Unstructured Thread...

[2ndGen]

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.

Yawwwwn!

Good morning people.

Uh…Petros and Petras are modern Greek (not Koine Greek).

Those words don’t appear in The Holy Bible.



So, where were we?

Oh yes…where is The Orthodox Church mentioned in history prior to th 11th century?

Oh…I STILL “appreciate” this picture!

 

[2ndGen]

I see you dumped St. Augustine for Optatus. Was it VARC correction of the words you were putting in Augustine’s mouth?

Actually, no.

I had originally used another Augustine quote to replace the last one,
(out of the dozens where he condemns those who leave
The Catholic Church in headquartered in Rome).

But above all of that, I think that this quote is one of the best to truly represent what Christianity has always known.

Don’t you think?

 

[2ndGen]

But if you’re partial to Augustine (whom I believe you quoted as well?), here you go…

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them
the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself,
to whom, as to one representing the whole Church,
the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church,
and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’
Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. …
In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found”

Augustine
Letters 53:1:2
A.D. 412

 

[2ndGen]

It was either one of the many Church Fathers’ or this one…

“Kneel before Zod!”

:bowdown:

 

[2ndGen]

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.

Plus, Jesus used non-Believers to teach supposed Believers how to be (Samaritans, Pagans, etc…).

 

[2ndGen]

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.

They don’t even have their own Bible.

 

[2ndGen]

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.

I’m still waiting for them to show where The Church was ever referred to as “The Orthodox Church” or even “The Orthodox Catholic Church” or even “…One, Holy, Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Church” as one of them attempted to state as factual…before the 11th century.

 

[wisdomseeker]

By Rev. Chrysostom Frank

"The situation created by the schism with the See of Rome in the eleventh century left the Orthodox East without an adequate ecclesiological and theological basis for dealing with the immense problem of how to ensure the unity and communion of the local Churches without the Petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome. ’

"Perhaps now is the time, the kairos, to do something which is simultaneously terribly radical and terribly conservative -to call on the Bishop of Rome to act as arbiter in this squabble between Moscow and Constantinople. Perhaps now is the time to recognize the folly and foolishness of our ecclesiastical structure which has produced national Churches which seem interminably locked into their own self-interest and which often lack any discernible catholic spirit and mind. Perhaps now is the time to look deeply at our need for the Petrine ministry, which was so profoundly recognized by Eastern saints such as Theodore the Studite and Maximus the Confessor and which we still sing about in our liturgical celebrations (e.g., texts for the commemoration of St. Gregory the Great). "

“Perhaps this tiff between Moscow and Constantinople is the God-given occasion to reconsider all the polemical argumentation that we have used to justify and to maintain the Schism of 1054. Perhaps now is the time to realize that where all of us-on all sides of the disputes-have stood and continue to stand is not entirely on the fullness of catholic truth.”

“Perhaps now is the time to fall down on our knees and mutually ask forgiveness of each other-Romans, Greeks, Slavs, Arabs, Muscovites, Constantinopolitans, “converts,” all of us! And maybe when we rise up again we will find ourselves at a most peculiar place-at the same Eucharistic Chalice.”

 

[wisdomseeker]

Mickey:
Isa and vark

please read my post from Rev. Chrysostom Frank

do i need to say more or you have some excuse for this one to?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’m still waiting for them to show where The Church was ever referred to as “The Orthodox Church” or even “The Orthodox Catholic Church” or even “…One, Holy, Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Church” as one of them attempted to state as factual…before the 11th century.

not only that. they have failed to post one single quote of the fathers mentioning anything about the chair of peter being moved from rome to any place else other than rome.

 

[wisdomseeker]

/QUOTE

Russia and the Universal Church recounts the Eastern Church’s struggles with the great heresies from the time of Arius (fourth century) to the days of the Iconoclasts in the seventh century.

“Soloviev clearly brings out the one fact underlying the story of those tumultuous years. The fact is, the Eastern churches were repeatedly rescued from their homegrown heresies by the magisterial authority of the Chair of Peter. Yet except when the East needed a savior from its own heresies, most of the Eastern hierarchy and almost all emperors opposed, even attacked, the authority of Rome.”"

 

[Mickey]

wisdomseeker:
If you would like to start a thread on converts–since you are posting on Soloviev and Chrysostom Frank–go right ahead. There are many Roman and Eastern Catholic converts to Holy Orthodoxy.
[/quote]

 

[2ndGen]

wisdomseeker;3278743:

If you would like to start a thread on converts–since you are posting on Soloviev and Chrysostom Frank–go right ahead. There are many Roman and Eastern Catholic converts to Holy Orthodoxy.

Hey!

I have a thread on how The Orthodox Church is on the brink of Schisming (again)!

Come on by!

 

[wisdomseeker]

check this out folks:

By Soloviev,

“But because that center was located elsewhere, in Rome, in the papacy, “they preferred to be Greeks rather than Christians and accepted a divided Church rather than the Church unified by a power which was in their eyes foreign and hostile to their nationality.” In other words, they would rather accept from the emperor “a revised or incomplete formula” of doctrine, than " accept the truth pure and intact from the mouth of a Pope.”

Throughout these centuries the orthodox anti-Catholic party exhibited a regular pattern of behavior. When a heresy was espoused by the emperor, they gave it at least passive support. This enabled the heretics to call councils (composed largely of orthodox anti-Catholic hierarchs) and issue heretical decrees. But each time the blood of martyrs and the loyalty of the faithful and “the threatening authority of the Roman pontiff” would compel the emperor to forsake the current heresy. At which point the orthodox anti-Catholic quickly rejoined the orthodox camp.

Thus the reconciled orthodox anti-Catholic constituted the majority in the legitimate councils as they had in the heretical councils. They could not refuse to concur in the " precise and definite formulation of orthodox dogma which the pope’s representatives brought to their councils." Yet each time “the evident triumph of the Papacy soon brought them back to their prevailing sentiment of jealous hatred toward the apostolic see.” They would begin again to set up “an unreal and usurped authority” opposedto the papacy.

When heresy reigned in the East, the orthodox anti-Catholic could turn only to the papacy to rescue them. Once the heresy was vanquished, however, they wanted nothing to do with the pope. Thus, “each triumph of orthodoxy, which was always the triumph of the Papacy, was invariably followed at Byzantium by an anti-Catholic reaction.” That reaction would persist until a new heresy arose, reminding them of “the advantage of a genuine ecclesiastical authority, " the papacy, which would then rescue them.”
The book of Judges reveal a similar pattern in the life of the ancient Hebrew people. Weakened by infidelity to their covenant with God, the people repeatedly fell victim to oppressors-usually the Philistines. They cried out for deliverance, and God summoned a leader to unite and rescue them from their enemies. Once free, they soon started the cycle again by lapsing into infidelity, being conquered, pleading for rescue.]

 

[2ndGen]

check this out folks:

But because that center was located elsewhere, in Rome, in the papacy, “they preferred to be Greeks rather than Christians and accepted a divided Church rather than the Church unified by a power which was in their eyes foreign and hostile to their nationality.” In other words, they would rather accept from the emperor “a revised or incomplete formula” of doctrine, than " accept the truth pure and intact from the mouth of a Pope."

Throughout these centuries the orthodox anti-Catholic party exhibited a regular pattern of behavior. When a heresy was espoused by the emperor, they gave it at least passive support. This enabled the heretics to call councils (composed largely of orthodox anti-Catholic hierarchs) and issue heretical decrees. But each time the blood of martyrs and the loyalty of the faithful and “the threatening authority of the Roman pontiff” would compel the emperor to forsake the current heresy. At which point the orthodox anti-Catholic quickly rejoined the orthodox camp.

Thus the reconciled orthodox anti-Catholic constituted the majority in the legitimate councils as they had in the heretical councils. They could not refuse to concur in the " precise and definite formulation of orthodox dogma which the pope’s representatives brought to their councils." Yet each time “the evident triumph of the Papacy soon brought them back to their prevailing sentiment of jealous hatred toward the apostolic see.” They would begin again to set up “an unreal and usurped authority” opposedto the papacy.

When heresy reigned in the East, the orthodox anti-Catholic could turn only to the papacy to rescue them. Once the heresy was vanquished, however, they wanted nothing to do with the pope. Thus, “each triumph of orthodoxy, which was always the triumph of the Papacy, was invariably followed at Byzantium by an anti-Catholic reaction.” That reaction would persist until a new heresy arose, reminding them of "the advantage of a genuine ecclesiastical authority, " the papacy, which would then rescue them.

The book of Judges reveal a similar pattern in the life of the ancient Hebrew people. Weakened by infidelity to their covenant with God, the people repeatedly fell victim to oppressors-usually the Philistines. They cried out for deliverance, and God summoned a leader to unite and rescue them from their enemies. Once free, they soon started the cycle again by lapsing into infidelity, being conquered, pleading for rescue.]

Where’d you get that from?



They deny that it was The Catholic Church that came to their aid “after” they left us.

What you just posted must have them going like this…:banghead:

I’ve noticed that their very “communist” like when questioned.

They project a lot, don’t answer questions, attempt to distract one off of the topic by trying to change to focus to the poster of the question and once pinned down to answer a question, they refuse on the grounds that we’re just wrong.

Well…consider the source.

I had to start other threads to force them to stick to the subject (as in this unstructured thread, there is no subject and thus, they can thrive here).

But on the deliberate threads, their a lot more quiet.

You could hear crickets chirping.

Instead of answering the questions, their posting responses on insulting.

 

[Mickey]

check this out folks:

By Soloviev,

Are you claiming Soloviev as one of your own? That’s fine.
Check this out.

“In the 1880’s we see a different approach to this question. V. S. Soloviev, who supported the union of Orthodoxy with the Roman Church, desiring to justify the dogmatic development of the Roman Church defended the idea of the development of the Church’s dogmatic consciousness. He argues thus: “The Body of Christ changes and is perfected” like every organism; the original “basis” of faith is uncovered and clarified in the history of Christianity; “Orthodoxy stands not merely by antiquity, but by the eternally living Spirit of God.”Soloviev was inspired to defend the point of view of “development” not only by his sympathies for the Roman church, but also by his own religious-philosophical outlook — his ideas on Sophia, the wisdom of God, on God-manhood as a historical process, etc. Carried along by his own metaphysical system, Soloviev in the 1890’s began to put forth the teaching of the “eternal feminine,” which, he says, “is not merely an inactive image in God’s mind, but a living spiritual being which possesses all the fullness of power and action. **The whole process of the world and history is the process of its realization and incarnation in a great multiplicity of forms and degrees… The heavenly object of our love is only one, and it is always and for everyone one and the same, the eternal Femininity of God.” **(Soloviev’s ideas might be superficially compared to the “women’s liberation” of today, whose latest attempt in religious circles has been to “desex” the Bible and remove all references to the “masculine” nature of God. Today’s movement, however, does not really touch on philosophy or theology, remaining a movement primarily of social “liberation”; whereas Soloviev’s thought is more serious, being a kind of resurrection of ancient Gnostic philosophy. Both of them, however, are equally outlandish in the forms their ideas take, and both are agreed in seeing a necessity to change traditional Christian dogmas and expressions.)

---

Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky

 

[Mickey]

Thus, a whole series of** new concepts** began to enter Russian religious thought. These concepts did not evoke any special resistance in Russian theological circles, since they were expressed more as philosophy than as theology.Soloviev by his literary works and speeches was able to inspire an interest in religious problems among a wide circle of Russian educated society. However, this interest was joined to a deviation from the authentic Orthodox way of thinking. This was expressed, for example, in the
Petersburg “religious-philosophical meetings” of 1901-1903. At these meetings, such questions as the following were raised: “Can one consider the dogmatic teaching of the Church already completed? Are we not to expect new revelations? In what way can a new religious creativity be expressed in Christianity, and how can it be harmonized with Sacred Scripture and the Tradition of the Church, with the decrees the Ecumenical Councils, and the teachings of the Holy Fathers?” Especially symptomatic were the disputes concerning “dogmatic development.”In Russian religious and social thought, at the beginning of the present century there appeared an expectation of the awakening of a “new religious consciousness” on Orthodox soil. The idea began to be expressed that theology should not fear new revelations, that dogmatics should use a more broadly rational basis, that it cannot entirely ignore the personal prophetic inspiration of the present day, that there should be a broadening of the circle of fundamental dogmatic problems, so that dogmatics itself might present a complete philosophical-theological world-view. The eccentric ideas expressed by Soloviev received further development and changes, and the first place among them was given to the problem of sophiology.”

Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

The canon in question is from the Ecumenical Council that even your church recognizes. Unlike some , VARC cites his sources.

That is the voice of the Orthodox Catholic Fathers speaking, or rather, the Holy Spirit through them.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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?

So your are denying the God-bearing Fathers, who were appointed by the Apostles and carried on their mission, and their teachings?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

I’ve seen a lot of boasting, and fallacies, but no evidence.

I gave you the evidence that the Fathers at the Second Ecumenical Council did not recognize any ultramontanist authority. You are arguing with them.