Unstructured Thread...

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wisdomseeker said:
do you read what you right?
no wonder. i can blame you. i understand.
infallibility has nothing to do with this. infallible means when the pope speaks from the chair of Peter in the matter of faith and morals he is protected from err because the Holy Spirit protects the faith of the Church. as a matter fact i believe the last time the pope spoke from the chair of Peter was maybe 1950s.
Click to expand...
Well good, because the Fathers believe in a primacy, but not in the infallibility of a bishop (and the bishop of Rome is that, a bishop).
 
wisdomseeker said:
I understand your position on this. So Jesus was criticized for eating with sinners. for having a woman drying his feet with her hair. Jesus was condenmened by Jews for pretty everything He did an said. to affirm we know everything about God is blasphemous. we dont know the mind of God. we dont know exactly how God works. as a matter fact we know very little about God. for God does what he will.
Click to expand...
No you don’t know my position on “this”. 2ndGen thought it was cute to post a picture of Orthodox clergy bowing to the pope. So I returned the favor by posting a picture of the same pope bowing down and kissing the Koran. How does it feel?
 
After reading about 2ndGen’s deplorable behavior concerning starting a thread about ejaculatory prayer, I wish to state that I will not waste my time even reading his posts. I feel kind of embarrased to attempt to have an intelligent discussion with him. For those who are curious what I am talking about…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=216013
 
2ndGen said:
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.

🤷
Click to expand...
Since you two are talking to yourselves, let me kill two birds with one stone.

2nd, you never provided a single instance of the occurance of the word pope in the NT, though you had claimed it was there 100’s of times.

You made the claim that A-L-L the Fathers who composed the Creed submittted to the pope of Rome (actually, he didn’t have the title then, but Alexandria had for a century): the facts show that N-O-N-E did, and the leaders were specifically out of communion with him.

You can keep your Spanish creed. We’ll stick with the original ecumenical one of Nicea and Constantinople (Orthodox Catholic Sees).

I’ll give another historical burst to your bubble: in the late second Pope Victor (who, btw, introduced Latin into the Church at Rome. It was exclusively Greek until then) threatened to excommunicate the Church of Asia. As Eusebius reports, the entire Church wrote letters rebuking him. That has already been discussed on these fora.

So much for the ultramonists of the first millenium.

Until you can put forth some historical facts or reasoned argument to counter the above facts that show that the Fathers were not ultramontanists, and not vain boasting that is proven hollow, nor a string of fallacies, well,…I have better things to do with my time, and this thread will go down in my priorities.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Since you two are talking to yourselves, let me kill two birds with one stone.

2nd, you never provided a single instance of the occurance of the word pope in the NT, though you had claimed it was there 100’s of times.

You made the claim that A-L-L the Fathers who composed the Creed submittted to the pope of Rome (actually, he didn’t have the title then, but Alexandria had for a century): the facts show that N-O-N-E did, and the leaders were specifically out of communion with him.

You can keep your Spanish creed. We’ll stick with the original ecumenical one of Nicea and Constantinople (Orthodox Catholic Sees).

I’ll give another historical burst to your bubble: in the late second Pope Victor (who, btw, introduced Latin into the Church at Rome. It was exclusively Greek until then) threatened to excommunicate the Church of Asia. As Eusebius reports, the entire Church wrote letters rebuking him. That has already been discussed on these fora.

So much for the ultramonists of the first millenium.

Until you can put forth some historical facts or reasoned argument to counter the above facts that show that the Fathers were not ultramontanists, and not vain boasting that is proven hollow, nor a string of fallacies, well,…I have better things to do with my time, and this thread will go down in my priorities.
Click to expand...
That goes for me as well. I am disappointed with the level of debate with 2ndGen. He just lobs one fallacy after another. He can’t even clearly state what he is arguing but rather he just cuts and pastes citations that he feels redeem his religious views. And to be quite honest, I’m actually knid of embarassed to attempt to take him seriously after his disgusting thread about ejaculatory prayers…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=216013
 
VARC said:
No you don’t know my position on “this”. 2ndGen thought it was cute to post a picture of Orthodox clergy bowing to the pope. So I returned the favor by posting a picture of the same pope bowing down and kissing the Koran. How does it feel?
Click to expand...
I can’t tel who is in 2nd’s picture: it may me the “sui juris” who have already bowed to him. It seems their pope is bowing back.

On the Quran smootching: the irony is, is that according to Muslim law, that is a desecration. Non-muslims are not suppored to be allowed to touch the Quran, let alone kiss it.

VARC, what’s the formal name for the fallacy that assumes an indentiy in nomenclature means a identity in substance (sort of like Stalin calling his elections, elections and the claim being made that Stalin had democracy like the West, since he also had elections like Churchill and Roosevelt)?
 
Isa_Almisry said:
VARC, what’s the formal name for the fallacy that assumes an indentiy in nomenclature means a identity in substance (sort of like Stalin calling his elections, elections and the claim being made that Stalin had democracy like the West, since he also had elections like Churchill and Roosevelt)?
Click to expand...
I don’t know the formal name of that fallacy (It’s fallacious on many levels;appeal to misleading authority, bandwagon fallacy, equivocation, etc) but even our catholic friends know that such a fallacy exists. It gets thrown in their faces all the time by the protestants. “You may be catholic, but I’m christian”. 2ndGen knows it’s a fallacious tactic, he just doesn’t care.
 
VARC said:
Not according to the Church of the Fathers, the Orthodox Catholic Church. I submit Canon VI of the Council of Ephesus

The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them. If any be a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metropolitan, let him be no bishop. Provided it be in accordance with the canons by the suffrage of the majority, if three object, their objection shall be of no force.

The bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction over Egypt and Libya. Rome does not. Rome has her own jurisdiction over an unspecified territory but, according to this canon, whatever authority Rome wields in its territory, Alexandria wields in Egypt This debunks the myth of universal papal jurisdiction in the Church.
Click to expand...
I assume you guys made up your own cannon laws to cover up your sins of breaking up the body of Christ. i wont work though, according to the Bible.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Well good, because the Fathers believe in a primacy, but not in the infallibility of a bishop (and the bishop of Rome is that, a bishop).
Click to expand...
Well, well. the fathers did not believe?
Jesus said not the fathers: I will send the HOLY SPIRIT and He will guide you into all truth. The church is the pillar of TRUTH. For one group of people hungry for power to decide what is true is ridicules. the SPIRIT is the one who leads the church into all truth.
Otherwise how can you trust what the apostles did and say was right? if you do not believe that whatever they said and did was lead by the Holy Spirit?
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Since you two are talking to yourselves, let me kill two birds with one stone.

2nd, you never provided a single instance of the occurance of the word pope in the NT, though you had claimed it was there 100’s of times.

You made the claim that A-L-L the Fathers who composed the Creed submittted to the pope of Rome (actually, he didn’t have the title then, but Alexandria had for a century): the facts show that N-O-N-E did, and the leaders were specifically out of communion with him.

You can keep your Spanish creed. We’ll stick with the original ecumenical one of Nicea and Constantinople (Orthodox Catholic Sees).

I’ll give another historical burst to your bubble: in the late second Pope Victor (who, btw, introduced Latin into the Church at Rome. It was exclusively Greek until then) threatened to excommunicate the Church of Asia. As Eusebius reports, the entire Church wrote letters rebuking him. That has already been discussed on these fora.

So much for the ultramonists of the first millenium.

Until you can put forth some historical facts or reasoned argument to counter the above facts that show that the Fathers were not ultramontanists, and not vain boasting that is proven hollow, nor a string of fallacies, well,…I have better things to do with my time, and this thread will go down in my priorities.
Click to expand...
these are your own words. you are the one who has not proven or gave us any evidence that the CC of rome has no authority over all churches. everything you said was your own opinion and your own version of the history. on the contrary we showed a huge body of evidence that the CC has authority over all. you have rejected all of them. that is your problem. your smart word, so you think they are, did nothing.
 
2ndGen said:
What is your scriptural proof of this post 16th Century belief?
Click to expand...
The differance between the Greek words Petros and Petra are a good start.

As this conversation has been had a billion tiimes since the split between east and west and more after the reformattion, I guess we’re wasting our time debating it bacause no one will convince the other party. 🤷
 
2ndGen said:
Will the real “Orthodox” Church please stand up?

Is “this” what you call “not” changing?

“Not” changing would’ve mean complete unity to one Church.

Do these Churches have different rules?

If so, “which” Church is “The” Orthodox Church?​

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Early_Church

Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Finnish Orthodox Church (autonomous)
Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church (autonomous)
Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America
Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese in the USA
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe
Episcopal Vicariate of Great Britain and Ireland
Mount Athos
Belorussian Council of Orthodox Churches in North America
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain (includes Ireland)
Archdiocese in Italy and Malta
Archdiocese in Australia
13 other small metropolises outside its canonical territory: Austria, Belgium, Argentina, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, the Korean Orthodox Church, Mexico and Central America, New Zealand, Scandinavia, Spain and Portugal, and Switzerland
Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria
African Orthodox groups in the African Continent
Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America (autonomous)
Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand, and All Oceania
Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem
Church of Mount Sinai (autonomous)
Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem in North and South America
Russian Orthodox Church
Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) (de-facto autonomous)
Moldovan Orthodox Church (territorial jurisdiction contested by the Romanian Church)
Metropolis of Western Europe (proposed, but not instituted)
Japanese Orthodox Church (autonomy not universally recognized[citation needed])
Belarusian exarchate
Estonian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Latvian Orthodox Church
Hungarian diocese
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (autonomous; union completed on May 17, 2007.)
Serbian Orthodox Church
Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric (autonomous)
Metropolitanate of Zagreb, Ljubljana and All Italy (Croatia, Slovenia, Italy)
Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral (Montenegro)
Metropolitanate of Dabar-Bosna (Bosnia-Herzegovina)
Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA and Canada
Bishopric in Australia and New Zealand
Bishopric in Britain and Scandinavia (Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark)
Bishopric of Buda (Hungary, Czech Republic, and Slovakia)
Bishopric in Central Europe (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland)
Bishopric in Timişoara (Romania)
Bishopric in Western Europe (France, Belgium, Netherlands, and Spain)
Romanian Orthodox Church
Metropolis of Bessarabia (autonomous, with the rank of an exarchate, i.e. having the right to have parishes outside its canonical jurisdiction – de facto has in Russia and USA; territorial jurisdiction contested by the Russian Church)
Metropolis in France, Western and Southern Europe (British Islands, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy)
Metropolis in Germany and Central Europe (Germany, Northern and Central Europe)
Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese in America and Canada (USA, Canada, Argentina, Venezuela)
Romanian Orthodox Bishopric Dacia Felix (in Serbia)
Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Church Diocese of America, Canada and Australia
Diocese in Central and Western Europe
Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church
Church of Cyprus
Church of Greece
Polish Orthodox Church
Albanian Orthodox Church
Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church
Orthodox Church in America (recognized as autocephalous only by the Russian, Bulgarian, Georgian, Polish, and Czech-Slovak Churches)
Orthodox Church in America Albanian Archdiocese
Orthodox Church in America Bulgarian Diocese
Romanian Orthodox Episcopate in America
Orthodox Church in America Parishes in Australia

Orthodox Churches and communities not in communion with others
Belarusian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Bulgarian Alternative Synod
Orthodox Church in Italy
Macedonian Orthodox Church
Montenegrin Orthodox Church
Russian True Orthodox Church
Turkish Orthodox Church
Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kiev Patriarchate)
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America

[edit] Old Believers
Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church (Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy)
Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite Church (Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy)
Russian Old-Orthodox Church (Novozybkovskaya Hierarchy)
Pomorian Old-Orthodox Church (Pomortsy)

Old Calendarist
Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece
Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians, USA
Orthodox Church of Greece (Holy Synod in Resistance)
Old Calendar Romanian Orthodox Church
Old Calendar Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Old Calendar Syrian/Assyrian Orthodox Church

Defunct churches
Croatian Orthodox Church
Chinese Orthodox Church
Click to expand...
Roman Catholicism at one time was devided like this

Ecclesia Italia
Ecclesia Espania
Ecclesia Anglia
etc. etc.

Ecclesia Roma took control of it all to stop further break ups like ecclesia Anglia (CofE) had done.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Since you two are talking to yourselves, let me kill two birds with one stone.

2nd, you never provided a single instance of the occurance of the word pope in the NT, though you had claimed it was there 100’s of times.

You made the claim that A-L-L the Fathers who composed the Creed submittted to the pope of Rome (actually, he didn’t have the title then, but Alexandria had for a century): the facts show that N-O-N-E did, and the leaders were specifically out of communion with him.

You can keep your Spanish creed. We’ll stick with the original ecumenical one of Nicea and Constantinople (Orthodox Catholic Sees).

I’ll give another historical burst to your bubble: in the late second Pope Victor (who, btw, introduced Latin into the Church at Rome. It was exclusively Greek until then) threatened to excommunicate the Church of Asia. As Eusebius reports, the entire Church wrote letters rebuking him. That has already been discussed on these fora.

So much for the ultramonists of the first millenium.

Until you can put forth some historical facts or reasoned argument to counter the above facts that show that the Fathers were not ultramontanists, and not vain boasting that is proven hollow, nor a string of fallacies, well,…I have better things to do with my time, and this thread will go down in my priorities.
Click to expand...
more evidence.

In Isaiah 22

“I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David.” “I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.”

Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister before Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister.
When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and that’s why Eliakim is called to fill it.

does this ring a bell to you?

John Paul II

“The NT is concealed on the OT. and OT is revealed on the NT.”

the keys of the kingdom could not have been given to all the apostle specially with judas in there.

let me know if you need more light of the truth.

denial does not mean a person doesnt believe, it means only that a person refuse to acnowledge.

.
 
Wow! Many posts since I last visited. I do not indulge in the internet on weekends. 🙂

I would like to commend Isa and VARC for their informative, scholarly, and eloquent defence of the true catholic Church–the Orthodox Catholic Church. You have done a fine job considering the ad hominem attacks that have been hurled at you. But then again, it shows that you have frustrated them with the truth! 👍
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Yes, minus infallibility and universal jurisdiction, would that be primacy to you? All the things you list don’t require either.
Click to expand...
More prove.

At the Council in Jerusalem it is reported that Acts 15:7 "After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them,

“My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe…”
Immediately after Peter gives his decision. "The whole assembly fell silent…

James responded, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name… 19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.
It was James people who had a problem with the gentiles.
 
Mickey said:
Wow! Many posts since I last visited. I do not indulge in the internet on weekends. 🙂

I would like to commend Isa and VARC for their informative, scholarly, and eloquent defence of the true catholic Church–the Orthodox Catholic Church. You have done a fine job considering the ad hominem attacks that have been hurled at you. But then again, it shows that you have frustrated them with the truth! 👍
Click to expand...
hello Mickey!

nice see you back. sorry to disappoint you. but i am not frustrated. these arguments never frustrates me. i assure you.
 
wisdomseeker said:
James responded, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name… 19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top