bishops from Roma. In fact, outside of central Italy there was no Roman administrative authority at all in those centuries. The bishop of Roma was in no way possessive of immediate and ordinary jurisdiction in those dioceses.
This type of example of yours may impress some Protestant seekers who may be aware of little to nothing about the Patriarchal ministry of the church (and thus you are used to getting great mileage with those people), but to Orthodox it says does nothing but illustrate our own understanding of the Patriarchal administration of an Orthodox church.
The point here is that it would be improper for him to assume that he can do any such thing as unilaterally declare dogma for the church, rightly or wrongly.
It’s just a bad idea, not Apostolic practice and (considering that you have made a dogma of that too) not an Apostolic belief. In other words once an error is claimed a dogma, it is not just a pious opinion held in error, it is thenceforth heresy.
Pax et Bonum,
Michael
A
Alexius
Guest
It seems that the arguments are strong both for and against Papal Infallibility and Supremacy. Everytime I am ready to take one position, I find an argument that makes more sense and I have to change because I can’t argue with it.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
All you got to do now is repent and enter in it.
- Status