Why I'm Orthodox . . . and why others may want to be too.

[tall73]

But you are behaving as if a cardinal should have same apostolic right. I don't get it.

It is not about the rights of cardinals etc. Whether the excommunication was legitimate is not the question. What is the question is why they are not in agreement when Jesus said they would be. And regardless of who did the excommunicating, you clearly cannot say the bishop of Rome is in agreement with the other sees.

The 12 APOSTLES. Not Apostles lil' helpers.

Indeed, see above. But then if this is the case, then Rome had no part at those councils where only the apostles little helpers were the only representative. But then why did the people at the council seem to bend to the pope's little helpers? Because they were entrusted to do his work.

But again, you confuse the issue. Did the pope ever in fact come into agreement with the other bishops? And was he not excommunicated? So they are not in fact in agreement.

It sounds beter that Rome lost 4 sees? Again it was the APOSTLES that were led into all truth not Cardinals.

No, it sounds bad for both of your claims that neither of you can explain why the apostles were not led into all truth according to your view. They are not today, and were not then in agreement. And you still haven't even addressed how the east can have apostolic succession if many of the bishops who traced that succession left for the coptic church.

Why ever have an ecumenical council then? Why bother? Why not just ask Rome?

Indeed, some on their side would contend that. But it doesn't answer the question. Why are not the apostles united in the truth. Both of you are basing your claims on the promises of Jesus. But neither one can say how this one came true.

No one voted him out! You say that you are familliar but your words say differently. Being excommunicated is NOT voting the excommunicator out!

So are you saying that the act was done without consultation by all the other 4 sees? I understood that they agreed on this point. But if you are saying it was on the authority of one man, how can that be?For that matter, how could it be done with anything short of another council?

I would think if you need a council to kick out arius, etc. , you would certainly need one to vote out a duly recognized see. So how legitimate was this excommunication? They had all the churches vote on Arius, and the monophysite question. And no one bothered to consult anyone on excommunicating the successor of Peter? Sounds strange to me. If it is your contention that it is the coucil which is the authority, then they should have had one. Because the Roman Pontiff, as all recognized, was not subject to the patriarch of another see. The whole eastern contention is that each rules in their own see. So how could he excommunicate him without the agreement of all? Perhaps neither excommunication was actually valid. [/quote]

Lets assume for a moment that you actually believe in the primacy of Peter. You think that all 5 sees were lost? At what point was true Christianity erased from the face of the earth and how long was it gone for?

That is impossible for me to say, because that is the very question I have. I don't believe in it. I don't believe in apostolic succession. I believe that the apostles received all the truth which they then passed down to faithful men who were overseers.

Now I agree then that meeting together to decide issues sounds reasonable, just as in Acts 15. So I have no problem with these overseers doing that. But this is all complicated by this notion of succession which puts the successor to Peter in a different position. I don't see the evidence that there was this passing on of the power given to Peter, if in fact it was given to him. The one time we see succession in the Scriptures was when the Scriptures demanded it, in the case of Judas. It said that a replacement was to be found. But that replacement had to have been with Jesus. And we see no record of a successor for James when he died. Some of the earlier bishop lists show that there is even confusion on the papal line. While most seem to have some notion of who the early ones were, the lists all differ as to who was bishop when, and it frankly looks like some were bishops together. Why would this be a problem? Titus and Timothy were told to appoint overseers. And in the church at Jerusalem there was clearly more than one overseer. So this would be biblical. But calling them all popes and saying that all of them were the head of the church doesn't seem so to me.

If they were truly the visible head of the church for years, how can not even roughly contemporary sources not know who ruled when etc.? Granted persecution is rough on paper work. But it seems hard to forget the visible head of the church for years.

I see the role of overseer as simply one who preserves doctrine and administrates the church. I don't see them as infallible, even at specific times, etc.

Nor, while I see the need for councils to address some things along Scriptural principles, do I see the need to enforce human definitions on the number of natures of Jesus, the exact way in which those natures etc. were composed etc. If the Bible doesn't answer that, then why would you vote to kick a bunch of folks out of the church over an issue the Bible doesn't spell out? Unless of course it was called by an emperor who's goal was to unify an empire, not just a faith.


If you believe in succession then you have an impossible situation. You have the apostles led NOT into all truth, but into schism. Jesus said they would be led into all truth. So it cannot be. So I can't believe in it. We don't need a pope, we have Jesus our High Priest through who we can all boldly come to the throne of grace according to Hebrews. So overseers who administrate? Sure. Making policy decisions on contemporary issues, such as people immasculating themselves (as in one of the councils), how to deal with those who fell away and then came back, etc. Sure. But the ability to define the doctrine beyond what the Bible called for and kick out those who likewise can claim apostolic succession over what is essentially semantics, I can't see that at all.

He held a seat of honor. Just like the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew holds a place of honor now - but he does not have jurisdiction over the other sees!

Indeed, so can one person excommunicate him? Or would it take a council? Because one person doesn't have jurisdiction over the Roman see.

If you really read all their posturing at the councils is makes you sick. They are numbering who is first, second, etc. in the kingdom like the 12 before they received the Spirit!

I agree that they should have had local jurisdiction. I agree that he should not rule over them. But I also don't see how he could be kicked out without a council. And I especially don't see that the eastern position at the time was that he was just like the rest.

Primus inter pares. First among equals.

Who is now neither first, nor even among the equals? Is that what Jesus promised?

I disagree.
Even if he was in some leadership role then where does that leave the SDA church? There is a big problem with your argument too. Do you think that all 5 sees were lost? IF they were then it happened WAY before the schism.

I think that the whole notion of overseers as anything other than overseers was a distortion. Now if an early distortion, fair enough. But a distortion nonetheless. You can't tell me people arguing over who is the greatest is what God intended. He made it pretty clear it wasn't.

It is not hard to see how bishops, left to defend the faith of the apostles would claim some of their authority . And well they could. They were appointed by them.

But can they really claim to be infallible, or led into all truth etc.? If so, why? And if so, why are they not in agreement? The truth they were defending was the truth of the apostles. And it was them alone that Jesus said he would lead into all truth. That truth remains. Why do we need a pope to modify it or explain it?

But for that matter, why do we need a council to turn that deposit into human definitions at the request of a king with political motivations?


Now here is the point. If the claim of both rest on being from the beginning, on the promises of Jesus that the church would not be overcome, on the promise that the apostles would be led into all truth, then it must be explained why the church seemingly was overcome, why the promise didn't come true that they were led together into all truth.

It doesn't do any good to show that you were from the beginning, if the promise is not met now. And it seemingly isn't.

But if the apostles were the ones led into all truth, and those after simply passed down the faith, and Jesus was right in saying that He prayed for all who would believe in His name through the apostles teaching, then that is all we must say about it. That the apostles came to the truth, and entrusted it to men, that all who believed on him through their testimony are part of His true church.

And it may bother you, but I suspect Jesus will include the coptics, and the orthodox, and the Catholic, and the Arians, and maybe by some miracle even the Adventists in that.

In the meantime our goal should be to get back to those teachings. And the only real basis for knowing those are the Scriptures. Because everyone acknowledges that the oral traditions do not include any that we can definitely say were from this apostle or that one, except perhaps when a statement is directly said to be learned from one or another. And even then at best we have a reflection of their teaching through the next generations. And that next generation does not always agree with itself.


So for me the goal is to get back to the apostles teachings in the only sure place we know they are at.

And if we simply say that all should submit in all things to the overseers, or bishops, then we have a real problem. What would happen to those who were subject to Arius, a presbyter, and died before he was declared a heretic? Or what would happen to those who submitted to a corupt bishop who later lost his right to be called a bishop, but died before this was done?

If you are right they would be lost for submitting slavishly to their bishop! Is this really what God wants? To subject all thought to a man? Submission, yes. But not that kind of submission. Just as the patriarchs didn't want total submission to the pope

If the church is entrusted to fallible men, and we all agree it is, then submission can never be total to a human being! Paul said follow me as I follow Christ. Not follow me, or go to hell.

Jesus' church will not fail. It will continue on. Some may be closer to the original. Some are doubtless further away. And it may be that I find out later I was one that was further away. But I am going to try to be as faithful to it as I can to what I see as the original message. And I cannot simply let what one bishop says, or another pope says, etc. determine what my view is. Because God says that I have direct access to the throne of grace through my High Priest Jesus Christ. And I, along with everyone else will stand in the judgement, not with my bishop, or with my pope, but before my Lord who is to judge the living and the Dead.

 

[NPH]

And you still haven't even addressed how the east can have papal succession if many of the bishops who traced that succession left for the coptic church.

I think you meant to say "apostolic" there tall

 

[tall73]

I think you meant to say "apostolic" there tall

Indeed! I have a nasty way of editing after I post!

I fixed it thinking..wow,...hope no one saw that one..then I saw this.

Ah well, at least someone is reading it

 

[Mea Culpa]

This is my whole problem.

I can't except the Roman Catholic Church because of the Pope, doctrine of Mary, Purgatory, and many other things.

I can't except most protestant churches because of some of their doctrine (not all of them are the same, another problem) and the way that they govern themselves is not very good.

I wanted to learn about Orthodoxy, yet the little I have learned about them is that there are many things I do like about it, it still has doctrinal problems.

You can't prove that Roman Catholic Church is the Church of God. Some of the doctrine is against scriture, the very scripture that the Apostles wrote to us, one of whom is supposedly the first "pope", Vicar of Christ on Earth.

The Orthodox Church can't prove it either. Both systems go back to a time when information is hard to come by, good, reliable information that speaks only of truth and not of belief only. Both Churches, as well as the world who tries to explain history, can manipulate history to say what they want.

The protestant church desires the truth, but it is stuck by division after division, and by governments both within and without that influence the will of Christ in them.

What is the answer to all of this? What is the truth?

There is no truth by CHRIST. I am the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE.

All these divisions make a mockery of Christ, and there is no perfect church. There is no church that is the One True Church. Christ is the head of His UNIVERSAL CHURCH, but His followers have divided the UNIVERSAL CHURCH so much that its' true power has been compromised significantly.

How much stronger would we be if we were truly united in Christ? I won't happen on this earth, I am afraid. Perfection of the Church is in the next relm.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Reading many threads regarding denomination issues. In my view, "Church" as an organization is often interpreted as bigotry by the fear-ridden statements and this misunderstanding will get Christians into trouble. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is for all who wants to know and find the truth through Him. As long as we remain in this twisted world, the Church will have her own problems and in reality as history shows, we cannot escape them. God would rather see us accept the problems as opportunities to exercise our spiritual virtues. We the Church can turn problems into useful spiritual growth for the purification and rejoice that we are permitted to suffer with our Lord. It is always easier to bear what we know someone has successfully the trials before us that we can learn from them. Have we not learned? Perhaps part of the problem lies in our emphasis on Church traditions rather than in Christlike living as revealed through the Word of God. Does a Church resemble toddler's playpen rather than groups of maturing spiritual leaders who are forgetting what is truth and straining on toward what is ahead? 'My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.' (John 17:20–21). Jesus prayed for the unity of believers. Church labels may differ; faith expression vary; biblical interpretation be less than harmonious. Allow the Holy Spirit convict our hearts to follow Jesus Christ regardless what denomination we belong to. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.( John 3:7). The Holy Spirit allows us to convict us and sense spiritual concerns. These are spiritual matters about which we must be legitimately honest and in which we must seek the discernment of the Holy Spirit. These are things about which we cannot afford to be wrong; to be wrong is still to be lost and far from God. Let us never forget that the Word of God stresses the importance of conviction and concern and repentance when it comes to conversion, spiritual regeneration, being born from above by the Spirit of God. Many did say, "What must I do?" but the Pharisees never did. They never got under conviction, and blindly battled with Christ regarding their traditions as truth. They were so self-righteous that they cannot get under conviction simply because they were blindly following their traditions.

 

[tall73]

This is my whole problem.



I wanted to learn about Orthodoxy, yet the little I have learned about them is that there are many things I do like about it, it still has doctrinal problems.

Just to further the topic, and maybe learn a bit myself, what issues do you have with Orthodox doctrine?

I haven't yet done a full enough study on the particulars to decide what I think of them so far.

 

[tall73]

Reading many threads regarding denomination issues. In my view, "Church" as an organization is often interpreted as bigotry by the fear-ridden statements and this misunderstanding will get Christians into trouble. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is for all who wants to know and find the truth through Him. As long as we remain in this twisted world, the Church will have her own problems and in reality as history shows, we cannot escape them. God would rather see us accept the problems as opportunities to exercise our spiritual virtues. We the Church can turn problems into useful spiritual growth for the purification and rejoice that we are permitted to suffer with our Lord. It is always easier to bear what we know someone has successfully the trials before us that we can learn from them. Have we not learned? Perhaps part of the problem lies in our emphasis on Church traditions rather than in Christlike living as revealed through the Word of God. Does a Church resemble toddler's playpen rather than groups of maturing spiritual leaders who are forgetting what is truth and straining on toward what is ahead? 'My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.' (John 17:20–21). Jesus prayed for the unity of believers. Church labels may differ; faith expression vary; biblical interpretation be less than harmonious. Allow the Holy Spirit convict our hearts to follow Jesus Christ regardless what denomination we belong to. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.( John 3:7). The Holy Spirit allows us to convict us and sense spiritual concerns. These are spiritual matters about which we must be legitimately honest and in which we must seek the discernment of the Holy Spirit. These are things about which we cannot afford to be wrong; to be wrong is still to be lost and far from God. Let us never forget that the Word of God stresses the importance of conviction and concern and repentance when it comes to conversion, spiritual regeneration, being born from above by the Spirit of God. Many did say, "What must I do?" but the Pharisees never did. They never got under conviction, and blindly battled with Christ regarding their traditions as truth. They were so self-righteous that they cannot get under conviction simply because they were blindly following their traditions.

I posted this in another thread, but figure it won't hurt to repeat. I recently read a book about those Christians who were imprisoned and tortured for years under communist governments. They were tortured, and their children were left on the streets to fend for themselves, many were martyred, yet they still prayed for their captors and converted many of them.

They knew the true Christians by their faithfulness to Christ, and their love for their enemies. They would preach to each other even though it brought beatings. I doubt though that they had many sermons on which denomination was the right one to belong to.

I wonder if that is what it will take for our unity.

 

[thereselittleflower]

What did The Eastern Orthodox Church add? Back it up or recant. It is the whole purpose of the EO church NOT to add or remove anything. The worst insult you can give an EO is to call them an innovator.

While I understand that this is what the EO believe for themselves, I have found that belief has not been backed up by the historical facts . . .

A case in point is the Immaculate Conception of Mary . . . You have a thread right now in TAW discussing this, yet you have a disparity of beliefs regarding it being expressed. I have asked a few questions in that thread, but to avoid debating anyone, I have simply accepted the answers even though they leave more questions in my mind that I want to ask there .. . . Yet, if I ask there, I am concerned that it would be constured as debate.

But there is no agreement in TAW as to exactly what this is . . . one even saying it was not Mary's conception but Jesus' conception being spoken of when the term "Immaculate Conception" is used . . .

Nothing could be father from the truth.

I see some saying (and I know for a fact it is the teaching in some Orthodox Church for the last few hundred years) that Mary became Immacuate at the annunciation, when she gave her "yes" to God . . . .

That is doctrine in many EO Churches.

Yet this flies in the face of the Ancient Eastern Church's belief regading Mary and her Immaculate state. . . . and it flies in the face of the Original Greek word kecharitomene which the Angel Gabriel used to ADDRESS Mary with IN PLACE OF her name. .. .

This one word. kecharitomene, is packed with meaning ,. . it is only ever used once in the bible, and that is to address Mary.

It is the PERFECT PASSIVE PARTICIPLE

kecharitomene Strong's Number 5772


Results for · 5772 ·
5772 Tense - Perfect See 5778
Voice - Passive See 5786
Mood - Participle See 5796

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1134429151-4178.html


5778 Tense - Perfect

The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in
English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been
completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be
repeated.



5786 Voice - Passive

The passive voice represents the subject as being the
recipient of the action. E.g., in the sentence, "The boy was
hit by the ball," the boy receives the action.


5796 Mood - Participle

The Greek participle corresponds for the most part to the
English participle, reflecting "-ing" or "-ed" being suffixed
to the basic verb form. The participle can be used either
like a verb or a noun, as in English, and thus is often termed
a "verbal noun."



​

The word is both a noun and a verb . . denoting (in this case) someone, Mary, and the action, in this case completed once for all in the past, never to be repeated.

This is speaking of her state of "full of grace".


Now . . this is what the Greek says, yet doctrine in many EO Churches is that this state did not come into being untill the annunciation and her "yes" to God.


This was not always the case in the East. This represents a significant departure from the doctrines of the Early Church regarding what they believed regarding Mary's immaculate state.

Now, I am prepared to back up what I have just said with evidence . . .but it will take a while to put together and present. However, the issue that it raises is that the EO have NOT been unchanged in all their doctrines, contrary to your assertion above . . . contrary to the mantra of the EO Church that this is their strong point, what makes them the 'true Church'.

This is one place where they have changed their doctrines which were believed in the Early Church and later. What is being promoted now . . ie that Mary was not made "immaculate" until the Annuciation or the conflicting doctrine that is held in some Orthodox Circles that the "Immaculate Conception" refers to Jesus' Conception are indeed innovaitons within the Orthodox Church that have appeared just within the last few hundered years.

If the EO have changed just ONE doctrine, then they cannot legitimate lay claim to being the Church which has never changed their doctrines, which holds to the faith of the Apostles and Early Church unchanged.


Do you really want me to present the evidence I have for this? Here? Now?



Peace to all

 

[thereselittleflower]

For the EO, The Pope is a heterodox bishop. He does not make doctrine for us. He doesn't have any jurisdiction at all with us.
Just as for the RC the Ecumenical Patriarch is outside their church - the Pope is outside ours. Bartholomew has no Jurisdiction within the RC church - the Pope has none in the EO.

Again - LOOK into who had the bull of excommunication sent. Was it the Pope or was it a cardinal?

eoe this is a fallacy . . .

The Pope doesn't "make" doctrine at all, even for us . .

He PROTECTS, throught the charism of the Holy Spirit, the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles through the Early Church.


You errected a straw man..

I have alead presented evidence in this thread where the Pope, around 220AD, had the authoirty to change the penance requirements for certain sins . .a change that affected the entire Church, which made Tertullian the heretic furious at what he did . . . There was never a challange mounted to the Pope's authoirty to do so . . . .The pope was Callistus.

If the Popes did not have universal jurisdiction as the EO now claim, why did the Eastern Church recognize the Pope's universal jurisdiction to settle disputes outside his own Patriarchy?

Why did St Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople (and EASTERN Patriarchy) appeal to the Pope when he was unlawfully deposed and young Photius set up in his place?

He appealled directly to Rome. . . .

This is just a start eoe . . . . The EO here are making claims that they are not supporting very well . .




Peace to all

 

[Canadian75]

Why is it that some people assume that the Orthodox church should have strong dogmatic definitions of everything? Many theological issues in the EOC allow for differing of opinions. There is no official 'catechism' of the Orthodox church. Some Orthodox can believe in the IC of Mary and others can believe something else and they are still Orthodox.

Is hell a subjective experience or is it a physical place? Differing opinions, same Orthodox. This makes some people uncomfortable having no central authority telling them every little theological detail, but not me.

I'm not going to debate the topic, but using the Immaculate Conception as a topic to show that the Orthodox is somehow in error just won't work.


Peace.

 

[geocajun]

Why is it that some people assume that the Orthodox church should have strong dogmatic definitions of everything? Many theological issues in the EOC allow for differing of opinions. There is no official 'catechism' of the Orthodox church. Some Orthodox can believe in the IC of Mary and others can believe something else and they are still Orthodox.

There is no official catechism because the EO Bishops can't swing the creation of one. It isn't because they want to permit free opinion.
So what does that leave folks with? the idea that their faith is a mystery, even to the bishop. "Soo... come experience us"

Is hell a subjective experience or is it a physical place? Differing opinions, same Orthodox. This makes some people uncomfortable having no central authority telling them every little theological detail, but not me.

mmm yes, and it makes some people happy to not have to subject themselves to doctrinal authority too.

I'm not going to debate the topic, but using the Immaculate Conception as a topic to show that the Orthodox is somehow in error just won't work.

of course not, why should any Chrisitan care about a definitive declaration on a matter of such little importance as the ark of the new covenant?

 

[CaDan]

This post is not an insult to the Catholic Church,it is an attack on the Catholic Church.Therfore it requires a defense,not a turning of cheek.IMHO

If they ain't got swords an' scalin' ladders, I think it is far from an attack.

And even in the face of an attack, the words of Saint Francis still hold true, wouldn't you agree?

 

[geocajun]

CaDan, is there anything worth fighting for to you?

 

[thereselittleflower]

Why is it that some people assume that the Orthodox church should have strong dogmatic definitions of everything?

No one has suggested such a thing Canadian75 .. this is another straw man . .

Dogmas are doctrines that have been elevated to a position requiring the faithful to give their highest assent and belief to.

Doctrines are the teachings of the Church.

Many theological issues in the EOC allow for differing of opinions.

Regarding DOCTRINES? Or speculations?

In the Catholic Church our theologians are allowed to have differing opinions regarding issues that are speculated on, but not on what is doctrine.

. . . .I'm not going to debate the topic, but using the Immaculate Conception as a topic to show that the Orthodox is somehow in error just won't work.

Why is that?

What we see in the EO Church regarding the Immaculate Conception are CONFLICTING doctrines, teachings between various EO groups today which also conflict with the ancient teaching of the Church in the East before and after the Great Schism.


Now, just looking at what is happening in the EO today regarding the Immaculate Conception without even going into the Early history of this doctrine at this point; we see the EO diagreeing with each other about what it is even all about . .

Some teach it is about Mary's state at some point . . .

Other say it has nothing to do with Mary herself, but with the conception of Jesus . .


Now, if this is doctrine, teaching of the Church, then you have the EO divided on what is right doctrine about Mary and what the phrase "Immaculate Conception" even refers to . . .

If it is NOT doctrine, then you have an even bigger problem . . for your doctrines are built into your liturgies, and Mary ALL HOLY ALL PURE is built into your ancient liturgies, and so, by definition, is doctrine . . .

If you say or imply it is not part of the realm of doctrine today, but part of the realm of speculative theology, then it is very easily demonstrated that the EO have departed from the ancient faith in doctrine, even as practiced in the East from centuries long past. . . .



Peace to all

 

[CaDan]

eoe this is a fallacy . . .

The Pope doesn't "make" doctrine at all, even for us . .

He PROTECTS, throught the charism of the Holy Spirit, the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles through the Early Church.


You errected a straw man..

I have alead presented evidence in this thread where the Pope, around 220AD, had the authoirty to change the penance requirements for certain sins . .a change that affected the entire Church, which made Tertullian the heretic furious at what he did . . . There was never a challange mounted to the Pope's authoirty to do so . . . .The pope was Callistus.

Maybe because Tertullian was in Carthage?

If the Popes did not have universal jurisdiction as the EO now claim, why did the Eastern Church recognize the Pope's universal jurisdiction to settle disputes outside his own Patriarchy?

Why did St Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople (and EASTERN Patriarchy) appeal to the Pope when he was unlawfully deposed and young Photius set up in his place?

He appealled directly to Rome. . . .

This is just a start eoe . . . . The EO here are making claims that they are not supporting very well . .




Peace to all

Politics? It was a fight between the Emperor and the Patriarch. It makes sense to have the Patriarch of Rome decide the dispute.

 

[thereselittleflower]

CaDan, is there anything worth fighting for to you?

An interesting question . . what should be worth fighting for for us?

Personally, I find the frequent interjection of comments by anyone that chide others for actually trying to have a respectful dialogue about issues we disagree on to be disruptive to the flow of discussion . . .


Peace to all

 

[CaDan]

CaDan, is there anything worth fighting for to you?

Very little is worth "fighting" for here. Arguing, yes. But not fighting or quarrelling. Far too much of what goes on here is quarelling or fighting, not arguing.

Lemme tell you something.

I'm good at arguing. Very, very good. I've done forensic debate since I was sixteen. I have been on national championship collegiate teams. I have judged out rounds at national tournaments.

I've practiced plaintiff's consumer protection law for more than a decade. Li'l ol' me tangles with the big downtown boys every day.

And you know what? It's fun. It's lots of fun.

But that, my friend, is argument.

What goes on at CF, I have learned, is something subtly different. Sure, the principles of Aristotle's Rhetoric still apply, but there is no decision, no judgment, no ballot at the end of the thread. Rather, we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. And they, in the end and in their hearts, decide whether or not our performance has been edifying.

No one here wants to see my professional persona. That privilege is reserved for debt collectors, scam artists, and repo men. How would that be edifying here? Here is the home of my brothers and sisters. I will not treat them that way.

So, I confess that I poke some pompous bubbles. I spread some ice cream. I sing my little songs.

I'd prefer not to dance the same old dour dance of outrage. Too much blood has been spilt over it; too many people have been driven away by it.

 

[GraceInHim]

CaDan - you have so much Grace it astounds me - this post is the best post I ever read - seriously - people like you are needed on here more often - to place a smile and a cheer here or there. You certianly do this.

God Bless You my Friend

 

[vanshan]

Here's an article I have posted bofore, but never received sufficient feedback from the Roman Catholics to it.

The Pope Who Condemned Primacy

In this article Saint Gregory clearly condemns the idea the idea that the Patriarch of Rome is in any way superior to the other Patriarchs. (i.e. the modern Papacy did not exist as late as the seventh century, as we can see by his objection to the idea of supremecy).

I don't want those only half-interested to miss out on some of they key points of this article:

"At this point it is interesting to read a qualified opinion: that of St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome (+ 604 A.D.)"

"And again to Eulogios, Bishop of Alexandria:
'Your Blessedness... You address me saying, 'As you have commanded.' This word 'command', I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am, and who you are. For in position you are my brethren, in character, my fathers... "...in the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself, who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg you most sweet Holiness to do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands, is subtracted from yourself... For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally.' (Book VIII: Epistle XXX) " [emphais mine]

"To Emperor Maurice:
'Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. (Book VII: Epistle XXXIII)" [emphasis mine]

Part of the confusion, according to the article arose when the title Ecumenical was translated into Latin:

"Ecumenical Patriarch," therefore, in Greek, was understood only as "the Patriarch of the Imperial town": just a synonym of Patriarch of Constantinople. As a matter of fact, this title is attested in sporadic use long before.

All the trouble started when the title was communicated to the Pope of Rome: it was translated into Latin as Patricharcha Universalis, i.e., "Universal Patriarch." Pope Gregory reacted because he thought that John was arrogating the supremacy in the Church. Of course, this was not Patriarch John's aim."

This confusion may have fed the minds of those corrupt Patriarch's of Rome who wanted to grab power to themselves, which had never been given by Christ, to them. Their lust for power sealed their fate and led one of the ancient patriarchates to swerve off course and collide face to face with the One True Church, of which Christ alone is the Head. They were anathematized as history shows and are still outside the true Universal Church.

Basil

 

[thereselittleflower]

Here's an article I have posted bofore, but never received sufficient feedback from the Roman Catholics to it.

The Pope Who Condemned Primacy

In this article Saint Gregory clearly condemns the idea the idea that the Patriarch of Rome is in any way superior to the other Patriarchs. (i.e. the modern Papacy did not exist as late as the seventh century, as we can see by his objection to the idea of supremecy).

I don't want those only half-interested to miss out on some of they key points of this article:

"At this point it is interesting to read a qualified opinion: that of St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome (+ 604 A.D.)"

"And again to Eulogios, Bishop of Alexandria:
'Your Blessedness... You address me saying, 'As you have commanded.' This word 'command', I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am, and who you are. For in position you are my brethren, in character, my fathers... "...in the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself, who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg you most sweet Holiness to do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands, is subtracted from yourself... For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally.' (Book VIII: Epistle XXX) " [emphais mine]

"To Emperor Maurice:
'Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. (Book VII: Epistle XXXIII)" [emphasis mine]

Part of the confusion, according to the article arose when the title Ecumenical was translated into Latin:

"Ecumenical Patriarch," therefore, in Greek, was understood only as "the Patriarch of the Imperial town": just a synonym of Patriarch of Constantinople. As a matter of fact, this title is attested in sporadic use long before.

All the trouble started when the title was communicated to the Pope of Rome: it was translated into Latin as Patricharcha Universalis, i.e., "Universal Patriarch." Pope Gregory reacted because he thought that John was arrogating the supremacy in the Church. Of course, this was not Patriarch John's aim."

This confusion may have fed the minds of those corrupt Patriarch's of Rome who wanted to grab power to themselves, which had never been given by Christ, to them. Their lust for power sealed their fate and led one of the ancient patriarchates to swerve off course and collide face to face with the One True Church, of which Christ alone is the Head. They were anathematized as history shows and are still outside the true Universal Church.

Basil

Vanshan . . .May I suggest that you take more care in choosing your sources.

I am really tired right now so am going to do the best I can to address what you have attempted to imply by using what is provided at that site as evidence as briefly as I can.

Pope Gregory has been prooftexted . . plain and simple. He has been made to appear as though he is stating something he is actually NOT stating . . . It ignores the body of evidence from him that indicates he believed exactly the opposite of how this site, and you by using it, have tried to make it appear he believes.

In other words, his words have been taken out of context in an attempt support an anit-Catholic positoin. This is frequently seen on the net . . no big surprise.






Let's take a look more of the evidence from Pope Gregory - as I am very tired right now, I am just going to do as you did . . paste the evidence here:

QUESTION: Is it true that Pope Gregory I denied that the pope is the "universal bishop" and taught that the Bishop of Rome has no authority over any other bishop?



ANSWER: No. Gregory the Great (540 - 604), saint, pope, and doctor of the Church, never taught any such thing. He would have denied that the title "universal bishop" could be applied to anyone, himself included, if by that term one meant there was only one bishop for the whole world and that all other "bishops" were bishops in name only, with no real authority of their own. Such a distorted version of the biblical model of bishops is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

But that isn't to say that the title didn't -- and doesn't -- have a proper sense of which Gregory approved. If meant in the sense that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of all the bishops, the title is correct. If it means he is the only bishop and all the other "bishops" are not really successors to the apostles, it's false.

What Gregory condemned was the expropriation of the title Universal Bishop by Bishop John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, who proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in 588. Gregory condemned the patriarch's act because universal jurisdiction applies solely to the pope.

Some anti-Catholics cite the following quotations to give the false impression that Gregory was rejecting his own universal authority:

"I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of the Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others" (Epistles 7:33).


​

"If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if besides Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what wilt thou say to Christ, who is the head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under thyself by the appellation of universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all?" (Epistles 5:18)





​

Predictably, anti-Catholics neglect to inform their audiences that the context of these statements makes it clear that Gregory was not making these statements in regard to himself or to any other pope. He believed the bishop of Rome has primacy of jurisdiction over all other bishops.



Like his predecessors and successors, Gregory promulgated numerous laws, binding on all other bishops, on issues such as clerical celibacy (1:42,50; 4:5,26,34; 7:1; 9:110,218; 10:19; 11:56), the deprivation of priests and bishops guilty of criminal offenses (1:18,32; 3:49; 4:26; 5:5,17,18), and the proper disposition of church revenues (1:10,64; 2:20-22; 3:22; 4:11)

Gregory's writings show that he regarded and conducted himself as the universal bishop of the Church. He calls the diocese of Rome "the Apostolic See, which is the head of all other churches" (13:1).

He said, "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church" (5:44). He taught that the pope, as successor to Peter, was granted by God a primacy over all other bishops (2:44; 3:30; 5:37; 7:37).

He claimed that it was necessary for councils and synods to have the pope's approval to be binding and that only the pope had the authority to annul their decrees (9:56; 5:39,41,44).

He enforced his authority to settle disputes between bishops, even between patriarchs, and rebuked lax and erring bishops (2:50; 3:52,63; 9:26,27).

When Gregory denounced John the Faster's attempt to lay claim to the title Universal Bishop, his words were in accord with his actions and with his teachings. He was unequivocal in his teaching that all other bishops are subject to the pope:

"As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it" (Epistles 9:26).





​

There's more . . . regarding the issue of universal biship:

The epistle [Epp v:44], which is far too long to give in detail, may be summarized as follows -- [Pope Gregory the Great to John the Faster]

"You pretended to be anxious to avoid the patriarchate, but now you have got it you act as though you had canvassed for it. Having confessed yourself unworthy to be called a bishop, you now seek to becalled the only bishop. You disregarded the admonitions of Pope Pelagius, you neglected my own. Though your office is to teach humility to others, you have not yet learnt yourself the elements of this lesson.


"My brother, love humility, and do not try to raise yourself by abasing your brethren. Abandon this rash name, this word of pride and folly, which is disturbing the peace of the whole Church. How will you face Christ at the judgment, when by this sinful title you have tried to subject His members to yourself? 'Universal Bishop,' indeed! Why, you imitate Lucifer, who said: 'I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will be like the Most High' [Isa 14]."

"By this unspeakable title the Church is rent asunder and the hearts of all the faithful are offended. It is written 'Charity seeketh not her own'; but your Fraternity seeks far more than your own. Again, it is written: 'In honour preferring one another'; but you strive to take away the honour of all when you unlawfully seek to usurp it for yourself alone. Already more than once I have reproved your sin through my representative, and now I write myself. If you despise this reproof, I must have recourse to the Church, as the precept of the Gospel commands (Matt 18:15-17)."


​

And there's still more:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num7.htm





the only bishop.


That is the context Basil . . . another patriarch who wanted to be the ONLY Bishop . . . . Please read the link above. . there is much more than I posted here.


And Basil, you are simply continuing in your last paragraph to make inflammatory negative statements against my Church and Faith without any objective evidence being offered to back thiem up .. .


I have asked you to stop . . you apologized . . yet here you are doing it again . . .









Peace to all