www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Contrasting the EO & ByzCath

Interesting. I have a feeling many fellow devoted Catholics will disagree with you here!:o So if that is the case, how does such a claim of papal infallibility fall into the context of beliefs "passed down to us from the Apostles?"

There is a profound claim that the timing of the dogmatic definition of Papal infallibility coincided with the Pope's loss of his temporal power over the Papal States in 1870. This, perhaps due to the loss of his physical kingdom, was meant to vigorously strengthen his spiritual realm?

Would not a protestant of similar intellectuality say the same for what catholics and orthodox hold the bishops and ecumenical councils for?



It's completely untrue statement! Even a beginner of church history will see that popes claimed infallibility from the beginning of historical papacy. I told you to, and you promissed you will, read Walter Ullman's history of papacy.

Let us get back to our dear friend, the thread opener, Stephan.
For the orthodox too, Stephan, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. The one example I brought you from a historical book about byzantium, of J.J.Norwich testifies how the eastern greek byzantines protested and fighted to protect the illtreatment done to the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, by the byzantine emperor, Justinian, whose uncle, emperor Justin, too paid the respect of foot kissing to the Pope and called him Head of the Church.

Utroque,

It is clear, I have a right to not treat civilly people like StuartK! He has given me the right to do so!
Nevertheless I wont, because....!

Don't invoke the historians. We generally have some very disappointing discoveries. Unless you want revisionist. To add to the fray, James the brother of our Lord and First bishop of Jerusalem, presided over the first Apostolic council. Does it negate what Christ said to Peter? No. But it does support Turabians style, one of the most widely accepted methods in history.
And the question would arise, If Peter is the First then why is it James that presides?
Do I have the evidence to back up my thesis, either way.
And finally answering the question; so what?

The third is the kicker, especially here; how is it that you will convince the Roman Catholics of the Orthodox position and vise verse?

Maybe we should. I note, in particular, that he said:



I don't have any strong feelings about it one way or the other; but it's at least worth considering closing the thread at this point.

You are wrong PeterJ! The same as StuartK! Back, it means to the first opening posting!

I am sorry, we must have enough of smart arses in here! The first who askes, offends etc counts!

Arbanon,

Calm down. I don't think anyone is playing gotcha, but you. Just present your position and leave it at that. You might even find that not all the Orthodox posters on this list would agree with your position.

I am sure lots of orthodox wont agree with me, especially goc.

The only greek I have seen so far to completely have an against hellenism view of christianity is James Likoudis.

James Likoudis, a rare greek orthodox converted into roman catholicism.

http://credo.stormloader.com/jlindex.htm

I suggest that you read Chapter 15 of Acts more carefully. There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests that James, brother of the Lord, presided at this gathering of Apostles and Presbyters in Jerusalem. He may have presided over the church in Jerusalem, but the gathering is not a gathering of the Jerusalem church. Peter is at this gathering and is the first to speak after there has been some debate. He rather authoritatively silences the crowd, so to speak. James comes in next supporting what Peter has said and adds a couple of restrictions he feels are essentials of Mosaic law.

I don't think any of us on the forum, Catholic, Orthodox or otherwise, need try to convince the other of our positions. We just need to state as truthfully, clearly and as accurately as possible what we believe. As an old man I get immense pleasure from reading the posts from time to time, and hope that, at least some, may obtain enlightenment from what I write.

He wasn't the only one called Head of the Church, e.g. St. Basil writing to Pope St. Athanasius on Pat. St. Meletius:

emphasis added.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.lxvii.html

ἐγὼ [St. James] κρίνω: "I judge..." 15:9

If St. Peter "is the first to speak after there has been some debate," he was not the first to speak. He is not the last to speak. That is St. James.

"He rather authoritatively silences the crowd, so to speak." And they listen to SS. Sials and Paul during that "silence."

The Definition sent to Antioch records St. James' judgement, not St. Peter's testimony.

Not difficult to ponder. At the time of Chalcedon, the break between those who refused to honor the deposition of Pope Dioscorus and those who supported Chalcedon and hence Pope Proterius was clear cut at the beginning. In Antioch, the Synod of Sidon deposed Pat. St. Flavian II in favor of Patriarch Severus, who in turn was deposed and replaced by Patriarch Paul II. The non-Chalcedonians, however, stuck with Severus, a break which from that beginning was carried on by Jacob Baradaeus of Edessa, the font of the non-Chalcedonian patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, with the ordiantion of Paul II the Black of Alexandira (two different Paul II's, Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian, though the non-Chalcedonian embraced Chalcedon later, under Patriarch Anastasius I of the rival line).

There was no OO Patriarchate of Constantiniple until the Ottomans brought in an Armenian Cathholicos after 1453.

There is no OO Patriarchate of Jerusalem, ever.

Old Rome cutting itself off from the rest of the Church never was as dramatic as that. It was not until the Crusaders set up rival patriarchates in the remaining Orthodox sees 1099-1204 that it became apparent that the Pope in Rome wasn't the same as he had been in the first millenium, but by then it was too late-and, given Western arms, impossible-to replace him with an Orthodox pope in Old Rome.

Btw, there is an Orthodox bishop in Old Rome of Italy, Bp. Siluan, and a Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of All Italy, who is in Venice, the latter being there for some centuries.

On point two, what exact incidents do you have in mind?