/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>750014

St. Cyprian of Carthage

>"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

St. Irenaeus

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

The Letter of Clement to James

>"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

St. Ephrem the Syrian

>"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

(2/4)

>>750017

And that is only a couple, there are several other examples of the Church Fathers teaching Petrine primacy. How do you Eastern Orthodox christians claim to revere the Church Fathers, yet ignore these writings? It's clear that Peter was superior to all the other apostles, even St. Irenaeus says that Rome is the church that all must follow because of it's Petrine origin. There can't be any equality among the bishops, as the Church Fathers clearly iterate a supremacy of St. Peter, and the term "first among equals" makes no sense at all, because there is no primacy in equality. If Christ wanted to have an equality of bishops, he would have given the Keys of the Kingdom to all of His apostles, and not just St. Peter alone. He wouldn't have changed St. Peter's name to "rock", and told him He would build His church upon it, He would have told all of His apostles that they are the rock.

(3/4)

>>750018

Also, there is no unity in the Eastern Orthodox churches. I don't need to mention the schisms. Or the fact that those churches are ethnic clubs that never attempt any evangelizing to foreigners.

The whole "invisible church" thing is nonsense. That they are "united" in spirit or purpose. Christ said that a city seated on a hill cannot be hidden. The one true Church must be visible, and the Catholic Church is visible and is visibly united, united in their submission to Rome, the Pope, who was given his authority by Christ Himself.

(4/4)

The rock is the confession that Christ is Lord that Peter gives right before this

"Church" firstly refers to local congregations, and then sometimes all believers. Church here either refers to the eschatological church or believers generally, it can not ecclesiastical structure like Roman Catholicism

I will answer your questions in a bit, I'm sick right now and need to rest, but give me a hour or two.

However, I need to ask - are you asking this in good faith and out of genuine curiosity, or are you just trying to show the dumb schismatics why their doctrine is nonsense? Your last post seems to imply that you're interested in insulting us with things you yourself know are false, and I don't want to waste my time with that right now.

>>750030

Not OP but I would really like to hear you response and so if you don't like OP at least write your response for the benefit of by-watchers.

Disclaimer for the quotes here - while I did put together all the quotes from saints I could find in Edward Siecienski's "The Papacy and the Orthodox", I did not write the sources, and I don't have the book with me right now. Sorry about that.

>wouldn't Jesus have told this to all His apostles if the Eastern Orthodox view of apostolic succession was correct?

He tells them all at once that they have the power to bind and loose in Matthew 18:18. Knowing that this power to bind and loose is the power to forgive or retain sin (because this is how all Christians have understood it for centuries, and also what it means in the context of Matthew 18:15-20), this same authority is granted to all the apostles at once in John 20:21-23.

>And then, earlier in the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus walked on water, He invited St. Peter alone to walk onto the waters with Him, and when Peter's faith starts to falter, Jesus does not allow him to go under the water.

Peter is regularly used as a "stand-in" or "representative" of the apostles in the synoptics, and as an example of the Christian disciple. I'm not sure why you immediately read this as an example of Jesus granting Peter special authority and not a lesson to all Christians who, like Peter, are ready to follow Jesus in seemingly impossible endeavor.

I will add that the gospel of Matthew was written to a Jewish community in Antioch. It needs to be understood in that context, as well as compared to the way the leadership of Peter is portrayed in the other texts of the New Testament.

>St. Cyprian of Carthage

St. Cyprian believd that the Church of Rome played a unique role, as the proof that the churches are united, and that this role is inherited from apostolic times. However, let's slow down here - while Cyprian does link the Pope's ministry with Peter's, and accords primacy to the Church of Rome, this does not tell the whole story.

>. . . upon him [i.e., Peter] he builds his church, and to him hands over in truth his sheep to be fed and, although he might assign to all apostles equal power, he established one Chair and ordained by his own authority that Chair as the source of unity and its guiding principle. The remaining apostles were of necessity that which Peter was, but the first place was granted to Peter . . . Can anyone believe that he himself sticks fast to the faith without sticking fast to the unity of Peter? Can someone be confident that he himself is in the Church of he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church is founded?

>On one man he builds his Church and although he assigns to all the apostles after the ressurection equal power . . . nevertheless in order that he might reveal their unity, he ordained by his own authority that the source of that same unity should begin from the one who began the series. The remaining apostles were necessarily also that which Pter was, endowed with an equal partnership both in honor and of power, but the starting point from which they begin is from their unity with him in order that the Church of Christ might be exemplified as one.

>[From Peter] flows the appointment of bishops and the organization of the church, with bishop suceeding bishop down through the course of time.

>The Church consists of the people who remain united with the bishop, it is the flock that stays by the shepherd. But you ought to realize that the bishop is in the church and the chuch is in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church.

St. Cyprian believed that -all- bishops inherited that which Peter received, even if the Bishop of Rome plays a special role due to being specifically chosen by Peter and so having the extra prerogative of keeping unity among the churches. But when Cyprian fought with Pope Stephen, who demanded that the African churches obey Rome in all things, he stood his ground:

>. . . Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and upon whom he built his church . . . [never] showed any arrogant pretensions or made any special claims for himself. He did not assert that he had rights of seniority and that therefore upstarts and latecomers ought to be obedient to him.

>[No one must] set himself up as a bishop of bishops . . . [and] by tyrannical terror force his colleagues to a necessity of obeying.

St. Firmilian was Cyprian's friend and had much less diplomatic words:

>At this point I become filled with righteous indignation at [Pope] Stephen's crass and obvious stupidity. He is a man who finds the location of his bishopric such a source of pride, who keeps insisting that he occupies the succesion of Peter, upon whom the foundations of the Church were laid; and yet, by using his authority to defend heretical baptism, he is introducing many othe rocks and he is laying the foundation of and building up many new churches.

>St. Irenaeus

On one hand, St. Irenaeus does use Rome as a special example and the norm of orthodoxy. On another hand, he does not do this because of a kind of unique Petrine honor alone, but rather because of apostolicity. He uses the churches of Philippi and Ephesus as similar norms of orthodoxy later in the same chapter. Sadly we cannot know what exactly he meant eithe way since the Greek original is lost.

>The Letter of Clement to James

… You know the pseudo-Clementines are forgeries, right?

>St. Ephrem the Syrian

What indicates that he is speaking of the Pope and not simply of Peter? It's not as if Peter is not referred in any less luminous ways in Orthodoxy.

>There can't be any equality among the bishops

Hm… I'll make a separate post with patristic quotes regarding the equality among bishops.

>He wouldn't have changed St. Peter's name to "rock", and told him He would build His church upon it, He would have told all of His apostles that they are the rock.

You know, while Peter was granted the titles of "rock" and "shepherd", we must see how he himself understood this. Because he attributes those same qualities to others in 1 Peter 2:4-10 and 1 Peter 5:1-4.

>I don't need to mention the schisms

Because there are no schismatic Catholic churches. Sedevacantism is just a fever dream, right?

>The whole "invisible church" thing is nonsense. That they are "united" in spirit or purpose.

This is Protestant, not Orthodox. The "invisible Church" is the Church in Heaven, that is, the saints and angels. The visible Church is a community surrounding the Eucharist, led by an Orthodox bishop.

Honestly, OP, I'm a bit disappoited. St. Leo the Great, St. Jerome, and a few others have said things that actually should give pause to an Orthodox today, but you did not bring them up at all.

Next post I'll post quotes regarding the equality between bishops.

On the equality between bishops. Again, no sources, sorry. I was going to add sources to my text file next week so this comes at a bad time.

St. Cyprian of Carthage:

>. . . the remaining apostles were necessarily also that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership both of honor and of power . . .

>. . . there is but one church founded by Christ but it is divided into many members throughout the world; likewise, there is but one episcopate but it is spread among the harmonious host of all the numerous bishops.

St. Ambrose of Milan:

>[The primacy of Peter is a] primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank.

St. Jerome:

>. . . he gave [this name] to his apostles that they too should be called rocks.

>The Church is founded upon Peter, although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one of the Twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed there may be no occasion for schism.

St. Augustine:

>It's clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being fogiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.

>If it was said to Peter alone, Peter alon did this; he passed away, and went away, so who binds, who looses? I make bold to say, we too have these keys. And what am I to say? That it is only we who bind, only we who loose? No, you also bind, you also loose. Anybody who's bound, you see, is barred from your society; and when he's barred from your society, he's bound by you; and when he's reconciled he's loosed by you, because you too plead with God for him.

>After all, it isn't just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter's acknowledged preeminence, that he stood for the Church's universality and unity, when he was told, "To you I am entrusting," what has in fact been entrusted to all.

>It is not without reason that, among the apostles, it is Peter who represents the Catholic Church. For the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to this church when they were given to Peter. And when it was said to him, it was said to all: "Lovest thou me? Feed my sheep."

St. Pope Leo the Great:

>Each apostle encountered the same danger through temptation from fear [and] all eqally needed the help of divine protection . . . [yet] the Lord took special care of Peter and prayed especially for Peter. It was as if the condition of the others would be more secure if the mind of their leader were not overcome. In Peter, therefore, the fortitude of all is reinforced, for the aid of divine grace is ordered in such a way that the firmness given to Peter through Christ is conferred upon the apostles through Peter.

>Certainly the right to use this power was conveyed to the other apostles as well . . . Yet not without purpose is it handed over to one, though made known to all. It is entrusted in an unique way to Peter because the figure of Peter is set before all the rulers of the Church . . . for the aid of divine grace is ordered in such a way that the firmness given to Peter through Christ is conferred upon the apostles though Peter.

>[Jesus] wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as it were from the head.

>. . . although dignity is common to them, they did not all have the same rank. For even among the most blessed apostles there was a distinction in power. Although they wre all equal in being chosen, one was allowed to stand out among the others. . . . from this arrangement there arose, also, distinctions among bishops . . . [with] the care of the universal church converg[ing] in the one see of Peter, and nothign was to be at odds with his leadership.

St. Pope Gregory the Great:

>[Writing against the title of Ecumenical Patriarch:] As your Fraternity knows, surely it was not through the venerable council of Chalcedon that the prelates of this apostolic see, which I serve with God's disposition, were called "universal" when offered the honor? And yet not one of them has ever wanted to be called by such a title, not one has seized this audacious name for himself, in case, in seizing for himself the glory of being unique in the rank of bishop, he might seem to have denied this glory to all of his brethren.

>[Writing to the Patriarch of Alexandria:] For I said that you ought not to write anything like this to me, or to anyone else, and behold, in the preface to the letter, which yous ent to me, you took care to print the words of an arrogant title, wich I had banned, calling me "universal pope". I beg your most charming Holiness not to do so any more, because what is bestowed on another without good reason is removed from you . . . Nor do I think it an honor where I know hat my brethren are losing their honor. For my honor is the honor of the universal Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brethren. . . . For if your Sanctity says that I am the universal pope, you deny that you are universal, while claiming that I am universal. But may Heaven forbid it!

>[Writing to the Patriarch of Alexandria:] You speak to me, saying "just as you ordered." I beg you, remove that word "ordered" from my hearing, because I know who I am, and who you are. For you are a brother to me in rank, a father to me in morality. And so I did not order you, but took care to indicate what seemed right.

St. Isidore of Seville:

>. . . after Christ the order of priesthood began with Peter. For to him the pontificate in the Church was given first . . . He was therefore the first to receive the authority of binding and loosing . . . And since the other apostles also became equal sharers with Peter in honor and authority, they also preached the gospel throughout the world. Coming after them, there succeeded the bishops, who have been set up in the seats of the apostles.

St. Bede:

>. . . although it may seem that this power of binding and loosing was given by the Lord only to Peter, we must nevertheless know without any doubt that it was given to the other apostles . . . Indeed even now the same office is committed to the whole Church in her bishops and priests.

This was Western saints so far. Next I'll post Eastern saints. And note that I don't mean to imply that this tells the whole story, however the idea of the equality among bishops is a pretty patristic and pretty important one.

St. Aphrahat:

>O you pastors, you should be like the diligent pastor, the head of the whole flock, who cares so much for his flock . . . He handed over himself for the sake of the sheep. He chose and taught the brillant pastors and delivered the sheep into their hands, and gave them the power over all his flock. Indeed he said to Simon Kepa, "Feed my sheep and my lambs and my ewes for me." Simon fed his sheep; when his time was fulfilled he handed over the flock to you, and he went away. You should feed (them) and lead (them) well.

St. Basil the Great:

>. . . [the apostles and propets are] holy mountains . . . [upon which the] foundations of this Church [are built] . . . One such mountain was also Peter, and the Lord promised to build his Church upon this rock . . . the soul of blessed Peter has been called a high rock because it is firmly rooted in faith.

>[The Beloved Disciple is] the pillar of all the churches in the world, . . . possess[ing] the keys of heaven . . .

>Taking the leaders, then, he led them up a high mountain and was transfigured in their presence . . . Why does he only take these disciples? They were superior to the others!

>{During the Council of Jerusalem, while ] James was invested with the chief rule, [Peter and Paul] did not begrudge him, so free was their soul from love of glory.

>[Peter spoke at the council] as having been put in trust by Christ with the flock [and] as having precedence in honor . . . But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing imperiously.

>[Unity among the apostles prevailed because] there was no distinction among them. I would that the Churches were such now!

St. Theodore of Mopsuestia:

>. . . [being the rock] is not the property of Peter alone, but it came about on behalf of every human being. Having said that his confession is the rock, he [i.e., Jesus] staed that upon this rock I will build my church. This means he will build his church on the same confession of faith.

>Jesus promoted him [i.e., Peter] and placed him as the head of his lambs of his flock. . . . This is why you must carry their burden and protect them and comfort them in their weakness, and nourish them with the grace that was given you.

St. Theodore the Studite:

>[The Pentarchy is] the five-headed body of the Church.

>It is to them [the pentarchic authority in the church] that all decision belongs in divine dogmas.

Wouldn't Papal Infallibility be the first thing to be discussed? Why would the "basis" of the Church need a thousand years to be explicitely written down?

The amount of effort and anathemas that went to the Ecumenical Councils could have been avoided. Why even bother having the Roman Emperor call a council with all the Patriarchs if it were that simple?

It's ridiculous and obvious retroactive thinking if you're honest with yourself, but you are not.

>>750069

>>750070

>>750092

>>750093

>>750103

This sums it up i believe. I will only add this, since Pope Leo forbade the use of the filioque and was ignored by the emperor of the HRE, doesn't that make all popes after him invalid? Because either the popes until Leo were right and everyone else after them were wrong,or the opposite. From my understanding the papal seat was stolen at that time onwards by the Franks. I believe the theological additions that started after that proves it. Let alone protestantism, which is still going strong, that was a result of that theological chaos (speaking of schisms).

>>750168

>jay dyer

Please, he is not representantive of us. Of course the shitposters are drawn to people like him, like pastor Anderson and meme monastery for Protestanst and Catholics respectively.

>>750168

Good man. Stick to your denomination.

Don't bother with Church politics tho.

>>750310

>Because either the popes until Leo were right and everyone else after them were wrong,or the opposite.

Not every statement/thing pope does is infallible. There are strict criteria to that (ex cathedra, in accordance with apostolic tradition, etc.) Saying "this pope did this/done that and he is mistaken" does not mean that all popes would be invalid.

Just to be clear: there are instances where pope may err.

Just to say: Filioque deserves thread of its own.

>Let alone protestantism, which is still going strong

>protestantism

>Still going strong

I do not think so.

>>750313

I was talking only about the filioque which is ex cathedra i believe and dogma. But yeah it would need it's own thread.

>>750168

I will second this in a way. In my "meme" years I was considering conversion. I am glad I did not because it would not be an honest conversion. Now after looking into things and learning more about history I am inclined towards catholicism. I am glad that imageboard culture made me look into faith. Perhaps I am wrong and will change my opinion once I know more.

But I will say this to Orthos:

I get that the shitposting "muh edginess" group may be smaller than it seems but it is loud. Especially the US. To be honest nothing is more pathetic than meme converts. How seriously you take the faith if you convert only based on memes? I am not saying this is 100% and I am not bashing serious converts. Not at all. But if your main source of theology is muh Jay Dyer, meme podcasts…I mean what are you even doing with yourself? This is the most important thing in your life, not a joke. Nothing gets you off more than people not even using theological arguments just shitposting and larping "muh putin". Most Orthodox I met IRL in my country are very nice people. Although the monk I befriended was clearly anti-catholic liturgy, it was possible to talk to him, hear his positions without him screaming MUH PUTIN. MUH BASED RUSSIA, LATINS, etc etc. He would say what he thinks without sperging or without childish pride or autism.

As far as the church I visited: I was a bit put off by the fact that priest asked me if I am russian even though Orthodox have a church here. There is no need for me to be russian.. This was not the reason I did not convert in the end though. But definitely if you want someone to go to church, you should treat him less as a "stranger" Especially if he's one of your own people!

As I have said, Orthos IRL were nice but most American converts I met online were unbearable larpers who decided orthodoxy must be true because muh politics of bazzzzed russia.

Tl dr: I like honest people not larpers. If you are not one you are not likely to get triggered by this because even if you're orthodox you dislike them too.

>>750310

>>750317

Well I am not aware that Leo forbade the use of the filioque ex cathedra.

I know of Pius XII Assumption of Mary, Boniface VIII and Pius IX.

I am unaware that Leo would make an ex cathedra statement involving the Filioque issue.

I would be glad if there would be a good filioque thread though. It is something I think I should be more informed upon than I am now.

>>750323

I will add that larping is good if it is a transitional phase to get you to look at things objectively.

But if you stay in that phase/make decisions based on the larp then this post concerns you.

t. former larper

>The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters.But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . . Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord.

St.Jerome's Commentary on Titus 1.7

>>750333

Orthodoxy has bishops yeah.

Rome was amazing resilient against heresies before the schism, even when Antioch, Constantinople, and especially Alexandria would fall or be put under sway of a rogue bishop. I want nothing more than to see a Rome like this.

I'm just not convinced it stayed that way. Lets just ignore the decadence of the Borgia popes and fast forward to now. How could I, in good conscience, swear any fealty to the Rome of now? Frankly, it's pretty damn gay. And it isn't just Francis. What's with Pope John Paul II kissing Qurans or inviting Native Americans to conduct their rituals in front of him (like the first Assisi event)? This isn't merely a matter of St. Peter falling in the water. This is head first into a mound of dog poo. It depresses me, and I'm not even Catholic.

>>750168

Jay Dyer may be the only autist (seemingly) I've seen among Orthodox. And that's probably due to him being a Catholic scholasticist previously. Orthodox, per the name, know how to get to crux of the matter a lot more quickly, imho.

>>750481

That lost me immediately by comparing our crucified Lord to these people. They're nothing like him. And guilty. Not innocent, as he was.

CATHOLARP: THE THREAD

>>750485

It's an analogy, meaning the same one true Church doesn't lose its spiritual calling and marks even when undergoing suffering. To believe otherwise is to believe that Christ's power died with Him on the cross, because the same Church belongs to that same Christ.

>>750480

>And it isn't just Francis. What's with Pope John Paul II kissing Qurans or inviting Native Americans to conduct their rituals in front of him

Yep, seems pretty bad. But the pope is the head of a worldwide org with hundreds of different cultures/groups/ethnicities and attitudes he has to deal with.

Meanwhile, the ortho world is basically Russia-centric Slavs + a few Greeks.

It's a whole different ballgame we're talking about.

>>750310

>since Pope Leo forbade the use of the filioque and was ignored by the emperor of the HRE, doesn't that make all popes after him invalid?

Pope Leo III believed the filioque is orthodox (and even dogmatic) but also that he didn't have the authority to modify a creed that was devised by council fathers centuries ago.

I think it's with Pope Nicholas that we see claims that would be outrageous for the rest of the Church (universal jurisdiction, in this case), but the "Photian" schism was ended peacefully and claims of universal jurisdiction did not flare up again until after the pornocracy.

>Because either the popes until Leo were right and everyone else after them were wrong,or the opposite.

It's not like the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility applies to every drop that comes out of the pope's mouth. However it is true that Pope Leo III's expectations of what he can do were different from both later and earlier popes'.

>From my understanding the papal seat was stolen at that time onwards by the Franks. I believe the theological additions that started after that proves it.

I don't know what you mean, but if what you mean is that the bishops of Rome ceased to be Orthodox in the 9th century… no, you don't get to make history up (although I've seen the claim before, by Fr John Rommanides I think?).

>>750488

great argument.

>>750482

You should go to facebook more then.

>>750482

Proportionally, there are many many more Orthodox autists online than Catholic autists. Actually I'd say this is true in real life too, although from personal experience alone (nationalist parishes, racist parishes, parishes with people who worship Russia, can't talk about gay or black people without vulgarity, and suspect most of our hierarchs to be corrupt, etc).

>>750014

>I'm not looking for answers from Protestants though, because anything they say regarding papacy will just be mindless shitposting.

Typical, you're being a parody of yourself, my cadolig friend

>Protestantism is bad because individual interpretation results in many sub-denominations

>prots are all the same

Pick one

>>750509

>all prots have a poor understanding of scripture and tradition

>this leads them to believe diverging things, but the fact that they're all heretical doesn't matter because they all believe different things

T. Prot

>>750509

>OP politely asks for Protestants not to reply

>local Protestant spergs out and replies

cringe

>>750493

>It's an analogy, meaning the same one true Church doesn't lose its spiritual calling and marks even when undergoing suffering. To believe otherwise is to believe that Christ's power died with Him on the cross, because the same Church belongs to that same Christ.

The Church's calling is to do what Christ said, first and foremost. To be a light, to stand up for truth. And even die for it, if necessary. That doesn't mean being a syncretism faggot who gets along with the world, at the very least.

There are Orthodox in this vid who are just as culpable btw. And I'm not against ecumenism when it comes to bringing CHURCHES together specifically, but this is evil. If you can't feel it, I'm not sure what to say. I truly think it was Satan's doing. He stole a good thing (Christians looking for unity) and immediately expanded it to everyone else. And it took a Pope to bring it all together. The last person who managed this was Nimrod.

No thanks. I believe in Christ and his Church, but this isn't it.

>>750505

>You should go to facebook more then.

Hah.. maybe that's it. I hate to be one of those people who brag about not having facebook… but I'm one of those people.

>>750512

The Church's calling encompasses many things and it persists should most of Her children fall into error, not simply some (apparently) bad leaders. She has suffered worse in Her past, like the Arian heresy. This is a no challenge by comparison.

>>750521

>the Arian heresy

Doesn't even come close IMO. No Arian would have kissed Korans or praised false religions. Modernism is a million times worse than the Arian heresy.

>>750525

We've had popes that organized murder, prostitution, simony, and worse in the past - Bergoglio is a snake, but he's not even in the bottom ten.

>>750528

Yeah but the popes who did those things were just committing private sins. They never attempted to convince a large portion of the Church that what they were doing was actually OK and change doctrine to support their actions. The modernist popes have. What's more, they're succeeded in corrupting 99% of Catholics, and are constantly flirting with obscene doctrinal changes.

>>750521

>The Church's calling encompasses many things and it persists should most of Her children fall into error, not simply some (apparently) bad leaders. She has suffered worse in Her past, like the Arian heresy. This is a no challenge by comparison.

Well, I prefer function over form. It seems to me that Catholics are the former. They hold on to the Form somehow, declaring it the purest expression of Truth.. even when they admit how bad things have gotten on the Function end and don't resemble the Truth at all.

I'm not trying to speak down or anything, but it's sad to see. Maybe the saddest of all are Sedes. Since they clearly can point out more than the average Catholic the myriad ways things have gone south… and they still somehow declare their Church as holding all the truth. So they stick around like gadflies, never leaving entirely.

>>750535

>Well, I prefer function over form.

What do you mean by this.

>and they still somehow declare their Church as holding all the truth

Only blind devotees, which is found in every religous order. The Church is supposed to continuously reform.

>I don't need to mention the schisms. Or the fact that those churches are ethnic clubs that never attempt any evangelizing to foreigners.

Do i need to bring up Bishop Irish?

Or SSPX's Schoedinger Cat-type communion with Rome?

>>750030

Given it's a massive copy-pasta(Matthew 16:18-19, same selection of the same parroted 4-6 patristic quotes, muh ethnic clubs), it's def the latter.

Atleast try harder, OP.

>>750536

>The Church is supposed to continuously reform.

lol…

This is an actual heresy though.

>>750538

>>750538

What? Do you seriously deny that the Saints reform and the renew the docterines of the Church? Are you calling them heretics?

>>750536

>What do you mean by this.

A true Church is not some ideal or brand (what I meant by "form"). It's mostly practical, at the end of the day.

Really, it's pretty simple. If someone says "I represent the truth" and then proceeds to lead people to apostasy, then they're not standing for truth, are they? So why indulge them and carry on with the facade? It's like some weird tick Catholics have though. That final hump is just too big… they know it leads to seek for a new church, and that's just unacceptable. So they all engage in a collective sort of delusion, and let their leaders preach messages from Hell. They tell themselves they have the Truth, but they've stripped truth from any of it's practical bearing and it's just become some vague ideal.

>>750542

Doctrines can't be reformed or renewed, by definition. If they could then it wouldn't be the Catholic Church. I guarantee that no Saint has ever reformed or renewed a Church doctrine.

>>750014

I support the pope by praying he does rightly. Agreeing with him when he gets something wrong is not supportive of his position.

>>750503

You know better than me but wasn't the filioque added to the Creed by Charlemagne alone, without any council whatsoever? What's more, even against the will of the pope who never accept it until his death? I think that there was a change at the papacy around that time and the filioque was just an aspect of it. Also the east-west problems start around that time so i believe all that could be kinda related.

>I don't know what you mean, but if what you mean is that the bishops of Rome ceased to be Orthodox in the 9th century… no, you don't get to make history up (although I've seen the claim before, by Fr John Rommanides I think?)

Yes, i've read it by Fr Romanides and the theologians of his circle. I don't know who is the last pope that the Orthodox also revere. But IIRC Fr Romanides says that the popes were Greek-Roman until that time and by then onwards they become Franks.

>>750545

You know what I'm saying, stop being a literalist.

>>750557

Sorry, but since I'm not a mind reader, I have no idea what you are saying if you don't use words correctly. If you say apples you can't expect someone to understand that you are talking about oranges.

>>750544

Can you please more elaborate. What you said is a generality that can be applied to any Church, and any pastor. How is this exclusive to the Catholic Church?

>>750503

I'm the same guy you replied btw, my IP changed.

I'm looking at the list of popes right now and towards the end of the 10th century the popes are starting to be exclusively from the HRE. Until then they are mostly Romans, Greeks, Syrians, Palestinians and Africans. Around the time the filioque was added, the nationality of the popes changes as well and the schism between east and west deepens.

>>750584

It's also unfair to blame only the leaders. The West in its entirety is at fault.

>>750552

The filioque simply crept into the creed over time and spread in Western Europe. Charlemagne was already raised knowing the filioque, and that is why he demanded that the Pope officially recognize it and add it to the Roman liturgy.

Pope Leo III's negative response was most likely to remind Charlemagne that ecclesiastical authority rests in Rome, not Aachen. But the Pope's official decision to -not- have the filioque in the creed simply wasn't effective and the Franks kept using it.

Photius actually used this as an argument in his polemics against the Franks - why do they use the filioque when Pope Leo III specifically forbade it and even had the creed without the addition carved in stone to affirm it?

>Also the east-west problems start around that time so i believe all that could be kinda related.

The East-West problems begin in the 3rd-4th century, beginning with the Pope calling himself the successor of Peter and calling the Church of Rome infallible. There were simply valid theologoumena in both traditions that solidifed more and more as it became necessary to define them, until they couldn't be reconciliated.

Regarding canonical problems though, those began in the 11th century, in 1014, when the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch ceased to commemorate each other for unknown reasons. This worsened in 1054, even worse in 1204 when it became a Church-wide schism, even worse in 1272, 1439, and 1484 when dogma was proclaimed on both sides and anathemas were thrown.

Moving the loss of grace of the Roman church as early as the 9th century reeks of historical revisionism to me, to make the Church of Rome look as bad as possible just in time for the Photian schism.

>Yes, i've read it by Fr Romanides and the theologians of his circle. I don't know who is the last pope that the Orthodox also revere. But IIRC Fr Romanides says that the popes were Greek-Roman until that time and by then onwards they become Franks.

I hold no resentment toward Fr John but this view of history, besides being revisionist, is also very dangerous. Schisms happen because of human pride and lack of love. They don't happen because a local church gets infiltrated by foreign heretics on the down low, with no one noticing until it's too late. The latter would just be a failure of the Holy Spirit to protect His Church.

>>750616

Pope Leo's plates had the caption "I, Leo, put these here for love and protection of orthodox faith", so it doesn't look like an authority issue but more of a theological one. It's obvious that he considered the filioque "unorthodox" and he never accept it until his death. The plates are still kept in St. Peter's cathedral somewhere i believe. I'm bringing this up since the thread is about the papacy and why the Orthodox won't support the Pope of Rome. One of the reasons i can see is that a change in the Creed, the core dogma of our faith which was decided by an Ecumenical Council and was accepted by all Christian world until then, was forced to the papacy by a single king. The exclusively enthronement of popes by a specific entity from then marks a change in the papacy before and after, together with some new theological beliefs that came after that.

I know that the schism was an ongoing procedure that involved many factors and i'm not trying to pinpoint an exact moment for it. I believe that certain events, like the above, deepened it (and some others have bring the two parts closer in the last century).

I don't think Fr Romanides says something like that. What he says is that the church of Rome at some time stopped being Roman and became more Germanic when Franks overtook her. He also believes that Franks weren't theologically established very well and that led to dogmatical misunderstanding that helped the schism to happen.

>Schisms happen because of human pride and lack of love

Totally agree

>>750842

>It's obvious that he considered the filioque "unorthodox" and he never accept it until his death.

On the doctrinal orthodoxy of the filioque, he said the following:

>We believe the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from the Father and the Son and is consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and the Son. . . . The Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and Son, is fully God.

>. . . it is forbidden not to believe such a great mystery of the faith [i.e., that the Holy Spirit proceds from the Father and the Son].

But on his own authority to recognize the modified creed as canonical, he said:

>. . . we do not presume in our reading or teaching to add anything to the creed by insertion . . .

>. . . [the council fathers] acted upon divine illumination rather than by human wisdom . . . and far be it from me to count myself their equal.

I think his worry may less be about the creed with the filioque being seen as theologically correct by the Franks (since he agreed with that) but rather about the creed without the filioque being seen as heretical by the Franks. So he made sure that the original form of the creed would not be forgotten (spoiler: it will be forgotten, in fact Cardinal Humbert's attack on the EP was because he believed the Constantinopolitan clergy had removed the filioque from the creed), while also making a statement that 1) authority rests in the Pope, not in the emperor, and 2) there is no absolute authority within one person independently from what the Fathers have taught and done, so even as the highest ecclesiastical authority in the Church, the Pope can't pretend he is illuminated by the Spirit like the council fathers were, in the end ecumenical councils are the highest authority.

>>750514

I will quit soon too. It is indeed a cancer.

>>750850

Well, even if he agreed with it, he didn't believe that he himself, as the pope, has the power to change the Creed. But his will was ignored and after his death the notion that a pope has authority above the Ecumenical Councils comes into play. Around the same time, the (Germanic) HRE emerges and the differences between the east and west are starting to become more and more clear every day. So it was impossible for the other patriarchates to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome anymore (let alone that the meaning of primacy after that changed).

>>750026

Prots coping are insane

>>750884

Not an argument