Media coverage of Pope's death

The resting place of threads that were very valid in 2004, but not so much in 2024. Basically this is a giant historical archive.


User avatar
Stepanov
Newbie
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu 10 February 2005 6:14 pm

Post by Stepanov »

The worldwide fawning over the departed Pope puts me in mind of the following passage from Holy Scripture:

"If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, "A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also" (John 15:18-20).

User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Post by joasia »

It is pretty generally accepted that St. Peter himself was the first Bishop of Rome. St. Linus was his immediate successor.

The generally accepted view is that of the Western world and the papacy. St. Peter was never a bishop. They appointed pious and righteous men for those positions so that they could be free to preach the word of God from place to place. St Peter and Paul established the Church in Rome, and Linus was appointed for that See. Actually, you gave me the answer and I looked it up in a book by Abbe Guettee, THE PAPACY, who wrote an extensive work on the history of the papacy in the mid 19th century. I just could remember which name to look for.

Linus was the first bishop of Rome when St Peter entered there to be martyred. The papal church has always argued a false percept that St. Peter was the bishop of Rome.

Eusebius the historian wrote about it in his collections: Against Heresies and the History of the Church.

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Post by Maria »

St. Peter and St. Paul were missionary Apostles. They planted Bishops in the local churches which they had established.

St. Peter ordained men to the Apostolic Sees of Antioch, Rome (St. Linus) and Alexandria (St. Mark).

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

Seeker
Jr Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri 15 August 2003 10:54 pm

Post by Seeker »

Ekaterina,

Just For Your Information, not all "Orthodox" churches split with the Roman Catholic Church in 1054. I believe the Melkites and Italio-Byzantines which with the Pope of Rome. Thus, rites and rituals of Orthodoxy are claimed in the Catholic Church as well.

User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Post by joasia »

Just For Your Information, not all "Orthodox" churches split with the Roman Catholic Church in 1054. I believe the Melkites and Italio-Byzantines which with the Pope of Rome. Thus, rites and rituals of Orthodoxy are claimed in the Catholic Church as well.

Are you saying that they commemorated the pope of Rome? These, I believe, would be considered Uniates. They bowed down to the pope, and that does not make them Orthodox.

Seeker
Jr Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri 15 August 2003 10:54 pm

Post by Seeker »

joasia,

During the schism of 1054 some Churches went with Constantinople and others with Rome. I was not a "clear" break.

User avatar
sue57
Member
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon 9 June 2003 9:01 pm

Post by sue57 »

An Orthodox layman is forbidden to enter a synagogue? Do you know what the source is for this? An Orthodox person can never attend, for example, a Jewish wedding? I personally wouldn't go to a wiccan or pagan, whatever, ceremony, but I don't see how "observing" vs. participating in a ceremony, is dangerous. I know one of our altar boys took a college course on Islam. I've got to ask his parents if the class visited a mosque. (Of course, he goes to school in New Hampshire, so I'm guessing no.)

Post Reply