Papal Problems...:(

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alexius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wisdomseeker said:
Optatus

You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas “Rock”]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Click to expand...
As I have repeatedly pointed out, Optatus gets his list of popes wrong after this quote.
 
wisdomseeker said:
Jerome

[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says, “With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,” the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a Church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the Church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).

I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails (ibid., 15:2).

The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, “He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!” . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria (ibid., 16:2).
Click to expand...
Yes, Jerome followed that Rock of Rome in Antioch and sank with it: he was ordained by Rome’s man there, whose line died out, while that of his rival St. Meletius is claimed by all those patriarchs there now (and the supressed 4th) under Rome.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
You mean BOTH Greek bishops (out of 560 of the West) made the profession? While the Latin despots were running around in the East, hmmm. Connection?

The two bishop did represent the EP, and more importantly the emperor, and supposedly had letters with the signature of 50 archbishops and 500 bishops. I don’t know who they were. Were they any of the hundreds/thousands of Russian, Serbian, Cyprian, Antiochean, Alexandrian, etc.? They certainly did not represent the Orthodox faithful, who remained steadfastly in the Faith of Our Fathers.

Your Vatican I document was accepted by all your bishops (all those who didn’t become Old Catholic, that is), and must be accepted by all of them today.
Click to expand...
No. They rejected the Faith of the Fathers, whom were in communion with Rome.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
we don’t ignore, just point out the inconsistency and bring the dogma to its logical conclusion.

Don’t you know? ALL dictators are defenders of the rights of the people. Just ask them.
Click to expand...
You mean you read into it what you want it to say. Your second sentence attests to this.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Uh, how about the FACT that the 31 bishops there were strong armed by the emperor, the FACT that they conditioned their agreement on ratification at a synod in the East (which never happened), and the FACT that 31 (actually 30, St. Mark refused to sign at all) were in no way representative of the thousands of Orthodox bishops and millions of Faithful. And of course the FACT that it did not preach the Apostolic Faith.
Click to expand...
Denial that the Holy Spirit guides councils. Even if only one accepted the Truth it is still Truth.
 
Just come home we promise we won’t bite you. we promise not dismiss any of your bishops. you are afraid to loose power, that is not the intention of the catholic church to take the power from any of you. we just want you to come home. we miss you all.

:byzsoc: :highprayer: :hug3:
 
jam070406 said:
No. They rejected the Faith of the Fathers, whom were in communion with Rome.
Click to expand...
You mean the Fathers at Constantinople who wrote the Creed, and, as the Catholic Answers spot on Eastern Orthodoxy admits, were not in communion with Rome?:

Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398.

catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

The Creed was written 381.

That includes St. Gregory Nazianzus, St. Meleltius, etc. in fact the second Ecumenical Council had the most canonized saints assembled.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Uh, how about the FACT that the 31 bishops there were strong armed by the emperor, the FACT that they conditioned their agreement on ratification at a synod in the East (which never happened), and the FACT that 31 (actually 30, St. Mark refused to sign at all) were in no way representative of the thousands of Orthodox bishops and millions of Faithful. And of course the FACT that it did not preach the Apostolic Faith.
Click to expand...
These details are often conveniently overlooked. :rolleyes:
 
Letter to the Romans.

“All the churches of Christ salute you. 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not Christ our Lord but their own belly: and by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent. 19 For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good and simple in evil. 20 And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”
 
"The patriarch often attempted to bolster his position in the universal Church to give himself more leverage in dealing with the emperor, and this usually brought him into conflict with Rome.

During the years of conflict between East and West, the Roman pontiff remained firm, defending the Catholic faith against heresies and unruly or immoral secular powers, especially the Byzantine emperor. The first conflict came when Emperor Constantius appointed an Arian heretic as patriarch. Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398.

Ironically, in the Church’s eighth-century struggle against the Iconoclastic heresy (which sought to eliminate all sacred images), it was the pope and the Western bishops mainly who fought for the Catholic practice of venerating icons, which is still very much a part of Orthodox liturgy and spirituality. The patriarch of Constantinople sided with the heretical, iconoclastic emperors."

the Filioque is not the real reason for the break of the Church.
 
A reading from the universal Epistle of St Peter:

Wherefore laying away all malice, and all guile, and dissimulations, and envies, and all detractions, As newborn babes, desire the rational milk without guile, that thereby you may grow unto salvation: If so be you have tasted that the Lord is sweet. Unto whom coming, as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen and made honourable by God: Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
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. But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Who in time past were not a people: but are now the people of God. Who had not obtained mercy; but now have obtained mercy.
 
wisdomseeker said:
" it was the pope and the Western bishops mainly who fought for the Catholic practice of venerating icons, which is still very much a part of Orthodox liturgy and spirituality.
Click to expand...
Ah sweet memories of a time when even the West was Orthodox. 😃
 
Mickey said:
Ah sweet memories of a time when even the West was Orthodox. 😃
Click to expand...
“All the churches of Christ salute you. 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not Christ our Lord but their own belly: and by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent. 19 For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good and simple in evil. 20 And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”

Paul did not mention anything about being orthodox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top