E
East_and_West
Guest
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.
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
Sorry. Rome broke from Orthodoxy and protestants broke from Rome.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.
M
Mickey
Guest
In spite of the ambition of individual popes and the historical power of the papacy, the Vatican dogma would have been both impossible and unmeaning before the Reformation. It would have been impossible because the principles of ecclesiastical liberty still lived in the Catholic Church as we know from the history of the pre-Reformation councils, and papal primacy was not interpreted as ecclesiastical absolutism. It would have been unmeaning because the enemy rejecting the power of the church hierarchy was nonexistent. The Reformation broke up not only the external body but also the inner unity of the church. The combination of Christian freedom and ecclesiastical obedience which constitutes the very essence of church life, and is at present professed only in Orthodoxy, was destroyed. The love of freedom, tempted by the mirage of freedom without obedience, fled to the desert of protestantism and individualism; and obedience, becoming aware of its hostility to freedom, grew more barren and legalistic than ever. The influence of the Old Testament principles in Christianity, noticeable in the Western church for some time, became more pronounced, and the Vatican dogma was its final expression.
Fr Sergius Bulgakov
Fr Sergius Bulgakov
E
East_and_West
Guest
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
follow the pope. where the pope is there is Jesus, there is The Church.Sorry. Rome broke from Orthodoxy and protestants broke from Rome.
Has anybody read this before? this is what defines the True Church among so many others.
Amen brother!
E
East_and_West
Guest
The EOs are in schism so they don’t follow the Chair of Peter established by Jesus himself.
M
Mickey
Guest
It almost sounds like St Ignatius of Antioch–but it cannot be–because St Ignatius never mentions a Pope.
M
Mickey
Guest
One Patriarchate (Rome) went her own way.
L
LilyM
Guest
I personally prefer St Augustine -It almost sounds like St Ignatius of Antioch–but it cannot be–because St Ignatius never mentions a Pope.
“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
H
Hesychios
Guest
I see that you are laughing, but I don’t see why.
This being the non-Catholic forum, you can ask all of the Protestants reading here what tradition their own churches erupted out of. They will acknowledge that in all honesty, their predecessors come out of the Latin catholic tradition (they might refer to your church as Roman Catholic, but I think you will accept that as meaning the same thing).
Ask them if their churches erupted out of Orthodox tradition, just ask them!
I also ask any self identifying Protestants reading this to ask yourselves who ultimately started your church tradition, and what church that person was baptised in. There are quite a few options: Luther, Zwingli, Menno Simons, Calvin, Tuder & Cranmer and possibly a few others that escape me at the moment, I apologize for the oversight.
Ask this same question of Orthodox. There is no comparison.
The Orthodox churches have never had anything like the modern Papacy, and the Orthodox churches have never been governed from Rome. That is a hard fact and all Orthodox know this.
Whatever you guys have been doing in the west in the last two thousand years, it had nothing to do with us, but if you for one moment think that we Orthodox somehow broke away from Rome…history itself screams out against you.
Your churches will always be welcome to shed their accretions and return to the communion of autocephalous Orthodox Catholic churches from which they departed.
We can forgive you 70 X 7. We will kill the fatted calf for you!
The light is always burning in the window.
Michael
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Did he say patiarch?It almost sounds like St Ignatius of Antioch–but it cannot be–because St Ignatius never mentions a Pope.
M
Mickey
Guest
Rome was the capital of Chritianity in the early Church and the bishop of Rome had a primacy of honour. You will see this respect for the Church of Rome (and bishop) in many writings of the early Church Fathers. But you will be very hard pressed to find anything from the Fathers which depicts the supreme infallibile universal bishop of all Chirstiandom and Pope of Rome as the description stands today and was defined in 1870AD. :nope:
M
Mickey
Guest
L
LilyM
Guest
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?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
you guys still hung up on this? lets assume that God Himself does not mind that Jesus share His glory and the HS, since everything was given to Jesus until the end and He has dominion over all things. why are you against Jesus on this?
besides there is one Church who decides and is given true revelation from God throughout the ages. It did not end with the Fathers, it continued until today, logic tells me that that is why the church exists still. you problem is with authority. you just can not accept that fact that Jesus has left a leader to make sure that christianity continues and is faithfull to the Word of God. this church keeps the matters of faith and morals infallible because Jesus says so. and if Jesus says so, then i believe.
can you claim this authority? no, you cannot for it was not given to you.
M
Mickey
Guest
Are you saying that the bishop of Rome has always been considered to be the supreme infallible pontiff because of the location of the council?!? Are you saying that no other Church was represented (save Rome) in the first seven councils? Actually, I cannot understand what you are saying.
M
Mickey
Guest
Jesus Christ is our authoirty!
"Thou art the Light of my mind, O my Jesus; Thou art the Salvation of my despairing soul, O Saviour. O my Jesus, deliver me from torment and Gehenna, as I cry: Save me, the wretched one, O Christ my Jesus."
E
East_and_West
Guest
What a coincidence. He is our authority too!!! That is why we are faithful to the Papacy he established on earth.
E
East_and_West
Guest
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.
L
LilyM
Guest
I’m not discussing any other councils. I’m saying that these two particular Councils, Hippo and Carthage, were incredibly important ones, dealing as they did with the Canon of Scripture, and determining which books were to be included in the Bible.Are you saying that the bishop of Rome has always been considered to be the supreme infallible pontiff because of the location of the council?!? Are you saying that no other Church was represented (save Rome) in the first seven councils? Actually, I cannot understand what you are saying.
This was an issue which surely concerned the universal Church very deeply - you couldn’t have different Bibles floating around in different places, could you? We all know what massive problems the different canons cause even today.
So it was an issue which they would want to be resolved by the highest possible authority so as to have unanimous (or as near as possible) teaching on the issue. In other words what they needed was inerrant and infallible teaching.
And that in their quest for this highest possible authority, this inerrant and infallible teaching, they *only *bothered to seek the approval of the See of Rome and not any of the other Apostolic Patriarchs. Which is a very striking omission when one considers the ease with which they could at least have consulted with Alexandria in the event that Rome’s authority or supremacy was in doubt in any way. Not that location is a decisive factor, more of an interesting and telling sidenote.
The critical fact is that Rome’s authority and supremacy were NOT in any doubt - Rome and Rome alone could authoritatively endorse a Canon of Scripture which was intended to bind the whole universal church. Surely that would come under the heading of a teaching of Christ protected by His Holy Spirit (in other words infallible and part of the deposit of faith? Surely the Holy Spirit who authored scripture also teaches us through the Church which particular books are scriptural, no?)
Now not all the churches, as we know, accepted or accept Rome’s authority or the canon of Hippo and Carthage, just as they didn’t all accept any of the other Councils - quite probably not even the Council of Jerusalem mentioned in Scripture was universally accepted! Doesn’t change the fact that the Pope had the authority to ratify that Canon just as the Apostles had authority to ratify their decisions made in the Council in Jerusalem.
- Status