St.Peters See: Rome or Antioch?

[Ignatios]

when called upon by God to bring back his brethern to the fold.

Nothing in the Bible tells us that the other Apostles have gone astray so St. Peter bring them back to the fold.

The Only one who had to repent was St. Peter because he denied JESUS three times, the Bible said nothing about the other Apostles being gone astray so that St. Peter had to bring them to the Fold.

The Bishops themselves excercise this same authority over their own priests and provence. The Kingdom of God cannot have many Vicars of Christ over the whole Church only One Pope

Let me refer you back again to your own CCC:

936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is "head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth"

How come they said in the CCC that the Bishop of the Church of Rome is the Vicar of CHRIST and not the Pope as you have been suggesting all along???

There is more then “ONE POPE” the Pope of Alexandria, actually the later is the first Pope way before the Pope of Rome.

… your orthodox view which conflicts with Jesus teaching would only bring in evil and chaos into the body of Jesus Christ if your Schism view that all Bishops isolate their authority to themselves prevails and deny Jesus teaching of Peters posseser of the Keys to God's KIngdom on earth,

This, I like to yet see from the Bible and not according to your church’s teaching.

This is going to be your challenge, show me from the scriptures that Orthodox view conflicts with JESUS teachings, and I will show you that you are holding on to a mere man teaching, and please don’t run off to many subjects keep it constricted to what you have mentioned namely the following from your own text:

“…Bishops isolate their authority to themselves prevails and deny Jesus teaching of Peters…”

…. The Rock will not change, and the Rock is Peter, and Rock remains in his successors in each Pope in every age. Peace be with you

Well majority of the Church fathers disagree with you on the “Rock” isuue,

As for that “the Rock remains in his successors in each Pope in every age."

Hhhmm, Let me present you with a piece of info. Just one to illustrate for you, your lack of knowledge about the things that you write about.

Go to the List of the Popes in the newadvent

(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm)

Then go down to the 146th pope ( Benedict IX )and then 148th Pope (Benedict IX )and then 151st, Pope (Benedict IX ) he was the nephew of Pope Benedict VIII (1012–1024) and Pope John XIX (1024–1032).

St. Peter Damian described him as "feasting on immorality" and "a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest" in the Liber Gomorrhianus. TheCatholic Encyclopedia calls him "a disgrace to the Chair of Peter."

He was also accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile adulteries and murders".[3] Pope Victor III in his third book of Dialogues, referred to "his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts.
His life as a pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it. In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage, selling his office to his godfather, the pious priest John Gratian, who named himself Gregory VI.

And then, look for Pope Benedict X, when you find him let me know, but if you don't find him try to find out why the RCC skipped Benedict X.

I will stop here, because the purpose of this piece of Info. is Just show you how off you are with your knowledge, Go “study and search” with an open mind and white heart for the purpose of getting to know GOD HIS true Church and HIS true Doctrine.

GOD bless you all and especially you Gabriel of 12 abundantly, †††

and forgive me if offended anybody with my harshness, but my intention is good and GOD Knows .



.

[BerhaneSelassie]

The following was written by a SYRIAN bishop around the year 800

"You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.// Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the apostles it was St. Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by these words. Moreover, we know of no apostle who fell and needed St. Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these words only St. Peter himself, this person causes the church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of St. Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the church that came from Satan after the apostles’ death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean them by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the church only after the death of the apostles – Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Sabelllius, Apollinaris, Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the gospel only St. Peter, the church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly ‘the gates of hell’, which Christ said would not overcome the church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts."—Theodore Abu Qurrah, Syrian Catholic (orthodox) Bishop, c. AD 800, (pp. 68-69) (taken from James Likoudis)

[SyroMalankara]

I'm not quite sure James Likoudis is accurate in his citation. Bishop Theodore was not Syriac Catholic/Orthodox, he was Melkite bishop of Harran. In fact, according to wikipedia, he was was removed from his See by Patriarch Theodoret (for unknown reasons).

[BerhaneSelassie]

http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/theodore.htm

the first paragraph of wikipedia lists no sources

[Formosus]

Just from reading the quote. It looks like that Bishop was writing during or around the time of the iconoclasm. So his language was very pro-Roman as Rome had condemned the Iconoclasts and supported the Iconophiles. That would be my guess.

[BerhaneSelassie]

more on him here

http://books.google.com/books?id=Lmb...Qurrah&f=false

http://www.doaks.org/publications/do...6/DP56ch02.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?id=E51...age&q=&f=false

the last suggests he was removed for not being an iconoclast

[Nine_Two]

Ignatios - It's pretty pointless to argue with Gabriel. In another thread he called me "unorthodox" and saying I was "anti-Roman" because I told him that the Orthodox do in fact accept former Protestants without forcing them to go back to Rome.

I'm still waiting for his proof that this means there is "disunity" in the Church.

[Gabriel of 12]

[quote=Ignatios;5998856]And Greetings to you too, Gabriel of 12.

If the documents of your church are not what they read, then, by all means. Explain them and interpret them for us.

My understanding is that, the CCC is in itself an interpretation so no would interpret for himself.

Gabriel of 12;

And so you have very misinterpreted them and misunderstand them. Again one should read these documents with a scriptural and historical mindset. Your posts is too large for me to comment on directly, so I will address your confusions, and clarify to you your misunderstandings.


Igatios;
3) We do not deny GOD’s giving authority to St. Peter BUT also nor do we deny GOD’s giving authority to the other Apostles either.


Gabriel of 12;
Your statement above summarizes all of the Catechism documents you have presented here. If you could remain in this biblical Truth of Peters authority and also the other apostles, without going to Antioch, Rome, Constantinople, the Catechism explains it very well. Remember we are in total agreement from your own words above.


Ignatios;
We the Orthodox acknowledge that the RCC is a Petrine, however and indeed they are not what they claim themselves to be as the only successor to St Peter who hold the office of St. Peter, for the FIRST Bishop was ordained by St Peter to care for his flock was the Bishop of Antioch Not Rome, and the claim of Antioch for St. Peter is undisputable unlike the one of Rome.
I don’t know where you are getting your conclusion from? I am wondering now if you know the difference between the Orthodox and the Protestant.

Gabriel of 12;
Very good, I feel we are making headway. The Orthodox acknowledge that the RCC is Petrine. Could it be that you have misgivings and misunderstandings of Peter's Chair. Remember all the apostles have been given authority, you have acknowledged the Petrine authority. St. Peter may have ordained many Bishops, so did the other apostles, so does the Patriarch today, so does the Bishop of Rome today, what is the problem? To argue for a province is not my undertaking here, but the authority invested in Peter alone, as he was singled out in scripture from the apostles and then with the apostles.

Your Eastern heresies are not the same as the protestant heresies in the West. Your Heresy's lasted for centuries, the protestant heresies splintered and continue to splinter as time goes on.

cont;

[Gabriel of 12]

Igatios;
Sir, how could you assume that I read the RCC’s document with prejudice? When I attended the RCIA I did so, because I admired the sensibility that it was put forth by your church and went there with an open mind and I almost got bought in to that.
The above attack namely the word “prejudice” was unreasonable literally.
Now and before I call you prejudice (although your comments and unreasonable attacks in your posts shows that you are worthy of it), have you studied the Orthodox catechism with a good intention and open mind like I did with your RCIA?


Gabriel of 12;
I used the word "prejudice" from a legal definition to a document. In other words you came into the documents with preconceived notions that are not there in the documents, of which I hope to translate to you from a simple mind without preconceived notions. I have not studied the Orthodox catechism. If I can offer my personal opinion to you here to clarify my position; I don't recognize Orthodoxy until after 1054 a.d before this date Catholicism in my eyes and study of history from both East and Western Martyred Popes and Saints were all one.

So, you may be correct in stating that I may view your schism with the Pope as one who protests. I should state here, that I personally do not have any quarrels with the new founded Orthodox from 1054 a.d. I view these as still in communion with the body of Jesus Christ which is all of us from our baptisms and sacraments, I would only subscribe to St. Paul's teaching on the body of Jesus Christ as being many members but one body. I will conclude that your Orthodoxy has a problem with authority not me and my Catholic faith. I see you as a brother in Christ. I do not place my faith above yours, nor do I place your faith above mine, it is here when I love to hear the Orthodox speak "as equals".

Ignatios;
Gabriel, Maybe here is good example why you are RC and I am Orthodox,
I have looked at the RCC, the EOC, the Protestants and even Islam documents, Teachings, belief from all sides Biblically (Qoranically, Islam) and Historically, all from within and from out, those documents that are for, and those that are against, and the only one that could stand this extensive scrutiny and come out victorious, was the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD.

Gabriel of 12;
Granted, I respect your opinion and may God bless you. I am still studying and living my Roman Catholic Faith, and I am convinced that my life time would not suffice the complete study of my Catholic faith. I have looked into the EOC, studied with many different Protestant and non denominations, Islam I researched, but Islam comes to late for me in history for it to be from God and to devote my life to this new theology that deny's my very God.

Igatios;
Alright I am loosing here, Are you saying that the Bishop of Rome is different than the Pope of Rome and also different from the Patriarch of the west( although we know that the present pope turned the last one down), If so then by all means explain to me why the CCC # 882 addressed the Pope Bishop of Rome without making any distinction, “CCC # 882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor”


Gabriel of 12;
The Bishiop of Rome and any valid Bishop including Patriarchs are only different in their Episcopate territory caring for the same flock who may be of different peoples, nations and tongues. The Pope when elected takes on a new name, and relieved from his previous duties and also becomes Bishop of Rome, the last see Peter and Paul completed their race in their natural bodies, which lay to rest both in Rome today. I ask you to recall your above statement to which East and West are unanimous in agreement. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome which authenticates his Apostolic office. The Pope must be a successor to the Apostles by his Episcopacy.


cont;

[Gabriel of 12]

Igantios;
Ok, here we go, “The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor”
What they are saying is that the Pope Is the Bishop of Rome whom is Peter’s successor, In fact they are giving the same description of authority, times they say the Pope and times they say the Bishop of Rome But the authority is being described the same for both titles, because the Bishop of Rome is the Pope of Rome, if not then you have a total confusion since now you have the Bishop of Rome who has the same power as the Pope of Rome.


Gabriel of 12:
You never ever want to say again "the Bishop of Rome is the Pope of Rome", because it reveals a total ignorance and disregard for Apostolic succession and authority Christ gave to the apostles and Peter to shepherd his flock, not to mention can lead many astray and confused just as you displayed above.

Ignatios;
Now if you compare what you have said in your previous post, to the following:

CCC# 892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church

Gabriel of 12;
Let me translate; Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles which are all the Bishops in the World including East and West, who teach in communion (unity) with the successor of Peter present day Pope and every Pope since Peter. From the apostolic period we find all apostles in communion, only the cause of the first council in Jerusalem the apostle Paul showed contempt for Peter, but all fell silence after Peter spoke. Now here comes the clarification that refutes your misunderstanding after the "successor of Peter, AND, IN A PARTICULAR WAY, to the bishop of Rome" this particular way gives distinction of Peter's successor as a Bishop which authenticates his Petrine office, the phrase that follows next brings the authenticated successor of Peter as "pastor of the whole Church". Particular is CCC language that references each bishops particular church, as is seen here to the bishop of Rome.

Ignatios;
Also:
936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is "head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth"

Gabriel of 12;
Translation; The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church Rome,(Peter served his last days of his life as an apostle in Rome), now his successor which is a bishop of Rome authenticating his apostolicity is "successor to St. Peter, is "head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth". Peter the Pope calls his brethren back together when ever the faith is disrupted in the college of bishops making him head, Just as Jesus Christ instructed and commissioned Peter to call his brethren back. This is the Popes duties and history proves the Peter and his successors in the Popes have acted on their divine Petrinistic calling.

Vicar is also applied to Priests, bishops, and pastors over their distinct flock, It is Peter in the Pope who calls all the vicars of Jesus Christ from their episcopacy in the college of bishops. There can be no error when all these in communion with the Pope give an apostolic teaching, or clarification. Infallibility exists in this full communion if ever exercised.


Ignatios; ( In post# 36 you said the following: … I was making a distinction from your false accusations that the Bishop of Rome "overrules other Bishops" this is not true…) and then also you said >>> ( …your false accusation about the Bishop of Rome and his duties and the Popes duties to Jesus flock … Peter has remained faithful to his God given commission through his successors in the Popes.

Gabriel of 12;
I still stand by what I posted. For clarification it is incorrect language to state the Bishop of Rome "overrules Bishops" your incorrect language invites an incorrect understanding of a true apostolic successor in the Bishops. It also adds flame to a fire that burns all by itself, and requires its own source from error of humanity to feed this flame, it is not of the Holy Spirit. A Bishop never overrules another Bishop, let alone the Bishop of Rome when the successor of Peter is not attached to him.

Ignatios;
CCC# 937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls"


Gabriel of 12;
You better believe it, translation Peter from scripture is the one God gives a vision to call what is good, resulting in Peter allowing all gentiles into the Church of "The Way". The Pope enjoys by divine institution because as we have agreed Peter was given this authority then the apostles. The Pope has always exercised his power in the care of souls, in fact the new world was evangelized by the Popes supreme, full immediate and universal power to take Jesus Christ to a new world of gentiles (indigenous peoples) into the Body of Jesus Christ his Catholic church. The Popes historically have already excercised what this later document describes.

cont;

[Gabriel of 12]

Igantios;
Also:
CCC#1559 …In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention of the Bishop of Rome, because he is the supreme visible bond of the communion of the particular Churches in the one Church and the guarantor of their freedom.


Gabriel of 12;
Translation; "In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention of the Bishop of Rome" Because the Bishop of Rome is required by a SPECIAL INTERVENTION, he qualifies in the ordination of Bishops because his is a Bishop, the special intervention is required because the Bishop of Rome is successor to Peter in the Pope so the Pope by his authentic bishophoric intervenes by recognizing the ordination, approving, attending, applying the ordination all of the above can apply, the main thing is that the Bishop of Rome because he is who unites all those other bishops of the "PARTICUAR CHURCH'S" in the one Church as successor to Peter in the Pope is the guarantor of their freedom. In summary the CCC is displaying by all historical and biblical accounts the Bishop of Rome can excercise his apostolic authority by ordaining bishops, while at the same time as succsessor to Peter as Pope welcomes the new ordained into the Church.

Igantios;
CCC#1594 … the bishops share in the apostolic responsibility and mission of the whole Church under the authority of the Pope, successor of St. Peter.

Gabriel of 12;
Translation; if we were to remove the title Pope and successor we would have total agreement here. But history, the martyred Popes excercising their authority as successor to Peter does not change and will not ever change, it is already written in blood. All the bishops are equal including the bishop of Rome. Each bishop is responsible for their Episcopate, but when it comes to call all the brethern Jesus gave us a "Rock" that does not change in Peter and his successors in the Long line of Popes. Because each bishop is responsible for his see, when it comes to "all the brethern" who are affected we need a Peter present day Pope to lead the brethern back so that in each of them, they as one body can excercise their shared authority in the mission of the whole church, especially to defeat heresies and or secular laws that affect humanity and peace.

For example Pope John Paul the Great stood within communist walls and called the brethern "Its ok to believe in God", the rest is all history, for the walls of berlin fell. I state this because what the CCC is stating can be backed up from acts of Peter and the apostles, this Peter and apostle relationship is again acted upon in historical events by the Popes and the successors to the apostles.
CCC#877 … For this reason every bishop exercises his ministry from within the episcopal college, in communion with the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter and head of the college.

Please read all the above carefully and comprehend before you put yourself in another embarrassing spot.

continued...[/quote]


Gabriel of 12;
If Iam shamed for speaking the Truth, then Iam a blessed man. If I have revealed an embarrassing spot on my behalf to correct a false pretense of the body of Jesus Christ, I freely accept it, and remain a fool for Jesus Christ, so long as my brethern can come to the light of clarification and understanding.

As far as Jesus giving the Keys to the Pope of Rome is a silly argument, but I shall entertatin you;

You have already established in the beginning that Jesus gave authority to Peter and also to the apostles. It is established already that Apostolic Succession already exists in the Bishops. So if you believe in succession to the apostles, how much difficult is it to believe in the apostolic succession to Peter? To deny this is to deny ones own faith. I ask you, how do you know your baptism is valid?

I dont need to give you a biblical discourse on the authority of Peter's Chair here, when we have our Lord Jesus himself giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter, building his Church upon Simons new name "Kephas" Rock.

You see Ignatios, I am not moved by men who say here is the kingdom or there is the kingdom of God, the reason Iam not EOC or anything other than Roman Catholic is because God himself from scripture builds his Church upon Peter period, it is written, History proves Peter and his successors in the Popes no man can deny this both secular and world religions including Jewish, have authenticated Jesus founded the Catholic Church upon Peter and his apostles. God Word has spoken "thou are Petros and upon this Rock I will build my Church". What man can put asunder what God has put together?

I will give you this much in Orthodoxy, your language and your cultures are very beautiful an enlightening. But these were all new when the Gospel of Jesus was brought to you at the expense of the blood of Martyrs and Popes. Today the Gospel message is still being proclaimed to new people and new nations just as it was proclaimed to you anew.

Peace be with you

[Gabriel of 12]

[quote=Ignatios;5998932]Nothing in the Bible tells us that the other Apostles have gone astray so St. Peter bring them back to the fold.

The Only one who had to repent was St. Peter because he denied JESUS three times, the Bible said nothing about the other Apostles being gone astray so that St. Peter had to bring them to the Fold.

Gabriel of 12;
I believe we have language barrier here, because now you are reading things into my posts that are not there. What part of Scripture do you deny? If scripture does not lie, there was no one standing with Jesus except his Mother and John, where were the others? Jesus told Peter to "stregthen your brothers". Why would Jesus waste his breath to state this, if the other disciples did not loose faith in order for Peter to strengthen them? I just dont get your denial here? Unless your reading something into the scripture or removing substance from the scipture, thank God for the Pope and the apostolic Magisterium who protects these teachings from fallen into error.

Do you deny that when the Shepherd was struck the sheep scattered? Jesus prayed for Peter, this was foretold by Jesus before it took place; Luke 22:31
10 11 "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32
but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."


Ignatios;
There is more then “ONE POPE” the Pope of Alexandria, actually the later is the first Pope way before the Pope of Rome.

This, I like to yet see from the Bible and not according to your church’s teaching.

This is going to be your challenge, show me from the scriptures that Orthodox view conflicts with JESUS teachings, and I will show you that you are holding on to a mere man teaching, and please don’t run off to many subjects keep it constricted to what you have mentioned namely the following from your own text:

“…Bishops isolate their authority to themselves prevails and deny Jesus teaching of Peters…”


Gabriel of 12;

Maybe it may be more clearer to just quote scripture for you; I leave your answer in bold face type below; I trust Jesus promise of Peter that though hell (lies, apostates, heretics, false teachers etc..) will come against him and his (Jesus )Church but the "Netherworld shall not prevail against it". You may apply this scripture to prove that Peter and his successors in the Popes throughout history experienced this prophecy from Jesus and yet Peter's Chair remains, and so does his successsors. So any negativety you bring here from history only proves the battle took place by your confirmation, so please be my guess, because you only confirm what Jesus foretold of Peter and his Church.

17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


Ignatios;
Well majority of the Church fathers disagree with you on the “Rock” isuue,

As for that “the Rock remains in his successors in each Pope in every age."


Gabriel of 12;
So you disagree that when Jesus stated that he will never leave them orphans, and will always be with his church? As St. Paul states "and the Rock was Christ". How come the mystics from the East and Early Church fathers understand this language and you dont? I believe we have a language barrier here.


I am never offended by one who is misinformed or misunderstood about my Catholic Faith. I believe we have made progress here, I see your ignorance to the CCC and the misunderstandings of speech used in my posts.


Peace be with you

[Gabriel of 12]

Originally Posted by Nine_Two

Ignatios - It's pretty pointless to argue with Gabriel. In another thread he called me "unorthodox" and saying I was "anti-Roman" because I told him that the Orthodox do in fact accept former Protestants without forcing them to go back to Rome.

I'm still waiting for his proof that this means there is "disunity" in the Church.

Gabriel of 12;
Peace be with you Nine Two; I hope its pointless to argue with me here?, I am hoping we are sharing views and one another's understandings so as to grow not seek a victory in an argument? If that is your purpose here, then that is probably why have not returned yet to your post, I thought we were finished from my last post? forgive me for not returning yet.

For the record, I did not call you "unorthodox" I stated you have "unorthodox views" let us be clear here and keep from false statements. Your views are unorthodox because other Orthodox have stated the opposite of your post in proselytizing Protestants, when other Orthodox have clearly stated they want nothing to do with them, because they are Romes problem, not the Orthodox.


Nine Two;
"and saying I was "anti-Roman" because I told him that the Orthodox do in fact accept former Protestants without forcing them to go back to Rome."

Nine Two, please stop twisting my words here less I expose you to be a liar. I never called you "anti-Roman", and the forcing protestants to go back to Rome, is totally a distortion of my words and off subject matter. What is your purpose to say such false statements of me? I sensed anti-Pope sentiments from the Orthodox postings from your thread, I never stated these words as you have incorrectly displayed them.


The disunity does not come from me, it comes from those in Orthodoxy who themselves have stated they do not recognize certain authorities among Orthodox church's and rites, in here lays the disunity. I ask you? are all in comnmunion with one partriarch? do all submit to one authority?

The Western Church I find all in one unity, in one body in one authority, there is no disunity among authority in the Western Church. Does the same unity exist in all of the Eastern Orthodoxy? This was my point from the thread. I dont refrain from my belief that under valid sacraments no matter the problem with authority, Jesus Christ still reigns.

It is men who have the problem with authority from pride, not the Children of God.

Peace be with you

[Nine_Two]

Originally Posted by Gabriel of 12

Nine Two, please stop twisting my words here less I expose you to be a liar. I never called you "anti-Roman", and the forcing protestants to go back to Rome, is totally a distortion of my words and off subject matter. What is your purpose to say such false statements of me? I sensed anti-Pope sentiments from the Orthodox postings from your thread, I never stated these words as you have incorrectly displayed them.

You also called me "unorthodox," which to an Orthodox person is the same as calling them a heretic.

The disunity does not come from me, it comes from those in Orthodoxy who themselves have stated they do not recognize certain authorities among Orthodox church's and rites, in here lays the disunity. I ask you? are all in comnmunion with one partriarch? do all submit to one authority?

We're all in communion with each other and with all the Patriarchs. Just because we are not a monarchy does not mean we don't have unity.

The Western Church I find all in one unity, in one body in one authority, there is no disunity among authority in the Western Church. Does the same unity exist in all of the Eastern Orthodoxy? This was my point from the thread. I dont refrain from my belief that under valid sacraments no matter the problem with authority, Jesus Christ still reigns.

We don't have a monarchy, we have many who rule in concert, however since there is no need to change anything there is no need to have a single all powerful ruler.

It is men who have the problem with authority from pride, not the Children of God.

Yes they do. If only you'd realize that true Authority doesn't reside with some mythic See, but with the Collective successors, as it always has.

[BerhaneSelassie]

What happens if all the patriarchs in the East are in communion with everyone but the Pope of Rome, and it happens that all the Patriarchs of the East (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria) are heretics, as in the case of the Acacian Schism?

I've heard people argue that Rome must have broken away from the East, because 4 Patriarchs do not break away from one, it must the other way around! Nope, its happened before, and Rome was the only one left standing. When it came down to it only one See was right, and it just so happened that this See claimed supremacy

http://web.archive.org/web/200804102...cianschism.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacian_schism
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Acacian_Schism