Pope Fiction

[holdencaulfield]

Sorry, but you do not know what you are talking about.

Holy Orthodoxy does not have, and never did have a “Pope”. Holy Orthodoxy has no history of being governed from Roma, and Holy Orthodoxy did not initiate the schism.

So you claim to have never followed the Bishop of Rome. I guess St. Peter, who Christ established as the leader of the Church was never your leader.

Your church withdrew from Holy Orthodoxy by a single definite act of hubris.

More like excommunicated your Church.

Look at the history and you will see: between 1000AD and 1100AD there were no changes in the way Holy Orthodoxy functioned or governed itself. No new canons were needed, there was no disruption in the reporting order, no new doctrines and no crises.

Yes, and therefore you have very few doctrines, and are not able to allow Christ to govern your Church.

In that same period, the western church was in a state of great flux, and rapidly evolved a new set of operating modes. Within two hundred years of the schism the east did not change at all doctrinally or operationally and the west introduced several remarkable changes. Having been freed from the restraining influence of the conservative east, the bishops of Roma were able to innovate.

May I ask what the Roman Church “invented”? I cannot think of anything. This is merely the typical Protestant response that the Church makes up things as it sees fit. We have already proved, although you will not accept it that a form of Papal Infallibility existed before 1054, so what are the doctrinal innovations? Do not say change in Liturgy, because Liturgy is not doctrine. Furthermore the Catholic currently has over 30 different Liturgies. Yours does too, (language matters).

 

[Hesychios]

So you claim to have never followed the Bishop of Rome. I guess St. Peter, who Christ established as the leader of the Church was never your leader.

How do you define leader?

Peter and all the Apostles are the founders of our Sees.

Our bishops are real bishops, they shepherd the flocks. They don’t have to refer to some central office.

Every Orthodox bishop has the same authority within his own diocese that the Pope has within his own diocese, that is leadership. It has always been so. So you cannot establish Papal power anachronistically.

You cannot even establish that our beloved Saint Peter assigned the other Apostles their tasks or territories, and you cannot establish that Popes named or transferred bishops, even in the west, before the sixth century…never ever in the east.
*
Michael*

 

[holdencaulfield]

How do you define leader?

Peter and all the Apostles are the founders of our Sees.

Our bishops are real bishops, they shepherd the flocks. They don’t have to refer to some central office.

Every Orthodox bishop has the same authority within his own diocese that the Pope has within his own diocese, that is leadership. It has always been so. So you cannot establish Papal power anachronistically.

You cannot even establish that our beloved Saint Peter assigned the other Apostles their tasks or territories, and you cannot establish that Popes named or transferred bishops, even in the west, before the sixth century…never ever in the east.
*
Michael*

As, I have said before, things change with time. The Church has grown and spread to every corner of the world. Unless I can be convinced with the only the Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition; my stance is firm on the Papacy.

 

[holdencaulfield]

You also ignored my post on Catholic “Inventions”.

 

[Hesychios]

May I ask what the Roman Church “invented”? I cannot think of anything.

I said innovated…I will answer this later, unless someone else gets to it first. I am tired. :coffeeread:

This is merely the typical Protestant response that the Church makes up things as it sees fit.

This is the last refuge of an apologist, accuse the Orthodox of Protestantism.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

 

[Hesychios]

You also ignored my post on Catholic “Inventions”.

Point to it.

You ignored the fact that your quote from Saint Damasus appears to be part of the false Decretals.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I said innovated…I will answer this later, unless someone else gets to it first. I am tired. :coffeeread:

Convince, me the Papacy is wrong with the Sacred Tradition. I’m waiting.

This is the last refuge of an apologist, accuse the Orthodox of Protestantism.

Is not, however it is typical. Sorry that was a bit cold however.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Point to it.

Post # 221

You ignored the fact that your quote from Saint Damasus appears to be part of the false Decretals.

Honestly I have no idea what that is. Enlighten me. Then I will be able to respond.

 

[holdencaulfield]

St. Ephraim the Syrian

“[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

The Roman Church has the authority to condemn other teachings and thus discern right from wrong. How much clearer does this need to be. I think that even if one of the Early Church Fathers said: “Follow the Bishop of Rome in everything he does” you would not believe this. I see a similarity to this:

“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” (Luke 16:31)

 

[holdencaulfield]

St. Jerome

“But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.” (Against Jovinianus 1:26)

 

[ForeverAdam]

St. Jerome

“But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.” (Against Jovinianus 1:26)

St. Jerome (with Orthodoxy) states that the Church was founded not only upon Peter, but all the apostles. However, the Roman Catholic Church consistently downplays this fact, opting instead to only emphasize St. Peter. The same goes for the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. And unlike St. Jerome (and Orthodoxy) who says that the strength of the Church depends on all the apostles, the Papacy (which you perceive as being from one apostle) is viewed as the highest office in your Church. Besides, St. Jerome (like Orthodoxy) sees the reason for the primacy in service to the essential unity possessed by the Church (thus the mention of the avoidance of schism), whereas Catholicism sees in it a supreme, infallible power that creates the Church. If I’m not mistaken, this quote reveals almost the total opposite of the modus operandi of your Faith.

God bless,

Adam

 

[holdencaulfield]

ForeverAdam:

I think you have misunderstood my quoting of this verse, actually it supports the Catholic point of view better. Let me outline this for you. As Catholics we believe that authority has been given to the Bishop of Rome and the Apostles, however we believe the Bishop of Rome to have supreme authority when it comes to doctrinal issues and calling Ecumenical Councils. If there is a problem over an issue and the Church is split, the Pope has the last word. The Pope represents St. Peter, and the Ecumenical Councils the Apostles

“But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.” (Against Jovinianus 1:26)

The text I have printed outlines the Catholic point of view. One has been chosen as the head of the Church. That would be St. Peter. St. Peter and his successors are the heads of the Church so no schism can occur. We have a supreme leader to have the last word as the leader of the Church. Since St. Jerome outlines St. Peter as the head of the Church, that would mean that St. Peter has some power of the other Apostles, just as the Catholic Church continues to practice today. However the Orthodox Church lacks that one supreme leader in the Bishop of Rome. It’s funny how we both interpret the phrase differently.

 

[prodromos]

Augustine does not say his interpretation was incorrect. He says that he once presented the interpretation that Peter was the rock, and that he later presented other interpretations. He leaves it to the reader to make up his mind for himself. Augustine makes no statement as to which interpretation is correct.

The title of his work says it all, “Retractations”. Why don’t you look up what it means

John

 

[prodromos]

So you claim to have never followed the Bishop of Rome. I guess St. Peter, who Christ established as the leader of the Church was never your leader.

Every bishop is a successor to Peter as long as he stands on the Rock, which is Christ.

John

 

[Lazerlike42]

The title of his work says it all, “Retractations”. Why don’t you look up what it means

John

Prodomos,

I know what the work is about. As I have said before, the actual quotation from the work does not say that his teaching that Peter was the Rock is incorrect. It says that he once taught it, and he has since taught other things, and he leaves it to the reader to make up his own mind.

Augustine also presented such ambiguous interpretations of the Eucharist that Protestants today offer him as their greatest Patristic witness to their doctrine of a symbolic Communion. Yet this does not mean that Augustine believed in such an abomination.

He, like many fathers, believed in multiple interpretations, of this and of other passages. St. John Chrysostom, the great Eastern father, is one such example, teaching that Peter’s confession was the rock in some places, that his faith was in others, and that Peter himself was the rock in yet other places.

That being said, what matters is not how the fathers interpreted this one passage, but what they believed in practice and in their other teachings. St. John Chrysostom taught that Peter was given the rule over the other apostles, and that He had the same authority as the 120 men at the Council of Jerusalem all put together. Augustine said that because a request has been made of the Apostolic See, an issue regarding Pelgianism was no longer open for discussion.

Other fathers taught and behaved in the same way.

Peace and God bless

 

[ForeverAdam]

That being said, what matters is not how the fathers interpreted this one passage, but what they believed in practice and in their other teachings.

I think differently. Matthew 16:18 is one of the few verses that have been given a definitive interpretation by your Church. This interpretation, as you know, excludes limiting “this rock” to Peter’s confession/Orthodox Faith. However, you freely admit that various interpretations were present in the ancient Church and the Holy Fathers felt no problem in giving various opinions on the issue (something that is very true). The Fathers seem unaware that they didn’t have liberty to do this. Either this liberty of the Holy Fathers presents a serious problem for Catholicism or the ancient Church of Christ, which always knows the Faith and gives it to the faithful, left out a major part of the Faith (the dogmatic nature of the interpretation of Matthew 16:18) during nearly a millennium. This latter option is inexcusable for any Church that takes the Faith as given “once for all” and believes that is taught to all generations.

God bless,

Adam

 

[031064]

The pope is not just patriarch of the west, but of the east also- the church has denied this title.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I think differently. Matthew 16:18 is one of the few verses that have been given a definitive interpretation by your Church. This interpretation, as you know, excludes limiting “this rock” to Peter’s confession/Orthodox Faith. However, you freely admit that various interpretations were present in the ancient Church and the Holy Fathers felt no problem in giving various opinions on the issue (something that is very true). The Fathers seem unaware that they didn’t have liberty to do this. Either this liberty of the Holy Fathers presents a serious problem for Catholicism or the ancient Church of Christ, which always knows the Faith and gives it to the faithful, left out a major part of the Faith (the dogmatic nature of the interpretation of Matthew 16:18) during nearly a millennium. This latter option is inexcusable for any Church that takes the Faith as given “once for all” and believes that is taught to all generations.

God bless,

Adam

Adam, the Catholic Church has not prohibited belief that the rock of Matthew 16:18 is Peter’s confession, only the belief that the rock was only his confession. So for example, St. Chrysostom, with his multifacted interpretations, would be perfectly in line with Church teaching were he alive today.

Secondly, as you know, any Catholic who lived before something was definitively put forth was free to hold that belief. So even if the Church had restricted the passage to one meaning, it would not affect the fathers.

Finally, it is erroneous to suggest that what is believed today must match exactly that which was believed by the fathers. Doctrine does develop over time. St. Cyprian believed that heretics must be rebaptized. He was not a heretic to do so, until it had been settled. The specific doctrines of Chalcedon and Nicaea were not all believed by the earliest fathers, at least not explicitly. Some of the teachings that you accept from the Councils were rejected by fathers who had lived beforehand, yet these men were not heretics. The faith was delivered once and for all to the saints, but it was delivered in a box, a box which has beenn gradually unpacked over the centuries by the Councils.

 

[ForeverAdam]

St. Ephraim the Syrian

“[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

We have no problem with this.

The same Church that admitted this quote of St. Ephraim says of St. John the Apostle:

“For (John) the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now–. By this Apostle stand the powers from above, marveling at the beauty of his soul, and his understanding, and the bloom of that virtue by which he drew unto him Christ Himself, and obtained the grace of the Spirit” (St. John Chrysostom, First Homily on the Gospel of St. John).

The Kontakion on the feast of St. Basil says,

“For the Church art thou in truth a firm foundation, granting an inviolate lordship unto all mortal men and sealing it with what thou hast taught, O righteous Basil, revealer of heavenly things.”

And St. Basil, himself, wrote of St. Athanasius, Pope of Alexandria during the Arian crisis,

“The worse the diseases of the Churches grow, the more do we all turn to your excellency, in the belief that your championship is the one consolation left to us in our troubles” - St. Basil, Letter LXXX.

“I could not make a more fitting beginning than by having recourse to your excellency, as to the head and chief of all” - St. Basil, Letter LXIX.

“I direct my gaze in the direction of your reverence; I remember that our Lord has appointed you to be physician of the diseases in the Churches, and I recover my spirits” - St. Basil, LXXXII.

St. Dimitri of Rostov begins his Life of St. John Chrysostom by calling the saint,

“Saint John Chrysostom, beacon of the world, universal teacher, pillar and foundation of the Church, and preacher of repentance.”

When we take these additional quotes into account, we get a clearer understanding of how the early Church understood quotes like that of St. Ephraim. While St. Peter was and is still lauded much in Holy Orthodoxy (and is, indeed, seen as the leader of the apostles), the other apostles are often praised in the same fashion. And far from the titles and praise of St. Peter pass an automatic infallibility to the Roman Church, the same praises are used of any valiant Orthodox defender of the Faith. This strengthens our case of stating that the various quotes of praise of St. Peter and the early Popes that continually appear on this forum are simply high praise for those who defend the Church and cannot be consistently used to establish a doctrine of the Roman Papacy (unless you want to apply a Latin-type Papacy to many other saints and sees, which is absurd).

God bless,

Adam

 

[holdencaulfield]

I point however is that since we both have different view, we will never get along about what is obviously correct.