Posted on 06/30/2003 2:53:51 PM PDT by NYer
This is a new accusation! Hitler the pious Catholic (up against Stalin the pious Orthodox I guess), started up the war to reconvert Russia! Thank you for this new insight!
BTW, you know why Hitler's armies kicked in the teeth of the Red Army and captured 5 million in 3 months? Because Stalin had them set up in offensive positions with offensive arms for an invasion of Europe dated 6 July 1941. Don't ask me about it, read the diaries of your Red Army Generals. Can you say, preemptive German strike?
Joseph Sudaiden vs. Jeffery Daffer: Debate on the primacy of Rome
Yes I did miss that history. It seems your Russian textbooks are even more innacurate than the crap in American Public Schools.
For the record:
1) The Tsars had exiled people to Siberia or jailed them in labor camps for centuries. The Communists carried on this Holy Tradition.
2) German-Prussian Kaiser Wilhelm II was a LUTHERAN, not a Catholic.
3) The 30 Years War was from 1618-1648. The Union of Brest occurred in 1596. 1596 was 52 years prior to the end of 30 Years War.
4) England was lost because lustful King Henry VIII wanted a new wife and a divorce from his current one, the law of Christ forbidding divorce not to the contrary as far as he was concerned. The people of England were forced out of the Church against their will at gunpoint, with the threat of execution for anyone wishign to remain in the religion of his fathers.
5) Most of Northern Europe (Scandanavia) joined Lutheranism as a matter of convenience to confiscate Church property and form Churches under control of the Kings. The corruption of the day was limited to parts of Germany and Italy. The people of Northern Europe, including Germany were forced to become Lutheran at gunpoint - Catholicism was outlawed and Catholics were exiled or executed. Very few people, other than the corrupt Kings and certain corrupt Bishops voluntarily joined Lutheranism and Protestantism.
That happen during civil disturbances in a turbulent time when different political parties fight for power in Constantinople.
It had been a turbulent time for centuries, and would remain so for centuries later, both in Rome and Constantinople. Isn't it time to put the events of 800-1200 years ago behind us though and work together today?
Churches I attended were full in Prague, Berlin, Paris, Frankfurt, Freiburg, Bavaria (as you mention), Vienna, Salzburg, Linz, Florence, Venice, Rome.
Denmark is not Catholic. Belgium is ruled by Socialists, the Catholics there are kept out of power by the linguistic struggle between Flemings and Waloons.
Mass Muslim immigration, thanks to Antichrist DeGaulle and followers is why so many Muslims are now in France. The good French people are not for this, which is why National Front keeps gaining strength. France's problems with the faith stem from the evils of Jansenist heresy in the 1700's, which had the effect of a gut-kick to the practice of Faith among many by convincing people of their unworthy sinfulness to even pray to God, especially French men, followed by 1789 Communist Revolution and the murder of many hundreds of thousands of French Catholic faithful over the next ten years.
Italy has large pro-Communist block that holds back progress of the nation. See the election results there and be astonished. The Catholics have never been in power since the 1860 Masonic revolution of Garibaldi. Over 10 million of the most faithful Italians left for America, Canada, Brazil, and Argentina in the 50 years after 1860 because of persecutions by Masons; they form the backbone of much of the Church in those coutnries. The Italians who are Catholic are very faithful.
When it causes the imprisonment and execution of dissidents?
When it concerns itself more with the acquisition of institutional wealth and power than it does with morality and common decency?
When it acquires vast holdings of money and real estate, and declines to use those blessings to reach out further, to alleviate the needs of the flock or to spiritually train the young?
When one office deems itself the sole arbiter of doctrine on faith and morals, and which decrees that it may never be wrong?
When it foists hopelessly immature men on the laity, plucked from youth before they even know what they want from their own lives?
When it insists that there are two standards of moral conduct - one for the laity and a more relaxed set for the clerics?
When it sets the parish clergy and the hierarchy as being somehow better than the laity?
that DID NOT MEAN HE WAS RECOGNIZED AS SUPREME.
Why then, did the easterners always coming running to Rome for succor when the heretics threw them out of their offices? St. John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius, etc. She was just first among equals according to you. Why not go for canonical succor to the Archbishop of Smyrna?
We'll just have to let your own Fathers who we all reverence speak to the meaning of Matthew. St. John Chrysostom, for example, in his Homily 54 on Matthew:
3. What then saith Christ? "Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas." [Matt. xvi. 17, 18; see John i. 42.] "Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;" all but saying, "As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father." Else it were superfluous to say, "Thou art Son of Jonas;" but since he had said, "Son of God," to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, "And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;" [Matt. xvi. 18.] that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. "And the gates of hell [R.V., "Hades."] shall not prevail against it." "And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because thou art shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified."Then He mentions also another honor. "And I also [Chrysostom reads "And I also", probably from verse 18, as none of our authorities have this fuller form.--R.] will give thee the keys of the heavens." [Matt. xvi. 19. [The text is peculiar in omitting t basilea. The translator has here rendered tn orann, "the heavens;" but not in all similar instances. The English versions generally disregard the plural form.--R.] But what is this, "And I also will give thee?" "As the Father hath given thee to know me, so will I also give thee."
And He said not, "I will entreat the Father" (although the manifestation of His authority was great, and the largeness of the gift unspeakable), but, "I will give thee." What dost Thou give? Tell me. "The keys of the heavens, that whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven, [to orano.] and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven." How then is it not "His to give to sit on His right hand, and on His left," [Matt. xx. 23.] when He saith, "I will give thee"?
Seest thou how He, His own self, leads Peter on to high thoughts of Him, and reveals Himself, and implies that He is Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church incapable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as "a brazen pillar, and as a wall;" [Jer. i. 18.] but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world.
I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. "For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away." [Matt. xxiv. 35.] How then is He less, who hath given such gifts, hath effected such things?
And these things I say, not dividing the works of Father and Son ("for all things are made by Him, and without Him was nothing made which was made"): [John i. 3., (The Greek text omits ë ggonen "which was made.")] but bridling the shameless tongue of them that dare so to speak.
But see, throughout all, His authority: "I say unto thee, Thou art Peter; I will build the Church; I will give thee the keys of Heaven." [The singular is retained here by the translator, though the Greek form is the same, tn orann.--R.]
What's the Orthodox world coming to, when you cannot trust your own preeminent Saint, St. John Chrysostom, the Holy Patriarch honored above all in your every Divine Liturgy, to not clearly and forcefully interpret Matthew 16.13-19 exactly as the Catholic Church does and as Pope St. Damasus did - as founding the Church upon St. Peter because of the strength of his confession, and its unfailing and unassailable nature? You might also try on the first section of St. John Chyrsostom's 88th Homily on the Gospel of St. John, on John 21.15-25, where he gives the Roman interpretation of that passage too:
And why, having passed by the others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, [lit. "driven away".] Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, "If thou lovest Me, preside over thy brethren, and the warm love which thou didst ever manifest, and in which thou didst rejoice, show thou now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldest lay down for Me, now give for My sheep."
The Roman Church does not set itself up thus. It recognizes that the Solemn Magisterium of the Pope, along with the Solemn Teaching of Ecumenical Councils, the Ordinary Magisterium of all the Bishops, and the "Sensus Fidelium" of all Catholics cannot err in faith and morals. The Roman Church decrees only that it cannot be wrong when issuing a final decision on a matter of faith and morals, not that its every utterance must be held "of faith".
Please don't set up straw-men.
True, but to how many Apostles did Jesus give the key of the Kingdom (of David)? (Isaiah 22:22, Matt 16:19, Rev 3:7) There were many "cabinet level officers" in the Davidic Kingdom, but only one vice-regent. There were 12 Apostles in the Kingdom of the eternal King of the House of David, but only one "vice-regent," or vicar of Christ.
Bottom line? Infallibility is a heresy - and hangs round your neck like a millstone.
1) Where did the Borgia's mis-exercise infallibility?
2) How can a Liturgical discipline be infallible doctrine?
3) How is simonaical attack on the First Bishopric an act of proclaiming infallible doctrine?
Do you have any legitimate objections, of Popes solemnly proclaiming false doctrine as something we are all bound to believe or practice?
Infallibility is not impeccability.
None of ours has been so presumptuous, and if he was, he'd be laughed out of his see.
Of course he would be laughed out. Neither the Metropolitan of Smolensk nor the Archbishop of Nicosia nor any other Orthodox worthy is the sucessor of Blessed Peter, to whom Our Lord entrusted all His Church.
As to presumption, why do your eastern Saints like St. John Chrysostom and St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Peter Chrysologus provide some of the strongest testimony for the unfailing faith of Blessed Peter and the Roman Church? Are you saying that is presumptuous of them?
Can you give us some evidences of the Pope inventing heretical things? How about a quote from a Roman Bull alogn with its title and date where he binds the faithful to this heresy?
I dare say that far more heresies have come from the Worthy Oriental Gentleman, known as the Eucmenical Patriarch of Constantinople, than have come from Rome. We might start this discussion with Nestorianism and Monothelitism, and go on from there if you so wish.
The fructified papacy developed over many centuries. But Peter's supremacy is indicated clearly in Scripture and in the early Church (see below).
Regardless, even if this assertion was true, "developed doctrines" aren't necessarily invalid. If they were, the doctrine of the Trinity would have to be regarded as invalid, as would the doctrine of original sin.
For example, the Matthew text was not taken seriously as a ground for papal primacy until the reign of Pope Damasus (366-384)
This claim is false.
TertullianReferences to Peter's supremacy by the Church Fathers can be traced back as far as the year 170 A.D."Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
Tatian the SyrianThe doctrine was well established by 251 A.D."Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).
Cyprian of CarthageEven though the Pope and his supporters claimed primacy, that DID NOT MEAN HE WAS RECOGNIZED AS SUPREME.""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 [see Moses seat Matthew 23:1-3]. . . . 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]).
This assertion is false. Peter's supremacy was clearly recognized by the Church Fathers. Those churches that did not recognize the pope's supremacy were schismatic churches, by definition.
Sorry, that's not for us to judge. All we may do as Christians is obey the authority God has placed over us, except where such obedience would conflict with our obedience to God. In cases where we by our properly formed conscience determine that such a conflict exists, our duty as Christians is not to rebel against authority, but to respectfully refuse to obey it, and to cheerfully accept the consequences of our refusal.
For example: let's say a solider is ordered to arbitrarily execute an unarmed prisoner of war. The soldier has a duty to obey every lawful order given him, but his properly formed conscience tells him that an order to commit cold-blooded murder is no order at all. His duty then is to refuse to obey the order, place himself under arrest, admit to his refusal to obey at his court-martial, and peacefully go to the stockade (or the firing squad) if convicted.
Another example: the Great Leader of a certain country orders Christians to stop speaking out against a certain sinful practice. The Christians of that country are required to obey every law promulgated by their government, but their properly formed consciences tell them that a law that contradicts their duty to speak out against sin is no law at all. Their duty then is to continue speaking out against the sinful practice in question, peacefully submit to arrest, admit to continuing to speak out at their trials, and go cheerfully to the Gulag (or the gallows, or the Coliseum) if convicted.
Rebellion is never the Christian answer to oppression.
Yes.
But do you have a reason for refusing to directly address the Scriptural passages regarding the key of the Kingdom of David (Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.