Peter Is Not The Rock!

[narnia59]

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...

How did the 4th one then become Ecumenical if the Patriarchs of Alexander and Antioch did not ratify it? Yet the Emporer decided this what what he wanted, so he ordered them replaced, did he not?

 

[beamishboy]

Hi OrthodoxyUSA,

Is it true that EO does not consider OO as Orthodox? I read that once on the internet but it could be wrong. Not everything on the net is true.

 

[narnia59]

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...

The Church of Rome never accepted all the canons....


Already from 382 onwards, in the synodical letter of the synod which met at Constantinople, the council of Constantinople was given the title of "ecumenical". The word denotes a general and plenary council. But the council of Constantinople was criticised and censured by Gregory of Nazianzus. In subsequent years it was hardly ever mentioned. In the end it achieved its special status when the council of Chalcedon, at its second session and in its definition of the faith, linked the form of the creed read out at Constantinople with the Nicene form, as being a completely reliable witness of the authentic faith. The fathers of Chalcedon acknowledged the authority of the canons -- at least as far as the eastern church was concerned -- at their sixteenth session. The council's dogmatic authority in the western church was made clear by words of Pope Gregory I: "I confess that I accept and venerate the four councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon) in the same way as I do the four books of the holy Gospel...."
The bishop of Rome's approval was not extended to the canons, because they were never brought "to the knowledge of the apostolic see''. Dionysius Exiguus knew only of the first four -- the ones to be found in the western collections. Pope Nicholas I wrote of the sixth canon to Emperor Michael III: "It is not found among us, but is said to be in force among you''.


http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum02.htm

 

[narnia59]

That would be incorporated in the second principle: We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus.

Faith in Jesus would require some understanding of Jesus and his Godhead within the Holy Trinity.

So now we're up to a belief in the Trinity as well as these other two

Originally Posted by beamishboy

1. The redemptive death of Jesus on the cross.
2. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

These are really the "corest" of the core principles.

​

What about the nature of Christ? Do you have to believe that Christ is fully man and God -- one person with two natures?

 

[narnia59]

Actually OrthodoxyUSA, here's another discussion I had on the Orthodox forum about a similar topic, and was told this:

Any Church can claim they reject this or that but this is simply false. Rome did indeed accept Constantinople as a Patriarchate. Pope Gregory called Constantinople a patriarch and many other popes. That Rome had any authority to reject canons of an ecumenical council is the lies of the current papacy. In fact if Rome truly rejected these canons the emperor would have simply deposed that pope by force and would of placed a pope which agreed with the canons, the emperor was the person who enforced the canons passed.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7236731

So which is the correct Orthodox view? That for a council to be ecumenical it had to be accepted by the whole church, or that it was irrelevant if the Western church agreed or not -- the emporer and the East would simply do whatever it wished?

 

[sunlover1]

So it is not necessary to have the same belief in the nature of Christ, as in you don't have to believe he is God?

Necessary to what? Salvation?

 

[Rhamiel]

for communion, to say you have the same faith. I do not judge who is saved and who is not, but I can say if a teaching something is christian or orthodox

 

[sunlover1]

for communion, to say you have the same faith. I do not judge who is saved and who is not, but I can say if a teaching something is christian or orthodox

Hi Rhamiel! Been a long time. I hope things are going well for
you this semester, (nuff said )
I have no problem having communion with someone who is unsure
of the relationship between God/Jesus/HolySpirit.
To be honest, no man truly understands it as you can see when
reading historical discussions/decisions concerning the matter.

Scripture dictates that one must believe on Jesus Christ, that He
is Lord, but to make someone say that Jesus is God, until/unless
they themselves come to that conclusion through Scripture/revelation,
is imo unnecessary. Personally I went for a few years (recently) trying
to prove it to myself.
I didnt want to believe it just because i was told to, but rather wanted
to 'taste and see' for myself.
Didnt wanna call Jesus "God" if it werent so you know?
As it turns out, I think that He is, and I do, but it wasnt until I
was pretty settled on it that I'd say so. I raised a LOT of eyebrows
having the nerve to question the trinity doctrine.

 

[Rick Otto]

Follow the two greatest commandments.

 

[sunlover1]

Follow the two greatest commandments.

Yeah, so far, that's been plenty hard enough without trying to
'understand' everything perfectly lol.

btw, hey there

 

[Rick Otto]

yo.
Keep it simple.
2 commandments.
People that never heard the gospel can do it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

yo.
Keep it simple.
2 commandments.
People that never heard the gospel can do it.

So simple even a child can understand

Proverbs 25:22 For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and YHWH shall reward thee. [Romans 12:20]

Luke 6:35 Morely be loving thine enemies, and be doing good, and be lending, nothing expecting, and shall be the wages of ye much, and ye shall be sons of Most-High, that He good/kind upon the ungrateful and wicked. [Proverbs 25:22/Romans 12:20]

Romans 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. [Prove 25:22]

 

[Rick Otto]

So simple even a child can understand

Amen. So self-evidently crystal clear that it only needs to be ratified by a clear conscience.

 

[Rhamiel]

Sunlover

Scripture dictates that one must believe on Jesus Christ, that He
is Lord, but to make someone say that Jesus is God, until/unless
they themselves come to that conclusion through Scripture/revelation,
is imo unnecessary.

What does it mean for Jesus to be Lord? the Muslims think he is a very important prophet and was born of a virgin, but they do not think Jesus is God. So they are not christian
One reason I like the Nicene Creed, it sums up the basic beliefs of christians

 

[Anglian]

Dear Narnia, Dear OrthodoxyUSA,

The Oriental Orthodox do, indeed, recognise only three councils as ecumenical; the others we consider local councils whose decisions are binding on those that accept them.

On Antioch, the Syriac Orthodox Church, which still uses Aramaic and which also operates out of Damascus also lists its patriarchs from St. Peter. I'm not sure where a discussion over the age of the various Patriarchates would get us, except that Constantinople and Moscow would be way down anyone's list on account of their relatively late origin. The ancient Church paid Rome a primacy of honour, and for anyone with any sense of the history of the Faith, being out out communion with the Church founded by Sts. Peter and Paul is always something to be regretted.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Sunlover
What does it mean for Jesus to be Lord? the Muslims think he is a very important prophet and was born of a virgin, but they do not think Jesus is God. So they are not christian
One reason I like the Nicene Creed, it sums up the basic beliefs of christians

Well, 2 outta 3 ain't bad and still more than the Jews believe

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7283257
How was Jesus like unto Moses?

Deut 18:18 A Prophet I will raise-up/06965 quwm to them from within brothers of them like thee.
And I give My words in His mouth, and He speaks to them all which I shall instruct/command Him.
19 And becomes the man who not is listening to My words which He shall speak in My name, I shall require from with him. [Acts 3:22/Acts 7:37]

Acts 3:22 For Moses indeed toward the fathers saying: 'That a prophet to ye shall be raising-up/standing-up/ana-sthsei <450> (5692), Lord the God of ye, out of the brothers of ye as me. Of Him ye shall be hearing/akousesqe according to all as much as ever He should be speaking toward ye. [Deut 18:18,19]

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

I take your point about following the word of God, but did you ever come across a Christian who claimed to be doing anything else?

That's where our difficulty can arise. We all read the word of God, but, as this little discussion over the Petrine verses shows, we do not all read it in the same way. The problem arises when someone says not only that his or her intepretation is right, but the only right one; that person arrogates to themselves a power that not even the Pope in Rome claims, namely personal infallibility.

The Orthodox and the Catholics would say that we need someone or something to turn to when individuals differ; historically this has been the elders, as we see as far back as the Acts of the Apostles. The Church, founded by Christ, who wrote no book, is inspired by the Spirit, and it established the canon of Scripture through its reception by the faithful, and the writings of the Fathers; it also expresses the faith of the people through its ancient liturgies. Here we have not simply our own reading, but the reading of the faithful down the ages; we give, if you like, the Church invisible a vote as well as the Church visible.

That, of course, still does not, as we have seen, guarantee unity, but since the Orthodox and the Catholics receive different Councils, that is not, perhaps, altogether surprising.

Of course, in the final resort we all rely upon our conscience, and I should have expressed that a lot better; but relying solely upon our own reading exposes us to the risk that our prideful nature may mislead us.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

I take your point about following the word of God, but did you ever come across a Christian who claimed to be doing anything else?

That's where our difficulty can arise. We all read the word of God, but, as this little discussion over the Petrine verses shows, we do not all read it in the same way. The problem arises when someone says not only that his or her intepretation is right, but the only right one; that person arrogates to themselves a power that not even the Pope in Rome claims, namely personal infallibility.

The Orthodox and the Catholics would say that we need someone or something to turn to when individuals differ; historically this has been the elders, as we see as far back as the Acts of the Apostles. The Church, founded by Christ, who wrote no book, is inspired by the Spirit, and it established the canon of Scripture through its reception by the faithful, and the writings of the Fathers; it also expresses the faith of the people through its ancient liturgies. Here we have not simply our own reading, but the reading of the faithful down the ages; we give, if you like, the Church invisible a vote as well as the Church visible.

That, of course, still does not, as we have seen, guarantee unity, but since the Orthodox and the Catholics receive different Councils, that is not, perhaps, altogether surprising.

Of course, in the final resort we all rely upon our conscience, and I should have expressed that a lot better; but relying solely upon our own reading exposes us to the risk that our prideful nature may mislead us.

Peace,

Anglian

The fact that the Orthodox and RCs while claiming to have the apostles whispering in their ears and yet continue to be at loggerheads shows quite clearly that following the dictates of one man or a group of men isn't so good either. Not just the differences between RCs and Orthodox; EOs in a website I think I have shown you before, my dear Anglian, have made statements that OOs aren't Orthodox. I say let the NT speak for itself. We should be untrammelled by personal prejudices (that can be hard) or by habit (that proves even harder - as I have seen in some) and we should just let the NT do the talking in the light of the rest of Scriptures. We may still not agree on the details but at least we won't go so way off if we are so guided.

 

[beamishboy]

being out out communion with the Church founded by Sts. Peter and Paul is always something to be regretted.

In the first place, there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that the Roman church was founded by Peter and Paul. I don't want to go into the detail but there is in fact evidence to the contrary. Even if church X was founded by all 12 Apostles together who are martyred at the gateway of the church, I would not have communion in that church if the subsequent leaders strayed from the Apostles' teachings. There is nothing sacred about a place or a connection. The only thing sacred is its teachings and its practices. If the teachings and practices are apostolic, I would have communion with the church even if it's in Timbucktoo. The place and historical connection do not matter.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

Of course, as I pointed out, even following Holy Tradition does not mean that we shall always agree, but when you write

I say let the NT speak for itself. We should be untrammelled by personal prejudices (that can be hard) or by habit (that proves even harder - as I have seen in some) and we should just let the NT do the talking in the light of the rest of Scriptures. We may still not agree on the details but at least we won't go so way off if we are so guided.

I wonder what you mean? The Bible does not 'speak for itself'; if it did there would be agreement between those who read it, and there clearly is not, so I am genuinely puzzled as to what you mean here.

Even if church X was founded by all 12 Apostles together who are martyred at the gateway of the church, I would not have communion in that church if the subsequent leaders strayed from the Apostles' teachings.

To be fair, that is strayed from your own reading of what the Apostles' taught. That is one of my points. The crack through which the bitterness enters so many Christian discussions is when they think that they alone adhere to the teachings of the Apostles and refuse to see that even in the NT one can discern many traditions. It is the insistence that there was no diversity of understanding and should be no diversity of understadning which, literayll, bedevils so many discussions. Are we all so insecure that we can't live with the level of diversity that the Apostles lived with?

There is nothing sacred about a place or a connection. The only thing sacred is its teachings and its practices. If the teachings and practices are apostolic, I would have communion with the church even if it's in Timbucktoo. The place and historical connection do not matter.

I am genuinely sorry for you if you have never been into a holy place and felt God's presence there. There is a small Church in Suffolk I go to whenever I am there, and Christians have worshipped there since Saxon times. It is tiny, isolated, and very plain, and yet whenever I go there I feel a communion with countless generations who have worshipped the Risen Christ there. There is a Coptic Monastery I visit which was founded in the fourth century AD and where the Liturgy has been prayed since the time of St. Cyril; the atmosphere there is one of deep quietness where the still, small voice can be heard. I hope, and pray, you will one day have such experiences.

Peace,

Anglian