Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I praying together
-
Fr. Abe, magandang (hating)gabi po, sorry kung medyo out place ang post ko.
Pero matanong nga lang.
Ano ang katotohanan hinggil sa pag claim ng mga Orthodox na noong 1054, the Pope broke away from the Church and declared himself as infallible?
Isa pa ho, yung claim din nila na dinag-dagan ng mga Romana Katolika ang Creed ng Latin na word na "Filioque" (...the Father and of the Son)
Pwede ho rin ba'ng malaman ang talagang dahilan kung bakit nagkaroon ng schism sa West at sa East?
Nag research po ako Fr. Abe, ngunit kinailangan ko talagang mag tanong. Tsaka Katoliko po ako.
Maraming salamat po!
- Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
[Fr. Abe, magandang (hating)gabi po, sorry kung medyo out place ang post ko.]
OK LANG BROD.
[Pero matanong nga lang.]
SIGE LANG.
[Ano ang katotohanan hinggil sa pag claim ng mga Orthodox na noong 1054, the Pope broke away from the Church and declared himself as infallible?]
UNA, YAN AY MALI AT WALANG BASEHAN.
SIMULA NG UMPISA ANG ROME AY TINUTURING NA BILANG THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT SEAT OF THE CHURCH. YAN ANG DAHILAN KUNG BAKIT SA LISTAHAN NG MGA LOCAL CHURCHES SA BIBLIA ANG EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ANG FIRST IN ORDER OF DIGNITY AND HONOR BAGAMAT ANG FIRST LETTER TO THE THESSALONIANS ANG UNANG NAISULAT NI SAN PABLO.
BEFORE 1054 KINIKILALA NA AT ITINUTURO ANG SUPREMACY NG CHURCH OF ROME DAHIL ITO ANG 'SEE' OR 'SEAT' OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER:
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, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. 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. . . . 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]).
“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).
SEE, HINDI SEE OF CONSTANTINOPLE NG MGA ORTHODOX ANG KINIKILALA KUNDI ANG CHAIR OF PETER NA WALANG IBA KUNDI ANG SANTO PAPA SA ROMA. ITO AY SINUPORTAHAN NG ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF NICEA NUONG 325 NA KINILALA ANG LIMANG PATRIARCHATES:
1. ROME
2. Constantinople
3. Alexandria
4. Antioch
5. Jerusalem
SEE, ROME IS THE FIRST AND THE HIGHEST OF ALL PATRIARCHATES. THE OTHERS ARE LOWER THAN ROME.
ISA PANG PATOTOO:
Optatus “You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
ITO NAMAN ANG SABI NI POPE ST. DAMASUS BEFORE 1054:
Pope Damasus I “Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
-
ITO NAMAN ANG SABI NI ST. AUGUSTINE:
Augustine “If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
AND THIS IS THE PROCLAMATION OF THE BISHOPS OF THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS:
Council of Ephesus “Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
AND THIS IS THE TESTIMONY OF THE BISHOPS OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON:
Council of Chalcedon “Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).
HE, HE, HE... NOW, TANUNGIN MO ANG MGA ORTHODOX KUNG MAY SINASABING GANYAN ANG MGA FATHERS OF THE CHURCH SA PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE AT SA CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE. WALA. NADA, NUNCA, NOTHING. HE, HE, HE...
THE SUPREMACY AND PRIMACY AS WELL AS THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME IS WELL FOUNDED IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH BEFORE 1054. ANG PROBLEMA INGGIT LANG ANG MGA GREEKS SA MGA ROMANS. HINDI NILA MATANGGAP NA MAS MATAAS ANG ROME SA KANILA KAYA GUSTO NILANG MAGING KAPANTAY NITO PERO HINDI SILA UMUBRA DAHIL KAY SAN PEDRO IBINIGAY ANG SUSI NG LANGIT AT SI SAN PEDRO ANG UNANG SANTO PAPA NG IGLESIA CATOLICA.
-
[Isa pa ho, yung claim din nila na dinag-dagan ng mga Romana Katolika ang Creed ng Latin na word na "Filioque" (...the Father and of the Son)]
ANG NICAEA-CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED AY ORIGINALLY WALANG FILIOQUE NA NAKALAGAY SA GREEK ORIGINAL TEXT. SUBALIT NAGKAROON NG HERESIES SA SPAIN IN THE WEST NA NAGTUTURO NA ANG HOLY SPIRIT AY HINDI DIOS. DAHIL DITO ANG FILIOQUE AY ITINURO PARA IPAHAYAG ANG PANANAMPALATAYA THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON.
BEFORE 1054 ITO AY TINUTURO NA NG MGA MONKS AT ITO AY SUPORTADO NG MARAMING SANTO MULA SA EAST AND WEST. TO MENTION A FEW, SI ST. EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS [d. 403] NA NAGTURO THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD 'FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON' [Ek Patros kai Huiou to Pneuma] AND ST. MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR WHO TAUGHT THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT PROCEEDS 'FROM THE FATHER THROUGH THE SON'.
LATER, NAGHARAP ANG MGA BISHOPS NG CHURCH OF ROME AT MGA EASTERN BISHOPS DURING THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE [1438-39]. AFTER LONG AND BITTER DEBATES THE EASTERNERS WERE CONVINCED THAT THE 'FILIOQUE' IS IN HARMONY WITH THE FAITH. IT HAS BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC FOUNDATION. SUBALIT PAGBALIK NG ILANG MGA EASTERNERS SA LUGAR NILA HINDI NILA TINUPAD ANG USAPAN. PERO ANG MGA UKRAINIANS UPHELD THE DECISIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
[Pwede ho rin ba'ng malaman ang talagang dahilan kung bakit nagkaroon ng schism sa West at sa East?]
ANG UNANG PINAGMULAN NG HINDI PAGKAKA INTINDIHAN AY POLITICAL CONFLICT. ANG EAST AY AYAW PASAKOP SA WEST. KASI FEELING NILA MAY SUPREME SILA SA EAST DAHIL DUON NILIPAT ANG CAPITAL NG ROMAN EMPIRE - FROM ROME TO CONSTANTINOPLE. SUBALIT NILINAW SA COUNCIL OF NICAEA NA HINDI POLITICAL POWER ANG SOURCE NG AUTHORITY NG ROME KUNDI ANG AUTHORITY NI CHRIST NA IBINIGAY KAY ST. PETER SA SIYANG FIRST BISHOP OF ROME.
NUONG 1054 ANG EXCOMMUNICATIONS AY NANGYARI DAHIL SA HINDI PAGKAKAINTINDIHAN NG DALAWANG GRUPO: ANG PATRIARCH MICHAEL CERULARIUS AT NI CARDINAL HUMBERTUS. THE CARDINAL EXCOMMUNICATED THE PATRIARCH AND THE PATRIARCH IN UNION WITH HIS SYNOD EXCOMMUNICATED THE CARDINAL. BUT THE EXCOMMUNICATIONS WAS NOT DIRECTED ON BOTH THE ROMAN CHURCH AND THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
NUONG 1975 TINANGGAL NA NI POPE PAUL VI AT PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS I ANG EXCOMMUNICATIONS. AT INUMPISAHAN ANG PROCESS FOR FULL UNITY.
LET US PRAY NA MAGKAISA ULI.
[Nag research po ako Fr. Abe, ngunit kinailangan ko talagang mag tanong.]
VERY GOOD. TAMA YAN. MAGRESEARCH LAGI.
[ Tsaka Katoliko po ako.]
VERY GOOD.
[Maraming salamat po!]
WELCOME. GOD BLESS YOU.
.jpg)
![ST. JEROME EMILIANI [1486-1537]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6dKQTchkJaA/R0lo013dyBI/AAAAAAAAB_4/XzUAPDESwwQ/s1600/St.+Jerome+in+prayer,+small_1.jpg)
Padre,
ReplyDeleteIt is not Athenagoras in the photo beside Benedict XVI. He is Bartholomew I, the Patriarch of Constantinople. I think, this picture was taken during the visit of the Pope to Turkey.
God bless.
You are right. O Good Lord, I meant to write Bartholomew I. He, he, he... Patriarch Athenagoras is long dead before the Pontificate of Card. Ratzinger.
ReplyDeleteAfter the death of John Damascus, it became common for the Greeks to speak of the Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son. In the West it took a different course, St. Augustine started speaking of the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.
ReplyDeleteThree arguments for the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.
1. The New Testament says that the Holy Spirit is represented not only as the Spirit of the Father but also the Spirit of the Son ( Gal. 4:6, Rom. 8:9).
2. The Mission of the Holy Spirit: The New Testament also says that the Holy Spirit is sent not only by the Father but also by the Son (Jn. 14:16,26; 16:7).
3. Jn. 16:13: Just as the Son (Jesus) "hears" and "receives" from the Father so does the Holy Spirit "hears" and "receives" from the Son.
question lang po :
ReplyDeleteNung bang sumulat si Pablo sa Romans.. Papa na si San Pedro?
Thank you very much Regina. Yes, you are right. These are really the Biblical Foundation of 'Filioque'.
ReplyDelete[Nung bang sumulat si Pablo sa Romans.. Papa na si San Pedro?]
ReplyDeleteYES. BUHAY PA SI CRISTO AY PAPA NA SI SAN PEDRO. AT IYAN AY NAKASAAD SA MATEO 16:18-19. NUNG UMAKYAT SA LANGIT SI CRISTO SI PEDRO AGAD ANG NAMAHALA NG SANTA IGLESIA [cf. ACTS 1ff.]
Padre,
ReplyDeleteMay mga Orthodox na po ba sa Pilipinas? May mga simbahan na po ba sila rito? Saan po sakali ang kanilang simbahan yung tunay na po na Orthodox kasi marami ako nakikita puro peke na parang ginagaya ang misa nating mga Katoliko. Salamat po!
Joel
Ang sure lang ako na hindi fake ay ang nasa Paranaque.
ReplyDeleteGlory be to our Lord Jesus Christ! Glory to Him Forever!
ReplyDeleteDear Fr. Abe,
As I came across your blog after I received a message from an old friend regarding on the SOMASCAN priest's answers on questions about the Orthodox Church and in general, I felt disappointed and dismayed.
First of all, I am not a theologian nor a seminarian but a simple layman in the Orthodox Church and was a convert from the Roman Catholic Church.
After reading all the posts in your blog about the Orthodox Church particularly the Church here in the Philippines and your exchange of discussion from a certain Orthodox Deacon, I decided to write or give comment on some issues, which I find you misquoted and misinterpreted especially on some of the words of the Church Fathers in support of your stand about he Orthodox Church and of the Church you serve as a priest, the Papal Church.
Let me start with how you describe yourself as an "apologist" aside from being a priest under the SOMASCAN order, If I am not mistaken, the word apologetic came from the Greek word "apologia", which means in defense of or as reply or an answer. Taken from the word of St Peter in his First Epistle, "...But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..."
In Orthodox theology, term Apologetics is used in regards to defending the true faith against atheists, pagans, Jews and others. This defense, however, is done in a manner that is loving and in order to bear good fruits and should not be polemical or obsessive in manner, which in many cases is considered detrimental to the Apostolic Faith.
But looking on your blog in general and your approach to your readers' inquiries, whether they are part of your faith or not, seems to be far from the admonition of St. Peter, whom you consider as your first pope. The sarcastic laugh and foul words to describe the enemies of your faith... like the word Mama Eli, Hehehe, etc. are not the words that I expect to see here. There is a big diference attacking the teachings of one person and attacking the person by giving such comments.
It seems that your approach is far from the mission and vision set forth by your congregation and shown by its founder. Just letting you know my apprehension as I have great respect to the order you belong because of its charitable works in the Philippines.
Now let me start answering one by one the issues raised by your readers about the Orthodox Church to the best of my knowledge.
In order for one to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church, one must understand first her ecclesiology and tradition. I am just wondering, how in the Catholic seminaries especially here in the Philippines disuss the Church history especialy the first one thousand years of undivided Christianity.
Orthodox ecclesiology operates with a plurality in unity and a unity in plurality. For Orthodoxy there is no ‘either/or’ between the one and the many. No attempt is made, or should be made, to subordinate the many to the one (the Roman Catholic model), nor the one to the many (the Protestant model). It is both canonically and theologically correct to speak of the Church and the churches, and vice versa. This is impossible for Roman Catholic ecclesiology because of the double papal claim for universal jurisdiction and infallibility. The same must be said of the Protestant ecclesiologies, which connect the notion of the Church with denominationalism, and which make a distinction between the one and the many in terms of the invisible and the visible Church.
ReplyDeleteFrom an Orthodox perspective, the Church is both catholic and local, invisible and visible, one and many. To explain what lies behind this Orthodox ecclesiological unity in multiplicity, one has to deal with the Orthodox understanding of the nature of the Church.
It is for this reason that your teachings that in order to be a canonical church one must unite with the Pope in Rome. But sad to say, it was never a dogma nor inscribed in the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils not until 18th century. Such teaching was alien to the Church Fathers and early Christians. The Orthodox Church will not invent and did not invent such teachings that lead to schism of her members.
To go directly on your stand about the role of the Bisop of Rome, we do acknoweldge his role in the first thousand years of undivided Christianity but I do hope that you will recognized the Ecumenical Councils that bestowed and confirmed the title and role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate... learn to read the history... PRIMACY is far different from SUPREMACY... Primac was given to Rome wich was given to Constantinople afterwards... it was not decided jus by one person neither by Pseudo-Isidorian decrees nor Pseudo-Constantine donations BUT by the HOLY CHURCH
FATHERS assembled during the Ecumenical Councils (3rd and 4th), inspired by the Holy Spirit... and Rome and her legates sign it and was accepted by the entir Christian communities both East and West.
The Orthodox Church understand and knows the role of her BIshop frm the very beginning until now. The structure of our Church is the same as it was... nothing changed.
You mentioned several Church Fathers like Optatus... ahve yourad the entire proceeedings of that local council? It was address to the Donatists who were trying to claim the BIshopric of Rome and for that reason, Optatus mentioned that about St. Peter and his chair... but does not elevating Rome above the others Churches especially those Apostolic ses like Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople... read between the lines.
Please don't get just one part of the proceedngs of the councils in elevating or justifying the infalliability of the Pope and his Supremacy over his brother Bishops... can I ask you something, HOW DOES POPE BENEDICT VI AND EVEN THE LATE JOHN PAUL AND YOUR GREAT THEOLOGIANS ADDRESS THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, IS IT NOT "HIS ALL HOLINESS ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH" ... do you think your hieararchs are ignorant of he emaning of that title? of that role? Please... think before you speak about the Orthodox Church.
And I suggest you read these books on line... and converts the Papal Church, just to tell you that not onl one nor two theologians have come and return to the Church of the Apostles and the Martyrs...
The Papacy:
Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches
1. http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/Abbe%20Guettee/perieh.htm
WHY I CONVERTED TO THE ORTHODOX FAITH
THE DRAMATIC CONFESSION ON A HETERODOX
2. http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/isouitis1/perieh.htm
Did Peter have more authority than the other Apostles?
ReplyDeleteORTHODOX CHRISTIAN STUDENTS’ MAGAZINE “OUR ACTION”. Issues 450-451 June-July 2007 – pages 234-235
Α. “Who is greater?” and the 12 thrones
The three concise Evangelists have recorded a question which had given rise to discussions and arguments between the Disciples of Christ: Who of them was (or would prove to be) the greater i. e. superior among them. The Lord admonished them for their ambitious thoughts and recommended that they pursue the virtue of humility. (Matthew 18: 1-4, Mark 9: 33-37 and Luke 9: 46-48 and 22: 24)
It is important to note that this incident took place after Peter’s familiar admission of Christ’s Divinity. If the Lord had indeed presented the Apostle Peter as the (supposed) head of the remaining Apostles - and in their presence – then what would have been the point of such a query-argument by the Disciples? And why didn’t Christ respond to their query by stating that Peter was indeed their superior? Not only did the Lord not mention anything like Peter’s primacy, but He actually reassured them that during His Second Coming, all twelve of them would be seated on twelve thrones, “judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mathew 19: 28, Luke 22: 30).
Therefore there was absolutely no discrimination between the twelve Apostles, on the part of Christ.
Β. The Apostle Peter and the primeval Church.
ReplyDeleteIn the first Church – that of Jerusalem – the Apostle Peter may have been a protagonist, however HE NEVER ACTED ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE, BUT ALWAYS IN COLLABORATION WITH THE OTHER APOSTLES OR AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE. A characteristic example is the election of Matthias. Peter did NOT appoint Judas’ replacement on his own initiative; he summoned ALL HIS BROTHERS so that they might together choose the appropriate person, after praying together and by voting. (Acts 1:24-26). The divine Chrysostom lauds this action by Peter, with the following words: “Observe how he does everything ALWAYS upon a MUTUAL DECISION; NOTHING AS AN AUTHORITY, NOTHING AS A LEADER. ”(Όρα αυτόν μετά ΚΟΙΝΗΣ πάντα ποιούντα ΓΝΩΜΗΣ. ΟΥΔΕΝ ΑΥΘΕΝΤΙΚΩΣ, ΟΥΔΕΝ ΑΡΧΙΚΩΣ) (John Chrysostom, On Acts 3: 1, PG 60: 34). Nowadays, the Pope of Rome appoints bishops of the Papist “church” on his initiative. This act – which is diametrically opposed to the Apostle Peter’s act – is a more than obvious one.
Furthermore, the election of the 7 deacons was also an act of the ENTIRE Church, upon the proposal of all the Apostles. Their ordination was likewise performed by ALL OF THE APOSTLES (Acts 6: 1-6).
From within the Acts of the Apostles, but also in Paul’s Epistles, we have isolated a selection of instances which verify the assertion that the Apostle Peter was NOT endowed with any super-apostolic authority whatsoever:
ReplyDelete1. The Apostles had sent BOTH PETER AND JOHN to Samaria, AS THEIR ENVOYS (Acts 8: 14).
2. The Christians who originated from the circumcised censured Peter for having baptized gentiles, and he was then obliged to explain himself to them! (Acts 11: 1-18)
3. The problems that arose from the entry of gentiles into the Church were NOT, finally, resolved by any decrees issued by Peter; they were resolved through decisions of the Apostolic Synod, which Peter did not preside over, but James, the brother of Christ and first Bishop of Jerusalem, who also had the last say on the matter. As for the epistle of the Synod addressed to the Christians of the gentiles, it was sent – NOT by Peter (exclusively) – but BY THE APOSTLES AND THE PRESBYTERS AND THE BRETHREN (Acts 15: 1-29).
4. The Apostle Paul insists that he had received his apostolic rank DIRECTLY FROM CHRIST and NOT “from any man” (Gal. 1: 11-12). But then, if the Apostle Peter was, in fact, the “representative of Christ on earth”, shouldn’t Paul have received his apostolic status from him? Paul did of course visit Peter after his conversion to Christ, but it was NOT so that his apostolic status would be validated; instead, as the blessed Chrysostom aptly commented: “…not intending to ask anything of Peter, nor even to hear him; but, BEING AN EQUAL TO HIM […], and not as one learning something from him, nor as one receiving any correction, but for this reason only: that he might see him and honor him, by presenting himself…” (John Chrysostom, On Galatians 1, PG 61: 631). In other words, it was only a complimentary, brotherly visit.
5. When the Apostle Paul visited Jerusalem fourteen years later, he mentioned that there were THREE PILLARS OF THE CHURCH THERE, AND NOT JUST ONE (PETER) AS THE SOLE PILLAR. Those three pillars were James the brother of Christ, Peter, and John. What is noteworthy here, is the fact that JAMES IS MENTIONED FIRST, AND PETER SECOND. (Gal. 2: 1-10)
6. In Antioch, the Apostle Paul publicly reprimanded the Apostle Peter for his refusal to dine together with gentile Christians, and openly characterized his behaviour as hypocritical and not in accordance “with the truth of the Gospel”. (Gal. 2: 11-14)
ReplyDelete7. In his 1st Epistle to Corinthians the Apostle Paul reproaches the Christians there for splitting up into sides (Paul’s, Peter’s and Apollo’s) and he counsels them as follows: “Let no-one boast among men, for all of them are yours, whether it is Paul, or Apollo, or Peter. ” (1 Cor. 3: 1-23). Would Paul have dared to place himself AND Apollo in the same position as Peter, if the latter were indeed the terrestrial representative of Christ?
8. After the persecution by Herod Agrippa, the predominant personage in the Church was Paul, not Peter. The Epistles by the Apostles – which had been written during that period – were, in their majority, writings by Paul. Even the last 16 chapters (of the overall 28 chapters) of Acts are almost exclusively dedicated to Paul’s activities, whereas they say nothing about Peter. That would have been inconceivable, if Peter did actually have a hyper-Apostolic jurisdiction.
Let us pray to the Lord, with zeal and humility, to lead the Roman Catholics back to the 21-century-old, ONE, HOLY, ORTHODOX, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH. Patience and prayer… Let us have complete trust in Christ and His words. The Orthodox Church will NEVER lose the Truth; She will NEVER submit to people, NEVER be subjugated to any “infallible” Pope, because the Lord promised so. And the Lord keeps His promises, with integrity (Matt. 16: 18). Do not fear, my brethren. We now have the other Paraclete (the Holy Spirit) among us, Who leads the Church to the whole Truth. It is for this reason that incessant prayer, inner cleansing, regular Sacramental living and a daily reinforcement of the Orthodox Overseas Mission work as well as our struggle against heresy should be treated as our duties. The rest is in the hands of our Triadic God. He is the One Who will bring a positive outcome to all Orthodox endeavours, to all Orthodox Churches and Mission labours. Amen.
The Church Was Not Founded on the Person of Peter
ReplyDeleteThe Church Was Not Founded on the Person of Peter, but on Confession of His Faith in Christ as true God and true Man in the One Person of Christ
St. Hilary of Poitiers
St. Hilary of Poitiers: “And this is the Rock of confession whereon the Church is built...that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God.This faith is that which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven...The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father's revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth....Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God”[St. Hilary, On The Trinity, Book VI.36,37; Book II.23; Book VI.20.]
St. Ambrose of Milan: “Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter's flesh, but of his faith, that 'the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.' But his confession of faith conquered hades. And this confession did not shut out (even) one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies" [St. Ambrose, On the Sacrament of the Incarnation of the Lord, Ch. 5]
St. Ambrose of Milan
St. Ambrose: “Believe, therefore, as Peter believed, that thou also mayest be blessed, and that thou also mayest deserve to hear, 'Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father Who is in heaven, etc.'... Great is the grace of Christ, Who has imparted almost all His Own names to His disciples. 'I am,' said He, 'the light of the world,' and ..., 'Ye are the light of the world.' 'I am the living bread'; and 'we all are one bread' (1 Cor. x.17)...Christ is the rock, for 'they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ' (1 Cor. x.4); also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter (petrus), because he has from the Rock (petra) the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you...He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him (Commentary on Luke, VI.98, CSEL 32.4).
St. Bede the Venerable
St. Bede the Venerable: “'Thou art Peter [Petrus ], and upon this Rock [Petra] from which thou didst receive thy name, that is, upon Me Myself, I will build the Church, and if anyone turns aside from the society of this confession, even though it may seem to him that he does great things, he will not belong to the building which is the Church.”[“Homily 1.16, After Epiphany, “Homilies on the Gospels Book I, 163]
St. John Chrysostom
ReplyDeleteSt. John Chrysostom: “'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church'; that is, on the faith of his confession”[St. John, Homily 53 on St. Matthew].
St. John Chrysostom: “He speaks from this time lowly things, on His way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His Church upon Peter's confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it...”[St. John Chrysostom, Homily 82.3 on St. Matthew]
Pope St. Leo the Great comments on the words: “Upon this Rock I will build My Church and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it:
“Upon this firmness, He says, I shall raise My Temple, and it will rise upon the steadfastness of this Faith, and the loftiness of My Church shall mingle with the heavens. The gates of hades shall not master this profession (of faith); nor shall the bonds of death bind it. For these words are the words of life, and as they raise those who confess them up to heaven, so they plunge those that deny them down to hell.” [Sermon 83(2), P. L. 54 (col. 429), in FC, 93:357; Toal, II:267, 268]
[NOTE: Pope St. Leo the Great reads Matthew 16 as confirming that the Orthodox or right-believing Church and Profession of Faith shall never fail, not the orthodoxy of whoever holds the Roman episcopate.]
St. Gregory the Great
St. Gregory the Great: “And therefore, beloved brother,...remember that system of doctrine of which the chief of all the Apostles, the blessed Peter, laid the foundation ...As I have said, the Rock (petra) of the catholic Faith, from which the blessed Apostle Peter [Petrus] derived his name at the Lord's hands, rejects every trace of either heresy (Nestorianism or Monophysitism)”[St. Gregory the Great, Letter CXIX. To Maximus, Bishop of Antioch, by the Hand of Marian the Presbyter, and Olympius the Deacon; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II Volume XII.]
St. Maximus the Confessor
St. Maximus the Confessor: "Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession.”[quoted in Pope Anastasius (the Librarian), The Life of Our Holy Father St. Maximus the Confessor (Boston: Holy Transfiguration, 1982), pp. 60-62]
Augustine of Hippo
ReplyDeleteSaint Augustine of Hippo, considered the greatest of all the pre-Scholastic Fathers by the Roman Catholic Church, yet also refutes the Papal interpretation, saying:
"Christ said to Peter....I will build you upon Myself...Those who wish to be built upon men say, 'I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas.' However, those who did not wish to be built upon Peter but upon the Rock say, I am of Christ"(Augustine, Retractions, 13th Sermon)
Augustine of Hippo: “In Peter, which means Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the Rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, 'They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the Rock, like a Christian is from Christ. Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be understood. Christ, you see, built His Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the Rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer" (John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
The doors of Holy Orthodoxy are open wide and an invitation is extended to come and see. Examine her Faith, her worship, her history, her commitment to Christ, her love for God the Father, her communion with the Holy Spirit, her Mystery. She has kept the "faith once delivered unto the saints" free from the distortions of human innovations. Man-made doctrines have never found their way into the Orthodox Church, since she has no necessary association in history with the name of one single father or theologian. Come home to the Faith of Peter and Paul!
Joel,
ReplyDeleteI decided to post your first message in full because this is more personal. You are straightforward and I respect that. There are things that I don't agree with what you've said but never mind. I'd rather focus on the theological points that you have raised on the succeeding messages.
It is useless to delved on personal opinions and even if I explain my side on Mama Eli I don't think that it will be of help to you.
[Orthodox ecclesiology operates with a plurality in unity and a unity in plurality.]
ReplyDeleteTHAT IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BECAUSE THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES ARE NOT REALLY UNITED BUT EACH INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. IT IS THAT LACK OF UNITY THAT MAKES THE CALLING OF AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES.
[ For Orthodoxy there is no ‘either/or’ between the one and the many.]
AGAIN, THAT IS MORE PROPER FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BECAUSE WE ARE TRULY UNITED IN FAITH, SACRAMENTS, LITURGY, ADMINISTRATION, UNIVERSAL CODE OF LAWS AND EVEN PLANNING.
YOUR UNITY IS SUFERFICIAL. YOU CLAIM TO BE UNITED BUT IN REALITY YOU ARE NOT BECAUSE THE INDEPENDENCE IS GREATER THAN THE UNITY.
[ No attempt is made, or should be made, to subordinate the many to the one (the Roman Catholic model), nor the one to the many (the Protestant model).]
THERE IS NO SUBORDINATION ON OUR PART BECAUSE THE UNITY IS ABSOLUTE. AS A FILIPINO CATHOLIC I HAVE ALL THE EQUAL RIGHTS THAN MY ITALIAN COUNTERPARTS. TO SAY THAT THERE IS A SUBORDINATION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS DEFINITELY NOT FOUNDED ON REALITY. I SUGGEST BETTER FOR YOU TO CHECK YOUR FACTS.
[ It is both canonically and theologically correct to speak of the Church and the churches, and vice versa.]
ONCE AGAIN THIS IS TRUE FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CHURCH BECAUSE OUR CHURCH CAN SPEAK WITH ONE ACCORD WITH ONE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY EITHER BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF NATIONS, THE COURTS OF LAWS AND BEFORE THE OTHER CHRISTIAN GROUPS. THE ORTHODOX CANNOT DO THAT. THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW CANNOT EVEN ACT TOGETHER AND DO NOT SEE EACH OTHER EYE TO EYE ON MANY OCCASIONS.
WE HAVE ONE UNIVERSAL CATECHETICAL MANUAL AND A UNIFIED CANON LAW. THE ORTHODOX CANNOT DO THAT? WHY? FOR LACK OF UNITY.
[ This is impossible for Roman Catholic ecclesiology because of the double papal claim for universal jurisdiction and infallibility.]
ON THE CONTRARY THAT IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE FOR THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH BUT A REALITY ALREADY. EACH OF OUR DIOCESE ARE HAVING A LIFE OF ITS OWN BUT IT HAS COMPLETE UNITY: DOCTRINAL, SACRAMENTAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, LITURGICAL, CANONICAL UNITY WITH THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH.
THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES ON THE OTHER HAND ARE LIKE PROTESTANTS. BUT THE DIVISION IS NOT ROOTED ON FELLOWSHIPS BUT ON RACIAL DISTINCTIONS: GREEK, SERBIAN, RUSSIAN, ROMANIAN, ETC. YOUR UNITY IS ALMOST SIMILAR WITH THE PROTESTANTS. THE UNITY OF YOUR PATRIARCHS AND BISHOPS IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES THAN WITH THE UNIVERSAL UNITY OF THE CHURCH.
[ The same must be said of the Protestant ecclesiologies, which connect the notion of the Church with denominationalism,]
SUCH DOMINATIONALISM IS PRESENT IN YOUR GROUPS. THEY ARE ONLY DIFFERENTLY MADE. SO INSTEAD OF ATTRIBUTING IT TO US YOU'VE BETTER LOOK UNTO YOURSELVES BECAUSE IT FITS YOU MORE.
[ and which make a distinction between the one and the many in terms of the invisible and the visible Church.]
LIKE THE PROTESTANTS YOU ONLY HAVE THE MANY BUT YOUR HAVING 'THE ONE' IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE. WITHOUT UNIFIED HEAD, WITHOUT AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, WITHOUT A UNIVERSAL SYNOD AND WITH NO OFFIICIAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE FINAL AND DEFINITIVE DECISIONS YOUR UNITY IS A FARCE.
[From an Orthodox perspective, the Church is both catholic and local,]
ReplyDeleteYOU ARE NOT CATHOLIC. YOU ARE ONLY LOCAL. NOT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A HANDFUL MEMBERS IN SOME AREAS YOU CAN ALREADY CLAIM THAT YOU ARE CATHOLIC. O NO. THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES ARE VERY PAROCHIAL.
THE REAL CATHOLIC AND LOCAL IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. IT IS PRESENT EVERYWHERE WITH MUCH GREATER PRESENCE THAN YOURS AND IT IS UNIFIED THE WORLD OVER WHILE DISTINCT IN EACH LOCAL TERRITORIES.
[ invisible and visible,]
WE ARE MORE VISIBLE. AND WE ARE MORE VISIBLY UNITED.
[ one and many.]
WE ARE ONE. OUR HIERARCHY IS CLEAR AND ONE. FROM POPE DOWN AND FROM THE LAITY UP TO THE POPE. YOURS IS A MIXTURE OF VARIOUS GROUPS SO DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER. WITHOUT COMMON VOICE AND CANNOT EVEN MAKE ONE FINAL AND BINDING DECISION FOR ALL.
AS REGARDS THE MANY, YOU ARE FEW IN COMPARISON WITH US. SO PLEASE STOP TALKING ON US OF THE WORLD 'MANY'.
[ To explain what lies behind this Orthodox ecclesiological unity in multiplicity, one has to deal with the Orthodox understanding of the nature of the Church.]
THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH IS BEING THE BODY OF CHRIST. THE BODY OF CHRIST IS ONE AND WHOLE. NOT A MERE MIXTURE OF GROUPS DISTINCT WITH RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS. IF WE WILL APPLY THAT TO THE BODY OF CHRIST, THEN THE LORD'S BODY WOULD APPEAR LIKE A FRANKENSTEIN'S MONSTER.
[It is for this reason that your teachings that in order to be a canonical church one must unite with the Pope in Rome.]
IT IS THE LORD WHO GAVE US THE PRINCIPLE OF ONE FLOCK AND ONE SHEPHERD. ONE LORD AND ONE LEADER TO WHOM HE ENTRUSTED THE KEYS OF HIS KINGDOM.
[ But sad to say, it was never a dogma nor inscribed in the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils not until 18th century.]
IT IS A WELL ESTABLISHED BELIEF OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH WAY BACK TO THE APOSTOLIC TIMES. JUST IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES AFTER THE ASCENSION PETER WAS MAKING DECISIONS ON HIS OWN ON BEHALF OF THE WHOLE CHURCH. THERE ARE DECISIONS THAT HE LET THE APOSTOLIC COLLEGE DECIDE BUT HIS AUTHORITY WAS NEVER QUESTIONED NOR CHALLENGED.
[ Such teaching was alien to the Church Fathers and early Christians.]
ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE OR OF MOSCOW WHICH ARE LACKING IN AUTHORITY FROM BIBLICAL AND APOSTOLIC WITNESSES. THE CHURCH OF ROME IS WELL RESPECTED AND RECOGNIZED AS THE ONE WITH PRIMACY EVEN DURING THE TIME OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS AND THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH.
WE HAVE ENOUGH PROOF FOR THAT. BUT THE SO-CALLED PRIMACY OF CONSTANTINOPLE AS EQUAL WITH ROME IS THE ONE WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ANY FOUNDATION BIBLICALLY, PATRISTICALLY AND BY SACRED TRADITION.
[ The Orthodox Church will not invent and did not invent such teachings that lead to schism of her members.]
YOU DID INVENT. THE CLAIM THAT CONSTANTINOPLE IS AT PAR WITH ROME IS A LATER INVENTION. THE SAME FOR MOSCOW.
[To go directly on your stand about the role of the Bisop of Rome, we do acknoweldge his role in the first thousand years of undivided Christianity]
ReplyDeleteOF COURSE YOU HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT. THE AUTHORITY OF ROME IS BESTOWED NOT BY MEN BUT BY THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WHO GAVE UNEQUALLED AUTHORITY TO ST. PETER AS THE FIRST AND LEADER OF THE APOSTOLIC COLLEGE.
[ but I do hope that you will recognized the Ecumenical Councils that bestowed and confirmed the title and role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate...]
THE TITLE AND AUTHORITY OF PETER CAME FROM JESUS. THUS, THE AUTHORITY OF THE SEE OF ROME IS FROM THE LORD. THE TITLE AND ROLE OF THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE IS GIVEN LATER ONLY. IT WAS JUST AN HONOR GIVEN BECAUSE IT BECAME THE NEW CAPITAL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. THUS, IT ONLY RECOGNIZED ITS POLITICAL IMPORTANCE.
NOW, THAT EMPIRE IS LONG GONE. BYZANTIUM OR CONSTANTINOPLE IS DEAD POLITICALLY. ITS SO CALLED PRIMACY IS LONG GONE. THE CHURCH OF MOSCOW IS EVEN GREATER IN INFLUENCE THAN CONSTANTINOPLE. IN FACT, IT IS CURSED. IT FELL TO ISLAM WHILE THE LORD GAVE VICTORY AFTER VICTORY TO THE WEST AGAINST ISLAMIC INVASION. THE CURSE THAT BEFALL CONSTANTINOPLE HAS NOT FALLEN ON OUR CHURCH. WHY? BECAUSE OF OUR UNITY WITH PETER.
[ learn to read the history...]
IF EVER THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL RECOGNIZED CONSTANTINOPLE, IT WAS RECOGNIZED AS SECOND TO ROME BUT NEVER EQUAL OR ABOVE TO IT.
CONSTANTINE OR NO CONSTANTINE, ROME IS ROME AND CONSTANTINOPLE IS NOTHING IN COMPARISON WITH IT.
[ PRIMACY is far different from SUPREMACY...]
AGREE. THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL PRIMACY IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES. THERE IS THE PRIMACY OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW. WHAT IS THAT? IT IS LIKE A PERSON WITH TWO HEADS.
THERE IS PRIMACY IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THAT PRIMACY RESIDES IN THE SEE OF ROME. WHEN THIS SEE OF PETER SPEAKS EVEN THE ENEMIES OF THE FAITH ARE LISTENING.
[ Primac was given to Rome wich was given to Constantinople afterwards...]
O NO, NO, NO... THE PRIMACY OF ROME WAS NOT GIVEN TO CONSTANTINOPLE. THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL HAS NO POWER TO TRANSFER THE DIVINE AUTHORITY THE LORD HAS GIVEN TO THE BLESSED PETER. O NO, NO, NO...
CONSTANTINOPLE WAS GIVEN AUTHORITY LESSER AND SECOND ONLY TO ROME. AND IT WAS GIVEN WHEN CONSTANTINOPLE WAS THE CENTER OF THE EMPIRE. NOW, CONSTANTINOPLE HAS LOST THAT PRESTIGE BECAUSE THE EMPIRE IS GONE.
THE EMPIRE IS GONE BUT ROME IS STILL ROME. IT IS THE ETERNAL CITY PROTECTED BY THE PROMISE OF THE DIVINE SAVIOR.
[ it was not decided jus by one person]
ReplyDeleteO NO, NO, NO... YOU ARE WRONG. IT WAS DECIDED BY ONE PERSON: BY SOMEONE CALLED JESUS THE CHRIST - THE KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
AFTER HIM, IT WAS DECIDED UPON BY ST. PETER WHEN HE OBEYED THE DIVINE COMMAND TO GO TO THE CITY OF ROME.
[ neither by Pseudo-Isidorian decrees nor Pseudo-Constantine donations]
WE DON'T NEED CONSTANTINE TO HAVE PRIMACY. EVEN BEFORE CONSTANTINE CONVERTED THE SEE OF ROME WAS ALREADY HAVING THE 'PRIMACY IN CHARITY' OVER THE OTHER CHURCHES. ON THE CONTRARY, IT WAS CONSTANTINOPLE WHO OWE ITS POLITICAL PRESTIGE TO CONSTANTINE. THUS, WHEN THE EMPIRE FELL, CONSTANTINOPLE BECAME A MERE SHADOW OF ITS PAST.
[ BUT by the HOLY CHURCH
FATHERS assembled during the Ecumenical Councils (3rd and 4th),]
BUT THE CHURCH FATHERS NEVER DECLARED CONSTANTINOPLE AS EQUAL OR ABOVE THE SEE OF ROME. NEVER... NEVER EVER. ROME IS FIRST AND ABOVE OVER CONSTANTINOPLE. THAT IS WHAT THE HOLY MOTHER CHURCH FATHERS HAVE DECIDED.
[ inspired by the Holy Spirit...]
THE HOLY SPIRIT RECOGNIZED THE PRIMACY OF PETER OVER THE OTHER APOSTLES. RIGHT AFTER THE PENTECOST WHEN HE DESCENDED IT WAS PETER WHOM HE CHOSE TO BE THE LEADER OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, THE VOICE AND THE LEADER OF THE APOSTOLIC COLLEGE.
WHEN PETER HAS SPOKEN THE CASE IS FINISHED. ALL OTHER APOSTLES WERE SILENT THEN. NOBODY WOULD DARE TO OPPOSE THE BLESSED PETER - THE BEARER OF THE KEYS GIVEN BY THE DIVINE MASTER.
WHERE DID THE HOLY SPIRIT DECLARE THAT CONSTANTINOPLE IS EQUAL WITH ROME? WHERE?
[ and Rome and her legates sign it and was accepted by the entir Christian communities both East and West.]
YES, IT BECAME AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL BECAUSE ROME SIGNED IT. IF ROME DIDN'T SIGN IT THEN IT WOULD NOT BE AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. TRY TO TELL YOUR PATRIARCH NOW TO CALL AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL AND YOU WILL SEE HOW HE WILL BE OBEYED BY ALL OTHERS.
[The Orthodox Church understand and knows the role of her BIshop frm the very beginning until now. The structure of our Church is the same as it was... nothing changed.]
ReplyDeleteREALLY? O NOT IT ISN'T. IT IS NO LONGER IN UNITY WITH THE SEE OF PETER. FOR THAT REASON IT LOST THE ONLY AUTHORITY THAT PROVIDE UNIVERSAL PRIMACY. THUS, THE ORTHODOX CAN ONLY SPEAK OF ITS MANY BUT POORLY ON ITS UNITY.
[You mentioned several Church Fathers like Optatus... ahve yourad the entire proceeedings of that local council? It was address to the Donatists who were trying to claim the BIshopric of Rome and for that reason, Optatus mentioned that about St. Peter and his chair... but does not elevating Rome above the others Churches especially those Apostolic ses like Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople... read between the lines.]
THE DONATISTS FAILED TO CLAIM THE BISHOPRIC OF ROME BUT THE NESTORIANS SUCCEEDED IN CLAIMING THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
NOW, DON'T TELL ME THAT WHEN ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH SAID THIS HE WAS ONLY REFERRING TO THE DONATISTS:
Ignatius of Antioch
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
SUPERLATIVE WORDS ARE USED BY THIS EASTERN FATHER TO THE SEE OF ROME. AND HE EVEN PROCLAIMED IT AS HAVING THE PRESIDENCY IN LOVE... PRIMACY IN CHARITY.
NOW, GIVE ME AN EQUALLY ANCIENT TEXT FROM THE SAME FATHER OF SAME REPUTE EXTOLLING THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE. GIVE ME. C'MMON.
[Please don't get just one part of the proceedngs of the councils in elevating or justifying the infalliability of the Pope and his Supremacy over his brother Bishops...]
ReplyDeleteYOU ARE INSINUATE THAT I AM ONLY LOOKING AT PATRISTIC SOURCES PARTIALLY YET YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ME AN IOTA OF PROOF THAT THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE IS AT PAR WITH THE BISHOP OF ROME. NOTHING AT ALL.
[ can I ask you something, HOW DOES POPE BENEDICT VI AND EVEN THE LATE JOHN PAUL AND YOUR GREAT THEOLOGIANS ADDRESS THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, IS IT NOT "HIS ALL HOLINESS ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH" ...]
HA, HA, HA... THEY ARE ADDRESSING HIM AS THAT BECAUSE YOUR PATRIARCH PREFERS THAT TITLE. BUT IN REALITY YOUR PATRIARCH AND CONSTANTINOPLE IS NOTHING IN COMPARISON WITH OUR POPE. HA, HA, HA...
OUR POPE IS CALLED 'YOUR HOLINESS' SO IN ORDER TO COUNTER THAT YOUR PATRIARCHS PREFER 'YOUR ALL HOLINESS'. WHAT IS HIS ALL? THE MOSLEMS UNDER HIS TERRITORY? IS HE REFERRING TO HAGIA SOPHIA WHO IS NOW AN AGING MUSEUM? OUR POPE DOES NOT NEED THE WORD 'ALL' TO BE SUCH. BECAUSE HIS MORAL AND SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY IS NOT FROM A SELF-INVENTED TITLE BUT FROM THE DIVINE WORD OF CHRIST.
LET OUR POPE AND YOUR PATRIARCH WALK ON THE STREETS AND LET US SEE TO WHOM MILLIONS OF THE FAITHFUL FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD SHALL GIVE THEIR REVERENCE. YOUR PATRIARCH IS APPEARING ON INTERNATIONAL NEWS MOSTLY WHEN HE IS VISITING OUR POPE OR WHEN OUR POPE VISITS HIM. OTHERWISE HE IS AN UNKNOWN INTERNATIONAL FIGURE.
[ do you think your hieararchs are ignorant of he emaning of that title?]
THEY ARE NOT IGNORANT. THEY ARE WELL AWARE THAT FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY THE BISHOPS OF CONSTANTINOPLE ARE JEALOUS OF THE BISHOP OF ROME. SO, THEY WANT TO GIVE HIM THE HAPPINESS THAT HE DESIRES WHICH HE DESERVES AS AN OLD MAN. OUR POPE DOES NOT NEED THAT TITLE. BECAUSE THEY EXUDES SO MUCH HOLINESS AND AUTHORITY THAN NO ONE ON EARTH POSSESS - THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER.
AS THE APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANS LINED THE STREETS TO BE REACHED BY PETER'S SHADOW SO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LINE THE STREETS WHEN OUR POPES ARE PASSING BY.
[ of that role? Please... think before you speak about the Orthodox Church.]
I THINK IT IS YOU WHO IS NOT THINKING HERE. YOU ARE IN DELUSION IF YOU THINK THAT YOUR PATRIARCH'S TITLE OF 'ALL HOLINESS' MAKES HIM EQUAL WITH OUR POPE. O NO, NO, NO... OUR POPE CAN EVEN COMMAND THE WHOLE WORLD TO CHANGE ITS CALENDARS AND EVEN THE DATES OF GREAT FESTIVITIES AND EVEN THE NON CATHOLIC WORLD OBEYS. LET US SEE IF YOUR PATRIARCH CAN DO THE SAME.
[And I suggest you read these books on line... and converts the Papal Church, just to tell you that not onl one nor two theologians have come and return to the Church of the Apostles and the Martyrs...]
O YOU WANT TO MAKE MY BLOG A DUMPING SITE OF YOUR PROPAGANDA HA. HOW NICE OF YOU. I SUGGEST THAT YOU OPEN YOUR OWN BLOG FOR YOUR PROPAGANDA.
IF YOU WILL LIST THE PEOPLE WHO TRANSFERRED TO YOU WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL. THERE ARE MORE CONVERSIONS TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN EASTERN EUROPE AS WELL. YOU CAN DECEIVE PEOPLE FROM TIME TO TIME BUT NOT FOR ALL TIME. SOON THEY WILL SEE THE EMPTINESS IN YOUR DISUNITY AND THEY WILL ALSO RETURN TO THE SEE OF PETER.
THAT IS WHY YOUR BISHOPS ARE SO COWARDLY ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. WE ALLOW YOU TO BUILD CHURCHES AS MUCH AS YOU WANT IN THE WEST BUT IN EASTERN EUROPE WE ARE SUPPRESSED BY YOUR REPEATED ATTACKS AND ACCUSATIONS OF PROSELYTISM. HOW COWARDLY. YOU WANT TO CONVERT OUR MEMBERS BUT YOU DON'T WANT YOUR PEOPLE TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE. YOU WERE AFRAID THAT OUR MISSIONARIES WILL CONVERT THEM EN MASSE.
[Did Peter have more authority than the other Apostles?]
ReplyDeleteOF COURSE. THE BEARER OF THE KEYS IS GREATER THAN THE OTHER. AND THE 11 OTHERS RECOGNIZED IT BECAUSE RIGHT AFTER THE ASCENSION THEY RECOGNIZED THE AUTHORITY OF THE BLESSED PETER.
[ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN STUDENTS’ MAGAZINE “OUR ACTION”. Issues 450-451 June-July 2007 – pages 234-235
Α. “Who is greater?” and the 12 thrones]
PETER HAS A THRONE JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE APOSTLES. BUT HE HAS THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM THAT OTHERS DO NOT HAVE.
[The three concise Evangelists have recorded a question which had given rise to discussions and arguments between the Disciples of Christ: Who of them was (or would prove to be) the greater i. e. superior among them. The Lord admonished them for their ambitious thoughts and recommended that they pursue the virtue of humility. (Matthew 18: 1-4, Mark 9: 33-37 and Luke 9: 46-48 and 22: 24)]
VERY GOOD. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS OUT. ACTUALLY THE BORN AGAIN ARE USING THE SAME ARGUMENT. I'M VERY GLAD THAT YOU AND THE BORN AGAIN, AS WELL AS THE JEHOVA WITNESS THAT WE HAVE DEBATED ARE USING THE SAME ARGUMENT. HOW NICE ISN'T IT? HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE MORE IN COMMON WITH THEM.
[It is important to note that this incident took place after Peter’s familiar admission of Christ’s Divinity.]
SO WHAT! AS YOU'VE STATED ABOVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS AMONG THE APOSTLES WERE FRUIT OF THEIR AMBITIONS. THAT IS SINFUL THOUGHTS - THEY WANT TO RECEIVE GLORY GREATER THAN WHAT THEY DESERVE. THAT AMBITIOUS THOUGHT IS DRIVEN BY PRIDE AND SELFISHNESS.
IT HAPPENED AT THE TIME WHEN THE APOSTLES WERE WEAK AND CLOUDED BY SIN OF PRIDE.
[ If the Lord had indeed presented the Apostle Peter as the (supposed) head of the remaining Apostles - and in their presence – then what would have been the point of such a query-argument by the Disciples?]
ReplyDeleteHA, HA, HA... A VERY CHEAP ARGUMENT.
1. SATAN ALREADY KNEW THAT THERE WAS A GOD ABOVE HIM YET BECAUSE OF PRIDE HE REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THE AUTHORITY OF GOD OVER HIM. HE REBELLED IN HEAVEN.
2. ADAM AND EVEN KNEW THAT THEY ARE CREATURES OF GOD YET THEY WANTED TO BE LIKE GOD.
3. KORAH KNEW OF THE CLEAR AUTHORITY OF MOSES AND AARON YET HE WANTED TO USURP THE POWER OF THE PRIESTS.
THE LESSON IS: EVEN IF THERE IS A CLEAR AUTHORITY WHEN ONE IS DARKENED BY PRIDE ONE WILL QUESTION THE AUTHORITY OF THE OTHER AND REFUSE TO OBEY OR RECOGNIZE IT. IN FACT, EVEN IN COUNTRIES WHERE THERE IS A PRESIDENT OR PRIME MINISTER WELL ESTABLISHED THERE ARE STILL SOME WHO ARE ASPIRING AND DESIRING AND QUESTIONING THE AUTHORITY OF THE LEADER.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE APOSTLES WERE EFFECTS OF SIN, OF AMBITION. AND FOR THAT THEIR UNDERSTANDING WERE CLOUDED BY DARKNESS. BUT WHEN THE HOLY SPIRIT CAME UPON THEM IT WAS PETER WHO ROSE TO LEAD THE CHURCH WHILE THE OTHERS WERE SILENT EXCEPT IN FEW INSTANCES THAT JOHN, PHILIP AND JAMES WERE MENTIONED.
[ And why didn’t Christ respond to their query by stating that Peter was indeed their superior?]
OF COURSE THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT WHAT HE HAD ALREADY STATED. WHAT HAS BEEN DECLARED HAS BEEN CLEAR ALREADY. BUT WHAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS THAT EVEN IF THINGS IS CLEAR WHEN ONE IS IN STATE OF SIN THERE IS BLINDNESS TO THE TRUTH. WHAT IS LACKING IS NOT THE DECLARATION OF JESUS PROCLAIMING THE AUTHORITY OF PETER BUT THE SINS IN THE HEART OF THE APOSTLES THAT TIME.
EVEN IN FAMILIES WHERE THE HEIR IS ALREADY DECLARED THERE IS STILL INFIGHTING WHEN SIN IS PRESENT IN THE HEART OF PEOPLE.
[Not only did the Lord not mention anything like Peter’s primacy, but He actually reassured them that during His Second Coming, all twelve of them would be seated on twelve thrones, “judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mathew 19: 28, Luke 22: 30).]
HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE DECEIVING HERE. YOU JUMPED FROM MATTHEW CHAPTER 18 TO CHAPTER 19. THAT IS FOUL. NO, NO, NO...
WHAT JESUS DID IS THAT HE TOOK A LITTLE CHILD PLACED HIM IN THEIR MIDST AND TAUGHT THE APOSTLES LESSON OF HUMILITY -- TO BE LIKE A LITTLE CHILD:
Matthew 18
1At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
WHAT JESUS DID IN RESPONSE TO THEIR SINS OF PRIDE IS TO TEACH THEM THE VIRTUE OF HUMILITY. OF COURSE, IT IS USELESS AT THIS TIME TO TEACH THEM THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY. WHAT IS NEEDED IS HUMILITY TO COUNTER THE SIN OF PRIDE.
THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO PETER REMAINS UNTIL THIS VERY DAY.
[Therefore there was absolutely no discrimination between the twelve Apostles, on the part of Christ.]
INDEED THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE THE PRIMACY OF PETER IS A PRIMACY OF SERVICE NOT OF SUPERIORITY, HOWEVER, IT IS ABSOLUTELY BASELESS TO CLAIM THAT THE SEE OF CONSTANTINOPLE IS EQUAL WITH THE SEE OF PETER. IF PETER HAS NO PRIMACY THEN ANDREW HAS NO PRIMACY ALSO. THEN, WHERE WILL YOU GET THE BIBLICAL FOUNDATION FOR THE SEE OF CONSTANTINOPLE? NOTHING. CONSTANTINOPLE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS THE SECOND CAPITAL OF THE EMPIRE AFTER ROME, THUS IT IS CALLED THE NEW ROME. IF THE FIRST ROME IS NOTHING, THEN THE NEW ROME IS GARBAGE. IF THE FIRST ROME HAS PRIMACY THEN THE SECOND IN RANK HAS PRIMACY.
HA, HA, HA... YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE VERY CHEAP.
[Β. The Apostle Peter and the primeval Church.
ReplyDeleteIn the first Church – that of Jerusalem – the Apostle Peter may have been a protagonist, however HE NEVER ACTED ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE, BUT ALWAYS IN COLLABORATION WITH THE OTHER APOSTLES OR AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE.]
EXCUSE ME. ST. PETER DECIDED TO REPLACE JUDAS ISCARIOT WITHOUT CONSULTING THE OTHER APOSTLES. AND ST. PETER DECIDED TO DELIVER THE FIRST SERMON AFTER PENTECOST OVER AND ABOVE THE OTHER APOSTLES AS THEIR LEADER. THERE WAS NO VOTING AND THERE WAS NO PRE-ARRANGED AGREEMENT THAT PETER WAS TO REPRESENT THEM. O NO, NO, NO... PETER CAN DECIDE IN THE CHURCH AS ITS HIGHEST LEADER AFTER CHRIST. THE FACT THAT HE WAS CONSULTING OTHERS IN SOME INSTANCES SHOWS HIS GREAT LEADERSHIP BUT HE CAN DECIDE ALONE IF HE WANTED TO AND HE DID.
AFTER JESUS, THERE I NO OTHER PERSON AS PROMINENT AS PETER. NO OTHER. JAMES AND ANDREW PALE IN COMPARISON WITH PETER. AND THE BELOVED APOSTLE ACTS IN AN OBVIOUS SUBORDINATION EVERY TIME HE IS WITH PETER.
[ A characteristic example is the election of Matthias. Peter did NOT appoint Judas’ replacement on his own initiative;]
IT WAS PETER WHO PERSONALLY DECIDED TO HOLD THE ELECTION. HE WAS NOT REQUESTED OR COMMANDED BY ANY ONE ELSE TO REPLACE JUDAS. THE FACT THAT PETER DECIDED TO HAVE AN ELECTION SPEAKS WELL OF HIS RESPECT FOR HIS FELLOW APOSTLES. BUT NOBODY QUESTIONED HIS DECISION TO CALL FOR ELECTION.
THE DECISION TO REPLACE JUDAS IS AN ACT ARISING FROM A SINGULAR AND SUPREME AUTHORITY OF PETER. IF ANDREW IS THE HEAD AND DESERVING OF YOUR LATER INVENTED 'ALL-HOLINESS' TITLE HE SHOULD BE THE ONE CALLING FOR ELECTION AND NOT PETER. BUT HE WAS SILENT. JAMES WAS SILENT. HA, HA, HA... YOUR POSITION IS BASED ON SILENCE. HA, HA, HA...
[he summoned ALL HIS BROTHERS so that they might together choose the appropriate person, after praying together and by voting. (Acts 1:24-26).]
IT MEANS THAT PETER HAS THE POWER TO SUMMON HIS BROTHERS. WHEN PAUL WAS QUESTIONED BY THE JUDAIZERS HIS DECISION NOT TO REQUIRE CIRCUMCISION WAS DISOBEYED. I WANTED TO SEE IF IT WAS THE OTHER APOSTLES GIVING ORDER IF THEY WILL HAVE THE SAME AUTHORITY AS THAT OF PETER.
THAT IS WHY OUR POPE CAN SUMMON AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL BUT YOUR PATRIARCHS ALL COMBINED WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO SO. THEY WILL ONLY MAKE A FOOL OUT OF THEMSELVES CALLING FOR PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT HEED THEIR CALL.
[ The divine Chrysostom lauds this action by Peter, with the following words: “Observe how he does everything ALWAYS upon a MUTUAL DECISION; NOTHING AS AN AUTHORITY, NOTHING AS A LEADER. ”(Όρα αυτόν μετά ΚΟΙΝΗΣ πάντα ποιούντα ΓΝΩΜΗΣ. ΟΥΔΕΝ ΑΥΘΕΝΤΙΚΩΣ, ΟΥΔΕΝ ΑΡΧΙΚΩΣ) (John Chrysostom, On Acts 3: 1, PG 60: 34).]
ReplyDeleteST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM PRAISES ST. PETER FOR HIS ACT OF HUMILITY. BUT DOES IT MEAN THAT PETER IS NOT THE LEADER? O NO, NO, NO... YOU ARE DISTORTING ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM AND THE FATHERS:
“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church...” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350).
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM IS CLEAR AND CATEGORICAL. ST. PETER IS THE FOREMOST OF THE APOSTLES AND CHIEF HERALD OF THE CHURCH. FORMOST AND CHIEF. WELL, AS FAR AS I KNOW ST. CYRIL IS FROM THE EAST. HE, HE, HE...
"Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter (Kepha), because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me...I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, have given you authority over all my treasures." Ephraim, Homily 4:1, (A.D. 373).
SO, WHO IS GIVEN 'AUTHORITY OVER ALL THE TREASURES OF CHRIST'? ST. PETER. THAT IS ACCORDING TO ST. EPHRAIM.
HA, HA, HA... DON'T TELL ME THAT IT IS ST. ANDREW. O NO, NO, NO... THE AUTHORITY OF PETER IS WELL ESTABLISHED BIBLICALLY AND PATRISTICALLY. YOURS IS BASED ON SILENCE AND NOTHINGNESS.
“[F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest.” Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum, 7:3(A.D. 370).
YOU SEE, PETER IS PLACED 'BEFORE ALL THE APOSTLES'. HA,HA, HA... AND THERE IS NO STATEMENT THAT: "AND ANDREW IS PLACED EQUAL WITH PETER". O NO, NO, NO...
[ Nowadays, the Pope of Rome appoints bishops of the Papist “church” on his initiative.]
O NO, NO, NO... LIAR, LIAR, LIAR. BEFORE THE POPE CHOOSES A BISHOP THE CANDIDATE IS ALREADY CHOSEN ON THE LOCAL LEVEL BY CONSULTATION. IN FACT, THE POPE ONLY RELIES ON THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE LOCAL LEVEL.
THE ORTHODOX ARE ONLY ENVIOUS OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE. HA, HA, HA...
[ This act – which is diametrically opposed to the Apostle Peter’s act – is a more than obvious one.]
O NO, NO, NO... THE APOSTOLIC SEES SUCH AS THE OLD PATRIARCHATES ARE ALWAYS FREE TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN BISHOPS. AND THAT IS ALSO TRUE FOR THE EASTERN CHURCHES. THE POPE APPOINTS BISHOP ONLY ON THOSE THAT BELONGS TO THE ROMAN CHURCH. UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU THE CHURCH OF ROME HAS GROWN BIGGER THAN ALL OF YOU COMBINED. THAT IS WHY THE ORTHODOX ARE SALIVATING ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE.
BECAUSE OF THEIR FRUSTRATIONS THEY HURLED ATTACKS AGAINST THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER.
[Furthermore, the election of the 7 deacons was also an act of the ENTIRE Church, upon the proposal of all the Apostles. Their ordination was likewise performed by ALL OF THE APOSTLES (Acts 6: 1-6).]
BECAUSE PETER DIDN'T OPPOSE IT. HE DECIDED DO IT COLLEGIALLY. BUT PETER COULD HAVE DECIDED IT SINGLE-HANDEDLY. BESIDES, THERE IS STILL NO SHOW OF THE SPECIAL AUTHORITY OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW IN ACTS 6:1-6. HAVE YOU SEEN ONE? NO, NADA, NOTHING. IN RUSSIAN: NYET NYET!!! HA, HA, HA...
[From within the Acts of the Apostles, but also in Paul’s Epistles, we have isolated a selection of instances which verify the assertion that the Apostle Peter was NOT endowed with any super-apostolic authority whatsoever:]
ReplyDeleteLET ME CHECK YOUR CLAIM.
[1. The Apostles had sent BOTH PETER AND JOHN to Samaria, AS THEIR ENVOYS (Acts 8: 14).]
HA, HA, HA... IT IS NOWHERE STATED THERE WHAT YOU CLAIM. THE FACT THAT PETER AND JOHN HAD BEEN SENT IS NOT A REFUTATION OF PETER'S AUTHORITY. BECAUSE BEING THE HEAD DOES NOT MEAN HE CANNOT BE SENT. THE LEADER IS ACTUALLY THE ONE VISITING PLACES AND GOING ON IMPORTANT TASKS. THERE IS NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE THAT PETER IS SUBORDINATED TO THE OTHER APOSTLES.
PETER WENT ON THAT MISSION BECAUSE HE TOO WANTED TO GO THERE. OTHERWISE, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DECIDE AGAINST HIS WILL. MUCH MORE IT WAS NECESSARY THAT THE HEAD SHOULD BE THE ONE TO GO BECAUSE SAMARIA IS THE ENEMIES OF THE JEWS. IT WAS A DELICATE AND SENSITIVE MISSION. IN FACT, THE HOLY SPIRIT PREFERRED PETER TO GO THERE BECAUSE IT IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION IS NARRATED IN THE LIFE OF THE EARLY CHURCH AND IT WAS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF PETER THAT IT WAS SHOWN:
Acts 8:14-17
14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized intoc the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
THAT IS A GREAT PRIVILEGE ON THE PART OF PETER. IT HAS ALL THE MORE CEMENTED HIS IMPORTANCE IN THE LIFE OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
[2. The Christians who originated from the circumcised censured Peter for having baptized gentiles, and he was then obliged to explain himself to them! (Acts 11: 1-18)]
HA, HA, HA... OF COURSE, THEY WOULD DO THAT BECAUSE WHAT PETER DID WAS SOMETHING NEW AND WILL HAVE GREAT IMPACT IN CHRISTIAN LIFE. EVEN PRESIDENTS WERE SUMMONED BY THE CONGRESS OR PRIMIE MINISTERS BY PARLIAMENT TO EXPLAIN THEIR EXTRAORDINARY DECISIONS. BUT, AS YOU CAN SEE WHEN PETER EXPLAINED NO OPPOSITION WAS GIVEN AT ALL. INSTEAD THEY PRAISED GOD. UNLIKE THE MODERN DAY PRESIDENTS NOW WHO ARE STILL BEING OPPOSED BY THE OPPOSITION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD GIVEN EXPLANATIONS.
[3. The problems that arose from the entry of gentiles into the Church were NOT, finally, resolved by any decrees issued by Peter; they were resolved through decisions of the Apostolic Synod, which Peter did not preside over, but James, the brother of Christ and first Bishop of Jerusalem, who also had the last say on the matter. As for the epistle of the Synod addressed to the Christians of the gentiles, it was sent – NOT by Peter (exclusively) – but BY THE APOSTLES AND THE PRESBYTERS AND THE BRETHREN (Acts 15: 1-29).]
SINCE YOU ONLY HAVE 7 ECUMENICAL COUNCILS IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU ARE NOT TRULY KNOWLEDGEABLE ON HOW COUNCILS ARE PROPERLY DONE.
FIRST, POPES NORMALLY DO NOT PRESIDE IN COUNCILS. EVEN IN VATICAN I AND VATICAN II WHEN THEY WERE HELD RIGHT IN THE VATICAN THE POPES DIDN'T PRESIDE. THERE IS USUALLY THE BISHOP OF THE PLACE OR A HIGHLY RESPECTED BISHOP WHO PRESIDES.
SINCE THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL WAS HELD IN THAT CITY IT WAS BUT PROPER FOR ST. JAMES TO PRESIDE.
CONCERNING THE SOLUTION TO THE DISPUTE, IT WAS REPORTED THAT THERE WERE INTENSE AND PROLONG DEBATES. BUT EVERY BODY WENT SILENT WHEN PETER SPOKE. IT WAS PETER WHO SETTLED THE DISPUTE. JAMES SIMPLY FOLLOWED PETER. JAMES WOULD HAVE NO POWER TO OVERTURN THE DECISION OF PETER. IT WAS THE CONFESSION OF PETER, THE STAND OF PETER THAT IS UPHELD.
ALL THOSE PRESENT, APOSTLES, JUDAIZERS, BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS BOWED TO THE DECISION OF PETER. JAMES TOO BOWED TO THE DECISION OF PETER.
[4. The Apostle Paul insists that he had received his apostolic rank DIRECTLY FROM CHRIST and NOT “from any man” (Gal. 1: 11-12).]
ReplyDeleteOF COURSE, ONLY JESUS CAN MAKE ONE AN APOSTLE. WE ARE NOT TEACHING THAT 'ANY MAN' CAN MAKE AN APOSTLE. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT IT MEANS YOU ARE DECEIVING YOURSELF.
[ But then, if the Apostle Peter was, in fact, the “representative of Christ on earth”, shouldn’t Paul have received his apostolic status from him?]
PETER CAN DO THAT IF CHRIST WILLED HIM TO DO SO BUT THE LORD DECIDED TO APPEAR TO PAUL IN PERSON RATHER THAN DO IT THROUGH THE AUTHORITY OF PETER. BUT PETER DID SO WITH THE ELECTION OF MATTHIAS. WITHOUT DIRECT COMMAND FROM THE LORD JESUS PETER DECIDED TO HOLD AN ELECTION FOR THE SUCCESSOR OF JUDAS. THUS, PETER IS TRULY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF CHRIST.
[ Paul did of course visit Peter after his conversion to Christ,]
OF COURSE. HE CHOSE TO VISIT PETER MORE THAN ANY OF THE OTHER APOSTLES. IT IS FAVORABLE TO OUR POSITION.
[ but it was NOT so that his apostolic status would be validated;]
THERE IS NO NEED FOR PETER TO VALIDATE THE APOSTLESHIP OF PAUL. BESIDES PAUL WENT TO SEE PETER TO RECOGNIZE PETER'S AUTHORITY AND NOT TO OPPOSE HIM AS YOUR PATRIARCHS ARE DOING.
[ instead, as the blessed Chrysostom aptly commented: “…not intending to ask anything of Peter, nor even to hear him; but, BEING AN EQUAL TO HIM […], and not as one learning something from him, nor as one receiving any correction, but for this reason only: that he might see him and honor him, by presenting himself…” (John Chrysostom, On Galatians 1, PG 61: 631). In other words, it was only a complimentary, brotherly visit.]
O NO, NO, NO... IT WAS NOT A COMPLIMENTARY VISIT. IT WAS AN ACT OF RECOGNITION OF THE VERY FACT THAT PETER IS THE FIRST IN DIGNITY AND HONOR AMONG THE APOSTLES AND THAT HE WAS THE LEADER. IF ANDREW WAS THE LEADER THEN PAUL WOULD TALK TO ANDREW INSTEAD. HE, HE, HE... IF PAUL IS ONLY VISITING PETER HOW COME HE DIDN'T VISIT THE OTHER APOSTLES. IT MEANS PETER HAS SOMETHING THAT OTHERS DO NOT HAVE. WHAT IS THAT? LEADERSHIP AND HIGHER AUTHORITY.
THE WORDS OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM MUST BE VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE OTHER FATHERS:
“...Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others...” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).
SEE, PETER IS THE STRONGEST AND GREATEST OF ALL THE APOSTLES... AND MUCH MORE, HE IS THE SPEAKER OF THEM ALL.
“...the chief of the disciples...the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.” Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15 (A.D. 337).
SEE, ST. PETER IS THE CHIEF OF THE DISCIPLES. IT MEANS HE IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY OF ALL BELIEVERS.
“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church...” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350).
LOOK, ANOTHER EASTERN FATHER DECLARED ST. PETER AS THE FOREMOST OF THE APOSTLES.
THESE TESTIMONIES SLAPS YOU ON THE FACE. THEY MAKE YOU A LIAR. IT IS YOU WHO IS DISTORTING THE FATHERS AND HIDING PROPER CITATIONS ON WHAT IS THE REAL THOUGHT OF THE FATHERS.
WHERE IS THE STATEMENT THAT ANDREW OR CONSTANTINOPLE IS EQUAL WITH PETER OR ROME? WHERE? NOTHING, NADA, NYET NYET!!! Here is another:
“[F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest.” Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum, 7:3(A.D. 370).
PETER DESERVED TO BE PLACED BEFORE 'ALL' APOSTLES. THAT INCLUDES JAMES, PAUL AND ANDREW IF YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND IT.
[5. When the Apostle Paul visited Jerusalem fourteen years later, he mentioned that there were THREE PILLARS OF THE CHURCH THERE, AND NOT JUST ONE (PETER) AS THE SOLE PILLAR. Those three pillars were James the brother of Christ, Peter, and John. What is noteworthy here, is the fact that JAMES IS MENTIONED FIRST, AND PETER SECOND. (Gal. 2: 1-10)]
ReplyDeleteHA, HA, HA... THIS IS THE MOST STUPID ARGUMENT I'VE EVER HEARD FROM YOU. THAT ARGUMENT IS VERY CHEAP. IMAGINE, JAMES IS RARELY MENTIONED IN THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT AND THEN YOU WILL CLAIM THAT JAMES IS FIRST OVER PAUL. EXCUSE ME. JAMES IS HERE MENTIONED BY PAUL BECAUSE WHEN PAUL VISITED JERUSALEM IT IS BUT PROPER TO HONOR THE BISHOP OF THAT PLACE. BUT IT IS NOWHERE SUPPORTED BY THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT TESTIMONIES THAT JAMES IS FIRST THAN PETER. O NO, NO, NO...
LET ME PROVE IT WITH AN AVALANCHE OF CITATIONS FOR YOU TO ENJOY SO THAT YOUR BLINDNESS WILL BE OPENED TO THE TRUTH. HERE IS A BEAUTIFUL RESPONSE FROM THE CATHOLIC APOLOGIST OF THE 'TREASURE CHEST' SITE:
The names of Peter, which include Simon and Cephas, are mentioned more times in the New Testament than any other Apostle.
"Of Peter the most is known. Peter is mentioned 195 times, the rest of the other Apostles combined are only 130 times. The one mentioned next in frequency to Peter is John, to whom there are 29 references."
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, "Life of Christ", page 106.
The name James, is mentioned a total of 38 times and of that number there were 2 persons, James the Greater, and James the Less. So if James the Less is said to have the primacy, then why is he mentioned so few times compared to Peter?
Every time the names of the Apostles are listed, except for Gal 2:9, his name appears first. In Mt 10:2 it even says that Peter is first, "Now these are the names of the twelve Apostles: first Simon, who is called Peter,...". See also Mk 3:16, Lk 6:13-14, and Acts 1:13.
Peter's name appears first also when 3 or 4 of the Apostles are listed: Mt 17:1, Mk 5:37, Mk 9:2,
Mk 13:3, Mk 14:33, Lk 5:8-10, Lk 8:51, Lk 9:28.
As for Gal 2:9, it was customary then, as it is to this very day, to name the Bishop of the Diocese first. If the Pope visited a Diocese, the Bishop would be named ahead of him as it is the proper protocol. In Gal 2, Peter was visiting Jerusalem, as verses 1-8 show.
It never ceases to amaze me that those who deny the Primacy of Peter, will invariably point to this one and only verse where Peter is named second and will completely ignore the many verses which list his name first. If James held the primacy as some would like us to believe, then why is he mentioned first in only one single verse?
YOUR JAMES IS LESSER THAN PETER. NO MATCH AT ALL.
BESIDES, IF IT IS TRUE THAT JAMES IS HIGHER THAN PETER THEN JERUSALEM SHOULD BE HIGHER THAN ROME AND YOUR CONSTANTINOPLE WILL BE POOR THIRD. HA, HA, HA... YOUR MOSCOW IS NOT EVEN PART OF THE PENTARCHY. HA, HA, HA... IT WAS A LATER INVENTION.
[6. In Antioch, the Apostle Paul publicly reprimanded the Apostle Peter for his refusal to dine together with gentile Christians, and openly characterized his behaviour as hypocritical and not in accordance “with the truth of the Gospel”. (Gal. 2: 11-14)]
ReplyDeleteHA, HA, HA... THAT IS A VERY SHALLOW ARGUMENT ALSO.
IT SEEMS THAT YOU ARE NOT AWARE THAT BEING THE HEAD OR THE LEADER DOES NOT MEAN BEING FREE FROM CRITICISM. O NO, NO, NO... THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES CAN BE CRITICIZED BY A MERE SENATOR OR CONGRESSMAN IN THE COUNTRY. THE CITY MAYOR CAN BE QUESTIONED AND CRITICIZED BY HIS SUBORDINATES CITY COUNCILORS. IT IS THEREFORE ILLOGICAL AND UNFOUNDED IN REALITY YOUR CLAIM THAT BECAUSE PETER WAS QUESTIONED OR REPRIMANDED BY PAUL HE WAS NO LONGER THE LEADER. O NO, NO, NO... AS I'VE SAID THAT IS VERY POOR ARGUMENT. THAT IS A NON SEQUITUR.
IF YOU WILL USE THAT ARGUMENT IT WILL BOOMERANG ON YOU. BECAUSE THERE ARE MONKS OF MT. ATHOS WHO REFUSED TO OBEY THE COMMAND OF THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND YOUR PATRIARCH EVEN USE MILITARY FORCE TO UPHOLD ORDER. DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOUR PATRIARCH IS DEVOID OF AUTHORITY?
HOW ABOUT PAUL? PAUL WAS QUESTIONED AND OPPOSED BY THE JUDAIZERS. THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE HIM ON CIRCUMCISION ISSUE UNTIL PETER SETTLED IT.IF PAUL IS EQUAL TO PETER THEN WHY WAS IT NEEDED TO SETTLE THE DEBATES IN JERUSALEM? HOW COME THE WORDS OF PAUL WERE NOT ENOUGH TO QUENCH THE OPPOSITION?
Act 15:1-2 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas HAD NO SMALL DISSENSION AND DISPURATION WITH THEM, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
YOU SEE HOW STUPID YOUR POSITION IS. ST. PAUL AND BARNABAS WERE OPPOSED. THERE WAS EVEN GREAT DISSENSION AND DISPUTATION AGAINST THEM. THEN THEY WERE TOLD TO GO TO JERUSALEM TO SETTLE THINGS WITH THE APOSTLES. THEN, YOU WILL DARE THAT PAUL IS EQUAL OR HIGHER THAN PETER BECAUSE PAUL REBUKED PETER. HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND.
ACTUALLY EVEN THE APOSTLESHIP OF PAUL WAS QUESTIONED [cf. 2 Corinthians 10-11]. BUT THAT OF PETER WAS NEVER QUESTIONED. NEVER EVER.
THAT INCIDENT REPORTED IN GAL 2:11-14 TOOK PLACE IN ANTIOCH. PETER ACTED IN GOOD FAITH, HE DIDN'T COMMIT ANY DOCTRINAL ERROR AND NEITHER DID HE TEACH ANY TEACHING CONTRARY TO MORALS. PETER WAS SIMPLY BEING DIPLOMATIC. IN FACT, ST. BARNABAS JOINED ST. PETER.
ReplyDeleteTHE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA STATED THAT ST. PETER DIDN'T FIGHT BACK WITH ST. PAUL. HE TOOK THE REBUKE WITH HUMILITY OF SPIRIT WHICH IS AN ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF A TRUE CHRISTIAN LEADER. ONE SCHOLAR NOTED THAT AFTER THIS INCIDENT ST. PAUL BECAME A PERSONA NON GRATA IN ANTIOCH AND NEVER AGAIN RETURNED IN THE PLACE:
Paul also mentions that even Barnabas (his traveling companion and fellow apostle until that time) sided with Peter.[33]
The final outcome of the incident remains uncertain. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "Paul's account of the incident leaves no doubt that Peter saw the justice of the rebuke." In contrast, L. Michael White's From Jesus to Christianity claims: "The blowup with Peter was a total failure of political bravado, and Paul soon left Antioch as persona non grata, never again to return."[34 White, L. Michael (2004). From Jesus to Christianity. HarperSanFrancisco. pp. 170. ISBN 0060526556.] WIKIPEDIA
THIS SIMPLE MISTAKE OF JUDGMENT FOR THE SAKE OF PLEASING A GROUP IS NOT ONLY PRESENT IN ST. PETER. IT WAS ALSO COMMITTED BY ST. PAUL. IN ACTS 15 HE DEBATED SO HARD HOLDING THAT CIRCUMCISION IS NO LONGER NECESSARY TO BE CHRISTIAN, YET ONE CHAPTER AFTER HE SUCCUMBED TO THE DEMAND OF THE JEWS TO HAVE ST. TIMOTHY BE CIRCUMCISED. SO, HE TOO WAS ACTING DIPLOMATICALLY. HE SWALLOWED HIS DOCTRINAL POSITION JUST TO PACIFY OTHER PEOPLE:
Act 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
BOTH STS. PETER AND PAUL MEANT WELL ON BOTH OCCASION. YES, THERE WAS A MISTAKE ON THEIR PART BUT THAT MISTAKE IS DUE TO HUMAN WEAKNESS AND NOT DUE TO SINFULNESS. THEY ARE NO LESS GREAT JUST BECAUSE THEY SHOWED HUMAN LIMITATIONS.
THE AUTHORITY OF PETER IS NOT IN ANY WAY DIMINISHED BY THIS INCIDENT.
[7. In his 1st Epistle to Corinthians the Apostle Paul reproaches the Christians there for splitting up into sides (Paul’s, Peter’s and Apollo’s) and he counsels them as follows: “Let no-one boast among men, for all of them are yours, whether it is Paul, or Apollo, or Peter. ” (1 Cor. 3: 1-23). Would Paul have dared to place himself AND Apollo in the same position as Peter, if the latter were indeed the terrestrial representative of Christ?]
ReplyDeleteST. PAUL IS NOT PUTTING HIMSELF AND APOLLOS ON THE SAME POSITION WITH PETER. WHY? IT IS OBVIOUS. APOLLOS IS NOT EQUAL WITH PAUL. HOW MUCH MORE WITH PETER.
THAT APOLLOS IS NOT ONE OF THE ORIGINAL 12. HE WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE GOSPEL. THERE IS NO TESTIMONY THAT THE LORD MADE HIM AN APOSTLE AS HE DID TO ST. PAUL.
IF YOU WILL REASON THAT PAUL IS ON EQUAL STATUS WITH PETER THEN APOLLOS IS EQUAL WITH PAUL. THEN APOLLOS IS HIGHER THAN STS. JAMES, ANDREW, JOHN, THOMAS, PHILIP, BARTHOLOMEW, JUDE, ETC.
THAT IS ILLOGICAL AND STUPID. APOLLOS IS NOT EQUAL WITH PAUL AND PAUL IS NOT EQUAL WITH PETER.
ST. PAUL WAS SIMPLY ASKING THE CORINTHIANS TO STOP FACTIONALISM AND DIVISIONS BUT ST. PAUL IS NOT NEGATING THE HIERARCHY OF THE CHURCH. HE SIMPLY PREACHES UNITY WITHOUT REJECTING THE HIERARCHY. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT BY STATING SO HE PRESERVES THE HIERARCHY BECAUSE HE MENTIONED A LEAST KNOWN CHRISTIAN LEADER NAMED APOLLOS, THEN A HIGHER RANKING ONE - A NEW APOSTLE IN HIS PERSON AND THE MOST RESPECTED OF THE ORIGINAL TWELVE. FROM THE LOWEST TO THE HIGHEST OF THE HIERARCHY. HE WAS EXPLAINING THAT ON THEIR OWN RESPECTIVE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES EACH MEMBER OF THE CHURCH IS CONTRIBUTING FOR THE WELFARE OF THE BODY OF CHRIST FROM THE LOWEST TO THE HIGHEST AND THEREFORE DIVISIONS MUST BE AVOIDED.
IF WE WILL FOLLOW YOUR REASONING IT WILL DESTROY WHAT ECUMENICAL COUNCIL HAS DISTINGUISHED 'THE PENTARCHY'. IF EVERY LEADER IS EQUAL IN THE CHURCH THEN THE DEACONS ARE EQUAL WITH THE PRESBYTERS, THE PRESBYTERS EQUAL WITH BISHOPS, THE BISHOPS EQUAL WITH ST. PAUL, ST. BARNABAS, STS. TIMOTHY AND TITUS, ETC. AND THESE YOUNG APOSTLES ARE EQUAL WITH THE HEAD ELDERS STS. JAMES, ANDREW, THOMAS, JOHN, ETC. AND ON TO PETER. THAT IS HERETICAL.
IN THE CHURCH ALL ARE ONE BUT THERE IS A DISTINCTION OF HIERARCHY IN THE HOLY ORDERS. IF ALL BISHOPS ARE SIMPLY EQUAL THEN WE ARE NO BETTER THAN THE PROTESTANTS.
THAT IS WHY YOUR ORTHODOX CHURCHES ARE ONLY A LITTLE HIGHER THAN THE DISORGANIZED PROTESTANTS.
[8. After the persecution by Herod Agrippa, the predominant personage in the Church was Paul, not Peter.]
ReplyDeleteTHAT IS NOT TRUE. OBVIOUSLY ST. PAUL WAS BEING QUESTIONED AND DISOBEYED BY SOME SECTORS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. IF NOT FOR PETER AND JAMES AND THE OTHER APOSTLES PAUL WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BELIEVED BY THE EARLY CHRISTIANS.
IT SO HAPPENED THAT PAUL WAS MORE EDUCATED THAN PETER AND WAS ABLE TO TRAVEL MORE BECAUSE OF HIS INFLUENCE AND HIGH EDUCATION UNLIKE THE ILLITERATE FISHERMAN FROM GALILEE. OF COURSE, A FORMER PHARISEE IS MORE INFLUENTIAL AND A BETTER SPEAKER AND WRITER THAN A FISHERMAN. BUT IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT PAUL WAS MET BY SOLID OPPOSITION WHILE THE AUTHORITY OF PETER WAS UNQUESTIONED.
[The Epistles by the Apostles – which had been written during that period – were, in their majority, writings by Paul.]
BECAUSE THE AUTHOR WAS PAUL'S COMPANION AT THE LATER PART. BESIDES, THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOKS OF THE BIBLE IS NOT THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES BUT THE FOUR GOSPEL ACCOUNTS.
IN THE GOSPELS, FROM THE EARLY PART UNTIL THE END IT IS PETER WHO IS EXALTED OVER THE OTHER APOSTLES. ST. PAUL WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED.
[Even the last 16 chapters (of the overall 28 chapters) of Acts are almost exclusively dedicated to Paul’s activities, whereas they say nothing about Peter. That would have been inconceivable, if Peter did actually have a hyper-Apostolic jurisdiction.]
HA, HA, HA... WHAT PAUL WAS DOING WAS ONLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS MADE BY PETER AND THE COUNCIL OF ELDERS IN JERUSALEM. ST. PAUL WAS ONLY IMPLEMENTING WHAT PETER AND THE OTHER APOSTLES HAVE DECIDED UPON. IT IS NOWHERE STATED IN THE BOOK OF ACTS THAT PAUL HAS A HIGHER AUTHORITY THAN PETER OR JAMES OR ANDREW OR JUDE OR SIMON THE ZEALOT, ETC. NEVER EVER.
BESIDES, YOUR PRAISES FOR ST. PAUL WILL NOT BE HELPFUL FOR YOUR POSITION THAT CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW ARE EQUAL WITH THE SEE OF PETER IN ROME. BECAUSE ST. PAUL IS A ROMAN CITIZEN WHO PREACHED, WAS IMPRISONED AND DIED IN ROME. IN ROME, OUR ROME, NOT YOUR CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW. NOT ON MOUNT ATHOS EVEN. BUT IN ROME.
ROME IS THE CHURCH OF STS. PETER AND PAUL COMBINED. SO STOP YOUR DELUSION THAT BY ELEVATING ST. PAUL INTO EQUAL STATUS WITH ST. PETER YOU CAN DIMINISH THE HONOR, DIGNITY, PRESTIGE AND AUTHORITY OF THE SEE OF ROME. O NO, NO, NO... DREAM ON... ROME IS MOST NOBLE BECAUSE OF THE BLOOD OF ST. PETER AND IT IS NOBLER STILL WITH THE ADDITION OF THE BLOOD OF ST. PAUL.
WHETHER IT IS PETER OR PAUL THE SEE OF ROME IS THE BEST. WITH PETER AND PAUL IT IS THE BEST.
SO, YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED A SINGLE BIBLE PASSAGE SUPPORTING CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW. HA, HA, HA.... WHAT A VERY PATHETIC POSITION. JUST PLAIN FOOLISHNESS.
[Let us pray to the Lord, with zeal and humility, to lead the Roman Catholics back to the 21-century-old, ONE, HOLY, ORTHODOX, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH.]
ReplyDeleteHERETICAL. YOU DEMONICALLY CHANGED THE WORDINGS OF THE CREED. IT SHOULD BE READ: "ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH."
HOW DARE YOU CHANGE THE WORD 'CATHOLIC' TO 'ORTHODOX' SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE AN ARTIFICIAL SUPPORT FOR YOUR SCHISM AND HERESY.
[ Patience and prayer… Let us have complete trust in Christ and His words.]
THE WORDS OF CHRIST IS "YOU ARE PETROS AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH" [cf. Mt. 16:18-19]
THAT IS THE REAL WORDS OF CHRIST.
* Matthew 16:18: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The "rock" (Greek, "petra") referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who "builds." The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men (see 1 Pt 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God - that is, the seed of the doctrine of the papacy. Moreover, "Rock" embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (see 1 Pt 2:4-8; Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church; administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).
* Matthew 16:19: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." The "power" of the keys has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (see Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances and legislative powers. In the Old Testament, a steward, or prime minister, is a man who is "over a house" (Gen 41:40; Gen 43:19;44:4; 1 King 4:6;16:9;18:3; 2 King 10:5;15:5;18:18; Isa 22:15,
Isa 20-21).
* Matthew 16:19: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." "Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law and, secondarily, to "condemn," "place under the ban" or "acquit." Thus St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (see Jn 16:13), as well as to demand obedience from the Church. "Binding and loosing" represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him pre-eminent.
* Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, "Rock," solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42;
ReplyDeleteMt 16:18).
* Peter is asked three times by Christ to feed His lambs, is regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).
* Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith fail not" (Lk 22:32).
* Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).
* Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Mt 16:16).
* Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).
* Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
* Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Act 2:37-41;5:15).
* Jesus Christ uniquely associates himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute money
(Mt 17:24-27).
IN THE NAME OF THE MOST HOLY TRINITY STOP USING THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS TO DIMINISH THE AUTHORITY THAT HE GAVE BLESSED PETER SPECIFICALLY AND CATEGORICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE BIBLE. AND REPLACED IT BY OTHERS WHOM THE LORD DIDN'T CHOOSE TO BE EQUAL WITH THAT OF PETER.
[ The Orthodox Church will NEVER lose the Truth;]
YOU LOST IT WHEN YOU ABANDONED THE SEE OF PETER. THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE BEEN PUNISHED BY GOD AND WAS BROUGHT DOWN TO THE ASHES. YOUR PRIDE IN DREAMING TO BE EQUAL WITH THE SEE OF PETER BECAME A PATHETIC DREAM WHEN YOU BECAME PEBBLES WITH THE COLLAPSE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND LOST ALL YOUR POLITICAL INFLUENCE. THE EMPIRE IS GONE BUT ROME IS STILL ROME. MAJESTIC AND NOBLE AS EVER WHILE CONSTANTINOPLE IS TRAMPLED UNDERFOOT BY ISLAM.
[She will NEVER submit to people, NEVER be subjugated to any “infallible” Pope,]
ReplyDeleteYOU CAN DIE IN YOUR DREAMS BUT WE WILL NEVER SUBMIT OURSELVES WITH CONSTANTINOPLE - THE ROTTING CONSTANTINOPLE. AND THE SOVIET-COMMUNISTS RESTORED PATRIARCHATE OF MOSCOW.
[because the Lord promised so.]
THE LORD PROMISED TO THE BLESSED PETER THAT THE GATE OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT. OBVIOUSLY THE GATE OF HELL PREVAILED IN CONSTANTINOPLE WHEN NESTORIUS REIGNED ON ITS THRONE. HA, HA, HA...
[And the Lord keeps His promises, with integrity (Matt. 16: 18).]
HE KEPT HIS PROMISES GIVEN TO THE BLESSED PETER NOT TO ANDREW. TO ROME NOT TO CONSTANTINOPLE.
[ Do not fear, my brethren.]
WE ARE NOT AFRAID. THE ROMAN CHURCH SHALL BE VICTORIOUS OVER THE HERETICS AND THE SCHISMATICS.
[ We now have the other Paraclete (the Holy Spirit) among us, Who leads the Church to the whole Truth.]
YOUR CHURCHES DO NOT POSSESS THE HOLY SPIRIT. A CHURCH THAT CANNOT SUMMON AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL IS SPIRITUALLY STERILE AND USELESS.
[It is for this reason that incessant prayer, inner cleansing, regular Sacramental living and a daily reinforcement of the Orthodox Overseas Mission work as well as our struggle against heresy should be treated as our duties.]
YOUR OVERSEAS WORKS IS A PIECE OF GARBAGE IN COMPARISON WITH CATHOLIC MISSIONS IN THE WORLD. WE HAVE MORE ORPHANAGES, LEPROSARIUMS, SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS, HOME FOR THE AGED, CLINICS... THAN THE UNITED NATIONS. AND WE HAVE MORE SPIRITUAL CENTERS, MONASTERIES, CONVENTS, ETC. THAN THE ORTHODOX, ANGLICANS AND PROTESTANTS COMBINED.
[The rest is in the hands of our Triadic God.]
THE TRUE FAITH WAS ENTRUSTED BY THE FATHER TO PETER:
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
GOD THE SON ENTRUSTED THE KEYS OF HEAVEN TO ST. PETER AND BUILT THE CHURCH ON HIM:
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
THE HOLY SPIRIT MADE ST. PETER IS SPOKESPERSON AFTER HE DESCENDED ON PENTECOST:
Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
THE HOLY TRINITY, THE ONE AND TRIUNE GOD CHOSE ST. PETER AS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH.
[ He is the One Who will bring a positive outcome to all Orthodox endeavours, to all Orthodox Churches and Mission labours. Amen.]
ALL YOUR ENDEAVORS WILL BE FOR NOTHING BECAUSE YOU ARE BUILDING ON THE SAND. THE LORD BUILT ON A ROCK THAT IS PETROS. BUT YOUR CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW ARE BUILT ON SANDS NOT ON THE ROCK ON WHICH THE LORD BUILT HIS CHURCH.
VIVA EL CRISTO REY. VIVA SAN PIETRO. VIVA EL PAPA!
YOU ARE REALLY SHAMELESS. IMAGINE, WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE YOUR IDEAS ARE MERELY COPIED FROM OTHERS:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.oodegr.com/english/papismos/dogma/eksousia_petrou1.htm
EVEN YOUR WEBSITE IS VERY CHEAP ON ITS CONTENT. SIMPLY BANKING ON DISTORTED LOGIC. KEEPING ON QUOTING MATERIALS THAT DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.
[The Church Was Not Founded on the Person of Peter]
ReplyDeleteHA, HA, HA... REALLY? WELL, LET US SEE IF YOU CAN PROVE THAT. LET ME CHECK YOUR PROOFS.
[The Church Was Not Founded on the Person of Peter, but on Confession of His Faith in Christ as true God and true Man in the One Person of Christ]
HA, HA, HA... THIS DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. IF THE CHURCH IS FOUNDED ON CONFESSION OF PETER THEN PETER IS STILL THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY OVER THE OTHER APOSTLES. OTHERWISE, THE CHURCH SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT ON CONFESSION OF JAMES OR OF JOHN OR OF ANDREW. OR THE CHURCH CHURCH HAVE BEEN BUILT ON THE WRITINGS OF PAUL. HA, HA, HA.... BUT NO, NO, NO... THE CHURCH IS BUILT ON THE CONFESSION OF PETER. WHETHER IT IS THE PERSON OF PETER OR THE CONFESSION OF PETER, IT IS STILL PETER NOT ANYONE ELSE.
SO, YOUR ARGUMENT IS PATHETIC. YOU ARE ONLY MAKING A FOOL OUT OF YOURSELF AND THE WEBSITE WHERE YOU GET THIS JUNK.
[St. Hilary of Poitiers]
LET ME SEE IF ST. HILARY WILL FAVOR YOUR OPINION.
[St. Hilary of Poitiers: “And this is the Rock of confession whereon the Church is built...that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God.This faith is that which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven...The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father's revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth....Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God”[St. Hilary, On The Trinity, Book VI.36,37; Book II.23; Book VI.20.]
HA, HA, HA... LIAR, LIAR, LIAR. ST. HILARY NEVER STATED THAT THE CHURCH IS NOT FOUNDED ON PETER. WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE TEXT. NO, NO, NO...
ST. HILARY ACTUALLY EXALTS ST. PETER AS THE BEARER OF THE TRUE FAITH. DO YOU KNOW THE IMPLICATION OF YOUR CLAIM "THE CHURCH IS BUILT ON THE CONFESSION OF ST. PETER"? IT MEANS THAT ST. PETER IS THE BEARER OF THE TRUE FAITH. THE CATHOLIC FAITH IS ROOTED IN THE CONFESSION OF PETER. YOU ONLY EXALTED PETER ALL THE MORE. HA, HA, HA...
BUT, HOW COME THE CHURCH IS NOT BUILT ON THE CONFESSION OF THE FIRST BISHOP OF MOSCOW AND OF CONSTANTINOPLE OR OF ALEXANDRIA? WHY? HA, HA, HA...
TO MAKE YOU HAPPIER HERE IS ANOTHER CHURCH FATHER FROM THE EAST:
“...the chief of the disciples...the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.” Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15 (A.D. 337).
SEE, ST. PETER IS THE FOUNDATION, THE ROCK AND STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH. HA, HA, HA... YOU SEE, YOU ARE A LIAR. PETER IS THE FOUNDATION, THE STRUCTURE AND HIS CONFESSION IS ALSO FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH. HE, HE, HE... BOTH ARE UPHELD BY THE FATHERS.
“The memory of Peter, who is the head of the apostles...he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the savior built his Church.” Gregory of Nyssa, Panegyric on St. Stephen, 3 (ante A.D. 394).
HA, HA, HA... ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA SLAPS YOU FOR YOUR LIES. HA, HA, HA... ST. PETER IS THE HEAD OF THE APOSTLES. IT MEANS THAT HE IS HIGHER THAN THEM AND HE TEACHES THAT THE LORD BUILT THE CHURCH ON PETER. HA, HA, HA...
[St. Ambrose of Milan: “Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter's flesh, but of his faith, that 'the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.' But his confession of faith conquered hades. And this confession did not shut out (even) one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies" [St. Ambrose, On the Sacrament of the Incarnation of the Lord, Ch. 5]]
ReplyDeleteHA, HA, HA... AGAIN, THIS IS SUPPORTIVE OF OUR POSITION. HERE, THE FAITH OF PETER IS BEING EXALTED. HA, HA, HA... NOWHERE STATED HERE THAT THE CHURCH IS NOT BUILT ON PETER. O NO, NO, NO...
[St. Ambrose of Milan
St. Ambrose: “Believe, therefore, as Peter believed, that thou also mayest be blessed, and that thou also mayest deserve to hear, 'Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father Who is in heaven, etc.'... Great is the grace of Christ, Who has imparted almost all His Own names to His disciples. 'I am,' said He, 'the light of the world,' and ..., 'Ye are the light of the world.' 'I am the living bread'; and 'we all are one bread' (1 Cor. x.17)...Christ is the rock, for 'they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ' (1 Cor. x.4); also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter (petrus), because he has from the Rock (petra) the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you...He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him (Commentary on Luke, VI.98, CSEL 32.4).]
HA, HA, HA... IF YOU WANT TO BE BLESSED BELIEVED AS PETER BELIEVED. IMAGINE THAT. IT EXALTS PETER. THE CRITERION FOR BLESSEDNESS IS THE FAITH OF PETER. HA, HA, HA... THIS IS SUPPORTIVE OF OUR POSITION.
THERE IS NO STATEMENT HERE THAT THE CHURCH IS NOT FOUNDED ON PETER. NADA, NYET, NYET. HA, HA, HA... NOTHING HERE THAT SUPPORTS CONSTANTINOPLE, ALEXANDRIA OR MOSCOW. NOTHING AT ALL.
WELL, ON MY PART HERE ARE SOME MORE:
"Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter (Kepha), because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me...I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, have given you authority over all my treasures." Ephraim, Homily 4:1, (A.D. 373).
ST. EPHREM QUOTES THE LORD AS SAYING PETER IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH. HA, HA, HA...
“[T]he first of the apostles, the solid rock on which the Church was built.” Epiphanius, In Ancorato, 9:6 (A.D. 374).
ST. EPIPHANIUS MAKES PETER THE 'FIRST' OF THE APOSTLES. BUT YOU FOOLISHLY THINK THAT PETER IS SECOND TO JAMES, AREN'T YOU? HA, HA, HA... AND ST. EPIPHANIUS DECLARES THAT ON PETER THE CHURCH WAS BUILT. HA, HA, HA... POOR YOU. YOU ARE BEING JUNKED BY THE EASTERN FATHERS.
“Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church.” Basil, In Isaias, 2:66 (A.D. 375).
SO, THE PROMISED ONE TO WHOM THE CHURCH WAS BUILT IS NO OTHER THAN PETER. HE, HE, HE... POOR YOU. YOU ARE SLAPPED ON THE FACE BY YOUR OWN EASTERN FATHERS. HA, HA, HA....
[St. Bede the Venerable
ReplyDeleteSt. Bede the Venerable: “'Thou art Peter [Petrus ], and upon this Rock [Petra] from which thou didst receive thy name, that is, upon Me Myself, I will build the Church, and if anyone turns aside from the society of this confession, even though it may seem to him that he does great things, he will not belong to the building which is the Church.”[“Homily 1.16, After Epiphany, “Homilies on the Gospels Book I, 163] ]
HA, HA, HA... ONCE AGAIN THERE IS NO STATEMENT HERE THAT THE CHURCH IS NOT BUILT ON PETER. NO, NO, NO... NOTHING AT ALL. ACTUALLY ST. BEDE SIMPLY ADMONISHES THE FAITHFUL TO REMAIN UNDER THE CONFESSION OF PETER. SINCE THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES SEPARATED THEMSELVES FROM THE CONFESSION OF PETER THEN THEY ARE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.
THE GREAT ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM REBUKES YOU:
"(Peter) The first of the Apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of disciples." John Chrysostom, Ad eos qui scandalizati 17(ante A.D. 407).
SEE, ST. PETER IS THE FIRST OF THE APOSTLES AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH. IF I WILL BELIEVE YOU THEN ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM WILL BECOME A LIAR. BUT HE IS NOT THEREFORE IT IS YOU WHO IS THE... LIAR, LIAR, LIAR... HA, HA, HA...
[St. John Chrysostom
ReplyDeleteSt. John Chrysostom: “'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church'; that is, on the faith of his confession”[St. John, Homily 53 on St. Matthew].]
AGAIN, THIS IS SUPPORTIVE OF OUR POSITION. IF THE CHURCH IS BUILT ON THE CONFESSION OF PETER THEN THE CONFESSION OF PETER IS THE GREATEST CONFESSION OF ALL. SO, WHY GO TO CONSTANTINOPLE OR MOSCOW... I WILL PREFER THE SEE OF PETER WHERE THE TRUE CONFESSION IS. HE, HE, HE...
NO STATEMENT HERE THAT THE CHURCH IS NOT BUILT ON PETER. HE, HE, HE...
[St. John Chrysostom: “He speaks from this time lowly things, on His way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His Church upon Peter's confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it...”[St. John Chrysostom, Homily 82.3 on St. Matthew]]
IMAGINE, ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM KEEPS ON EXALTING ST. PETER AND HE HARDLY MENTIONS ANDREW OR MARK. HA, HA, HA... ST. PETER IS THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL APOSTLES. HE, HE, HE... AND HERE IS ANOTHER QUOTE FROM ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM:
“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received revelation not from man but from the Father...this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean that unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” John Chrysostom, De Eleemosyna, 3:4 (ante A.D. 407).
HA, HA, HA... PETER IS THE FIRST AND THE HEAD OF THE APOSTLES. HE IS THE UNSHAKEN FOUNDATION. HA, HA, HA... SEE, YOU ARE HIDING THINGS FROM US. BUT YOUR QUOTES ARE SUPPORTIVE OF US. HA, HA, HA... LIAR, LIAR, LIAR.
[Pope St. Leo the Great comments on the words: “Upon this Rock I will build My Church and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it:
ReplyDelete“Upon this firmness, He says, I shall raise My Temple, and it will rise upon the steadfastness of this Faith, and the loftiness of My Church shall mingle with the heavens. The gates of hades shall not master this profession (of faith); nor shall the bonds of death bind it. For these words are the words of life, and as they raise those who confess them up to heaven, so they plunge those that deny them down to hell.” [Sermon 83(2), P. L. 54 (col. 429), in FC, 93:357; Toal, II:267, 268]]
HA, HA, HA... THERE IS NOTHING HERE THAT STATES 'THE CHURCH IS NOT BUILT ON PETER'. NOTHING AT ALL. YOU ARE HALLUCINATING.
[NOTE: Pope St. Leo the Great reads Matthew 16 as confirming that the Orthodox or right-believing Church and Profession of Faith shall never fail, not the orthodoxy of whoever holds the Roman episcopate.]
O NO, NO, NO... LIAR, LIAR, LIAR. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ABOVE STATEMENT THAT REJECTS THE ROMAN EPISCOPATE. NOTHING AT ALL. YOU ARE BASING YOUR OPINION ON LIES AND DECEIT. LET ME GIVE YOU PROPER CITATIONS:
“If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter in order that he might carry from him the desired solution of difficulties to those at Antioch who were in doubt about living in conformity with the law, much more do we, men insignificant and small, hasten to your apostolic see in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the churches. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your See is adorned with many privileges.” Theodoret of Cyrus, To Pope Leo, Epistle 113 (A.D. 449).
SEE, THEODORET RECOGNIZES THAT POPE LEO AND HIS SEE IS THE FIRST BECAUSE IT IS THE SEE OF PETER. HE ALSO DEBUNKS YOUR CLAIM ABOUT ST. PAUL'S INTENTION IN MEETING ST. PETER.
“We exhort you, honourable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.” Peter Chrysologus, Epistle 25 of Leo from Peter (A.D. 449).
LOOK, THE BISHOP OF ROME POSSESSES THE AUTHORITY OF PETER. AND ST. PETER CHRYSOLOGUS REFERS TO POPE ST. LEO. HA, HA, HA...
AND FROM POPE ST. LEO THE GREAT HIMSELF:
“[B]lessed Peter preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he under took...And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See...to him whom they know to be not only the patron of this See, but also primate of all bishops. When therefore...believe that he is speaking whose representative we are:..” Pope Leo the Great, Sermon 3:3-4 (A.D. 442).
HA, HA, HA... THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF PETER PREVAILS IN HIS SEE. AND THE BISHOP OF ROME IS THE PRIMATE OF ALL BISHOPS. HA, HA, HA...
[St. Gregory the Great
ReplyDeleteSt. Gregory the Great: “And therefore, beloved brother,...remember that system of doctrine of which the chief of all the Apostles, the blessed Peter, laid the foundation ...As I have said, the Rock (petra) of the catholic Faith, from which the blessed Apostle Peter [Petrus] derived his name at the Lord's hands, rejects every trace of either heresy (Nestorianism or Monophysitism)”[St. Gregory the Great, Letter CXIX. To Maximus, Bishop of Antioch, by the Hand of Marian the Presbyter, and Olympius the Deacon; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II Volume XII.]
HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE VERY DESPERATE. YOU ARE A FOOL. IMAGINE, IN THAT QUOTE ST. GREGORY THE GREAT ACTUALLY REFERS TO ST. PETER AS THE CHIEF OF ALL THE APOSTLES. IT TOTALLY REFUTE YOUR CLAIM THAT PAUL OR JAMES IS EQUAL WITH PETER. HA, HA, HA...
[St. Maximus the Confessor
St. Maximus the Confessor: "Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession.”[quoted in Pope Anastasius (the Librarian), The Life of Our Holy Father St. Maximus the Confessor (Boston: Holy Transfiguration, 1982), pp. 60-62]
HA, HA, HA... ST. MAXIMUS TESTIFIED THAT THE LORD CALLED THE CHURCH - THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. SO, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH MAINTAINS THE SAVING FAITH. MEANING THE ORTHODOX CHURCH THEN DOES NOT MAINTAIN THE TRUE FAITH BECAUSE IT IS OUTSIDE OR SEPARATED FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. HA, HA, HA... BESIDES, IT IS PETER WHOM THE LORD JESUS CHOSE TO CALL BLESSED. HA, HA, HA... THIS QUOTE IS SUPPORTIVE OF OUR POSITION NOT AT ALL FAVORING CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW. O NO, NO, NO...
TO MAKE YOU HAPPY HERE IS THE DECLARATION OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON:
“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith...” Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).
HA, HA, HA... SEE HOW YOU CRUMBLE.
“For the extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of our fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy Councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have possessed that greatest church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it possesses the Keys of right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.” Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula theologica et polemica (A.D. 650).
[Augustine of Hippo
ReplyDeleteSaint Augustine of Hippo, considered the greatest of all the pre-Scholastic Fathers by the Roman Catholic Church, yet also refutes the Papal interpretation,]
LET ME SEE IF YOUR QUOTES WILL DEFEND YOUR LIES. HE, HE, HE...
saying:
["Christ said to Peter....I will build you upon Myself...Those who wish to be built upon men say, 'I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas.' However, those who did not wish to be built upon Peter but upon the Rock say, I am of Christ"(Augustine, Retractions, 13th Sermon)]
WHERE IS THE REFUTATION THERE? ST. AUGUSTINE IS SIMPLY TELLING THAT WE SHOULD PUT OUR TRUST ABOVE ALL TO GOD AND NOT TO ANY MAN. IF YOU ARE REALLY HONEST WITH THAT INTERPRETATION THEN YOU WILL ALSO REJECT THE CLAIM OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW. CONSTANTINOPLE IS BUT FOUNDED BY CONSTANTINE. IT WAS BYZANTIUM PREVIOUSLY. BUT ROME WAS NOT FOUNDED BY CONSTANTINE, ROME IS ROME LONG BEFORE CONSTANTINE. IT WAS FOUNDED BY GOD WHO ORDERED ST. PAUL TO GO TO ROME AND INSPIRED ST. PETER TO PREACH AND DIE IN THE CITY.
[Augustine of Hippo: “In Peter, which means Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the Rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, 'They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the Rock, like a Christian is from Christ. Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be understood. Christ, you see, built His Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the Rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer" (John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).]
ReplyDeleteAGAIN, THIS IS AN EXALTATION OF ST. PETER. THE LORD BUILT THE CHURCH ON CONFESSION OF PETER AND NOT ON CONFESSION OF ANY OTHER. THUS IF ONE IS NOT UNITED WITH THE FAITH OF PETER ONE IS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. HA, HA, HA...
ENOUGH OF YOUR LIES.
HERE IS OUR QUOTES FROM ST. AUGUSTINE:
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
WHO IS IGNORANT THAT THE FIRST OF THE APOSTLES IS THE MOST BLESSED PETER? HA, HA, HA... I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER JUST LOOK AT THE MIRROR.
[The doors of Holy Orthodoxy are open wide and an invitation is extended to come and see.]
ReplyDeleteYOUR DOOR IS THE DOOR OF HERESY. THE DOOR OF THE TRUE CHURCH AND TRUE DOCTRINE IS IN THE CONFESSION OF PETER... IN THE SEE OF PETER. THAT IS THE MOST NOBLE SEE - THE GREAT CHURCH OF ROME.
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]).
YOU HAVE DESERTED THE CHAIR OF PETER. WE ARE NO FOOLS TO JOIN THE LIKES OF YOU. WE ARE ON THE ROCK ESTABLISHED BY JESUS AND YOU ENTERED THE GATES OF HELL.
[ Examine her Faith, her worship, her history, her commitment to Christ, her love for God the Father, her communion with the Holy Spirit, her Mystery.]
WE FOUND YOU HERETICAL AND ROTTEN TO THE CORE. THERE IS NO UNITY TO SPEAK OF, STERILE IN ADMINISTRATION AND LIGATED IN CONCILIAR AUTHORITY. STAGNANT IN TOTALITY. FOND OF AESTHETICS BUT POOR IN CHARITABLE WORKS.
YOU ARE NOTHING IN COMPARISON WITH THE SEE OF ROME - THE CHAIR OF PETER - THE FIRST OF ALL THE APOSTLES.
[She has kept the "faith once delivered unto the saints" free from the distortions of human innovations.]
ON THE CONTRARY IT IS YOU WHO HAVE DISTORTED IT. THE VILEST OF HERETICS CAME FROM YOUR MIDST. NESTORIUS THE HERESIARCH ONCE SAT AT THE CHAIR OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
[Man-made doctrines have never found their way into the Orthodox Church, since she has no necessary association in history with the name of one single father or theologian.]
THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT BASED ON A SINGLE THEOLOGIAN YOUR 7 COUNCILS BECAME UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED BECAUSE THE ROMAN CHURCH APPROVED AND ACCEPTED THEM AND WE ARE GUIDED BY MORE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS AFTERWARD WHILE YOUR TEACHINGS ARE STAGNANT TO WHERE WE LEFT YOU A THOUSAND YEARS AGO.
Peter Chrysologus
“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).
[ Come home to the Faith of Peter and Paul!]
THE BLESSED COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON SHOUTS EXACTLY WHERE THE FAITH OF PETER AND PAUL IS:
Council of Chalcedon
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
OUR FAITH IS THE FAITH ARISING FROM THE CHAIR OF PETER. YOUR SEE OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND OF MOSCOW ARE BASTARD SEES IN COMPARISON WITH THE SEE OF PETER IN ROME.
WE INVITE YOU TO RETURN TO THE SEE OF PETER BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE FOR YOUR SOUL.
[Glory be to our Lord Jesus Christ! Glory to Him Forever!]
ReplyDeleteGLORY TO THE FATHER AND TO THE SON AND TO THE HOLY SPIRIT.
[Dear Fr. Abe,]
DEAR JOEL.
[As I came across your blog after I received a message from an old friend regarding on the SOMASCAN priest's answers on questions about the Orthodox Church and in general, I felt disappointed and dismayed.]
REALLY? WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO SAY TO YOU, A CONGRATULATIONS? A MESSAGE OF GRATITUDE? OR A CONDOLENCE? OR WHAT?
YOU ARE DISAPPOINTED WITH WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN. GOOD. I WAS ALSO VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH WHAT THAT ORTHODOX DEACON HAD WRITTEN AGAINST THE PAPACY AND AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. SO, THE FEELING IS MUTUAL.
[First of all, I am not a theologian nor a seminarian but a simple layman in the Orthodox Church and was a convert from the Roman Catholic Church.]
REALLY, I AM GLAD TO MEET A FORMER CATHOLIC TURNED TRAITOR TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH. YOU HAVE ABANDONED THE SEE OF PETER AND REPLACED IT WITH THE ROTTEN SEE OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND OF MOSCOW THE PUPPY OF THE COMMUNIST-SOVIET GOVERNMENT.
[After reading all the posts in your blog about the Orthodox Church particularly the Church here in the Philippines and your exchange of discussion from a certain Orthodox Deacon, I decided to write or give comment on some issues, which I find you misquoted and misinterpreted especially on some of the words of the Church Fathers in support of your stand about he Orthodox Church and of the Church you serve as a priest, the Papal Church.]
VERY GOOD THEN. I CHALLENGED YOU TO PROVE THAT I HAVE MISQUOTED THE FATHERS. LET ME SEE IF YOU CAN PROVE THAT THE SEE OF PETER IN ROME IS LOWER IN RANK THAN THE LUNATIC CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE WHICH IS DREAMING OF BEING GREAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT IS IS CURSED INTO NOTHINGNESS AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. WHILE THE SEE OF PETER IS AS STRONG AND VIBRANT AS EVER.
[Let me start with how you describe yourself as an "apologist" aside from being a priest under the SOMASCAN order,]
GLAD TO KNOW THAT YOU KNOW ME QUITE WELL BUT ON THE OTHER HAND I DON'T KNOW YOU. YOU ARE LIKE A DEMON LURKING ON THE DARK HIDING AND LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO DECEIVE AND POSSESS.
[ If I am not mistaken, the word apologetic came from the Greek word "apologia", which means in defense of or as reply or an answer.]
ReplyDeleteTHAT IS RIGHT.
[ Taken from the word of St Peter in his First Epistle, "...But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..."]
ST. PETER REFERS IN THAT PASSAGE TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE ASKING FOR REASONS OF OUR FAITH. IF THEY WANT DIALOGUE THEN WE WILL GIVE THEM DIALOGUE. ON THE CONTRARY, IF THEY WANT TO FIGHT THEN WE WILL DEFEND OUR FAITH.
OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE NOT GENTLE AND RESPECTFUL. YOU ALREADY ACCUSED ME OF MISQUOTING THE FATHERS. NOW I WILL TELL YOU THAT I WILL PROVE THAT YOU ARE LYING.
[In Orthodox theology, term Apologetics is used in regards to defending the true faith against atheists, pagans, Jews and others.]
WE DO ALSO. BUT WE ALSO USE IT AGAINST THE PROTESTANTS WHO ATTACK US AND TO ALL THOSE WHO SEEK THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH. THE ANTI CATHOLIC ORTHODOX WILL ALSO FALL INTO THE CATEGORY AND I THINK YOU ARE ONE.
[ This defense, however, is done in a manner that is loving and in order to bear good fruits and should not be polemical or obsessive in manner, which in many cases is considered detrimental to the Apostolic Faith.]
SO, YOU CONSIDER THAT DEACON AS LOVING THEN. IS THAT THE WAY OF LOVE YOU ARE CLAIMING TO HAVE POSSESSED AND IS LIVING DAILY?
[But looking on your blog in general and your approach to your readers' inquiries, whether they are part of your faith or not, seems to be far from the admonition of St. Peter, whom you consider as your first pope.]
I THINK YOU ARE BLIND. GENTLE AND LOVING QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND OPINIONS ARE TREATED WITH LOVE AND AFFECTION HERE. BUT WE RETURN FIRE WITH FIRE ON THOSE WHO SEEK TO DESTROY OUR FAITH. THE RULE OF ENGAGEMENT IS DIFFERENT FOR A PEACEFUL DIALOGUE AND FOR THE ATTACKERS.
[The sarcastic laugh and foul words to describe the enemies of your faith... like the word Mama Eli, Hehehe, etc.]
MAMA ELI IS NOT A FOUL WORD. MAMA IS MOTHER, IT IS NOT FOUL. ELI IS A NAME OF A MODERN DAY FILIPINO HERETIC, A HERESIARCH. IT IS NOT FOUL ALSO.
SO, YOU ARE LYING HERE. YOU ARE TURNING INTO FOUL WHAT IS NOT. MAMA ELI WILL FIND IT INSULTING, FINE, THAT'S GOOD FOR HIM. HE IS FOND OF ATTACKING AND INSULTING OTHERS. HE HAS TO TASTE HIS OWN MEDICINE FROM TIME TO TIME.
[ are not the words that I expect to see here. There is a big diference attacking the teachings of one person and attacking the person by giving such comments.]
YOU ARE STATING SOMETHING THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW. MAMA ELI IS ATTACKING OUR POPE PERSONALLY. HE IS ATTACKING OUR PRIESTS PERSONALLY AND HIS FOLLOWERS ATTACK ME PERSONALLY. THEN YOU WANT ME TO BE SOFT ON THEM. MAMA ELI DESERVES THAT. HE EVEN DESERVES TO BE IN PRISON FOR HIS HOMOSEXUAL RAPE CASE.
I AM VERY MUCH IMPRESSED THAT YOU ARE FOND OF MAMA ELI WHO USED TO INSULT THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY AND THE CREED THAT WE COMMONLY UPHELD.
[It seems that your approach is far from the mission and vision set forth by your congregation and shown by its founder.]
MY FOUNDER IS AN ITALIAN SAINT, A VENITIAN NOBLEMAN WHO LEFT EVERYTHING TO SERVE THE ORPHANS AND TAUGHT CATECHESIS TO THE PEOPLE.
LIKE HIM I ALSO LIVED AND SERVED THE ORPHANS IN OUR INSTITUTIONS AND LIKE HIM I'VE BEEN TEACHING YOUNG PEOPLE EITHER IN SCHOOL OR IN THE WEB.
DON'T PRETEND TO BE THE SPOKESPERSON OF MY CONGREGATION AND OF MY FOUNDER SAINT. YOU ARE NOT CREDIBLE AND NOT AUTHORIZED.
[ Just letting you know my apprehension as I have great respect to the order you belong because of its charitable works in the Philippines.]
THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPECT TO MY CONGREGATION. I TOO HAVE A GREAT RESPECT TO THE ORTHODOX I KNOW PERSONALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE EXACTLY YOUR OPPOSITE. I NEVER HEAR THEM ATTACK THE PAPACY AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
[Now let me start answering one by one the issues raised by your readers about the Orthodox Church to the best of my knowledge.]
ReplyDeleteGLAD TO KNOW THAT YOU WILL ANSWER ME ONE BY ONE. BUT YOU ALREADY SHOW HERE THAT YOU ARE SUCH A HYPOCRITE. BECAUSE YOUR ARGUMENTS POSTED BELOW ARE NOT YOURS. YOU COPIED THEM FROM AN ORTHODOX WEBSITE AND COPY-PASTED THEM HERE.
[In order for one to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church, one must understand first her ecclesiology and tradition.]
YOUR ECCLESIOLOGY IS ONE OF REBELLION AND TREACHERY TO THE SEE AND CONFESSION OF PETER. THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES CANNOT EVEN PRESENT A UNIFIED STAND ON MORAL ISSUES TODAY BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF A UNIFYING AUTHORITY AND INABILITY TO CALL AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.
[I am just wondering, how in the Catholic seminaries especially here in the Philippines disuss the Church history especialy the first one thousand years of undivided Christianity.]
YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY IGNORANT OF OUR SEMINARY CURRICULUM AND FORMATION. AND IT IS PATHETIC THAT YOU ARE PRESENTING YOUR IGNORANCE IN ORDER TO PROJECT IT TO OUR SEMINARIES.
OUR SEMINARY FORMATION PRESENTS THE COMPLETE AND UNBROKEN TWO MILLENNIA OF CHURCH HISTORY FROM POPE ST. PETER TO POPE BENEDICT XVI WITH THE 21 ECUMENICAL COUNCILS OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. AND MIND YOU, IT INCLUDES THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND THE WAY THE SOVIET- COMMUNIST POLITBURO IN KREMLIN RE-ESTABLISHED THE PATRIARCHATE OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH AS WELL AS HOW THESE SOVIETS CONFISCATED CATHOLIC CHURCHES IN EASTERN EUROPE AND GAVE THEM TO THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX AND THESE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX REFUSES TO HAND OVER UNTIL NOW MANY OF THESE CHURCHES.
just to add to Fr. Abe's comment about the Diocese. Yes, it has a life of it's own, but it is united with the Diocese of Rome, on who's Bishop is the Pope, the successor of Peter, the first pontiff, that Christ himself appointed, because it has the same doctrines, same bylaws, same FAITH, and SAME GOD.
ReplyDeleteWell said. Thank you very much Bro. Gio.
ReplyDeleteanother info that I'd like to add.
ReplyDeleteWhy did Jesus named Simon an rdinary fisherman from Galilee as "Cepha" in Aramaic which means Rock, "Petros" in Greek which means also rock???.
In my own interpretation as a loyal Catholic is this.
> Christ gave Simon a mission that through him He will build his church that's why he was called Peter the Rock "Cepha" in Aramaic.
> Peter is designated by Christ to build His Church, as Christ said, "Simon, Thou art Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church"
> Therefore Peter was the 1st Pope no doubt about that but the INC and protestant churches really wants to dispute it by using the Bible. I'M GLAD TO SAY THEY CAN NEVER DO IT!.
> When Christ was risen from the dead he said to Peter "Feed my lambs; feed my sheep" (From the Gospel of John)
> Therefore Christ before going back to the Father He wants his Church to be united under the leadership of Peter as the visible head. Just like when the King can't come over to an important meeting he will send his representative to bring out the messages and the tasks that the king should present.
> INC don't believe Peter was called Rock since this is their scriptural basis, "They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ'" (1 Cor 10:4)
> Another Illogical interpretation of the bible from the INC
> as I said Simon was called Peter "The Rock" And was given a mission by Christ, Christ named Simon as the Rock because Peter will draw the People together and to be called as a Church "ecclesia katolikos" in which Christ is truly present amongst us.
> Therefore the word "drank" means acceptance of Christ himself and the Church which he established through St. Peter.
> Peter has reached Rome and continued his mission to gather and teach the people about Christ as he stands as the leader of the 1st Christians. So it's proven Peter is the 1st Pope...
> Peter did not end up in Constantinople where the Orthodox Patriarch is based but he end up in Rome where he died. Until now from St. Peter to the present Pope it is unbroken.
> But what about other Orthodox Patriarchs? Do they have line of successions from Peter?
> Some will say "yes,we came from the apostles" and some will just say "no"
> Remember where Peter was buried? His remains are under the great altar in his Basilica in Rome. Last time as I watched ETWN LIVE coverage As Pope Benedict XVI and an Orthodox Patriarch come together to honor St. Peter...
LET'S PRAY FOR A GREAT UNITY BETWEEN ORTHODOX AND ROMAN CATHOLICS