Why do you reject the pope?

what do you guys think of this..

Click to expand...

Laudetur Iesus Christus!! (Latin: Praise be to Jesus Christ!!)

I know this is probably meant for our Eastern brothers and sisters, but since you and I have both faced these issues before, I thought I would comment. I have to get to class soon so forgive any brevity or error.

Council of Ephesus
"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Click to expand...

This has always been most interesting for me my sister because it seemed to contradict what I was told by Eastern brethren. I was told that Rome was simply honored with the, essentially useless Byzantine court-practice of "first among equals", because it was the capital of the Empire or because of a record of "remarkable Orthodoxy." The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus contradicts this via the voice of deacon Phillip.

This idea of Rome having a place of preeminence because of the Word of Christ and because of St. Peter's place among the Apostles is something testified to by many other of our Eastern Fathers (all emphasis mine):

St. John Cassian:

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).


St. Maximos the Confessor:

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

......................................

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? ... And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers [the popes] are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)
......................................................

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Peter Chrysologus
"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

Click to expand...

This has always been of great interest to me because one of things I noticed among a few Fathers, East and West, was the idea that Rome had a clear extra-Patriarchal authority which was codified in canons by many different synods:


St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople:
[ Writing to Emperor Michael ]

Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

Cyprian of Carthage
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Click to expand...

Again this was very powerful to me because it was affirming an intrinsic Roman authority, which came from the Petrine succession and not due to the Church's giving.

It came from Christ.

I think it sounds like Rome had primacy not because of any political reason but because the Bishop of Rome was there who is the successor of Peter, the source of unity?

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly my sister. As much as I wanted to become Eastern Orthodox, the Fathers stood in my way and showed that the idea of Roman Primacy being "political" or "arbitrary" as being fictitious, and it was one of the better arguments against Papal authority that I heard from my Eastern brethren.

Click to expand...

I hope some of this was helpful to you in your discernment. I will be reading your testimony soon, Deus volente!

Intercisus said:

No offence but do you not see that as a pretty darn big problem? I have to say that the concept I have of Christ's Church is not one that perpetuates the bad blood of long past generations and eternal schism.

Click to expand...

No we do not see that as a problem. We know where the Church is, it is in the Orthodox Church. That Rome and all of Protestantism choose to remain excommunicate and heretics are quite frankly their problem and we Orthodox will do NOTHING to compromise our faith in Jesus Christ to restore any sense of union with those outside of the Church.

Sorry to be blunt, but that is the Orthodox position on the schism and heresies those outside of the Church have chosen to live and believe.

Michael the Iconographer said:

Sorry to be blunt, but that is the Orthodox position

Click to expand...

How do you know what is truly the Orthodox position? I ask because I have often had difficulty in finding out what the Orthodox position is on a number of topics.

My thoughts exactly my sister. As much as I wanted to become Eastern Orthodox, the Fathers stood in my way and showed that the idea of Roman Primacy being "political" or "arbitrary" as being fictitious, and it was one of the better arguments against Papal authority that I heard from my Eastern brethren.

Click to expand...

what about fathers who oppose this idea .... they did not stand on your way? What about that the canons and the councils never "dealed" with the idea that did not stand in your way....

Oh...I see the 'cherry picking" of the fathers did stand in your way...did it???

sure anyone can "cherry pick" fathers and prove any point just like the Bible... We have been there done that... Next?

And BTW Peter established actually two one in Antioch and one in Rome...so where is the seat of Peter????

Intercisus said:

No offence but do you not see that as a pretty darn big problem? I have to say that the concept I have of Christ's Church is not one that perpetuates the bad blood of long past generations and eternal schism.

Click to expand...

The "bad blood" is part of history. There is no "eternal schism" either...

Let me explain. The schism is already done and over with. No one wants a unification more than true Christians do... It has to do with the past experiences since we all learn from our mistakes. The people who forget their history and their mistakes are bound to repeat them...no?

I think it is true... Sadly, we remember past mistakes and we learn from them instead of being stumbling stones... No one says that here. We are saying that we walk in caution and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The eternal schism you talk about is only 1,000 years old... Some can see it as a half glass empty or a half glass full it is a matter of perspective. And we are all individuals despite the fact we are Orthodox... So yes some of us are pessimistic and some optimistic... what?

That paints the whole of our Church as such? No . Christ is in charge of His Chruch that is guided by the Holy Spirit... If we beleive the Holy Spirit is in charge of our Church why worry then?

We just need to pray...

Knightwolflord said:

How do you know what is truly the Orthodox position? I ask because I have often had difficulty in finding out what the Orthodox position is on a number of topics.

Click to expand...

Because Orthodoxy never has and never will cave in to heresy just to avoid a schism.

Mikeb85 said:

No, it only shows that the Roman Pope is a successor to St. Peter. As is the Patriarch of Antioch. Indeed, even St. Peter himself never had any power over the other apostles. In Acts 15, it's also not St. Peter who had the final say, but rather St. James.

Click to expand...

Philothei said:

And BTW Peter established actually two one in Antioch and one in Rome...so where is the seat of Peter????

Click to expand...

the answer to both is this which I posted before.

Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

we can see here that:

1) the single chair, cathedra, by which unity is maintained in the Church, belongs to Peter and his successors are in Rome.

2). Unity is maintained by this. If you get rid of the chair of Peter, "can [you] still be confident that [you are] in the church" (Cyprian).

there is more to this than you are saying, I think....

Cyprian of Carthage
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Irenaeus
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Knight, thanks for posting the quotes

MoNiCa4316 said:

so much for reunification... anyway, we can say the same..

and I wasn't trying to convert anyone

Click to expand...

Sorry, but when I see a Roman Catholic quoting various Church Fathers that are in the Roman apologetic arsenal of rational for an infallible and supreme bishop, I see little outside of attempts to convert. Especially when taking into consideration the direction and tone this thread has gone.

Knightwolflord said:

There are those who would dispute that, especially since you haven't defined what it means to have the Gates of Hell prevail.

Click to expand...

So? We also have not defined what happens to the soul after death; there is no dogma on it. There is also no real decision on the Eucharist other than that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood somehow with God's doing.

There's a lot that is not defined in Orthodoxy because, quite honestly, there is either no reason to define it or it is undefinable. One of our priests gave a homily where he mentioned a saint whose name I can not recall right now. But this saint wrote about all that God is and all that defines God (stuff like love and just and so on), but then started writing that man can not define God because to do so would to lower God to a human level of understanding. Then he starts writing about what God is not and says we really can't do that either because to do so would be to limit God to a mere human understanding which can not happen because God is greater than anything and everything which man can ever hope to comprehend! The interesting part is that he (the saint) says that we can't even say that God exists because to say that He exists would be to bring God down to man's level.

I remember most of this part of the homily quite well save for the saint's name.

But basically, there are an infinite amount of things and topics and issues that the Orthodox Church has not 'defined' because either there has been no reason to define it or that which some may believe needs to be defined is truly beyond man's comprehension and understanding.

Michael the Iconographer said:

Because Orthodoxy never has and never will cave in to heresy just to avoid a schism.

Click to expand...

QFT. Let us remember St. Athanasius when he spoke at Nicea in 325. Before he spoke, the Church was about 95% Arian. After he spoke the Church was 100% anti-Arian. Such is the power and beauty of the Holy Spirit and of Orthodoxy!

Yeah thanks for the quote mines hehehe...

Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Click to expand...

So? who is he? Christ saying this? No... so no biggy... Still Peter has two chairs. no point here...

Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

Click to expand...

But ST. Cyprian also says that:

5. The Church
The Roman Catholic view of the Church (ecclesiology) differs from the Orthodox teaching on this subject in several ways.
The Latins teach that the visible head of the Church is the Pope, the successor to St. Peter, who was appointed to that sacred position by the Lord Himself with the words, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church . . . " (Matt. 16:18).
The Pope is, then, "the Bishop of the Catholic Church," her teacher, the vicar (agent, deputy) of Christ on earth. He is the interpreter of the Christian Tradition. When he speaks for the whole Church (ex cathedra), the Holy Spirit does not permit him to err. He is, therefore, infallible on matters of morals and doctrine. Other bishops are his lieutenants. He is the symbol of the episcopate's unity.
The Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. The president of a synod of bishops is called archbishop (Greek custom) or metropolitan (Russian custom).
According to Latin ecclesiology, each local parish is part of the universal or whole Church. The totality of Catholic parishes form the Body of Christ on earth. This visible Body has a visible head, the Pope. This idea of the Church implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local bishop. But a body with two visible heads is a monster. Also, the local bishop seems stripped of his apostolic authority if the Pope may contradict his orders. Indeed, he cannot become a bishop unless the Pope allows it.
Orthodoxy teaches that every bishop, "the living icon of Christ," and his flock constitute the Church in a certain place; or, as St. Ignatius the God-bearer says, the Church of Christ is in the bishop, his priests and deacons, with the people, surrounding the Eucharist in the true faith. All bishops and their flocks so constituted, together composing the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
In other words, there can be no Church without a bishop, no bishop without the Eucharist, and no bishop or Eucharist without the true faith, the Apostolic Faith, "the faith once delivered to the saints." (Jude 3) "The Church is in the bishop and the bishop in the Church," wrote St. Cyprian of Carthage.
Put another way, there is no Church where there is no bishop, and there is no bishop where there is no succession of bishops from the Apostles (apostolic succession); and there can be no succession from the bishops without the faith of the Apostles. Also, there can be no Church without the Eucharist, the Sacrament of unity, because the Church is formed through it. The Body and Blood of Christ unites the Faithful to God: This fellowship or koinonia is the whole purpose of Christianity. At the same time, there can be no Eucharist - and no other Mysteries - without a bishop who teaches the true faith to the baptized.
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

Click to expand...

nice "cherry picking" BTW just like I thought... been there done that...

we can see here that:

1) the single chair, cathedra, by which unity is maintained in the Church, belongs to Peter and his successors are in Rome.

Click to expand...

nope nowhere in the life of the church there is such a thing stated only in some cherry picked quotes...out of context...

2). Unity is maintained by this. If you get rid of the chair of Peter, "can [you] still be confident that [you are] in the church" (Cyprian).

there is more to this than you are saying, I think....

Cyprian of Carthage
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Irenaeus
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Click to expand...

Saint Ireneus talked about unity not in the "catholic" sense but universal... Notice he does not say ONLY... He does alsos talks about 2 apostles in this specific text... This is obviously another "catholic quote mine" of yours Monica... Please refrain from doing is as it proves you only know very well where to find them..

Philothei said:

what about fathers who oppose this idea .... they did not stand on your way? What about that the canons and the councils never "dealed" with the idea that did not stand in your way....

Oh...I see the 'cherry picking" of the fathers did stand in your way...did it???

sure anyone can "cherry pick" fathers and prove any point just like the Bible... We have been there done that... Next?

Click to expand...

I have seen cherry-picking of the Fathers before and I have found that the Eastern claim of Western "cherry-picking" is almost laughable when one truly sees the amount of Patristic backing for extra-Patriarchal authority for the Pope. I freely admit that the revelations in my discernment came largely through quotations from their larger works. I had no time as a college student to read the whole of them. However, even still the evidence was too numerous to be merely "out-of-context" or twisted. In past experience when Protestants tried to prove Sola Scriptura with the Fathers they only had a trifle of quotations and they stretched these enormously. However the statements I had seen were so clear and precise, and so copious, that I found it to be incredulous that they could be taken out of context or twisted to fit the Papal agenda.

Simply quoting passages from the Fathers does not amount to cherry-picking to prove a point like Scripture....I also find the Eastern ignoring and dismissing of these quotes as "cherry-picking" without seriously dealing with them as being very telling of the Patristic "evidence" behind denying Papal jurisdiction.

In a debate between the rabidly anti-Catholic Joe Suadin (Orthodox) and a Catholic apologist, the Catholic apologist produced mind-boggling amounts of Patristic references for what the Orthodox deny. Instead of producing "counter" quotations from the Fathers (which He did NONE) Mr. Suaiden simply tried to explain away the clear and precise affirmations of Papal authority, and he did so very poorly.

Indeed, would any Easterner care to explain what is so "out of context" about the quotes of St. Maximos above?

I would also be quite interested in seeing the Fathers who "oppossed this idea."

Indeed, I wonder how clear and precise these quotations will measure when put next to St. Maximos' clear and precise affirmations...or those of many other Eastern and Western Fathers.

The Fathers still stand in my way on this issue (as much as I am tempted at times to be Eastern Orthodox) and keep me in the bosom of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and I am grateful to God for that.

MoNiCa4316 said:

Knight, thanks for posting the quotes

Click to expand...

You are most welcome. Do not let any of this discourage you or make you doubt.

Get in touch with my friend, James Likoudis, and get some of his books. I think he might be able to share some of your own concerns.

Also, have you read Stephen Ray's book "Upon this Rock." It is a very tedious read mind you as Mr. Ray brings to bear a massive amount of Biblical and Patristic documentation defending the Papacy, but it is worth it. I am still amazed that our Eastern brethren can honestly say that Catholics "cherry-pick" the Fathers when these same "cherry-picked" quotes are so precise.

Then there is the fact that there is so little "clarification" or "contextualizing" of these so-called cherry-picked quotes by Easterners.

Philothei said:

So? who is he? Christ saying this? No... so no biggy... Still Peter has two chairs. no point here...




But ST. Cyprian also says that:



nice "cherry picking" BTW just like I thought... been there done that...

we can see here that:



nope nowhere in the life of the church there is such a thing stated only in some cherry picked quotes...out of context...


Saint Ireneus talked about unity not in the "catholic" sense but universal... Notice he does not say ONLY... He does alsos talks about 2 apostles in this specific text... This is obviously another "catholic quote mine" of yours Monica... Please refrain from doing is as it proves you only know very well where to find them..

Click to expand...

My sister Monica:

Do you see how little and sparsly these quotes are dealt with? Do you also see the tenuous grounds on which they are disputed (if they are dealt with at all?).

This is what I talked about in my testimony.


I must go, so you might be on your own for some time if not from now on as I have little time to deal with these arguments.

I ask you to remember not to be discouraged, confused, or doubtful.

You know where Christ's Church fully subsists. The Fathers, even now as they pray in heaven for you, have left their testimony.

Hold on to their words.

The quote is from St. Mark of Ephesus. I follow the will of Jesus Christ thru his Holy Orthodox Church. That is good enough for me. Perhaps YOU should do the same.

Intercisus said:

No offence but do you not see that as a pretty darn big problem? I have to say that the concept I have of Christ's Church is not one that perpetuates the bad blood of long past generations and eternal schism.

Click to expand...

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!

Knightwolflord said:

You are most welcome. Do not let any of this discourage you or make you doubt.

Get in touch with my friend, James Likoudis, and get some of his books. I think he might be able to share some of your own concerns.

Also, have you read Stephen Ray's book "Upon this Rock." It is a very tedious read mind you as Mr. Ray brings to bear a massive amount of Biblical and Patristic documentation defending the Papacy, but it is worth it. I am still amazed that our Eastern brethren can honestly say that Catholics "cherry-pick" the Fathers when these same "cherry-picked" quotes are so precise.

Then there is the fact that there is so little "clarification" or "contextualizing" of these so-called cherry-picked quotes by Easterners.

Click to expand...

I am truly amazed at why " Rabid Romanizers" (HUMOR)such as yourselfs even bother on an Orthodox Thread??? You won't make any converts here, and you are NOT creating good feelings.

I have seen cherry-picking of the Fathers before and I have found that the Eastern claim of Western "cherry-picking" is almost laughable when one truly sees the amount of Patristic backing for extra-Patriarchal authority for the Pope. I freely admit that the revelations in my discernment came largely through quotations from their larger works. I had no time as a college student to read the whole of them. However, even still the evidence was too numerous to be merely "out-of-context" or twisted. In past experience when Protestants tried to prove Sola Scriptura with the Fathers they only had a trifle of quotations and they stretched these enormously. However the statements I had seen were so clear and precise, and so copious, that I found it to be incredulous that they could be taken out of context or twisted to fit the Papal agenda.

Click to expand...

Just read what you wrote in red... It is simple... you are still quote minimg ...with an agenda....point prooved.

Simply quoting passages from the Fathers does not amount to cherry-picking to prove a point like Scripture....I also find the Eastern ignoring and dismissing of these quotes as "cherry-picking" without seriously dealing with them as being very telling of the Patristic "evidence" behind denying Papal jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

We do not ignore we take things in context and we take into consideration the totallity of their writings....Maybe you have to start reading more the Fathers and less the "quote mines" the RC provides...

In a debate between the rabidly anti-Catholic Joe Suadin (Orthodox) and a Catholic apologist, the Catholic apologist produced mind-boggling amounts of Patristic references for what the Orthodox deny. Instead of producing "counter" quotations from the Fathers (which He did NONE) Mr. Suaiden simply tried to explain away the clear and precise affirmations of Papal authority, and he did so very poorly.

Click to expand...

bad debate quarantees the truth in a specific time and place ? That would prove he did not know his theology... not that his Theology was wrong.....oy...

Indeed, would any Easterner care to explain what is so "out of context" about the quotes of St. Maximos above?

Click to expand...

it is hard to read Maximos... but you can try...

I would also be quite interested in seeing the Fathers who "oppossed this idea."

Click to expand...

Good then read Igantios of Antioch on the local Church...

Indeed, I wonder how clear and precise these quotations will measure when put next to St. Maximos' clear and precise affirmations...or those of many other Eastern and Western Fathers.

Click to expand...

not much.... since you always have to interprete them within context... Qhote mines also in many places are mistranslated to serve a purpose
If you look for past threads on this subject you will see where the fathers were mistranslated to "match" the theme of Papacy...

The Fathers still stand in my way on this issue (as much as I am tempted at times to be Eastern Orthodox) and keep me in the bosom of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and I am grateful to God for that.

Click to expand...

The Fathers? lol.... The slanted "cherry picked" idea of what the Fathers say? Nowhere in the consensus of the Fathers point to the RC and never will... The 4 Patriarchates did not follow the one that is Rome... I wonder who is right and who is wrong then.... think !!!

Philothei said:

So? who is he? Christ saying this? No... so no biggy... Still Peter has two chairs. no point here...

Click to expand...

"who is he?" well.. someone from the early Church and Christ did say, "you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church". Everything points to the "rock" being Peter. Both the linguistics and the early church fathers.

But ST. Cyprian also says that:

Click to expand...

I think he's just talking about Apostolic Succession here. That a "church" apart from the bishops is not a church. But he's not talking against the Pope.

According to Latin ecclesiology, each local parish is part of the universal or whole Church. The totality of Catholic parishes form the Body of Christ on earth. This visible Body has a visible head, the Pope. This idea of the Church implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local bishop. But a body with two visible heads is a monster.

Click to expand...

actually, there is one visible head, the Pope. Each local parish is a representation of the entire Church. A "symbol" of it. It's sort of mystical. The Pope and the local bishop are not in competition with each other.

nice "cherry picking" BTW just like I thought... been there done that

Click to expand...

...

Click to expand...

the quotes I provided say some important points which have not yet been addressed... the quote by St Cyprian doesn't even mention the Pope, just talks about the importance of Apostolic Succession, IMO. In the early Church, many heretics claimed to teach the truth yet they were not supported by the Bishops. So maybe St Cyprian was trying to counter them. Just an idea.

Maximillian of Antioch said:

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!

Click to expand...

There have been bad things done on BOTH sides.

Maximillian of Antioch said:

I am truly amazed at why " Rabid Romanizers" (HUMOR)such as yourselfs even bother on an Orthodox Thread??? You won't make any converts here, and you are NOT creating good feelings.

Click to expand...

Well I am here because this is the St Justin Martyr corner, the only place to present both the Orthodox and the Catholic views and COMPARE them.