Peter Is Not The Rock!

[LittleLambofJesus]

I Want To See Him High And Lifted Up;
Standing In The Light Of His Glory

John 12:34 The crowd answered Him, "We have heard out of the Law that the Christ remains into the Age, and how thou say, 'The Son of the Man must be lifted up/exalted/uywqhnai <5312> (5683)'? Who-any is this the Son of the Man?"

Reve 14:14 And I saw and Behold! a cloud, white and upon the cloud One-sitting like-as a Son of a Man,having upon of the head of him a crown, golden and in the hand of him,a sickle, sharp/keen. [see Romans 3:15]

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Is there any evidence that historically this has been the way of the church?

You mentioned this verse:
Act 15:22 ¶Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

First of all, the whole church here is that in Jerusalem, correct, as they were sending men to Antioch (also part of the church) to tell them the decision of the apostles and elders. There is nothing in Acts 15 that indicates any besides the apostles and elders were involved in the decision making, and they certainly weren't sending these men to Antioch to ask their 'okay' about what was decided. They firmly told them the decision and what they needed to do. Acts 15 -- 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. 29 Farewell. 30 The men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message.

I must agree with Anglian on this when he says:
But this is one of those places where OO and EO divide. We do not hold that all Christians must agree to the decision of a Council before it can be received, because such a condition has never been met and never could be met. Even Nicaea itself was not accepted everywhere by all for a very long time.

So where in the historical church do you see this concept actually being enacted and nothing can change without the agreement of all?

Think about this for a minute. My Church IS The Church of Antioch established in 34AD. Our Parent Church is Jerusalem. Antioch is her first child and has always remained in communion with her.

Is the Church's birthday not Pentecost? How many people were added just that day alone?

Perhaps you do not know the history of these Ancient Churches because you do not belong to them. I'm not asking questions here, I'm telling you what these Churches teach.

Forgive me...

 

[narnia59]

Think about this for a minute. My Church IS The Church of Antioch established in 34AD. Our Parent Church is Jerusalem. Antioch is her first child and has always remained in communion with her.

Is the Church's birthday not Pentecost? How many people were added just that day alone?

Perhaps you do not know the history of these Ancient Churches because you do not belong to them. I'm not asking questions here, I'm telling you what these Churches teach.

Forgive me...

They teach that when these men were dispatched to Antioch with the decision of the Council of Jerusalem it was to obtain the acceptance of the teaching from every Christian in Antioch? And that even if one had said "no, I don't believe that is correct" then the decision would have been nullified?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

They teach that when these men were dispatched to Antioch with the decision of the Council of Jerusalem it was to obtain the acceptance of the teaching from every Christian in Antioch? And that even if one had said "no, I don't believe that is correct" then the decision would have been nullified?

Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.

You are supposing what could have happened, however that is not what did happen. There have been plenty who have fallen away but there is only one root and that is Jerusalem. We are either in communion with her or we are not. The Church starts at the root. Christ planted it, not us.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

You speak of the history of The Church as if it is abstract. Something far away and lost. The Church of Antioch still exists and has never lost her history, she speaks of her own life, not of history in abstract. Do you honestly expect her not to teach more from her own history than just what is written in the book of ACTS? Or do you suppose that is all there is to her? Nothing else? No two thousand years of history? Or is it that you just doubt her validity?

Forgive me...

 

[narnia59]

Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.

You are supposing what could have happened, however that is not what did happen. There have been plenty who have fallen away but there is only one root and that is Jerusalem. We are either in communion with her or we are not. The Church starts at the root. Christ planted it, not us.

Forgive me...

I'm sorry, but you're really not answering my question. It seems now you're sayng that if someone had not agreed with the decision, then they would have 'fallen away'?

 

[narnia59]

You speak of the history of The Church as if it is abstract. Something far away and lost. The Church of Antioch still exists and has never lost her history, she speaks of her own life, not of history in abstract. Do you honestly expect her not to teach more from her own history than just what is written in the book of ACTS? Or do you suppose that is all there is to her? Nothing else? No two thousand years of history? Or is it that you just doubt her validity?

Forgive me...

I do not doubt her validity. I am simply trying to understand the claim you have made that no church council is valid, no doctrine is acceptable unless every individual member of the church accepts it as true. I am looking for the historical basis for this claim, and thusfar I haven't seen anything that confirms that.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Is there nothing that The Church of Rome can learn from her older siblings? Is nothing that The Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch teach worth knowing? Does The Church of Rome know everything? The Church that does not speak Greek nor Aramaic?

How is it that there were five major Patriarchates of the first 1000 years of The Church and Rome came away with all the knowledge and Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Contantinople are left stupid and ignorant of the deposit of faith and Truth left in Jerusalem and destributed from there as Christ said?

Was not Peter James and John all taught the highest of things by Christ himself? Was it not James who was left in charge of Jerusalem?

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I'm sorry, but you're really not answering my question. It seems now you're sayng that if someone had not agreed with the decision, then they would have 'fallen away'?

Many have left. Even many of the deciples of Christ left when he told them they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. That has no effect on The Church. It still remains.

Forgive me...

 

[narnia59]

Is there nothing that The Church of Rome can learn from her older siblings? Is nothing that The Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch teach worth knowing? Does The Church of Rome know everything? The Church that does not speak Greek nor Aramaic?

How is it that there were five major Patriarchates of the first 1000 years of The Church and Rome came away with all the knowledge and Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Contantinople are left stupid and ignorant of the deposit of faith and Truth left in Jerusalem and destributed from there as Christ said?

Was not Peter James and John all taught the highest of things by Christ himself? Was it not James who was left in charge of Jerusalem?

Forgive me...

Other than the fact that I haven't said or implied any of these things (nor is that the Catholic view at all), you still haven't answered my question -- where in church history do we see that each individual member of the church must accept a doctrine before it is valid?

And originally there were only 3 Patriarchs, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch I believe? And is not the original church of Antioch part of the Oriental Orthodox?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I do not doubt her validity. I am simply trying to understand the claim you have made that no church council is valid, no doctrine is acceptable unless every individual member of the church accepts it as true. I am looking for the historical basis for this claim, and thusfar I haven't seen anything that confirms that.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npn...ght=seven,ecumenical,councils,popes#highlight


Where are the Churches that have not accepted the Seven Ecumenical councils? Are they not The Churches who are not in communion with Jerusalem and all the other Orthodox Churches with her?

Your version of history is of your own choosing. I cannot change what Rome teaches. Perhaps you can.

Forgive me...

 

[narnia59]

Many have left. Even many of the deciples of Christ left when he told them they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. That has no effect on The Church. It still remains.

Forgive me...

I do not see how you can express the view that unless each member accepts the decision of a church council it is not valid, but then say that those who did not accept them have fallen away?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Other than the fact that I haven't said or implied any of these things (nor is that the Catholic view at all), you still haven't answered my question -- where in church history do we see that each individual member of the church must accept a doctrine before it is valid?

And originally there were only 3 Patriarchs, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch I believe? And is not the original church of Antioch part of the Oriental Orthodox?

There are five and no we are not Oriental Orthodox.

The true Church of Antioch is headquartered in Damascus on the street called Straight (ACTS 9). There are others who call themselves by the name but none of them are the Church who's first Bishop was Peter.

Forgive me...

 

[narnia59]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npn...ght=seven,ecumenical,councils,popes#highlight


Where are the Churches that have not accepted the Seven Ecumenical councils? Are they not The Churches who are not in communion with Jerusalem and all the other Orthodox Churches with her?

Your version of history is of your own choosing. I cannot change what Rome teaches. Perhaps you can.

Forgive me...

My version of history is one that really tries to look at all sides. For example, in the view of the OO there have not been seven at all.

I do not see anything in this document that indicates every individual must accept. Surely, when speaking of the 'whole church' -- does that mean each individual? Because if so, someone cannot said to have become 'fallen away' if they disagree, and without evidence that each individual agreed on these seven, then no council is valid.

But can you explain how these two things from the document make sense? First, it says that:

An Ecumenical Synod may be defined as a synod the decrees of which have found acceptance by the Church in the whole world.

Then it proceeds to say this:

2. The Second Ecumenical Council was called together by the Emperor without the knowledge of the Roman Pontiff. Nor was he invited to be present. Its first president was not in communion at the time of its session with the Roman Church. And, without any recourse to the first of all the patriarchs, it passed a canon changing the order of the patriarchates, and setting the new see of Constantinople in a higher place than the other ancient patriarchates, in fact immediately after Rome. Of course Protestants will consider this a matter of very minor importance, looking upon all patriarchal divisions and rank and priority (the Papacy included) as of a disciplinary character and as being jure ecclesiastico, and in no way affecting doctrine, but any fair reading of the third canon of this synod would seem plainly to assert that as the first rank of Rome rested upon the fact of its being the capital city, so the new capital city should have the second rank. If this interpretation is correct it affects very materially the Roman claim of jure divino primacy.

Isn't is a little contradictory to espouse that every individual has to agree before a council is ecumenical but think that you can have a council without even inviting the western half of the church and that's perfectly okay?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I do not see how you can express the view that unless each member accepts the decision of a church council it is not valid, but then say that those who did not accept them have fallen away?

I am sorry... It is part of the Greek speaking Church.

We, the laity elect our Priests, we elect our Bishops, they are then trained by the Priesthood and are presented to us and we pronounce them AXIOS! AXIOS! AXIOS!

We also have the authority to recal them. The Holy Spirit speaks through the whole Church.

Do you know why we have not had a council that we consider Ecumenical since 787? It's because Rome is missing from the council. We will not be able to have one without her. We can have Pan-Orthodox councils, synod councils but without all the Patriarchates we can not very easily have an Ecumenical council.

And yes, it takes concensus from all The Churches to pronounce it Ecumenical. That is the Orthodox way.

Forgive me...

 

[narnia59]

There are five and no we are not Oriental Orthodox.

The true Church of Antioch is headquartered in Damascus on the street called Straight (ACTS 9). There are others who call themselves by the name but none of them are the Church who's first Bishop was Peter.

Forgive me...

There were originally only 3, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. And I believe that two of the original three (Alexandria and Antioch) did not accept the council of Chalcedon (which by your definition means it cannot be valid) and broke away forming the Oriental Orthodox.

 

[narnia59]

I am sorry... It is part of the Greek speaking Church.

We, the laity elect our Priests, we elect our Bishops, they are then trained by the Priesthood and are presented to us and we pronounce them AXIOS! AXIOS! AXIOS!

We also have the authority to recal them. The Holy Spirit speaks through the whole Church.

Do you know why we have not had a council that we consider Ecumenical since 787? It's because Rome is missing from the council. We will not be able to have one without her. We can have Pan-Orthodox councils, synod councils but without all the Patriarchates we can not very easily have an Ecumenical council.

And yes, it takes concensus from all The Churches to pronounce it Ecumenical. That is the Orthodox way.

Forgive me...

According to the article you provided Rome was missing from the second as well, as in not even invited to the table.

And the original Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch were not at the other 4.

And I'm still looking for anything historical that says concensus from all The Churches means every individual?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

My version of history is one that really tries to look at all sides. For example, in the view of the OO there have not been seven at all.

I do not see anything in this document that indicates every individual must accept. Surely, when speaking of the 'whole church' -- does that mean each individual? Because if so, someone cannot said to have become 'fallen away' if they disagree, and without evidence that each individual agreed on these seven, then no council is valid.

But can you explain how these two things from the document make sense? First, it says that:

An Ecumenical Synod may be defined as a synod the decrees of which have found acceptance by the Church in the whole world.

Then it proceeds to say this:

2. The Second Ecumenical Council was called together by the Emperor without the knowledge of the Roman Pontiff. Nor was he invited to be present. Its first president was not in communion at the time of its session with the Roman Church. And, without any recourse to the first of all the patriarchs, it passed a canon changing the order of the patriarchates, and setting the new see of Constantinople in a higher place than the other ancient patriarchates, in fact immediately after Rome. Of course Protestants will consider this a matter of very minor importance, looking upon all patriarchal divisions and rank and priority (the Papacy included) as of a disciplinary character and as being jure ecclesiastico, and in no way affecting doctrine, but any fair reading of the third canon of this synod would seem plainly to assert that as the first rank of Rome rested upon the fact of its being the capital city, so the new capital city should have the second rank. If this interpretation is correct it affects very materially the Roman claim of jure divino primacy.

Isn't is a little contradictory to espouse that every individual has to agree before a council is ecumenical but think that you can have a council without even inviting the western half of the church and that's perfectly okay?

The Chuch of Rome accepted all seven of these Ecumenical councils, mostly after the fact, just like the rest of us.

These councils were called, and decisions made. Then these Bishops returned to their Churches and the local Churches ratified their decisions.

A council is not Ecumenical until it has been accepted and ratified. If there is no concensus then they work to understand why not. Nothing is ratified without the whole. MANY councils have gone unratified and never made it to Ecumenical status.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

There were originally only 3, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. And I believe that two of the original three (Alexandria and Antioch) did not accept the council of Chalcedon (which by your definition means it cannot be valid) and broke away forming the Oriental Orthodox.

Incorrect.

You left out Jerusalem and Constatinople.

I can not answer for the OO.

Forgive me...

 

[narnia59]

Incorrect.

You left out Jerusalem and Constatinople.

I can not answer for the OO.

Forgive me...

Wiki on the Patriarch of Alexandria:

At first the position was an Episcopate, which was revered as one of the three most ancient Episcopates, along with Rome and Antioch, a century before Jerusalem or Constantinopole attained that status in 381; the five subsequently came to be known as the Pentarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Alexandria