Unstructured Thread...

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St. Ephram,
who lived outside of the Roman Empire
he lived in Syria and the Syrians were hostile enemies to the Romans.
On Holy Week he wrote a hymn that was to be sung in his churches.
St. Ephram is one of the forty Doctors of the Church.
St. Ephraim lived inside the Roman Empire, and when his native Nisibis was transferred into Persian empire he went into exile in Edessa, which remained in Roman hands. The Syrians were not hostile enemies to the Romans. You are confusing them with the Zoroastrian Persians.

I’d like to know, by those who KNOW, who St. Ephraim recognized as his patriach in Antioch.

I’ve already commented on this hymn.
 
The “him” in the original (sect. 59) is “Him,” i.e. God.

Freudian slip of the Ultramontanist?

Peter is nowhere mentioned in this section of Clement I, nor alluded to.

That you (or your ultramontanist quote mine) felt compelled to interpolate St Peter’s name like a filioque speaks volumes on the shakiness of your position.
how would know he is talking about God and not Peter. did he say God?
 
Wisdom, The Church Fathers dont’ count…they don’t believe in them.

You have to use sources that they cannot deny;

Like secular history.

That way, they cannot claim “Catholic” bias.

Just turn their questions over onto them…

Where in The Bible does the word “Patriarch” exist?

Did Jesus create the office of Patriarch?

Where in History is The Orthodox Church first seen to exist?

What was The Christian Church “first” known as formally?

Simple questions like that do the trick.

👍
yes. but when faced with these question they always dodge them. and they will not acknowledge anything that proves we have the one holy apostolic church and she is in rome.
 
St. Ephraim lived inside the Roman Empire, and when his native Nisibis was transferred into Persian empire he went into exile in Edessa, which remained in Roman hands. The Syrians were not hostile enemies to the Romans. You are confusing them with the Zoroastrian Persians.

I’d like to know, by those who KNOW, who St. Ephraim recognized as his patriach in Antioch.

I’ve already commented on this hymn.
if you have an entire version of history, how did you miss the Church of Roman being the One Holy Apostolic Church? no disrespect.
 
St. Ephraim lived inside the Roman Empire, and when his native Nisibis was transferred into Persian empire he went into exile in Edessa, which remained in Roman hands. The Syrians were not hostile enemies to the Romans. You are confusing them with the Zoroastrian Persians.

I’d like to know, by those who KNOW, who St. Ephraim recognized as his patriach in Antioch.

I’ve already commented on this hymn.
did you miss the fact that the hymn was a revelation from God trying to tell us something? any way we are not trying to prove that patriarchs exist. we are trying to stablish which church is the true church.
 
well Hello
I requested a “doctrine”, not verses that hint at The Trinity. The Trinity as a “docrtine” doesn’t exist in The Holy Bible.
I didn’t know that I was debating a JW. All this time I thought you were claiming to be Catholic.
Matter of fact, while you maybe an expert at “other” languages,
like those of the Bible.

Your definitions only show that you can cut and paste. I already know that.
See that? You cannot find a doctrine on The Trinity because the Apostles never developed one. The Catholic Church did “after” The Apostles passed away.
I’m sorry, I never found the JW argument convincing. And I’ve argued with those who know how to make a ration argument for it.

Well, it was enough for St. John (1:30, 33-4; 5:18). If it’s not for you, well, the verses I provided warns you of your fate.
Therefore the whole theory that a Christian cannot believe in teachings “not” found in The Holy Bible or that weren’t taught by The Primitive Church is simply wrong.
Rev. 22:18; Heb. 12:2, John 19:30. Matthew 28:20. John 14:26.

He didn’t leave saying “make it up as you go along.”

Aposteles said hold fast to what we received. Tradition “apodhosis” means handing over, pass on.

If you want to drop the ball to grab something new, you are on your own.
Hence, those Churches that were created based on regions, ethnicities, races, political relations and on independant supreme leaders and their excuse that they left because of changed doctrines or creeds are…wrong.
Including that one based on the capital and on the official language of the empire? (Btw, Greek was the language of the Church in Rome until the end of the 4th cent. Hence the Kyrie eleison, etc. Oops. I forgot. You don’t speak Greek. It’s “Lord have mery,” and in your Latin mass it’s still in Greek.
Christianity since the beginning of Jesus ministry has always evolved with it’s teachings. Even Jesus “changed” and “innovated” beliefs and doctrines.
That’s not what He said. Matthew 5:17-8, 24:35.
Who had to decide the format for preaching to Gentiles and to Jews? The Apostles. Obviously Jesus had left that up to them. Who created the doctrine of The Trinity that doesn’t exist in The Holy Bible? The Catholic Church.
If The Orthodox are the “true” Church, why do they have a “Bible” and a “Patriarch”?
Are you TRYING to make a point here? What is it?
None of The Apostles were Patriarchs and the word doesn’t even exist in The Bible (by the same standards you apply to the word “pope” being there that its).
Actually, unlike “pope” it does appear: John 7:22, Acts 2:29, 7:8, 9; Romans 9:5, 11:28, 15:8; Hebrews 7:4.

I warned you about making foolish statments on written documents that can be easily checked.
Which Apostle walked into a non-Believing town with a Bible in his hand? Not one.
Yet Orthodox Christians believe in their Patriarchs and use Bibles that The Apostles didn’t use.
Isn’t that a “change” and “innovation” from the original Church of The Apostles?
No. II Thessalonians 2:15. Luke 24:27. Acts 8:30-35, 17:2. II Peter 1:20, 3:15-6.

You’ve been told: spoon fed arguments against the Protestants aren’t going to work against us.
 
😛 No…when was “your” Creed (not The Catholic Church Creed) established?

Leave our Creed out of it.

That’s Catholic business as it was created by The Catholic Church.
Yes, it was. We, the Orthodox Catholic Church.

And your innovative Creed from Spain, our Pope Leo III of Rome distinguished it from our (and his) ORTHODOX (his word) Catholic Creed

You went way out on a limb this time:
What Fathers? The Catholic Church Fathers?
There weren’t any “Orthodox Churches” back then, so it couldn’t Orthodox Church Fathers (unless along with our Bible, you want to hijack them too and try to claim them as your own when none made any allegiance to The Orthodox Church that wouldn’t exist until the 11th Century and all (a-l-l) proclaimed their allegiance to The Bishop of Rome when the Creed was created.
At the time of the Creed’s composition, the Meletian schism was going on in Antioch. Rome appointed a Palinus to succeed Meletius, who had been deposed. The Orthodox Catholics Iincluding John Chrysostom, whom you claim as a Doctor of your church) stuck to him though, and rejected Paulinus. Rome excommunicated Meletius and anathematized him, and insisted that Paulinus be recognized: it was he who ordained Jerome (whose whinny correspondence, with ultranmontanist glimmerings, to Rome survive). Meletius tried to reason with Paulinus, that when one died, the other would succeed him, but Paulinus refused.

When the Council gathered at Constantinople to finalize the Creed, St. Gregory (another your church claims as a Doctor) deferred to St. Meletius to preside (the 2nd Council had the most saints,btw). NO ONE from Rome attended. When St. Meletius died while the Council was meeting, Paulinus, with Rome’s backng, tried to get recognized as Meletius had offered. The Fathers ABSOLLUTELY refused, and ordained Flavian instead. The Fathers also made Constantionple of like rank with Rome, as the new capital. Rome refused to recognize the change or Flavian, and excommunicated both Constantinople and Antioch.

Paulinus’ line of bishops, supported by Rome, died out. Not one of your 4 lines of patriarchs at Antioch claim succession from him, all claim succession from St. Meletius, whom one of your popes put on the saints’ calendar.

The Creed was written in Greek. Eventually Rome submitted to it, although she had no hand it its composition. Eventually too, she had to accept the status of Constantinople.

So the Creed composed in another language by Fathers, NONE of whom submitted to Rome, expliciely so, who were presided by one condemned by Rome, who ignored Rome,…how again is it YOUR Creed, as you ultramontanists, as the record shows, had no part in creating it?
 
Wisdom, The Church Fathers dont’ count…they don’t believe in them.
Yes we do. We have a problem with retrocatively attributing quotes to them:thumbsup:
Where in The Bible does the word “Patriarch” exist?
Fallacy. Straw man. We don’t argue sola scriptura. That is a western idea.
Did Jesus create the office of Patriarch?
The “office” of the patriarch is that of a bishop of an important area. So yes Jesus did create the office. The term was coined later
Where in History is The Orthodox Church first seen to exist?
Your catholic enclopedia already refuted you

“How Orthodox” became the proper name of the Eastern Church it is difficult to say. It was used at first, long before the schism of Photius, especially in the East, not with any idea of opposition against the West, but rather as the antithesis to the Eastern heretics — Nestorians and Monophysites. Gradually, although of course, both East and West always claimed both names, “Catholic” became the most common name for the original Church in the West, “Orthodox” in the East.
What was The Christian Church “first” known as formally?
How about “the Church”?

Did that “do the trick”?🙂

Games comin back on
Gotta go
 
Define “primacy”
the first, being first in rank, chief, prime minister, chief, in charge, the highest- ranking Bishop, first in importance, principal, main one.

need more?
 
how would know he is talking about God and not Peter. did he say God?
If you actually read the epistle you would see that a) yes he is talking about God and says God (not only that, the specifies the Persons of the Holy Trinity by name. 2nd seems to have a problem with this), and b) Peter in nowhere metioned nor alluded to.

Again your quote interpolates Peter’s name, and reveals an agenda.

Please, think before you cut and paste. In this case particular, as the whole epistle surely worth a read.
 
If you actually read the epistle you would see that a) yes he is talking about God and says God (not only that, the specifies the Persons of the Holy Trinity by name. 2nd seems to have a problem with this), and b) Peter in nowhere metioned nor alluded to.

Again your quote interpolates Peter’s name, and reveals an agenda.

Please, think before you cut and paste. In this case particular, as the whole epistle surely worth a read.
there is you saying.
 
yes. but when faced with these question they always dodge them. and they will not acknowledge anything that proves we have the one holy apostolic church and she is in rome.
Of course not…that is the base of their religion.

They try to hijack our name,
our Bible,
our Traditions,
and even our Creed.

🤷

Imagine that, a religion that didn’t exist until the 11th century proclaiming to be the “true” faith.

🤷
 
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Having just skimmed over the posts,
I’ve found about 1/2 dozen contradictions to earlier posts.

My plan worked!

I’m going to allow you guys to marinate on what you wrote.

My loaded questions speak for themselves.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 
Of course not…that is the base of their religion.

They try to hijack our name,
our Bible,
our Traditions,
and even our Creed.

🤷

Imagine that, a religion that didn’t exist until the 11th century proclaiming to be the “true” faith.

🤷
yes. they were true faith when they were in communion with the chair of Peter. not anymore. by their claims they also consider themselves the police, the ones in charge to make sure that the christian faith is not corrupted by the roman church. ignoring the supremacy of the chair of peter. they choose to ignore the facts. i never any president of any country go to the patriarchs for important advice but i have seen them going to the POPE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top