The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 246 guests, and 50 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 167
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by StuartK
2. Yes. When first raised in the 13th century, the very notion of papal infallibility was rejected by the Papacy (granted, it had a different definition and objective back then, but yes, Popes did once reject the notion that they were infallible.

Interesting. I have a feeling many fellow devoted Catholics will disagree with you here!:o So if that is the case, how does such a claim of papal infallibility fall into the context of beliefs "passed down to us from the Apostles?"

There is a profound claim that the timing of the dogmatic definition of Papal infallibility coincided with the Pope's loss of his temporal power over the Papal States in 1870. This, perhaps due to the loss of his physical kingdom, was meant to vigorously strengthen his spiritual realm?

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 192
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 192
Originally Posted by StuartK
1. Of course not. Paul, for one, "rebuked Peter to his face". And, to speak of "power" in the context of the primitive Church would require one to believe that they really did completely misunderstand the Gospel of Christ. "The rulers of this world lord it over their followers and call themselves benefactors; it shall not be so with you".

Would not a protestant of similar intellectuality say the same for what catholics and orthodox hold the bishops and ecumenical councils for?


Quote
2. Yes. When first raised in the 13th century, the very notion of papal infallibility was rejected by the Papacy (granted, it had a different definition and objective back then, but yes, Popes did once reject the notion that they were infallible.

It's completely untrue statement! Even a beginner of church history will see that popes claimed infallibility from the beginning of historical papacy. I told you to, and you promissed you will, read Walter Ullman's history of papacy.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 192
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 192
Let us get back to our dear friend, the thread opener, Stephan.
For the orthodox too, Stephan, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. The one example I brought you from a historical book about byzantium, of J.J.Norwich testifies how the eastern greek byzantines protested and fighted to protect the illtreatment done to the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, by the byzantine emperor, Justinian, whose uncle, emperor Justin, too paid the respect of foot kissing to the Pope and called him Head of the Church.

Last edited by Arbanon; 09/01/12 12:58 PM.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 192
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 192
Utroque,

It is clear, I have a right to not treat civilly people like StuartK! He has given me the right to do so!
Nevertheless I wont, because....!

Last edited by Arbanon; 09/01/12 12:56 PM.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
Don't invoke the historians. We generally have some very disappointing discoveries. Unless you want revisionist. To add to the fray, James the brother of our Lord and First bishop of Jerusalem, presided over the first Apostolic council. Does it negate what Christ said to Peter? No. But it does support Turabians style, one of the most widely accepted methods in history.
And the question would arise, If Peter is the First then why is it James that presides?
Do I have the evidence to back up my thesis, either way.
And finally answering the question; so what?

The third is the kicker, especially here; how is it that you will convince the Roman Catholics of the Orthodox position and vise verse?


Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by Arbanon
Let us get back to our dear friend, the thread opener, Stephan.

Maybe we should. I note, in particular, that he said:

Originally Posted by perplexedstepan
Greetings in Christ!

Thank you to everyone who has contributed. I've gotten my answer. Mods, please lock this thread as I had no intention of creating a debate/flame war.

Forgive me.

In XC,
Stepan


I don't have any strong feelings about it one way or the other; but it's at least worth considering closing the thread at this point.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 192
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 192

You are wrong PeterJ! The same as StuartK! Back, it means to the first opening posting!

I am sorry, we must have enough of smart arses in here! The first who askes, offends etc counts!

Last edited by Arbanon; 09/01/12 02:20 PM.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
Arbanon,

Calm down. I don't think anyone is playing gotcha, but you. Just present your position and leave it at that. You might even find that not all the Orthodox posters on this list would agree with your position.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 192
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 192
I am sure lots of orthodox wont agree with me, especially goc.

The only greek I have seen so far to completely have an against hellenism view of christianity is James Likoudis.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 192
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 192
James Likoudis, a rare greek orthodox converted into roman catholicism.

http://credo.stormloader.com/jlindex.htm

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
Originally Posted by chadrook
Don't invoke the historians. We generally have some very disappointing discoveries. Unless you want revisionist. To add to the fray, James the brother of our Lord and First bishop of Jerusalem, presided over the first Apostolic council. Does it negate what Christ said to Peter? No. But it does support Turabians style, one of the most widely accepted methods in history.
And the question would arise, If Peter is the First then why is it James that presides?
Do I have the evidence to back up my thesis, either way.
And finally answering the question; so what?

The third is the kicker, especially here; how is it that you will convince the Roman Catholics of the Orthodox position and vise verse?

I suggest that you read Chapter 15 of Acts more carefully. There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests that James, brother of the Lord, presided at this gathering of Apostles and Presbyters in Jerusalem. He may have presided over the church in Jerusalem, but the gathering is not a gathering of the Jerusalem church. Peter is at this gathering and is the first to speak after there has been some debate. He rather authoritatively silences the crowd, so to speak. James comes in next supporting what Peter has said and adds a couple of restrictions he feels are essentials of Mosaic law.

I don't think any of us on the forum, Catholic, Orthodox or otherwise, need try to convince the other of our positions. We just need to state as truthfully, clearly and as accurately as possible what we believe. As an old man I get immense pleasure from reading the posts from time to time, and hope that, at least some, may obtain enlightenment from what I write.

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Arbanon
Let us get back to our dear friend, the thread opener, Stephan.
For the orthodox too, Stephan, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. The one example I brought you from a historical book about byzantium, of J.J.Norwich testifies how the eastern greek byzantines protested and fighted to protect the illtreatment done to the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, by the byzantine emperor, Justinian, whose uncle, emperor Justin, too paid the respect of foot kissing to the Pope and called him Head of the Church.
He wasn't the only one called Head of the Church, e.g. St. Basil writing to Pope St. Athanasius on Pat. St. Meletius:
Quote
No one knows better than you do, that, like all wise physicians, you ought to begin your treatment in the most vital parts, and what part is more vital to the Churches throughout the world than Antioch? Only let Antioch be restored to harmony, and nothing will stand in the way of her supplying, as a healthy head, soundness to all the body. Truly the diseases of that city, which has not only been cut asunder by heretics, but is torn in pieces by men who say that they are of one mind with one another, stand in need of your wisdom and evangelic sympathy.

emphasis added.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.lxvii.html

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by chadrook
Don't invoke the historians. We generally have some very disappointing discoveries. Unless you want revisionist. To add to the fray, James the brother of our Lord and First bishop of Jerusalem, presided over the first Apostolic council. Does it negate what Christ said to Peter? No. But it does support Turabians style, one of the most widely accepted methods in history.
And the question would arise, If Peter is the First then why is it James that presides?
Do I have the evidence to back up my thesis, either way.
And finally answering the question; so what?

The third is the kicker, especially here; how is it that you will convince the Roman Catholics of the Orthodox position and vise verse?

I suggest that you read Chapter 15 of Acts more carefully. There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests that James, brother of the Lord, presided at this gathering of Apostles and Presbyters in Jerusalem. He may have presided over the church in Jerusalem, but the gathering is not a gathering of the Jerusalem church. Peter is at this gathering and is the first to speak after there has been some debate. He rather authoritatively silences the crowd, so to speak. James comes in next supporting what Peter has said and adds a couple of restrictions he feels are essentials of Mosaic law.

I don't think any of us on the forum, Catholic, Orthodox or otherwise, need try to convince the other of our positions. We just need to state as truthfully, clearly and as accurately as possible what we believe. As an old man I get immense pleasure from reading the posts from time to time, and hope that, at least some, may obtain enlightenment from what I write.
ἐγὼ [St. James] κρίνω: "I judge..." 15:9

If St. Peter "is the first to speak after there has been some debate," he was not the first to speak. He is not the last to speak. That is St. James.

"He rather authoritatively silences the crowd, so to speak." And they listen to SS. Sials and Paul during that "silence."

The Definition sent to Antioch records St. James' judgement, not St. Peter's testimony.

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by StuartK
2. The respect held for the Bishop of Rome in the first millennium has really nothing at all to do with the Papal perquisites today.

Not right on. History is a continuum, Stuart, not a series of isolated epochs. The task of an historian is to uncover that continuity. The statement quoted above is like saying an oak tree has really nothing to do with an acorn. The Papal prerequisites of today have a lot to do with the respect held for the Bishop of Rome in the first millennium, and the continuity and vitality of that office today is living evidence. I've always found it interesting that while there are Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem; there is no Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Rome. Something to think about.
Not difficult to ponder. At the time of Chalcedon, the break between those who refused to honor the deposition of Pope Dioscorus and those who supported Chalcedon and hence Pope Proterius was clear cut at the beginning. In Antioch, the Synod of Sidon deposed Pat. St. Flavian II in favor of Patriarch Severus, who in turn was deposed and replaced by Patriarch Paul II. The non-Chalcedonians, however, stuck with Severus, a break which from that beginning was carried on by Jacob Baradaeus of Edessa, the font of the non-Chalcedonian patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, with the ordiantion of Paul II the Black of Alexandira (two different Paul II's, Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian, though the non-Chalcedonian embraced Chalcedon later, under Patriarch Anastasius I of the rival line).

There was no OO Patriarchate of Constantiniple until the Ottomans brought in an Armenian Cathholicos after 1453.

There is no OO Patriarchate of Jerusalem, ever.

Old Rome cutting itself off from the rest of the Church never was as dramatic as that. It was not until the Crusaders set up rival patriarchates in the remaining Orthodox sees 1099-1204 that it became apparent that the Pope in Rome wasn't the same as he had been in the first millenium, but by then it was too late-and, given Western arms, impossible-to replace him with an Orthodox pope in Old Rome.

Btw, there is an Orthodox bishop in Old Rome of Italy, Bp. Siluan, and a Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of All Italy, who is in Venice, the latter being there for some centuries.

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by StuartK
1. Of course not. Paul, for one, "rebuked Peter to his face". And, to speak of "power" in the context of the primitive Church would require one to believe that they really did completely misunderstand the Gospel of Christ. "The rulers of this world lord it over their followers and call themselves benefactors; it shall not be so with you".

2. Yes. When first raised in the 13th century, the very notion of papal infallibility was rejected by the Papacy (granted, it had a different definition and objective back then, but yes, Popes did once reject the notion that they were infallible.
On point two, what exact incidents do you have in mind?

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Irish Melkite 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5