C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
I don’t know, I’ve never seen them and neither has anyone in this forum probably.
I’m still looking for some text where the church referred to her as the “orthodox church” as opposed to the “catholic church”.
- Status
I’m still looking for some text where the church referred to her as the “orthodox church” as opposed to the “catholic church”.
S
steve_b
Guest
Re: no such thing existed,That is because previous councils and ECF’s would not have told him that he was a supreme pontiff with infallibility–no such thing existed.
*]did Jesus make Peter the leader over the apostles, and the Church? Y or N
*]Did Peter teach fallibly or infallibly?
J
John214
Guest
Chaldean Rite,
Also, you asked something along the lines of when the Orthodox Church started to use the name “Orthodox” to differentiate itself from the Catholic Church. It really does not matter, but I believe the Orthodox answer would be, “When the Catholic Chuch separated itself from orthodoxy (right-teaching)”
If we want to make a point out of this, then we can say the Catholic Church is universal but incorrect in its teachings, and the Orthodox is correct in its teachings but limited in its scope. Clearly neither Church believes this, and thus it is a non-issue.
Steve B,
**1) **Perhaps Jesus did make Peter the leader over the other Apostles, but not a Supreme and Universal leader. Not all leaders have to be Supreme and Universal you know. And perhaps Peter did not teach infallibly. Granted I do not know how Peter could have taught “ex cathedra” and there clearly was no set doctrine about such a practice at this point in the Church, but we do have on record that Peter was teaching something wrong (circumcision I believe) and he was leading others astray by this.
2) Even if we grant Peter Supreme Universal head of the Church, and even if we grant Peter infallibility, this does not automatically translate to the Pope as gaining these properties upon election. This is something you have to prove.
Your questions were good though.
God Bless,
John
I don’t think this question honestly helps to move the conversation along. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches consider themselves orthodox and catholic, so if orthodox is a faulty name, then the Catholics are just as guilty.
Also, you asked something along the lines of when the Orthodox Church started to use the name “Orthodox” to differentiate itself from the Catholic Church. It really does not matter, but I believe the Orthodox answer would be, “When the Catholic Chuch separated itself from orthodoxy (right-teaching)”
If we want to make a point out of this, then we can say the Catholic Church is universal but incorrect in its teachings, and the Orthodox is correct in its teachings but limited in its scope. Clearly neither Church believes this, and thus it is a non-issue.
Steve B,
Good questions. But there are two points you will have to deal with to make this a case for Papal Supremacy.
**1) **Perhaps Jesus did make Peter the leader over the other Apostles, but not a Supreme and Universal leader. Not all leaders have to be Supreme and Universal you know. And perhaps Peter did not teach infallibly. Granted I do not know how Peter could have taught “ex cathedra” and there clearly was no set doctrine about such a practice at this point in the Church, but we do have on record that Peter was teaching something wrong (circumcision I believe) and he was leading others astray by this.
2) Even if we grant Peter Supreme Universal head of the Church, and even if we grant Peter infallibility, this does not automatically translate to the Pope as gaining these properties upon election. This is something you have to prove.
Your questions were good though.
God Bless,
John
S
steve_b
Guest
Steve B,
Good questions. But there are two points you will have to deal with to make this a case for Papal Supremacy.
**1) **Perhaps Jesus did make Peter the leader over the other Apostles, but not a Supreme and Universal leader. Not all leaders have to be Supreme and Universal you know. And perhaps Peter did not teach infallibly. Granted I do not know how Peter could have taught “ex cathedra” and there clearly was no set doctrine about such a practice at this point in the Church, but we do have on record that Peter was teaching something wrong (circumcision I believe) and he was leading others astray by this.
2) Even if we grant Peter Supreme Universal head of the Church, and even if we grant Peter infallibility, this does not automatically translate to the Pope as gaining these properties upon election. This is something you have to prove.
Your questions were good though.
God Bless,
John
*]We don’t have to guess about Peter having top job. It’s a given. Leaders who are all hat and no cows as we say on the ranch, aren’t leaders. They’re pretenders. That’s NOT what Jesus established. If Peter didn’t teach infallibly then neither did anyone else. Therefore scripture is full of errors and not worth the paper it’s printed on. After Pentecost, do you have record of Peter teaching error?
*]If God had no plans to continue His design past the death of the last apostle, we should see that written in scripture. But we don’t. Is it easier to believe the ordination process changes a man’s authority such that after ordination a priest can confect the Eucharist, which is to change mere bread and wine into the real body blood soul and divinity of Jesus? Prior to ordination he can’t do that. The difference is the power translated by the sacrament of Ordination. Do you find that hard to believe? I can make infallible statements all day long, but I can’t confect the Eucharist no matter how much faith I have, because I’m not an ordained priest. Re: the papacy, did Jesus make unique promises to Peter? Yes. Because the Church Jesus builds continues till the end of time, would those promises to Peter continue? Yep!!! Who gurantees those promises happen through Peter’s successors? Jesus.
But your dissent is duly noted
P
prodromos
Guest
You don’t need to have seen them.By the early 4th century BC, the epichoric alphabets were replaced by the eastern Ionic alphabet. The capital letters of the modern Greek alphabet are almost identical to those of the Ionic alphabet. The minuscule or lower case letters first appeared sometime after 800 AD and developed from the Byzantine minuscule script, which developed from cursive writing.
omniglot.com/writing/greek.htm
John
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
I think that is kind of my point. There are multiple instances of these writings referring to the Church as the “catholic Church” or “Catholic Church”, who cares for now about the distinction between the proper noun and the adjective. Why a church, who considers itself as the “true” Spouse of Christ suddenly change the way it refers to itself over what they consider a schimastic, heretical group leaving? I don’t really expect to get a clear answer, just like I don’t expect to get a clear answer when I asked this earlier:
The reason the EO will not admit to Purgatory existence is because if they did, they would have to admit they were wrong on a doctrinal level, which, of course, cannot happen in the Church.
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
Thanks, I didn’t know that.
I
Ignatios
Guest
And I have shown you also in return, the quotes within the FULL CONTEXT that is, most of those fathers you have listed, in which it shows clearly that you were putting their quotes out of context.
No, they weren’t wrong, but, you were, and that is by misquoting or half quotes even distortion in some cases.
Interpretations, if they are not in line with the HOLY TRADITION, they are false, it does not matter how much sense they make, nor who said what, besides, Interpretations are to tell what things are or the meaning of things, regardless it is spiritual or literal, Interpretation, is where the buck stops (if you will), in another word, interpretation is where the"abvious" “Literal” " Non-Literal" “the so-called"spiritual” comes to an end.
It sounds like"Literal and/or obvious Interpretation"=Seriously talking, and “Non-literal Inter. and/or spiritual”= just joking.
Both are right?..one it says that the Church is built upon peter (literally) and the other one it says it is built upon Peter’s faith (was the second one literal or non literal? and then also, you agree it is built on the Apostles but also the Apostles are the one who built the Church, and then after, it is Peter who build the Church but NO it is CHRIST whom the Church is built upon and then you go back and you say but since Peter is the Rock and CHRIST said that the Church is to be built on Peter then it is on Peter the Church is built… and you go around and around, … If someone wanted to really follow this all the way through, he can never see the end of it, this is NOT Interpretation anymore, it is Confusion… which one of all those is it??? …cannot apply all at the same time … this is obvious play on words.
You are absolutely right, The Holy Orthodox Church cannot submit to such false assertions, for She is guided by Christ, and ONLY the Holy Tradition is found in her midst.
First thing, put down on your notebook that Paul’s Epistles are the Epistles, and NOT the Gospel, yes it was Cephasss and not Cephaaaaa. You noted the differences, for Cepha is applied to Petra (Rock) and Cephasssssss is applied to Petros (Peter), it doesn’t seem like you want to see the differences here for an obvious reason.
The majority of them were from the first millennium.
Supported the POPE that is, and when they did, they did for a good reason, the reason, that the Pope at that time was Orthodox, BECAUSE, he stood for the Orthodox Faith, and he confessed the Orthodox faith and followed the Orthodox Teachings.
BUT show us how different your church today is from the Church that Pope Saint Clement presided over, or Pope Saint Gregory the Great or just about any Orthodox Pope at THAT period of time.
We never gave anything to justify the existence of the Orthodox Church nor have we wasted any time to prove that, since your church (RCC) concede not only that we exist but also that we are the oldest (the Historical Church), along with the Protestants, even the Muslims and the Buddhist etc…all one has to do is read the Holy Bible to find that out, She is here from the time of CHRIST She is the True and the only one who can lay a claim to be the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of GOD” and measure up to it rightfully truthfully and without usurpations.
You said earlier the following:
I answered you the following:
Matt. 14:31 …31And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him ( Peter), and saith unto him, **O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? **
Is this what your church is built upon??? So your church is built upon the little faith, or/and the doubt.
You were right on target with your above statement.
No further comments from my side concerning this, the truth has been made clear about your church from your mouth.
I
Ignatios
Guest
1)Now here is a typical RC distortion, he calls “the problem in the Greek”, this is actually the advantage in the Greek language, that it express and define what things are exactly and it removes any questions on what is what and/or who, the word problem can justly be applied to the Aramaic, as it is in other languages, that it is not expressive enough to differentiate and point out exactly to what it means.
In Aramaic, it is not “No need to do this” but rather, you couldn’t do this, simply because the Aramaic language is not as expressive as the Greek language is,( boy talking about play on words, but I must admit it those are very clever moves)
- True, the spoken language was Aramaic, However the Gospel came to us In the Greek Language, so to Interpret the Bible based on the language that it was spoken which we do not have, is a mere statement expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence, this is no more then guess.
Since we do not have an exact and full sentences what was said, except the written language which is the New Testaments which is written in Greek and not the Aramaic, we are obliged to rely only on what had been handed down to us from the Apostles that is the Holy Tradition, and any other alternative, as much as it may sounds logic it stays locked behind the firm and rigid bars of the Suppositions. so there goes your theory down the drain.
and then later the following:
The Bible said “You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church.” and did not say the later, Biblically speaking.
However, and again, if The Holy Apostle intended it to be the same in both places they would have simply said “Petra” in both places and not in one place Petros and the second Petra, But since the Aramaic is not as expressive as the Greek is, It was explained, expressed in the Greek (the only written language) and defined what they intended to say.
In another word,
If the Holy Apostles whom wrote the Bible BY the Inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT would have put down " You are Petra and upon this Petra I will build my Church" …But the Apostle did not, because, they are transmitting to the faithful that the Rock(Petra) is the confession of Peter and not Peter(Petros) himself, it is clear when the LORD said that”…it is not flesh and blood revealed this to you but my FATHER In Heaven did”, So again your assertion is false and it doesn’t measure up.
One can see clearly, that, there is a clear distinction between the two words and that was not without a purpose ( other wise this would be a blasphemyor the Christianity is nothing but “bogus” since it was inspired by the Holy Spirit” , if he only take the confusion that is applied by the RCC false assertions IN ORDER to gain some ground for their Papal Supremacy .
But, that is what it means, they said it or not, is another issue, but when you say that Peter is the “ROCK” this would be false, because Peter means a small or part of a rock, and Petra is a major Rock or THEE ROCK.
So you fell off again
nothing wrong with the blue colors text …Peter=Petros= Kephasssssssssssssssssssssssss
…with the red text you have an issue there…Note the SSSSSSSS at the end of the first and NO “s” at the end of the second, the first “Kephasssssssss” comes with Petrosssssssssss for a distinction purpose, and the second Kepha( NO S) comes with the Petra also to mark a distinction purpose…
Again you arguement holds no water.
I
Ignatios
Guest
All the above is Invalid since it is based on assuming the truth.
The most general if not the most grammatical, interpretation seems to be that the Rock is the faith which St. Peter confessed. Thus, for instance, St. Chrysostom says, "therefore He added this, ‘and I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church,’ that is upon the Rock of his confession (Hom. liv. in Matt. 16. sect. 2, P.G. lviii. 534).
Who do you think I shall believe? Your guy Mark, (whom ever he may be), or Saint John Chrysostom?
But lets look at it from different scope, that is your own Latin Bible Translation, and I must admit that the Latin is considered to be one of the expressive languages, so lets take a look at the Latin text concerning this…
“By V. Rev. Damian Krehel (Russian Orthodox Preist) “…the Latin biblical text used by the Roman Catholic Church “et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam” coincides with the biblical text “upon this rock I will build my church.” To validate the Roman contention that the Church was built upon Peter the Roman biblical text would have to read “et super te, Petrum, aedificabo ecclesiam meam” which translated reads “upon thee Peter I will build my church;” factually the Roman text does not concur with the Roman Catholic proposition that Peter is the rock.
J
John214
Guest
Steve B,
As far as I have seen, Jesus made no such guarantee. The guarantee that I do see is that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. To translate this into the above is not feasible.
God Bless Steve, and glad to hear from you
John
Nobody disagrees with this, this does not prove that he is the Infallible Supreme Leader of the Church.
You do not have to be Supreme and Infallible to avoid being all hat and no cows.
No it is not, did Jesus say that Peter would have complete jurisdictional control of the entire Church, and that anything he said ex cathedra would be infallible?
Nobody is saying anyone else spoke infallibly, in the sense of Papal infalliblity.
You lost me here, the Old Testament was written before Peter was ever Born and we do not say it is full of errors, we consider Pauls epistles to be perfect, and yet the RCC does not consider Paul as infallible in the same way as the Pope. Why does the inerrancy of Scripture have to be connected to Papal Infallibility. This seems a bit irrelevant.
What do you mean by teaching error? Do you mean Peter gets onto a podium with the whole Church listening and he says, “Now I am going to teach you something, ex cathedra”? Do you mean Peter teaching a group of believers something that is wrong and leading them astray? Why did you use Pentecost as the starting point for Peter’s infallibility? Would it not have been when Jesus declared Peter as the Rock of the Church?
Ok, do we see anywhere in the Bible where it is written that Papal infallibility (ex cathedra) and Supremacy would definitely be passed on, and only to the Bishop geographically located in the Roman city?
I don’t deny this, but how is it related to Universal jurisdiction of the Pope and infallibilty?
Even if we accept this, it does not establish a succession (of the right to infallibilty and Supremacy) based solely in the Province of Rome.
Fine, but this does not automatically mean that there must be a single Bishop (only in Rome) who has exclusive right to the title Universal Bishop of the Church, and ex cathedra infallibility. The promises (exactly what promises I am not sure, the promises made at the confession were only guaranteed to Peter) could be kept eternally in a variety of ways, the CC and OC being two equally viable possibilities.
This was not established. Where did Jesus say, “Because of this, I will call you Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, because I will ensure that you have a legitimate successor, located in the province of Rome, because that is where you will die, and the exact way that this promise will be kept is by guaranteeing the Bishop of Rome Infallibility, but only when he speaks ex cathedra, and Supreme rule of the entire Church, because this is the only way he would not be all hat and no cows.”?
As far as I have seen, Jesus made no such guarantee. The guarantee that I do see is that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. To translate this into the above is not feasible.
I am not dissenting, but your perception of my questions is noted.
God Bless Steve, and glad to hear from you
John
J
John214
Guest
Chaldean Rite,
The Orthodox Church doesn’t say that it is not the catholic Church and Jesus did not say that only the Church who calls itself by the proper name Catholic would be the right Church.
The bottom line is that either the Catholic Church is both orthodox and catholic, or else the Orthodox Church is both orthodox and catholic. What they call themselves is of little consequence.
Paul refered to the Church as the Body of Christ, but do either the Orthodox or Catholics call themselves by the Proper name “Body of Christ”? No, but they both believe they are the Body of Christ.
God Bless,
John
I think you are missing the point
The Orthodox Church doesn’t say that it is not the catholic Church and Jesus did not say that only the Church who calls itself by the proper name Catholic would be the right Church.The bottom line is that either the Catholic Church is both orthodox and catholic, or else the Orthodox Church is both orthodox and catholic. What they call themselves is of little consequence.
Paul refered to the Church as the Body of Christ, but do either the Orthodox or Catholics call themselves by the Proper name “Body of Christ”? No, but they both believe they are the Body of Christ.
God Bless,
John
G
Gofer
Guest
Do you believe that Peter is the Rock?
The Catholic Church teaches that Christ (naturally), Peter, and Peter’s confession of faith (or faith behind the confession) are **all ** valid as “Rock” and the foundation of the church. Our understanding is… complete.
P
prodromos
Guest
There were several instances before the great schism where the Church referred to herself as Orthodox in response to heresies or schisms. After each issue was resolved and the rift was healed the term “Orthodox” was dropped. We used to have some great reference threads in what used to be the “Eastern Christianity” forum here where those instances were presented. Perhaps you could ask the administrators to reinstate those threads as it is information that is not easily found unless you have a lot of time to search.
No one will be in Hell until the final judgment after the second coming and until that day we believe that no one’s fate is sealed. Until the final judgment we believe they receive a foretaste of the destination towards which they are headed. We pray for the dead and ask their prayers because we are one body and we love each other. While the person who has died is no longer able to do any good works towards repentance, there is absolutely nothing preventing God from making complete in them anything they were lacking. Since we are in no position to judge the condition of the souls of our dearly departed we continue to beg God’s mercy upon them. It is an act of love and is in obedience to Christ’s commands.
This is a strawman. We reject purgatory because it is an innovation and not part of the faith once handed down by the Apostles.
John
I
Ignatios
Guest
JESUS is the Rock, Indeed, Peter’s confession is the Rock, since it points clearly the understanding to who this Rock isand since if you beleive that CHRIST is the SON of the LIVING GOD you are built on the Major Rock since this is the Major christian confession, then yes Indeed, but tell me where in the Bible it says that if you do not beleive that the Church is built on the Person of Peter (literaly) you fall off.
To be complete is to be according to the Holy Tradition.
To be complete does not mean, QUANTITY but QUALITY of the Interpretation.
especially when we see that the main purpose of your interpretation of the “ROCK” is only to back up the false assertion to the supremacy and the Infallability of the Bishop of Rome.
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
That’s a new concept; sounds unreasonable.
So where does the Orthodox church teach that hell is empty?
And where are all the souls in the meantime?
Whats the point of personal judgment if the judgment does not get executed?
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
Also unreasonable; Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, the God that enlightens the Church;
Eph 3:10
so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.
What you are basically saying is that the Church does not have the authority to teach revealed truths. Perhaps you guys believe that theology is not progressive.
And we find hints of Purgatory all over Scripture, especially in Maccabees and also in the Jewish tradition.
2 Maccabees 12:32-45
scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html
S
SedesDomi
Guest
I
Ignatios
Guest
Chaldean Rite:
Purgatory is not about praying for the dead ONLY, If this was the case, then I can assure you that there is no diffrence to speak of between the 2 of us, BUT, It is not, starting from the name of it…
“Pugatory” what does it mean???
lets take a look shall we:
dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=purgatory
[Middle English purgatorie, from Old French purgatoire, from Medieval Latin **pūrgātōrium
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/purgatory
purgatory (pûrg’utôr"ē) [key][Lat.,=place of purging],
so as we see, it is a Place, lets take a look at similiar words
that it indicates to a “Place” also:
the Word " gymnasium"
gymnasium =“place of exercise,”
dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=gymnasium
Also the word
Stadium=a sports arena, usually oval or horseshoe-shaped, with tiers of seats for spectators.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/stadium
So as we see there is no way around for the RCC to say that it is not a “place” as we see lately that they are trying to get out of it and make sound all good and nice.
So the Bible did not teach of a third place where one would go through( now going to the other parts of the Purgatory,other then praying for the dead )…
Punishment, expiation, atonement, a place to “sit and suffer” through fire untill the satisfaction of GOD !!! etc.
The only place that the Bible speaks of such, is Hell.
And then, we go into the indulgences…where a paper is released from the pope to the family of the departed one so that, they will released in their turn on behalf of the dead so, he can be released from the torment of the purgatory or his days there will be shortened.
Now I said this breifly, there is a lot more involved then this, but this is just to show you, that Pugatory is more then praying for the dead, I suggest on you to go and study more about your Rite and your mother church (RCC).
Besides, why are you contending the Purgatory with us, wouldnt be much more logical and profitable for you to go and contend this with your “Brethren” in the Byzantine Catholic churchesssssss, since they too dont teach the Purgatory.
from an Eastern Catholic website:
…Article V of the Treaty of Brest states “We shall not debate about purgatory…” implying that both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls “Purgatory.”
also later they say(Byzantine Catholics) the folowing:
… Rather than seeing this as a place to “sit and suffer,” the Eastern Fathers of the Church described the Final Theosis as being a journey. While this journey can entail hardships, there are also powerful glimpses of joy.
east2west.org/doctrine.htm
…And you chaldeanRite, wouldnt you be better off if you go back to your roots and search them, instead of adopting a tradition that is alien to your roots… or you got so Latinized( second to the Maronites that is) to the point that you dont recognize your departure point anymore
How sad…
Reading your text in the blue, I can tell that your knowledge is so little, not only towards the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD, but also concerning your own Rite and your mother church (the RCC).
Purgatory is not about praying for the dead ONLY, If this was the case, then I can assure you that there is no diffrence to speak of between the 2 of us, BUT, It is not, starting from the name of it…
“Pugatory” what does it mean???
lets take a look shall we:
dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=purgatory
[Middle English purgatorie, from Old French purgatoire, from Medieval Latin **pūrgātōrium
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/purgatory
purgatory (pûrg’utôr"ē) [key][Lat.,=place of purging],
so as we see, it is a Place, lets take a look at similiar words
that it indicates to a “Place” also:
the Word " gymnasium"
gymnasium =“place of exercise,”
dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=gymnasium
Also the word
Stadium=a sports arena, usually oval or horseshoe-shaped, with tiers of seats for spectators.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/stadium
So as we see there is no way around for the RCC to say that it is not a “place” as we see lately that they are trying to get out of it and make sound all good and nice.
So the Bible did not teach of a third place where one would go through( now going to the other parts of the Purgatory,other then praying for the dead )…
Punishment, expiation, atonement, a place to “sit and suffer” through fire untill the satisfaction of GOD !!! etc.
The only place that the Bible speaks of such, is Hell.
And then, we go into the indulgences…where a paper is released from the pope to the family of the departed one so that, they will released in their turn on behalf of the dead so, he can be released from the torment of the purgatory or his days there will be shortened.
Now I said this breifly, there is a lot more involved then this, but this is just to show you, that Pugatory is more then praying for the dead, I suggest on you to go and study more about your Rite and your mother church (RCC).
Besides, why are you contending the Purgatory with us, wouldnt be much more logical and profitable for you to go and contend this with your “Brethren” in the Byzantine Catholic churchesssssss, since they too dont teach the Purgatory.
from an Eastern Catholic website:
…Article V of the Treaty of Brest states “We shall not debate about purgatory…” implying that both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls “Purgatory.”
also later they say(Byzantine Catholics) the folowing:
… Rather than seeing this as a place to “sit and suffer,” the Eastern Fathers of the Church described the Final Theosis as being a journey. While this journey can entail hardships, there are also powerful glimpses of joy.
east2west.org/doctrine.htm
…And you chaldeanRite, wouldnt you be better off if you go back to your roots and search them, instead of adopting a tradition that is alien to your roots… or you got so Latinized( second to the Maronites that is) to the point that you dont recognize your departure point anymore
How sad…
S
summasix
Guest
The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the dogma of the immaculate conception and the doctrines of purgatory, as well as permitting birth control, which is explicitly condemned in Joshua. This is heresy. Can someone explain to me how the Orthodox Church is not a false church?
- Status