So Glad im Converting to Holy Orthodoxy
In Christ
:ohvey:
The RC church: it has come to this
Methodius wrote:LatinTrad seems to have no answer to those great questions and points everyone posted.
NicholasZollars wrote:in all likelyhood he ran from the forum.
Hi guys. This is actually the first time I looked back at this thread. I don't have a lot of time on my hands at all.
ANYway:
The points about modern-day sin within the Church have nothing to do with my position. I know more probably than any of you about the ridiculous bullshoot that goes on within the Holy Church today. Show me all the pictures you want of Korans, ecumenical meetings, and homosexuals. It does not undermine the foundation of the Church. It is SIN. Sin has happened before and it will happen again. The Holy Catholic Church has NEVER solemnly promulgated any of this stuff.
When there were idols and prostitutes in the Temple of old, THERE WAS STILL ONLY ONE TEMPLE!!! And if you went ELSEWHERE to offer Sacrifice to God, to one of the "high places," you were CURSED. So too in our own day, there are worse than prostitutes within the Church, but THERE IS STILL ONLY ONE CHURCH.
Reagrding your Patristics quotes: all of them are short exerpts; I could show you just as many short exerpts that support my position. In fact, a fair reading of the Fathers, AFAIK, indicates that the Petrine primacy was well established long before the schism, in honor, jurisdiction, and teaching. Quote wars are fruitless. Study whole texts with an open mind. Open all the books. The Church has nothing to fear.
God bless you all.
Oh, and thanks for the
NicholasZollars wrote:You wouldn't feed a baby t-bone steak.
It is true, and I need to acknowledge myself a "baby." As do we all. But it doesn't mean that I am in any way daunted or (much less) convinced by the deluge of posts on this thread.
God bless all.
LatinTrad
Dear LatinTrad,
First of all, my respect for you that you keep posting on this, for you, "hostile territory"!
Second, let's, for arguments sake, assume that we agree on the meaning of Christ's words to St. Peter.
Still, what leaves me wondering is the following: how on earth is it that the primacy of St. Peter and his successors would be connected to Rome and to Rome alone?
While I wouldn't dare to call myself a theologian or a Church historian, I seem to recall that St. Peter founded more centres of Christianity.
As far as I know, Christianity was even already an existing entity in Roman life before his coming there.
I do undestand that Rome, as the only "Apostolic See" in the west, had a completely different view of the principle of "Apostolic foundation" then the east, more particular the middle-east, where the map is full of "Apostolic foundations".
But, different view or not, we have to keep in mind that this is a wrong view, which led to a very strange point of view on other matters.
Let me give an example:
The Pope can be judged by no one; the Roman Church has never erred and will never err till the end of time; the Roman Church was founded by Christ alone; the Pope can depose bishops and restore bishops; he alone can make new laws, set up new bishoprics, and divide old ones; he alone can translate bishops; he alone can call general councils and authorize canon law; he alone can revise his own judgements; he alone can use the imperial insignia; he can depose emperors; he can absolve subjects from their allegians; all princes should kiss his feet; his legates, even though in inferior orders, have precedence over all bishops; an appeal to the Papal court inhibits judgement by all inferior courts; a duly ordained Pope is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter.
(Pope Gregory VII, Dictatus Papae, Lenten 1076)
Now that's what I call quite an interesting view!
In Christ,
Makis
Hi Makis,
St. Peter's seat at Rome is different from the other centers he established, because he died there, and before his death appointed St. Linus to "sit on the same seat on which he had sat" (St. Augustine). Thus, the Petrine primacy was passed down through the Roman pontiffs. St. Peter had "successors" in Antioch and elsewhere while he was still alive and exercising the Petrine ministry from Rome. Only when his death drew near did he appoint someone to succeed him as head of the Apostles--Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, etc., all sat on that seat.
Regarding that quote from St. Gregory VII--I would be interested to read the rest of the document. The only part of it that I find odd is the part about being made a saint. I think that is a poor translation. The Pope is God's holy one in a manner similar to the kings of Israel--e.g. Saul was still the Holy one even after he had become a very sinful man. So with Popes. They may be filled with sin and unworthiness, but they still exercise the Petrine ministry; they are still the holy one of God--his annointed. The same is true of all priests, in a sense. But the Pope is made God's holy one by the merits of St. Peter, specifically--as we all know, the Petrine primacy was granted to Simon because of his grace-inspired confession of Faith.
God bless all,
LatinTrad
Link Desired, Link found, Link Granted: 
Encyclical: Dictatus Papae of Gregory VII
There is a link to the Medieval Sourcebook with the entire Encyclical of Gregory VII. :ohvey:
Hope this is as helpful for others as it was for me... :shock:
Juvenaly