Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[tdgesq]

. . . continued

It is not that I have no problem, it is that I find it more acceptable, especially if understood in the right way. For example, I could see a model of the Church where the Bishop of Rome played a leading role, where without his approval an ecumenical council could not be passed (but where even if he approved, the council might still be overturned). But with Infallibility it seems to rob the meaning behind the Council. I would expect with Papal infallibility, that the early Church might have done something of this nature:

Why would one man’s approval (the Pope) be required for it to binding Church teaching? I thought that is what you found to be unacceptable. All of those other votes would be for naught. But if I’m reading you correctly, then such a council wouldn’t be binding even if all of them agreed. We would have to wait for an indeterminate amount of time to see if “the entire church” eventually agreed. It seems to me that councils are unnecessary if this is one of your criterion. We should just wait to see if “the entire church” eventually unifies around one side or the other. The council would just be giving a non-binding suggestion to the rest of the church.

Note: Voting, councils, and arguments do not exist. At least if they do then they are of little consequence. With Papal infallibility, it is simply too efficient and doesn’t allow room for error. Even if the Pope needs other Bishop’s (name removed by moderator)ut, he doesn’t need them to vote and argue.

I am amazed that you can make this statement after all of this. How do you make an informed decision unless you hear the arguments from both sides? Wouldn’t the Pope want to know who decided which way, particularly if he is influenced by certain of their arguments?

I really think the alternative you present is problematic. Councils don’t have the force of Church teaching - even when anathemas are declared - because we have to wait for the whole church, an undetermined number, to decide. It seems to me that your model is the one that makes council decisions irrelevant, not the CC’s.

 

[Ignatios]

anthony:

Shotwell was writing as a historian. He acknowledges the legitimacy of both interpretations,but also that the literal interpretation is primary,as does the Church.

I dont know what did you mean by “as does the Church” but according to your previous answer I understand that your church accepts both Interpretations.

1. lets forget about Shotwell, since he is not inffalible, and since your church acknowledge only her own teaching, we shall stick to what it counts.
2. according to my knowledge, your church accept only the interpretation of the person of Peter as the foundation of your church.
3. the following is from RC site “catholic encyclo.”, if you read, you will find out that you are wrong about your church that it accept both interpretation along with your guy here the Shotwell…
   ( To counter your claim that they did not say that Peter himself was the Rock. Catholics can accept both interpretations,but evidently the Orthodox cannot.) <<<Previous quote by anthony, post #519.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=226262&page=35

By the word “rock” the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for “Peter” and “rock”. His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ. This meaning becomes so much the clearer when we remember that the words “bind” and “loose” are not metaphorical, but Jewish juridical terms. It is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles(HHHMMM werent we speaking about this earlier?) and in the Christian community was the basis for the Kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church of Christ. Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles by Christ Himself. This foundation created for the Church by its Founder could not disappear with the person of Peter,

So, the above should put your theory to rest ( that your church accept both interpretaions.

off to the next:

anthony:

Of course the apostles all had the full teaching of truth…

And before the above one you said: post #457 forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=226262&page=31

anthony:

That means Peter! Peter is where the fullness of the faith is to be found.

Would you like to add a third way to make sure that you cover it from all sides??? Be my guest.

 

[Ignatios]

anthony:

… they strove to learn from Peter…

To learn from Peter what??? if they had “…the full teaching of truth…” as you have mentioned above. But the RCs always try to make things sound or appear that Peter is above and the rest of the Apostles are inferior.

Was Saint Cyril infallible ( that to say, that IF he truly meant those words literaly)… but reading all of his writting it becomes abvious that the RCs are half quoting him to bring support for their Papal claim.

everything is based on supporting this supremacy.

Anthony with all due respect, and please forgive me if I offend you, “…If words are cheap, dont use them cheaply.” I bit if they put taxes on words the number of …welll… WISE people would clime sharply.

anthony:

… the Kephas of the Church was Peter,which is why Paul called him by that name…

anthony are you infallible with this interpretation?..we showed numerious times by numerious fathers the contrary of what you are saying.

Now, I Noticed that you have been ducking from my questions …
let me ask it again… read below

Quote:
…That ought to be proof enough that Peter is the Rock…

Ignatios earleir:

Here we must stop and take a look at this verse, for in English as I have mentioned before doesnt point out clearly what and/or who “the Rock” is…

Matthew 16:17-18,… 17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon( he wasn’t peter yet, just for the record to show you how easily can one be derailed ) son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you( here the LORD is saying that it is not of you or it is not of Peter=Petros), but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter {Gk. Petros, Aram. Kephas} ( now he is Peter), and upon THIS ROCK {Gk. petra, Aram. kepha} ] I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it…

1)So if you were speaking Greek and you said that, then you would be saying to saint Peter" Petros" NOT “Petra”, that is, if you want to be Biblicaly correct.

1. Note, the word “kephas” is the same in both placesexcept for the (S), as you see in here, the Greek is more expressive then the Aramaic…
   the word Kepha could mean a small rock or THEE Rock that the Romans try to claim.
2. …Here I like to ask you a question, What is your evidence that, kephas in here ( the Roman assertion ) is the Major Rock that the BODY OF CHRIST is built upon and NOT the small rock (Pebble ) .

Now, what is your answer to question #3, and please back it up with some evidence. thank you.

anthony:

So go figure. Evidently the Church Fathers didn’t see a real dichotomy between Peter and Peter’s confession of faith. They didn’t separate the confession from the man.

Just where do you see that in the text below, the subject here is, what the fathers said, and not what you say…
Ignatios earlier:

Quote:

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. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavour then, thyself to be a rock ‘thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock.”

On the Incarnation, quoted at geocities.com/trvalentine…guettee07.html

anthony:

I’m not confusing anything. I admit that the Church Fathers used both interpretations and that both are legitimate and inseparable. Can the Orthodox afford to admit the same

I naswered this one above from “catholic encyclo.” and again you are wrong, your church does not accept both, NOR the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD accept both, as I have mentioned in prior post why.

anthony:

As to the supposed majority of Church Fathers who said that the Rock was Peter’s faith and not himself,see post 3 in this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=54105

I didnt see anything that would refute Launoy in post three, The French Roman Catholic Launoy, was a big scholar in your church, he did this when your pope asked him to conduct such a research, and that was his finding. No one was validly able to dispute it, and besides I didnt see anything that would refute “Launoy’s” founding yet. because he was right.

 

[anthony022071]

1. according to my knowledge, your church accept only the interpretation of the person of Peter as the foundation of your church.

 

[Ignatios]

anthony:

1. That’s not true.2) There are several interpretations mentioned in the Cathechism.3) As I said,the literal interpretation is the primary one.
   See post 3 in this thread.

1. My words were based on evidence from a RC site. If it is not True, then why not equaly refute me with an evidence from your church.
2. First, you mean that there is more then one interpretation for the same subject??? In another word, One interpretation would say that the church is built on Peter himself and , in another, it says that the Church is built on Peter’s confession and not his person? but yet you can follow which ever you want, second, show me from the CCC. and refute me, YOUR OPINION IS IMMATERIA, so back up your words with facts from your church TEACHINGS.
3. Show me from your CCC the Literal Interpretations, and then show me the Non-literal Interpretations of your church.

…Post three isnt saying any more then what you are, give me an evidence from your church so then we can deal with it, untill then your opinion as much as I respect it, nevertheless it is IMMATERIAL.
Catholic Encyclo.:

… for “Peter” and “rock”. His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom …

anthony:

That’s true. Christ’s statement refers to Peter. But it is also allowable to say that Peter’s faith is the Rock,even though that is not what Christ himself meant.

Allowable ??? …Okay… again is this what your church teaches this to be “Allowable”? … AND even though that is not what CHRIST himself meant??? I am asking those questions over and over and… but yet no valid response, why is it so hard to find those things out or anything that your church teaches, it is like a maze, without an end, if those things are Traditions and what the church had taught from the beginning, WHY one has to look between the lines and under then behind so then he can get to more questions and confusions … and then you say you have to have an Authority to lead the church??? Shouldnt such things be so clear.

anthony:

The Church accepts several interpretations. But it should not be said that Christ himself meant Peter’s faith. That is what the Church Fathers sometimes meant by the Rock,not what Christ meant.

Is it the Pope who said the highlighted text or YOU? IMMATERIAL, since you are not one of the Apostles , Neither THEE infallible, Your Opinion is INVALID since you are making it appear to be equal or greator then the your Pope or the Apostles.
Evidence from your church is needed to back up your claim that your church accepts both interpretations, that the Church is built on Peter’s Person and and that the church is built also on Peter’s faith and not his person, for either one of the 2 could be and not both at the same time, this would be a confusion.

anthony:

The other apostles had the fullness of faith because they were of the same Church as Peter,and were in communion with Peter.

BUT thats not what you have said before:>>>" Originally Posted by anthony
That means Peter! Peter is where the fullness of the faith is to be found. this means that if you wanted the fullness of the faith, you go to where you can find it, and that would be Peter according to your words, by saying so, you left the other Apostles OUT, If it was also the other Apostles then you would have said that you go to the Apostlesssss.

anthony, the evidence that there is no truth to the RCC claims, is in your words. untill you are able to back up your claims validly, you are refuted so does your calims and likewise your church as well.

…we have went through the quotes of the fathers before and I/we refuted everyone of them repeatedly, over, and , over and over …we shall not keep going back to the same thing again and again and again… it is abvious, like beating a dead horse… all one can do is go back and no one should look hard for them since they were mentioned quite often on this thread, but if anyone would like a help to find those quotes, I will be more then glad to help him out.

I have Noticed that you ducked down from my questions to you for the “humpteen” times, the last one is in the previous post. but thats ok. I understand.

 

[anthony022071]

1. First, you mean that there is more then one interpretation for the same subject???

 

[Mickey]

Do you agree that Pope Pelagius had the authority to annul the council called by John the Faster?

Why were the acts of this Synod of 588 annulled by Pope Pelagius?

 

[tdgesq]

Why were the acts of this Synod of 588 annulled by Pope Pelagius?

I see no reason to answer. You haven’t answered any of the questions I asked of you. Your question has no bearing on the discussion anyway. You brought up a quote by St. Gregory for the proposition that he didn’t believe in papal authority the way the modern CC defines it. That is the issue.

You said you have all of Gregory’s writings, why then did you chop out these five words in the middle?:

“in writing to certain persons”.

Why did you chop out these ten words, also in the middle of the quote?:

“since I know who I am, and who you are”.

Since you have all of Gregory’s works, you must have known that Pope Gregory was responding to a title that Eastern Bishops were using for themselves. You must have known that he approved of Pope Pelagius’ writings condemning Bishop John of Constantinople and his synod in a letter to Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria. You must have known that he confirmed in another letter to Eulogius that St. Peter was called Petrus from petra.

In light of that knowledge, can you tell everybody why you omitted five discrete words in the middle of the quote and then another ten discrete words in the middle of the quote? Wouldn’t those have been important to understand the context of Gregory’s letter?

I asked you these questions more than once. Here’s the last one:

Then why did you omit the portions that you did? You must have known then that Gregory references Pope Pelagius writing to John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, annulling his council in the name of Peter, Prince of the Apostles. Do you agree with that action?

These are not difficult questions. Please give an account for the omitted language. Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with Gregory’s confirmation of Pelagius annulment of the synod of Bishop John.

 

[John214]

Tdgesq,

Maybe you mean at the time of the event is there a way that we can know with “certainty” his legitimacy. If that is the case, then the examples of Jesus’ Resurrection and the appointment of the Patriarchs are both valid. Unless I were an actual witness to the Resurrection or a witness to the event of the bishop’s election, it would have to be an inquiry after the fact. The relative certainty of those events would depend upon the historical strength of the claim.

Yes I did mean at the time of the event (I didn’t want to put it that way though, but it is correct). If by Resurrection you mean the continual witness within a Christian to the Resurrection, then I suppose it could be a valid comparison, but it is not of the same nature as knowing today if a Pope legitimately holds his office or not. And at first you said only Apostolic Succession (looking retrospect). I suppose the validity of a Patriarch would be comparable to the validity of a Pope, the only difference being that a Patriarch cannot make binding and infallible statements, and does not hold universal jurisdiction over the Church. I suppose the only reason why it matters more for the Pope is that the repurcussions of a false Pope are much heavier than those from a false Patriarch.

The only thing I can offer you in that regard is that today those anti-popes have been historically identified, and that today the apostolic succession of the Bishop of Rome among the apostolic churches is not really a question, the Cyprianic hardliners aside.

Fair enough. I do not believe this is a question which if unanswerable refutes the Catholic position (anymore than it would the EO position), but I do find it to be one of importance. How is a Pope legitimately called, and how can we know it is certain.

The Coptic Catholic Church has a Patriarch of Alexandria in communion with the CC. And that is true as I sit here typing this.

That sounds complicated!

The Coptic Catholic Church has a Patriarch of Alexandria in communion with the CC. And that is true as I sit here typing this.

You mean there are some modern Orthodox theologians today that make that a requirement. I don’t think you will find consensus on that point, or even on the authority of the pentarchy for that matter. Go browse the first seven ecumenical councils. The councils are defining doctrine and anathematizing those who don’t agree. Heretical bishops are cut off from communion and in many cases exiled. I don’t believe that if you consulted those fathers they would tell you they might have been wrong and needed to wait for church wide consensus.

I really don’t know about what the Orthodox Church by an large believes about this, I know what most all I have spoken to believe about this. I think it does depend upon what one means by “Church-wide acceptance” as well as Patriarchal approval and what not. Of course there are always some extremists in every faith system who deny the majority (I am sure you can find Catholics who disagree about the nature of the Pope, and who believe the Pope or the Catholic Church is wrong on some things, usually these people can be dismissed out of hand, but the question goes just as easily for the EO as it does for the CC. How do you refute those who disagree about the nature of the Pope within the CC? Do you tell them, “You are wrong because the Pope says you are”? A difficult question, but not one that should seriously hinder our faith in the Church, Tradition, or even the Pope)

 

[John214]

Tdgesq (continued),

I’m not sure which heresy to which you are referring, but to say that Jesus’ nature and the reality of the Incarnation were simple issues such that there were simple answers to be had is profoundly ahistorical. Nestorianism is still a heresy that exists today. I don’t find this to be a good example.

It is certainly not a simple question, but the answers can often be simple. For instance there is usually some main point of a heresy, “Is Christ also God” for instance, which causes a great deal of disagreement and strife within the early Church. While canons and details could be worked out by the Church, the Pope could easily answer the question and put the controversy to rest by speaking ex cathedra, he really only has to say, “Yes Jesus is God” or “No He is not God” then the vast bulk of the problm is already dealt with, and there is absolutely no room for error. I don’t understand why a council should have to vote about whether Jesus is God, if in the end the Pope could simply pronounce it.

Why would one man’s approval (the Pope) be required for it to binding Church teaching? I thought that is what you found to be unacceptable. All of those other votes would be for naught.

As understood in the CC perspective, it does seem irreconciable with a meaningful council, but it is only in conjunction with Papal Infallibility that it really seems impossible. The council is inefficient, fallible, divisive, and possibly (arguably probably) superficial in the CC perspective, as opposed to Papal infallibility which is efficient, infallible, unitive, and always meaningful. Bishops can always argue with one another, even after a council is over, but no Bishop can argue with the Pope, when he has spoke ex cathedra. I feel like it would have saved the Early Church a lot of difficulty.

But if I’m reading you correctly, then such a council wouldn’t be binding even if all of them agreed. We would have to wait for an indeterminate amount of time to see if “the entire church” eventually agreed. It seems to me that councils are unnecessary if this is one of your criterion. We should just wait to see if “the entire church” eventually unifies around one side or the other. The council would just be giving a non-binding suggestion to the rest of the church.

1. It is important to keep in mind that Church consensus is not the only criteria, nor does it solely guarantee infallibility. Bishops, consistency with tradition, church wide consensus, and patriarchal approval, and possibly most importantly past councils are all components within the EO, none working alone. (Note: this doesn’t make it superior to the CC, personally I prefer the Catholic model, it is more efficient, and unifying)
2. The point is that in either the CC or EO model, Christ is the one leading the Church, and the Church is only trying to recognize the Truth, not create it. The problem here is the method, is it via the assertion of the Pope, or is it somewhere else.

I am amazed that you can make this statement after all of this. How do you make an informed decision unless you hear the arguments from both sides? Wouldn’t the Pope want to know who decided which way, particularly if he is influenced by certain of their arguments?

Perhaps you misunderstood me, I was saying that the Pope does not need both sides to vote in order to hear them and what they believe. We do not need ecumenical councils to inform the Pope. This can be done quite well without the confusion that comes from a council where possibly the majority of heretics leave feeling as though they are correct because they won the vote.

Does the judge of a debate ask the audience to vote, in order to decide better which way is correct? Certainly not, but a judge of a debate does not even possess infallibility.

 

[Ignatios]

Quote:
2) First, you mean that there is more then one interpretation for the same subject???

anthony:
Of couse. I’ve said before that the Catholic Church accepts the interpretation that Peter’s faith is the Rock. 2)But apparently the Orthodox can’t accept the more obvious interpretation that Peter himself is the Rock. 3)Yet another example how the Catholic Church has the fullness of faith,and the Orthodox Church does not.

1)You failed to back up this one with valid reffrences such *** your church’s teaching, therefor, your saying has the same value as if I say, that, I am the king of England ( dispite my Semetic dark features, thereforeit is INVALID.

1. I have explained this one earlier, and again, No we do not accept it simply because it is a false Interpretation, and My reffrences were backed up by, Biblical evidences, Traditions and Church Fathers.
2. The fulleness of faith is not, he who has more interpretation= has the fullness of faith, But it is who has the right Interpretations, and right interpretations must measure up to the Holy Tradition such as the Holy Bible and the way the Church beleived and practiced FROM THE BEGINNING, BY EVERYBODY AND EVERYWHERE.

Quote:
In another word, One interpretation would say that the church is built on Peter himself and , in another, it says that the Church is built on Peter’s confession and not his person?

anthony:
It is the Church Fathers who sometimes say that the Church is built upon Peter’s onfession. 2) But Christ does not say that. 3) He gives Simon Bar Jonah a new name,Kepha. 4) And Paul,in his letters calls Peter by the Greek version of that name,which ought to be proof enough proving that Peter is the Rock

1. It is 80% of the Church Fathers who said all the time that the Church is NOT built on Peter’s person.
2. For MOST of the RCs, it is so, since the very existence of their church as we know it today, depends on this Interpretation, so “the Apple is an Orange to them despite that, its color, taste, smell and its skin etc…” shows clearly that it is an Apple and Not an Orange.
3. you still by-passing my question to you concerning " Cepha(s)" and not “Cepha” as it is clear in the Bible, Also for the third or fourth time, back to my question to you, one the many you do not wish to answer, …"Here I like to ask you a question, What is your evidence that, kephas in here ( the Roman assertion ) is the Major Rock that the BODY OF CHRIST is built upon and NOT the small rock (Pebble ) ."
4. here what the Bible said and Note the diffrence between Petrossssss=Cephassssss and Petra=Cepha. … Matthew 16:17-18,… 17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon( he wasn’t peter yet, just for the record to show you how easily can one be derailed ) son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you( here the LORD is saying that it is not of you or it is not of Peter=Petros), but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter {Gk. Petros, Aram. Kephas} ( now he is Peter), and upon THIS ROCK {Gk. petra, Aram. kepha}

 

[Ignatios]

Quote:
3) Show me from your CCC the Literal Interpretations, and then show me the Non-literal Interpretations of your church.

anthony:

< The literal interpretation is that Simon alone is the rock of Christ’s Church, the Church is built on Peter personally (CCC 881, 586, 552). However, the Catechism also notes that Peter is the unshakeable rock because of his faith in Christ (CCC 552); that the acknowledgement of Christ’s divine sonship is the Church’s foundation (CCC 442); on the rock of Peter’s faith Christ built His Church (CCC 424); and Christ Himself as rock and “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:4ff; 1 Cor 10:4; Eph 2:20) is the foundation (CCC 756). >

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING SOMETHING VALID UP, Now, you have mentioned in the above the “the literal interpretation”, but you didnt bring up the " Non-literal Interpretations of your church", or, if you did, then, you didnt point out to which of the above is the Non-literal Interpretations of your church .

anthony:

Peter’s faith is not separable from Peter’s himself! So it is not a matter of believing that the Church is built upon “Peter’s faith and not his person”. If Kepha himself is taken out of the interpretation,then the faith itself loses its foundation.

Matt. 14:31 …31And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him, and saith unto him,** O thou of little faith,**( Peter) wherefore didst thou doubt?

…You see how the RCC interpretation is so far away from being called the “fullnes of the faith”, your churche’s interpretation does not go all the way without falling off at some point further down, the above is a BIIIIIIG Problem for your church.
therefore if and when you deviate from the Teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD, then sooner or later you are going to find yourself out in the cold, you have nothing except the figments of your mind.

 

[Mickey]

Since you have all of Gregory’s works, you must have known that Pope Gregory was responding to a title that Eastern Bishops were using for themselves. You must have known that he approved of Pope Pelagius’ writings condemning Bishop John of Constantinople and his synod in a letter to Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria. You must have known that he confirmed in another letter to Eulogius that St. Peter was called Petrus from petra.

Thank you for answering my question. Your argument is rather weak. I will attempt to respond with less vitriol than yourself. There is no need to be so angry.

Where are Pope Pelagius writngs against St John the Faster? I see no writings from this Pope against the Synod of 588. What were the acts of this Synod that he condemned. Pope Gregory alludes displeasure for to the title that St John used during that Synod. However, we know that Pope Gregory’s Greek was not very good and likely misunderstood St John’s use of said title. Did Pope Pelagius speak good Greek? We do not know. Furthermore, did the East recognize Pope Pelgius’ and Pope Gregory’s annullment of this title being used for the Patriarch? No. We see that the controversy is still brewing at the end of Pope Gregory’s life. This Synod that you feel proves your meaningless point was not a great council. The Pope did not annul doctrine or proclaim it on his own. He does not exercise some type of infalliblility. Yes. Pope Gregory knows who he is, but he sure does not say that it is the “universal bishop” or “supreme pontiff” or the infallible ruler of the whole Church". He was vehemently against such titles and his writing proved it.

“Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, **because he proudly puts himself above all others. **Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests.”
Epistle to to Emperor Maurice

 

[Mickey]

The point is that in either the CC or EO model, Christ is the one leading the Church, and the Church is only trying to recognize the Truth, not create it.

Bingo!

 

[Lady_James]

What is RCC?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

":

John214]
* The point is that in either the CC or EO model, Christ is the one leading the Church, and the Church is only trying to recognize the Truth, not create it.*

Bingo!

With one addition:

Christ can only have one spouse, thus, one Church, otherwise He is a bigamist. His Spouse is the Catholic Church.

 

[Ignatios]

Lady James:

What is RCC?

EO=Eastern Orthodox

RCC=Roman Catholic Church

CC=Catholic Church

 

[Mickey]

His Spouse is the Catholic Church.

Yes. The Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Yes. The Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

the Holy orthodox Catholic Church (the one lead by the Pope)=D

Btw, when was the term “Orthodox” first used to distinguish between my church and your church?

 

[tdgesq]

Thank you for answering my question. Your argument is rather weak. I will attempt to respond with less vitriol than yourself. There is no need to be so angry.

I am not angry at all, so please don’t try to divert the discussion from your unwillingness to answer my question. Since I’ve asked four times now for you to explain why you omitted the discrete words in the middle of the Gregory quote, I conclude that you won’t ever answer. It was misleading to do what you did Mickey, and you well know it.

Where are Pope Pelagius writngs against St John the Faster? I see no writings from this Pope against the Synod of 588.

I don’t need to do that. Pope Gregory explains to Bishop Eulogius what those writings contained and even sends him a copy of the decree.

Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius, our brother and fellow-bishop John in the city of Constantinople, seeking occasion from another cause, held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he despatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod; of which letters I have taken care to send copies to your Holiness.

What were the acts of this Synod that he condemned. Pope Gregory alludes displeasure for to the title that St John used during that Synod.

Pope Gregory explains it yet once again here:

For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, do you love Me? Feed My sheep John 21:17. To him it is said, Behold Satan has desired to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith fail not. And thou, when you are converted, strengthen your brethren Luke 22:31. To him it is said, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever you shall bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven Matthew 16:18.

Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow-priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores

I’ve asked you three times whether you agree with Pope Gregory’s affirmation of Pope Pelagius’ annulment of John of Constantinople’s synod. It obviously happened. My conclusion is that you won’t answer. That’s because you disagree that a Pope has such power, even though Pope Gregory makes it clear that a Pope does have that authority. A bad move to rely upon Pope Gregory to make your case.

Pope Gregory knows who he is, but he sure does not say that it is the “universal bishop” or “supreme pontiff” or the infallible ruler of the whole Church". He was vehemently against such titles and his writing proved it.

The Pope has never claimed the term “universal bishop.” Ever. Yet Pope Gregory sure did affirm Pope Pelagius’ authority to annul a decision by the Bishop of Constantinople.

“Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, **because he proudly puts himself above all others. **Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests.”
Epistle to to Emperor Maurice

That’s right, he rejects that term, even to this day. What he does do is affirm the authority of the Pope to annul a synod held by the Bishop of Constantinople. What he does is claim that he exercises authority in the name of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles. What he does claim is that Peter is the rock. Shall I go on? The fact is, the Orthodox dispute all of these things. The authority to which Pope Gregory attests and its basis are disputed by the Orthodox, regardless of whether he refuses the title “universal bishop” or not. And the link I provided above is a letter to Mauricius Augustus.