H
holdencaulfield
Guest
That document does an excellent job at citing itself. It’s good stuff, maybe you should read that website. Here:
Was Peter the first Pope?
Infallibilty
- Status
Was Peter the first Pope?
Infallibilty
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Yet, you didn’t always.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
What are we arguing about? Papal Infallibility? I have forgotten. Regardless I follow the Church founded in 33 AD by Christ. I hate to call you a Protestant, but is your arguments are very typical of them. You keep arguing for what? To make yourself feel better. I have explained with numerous support from the Early Church Fathers, and Scriptural support. Yet you won’t budge. You either ignore my support or state it has a different meaning. If you want to continue to argue, fine. However lets take it one point at a time.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
No, we never did accept the filioque. But it is not from lack of trying by brute force. You have heard of the Crusades, no?
A group of bishops that the emperor strong armed apostacized, nothing more. Funny how that caesaro-papism doesn’t bother anyone in Rome.
Can’t have always believed it as we wrote it without the filioque c. 381, and the Goths didn’t stick it in until 447. That’s 166 years.
Pope Leo III forbade the addition of “filioque” to Nicene Creed which was added by Franks in Aachen in 809. He also ordered that the Nicene creed be engraved on silver tablets and posted on the doors of St. Peter’s and on the crypt of St. Paul outside the Walls so that his conclusion might not be overturned in the future. He wrote «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith)(VITA LEONIS, LIBER PONTIFICALIS (Ed.Duchene, TII, p.26). That’s 428 years.
Not until the Emperor Henry II (what did you say about changing for mere political reasons?) forced the pope to insert it in 1014 for his coronation. Btw, that is when Rome was struck from the diptychs. That’s 633 years at Rome without filioque.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
That if it was necessary for salvation, it would be in there. Otherwise dogma is adding acretions to the Faith.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Anullments are wrong, so it’s relative.
suprmacy of the Roman Church
infallibility of the bishop of Rome.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
That’s called circular argumentation, or begging the question.
It’s good stuff, maybe you should read that website. Here:
Was Peter the first Pope?
It’s end note is interesting:
And so forth (read what that 4th Pope, Clement, wrote about apostolic succession here). Does your faith community have a lineage like the one below?
To which I say, yes.
The site also ignores that most of the ECF also indentifies the Rock with the confession of Faith. Again, rehearsed arguments against Protestants will not work against the Fathers, or us their heirs.
I am always amused by the reference, repeated there, to Eliakim. The Douay Rheims identifies him as a type of Christ, no mention of Peter or Papacy. So this infallibility proof text does not even predate the Reformation.
The ultramontanists stop at verse 24, and do not go on to verse 25: “In that day,” declares the LORD of hosts, “the peg driven in a firm place will give way; it will even break off and fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.”
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Explain to me why your Church resulted into schism.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
If what was necessary for salvation?
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
So you claim.
Just giving a defense to someone who asks a reason for the hope in me.
They seem Protestant because the Vatican has reduced everything to -/+ supreme pontiff.
And they have been countered.
By the grace of God.
Name your point.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Prove to me first its in schism.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Belief in, for example, the immaculate conception, infallibility, or the Assumption.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Let’s take this one point at at time. You accept that all the Patriarchal Sees are equal I assume.
The Council of Constantinople
“The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome” (canon 3 [A.D. 381]).
There you go, the Roman Church has Primacy before all the other Churches.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
You have fallen from the original Church. The Roman Church excommunicated the Eastern Church, for no longer following the Roman Church.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
No where does the Council of Vatican I say that this is necessary for Salvation. The Council encourages one to follow the Catholic Church in what it does.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
“And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.” (Isaiah 22:21-23)
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
Yes, Scripture does teach that with God a thousand years is as one day and that we should put on the mind of Christ. However, just as we don’t assume that everyone is already saved or damned, but work in the dimensions of time for each man’s salvation, the Church fulfills her mission of passing on the totality of Holy Tradition in the same temporal sphere, which necessitates that she pass down a Faith that is known and lived in every age. In fact, it is because of such certainty and unchangeableness of teaching that enables us to know with certainly what “putting on the mind of Christ” entails.
It is a teaching of the Orthodox Church that God doesn’t override human free will in order for the Church to have quick fixes to her troubles. I’ve never seen anyone explain the Monothelite controversy as anything more than the stubbornness of men to accept the truth, handed down and taught by the Church.I can’t believe the monothelite controversy was only settled about 600 years after apostolic times. I guess the Holy Spirit wasn’t doing His job?
I think it makes much sense based on Holy Scripture. As you know, Christ sent the apostles on the Great Commission to bring his teaching to all people. We don’t find mention of repeat trips. Scripture states that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth - a statement that is meaningless if she cannot give to mankind the totality of that truth at any time in her history. Scripture says that those who are in disagreement with the Church should be brought before the Church for judgment. There is no mention that the verdict may be different depending on the century. And as someone who claims to be an Apostolic Christian, you know that the fathers and teachers of the Church are to our guide in interpreting the Scriptures. Do you know of anywhere where these leaders of the Church affirm anything than the simple truth that Tradition is passed down and known and lived by the Church and heretics are opposed for the very reason that they refuse to obey what the Church says? Until you provide such evidence from the Fathers your attempts at biblical interpretation are Protestant at best and modernist at worst.
God bless,
Adam
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
How can you Orthodox claim to have Apostolic Succession, when it is your Church who denies the Holy Catholic Church. So far you Orthodox have not shown one thread of information that shows all of the Apostles being equal. The Early Church Fathers show that St. Peter does have a Primacy, and the Roman Church as well. Prove me wrong.
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
St. Augustine (speaking of the writings of St. Cyprian of Carthage) says something quite appropriate to your post:
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation.”
Regarding the disputations of heretics and the moral questions raised by modern technology, we like St. Cyprian, go back to apostolic tradition (something we can only truly do if we know what such a tradition entails) and apply these unchangeable beliefs to new situations. The result is that our Faith doesn’t change and we act in accordance with our beliefs. No alteration of our faith/beliefs occur when we do this. There is only a development of how we express/act out that belief (a development that Holy Orthodoxy has never denied).
God bless,
Adam
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Since you have already lost the point on the Papacy, you go on to Tradition. What Catholic Traditions have changed? May I ask?
- Status