Is this true?

[isshinwhat]

Excuse me?

When did Rome leave the Faith?

From the Orthodox perspective, it is the Catholic Church who is in schism, while we believ ethe Orthodox Church is in schism. Please respoect their POV while in the Orthodox Forum.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[Photini]

Some quotes. The one by St Ambrose really made me think.

St. Augustine (Homily X on John V. 1-3): "See what praises follow this faith. 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build this Church.' What meaneth, 'Upon this rock I will build My Church'? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock' saith He 'I will build My Church.'"

St. Ambrose ("On the Incarnation"): "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. Endeavor 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."

St. Jerome (6th book on Matthew): "Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rock. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named."

St. John Chrysostom (Homily LIV on Matthew XIV:13): "'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church', that is, on the faith of his confession."

 

[Maximus]

Photini -

The Fathers believed that BOTH St. Peter and his confession of faith were the "Rock."

I have already provided quotes to that effect. I can provide more from the same Fathers you quoted to show that St. Peter himself was the Rock.

Remember also that St. Peter and our Lord spoke Aramaic. Thus our Lord's words to St. Peter in Matthew 16:18 would have been like this:

"And I also say to you that you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build My Church . . ."

 

[Photini]

Maximus,
I know this.
Thank you for your patience with my ignorance.

in Christ,
photini, the Flea

 

[Philip]

Remember also that St. Peter and our Lord spoke Aramaic. Thus our Lord's words to St. Peter in Matthew 16:18 would have been like this:

"And I also say to you that you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build My Church . . ."

This is correct. The Aramaic kepha was translated to the Greek word petra (a large rock, like the Rock of Gibralter, not a peeble or stone). However, in the Greek languange, Petra is not an acceptable name for a male since it ends in a. To make it masculine, it was changed to Petros. Notice that the same transformation happened to the name of our Lord. The Aramaic Yashua was transliterated into the Greek Iesu. To make the name masculine, it became Iusus.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I am in no position to start getting all the sides at once like that. I am not attacking or anything...I mainly want to understand and become firmly grounded in the doctrines and teachings of my own church before I am confronted with arguments against it.

I have no problem with the honor due to St. Peter, only how that honor is interpreted. Does it really mean that his decendants have lordship and final authority over ALL the churches? I am not convinced of this, as there has yet to be any Scriptural or early Apostolic support of this.

So in short...at this point, I am not concerning myself with the Catholic understanding of the matter, but the Orthodox. I hope you can understand this. I know it is a touchy subject, that is why I really only want the Orthodox teachings for now...

I believe there are already threads in IDD as well as OBOB that hold the CC teachings on this. If I have any questions for you, I will respectfully ask them in OBOB. If we move this to IDD (which I beg the moderators not to do), then all the sudden views from every direction will flood the thread, and I will, in my weakness, become frustrated and learn nothing.

Brother, I hear what you are saying!

Having come from a site where hostility towards Catholicism and Orthodoxy is the norm, I greatly respect the way this site is set up.

However, it seems to me that it does not allow for the type of dialogue between Orthodox and Catholic that might be really beneficial, as we are not allowed to debate in each other's forums, and, as you said above, in the IDD all sorts of positions coming from all different directions can, and most probably would, flood the thread, especially one as volatile as this subject can become when opened to everyone.

I wonder if it is possible to suspend some rules for a particular thread, or that there may be considered a creation of a NEW forum to allow for specific discussion and debate BETWEEN Orthodox and Catholic only? . . it really seems to me that such discussion, free from the influence of beliefs outside the two groups, would be most beneficial and helpful.

Does anyone know if this has been proposed before or what this site's feelings on this issue would be?



Thanks!


Keep asking, seeking and praying about this issue Photini!

 

[Orthodox6]

I guess I misread something. I thought that non-Orthodox people could pose questions in this forum in order to learn what Orthodox Christians believe -- but that they would leave their rebuttals "at the door", so as to speak. I'm not complaining that hostilities are raging out of control. I just thought I could enjoy a respite from "combat", safely within this forum.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I guess I misread something. I thought that non-Orthodox people could pose questions in this forum in order to learn what Orthodox Christians believe -- but that they would leave their rebuttals "at the door", so as to speak. I'm not complaining that hostilities are raging out of control. I just thought I could enjoy a respite from "combat", safely within this forum.

Now I am confused!! Is there combat going on here? Did I miss something?

Did I do something wrong?


Peace in Him!

 

[Orthodox6]

Nothing "wrong" at all, Therese! I just scanned through the [long] thread, and wondered why it was here (for the reasons that I gave). Nobody is unkind in this thread. I'm sorry to have caused you discomfort.


BOOK: An easy-to-read (but well-written) book about these issues is "Two Paths: Papal Monarchism--Collegiate Tradition" by Michael Whelton [Regina Press]. I was impressed by the book. I also suspect that the book is quite accurate, for I understand that there were some vitriolic attacks made on the work in the Catholic press.

 

[Photini]

Nothing "wrong" at all, Therese! I just scanned through the [long] thread, and wondered why it was here (for the reasons that I gave). .

I originally started this thread to learn the ORTHODOX teaching and understanding regarding St. Peter. I have yet to find a really clear-cut answer. It is clear to me that the Fathers regarded the rock as both the confession of faith and the person of St. Peter, because any other understanding would be quite dualistic. However, my qualm is with the charge the the Fathers understood this place of St. Peter as taught by the Catholic Church today. Therefore, I am looking for the Orthodox answer on the matter, since I am ORthodox, and I naturally would ask in the Orthodox forum. I am sorry if I've disrupted the peace.


I found the following statement on another forum that i frequent, and thought it was good...
" Peter was considered by the early church to be a "prototype" of all bishops. All bishops shared in the episcopal ministry with Peter and were just as much bishops as Peter was bishop."

 

[Orthodox6]

http://www.reginaorthodoxpress.com is the commercial website for the book that I recommended. If you can borrow or buy a copy, I really do think well of it.

If this is a reassuring thought, Photini, Catholic authors are going to "interpret" the Holy Fathers in a way that will buttress their Catholic views. For example, an available version (text) of the Holy Fathers may be published by a Catholic press, thus have "Catholic" preface, footnotes, and bibliography. Although it is important to READ Catholic materials in order to understand where Catholics "are coming from,", it is best to LEARN from Orthodox writers.

Any misunderstanding of this thread is mine. I think I keyed into some post in the middle, written by someone whom I think was either Catholic or Byzantine Catholic, and that is what threw me.

 

[SonWorshipper]

This is correct. The Aramaic kepha was translated to the Greek word petra (a large rock, like the Rock of Gibralter, not a peeble or stone). However, in the Greek languange, Petra is not an acceptable name for a male since it ends in a. To make it masculine, it was changed to Petros. Notice that the same transformation happened to the name of our Lord. The Aramaic Yashua was transliterated into the Greek Iesu. To make the name masculine, it became Iusus.

Philip, Yeshua is Hebrew, it is the masculine of Yeshu'ah which is Hebrew for Salvation.

 

[SonWorshipper]

Photini, have you ever done a study on "the rock " in the Old testament? specifically the Torah? you may fnd it very interesting. G-d himself calls himself Rock, as does King David. It is not just an new testament thing.

 

[Maximus]

Orthodox6 -

I have Whelton's book and have read it twice. It's pretty good.

I also think that Church history and the Fathers are pretty plain that the Bishop of Rome held a kind of presidency within the College of Bishops.

There is nothing heterodox about acknowledging that. It is not the same thing as saying the popes were infallible and had absolute, universal jurisdiction.

 

[Maximus]

Here is something that should prove interesting.

It was from an early Arabic description of canons that were attributed to the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.

I understand from the article on I Nicea in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church that scholars consider only the first 20 canons to be authentic, but the article does not explain why, nor does it mention this early Arabic document.

Anyway, I post it here for your consideration. It is interesting at any rate.

CANON XXXIX.
Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.
Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; inasmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod.(1)

Does anybody know anything more about this Arabic document?

Is it legit? Was there such a canon? Or is it a late forgery, along the lines of the famous Donation of Constantine?

 

[MariaRegina]

Brother, I hear what you are saying!

Having come from a site where hostility towards Catholicism and Orthodoxy is the norm, I greatly respect the way this site is set up.

However, it seems to me that it does not allow for the type of dialogue between Orthodox and Catholic that might be really beneficial, as we are not allowed to debate in each other's forums, and, as you said above, in the IDD all sorts of positions coming from all different directions can, and most probably would, flood the thread, especially one as volatile as this subject can become when opened to everyone.

I wonder if it is possible to suspend some rules for a particular thread, or that there may be considered a creation of a NEW forum to allow for specific discussion and debate BETWEEN Orthodox and Catholic only? . . it really seems to me that such discussion, free from the influence of beliefs outside the two groups, would be most beneficial and helpful.

Does anyone know if this has been proposed before or what this site's feelings on this issue would be?

Thanks!

Keep asking, seeking and praying about this issue Photini!

Dear LittleFlower:

I am a recent convert from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy. I was educated at a Catholic College and spent three years in a monastery intensely studying the Catholic faith. I left the Catholic monastery because we were studying Buddhism. However, within Orthodoxy, I found a purer faith and have been helped tremendously in my spiritual walk. Father Lev Gillet (aka The Monk of the Eastern Church), may his memory be eternal, was also a convert from Roman Catholicism and likewise told his mom that he found a purer light within Orthodoxy. He was attracted to the holiness in the Divine Liturgy (Holy Mass) and so was I. We believe that the Divine Liturgy is heavenly worship and a foretaste of heaven on earth.

In the last three threads that we have had over at the OBOB on Orthodox-Catholic questions, each thread ultimately had to be closed by the moderators because of misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and uncharitable twisting of other people's words. Basically the root of the problem was pride. These misunderstandings when aired publicly are not good for naive beginners in the Christian walk who are looking for the truth.

Unfortunately, sinners that we are, we fail to keep our eyes on the Lord. We have all been guilty of that, because whenever we focus on getting "our" point across or putting some poor misguided soul in his/her place, then we ourselves miss the mark and sin. We must stop and ask ourselves, "Would Jesus say this?" Is what I am writing going to lead a person closer to God? Or will it just make him angry? That is the whole problem with debating. While someone appears to win an argument, someone else is made to appear stupid. Is this Christian behavior?

I come away from reading such arguments with a desire to retire to a hermitage.

There are three things that I will absolutely not argue with Catholics:
1. Birth control/natural family planning
2. Divorce/annulments
3. Papal powers and Papal infallibility.

I hope other readers will also see that such debates on the above subjects are best left to the clerics, because uncharitable and untrue things are said on both sides due to some basic misunderstandings and pride. Hopefully, our educated and experienced clergy can meet in their episcopal committees and be more charitable than we have been.

Lord, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us and save us.

Yours in Christ our God,
Elizabeth

 

[thereselittleflower]

Hi Elizabeth

I want to thank you for your response . . . I understand what you are saying . . and I agree there are misunderstandings on both sides . . having experience in both, I feel connected to both, I can't explain this very well, but I do . .

I don't want to debate, I just wish we could share, without debate . .debate is a negative word in a sense, When people debate, they are participating in a form of arguement, and the winner of a debate is often not who was most right but who presents their position best . .

I wish we could simply share . . . I think this hurts more than any division between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy. I feel this very keenly, espsically after reading some posts . . .

I wish there was a place where I could not only ask a question of those who are embracing Orthodoxy, or vica versa, but continue to discuss those answers for more clarification, etc . . but not to argue . . . there are topics I would not only like to ask a question about, but go much deeper into the responses with those who respond as well . . . from what I understand, that can't be done right now, is that right?

Is there really that much hostility that it can't be done?

This makes me very sad if true . . .


Peace in Him!

 

[MariaRegina]

I wish we could simply share . . . I think this hurts more than any division between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy. I feel this very keenly, espsically after reading some posts . . .

I wish there was a place where I could not only ask a question of those who are embracing Orthodoxy, or vica versa, but continue to discuss those answers for more clarification, etc . . but not to argue . . . there are topics I would not only like to ask a question about, but go much deeper into the responses with those who respond as well . . . from what I understand, that can't be done right now, is that right?

Is there really that much hostility that it can't be done?

Peace in Him!

Dear LittleFlower:

No there isn't really that must hostility ... just a lot of pride and ignorance.
You seem reasonable but there are a lot of guys out there that are very macho. They just have to win and put people down. If we could just forget our ego and let God take over. ... That would be heaven on earth...

Good night and God bless you.

Lovingly in Christ our God,
Elizabeth

 

[Photini]

Here is something that should prove interesting.

It was from an early Arabic description of canons that were attributed to the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.

I understand from the article on I Nicea in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church that scholars consider only the first 20 canons to be authentic, but the article does not explain why, nor does it mention this early Arabic document.

Anyway, I post it here for your consideration. It is interesting at any rate.

Does anybody know anything more about this Arabic document?

Is it legit? Was there such a canon? Or is it a late forgery, along the lines of the famous Donation of Constantine?

Maximus,
Are there any other instances or examples of the very early Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea or soon thereafter using the term "Vicar of Christ"? I thought that was a rather later development by the RCC.

 

[Philip]

Are there any other instances or examples of the very early Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea or soon thereafter using the term "Vicar of Christ"? I thought that was a rather later development by the RCC.

The Canon that Maximus cited may or may not be from the Council of Nicea. There is debate as to whether or not it is authentic.