Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Ignatios]

anthony:

The signatories admit what the Catholic Church claims – that the Church is founded upon Peter,and they associate Peter,and Christ’s promise,with the See of Rome.

80% of the Church Fathers did not recognize ‘the rock’ as meaning the person Peter.

Ambrose stated “Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock…

Catholic scholar Abbé Guettée says “The **truth confessed **by St. Peter is, therefore, the foundation of the Church, and no promise was made to his person, nor, consequently, to his subjective faith.”Abbé Guettée, “The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches”

Cyprian added to this in saying “Rock is the unity of faith, not the person Peter”.
De Catholicae Ecclesia Unitate, cap. 4-5 quoted ibid, p28. Note that St. Cyprian re-occurs a number of times as one of the so-called ‘champions’ of Papal Primacy.

Cyprian Again says ”For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held Primacy, and that he out to be obeyed to novices and those lately come.”
Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics

Augustine: “Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ… Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church:’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee. For men who wish to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul: and I of Appollos; and I of Cephas,’ (1Cor. 1:12) who is Peter, but upon the Rock, said ‘But I am of Christ. “And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided’? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul’? (1Cor 1:13) And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.”

Augustine again: **“He had not the primacy over the disciples (in discipulos) but among the disciples (in disipulis). His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons.”**Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul, quoted at Ibid, p.33.

“This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced “blessed,” bearing the figure of the Church, holding the chief place in the Apostleship, a very little while after that he had heard that he was “blessed,” a very little while after that he had heard that he was “Peter,” a very little while after that he had heard that he was to be “built upon the Rock,” displeased the Lord”
Augustine -Sermon XX

Irenaeus: Peter might be considered ‘first’ amongst the Apostles in the matter of being first to state that Jesus is the Messiah. Peter however was not at that time fully aware of the implications of his own statement. He would displease the Lord after Jesus said “Upon this rock…” He would only realize the fullness of the truth of Jesus’ life at Pentecost.
Irenaeus - “Against Heresies” Book III.I.I :“For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge…,”
also John 13:7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will after this.”

The Shepherd of Hermas: deals with the analogy of ‘the Rock’ in relationship to Jesus. “First of all, sir,” I said, “explain this to me: What is the meaning of the rock and the gate?” “This rock,” he answered, “and this gate are the Son of God.”
“The Shepherd of Hermas” Chapter XII.

Hippolytus of Rome: “The Gentiles, that is to say, are built upon Christ, the spiritual rock…” The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus, Part I.

Victorinus of Pettau Christ is the Rock by which, and on which, the Church is founded…”
"Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, From the Twenty-First and Twenty-Second Chapters”.

Gregory of Nyssa: ”These men (i.e., Peter, James, & John) are the foundations of the Church, and the pillars and mainstays of truth. They are the perpetual founts of salvation…The warmth of our praises does not extend to Simon insofar as he was a catcher of fish; rather it extends to his firm faith, which is at the same time the foundation of the whole Church.”
Gregory of Nyssa - From Panegyric on St. Stephen, M.P.G., Vol. 46.

Hilary of Poitiers: “This faith is that which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven…The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father’s revelation, this the foundation of the Church…Hilary of Poitiers “On The Trinity, Book VI.37

St. Jerome: What did other people understand the ‘rock’ to mean? “Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rock. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named. 6th Book on Matthew, quoted in Whelton, p32.

St. Basil: "… Some “were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.”… Typically, “That rock was Christ;” De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter VIII.

Gregory Thaumaturgus: And again, speaking also of the children of Israel as baptized in the cloud and in the sea, he says: “And they all drank of the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.”…Part II.-“Dubious or Spurious Writings, A Sectional Confession of Faith”, Chapter XXII

Ambrosiaster: (Verse 20). 'Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone… for in 1 Cor. Paul writes about ecclesiastical orders; here he is concerned with the foundation of the Church. The prophets prepared, the apostles laid the foundations. Wherefore the Lord says to Peter: ‘Upon this rock I shall build my Church,’ that is, upon this confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life
Commentary on Ephesians, M.P.L., Vol. 17, Col. 380. quotes from Ambrosiaster, and Aphraates.

Aphrahat Thus also the true Stone, our Lord Jesus Christ is the foundation of all faith. And on Him, on (this) Stone faith is based. And resting on faith all the structure rises until it is completed. For it is the foundation that is the beginning of all the building. For when anyone is brought nigh unto faith, it is laid for him upon the Stone, that is our Lord Jesus Christ. And His building cannot be shaken by the waves, nor can it be injured by the winds. By the stormy blasts it does not fall, because its structure is reared upon the rock of the true Stone. And in that I have called Christ the Stone, I have not spoken my own thought, but the Prophets beforehand called Him the Stone.
The “Demonstrations” of Aphrahat.

Athanasius …too long to post check it at this site… ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0…#P9679_3470755

Even Origen, who held heretical beliefs recognised the truth.and the Romans still dont…
Origen: 11. The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him.

Just wich had to the time and the space to list all of them. “…Seek and you shall find knock and it shall be answered.”

 

[Pons]

If it’s not too impudent, I’d like to repost this which seems to be ignored, barring exchanges of quote volleys.

St. John Chrysostom ranked the Apostles as follows (as best as I can discern):

After Pentecost:

Peter - the rock, the shepherd of the flock (working for The Good Shepherd), the (chief) keybearer, etc.
|
Peter and James (bar-Zebedee)…
|
…and John → the coryphaei (leaders)
|
The apostles and bishops (including James of Jerusalem)

Peter and John are “teachers of the world”. It is emphasized that Peter did not (have to) hold the Jerusalem see to be as such.*

**After Herod’s persecution, wherein James is martyred: **

Peter
|
Peter and Paul, coryphaei (“Peter the foundation of the Church, Paul the vessel of election”)
|
The apostles and bishops (including James)​

*Not sure where to put this

I’ve seen a webpage on this very topic, but can’t find it. Immediate source - Steve Ray (naturally a Catholic source).

Catholics, are there anything wrong with these statements?

• Peter was all what the other apostles were, in terms of shepherding - and yet more
• thus the bishop of Rome is all what his fellow bishops/patriarchs are, and yet more, in the same terms
• “first among equals” - equal as bishops of their respective immediate flocks/sees - but Peter and his successor in Rome are so much more than just leading patriarchs/bishops

 

[Ignatios]

steve:

The patriarchal system was an Eastern invention. It divided the Church.
And in the East, it sealed IMO its fate with Islam who was one, who knocked off each autocephelous church in the East one by one. It would be interesting to see history played over, had you remained united to Rome, would history have looked alot different today?.

Yet Rome accepted it and took part of it and was one of the 5 Patriarchate. Are you now against both the RCC and the Orthodox Church?

Islam came in the seventh century, and thats when they conquered the East, the schism was marked in the Eleventh century and was not realized untill the Thirteen Century, So you have Three centuries to Five centuries (take your pick) that Rome was still in Communion with the East, thats at least 300 years, ( Simple Math) So No diffrence happened, your theory didnt hold water.

As many historians said : If it wasnt the East that drained the momentum and the power of the waves of the Islamic attacks England France Italy and all the west would have had a diffrent faces and diffrent religions now. READ your history Steve.

 

[Ignatios]

So Chrysostom, for instance, calls Ignatius of Antioch a “successor of Peter, on whom, after Peter, the government of the church devolved,”574574 In S. Ignat. Martyr., n. 4. and in another place says still more distinctly: “Since I have named Peter, I am reminded of another Peter [Flavian, bishop of Antioch], our common father and teacher, who has inherited as well the virtues as the chair of Peter. Yea, for this is the privilege of this city of ours Antioch], to have first (ἐν ἀρχῇ) had the coryphaeus of the apostles for its teacher. For it was proper that the city, where the Christian name originated, should receive the first of the apostles for its pastor. But after we had him for our teacher, we, did not retain him, but transferred him to imperial Rome.”575575 Hom. ii. in Principium Actorum, n. 6, tom. iii. p. 70 (ed. Montfaucon). The last sentence (ἀλλὰ προσεχωρήσαμεν τῇ̑ βασιλίδι Ρώμῃ) is by some regarded as a later interpolation in favor of the papacy. But it contains no concession of superiority. Chrysostomimmediately goes on to say: “We have indeed not retained the body of Peter, but we have retained the faith of Peter; and while we retain his faith, we have himself.”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.viii.xiv.html?highlight=epistle,116,to,renatus#highlight

 

[Ignatios]

Theodoret says of the “great city of Antioch,” that it has the “throne of Peter.”576576 Epist. 86. In a letter to Pope Leo he speaks, it is true, in very extravagant terms of Peter and his successors at Rome, in whom all the conditions, external and internal, of the highest eminence and control in the church are combined.577577 Epist. 113. Comp. Bennington and Kirk, l.c. p. 91-93. In the Epist. 116, to Renatus, one of the three papal legates at Ephesus, where he entreats his intercession with Leo, he ascribes to the Roman see the control of the church of the world (τῶν κατὰ την οἰκουμένην ἐκκλησιῶν τὴν ἡγεμονίαν), but certainly in the oriental sense of an honorary supervision. But in the same epistle he remarks, that the “thrice blessed and divine double star of Peter and Paul rose in the East and shed its rays in every direction;” in connection with which it must be remembered that he was at that time seeking protection in Leo against the Eutychian robber-council of Ephesus (449), which had unjustly deposed both himself and Flavian of Constantinople.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.viii.xiv.html?highlight=epistle,116,to,renatus#highlight

 

[anthony022071]

80% of the Church Fathers did not recognize ‘the rock’ as meaning the person Peter.

 

[steve_b]

80% of the Church Fathers did not recognize ‘the rock’ as meaning the person Peter.

:

Originally Posted by Fr Ambrose (Orthodox)

*Let’s look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse: *
*1…“That St. Peter is the Rock” is taught **by seventeen (17) Fathers *

*2…That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock, **represented by Peter as its chief, **is taught by eight (8) Church Fathers *

*3…That St. Peter’s faith is the Rock, **is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers *

*4…That Christ is the Rock, **is taught by sixteen Fathers (16) *

*5…That the rock is the whole body of the faithful. **Archbp. Kendrick gives no figure. *

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1579529&postcount=3

Since a man and his faith cannot be seperated, I would say that means that 61 out of 86 Church Fathers say that the rock is St Peter (combining #1 and #3). We have a consensus!!!

 

[steve_b]

Yet Rome accepted it and took part of it and was one of the 5 Patriarchate. Are you now against both the RCC and the Orthodox Church?

I quoted the pope. Go back and look at it again. sheesh

Ignatios:

Islam came in the seventh century, and thats when they conquered the East, the schism was marked in the Eleventh century and was not realized untill the Thirteen Century, So you have Three centuries to Five centuries (take your pick) that Rome was still in Communion with the East, thats at least 300 years, ( Simple Math) So No diffrence happened, your theory didnt hold water.

As many historians said : If it wasnt the East that drained the momentum and the power of the waves of the Islamic attacks England France Italy and all the west would have had a diffrent faces and diffrent religions now. READ your history Steve.

Prior to the 7th century,

• The East on its own split 1 Church into 4 autocephelous Churches… You know what they say about a house divided.
• Constantinople grabs 1st position in the East demoting Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem behind it. So much for honoring sacred Traditions
• Combine that with other unfortunate happenings that befell the East (heresies and intrigues etc), You have to admit, cumulatively it weakened you greatly.
  Which set the stage

 

[John214]

Hey Steve,
Steve B:

The patriarchal system was an Eastern invention. It divided the Church. And in the East, it sealed IMO its fate with Islam who was one,** who knocked off each autocephelous church in the East one by one**. It would be interesting to see history played over, had you remained united to Rome, would history have looked alot different today?

I wonder what you mean by this? First, it was shear distance and time that prevented the Roman Church from falling to the hands of the Muslims. Indeed Islam had conquered nearly all of Spain and was well on its way to Italy. Your assertation that the patriarchal system sealed the fate of the Eastern Church is somewhat misleading. Sure the Muslims were able to manipulate the Patriarchs that they conquered to some degree, but had they reached Rome, would it have made any difference what so ever if there was a Pope or not? In all reality it seems like it would make it easier for an outside force to control the Church with a Papal system.

Also, regarding how history would look today, it would probably look about the same. Look at Northern Africa, which once was thriving with Catholic churches but is now 99% Islamic. I honestly don’t see how the Pope helps in this.
Steve B:

Since a man and his faith cannot be seperated, I would say that means that 61 out of 86 Church Fathers say that the rock is St Peter (combining #1 and #3). We have a consensus!!!

First of all, the 3rd category is equally applicable to the Orthodox side and does not change the argument, secondly, even the 1st section is vague, just because the fathers believed it was Peter’s personage, does not mean that they believed only the Bishop of the Rome held that authority. And thirdly, there were certainly not only 86 Fathers in the Church.

Good to speak with you again,

John

 

[steve_b]

Hey Steve,

First, it was shear distance and time that prevented the Roman Church from falling to the hands of the Muslims. Indeed Islam had conquered nearly all of Spain and was well on its way to Italy.

I may be reading you wrong.

Spain belongs to the Church of Rome, as does Portugal.

Spain and Portugal were conquored by the Muslims in the 13th century. Both as you know were reconquored

Sicily was conquored by the Muslims in ~830. It belongs to the Church of Rome. It’s in Rome’s backyard figuratively speaking. As you know, Sicily was reconquored

Are you thinking the “Roman Church” is only the Church in Rome?

John:

Your assertation that the patriarchal system sealed the fate of the Eastern Church is somewhat misleading. Sure the Muslims were able to manipulate the Patriarchs that they conquered to some degree, but had they reached Rome, would it have made any difference what so ever if there was a Pope or not?

The patriarchal system divided the Church in the East. There’s NOTHING misleading about that.

Re: Constantinople, after IT’S fall, the patriarch served at the pleasure of the Sultan for ~500 years.

John:

In all reality it seems like it would make it easier for an outside force to control the Church with a Papal system.

And what*** force*** are you thinking of?

John:

Also, regarding how history would look today, it would probably look about the same. Look at Northern Africa, which once was thriving with Catholic churches but is now 99% Islamic. I honestly don’t see how the Pope helps in this.

I know you don’t see it. Your position hasn’t changed since your first post. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3437296&postcount=1

As for Africa, go down the list, pick out the African countries and look at their statistics.
catholic-hierarchy.org/country/sc1.html

To answer your other point, how the pope helps?

1. 
   *]Leo I turned Attila the Hun away from sacking Rome. Great story, check it out.
   *]Gorbachev credits JPII for bringing down communism.
   If I had the time, I’d give you other examples of how the pope exerts unique help against formidable odds. But it’s Saturday
   
   
   John:
   

   First of all, the 3rd category is equally applicable to the Orthodox side and does not change the argument, secondly, even the 1st section is vague, just because the fathers believed it was Peter’s personage, does not mean that they believed only the Bishop of the Rome held that authority. And*** thirdly***, there were certainly not only 86 Fathers in the Church.
   
   Good to speak with you again,
   
   John

   1. 
      *]Not really. Jesus was talking specifically to Peter. Just because one states what Peter stated, doesn’t make them Peter.
      *]Peter and the bishop of Rome is definitional.
      *]Time, which ECF’s agreement with the Church, and results, proves which ECF was right or wrong.

 

[John214]

Hey Steve, Thanks for the responses!

I am not sure you understood my position… on almost any issue, but that is okay, maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I will readdress these points.
Steve B:

I may be reading you wrong.

Spain belongs to the Church of Rome, as does Portugal.

Spain and Portugal were conquored by the Muslims in the 13th century. Both as you know were reconquored

Sicily was conquored by the Muslims in ~830. It belongs to the Church of Rome. It’s in Rome’s backyard figuratively speaking. As you know, Sicily was reconquored

Are you thinking the “Roman Church” is only the Church in Rome?

I think you were reading me wrong. Spain and Portugal, as well as sicily were parts of the Roman Church, but the head quarters (so to speak) is in Rome at the Vatican. The Muslims did not conquer it. Had they have conquered it, and been able to sustain continuous control, then perhaps the Pope would have become a puppet as well. I alluded to Spain to show how close they were to doing that. Think of it this way, if the Muslims had only gotten to the outer fringes of the Constantinople territory, but never took over the Patriarch, would it make any sense at all for the Patriarch to then say, “Oh see how much unity I was able to give”? No, because he wasn’t conquered.
Steve B:

The patriarchal system divided the Church in the East. There’s NOTHING misleading about that.

This is a red herring. We are not talking about whether the Eastern Church was divided or not, but whether it would make any difference if they were attached to the Roman Church or not. Many of the EO persuasion say that due to the Muslims, the Eastern Church was able to avoid some corruption, as the Muslims did not force them to change doctrines. (But this is off topic)
Steve B:

And what force are you thinking of?

Islam. But any outside force would do, as long as it had extended and continuous control.
Steve B:

I know you don’t see it. Your position hasn’t changed since your first post.

You are right, I do not see it. This post, and my first post have little in common. Admittedly I play the devil’s advocate, but other than that there is not a whole lot to connect the two.
Steve B:

As for Africa, go down the list, pick out the African countries and look at their statistics.

Morrocco .07%
Algeria .01%
Egypt 1.37%
Libya 1.26%

This is essentially North Africa. As you can see, the Catholic population make up about one percent. The only thing that probably saved them from extinction is modernization and international pressure. The Papacy could not save them, I don’t see how it could have saved the East.
Steve B:

To answer your other point, how the pope helps?
Leo I turned Attila the Hun away from sacking Rome. Great story, check it out.
Gorbachev credits JPII for bringing down communism.

First, neither force conquered Rome. Had Constantinople not been conquered by the Muslims, then perhaps they could say, “Oh see, it is because we are Constantinople” And in the second, while the Pope did play a role in the bringing down of communism, in all honesty, it was largely economic reasons.
Steve B:

1.Not really. Jesus was talking specifically to Peter. Just because one states what Peter stated, doesn’t make them Peter.
2.Peter and the bishop of Rome is definitional.
3.Time, which ECF’s agreement with the Church, and results, proves which ECF was right or wrong.

1. But clearly even many of the Fathers you gave statisticss for believed that it was the faith of Peter and not the person. You cannot contradict your sources and still use them.
2. Perhaps, but there have been many discussions on this topic on this thread. It is not definitional unless established, recent posts have even asserted that some Popes have stated that all Bishops have the authority of Peter.
3. This is not a rebuttal. You gave a statement based upon 86 Church Fathers, and I said that wasn’t enough to prove a point (probably I can find 86 ECF’s who vaguely agree about a great variety of things). While I agree with your assertion, I am not so sure that you do, in all reality it is only whether an ECF agrees with the RCC that makes them legitimate in the Catholic perspective (again this could very well be true).

 

[Ignatios]

anthony:

by Ignatios
80% of the Church Fathers did not recognize ‘the rock’ as meaning the person Peter.

** That’s not true…**

What is it?..you went into another state of denial after shock? Sorry to say, but, those situations are clear evidence of brainwash( ( No offence) but it is true, you only been giving opinion, misquotes, half quotes and distortions…that you have been getting from some RCs sites, in which the intention of it, is only to decieve the ones who doesnt know, but those who put those sites they know that.

anthony:

I’ve already posted quotes from Ambrose…so there’s no point in acting as if they did not

.
Anthonyyyyyy, if only you comprehend what is being written, and try to research those quotes from both sides with out any prejudice, you will see the truth my freind.

I am not acting at all and I didnt bring anything of my self, I gave the quotes and refference to them, and times, I gave you a links that brings you right to them. you only gave opinion and half quote misq…etc.

lets examine some of your quotes. over and over and again and again…to show you how you either trying to deceive others or you are being ceveived yourself…

anthony:

Epiphanius…For in him are found all subtle questions of faith. He was aided by the Father so as to be (or lay) the Foundation of the security (firmness) of the faith.

Where do you see that the Church was built on Peter person in the above…REEEEEAAAADDDDD !!! :banghead:

anthony:

Council of Chalcedon:
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo…

Council of Chalcedon said this???

HALF QUOTE in the above.

Read below the truth the FULL QUOTE virsion from the Orthodox:

You should have NOT left this which it goes on top of what you have posted >>>>>>> the Roman Legates spoke together, and in their speech occurs **the following: ** Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo … who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate…Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties…
… The bishops then, one by one, spoke in favour of the deposition of Dioscorus, but usually on the ground of his refusal to appear when thrice summoned.
And when all the most holy bishops had spoken on the subject, they signed this which follows.

That was NOT the Council who said this **It was the Papal Legates **The Papal Legates ARE NOT The Fathers of the Church.

Shall we look for some more misquotes or distortions in your quotes or that is enough? aah what a … one more for the sack of those who didnt beleive that the RCs only uses misquotes and half quotes along with distortions…etc.

anthony:

Origen:
"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church

All I have to say to the above HERE IS A REFFRENCE let everyone go and check it out for himself …

earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-matthew.html

BOOK XII …

1. THE ANSWER OF PETER …

11.THE PROMISE GIVEN TO PETER NOT RESTRICTED TO HIM, BUT APPLICABLE TO ALL DISCIPLES LIKE HIM …

1. EVERY SIN–EVERY FALSE DOCTRINE IS A
   “GATE OF HADES.”

welll thats enough for now, in my next post I will show you where I got the “80% of the Church Fathers did not recognize ‘the rock’ as meaning the person Peter” from…

Steve, I will get to you next.

 

[Ignatios]

steve:

I’m sure you’ve heard this rebuttal before, Catholics disagree on how you use [O]rthodoxy in your response.

The patriarchal system was an Eastern invention. It divided the Church. And in the East, it sealed IMO its fate with Islam who was one, who knocked off each autocephelous church in the East one by one. It would be interesting to see history played over, had you remained united to Rome, would history have looked alot different today?.

steve:

I quoted the pope. Go back and look at it again. sheesh

Where in the above you mentioned that it was from the pope???

steve:

Prior to the 7th century,

ok now you are saying"Prior to the seventh century" can’t you people stick to one thing?

steve:

The East on its own split 1 Church into 4 autocephelous Churches… You know what they say about a house divided

whah??? the East on its own split into 4 and Prior to the seventh century???

Are you getting enough sleep?
There was many Churches including the WEST, now . all those Churches in all the world got together and they said we are going to have Pentarchy (The Pentarchy, a Greek word meaning "government of five) so they “gathered” all the Churches under five diffrent Church goverment(if you will) …WHERE AND/OR how do you see that they “SPLIT” ??? if anything, there was NO SPLIT but unity into five groups AND ROME WAS AMONG THEM, One of the FIVE !!!
What am I teaching History here?

steve:

Constantinople grabs 1st position in the East demoting Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem behind it. So much for honoring sacred Traditions

Sacred Tradition??? How, and where, …who said that this is a sacred Tradition…or on the second thought…maybe in your Church it is a sacred Tradition…Steve, Sacred Tradition is the Apostolic Tradition, The Apostles didnt come up with the Pentarchy, The Pentarchy was the results of many problems that arose, hopefully in later time we will discuss it. :crying:

steve:

Combine that with other unfortunate happenings that befell the East (heresies and intrigues etc), You have to admit, cumulatively it weakened you greatly

You wish!
Heresies??? heresies started from the time of the Apostles, If you pay attention to the Bible reading you will not say that again.

John 4:1-6

1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.(This is the Orthodox Church of GOD)
5They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them.(did you mention before that1 out 5 in the whole world is RC???
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

John 2:15-17
15Do not love the world or anything in the world.(thats why the Orthodox didnt care about loosing the East but we did care about loosing the faith) If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. ( well, it seems like loosing a land is highly regarded by you, the least to say)
16For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does —comes not from the Father but from the world.
17The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.( Any more questions about loosing the East???)
John 2:18-19

18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. ( the heretics that you mentioned above)
19They went out from us,( now here is a sign of the true Church) but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us;(John was in the East, right?) but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. AAAAAAAAAAAAMen

 

[steve_b]

I think you were reading me wrong. Spain and Portugal, as well as sicily were parts of the Roman Church, but the head quarters (so to speak) is in Rome at the Vatican. The Muslims did not conquer it.

True

John:

Had they conquered it, and been able to sustain continuous control, then perhaps the Pope would have become a puppet as well.

Since they didn’t, let’s not speculate as if they had

John:

I alluded to Spain to show how close they were to doing that. Think of it this way, if the Muslims had only gotten to the outer fringes of the Constantinople territory, but never took over the Patriarch,

But they did take over.

John:

would it make any sense at all for the Patriarch to then say, “Oh see how much unity I was able to give”? No, because he wasn’t conquered.

They WERE conquered. No need to speculate as if they weren’t.

John:

This is a red herring. We are not talking about whether the Eastern Church was divided or not,

You don’t think that’s important?

John:

but whether it would make any difference if they were attached to the Roman Church or not.

Why not just say in communion with the successor of Peter.

John:

Morrocco .07%
Algeria .01%
Egypt 1.37%
Libya 1.26%

This is essentially North Africa. As you can see, the Catholic population make up about one percent. The only thing that probably saved them from extinction is modernization and international pressure. The Papacy could not save them, I don’t see how it could have saved the East.

Africa is a huge continent. You pick 4 examples where Catholic population is while small is still present. There are over 20+ African countries with sizable Catholic populations. Is the reason for success in THOSE countries, due to modernization and international pressure? I think not.

John:

First, neither force conquered Rome.

True.

John:

Had Constantinople not been conquered by the Muslims,
then perhaps

Don’t speculate and Let’s stick with what happened. They WERE conquered.

John:

And in the second, while the Pope did play a role in the bringing down of communism, in all honesty, it was largely economic reasons.

Gorbachev said communism would NOT have fallen if it wasn’t for JPII. I think he should know.

John:

1. But clearly even many of the Fathers you gave statisticss for believed that it was the faith of Peter and not the person. You cannot contradict your sources and still use them.

This is a distinction without a difference.

John:

1. Perhaps, but there have been many discussions on this topic on this thread. It is not definitional unless established, recent posts have even asserted that some Popes have stated that all Bishops have the authority of Peter.

People quote stuff all the time and many don’t check the accuracy of their quotes. Mickey goofed big time the other day. He quotes from some anti Catholic source assuming they were correct. They weren’t, and I’m sure he would like to retract that quote…

John:

You gave a statement based upon 86 Church Fathers, and I said that wasn’t enough to prove a point (probably I can find 86 ECF’s who vaguely agree about a great variety of things). While I agree with your assertion, I am not so sure that you do, in all reality it is only whether an ECF agrees with the RCC that makes them legitimate in the Catholic perspective (again this could very well be true).

As Augustine said

I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?"

Epis Mani 5,6

This quote shows the mind of Augustine. He was docile to the Church opinion, over his own opinions

Also he said

“No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the CHURCH”

Trinitas 4,6,10

 

[John214]

Steve,

You may find this of some interest. I was reading earlier posts, and I came by a point of disagreement between yourself and Mickey on a certain Catechism written by Stephen Keenan, on whether or not he does indeed deny Papal infallibility as a Protestant invention.

I looked at the site, biblelight.net/keenan.htm#305 and you are correct that nowhere is the infallibility denied, in fact, I would say it is vastly supported in this source.

I then looked around and found this site with the alleged reference.

aloha.net/~mikesch/keenan-1848-pgs-305-306.gif

I compared the two on the exact same page (305), and though they both begin with the same question, they quickly diverge. I noticed that this site gives the 2nd Edition (1848), whereas the site you gave is not clear on which edition, but a copywright of 1876 is given.

Clearly someone has tampered with the evidence here (I do not know who, but I would very much like to know).

Perhaps this will be of some interest to you and you can help me find the answer.

God Bless,

John

 

[John214]

Hey Steve,

Yeah I was looking into it, and it appears that our sites are directly connected by this site:

biblelight.net/

This site is a Seventh Day Adventist Site, and gives a link to RCC sites at the bottom (of course while at the same time calling them of the devil and what not).

They also make it clear that the edition you gave was revised.

I am a huge opponent of Seventh Day Adventists, but this is not the post and not the time to go into that. Nonetheless, I would recommend being more careful in your sources.

John

 

[John214]

Hey Steve,

Ha, I didn’t even notice you posted responding to my prior post one minute before I posted mine, I will address that now.

You said regarding the RCC being taken over by Muslims:

Since they didn’t, let’s not speculate as if they had

And then regarding the EO:

But they did take over.

Steve, you were completely speculating that had the EO stayed with the Pope then they would have been spared, now you are telling me not to speculate. I cannot continue a discussion on this if you are not willing to be consistent and open to challenges.
Steve B:

They WERE conquered. No need to speculate as if they weren’t.

Again, you were speculating first about what would happen if they had stayed with the Pope, this is really unfair and inconsistent.

Regarding the EO being “divided”:
Steve B:

You don’t think that’s important?

It is very important, especially if they are divided as you accuse, but it is inconsequintial to our discussion, unless you are going to some how show with facts how a dispersed authority somehow caused them to be conquered more easily. (Again, many would argue that that is what helped preserve them as while many were conquered, others in Russia were free)
Steve B:

Why not just say in communion with the successor of Peter.

Because I am not a Catholic, nor am I an Orthodox. As a third party I try not to use loaded terms regardless of my belief or unbelief in them.
Steve B:

Don’t speculate and Let’s stick with what happened. They WERE conquered.

Very well, then the argument is over, because you cannot speculate on what would have happened had the EO Church stayed unified to Rome. If we do not speculate, then we might as well not think and all just call ourselves agnostics.
Steve B:

Africa is a huge continent. You pick 4 examples where Catholic population is while small is still present. There are over 20+ African countries with sizable Catholic populations. Is the reason for success in THOSE countries, due to modernization and international pressure? I think not.

I originally said North Africa and countries counquered by Islam. My example is perfect, to bring up other countries which were barely affected by Catholicism at that time, or which were not as affected by Islam later would be entirely irrelevant, like bringing countries from South America into this conversation, it is literally meaningless. Also, I did not say that Catholicism existed there because of modernization and international pressure, I said it survived IN NORTH AFRICA, largely because of these things, otherwise Islam may have wiped them off the face of the planet as it did Zoroastrianism and other indigenious religions. You are twisting my words to an extreme which is simply not realistic.

Gorbachev said communism would NOT have fallen if it wasn’t for JPII. I think he should know.

I could think of a great many reasons why he would have said this. Nonetheless, Gorbachev was not communist russia, he was only the representative head of it. And as I stated before this example is not directly (or perhaps even indirectly) related to this discussion.

This is a distinction without a difference.

I am curious, how can you make this assertion? I am reading the quote as is, you are vesting it with external meaning. I am really finding this hard to believe.

People quote stuff all the time and many don’t check the accuracy of their quotes. Mickey goofed big time the other day. He quotes from some anti Catholic source assuming they were correct. They weren’t, and I’m sure he would like to retract that quote…

This was not smart, you actually quoted from the same site, they were merely giving your cite as an example of what not to believe. The site is SDA, and the edition was later. I do not think that it has too much bearing on the discussion either way, but you need to be careful (I am sure you would like to retract your quote as well )

As Augustine said

I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?"

Epis Mani 5,6

This quote shows the mind of Augustine. He was docile to the Church opinion, over his own opinions

Also he said

“No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the CHURCH”

This is a red herring. (Okay, I see how you were trying to tie this to my response, unfortunately it is not exactly addressing what I was talking about, we all agree that the ECF’s had to be “within” the Church, and to be “within” the Church means to be obedient to it, when it is not in heresy, however it also will depend vastly on how we define “Church” and what “obedience” means. In the RCC perspective the Church is defined by the Pope, being that you must be in communion with him and the See of Rome. This is all fine and good, but it means that your view of history will be necessarily biased, not that that is a bad thing.)

 

[anthony022071]

.

I am not acting at all and I didnt bring anything of my self, I gave the quotes and refference to them, and times, I gave you a links that brings you right to them. you only gave opinion and half quote misq…etc.

 

[anthony022071]

Where do you see that the Church was built on Peter person in the above…

 

[Mickey]

You won’t find what you’ve printed in Keenan’s Catechism. I

Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
A. This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, by the Bishops of the Church.
Keenan Catechism

** Q.** Do you here suppose the teachers individually infallible?
** A**. The Pope as the constant head of the Church we hold infallible in decisions ex cathedra: but not exempt from falling into personal sin. The various bishops are neither individually infallible or sinless. But we may argue that if the Pope and the various bishop teach any particular doctrine,—men who have had no motive for such, do actually teach the very same truths, then we maintain, by all laws of human evidence or moral certainty, that their combined testimony to the existence of any doctrine infallibly proves its truth.
Revised Keenan Catechism third edition