This Wednesday, 8/6/2008, I will be leaving communion with the Roman Catholic Church

[Mickey]

As bishop maybe, but Rome is where he died, and Ignatius for one didn’t preach revolt against the pope then, even though there was already one, and in Rome!

Did St Ignatius of Antioch write about the supreme infallible pontiff of Rome? I must have missed that letter.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So? It went without saying… there was no need then to say it!

So you say.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That “schism” was resolved quite soon. And it involved personalities, but not the legitimacy of having a pope at all, did it?

Quite soon. 40 years. A lifetime.

why not the legitimacy of having three popes?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No, precisely my point. The charge is to preserve the Creed. Your interpretation of what they said would mean they excommunicate themselves.

Constantinople I doesn’t contradict Nicea I. Filioque contradicts the Creed, as shown by the fact that, inserted into the original Greek, it yields a result even the Vatican condemns (at least now) as heretical, and the Vatican won’t allow it.

I’m not going to get into the details of divorce etc. I honestly havn’t done enough research on it. That wasn’t my point anyway. Orthodox seem to think there was an “age” where it was appropriate to have infallible council and that age is past. My point is that issues will always pop up, new heresies will always arise, and we need a Church which can dogmatically defend the faith (aka have councils that hold real binding authority.)

We’ve done well.

Your cathari, Waldensians, Reformation, Counter-Reformation, Old Catholics, Liberal Catholics,… You’ve done well.

Say what you will, but do not twist my words around. I constantly see this from you and atleast one other Orthodox poster. The schismatic ones… you mean Rome? teehee. Yes we get it; very clever.

My point remains valid.

It has to be to remain.

Rome has never had to get permission from schismatic Churches to keep having councils. I’m sure you are capable of understanding this from the Roman perspective; although, you have shown no signs of comprehending it. You call those councils invalid, but you “prove” it assuming they are invalid, it’s faulty logic. I believe B is wrong, therefore B is wrong.

The Councils, ever since the Fourth, summarize and repeat the one proceeding.

The Vatican can’t say Constantinople I.

So whatever council they want they can have.

Even it agrees with truth, like Trent (confirmed in part by the Synod of Jerusalem), it is still neither Ecumenical nor infallible.

The only real case you have to same Rome are heretics is Filioque. Even there you have a terribly weak case.

It’s your own fallible theological opinion, but clearly to you theological opinion is a good enough reason to split the Body of Christ.

It’s the dogma of the Fathers. Good enough.

And to be clear, it is theological opinion.

It’s infallible dogma.

Considering, even some Greek theologians don’t think it is inherently wrong (just a bad translation of “Filioque” from Latin to Greek.)

Some who?

Last time I checked, there have been no doctrine set the anathemize those theologians.

Look again.

Oh wait, the Orthodox are incapable of clarifying the Deposit of Faith via doctrine anymore.

Have no problem doing so.

But at the issue at hand, the Ecumenical Councils have already done. So. The Fathers have spoken, The case is closed.

 

[w_stewart]

Then why didn’t he metion him in his letter to the Romans, the only one where he doesn’t mention the bishop?

And when he says, “where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church,” he doesn’t say “where the bishop sent by Rome…”

This line of argument is too hard to sell. Not mentioning Peter does not in any way disprove the Catholic position. Ignatius’ not mentioning of the bishop of Rome does not prove anything.

At best, this argument is juvenile, immature, which keeps me wondering why intelligent EO members keep proposing such argument.

 

[w_stewart]

Did St Ignatius of Antioch write about the supreme infallible pontiff of Rome? I must have missed that letter.

Is there a need for him to ALWAYS mention it EVERYWHERE?

 

[w_stewart]

Quite soon. 40 years. A lifetime.

why not the legitimacy of having three popes?

There could NEVER be three legitimate popes at the same time in the same vein that there could never be three legitimate US Presidents at the same time.

Have you ever heard of ANTIPOPES?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This line of argument is too hard to sell. Not mentioning Peter does not in any way disprove the Catholic position. Ignatius’ not mentioning of the bishop of Rome does not prove anything.

At best, this argument is juvenile, immature, which keeps me wondering why intelligent EO members keep proposing such argument.

Because apologists for the Vatican keep arguing ex silencio that St. Ignatius was loyal to the pope of Rome and supported infallibility, supremacy etc.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Is there a need for him to ALWAYS mention it EVERYWHERE?

No. But metioned it ONCE SOMEWHERE would be nice.

But he NEVER mentions it ANYWHERE.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

There could NEVER be three legitimate popes at the same time in the same vein that there could never be three legitimate US Presidents at the same time.

Have you ever heard of ANTIPOPES?

Yes, an inevitable creation of the invention of the papacy.

 

[BSHoop96]

These sees have held to the True Temple,and Priesthood while the one has sought the strange gods of the pontifex maximus (**you do know, the title is to the pagan office of the state religion?). **The fact that the tribe of Dan took Moses’ grandson as their priest didn’t give them primacy.

Irrelevant. When the religion of the state changed to Christianity the title was simply retained. Just as you can have a president of the U.S. or the president of a college, or the president of a student council…

 

[BSHoop96]

It seems we will: HH Benedict XVI has been dropping the filioque, the insertion of which was the cause of 1054. A good start.

There were many causes for the split. Disagreement over the translation of the filioque was one. It wasn’t all over the primacy of the Pope as I’m sure you know.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Irrelevant. When the religion of the state changed to Christianity the title was simply retained. Just as you can have a president of the U.S. or the president of a college, or the president of a student council…

Yet when the emperor gave the EP the title “Ecumenical” (in the chancellory, equivalent to imperial), the Pope of Rome kicked up a fuss.

Actually it is a problem, in that the Christians specifically, both in Latin, Greek, Coptic, etc. rejected the pagan terms for priest, and used the biblical term presbyteros.

 

[adstrinity]

Actually it is a problem, in that the Christians specifically, both in Latin, Greek, Coptic, etc. rejected the pagan terms for priest, and used the biblical term presbyteros.

True as that may be, I’m guessing when the Church grew to include all gentiles, they needed the language to describe the roles in the Church. Since the Roman’s were familiar with the term, ‘Pontifiex Maximus,’ Church stepped in and said, “We will show you a still more excellent way.” I’m guessing.

 

[anon52328184]

today is 8/7/08. christy left 8/6/08. shouldn’t this post be closed. it has definitely been hijacked.

 

[BSHoop96]

Because of the Bull that the Rome Pope’s representatives dropped in Hagia Sophia Cathedral during Divine Liturgy in 1054 ad. Rome left the communion it had previously held with the other original 4 Patriarchates.

Learn history. It* is* important.

Not quite that simple. Many reasons. Primacy of the Pope, the filioque, the Roman calendar, and believe it or not…when to celebrate Easter. Then the Pope and the Patriarch were worried that each would take over some of the other’s churches and I believe they both excommunicated each other! Plus you could throw in some struggles over power and political stuff. They were all human after all.

Lapell, I believe you were right!

 

[BSHoop96]

**Do you really think your works can win favor with God outside of faith? **The Pharisees thought the same thing …

Once again you show that you do not know, nor understand our faith. Another case of someone hating what he “thinks is the Catholic Church.” Only you do it over…and over…and over…

 

[buffgbob]

It’s infallible dogma.

Nice to see you’re making up dogma as it is suitable to you now. Congrats, you’re officially Protestant.

 

[BSHoop96]

she’ll be back!! LOL we may not know it, but she will sneak back and read some threads. LOL

 

[BSHoop96]

Yet when the emperor gave the EP the title “Ecumenical” (in the chancellory, equivalent to imperial), the Pope of Rome kicked up a fuss.

Actually it is a problem, in that the Christians specifically, both in Latin, Greek, Coptic, etc. rejected the pagan terms for priest, and used the biblical term presbyteros.

My point was that use of the existing title did not make the Pope a pagan as the poster seemed to be implying a connection to paganism beyond just the use of the title.