Unstructured Thread...

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isa_Almisry said:
I can only be brief:

Our Fathers of this Church defeated Arianism at Nicea without Pope Sylvester, who took no part in the triumph over paganism.

Our Fathers of this Church wrote the Creed without Pope Damasus of Rome.

Our Fathers of this Church followed Pope Cyril, of Alexandria, in deposing Nestous.

Our Father of this Church accepted Pope Leo’s tome, but only after inspecting it for its Orthodoxy.

Our Fathers of this Church struck Pope Vigilius of Rome from the diptychs at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Our Fathers of this Church anathematized Pope Honorius of Rome.

Our Fathers of this Church laid down the sacred and ecumenical canons, that anathematized any who composed a different faith than the Creed’s.

Pope Leo III set up the original Creed in St. Peter’s at Rome, and St. Paul’s outside the Walls, with the inscription that he had done so for “love of the Orthodox Faith.”

Pope Leo IX of Rome insisted in interpolating the pure Creed, and insisted that we do the same.

We refused, and remained the True Church.

Pope Leo’s legates excommunicated us, but as the Fathers state “the curses of heretics are blessings,” and succeeded in only separating themselves from us, the Church of the Fathers.
Click to expand...
sorry, it did not answer my question. things of God are not just taken by man but it is given to those whom he chooses.
 
There has been a lot of begging the question in this thread. Let’s put our cards on the table. Both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by the Apostles.
Rome claims that the other four patriarchates left the Catholic fold and the four patriachates and their daughter churches claim that Rome left the Catholic fold. Let us begin the presentation of evidence.

I submit definition of Faith in the 6 session of the Council of Ephesus.:

Definition of the faith at Nicaea [6th session 22 July 431]
The synod of Nicaea produced this creed: We believe … [the Nicene Creed follows]

It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.

When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.
  1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
  2. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.
3)In the same way if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or laity, thinking or teaching the views expressed in his statement by the priest Charisius about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the disgusting, perverted views of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be subject to the condemnation of this holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematised, as was said before.

It is clear from the evidence above that when the bishop of Rome added to the Creed, he was was to be dismissed of his office. This concilar declaration included ALL bishops including the bishop of Rome. Sixtus III, bishop of Rome, himself accepted this decree and made no execption to himself or his episcopal successors. This is proof that the Roman Church left the Catholic Church when they unilaterally changed the creed and excommunicated the other four patriarchates for not following suit.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
I can only be brief:

Our Fathers of this Church defeated Arianism at Nicea without Pope Sylvester, who took no part in the triumph over paganism.

Our Fathers of this Church wrote the Creed without Pope Damasus of Rome.

Our Fathers of this Church followed Pope Cyril, of Alexandria, in deposing Nestous.

Our Father of this Church accepted Pope Leo’s tome, but only after inspecting it for its Orthodoxy.

Our Fathers of this Church struck Pope Vigilius of Rome from the diptychs at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Our Fathers of this Church anathematized Pope Honorius of Rome.

Our Fathers of this Church laid down the sacred and ecumenical canons, that anathematized any who composed a different faith than the Creed’s.

Pope Leo III set up the original Creed in St. Peter’s at Rome, and St. Paul’s outside the Walls, with the inscription that he had done so for “love of the Orthodox Faith.”

Pope Leo IX of Rome insisted in interpolating the pure Creed, and insisted that we do the same.

We refused, and remained the True Church.

Pope Leo’s legates excommunicated us, but as the Fathers state “the curses of heretics are blessings,” and succeeded in only separating themselves from us, the Church of the Fathers.
Click to expand...
Wow, great summary Isa 👍
 
VARC said:
There has been a lot of begging the question in this thread. Let’s put our cards on the table. Both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by the Apostles.
Rome claims that the other four patriarchates left the Catholic fold and the four patriachates and their daughter churches claim that Rome left the Catholic fold. Let us begin the presentation of evidence.

I submit definition of Faith in the 6 session of the Council of Ephesus.:

Definition of the faith at Nicaea [6th session 22 July 431]
The synod of Nicaea produced this creed: We believe … [the Nicene Creed follows]

It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.

When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.
  1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
  2. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.
3)In the same way if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or laity, thinking or teaching the views expressed in his statement by the priest Charisius about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the disgusting, perverted views of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be subject to the condemnation of this holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematised, as was said before.

It is clear from the evidence above that when the bishop of Rome added to the Creed, he was was to be dismissed of his office. This concilar declaration included ALL bishops including the bishop of Rome. Sixtus III, bishop of Rome, himself approved this decree and made no execption to himself or his episcopal successors. This is proof that the Roman Church left the Catholic Church when they unilaterally changed the creed and excommunicated the other four patriarchates for not following suit.
Click to expand...
What??
No, the fact that the East and West were together for some 200 years with the Filioque with no council called to excommunicate the Pope for allowing it to be altered dispells your hypothesis.
 
VARC said:
There has been a lot of begging the question in this thread. Let’s put our cards on the table. Both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by the Apostles.
Rome claims that the other four patriarchates left the Catholic fold and the four patriachates and their daughter churches claim that Rome left the Catholic fold. Let us begin the presentation of evidence.

I submit definition of Faith in the 6 session of the Council of Ephesus.:

Definition of the faith at Nicaea [6th session 22 July 431]
The synod of Nicaea produced this creed: We believe … [the Nicene Creed follows]

It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.

When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.
  1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
  2. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.
3)In the same way if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or laity, thinking or teaching the views expressed in his statement by the priest Charisius about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the disgusting, perverted views of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be subject to the condemnation of this holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematised, as was said before.

It is clear from the evidence above that when the bishop of Rome added to the Creed, he was was to be dismissed of his office. This concilar declaration included ALL bishops including the bishop of Rome. Sixtus III, bishop of Rome, himself approved this decree and made no execption to himself or his episcopal successors. This is proof that the Roman Church left the Catholic Church when they unilaterally changed the creed and excommunicated the other four patriarchates for not following suit.
Click to expand...
Yes. that all sound good. but we are not talking about the popes who did wrong. we are talking about the church. St Augustine once said: "The Roman church is visible for everyone to see, there is no excuse for no one not to know this Church. It seems to me that he is saying that this church has the grace of God and Jesus is with this church. Just like Jesus said He would be.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
You don’t include “first to deny Christ in your list.” That alone acounts for over 30 of your 155, and in all 4 Gospels. The first (and actually the only) Apostle called Satan by Christ accounts for a couple more, and the first to fall asleep in Gethsemne (since you seem to call any mention of Peter a first), still more.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Isa_Almisry said:
I can only be brief:

Our Fathers of this Church defeated Arianism at Nicea without Pope Sylvester, who took no part in the triumph over paganism.

Our Fathers of this Church wrote the Creed without Pope Damasus of Rome.

Our Fathers of this Church followed Pope Cyril, of Alexandria, in deposing Nestous.

Our Father of this Church accepted Pope Leo’s tome, but only after inspecting it for its Orthodoxy.

Our Fathers of this Church struck Pope Vigilius of Rome from the diptychs at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Our Fathers of this Church anathematized Pope Honorius of Rome.

Our Fathers of this Church laid down the sacred and ecumenical canons, that anathematized any who composed a different faith than the Creed’s.

Pope Leo III set up the original Creed in St. Peter’s at Rome, and St. Paul’s outside the Walls, with the inscription that he had done so for “love of the Orthodox Faith.”

Pope Leo IX of Rome insisted in interpolating the pure Creed, and insisted that we do the same.

We refused, and remained the True Church.

Pope Leo’s legates excommunicated us, but as the Fathers state “the curses of heretics are blessings,” and succeeded in only separating themselves from us, the Church of the Fathers.
Click to expand...
Was this “before” or “after” 1054 AD?

If it was before, then those are “our” Fathers that you left behind when you left The Church that they worked under. Those are “Catholic” Fathers that submitted themselves to The Catholic Pope (The Orthodox Church didn’t exist until after the 11th century).
 
jam070406 said:
What, that all this took place when there was only one church? Before your churches dissented that is.
Click to expand...
Yep!

That’s what I said.

Check him out trying to take credit for what The Catholic Church did!

Next thing you know, they’ll be trying to claim that they canonized The Bible too.

😃
 
2ndGen said:
If it was before, then those are “our” Fathers that you left behind when you left The Church that they worked under. Those are “Catholic” Fathers that submitted themselves to The Catholic Pope (The Orthodox Church didn’t exist until after the 11th century).
Click to expand...
Another fallacy. Begging the question. You beg the question when you assert that the Orthodox church didn’t exist. You cannot use that as proof to assert that those fathers were catholic until you establish that the Orthodox church didn’t exist.
 
VARC said:
There has been a lot of begging the question in this thread. Let’s put our cards on the table. Both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by the Apostles.
Rome claims that the other four patriarchates left the Catholic fold and the four patriachates and their daughter churches claim that Rome left the Catholic fold. Let us begin the presentation of evidence.

I submit definition of Faith in the 6 session of the Council of Ephesus.:

Definition of the faith at Nicaea [6th session 22 July 431]
The synod of Nicaea produced this creed: We believe … [the Nicene Creed follows]

It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.

When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.
  1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
  2. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.
3)In the same way if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or laity, thinking or teaching the views expressed in his statement by the priest Charisius about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the disgusting, perverted views of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be subject to the condemnation of this holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematised, as was said before.

It is clear from the evidence above that when the bishop of Rome added to the Creed, he was was to be dismissed of his office. This concilar declaration included ALL bishops including the bishop of Rome. Sixtus III, bishop of Rome, himself accepted this decree and made no execption to himself or his episcopal successors. This is proof that the Roman Church left the Catholic Church when they unilaterally changed the creed and excommunicated the other four patriarchates for not following suit.
Click to expand...
(Watch how easy this is…)

Show me where in History The Orthodox Church existed “before” 1054 AD.

And, if The Catholic Church left The Catholic Church, how was it that she ended up with the title “Catholic” while 4 other Churches ended up with the new and innovative title of “Orthodox”?

That’s like a wife taking an ex-husband’s last name and having the court not allow him to use it anymore!

That’s like 4 kids going to the principle’s office and saying that one kid bullied them and stole their lunch money!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
2ndGen said:
Isa Almisry;3273195:
Sooo predictable. If a firefighter saved your life, you’d probably sue him for breaking the windows to you house. The “Peter denial” fault (as if Peter’s faults were any more or less than any of the other Apostles).

Thomas doubted Him even after seeing him, wouldn’t Thomas be the worse by far? Shouldn’t your energy on trying to disprove The Apostle that loved Jesus the most (oh yeah, another of Peter’s titles) be focused on Judas?

And Peter…Satan? Where did you get that from? I know that Jesus called Satan Satan when he tried to manifest himself in Peter, but I’ve never seen Jesus call Peter Satan.

By the way, if you’re saying that by Peter saying something that Satan placed in him is Satan (according to Jesus), then what would that make Peter earlier when God placed His words in him? God?

Who says I don’t look at Saint Andrew? I love him. He brought Jesus’ Rock to Him.

Right on Andrew for reccomending you big brother to Jesus for the job of Disciple! That internship led to Peter becoming President of the Corp! 👍

I didn’t cut it short, the quote I pasted did.

If you want to go down that road though, by all means! Let’s go!

30But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

31And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

Thank Peter for a great example of what?

Of one, showing great faith initially (first) then of our being distressed by distractions then of showing what happens when we call out upon Jesus to save us!

You can’t see the forest for the trees.

You’re pointing out Peter’s faults (that were profoundly overwhelmed by Peter’s works) as if to diminish all of the great things he did (like converting 3,000 Christians at once, ala’ Christ).

This Apostles was the only one to have supernatural powers like Christ. No other Apostle had those powers. Who else had the power to kill at will or to heal with just their shadow?

You don’t have a Christian mindset. Christ was about taking the lowliest of the world (and Peter was far from the lowliest) and elevating them to greatness.

You point out faults where Jesus would point out (as I have with Peter) Peter’s positive attributes. I guess, you’ve never sinned that you feel that you can cast stones?

Allow me to introduce you to someone…His name is Jesus:
youtube.com/watch?v=-XbqC0KzUFo
Click to expand...
Look at how He tells us to judge.

Actually no…I actually used that as proof that Peter had secret knowledge that the other Apostles didn’t know. This proves that Peter was separated from the rest of The Apostles.

Putting all the firsts of the other Apostles will not equal all the firsts of Peter’s. Not even 11 Apostles could match 1 Peter for the positive firsts that he was in Christianity.

You’re lucky God won’t judge you how you judge Peter…you’d have to be absolutely flawless to escape judgement.

Oh Oh! Wait a minute…

St. Matthew 7
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Sorry dude, too late!

Peter is The Pope…He has Bishops to do the work while he confers with The Master. Besides, he was the owner of the business…of course he’s going to run to take care of He who gave him that winfall. That’s why he was chosen to lead and the others followed Peter.

I never said that Peter was the disciple that Jesus loved (most I believe you meant to say). I said that Peter was the disciple that loved Jesus most.

John 21:15
So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,
“Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?”
He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”
He said to him, “Tend My lambs.”

I was just wondering why is that Jesus told Peter, go get the money from the fish’s mouth and pay my taxes and yours. why was Jesus paying Peter’s taxes only and not the others?
Click to expand...
 
2ndGen said:
And, if The Catholic Church left The Catholic Church, how was it that she ended up with the title “Catholic” while 4 other Churches ended up with the new and innovative title of “Orthodox”?
Click to expand...
Fallacy. Straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that the catholic church left the catholic church. We are arguing that Rome left the catholic church.
2ndGen said:
That’s like a wife taking an ex-husband’s last name and having the court not allow him to use it anymore!
Click to expand...
Fallacy. False analogy. The name is not important. It’s not the label that identifies the True church. It’s the Faith that the Church professes. In this case, the Orthodox Church professes the same faith as the united Church of the first 1000 years and the RCC has a new creed.
 
VARC said:
Another fallacy. Begging the question. You beg the question when you assert that the Orthodox church didn’t exist. You cannot use that as proof to assert that those fathers were catholic until you establish that the Orthodox church didn’t exist.
Click to expand...
By the way, The Church Fathers never called The Church “The Orthodox Church”…they called it “The Catholic Church”.
 
2ndGen said:
By the way, The Church Fathers never called The Church “The Orthodox Church”…they called it “The Catholic Church”.
Click to expand...
Fallacy. Arguing off the point
The point is that the Faith identfies the church not the label. BTW the orthodox do refer to themselves as the Orthodox Catholic Church.
 
VARC said:
Another fallacy. Begging the question. You beg the question when you assert that the Orthodox church didn’t exist. You cannot use that as proof to assert that those fathers were catholic until you establish that the Orthodox church didn’t exist.
Click to expand...
The Church was known as the universal Church. The Catholic Church. Calling you Church Orthodox assumes you are trying to distinguish it from something UNorthodox. Hey, look at use! We’re the correct (Orthodox) Church unlike that Church over there in Rome. Hence the name Orthodox adopted after 1054.
 
VARC said:
Fallacy. Straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that the catholic church left the catholic church. We are arguing that Rome left the catholic church.

Fallacy. False analogy. The name is not important. It’s not the label that identifies the True church. It’s the Faith that the Church professes. In this case, the Orthodox Church professes the same faith as the united Church of the first 1000 years and the RCC has a new creed.
Click to expand...
and what creed is that?
 
Its also a fallacy (non sequitor) to state that the name applied to a church actually should be applied to that church. We do not believe that you are “catholic” and you do not believe we are “orthodox”. We both reject the protestant “Churches of God”.
 
VARC said:
Fallacy. Straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that the catholic church left the catholic church. We are arguing that Rome left the catholic church.

Fallacy. False analogy. The name is not important. It’s not the label that identifies the True church. It’s the Faith that the Church professes. In this case, the Orthodox Church professes the same faith as the united Church of the first 1000 years and the RCC has a new creed.
Click to expand...
Or the RCC continued to be the Church led into all Truth by the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus while the Orthodox church broke off and remains stagnant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top