When will Rome be in the Church?

[Barney2.0]

that's not how it works. every Pope was not bound to uphold the excommunication. plus, not being in communion with Rome is not heresy by default, if Rome is the one who is heretical.

please just stop.

If the other half of the Church which is the East upholds their Bull of Excommunication, then Rome will also be forced to hold to its own Bull of Excommunication.

Matthew 16:18-19:

I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bed bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee loosed in heaven.”

 

[ArmyMatt]

If the other half of the Church which is the East upholds their Bull of Excommunication, then Rome will also be forced to hold to its own Bull of Excommunication.

Matthew 16:18-19:

I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bed bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee loosed in heaven.”

again, no they don't.

and Matthew 16 is irrelevant to this discussion.

again, please just stop.

 

[prodromos]

We don’t slander are own, we call out heresy in all its forms, whether outside or inside the Church. Every subsequent Pope held no choice, but to uphold the Bull of Excommunication because the Patriarch of Constantinople Excommunicated Rome and all subsequent patriarchs upheld the Excommunication, not being in communion with Rome is heresy and naturally all Popes upheld the Bull issued by Humbert regardless if it was wrong or not, however canonically the original Bull of Excommunication was not legitimate since it did not come from the Pope. Regardless if every single following Pope holds to it, since it has no legitimate origin to begin with.

That is simply rubbish.

 

[SingularityOne]

If the other half of the Church which is the East upholds their Bull of Excommunication, then Rome will also be forced to hold to its own Bull of Excommunication.

Matthew 16:18-19:

I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bed bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee loosed in heaven.”

The “rock” is the “confession of faith” by the way, not Rome or Peter himself.

Rome left the Church that has maintained the faith (aka, The Orthodox Church), not added to it (aka, Rome).

 

[Barney2.0]

That is simply rubbish.

Then prove it otherwise.

 

[Barney2.0]

The “rock” is the “confession of faith” by the way, not Rome or Peter himself.

Rome left the Church that has maintained the faith (aka, The Orthodox Church), not added to it (aka, Rome).

“You Peter are the rock I will build my Church on and you Peter will take care of my flock.” Its not the “rock.”

 

[Phronema]

Then prove it otherwise.

Give it a rest man.

 

[Not David]

“You Peter are the rock I will build my Church on and you Peter will take care of my flock.” Its not the “rock.”

This is not the place to discuss it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

“You Peter are the rock I will build my Church on and you Peter will take care of my flock.” Its not the “rock.”

that isn't even the actual text. please just stop.

 

[abacabb3]

Al Mashi, the majority of fathers (about 70%) interpreted Matt 16:18 to mean the confession of Christ was the rock. Others thought the Rock was Christ Himself. Still others thought Peter himself was the rock, Cyprian being a notable example. Ironically, being that we know that Cyprian explicitly rejected Papalist ecclesiology in detail, this means that we cannot even take the small minority of fathers who thought Peter as the rock would have then subsequently interpreted that passage as a prooftext for Roman supremacy.

This example proves, amongst others, how the Roman Catholic ecclesiology was the not ecclesiology of the Apostolic Church. This is why your example, Al Mashi, saddens me. Weren't you Eastern Orthodox and now you have apostatized as a Melkite? On the day of judgement, those of us who left the Church will be judged more harshly. I pray you may repent.

 

[Anhelyna]

abacabb3 - at present Al Masihi is not canonically a member of ANY Church either Catholic [ of all varieties] or Orthodox because of his country of residence.

Please be a little kinder in your responses to him

 

[SingularityOne]

“You Peter are the rock I will build my Church on and you Peter will take care of my flock.” Its not the “rock.”

I may have not made myself as clear as I would have liked. It is Peter’s “confession of faith” that it’s built on, not the individual of Peter himself. Jesus was confirming Peter’s “confession of faith” as the foundation.

Yes, he may have been the “first among equals”, but they strayed from the faith and added to it instead of maintaining it.

 

[abacabb3]

abacabb3 - at present Al Masihi is not canonically a member of ANY Church either Catholic [ of all varieties] or Orthodox because of his country of residence.

Please be a little kinder in your responses to him

I am not trying to be mean at him at all, I prayed for him this morning and I dont think any of us know what it is like to be a Christian in Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, in the event that he is cut off the fathers teach he is in communion with where his heart is. He left Orthodoxy in his heart and has self identified with the Melkites.

Ultimately, I think we Orthodox are to blame. Al Masihi has been posting here and OrthodoxChristianity.net looking for answers, and I think the ones we have given have been insufficient and he has looked elsewhere. The veneer of logical cohesiveness in RCism appears to have been a siren song. Hence, my reply was about the fathers not agreeing with an interpretation of Matt 16:18 which RC apologist pose as the achilles heal of Orthodoxy, when it is anything but. So, I was frank in my reply out of love, and in fact, I think my reply is a little more loving than some other I have seen here such as "just stop."

I am evangelizing to him.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am not trying to be mean at him at all, I prayed for him this morning and I dont think any of us know what it is like to be a Christian in Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, in the event that he is cut off the fathers teach he is in communion with where his heart is. He left Orthodoxy in his heart and has self identified with the Melkites.

Ultimately, I think we Orthodox are to blame. Al Masihi has been posting here and OrthodoxChristianity.net looking for answers, and I think the ones we have given have been insufficient and he has looked elsewhere. The veneer of logical cohesiveness in RCism appears to have been a siren song. Hence, my reply was about the fathers not agreeing with an interpretation of Matt 16:18 which RC apologist pose as the achilles heal of Orthodoxy, when it is anything but. So, I was frank in my reply out of love, and in fact, I think my reply is a little more loving than some other I have seen here such as "just stop."

I am evangelizing to him.

just to be clear, he was never Orthodox or under Rome.

 

[abacabb3]

just to be clear, he was never Orthodox or under Rome.

Perhaps I am confused, but I thought he self-identified as Orthodox not all that long ago.

 

[abacabb3]

I guess I am not crazu. Here is al masihi writing to that effect on OrthodoxChristianity.net: Unable to convert However, I thought he was from a Christian family, which he wasn't. So I apologize for my tone, as he is not apostatizing...however, I do hope he joins the Church and not a schismatic body.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Perhaps I am confused, but I thought he self-identified as Orthodox not all that long ago.

no, he has only had an interest in Orthodoxy, which is now in being Eastern Catholic.

 

[Barney2.0]

Technically and Canonically I’m not apart of any Church I’m just a simple Catechumen or someone on the way to joining the Church.

 

[ml5363]

Why even bother posting that on an Orthodox board? Do you actually think that is going to be beneficial or are you just trying to start a row on a post that had absolutely nothing to do with protestants?

Not to disrespect but the apostles founded a physical church, and the elders they appointed were quite clear on the matter, as was Paul when he stated which kind of beliefs were to be expelled.

Yes which were local church he's not connected under one organization...that's the difference

 

[Not David]

Yes which were local church he's not connected under one organization...that's the difference

They had the same faith and they had one organization. It's not like one did whatever they wanted.