Posted on 08/15/2004 7:09:04 PM PDT by TheStickman
Then you can't call Christ's "church" after its original Greek word ecclesia now can you? - your statement would require the Greek word tyranny to describe such an arrangement would it not?
I asked you if the Maronite Catholic Church professes the Filioque, teaches Immaculate Conception and agrees with the dogma of papal infallibility. Do you use leavened bread? I was asking specific questions and hoping for specific answers.
I believe you have that backwards. The Orthodox churches are in schism. Christ left His church to one person, not a group of churches
But of course! The four Patriarchs are wrong. Only one is right. May I remind you of the famous verse (Mk 9:35)
That hardly fits the profile of a pope. Or have you forgotten the other famous verse (Mt 16:23)
In Acts 6:2, the apostles speak as a equals. Revelations 21:14 leaves no doubt that John (as late as 99 AD) did not see Peter as being above the other apostles
As the oldest among the apostles, Peter was naturally given "primacy" over his chronological juniors, as is the custom in many societies. But nowhere is it obvious that Peter was to rule the Church or to asusme the pretentious title of Christ's viccar on Earth. Christ does not need anyone to assist Him!. There is a clear difference between the deference rendedred to older members as a sign of respect and maturity, and absolute authoirty over his peers.
It is clear that Jesus did not intend to endow Peter with any special authoirty or privilege when He says (Mt 19:28)
Your post from the Russian Cathedral St. John the Baptist basically repeats wht I said: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. You have to understand that Pope Gregory did not just come up with a new calendar which he sent to all the Orthodox as well. In that message was the Filioque, purgatory and the like, which made the NC automatically repulsive to the Orthodox.
The last three Ecumenical Patriarch were very "ecumenical," one of whom was actually a Freemason. The current one studied in Rome. NC was an unnecessary introusion into Orthodoxy, because there was and there is no need to change the Calendar used by the Church from the old.
As long as the theology is the same, there is very little one can say to condemn such changes, but from the point of view of unity and the whole meaning of communion such changes are uncalled for and divisive.
That's why Russia's Church is under attack by the Vatican zealots -- Russian orthodoxy represents the largest body of Orthodoxy and is expressly orthodox in its approach and as such represents a big stumbling obstacle to ecumenical Masonic golobalist "Internationale." It is no wonder that Serbs, being traditionally as Orthodox, are the ugly red-headed bastard children with freckles in the eyes of the globalist sponsored world of the future.
I'm not arguing that. Perhaps you misunderstand. My only concern at this point is who is or is not in communion with Rome. I know the traditional Greek OC well enough considering they comprised most of my in-laws for 10 years.
To which I gave you a specific response: The Maronite Church professes the same faith and beliefs of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. How much more specific than that!
No, the Maronite Catholic Church does not use leavened bread.
As the oldest among the apostles, Peter was naturally given "primacy" over his chronological juniors, as is the custom in many societies. But nowhere is it obvious that Peter was to rule the Church or to asusme the pretentious title of Christ's viccar on Earth.
We believe in the same One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church too, and you and I both know that we do not. So, please answer my questions: do you profess Filioque, the dogma of purgatory and Imaaculate Conception, or don't you?
The Apostles were equal in all respects, and so are their bishops. You can read whatever you want into the text. There is nothing in the NT that says Peter shall rule over other bishops.
Who received the Keys?
Of course!
The Apostles were equal in all respects, and so are their bishops.
The Church Fathers would disagree with you. The Orthodox do recognize the Church Fathers, don't they?
Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
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]).
Origen
"[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
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]).
Interesting definition. However, please don't use the term "papist", it is a disparaging term
Hi Kosta, what does "Autocephaly not universally recognized" mean? I don't quite follow. Under what conditions does an orthodox church become a metropolias and when is it a patriarchy?
Oh, Byzantine architecture does give you a sense of mysticism -- if you ever come to London, do check out Westerminster Cathedral -- it is impossing and very very Byzantine -- icons and vaulted ceiling and unlit yet holy places. It kind of makes me imagine what a mass in the Hagia Sophia would have been like.
Do these old calendarists have anything in common with the "old Believers" from Russia?
Zero. It's all about adoption of the Gregorian cal. by the Patriarch of Constantinople from the 1920s on.
Westminster Cathedral has a mix of styles. The construction was begun in 1895. The nave is after the Gothic, but the sanctuary and many aspects of the interior do have a Byzantine style. The exterior eastern end is Romanesque, and the twin gables, slated roofs, and square turrets with pyramidal stone caps suggest the Norman. The alternating red brick and stone give it a very Italian look, reminiscent of the use of black and white marble so often seen there. It's quite interesting and beautiful.
I came across something today that is indirectly related to this entire thread. The article is written by Msgr Sekellick, a priest of the Ruthenian Catholic Eparchy of Passaic, N.J. He holds degrees from Duquesne University, the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and the Catholic University of America. He is pastor of St Mary's Byzantine Catholic Church in Wilkes-Barre, Penn. Please consider the following:
The last pillar of the Catechism treats of prayer (no. 2558-2865), and begins with the question, What is prayer? "For me," writes St Therese of Lisieux, "prayer is a surge of the heart" (no. 2558).
The last of the Eastern Fathers, St John Damascene (died c. 749), describes prayer as "the rising of one's mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God" (no. 2559).
Prayer, then, involves the heart. The Catechism says: "The heart is the dwelling-place where I am, where I live; according to the Semitic or Biblical expression, the heart is the place `to which I withdraw.' The heart is our hidden center, beyond the grasp of our reason and of others; only the Spirit of God can fathom the human heart and know it fully. The heart is the place of decision, deeper than our psychic drives. It is the place of truth, where we choose life or death. It is the place of encounter, because as image of God we live in relation: it is the place of covenant" (no. 2563).
These words ... only the Spirit of God can fathom the human heart and know it fully., are more than significant for both us catholics and our orthodox brethren.
This is an excellent article and worthy of reading:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.