Why do you reject the pope?

[Musa80]

did you notice anything in the quote about the Pope? no... It talks about Peter...not his succesor... The pope uses this quote ex cathedra to talk about himself ...

Please don't take my arguments as pro-Papacy or hostile. I'm just working this out for myself and want to see good arguments that don't twist and bend history into ugly distortions. That said, everyone keeps asking for evidence that the Papacy existed or at least was conceived of prior to the schism. The quote shows quite clearly that, at least the Pope thought so, and quite early on. Am I to believe that it took the East 600+ years to say WTH to that kind of a statement? Or should I assume that both West and East knew full well what the thought was, at least according to Rome?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

concerning Peter and his successors...

In 433 Pope Sixtus III said that "all know that to assent to [the Bishop of Rome’s] decision is to assent to St. Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith fails not."

sure he was a Pope but this was pretty early on.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

We all know what Rome says. In defining purgatory it mentions prayers for the dead and whatnot (which is based off a faulty understanding of life after death - we pray for the dead but not for any sort of release from 'purgatory'), and the immaculate conception is based off a faulty understanding of Original Sin...

Here's a nice little explanation by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew concerning the Immaculate conception: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2005/03/08/patriach-bartholomew-on-the-immaculate-conception/

I believe in both the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory but thanks for the article, I'll check it out.

 

[Philothei]

You are not debating but merely spaming with quote mines to prove your point... The rock is not our subject though either ... or then we should discuss everything under the sun? How is the Peter and rock justified with a few quote mines from the Fathers out of context?

http://aggreen.net/peter/st_peter.html

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/boumis_peter.html

according to scholars Peter and the Rock imagery is either Christ or all the Aposles "typologically" represented by Peter... each sea...

Other passages of Holy Scripture indirectly support the view that Jesus Christ is the foundation stone by characterising the words of the Lord, i.e. the Gospels, as a rock. When we speak of the word of the Lord, we mean the word of God which also means Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God, and vice-versa.(11) Ιn this way our argument is reinforced as the Gospels can represent Christ. This principle is confirmed by other passages as well, foremost amongst which is, in our opinion, John 8.25 where the Lord, answering the Jews' question «σύ τίς ει ;», spoke the renown phrase, «Την αρχήν ο,τι και λαλώ υμίν», which is explained: «That which Ι have said unto you from the beginning (or generally, already)(12)». Το wit, «Ι am that which Ι tell you, that which Ι teach yοu». We have used this passage from John here not only because we consider it a foundational principle of the first rank concerning the nature of Christ, but also because the problems and subjects of the passage are almost the same with Matt. 16. l3ff from whence comes the passage under study here. Ιn both cases questions and answers revolve around the same person and problem of Christ, with the difference that in the first case he is asking while in the second he is answering.

But the importance of John 8.25, which gives particular weight to the confession therein, is the fact that He who is answering is the person (Christ) about whom the problem is posed «Who are you ?» (συ τις ει. Consequently, we have an authentic self-confession and at the same time confirmation of what we have said above, that by the word of the Lord we mean Jesus Christ.

With the above observation we may now indicate the passages of Holy Scripture which liken the Word of God, the words of the Lord (i.e. Christ) with a rock (Πέτρ&#945. Thus we have an excerpt from the Gospel according to St Matthew with the Lord's distinctive words : «Πας ουν όστις ακούει μου τους λόγους τούτους και ποιεί αυτούς, ομοιωθήσεται ανδρί φρονίμω, όστις ωκοδόμησεν αυτού την οικiαν επι την πέτραν. Και κατέβη η βροχή και ήλθον oι ποταμοί και έπνευσαν οι άνεμοι και προσέπεσαν τη οικία εκείνη, και ουκ έπεσεν τεθεμελίωτο γαρ επί την πέτραν» (Matt. 7. 24-25). Α similar passage is recognisable in St Luke's Gospel: «Πας ο ερχόμενος προς με και ακούων μου των λόγων και ποιών αυτοίς … όμοιός εστιν ανθρώπω οικοδομούντι οικίαν, ος έσκαψεν και εβάθυνεν και έθηκεν θεμέλιον επί την Πέτραν» (Luke 6.47-48). Ιn these passages, then, we have the testimony that Christ, the Son and Word Λόγος of God, is the rock (Πέτρ&#945 uρon which it is possible to build His house safely, so as it stands unshaken.

The passages contemplated above not only call to mind but also reinforce the given interpretation of Matt. 16. 18 that the rock (Πέτρ&#945 upon which the Church of God would be built so as to withstand Hell, is Christ, the Son and Word of God.(13)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Church was never intended to be an institutional government that is ruled with worldly power (See Matt. 23:8-10). Rather its leaders must be the servant of all. Orthodox rejoice that the Pope now prefers to be called the servant of the servants of God. Sadly, this has not always been the case, and its claims have at times been incongruent with these words of Christ. I entreat my Catholic friends to examine these facts. Do they not give ample evidence that the cause of the Great Schism is rooted in the exaggerated Papal claims and that the way to unity is to return to the Church which did not fall into this error?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Blessed Augustine, one of the “Doctors” of the Roman Church, considered Peter and Paul equal. He puts these words in Paul’s mouth: “I am in nothing inferior to Peter; for we were ordained by the same God for the same ministry” (Ibid., p. 187). Blessed Augustine, also referred to Peter’s primacy, but he does not understand this to mean power over the Church. “He had not the primacy over the disciples but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons” (Ibid., p. 176).

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The second concern that Orthodox have with the Latin premise is with the claim that an exclusive transference of power occurred from the Apostle Peter to the Bishop of Rome, and from the Church in Jerusalem to the Church in Rome. The Orthodox would first point out that all bishops are successors of all the apostles, and that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, does not therefore have exclusive rights to Peter. Second, since Peter died before the Apostle John, this would mean, according to the Papal doctrine, that the Beloved Apostle would have been under the universal rule of the Bishop of Rome (at that time), thus reversing the intended order of rank. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Third, Peter ordained several bishops in Rome. (Irenaeus and Eusebius write that he ordained Linus, and Tertullian states that he ordained Clement.) How could they be his successor while he was still alive? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fourth, Jerusalem had unique authority in the Church. It was the Mother of all the Churches. But it never attempted to lord it over the other Churches as its supposed successor did. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And fifth, if we admit a succession from apostle to bishop and (from) Jerusalem to Rome, then there would be a decrease in authority, due to the unique place of the Apostle and of Jerusalem. Rome, however, has claimed more authority that Peter or Jerusalem ever claimed. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The last concern that the Orthodox have is with the Roman presupposition that the authoritative role of the Papacy always existed from ancient times. To demonstrate the novelty of this idea I cite the ancient witness of Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), one of the greatest of the Popes. Pope Gregory was concerned that the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Faster, had accepted the title of Ecumenical (or Universal) Patriarch. He condemned any such title for the following reasons. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]First, anyone who would use such a title would have fallen into pride, equal to the anti-Christ. He wrote: “I say it without [/FONT]

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/maxwell_peter.htm

keep these sources in your favs I think they are worth while...

At least now we are balanced eh??

[/FONT][/FONT]​

[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Philothei]

at least according to Rome?

Does this looks like you will find out what it was to Rome? Sorry for be abrupt but we are stating what the EO fathers thought in context ... I am not talking about the Pope. You figure it out... Why it took the Pope so many centuries to find out he is has primacy? and even infallability? All these early "quotes" you find are just slanted information given to justify the Papacy and Papal superiority over the Christiandom of East and West. It was realized ...as such when Rome and its Patriarch was elevated into a secular leader... what a shocking fact... indeed...

 

[Musa80]

Does this looks like you will find out what it was to Rome? Sorry for be abrupt but we are stating what the EO fathers thought in context ... I am not talking about the Pope. You figure it out... Why it took the Pope so many centuries to find out he is has primacy? and even infallability? All these early "quotes" you find are just slanted information given to justify the Papacy and Papal superiority over the Christiandom of East and West. It was realized ...as such when Rome and its Patriarch was elevated into a secular leader... what a shocking fact... indeed...

You're apparently missing the entire point of my post. Oh well. It appears this thread really isn't going to go anywhere.

 

[Philothei]

good arguments that don't twist and bend history into ugly distortions.

You want to see good arguments? read the fathers from top to bottom... Then you will realize that the twisting did not take place in the east ... We hardly have a Pope... of our own cause such ecclesiology was contrary to the spirit of the church... Where do you see ugly distrortion? The quote was talking about PEter again not the Pope... a fact that RC choses to overlook and in some cases to distort

 

[Barky]

To me here's the bottom line:

The pope did not take actions correlating to the position he claims to have now until 1054. Up until that point he acted as another Bishop in the church. Now, why in the world did the switch get flipped to "Universal Pope Guy" in 1054? To me, it seems obvious that he simply didn't see himself that way and others didn't see him that way.

 

[Constantine_Orthodox]

the Pope and his supporters didn't talk about his political power, but about Christ's words to Peter - You are the rock and upon this rock I will build My Church. The argument for the Papacy was theological, not just politics.

In NT Greek Mat. 16:18: καγώ δέ σοι λέγω ότι σύ εί Πέτρος, καί επί ταύτη τη πέτρα οικοδομήσω μου τήν εκκλησίαν, καί πύλαι άδου ου κατισχύσουσιν αυτής.
The word πέτρα is about the Confession that Peter made previous verses before: Mat. 16:16: αποκριθείς δέ Σίμων Πέτρος είπε. σύ εί ο Χριστός ο υιός τού Θεού του ζώντος.
It seems very strange to me that Christ would built his Church upon a fallible person, rather than upon the confession that He is the Son of the living God!!

 

[Constantine_Orthodox]

Sorry, I didn't read the posts before, that this was already answered by my co-named brother!!!

 

[E.C.]

I don't think this is supported by the ECFs though..

Tertullian

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Tertulian and Origen I believer were regarded as heretics or some other not-so-honorable title.

The problem here is that Rome started looking at this verse in its need for supremacy justification. Why does Christ say this to Peter? Because Peter said "You are the Son of the living God". Now, I'm no expert of Bible verses or ECF quotes, but I can not recall any other Apostle declaring "You are the Son of the living God". That is the "rock" of the Church. That is where Christianity all begins and that is where Christianity shall have its source and that confession of "You are the Son of the living God" is the foundation of the Church. Do the Jews say "You are the Son of the living God"? Nope. Do the Muslims say "You are the Son of the living God"? Nope. Do the Bahai, Druze, pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos and etc say "You are the Son of the living God"? Nope!

That is the basis of Christianity! That is the foundation of the Church! That is what makes Christianity Christianity! Not where a mere mortal's chair was be it in Rome, Seattle, Constantinople or even Antartica. Rome was important during the Roman Empire, thus that is why its bishop was allowed primacy of honor among the bishops.

as for the linguistics..originally it was in Aramaic.. and then when they translated to Greek, they couldn't use the word "rock" cause it was a feminine word so they made it masculine for Peter's name. But in the original language, Christ said.. you are the rock and on this rock I'll build My Church. The early Church really seems to agree here.

"Petros" and "petras" sound a lot alike to me.

that's liturgical style, not dogma.

Liturgical style affects dogma. Vatican II did away with the habits of nuns and now the Roman Church is facing a shortage of nuns. Vatican II did away with how a priest is supposed to dress when on the street which made a priest noticable, now the Roman Church is facing a shortage of priests.

What else has changed? The Roman Church is now split into three major camps: traditionalists who wish to do away with Vatican II, conservatives who wish for things to remain as they are and liberals who wish to become like Protestants! Tell me that won't affect dogma and/or doctrine. Even when I was still a Roman Catholic there were calls for a female priesthood and with things fractured among the people and the leadership I fear that that may happen with the Roman Church which would then make it... "Anglican" (not meaning to offend any observing Anglicans here - just the liberal steps which parts of Anglicanism take).

To me here's the bottom line:

The pope did not take actions correlating to the position he claims to have now until 1054. Up until that point he acted as another Bishop in the church. Now, why in the world did the switch get flipped to "Universal Pope Guy" in 1054? To me, it seems obvious that he simply didn't see himself that way and others didn't see him that way.

*cough*Charlemagne!*cough*

In NT Greek Mat. 16:18: καγώ δέ σοι λέγω ότι σύ εί Πέτρος, καί επί ταύτη τη πέτρα οικοδομήσω μου τήν εκκλησίαν, καί πύλαι άδου ου κατισχύσουσιν αυτής.
The word πέτρα is about the Confession that Peter made previous verses before: Mat. 16:16: αποκριθείς δέ Σίμων Πέτρος είπε. σύ εί ο Χριστός ο υιός τού Θεού του ζώντος.
It seems very strange to me that Christ would built his Church upon a fallible person, rather than upon the confession that He is the Son of the living God!!

Well spoken, fellow Constantine!

(great name, BTW )

 

[Philothei]

that's liturgical style, not dogma.

or shall we say "lex orandi est lex crudendi"?

 

[Philothei]

Please don't take my arguments as pro-Papacy or hostile. I'm just working this out for myself and want to see good arguments that don't twist and bend history into ugly distortions. That said, everyone keeps asking for evidence that the Papacy existed or at least was conceived of prior to the schism. The quote shows quite clearly that, at least the Pope thought so, and quite early on. Am I to believe that it took the East 600+ years to say WTH to that kind of a statement? Or should I assume that both West and East knew full well what the thought was, at least according to Rome?

Also I apologize Intercisus... since I found this from my notes on Damascus I....


You're right for that Damascus...I....

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']This proves that the papacy did not exist in the 4th century, but indeed the roots are being laid for this innovation.

In 381 a.d. in the Second Ecumenical Council was passed canon 3, which elevated the bishop of the city of Constantinople to a Patriarchate. Constantinople was given the second place after Rome and dropping Alexandria to the third spot and Antioch to the fourth.

Pope Damasus concerned with his political power within Christendom, immediately began calling Rome "the Apostolic See". The phrase "The Apostolic See" commonly used for Rome was invented by Pope Damasus immediately following the passage of Canon 3 at the Second Ecumenical Council. (you can look this up in any encyclopedia)



Pope Damasus simply wanted to preserve canon 6 of Nicea, and attempt to elevate his own See in the process. When Constantinople was made a Patriarchate by canon 3 it was done so because it became "New Rome", but "Elder" Rome would continue in the first place because of her seniority.

If you continued reading this roman council's decree from where you left off, you will discover that Pope Damasus is the person who originated the "Petrine theory". This Petrine Theory was meant to safeguard Canon 6 of Nicea; by only recognizing as Patriarchates those Churches found by Peter. In Rome only Nicea was an ecumenical council and in that council only Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were recognized as such, all three Sees had the Apostle Peter in common.

The Council of Rome makes a comment or two on the martyrdom of Paul in Rome and goes on to say:

"Therefore first is the seat at the Roman Church of the Apostle Peter having no spot or wrinkle or any defect.

However the second place was given in the name of the blessed Peter to his disciple Mark, the gospel writer at Alexandria and who himself wrote down the word of truth directed by Peter the Apostle in Egypt and gloriously consumated his life in martyrdom.
Indeed the third place is held in Antioch of the most blessed and honorable Apostle Peter, who lived there before he came to Rome and where first the name of the new race of christians was heard."

The Second Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 381 a.d. was considered only regional, effective for only the eastern churches, however it became Ecumenical at Chalcedon in 451 a.d. proving false Pope Damasus assumptions and made his own local council in Rome obselete.
Since the time of Pope Damasus decree in the 382 a.d. toman council; Jerusalem was added to the 5th spot as a Patriarchate even though its the See of James the Lords Brother, and in the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon -Canon 28 gave Constantinople EQUAL priveleges as Rome but reaffirmed its second placed soley because of the seniority of honor.

I want to point out one more thing from the Council of Rome in 382. Something that the roman catholics no longer teach but is still held in Orthodoxy. This is the concept of "Catholicity". According to Modern Rome the church is catholic because it is Universal as headed by the pope.

But according to Pope Damasus he says:

"...Although all the CATHOLIC CHURCHES (plural) spread abroad thru the world compromises but one bridal chamber of Christ..." (caution- the roman apologetics machine is attemtping to remove this plural phrase from new translations)
Obviously the fullness of the Catholic church can be found on the local level. Each parish headed by a right believing bishop with apostolic succession partaking of the One Eucharist is the CATHOLIC CHURCH.[/FONT]




[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Here are the canons of the Ecumenical councils as pertaining to the discussion, Canons which are binding in both the east and west concerning the patriarchates:

Canon VI of Nicea 325 a.d:

[/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Medieval Sourcebook: Canons from Nicea 1, 325[/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']

Canon 3 of Constantinople 381 a.d.:

[/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library[/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']

Canon XXVIII (28) of Chalcedon: (very important wording, denies that Roman priveleges are from divine authority as the RC now claims, and these priveleges have been passed to Constantinople as well) scroll to canon 28:

[/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Medieval Sourcebook: Council of Chalcedon, 451[/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'][/FONT]


Hope that helps...

Philothei

 

[prodromos]

One of the things that struck me is how the early Fathers referred to the Church in Rome being established by Peter AND Paul, however it later appears that this did not fit well with establishing Rome's primacy based on Christ's words to Peter in Matt. 16:18 so Paul was 'quietly' dropped from the equation.
Actually, Paul was not quietly dropped, he was forcibly thrown out as was discovered by an unfortunate Franciscan monk in Spain. His discovery set in motion a painful spiritual journey which forced him to leave the Catholic Church, eventually leading him to Holy Orthodoxy.

My conversion to Orthodoxy began one day while I was reordering the Library catalogues of the monastery I belong to. This monastery belonged to the Franciscan order, founded in my country of Spain. While I was classifying different old articles concerning the Holy Inquisition, I happened to come across an article that was truly impressive, dating back to 1647. This article described a decision of the Holy Inquisition that anathematized as heretic any Christian who dared believe, accept or preach to others that he supported the apostolic validity of the Apostle Paul.
It was about a horrible finding that my mind could not comprehend. I immediately thought to calm my soul that perhaps it was due to a typographical error or due to some forgery, which was not so uncommon in the western Church of that time when the articles were written. However, my disturbance and my surprise became greater after researching and confirming that the decision of the Holy Inquisition that was referred to in the article was authentic. In fact already during two earlier occasions, namely in 1327 and 1331, the Popes John 22nd and Clemens 6th had condemned and anathematized any one who dared deny that the Apostle Paul during his entire apostolic life, was totally subordinate to the ecclesiastic monarchal authority of the first Pope and king of the Church, namely the Apostle Peter. And a lot later Pope Pius 10th, in 1907 and Benedict 15th, in 1920, had repeated the same anathemas and the same condemnations.​

Read the rest of his story here, Why I abandoned Papism by Hierodeacon Paul Ballaster-Convolier
The previous Franciscan monk who had turned to Orthodoxy was made title bearing bishop Nanzizian of the Holy Hierobishopric of North and South America with its seat in Mexico. There he was met with a martyric death, the confessor of the Orthodox faith, murdered by a 70 year old Mexican in 1984.

John

 

[prodromos]

I don't think this is supported by the ECFs though..

Tertullian

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

With all due respect Monica, you are back to posting quotes with no context. I don't mean for you to post the whole texts, just provide a link to the full texts so that those who wish to can read the quotes in context.

also, in the Bible whenever anyone's name was changed, it always had a deep significance. think of Abraham.

Explain the deep significance of Jesus naming James and John as Boanerges (Sons of Thunder).

as for the linguistics..originally it was in Aramaic.. and then when they translated to Greek, they couldn't use the word "rock" cause it was a feminine word so they made it masculine for Peter's name. But in the original language, Christ said.. you are the rock and on this rock I'll build My Church. The early Church really seems to agree here.

Archbishop Peter Kenrick of Saint Louis, who was one of America's extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings.

In his speech prepared for, but not delivered in, the Vatican Council, and published at Naples in 1870, he declares that Roman Catholics cannot establish the Petrine privilege from Scripture, because of the clause in the Creed of Pius IV, binding them to interpret Scripture only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

And he adds that there are five different patristic interpretations of St. Matt. 16:18

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 including Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Hillary, Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Leo the Great and Augustine.

2....That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock,
represented by Peter as its chief,
is taught by eight (8) Church Fathers including Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine and Theodoric.

3....That St. Peter's faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers including Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrose, Pope Leo the Great and Augustine.

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

5....That the rock is the whole body of the faithful.
Archbp. Kenrick gives no figure.​

Archbishop Kenrick summarises

"If we are bound to follow the greater number of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold for certain that the word "Petra" means not Peter professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter."​

Archbishop Kenrick had his findings and conclusion published in Naples in 1870 by the Typis fratrum de Angelis, with the title which he gave it of "Concio in Concilio Vaticano habenda at non habita." It was reprinted in Friedrich's "Documenta".

John

 

[prodromos]

2. Irenaeus.
For it is a matter of necessity
that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its
pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful every- where,
inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously
by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

You miss where Irenaeus explains the source of that pre- eminent authority. Because Rome was the capital of the empire, it was visited by people from all over the empire. Thus the faith was preserved by those Christians coming from all over the empire to Rome. The Church was under constant scrutiny by Christians traveling from afar.

John

 

[Reader Antonius]

Dear sister Monica,

I noticed everyone has a really good argument for their position.

Not really, it may sound good but ultimately it doesn't stand up well. Indeed I would say that the clear contradiction of the Fathers made by many EO here would have shown you that.

When I ask here, you give me all these facts etc.

No they don't, my sister. They merely reaffirm the positions that Catholic apologists....from the Dominicans of the 11th century to modern apologists like Vladimir Soloviev, Cardinal Newman, Patriarch Gregorios of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and All the East, and James Likoudis (among many others) have so excellently dealt with.

The truth is, history can be twisted either way, to support ANYTHING.

Don't fall for that. Can history be twisted? Yes, but not to support anything ESPECIALLY in the case of Patristic ideas on the Pope....as you yourself have shown so clearly here.

I'm just going to do what I've always done, and rely on prayer. Because honestly, history is rarely presented the way it actually happened. Many people want to make the Schism sound much more simple than it really was.

And many want to make the schism overly complicated in order to hide behind it as a justification for schism. Again and Again, God's Truth can be clearly found (if it is sought) and it has been found by many, many Protestants and Eastern Orthodox....often by great struggle.

The Fathers and the Scriptures and the testimony of history is never as complicated as schismatic groups tend to claim. Was the Great Schism complicated? Yes, in many ways........BUT was too complicated that we can simply stay in the East and wait until all the "bugs" are worked out OR should we pray, fast, and dilligently look to the Fathers and to the silent witness of history?

The Fathers stand on their testimony, and it is open for all to see, especially nowadays.

And in the end, you know as well as I do (or at least I pray that you can see...you have only begun to demostrate that evidence here...only begun to do so) that where the Holy Fathers of Christ's Church stand on this.

Also, do not forget the struggles of the Melkite Church of Antioch, or the Ukrainian martyrs who stood fast for the Apostolic Faith despite persecution from schismatic and/or infidel Turkish Emperors in order to stand as the Fathers did:

In union with the Primatial See in Rome and abiding by her judgement.

 

[Reader Antonius]

Well, hmmmmm, let's see, if:

1. Constantinople hadn't been sacked by the Latin.....(you know seating a prostitute on the Patriarchal Throne, doesn't cause warm fuzzies...)

2. At the so-called Council of Florence the Patriarch hadn't died under VERY mysterious circumstances, and the East had not had the Filioque shoved down their throats.......

3. The Croation Catholics hadn't murdered hundreds of Orthodox Serbians during WWII.....

4. Rome wasn't trying to convert Orthodox Faithful in Holy Mother Russia....

Maybe there wouldn't be any BAD BLOOD!

If this doesn't tell you the biggest reason why East and West still stand at odds (not to mention why the EO laity of the 15th century...much like the coming Protestantism...spurred near unanimous call of their bishops at Florence).

What would St. Paul say if he saw believers in Christ justifying schism by things like this?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

1...."That St. Peter is the Rock" is taught
by seventeen (17) Fathers including Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Hillary, Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Leo the Great and Augustine.
...

3....That St. Peter's faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers including Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrose, Pope Leo the Great and Augustine.

why are these mentioned twice? could it be that the "rock" is Peter AND his faith is that too? in different ways? why would Pope Leo and Augustine seem to teach both otherwise?

this is a sincere question.

 

[Lukaris]

But was not Constantinople formerly known also as Rome so where does this allegedly inherent exclusivity exist? Why were forged documents (like the alleged Donation of Constantine (9th c), incorrect doctrine (filioque), Frankish & Norman political intrigue to rejuvenate the discontinued institution of a Western Roman emperor etc. needed to give false justification & rationalisms to be attributed to ST Peter? The original intent gets lost in false justification.