Ecumenism (opinion on news)

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alonso_castillo said:
Far from Middle east and oriental Europe, in China, Japan, India, Africa, South America, Oceania, western Europe and North, America, Every time you ask people for a Catholic Church, they immediately know that you refer to the communities linked to Pope.

The same happens in Holy Land, though, if you ask a fundamentalist from orthodoxy, he immediately knows what do you refer, but then he tries to correct you, saying "... You mean roman ..." but you don't intend to enter into a discussion, you know that he understand what you mean and just say: " …yes, Catholic…", then as he don't want to debate about he will point the place where you want to go.

Then everybody knows that Catholic is referred to christians linked to Pope, either they want to accept it or not
Only because you have stolen and monopolized the title. Not necessarily because they recognize you as the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church".
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
deusveritasest said:
Alonso_castillo said:
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
Why?
Because St Peter, was Bishop of Antiochy and he was the First of Apostles there, but He didn't lasted there until he was died, so when moving to Rome, he remined as the First Apostle, and he died there  as the first Apostle.  So His place was not left in Antiochy but in Rome. look:


 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alonso_castillo said:
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
You mean the Metochion of Constantinople?


I have to admit the only tombs we have are empty:
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alonso_castillo said:
deusveritasest said:
Alonso_castillo said:
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
Why?
Because St Peter, was Bishop of Antiochy and he was the First of Apostles there, but He didn't lasted there until he was died, so when moving to Rome, he remined as the First Apostle, and he died there  as the first Apostle.  So His place was not left in Antiochy but in Rome. look:


As Father posted Pope St. Gregory claimed his place was in Rome, Alexandria and Anitoch.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
For your answer I guess that you read in bible that the fundaments of church were the empty tumb of Christ, ¿Do you?

1 cor 3:11

ef 2:20
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Alonso_castillo said:
Holy Protestors Force Cancellation of Catholic Wedding

By Charles Charalambous
Cyprus Mail
October 20, 2009

BANNER-WAVING Orthodox protestors yesterday put a stop to a Catholic wedding ceremony at Ayios Yiorgios church in Chlorakas after shouting a string of abuse at the priest and others in the church.
Unfortunately on Cyprus some churches rent out their premises fro "tourist weddings" which are hugely profitable for the churches and the bishop takes his percentage.  This abuse is the cause of this particular protest.

The Catholics have a very nice church of their own in this location and there is no need for them to rent Orthodox churches.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Alonso_castillo said:
This is a great point:

With acuity, the same Zizoulas, commenting to AsiaNews on the situation of the "Christian world" of today, said: "The Christian world today has many bishops, a few theologians and even less ecclesiological knowledge".
There is a belief abroad among the Orthodox that Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper are engaged in an attempt to derail traditional Orthodox ecclesiology - at the last two Plenary Sessions, at Belgrade and Ravenna. We cannot judge waht happened last October on Cyprus since there has been no information released - this is because the Orthodox bishops clamped down on the dialogue and are insisting that no statements may be released without synodal approval from the various Orthodox Churches.  Specifically, the concern centres on Met Zizioulas' and Cardinal Kasper's attempt to impose a "Global Protos" or "Universal Primus" on Orthodoxy which will bring Orthodox ecclesiology into line with the Roman and make an eventual union so much easier to accomplish.

It won't fly. It is simply too alien to Orthodox tradition. Those who perceive this have an obligation from above to speak out and not fear such shameful threats as this Metropolitan wrote last year against the bishops of the Church of Greece.  It is to the great credit of the bishops that they are now moving to take control of the dialogue and will not leave it in the hands of a few people with their own agendas.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alonso_castillo said:
deusveritasest said:
Alonso_castillo said:
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
Why?
Because St Peter, was Bishop of Antiochy and he was the First of Apostles there, but He didn't lasted there until he was died, so when moving to Rome, he remined as the First Apostle, and he died there  as the first Apostle.  So His place was not left in Antiochy but in Rome. look:


Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
deusveritasest said:
Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.
Please have a look at this message. 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg371790.html#msg371790

It explains the belief of the Coptic Orthodox Church that Peter was not the founder of the Church in Rome but he travelled there only 2 years before his death, in pursuit of Simon Magus.

Today (20 January) is the commemoration of St. Fechin of Fobhar
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints

 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
deusveritasest said:
Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.
Please have a look at this message. 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg371790.html#msg371790

It explains the belief of the Coptic Orthodox Church that Peter was not the founder of the Church in Rome but he travelled there only 2 years before his death, in pursuit of Simon Magus.

Today (20 January) is the commemoration of St. Fechin of Fobhar
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints
Thanks. I think I've seen that document before. This is a good place to bring it up. I naturally tend to be skeptical of the idea that Peter was the founder of the Church of Rome given that there is no biblical account of him having gone there. Hence why I wrote "...may have...". I think the foundation of the church of Rome by Paul should be emphasized more given how important he was and given that his having been a founder of the church there is actually entirely clear.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
deusveritasest said:
Irish Hermit said:
deusveritasest said:
Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.
Please have a look at this message. 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg371790.html#msg371790

It explains the belief of the Coptic Orthodox Church that Peter was not the founder of the Church in Rome but he travelled there only 2 years before his death, in pursuit of Simon Magus.

Today (20 January) is the commemoration of St. Fechin of Fobhar
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints
Thanks. I think I've seen that document before. This is a good place to bring it up. I naturally tend to be skeptical of the idea that Peter was the founder of the Church of Rome given that there is no biblical account of him having gone there. Hence why I wrote "...may have...". I think the foundation of the church of Rome by Paul should be emphasized more given how important he was and given that his having been a founder of the church there is actually entirely clear.
I wager $10 to a hundred that LBK is right now penning a message  ;D to say that our liturgical deposit gives equal honour to Peter and Paul as founders of the Church of Rome.  I would think that we can trust the liturgical deposit and our tradition on this point.  But I find the viewpoint of the Copts fascinating all the same.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Father, you truly are clairvoyant!  ;D :laugh:

From the Vigil for Apostles Peter and Paul on the matter of Peter, Paul and Rome:

With what spiritual songs should we praise Peter and Paul? The sharp mouths of the dread sword of the Spirit that slaughter godlessness; the radiant ornaments of Rome; the delights of the whole inhabited world; the reasoning tablets, written by God, of the New Testament, which in Zion Christ proclaimed, who has great mercy.

A joyous feast has shone out today on the ends of the earth, the all-honoured memorial of the wisest Apostles and their princes, Peter and Paul; and so Rome dances and rejoices. Let us also, brethren, celebrate in songs and psalms this all-revered day, as we cry out to them: Hail, Peter, Apostle and true friend of your teacher, Christ our God. Hail, Paul, well-loved, herald of the faith and teacher of the inhabited world. Holy pair, chosen by God, as you have boldness, implore Christ our God that our souls may be saved.

What dungeon did not hold you prisoner? What Church did not have you as an orator? Damascus extols you, O Paul, for it knew you blinded by the Light; and Rome, which received your blood, boasts in you; but Tarsus, your birthplace, rejoices yet more with love and honour. O Peter, rock of the Faith, and Paul, boast of the whole world, coming together from Rome, make us steadfast.


As for their recognition as equals, IIRC there should be a post of mine where the equality of Peter and Paul is made clear through the Vigil text.

EDIT: Here it is: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14723.msg230684.html#msg230684
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alonso_castillo said:
ialmisry said:
Alonso_castillo said:
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
You mean the Metochion of Constantinople?


I have to admit the only tombs we have are empty:

The empty tumb kept by muslims?
I got to stay a week in the one Church for a week.  The keepers were all Christian, though the polic officer was Druze.  What are you talking about?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
deusveritasest said:
Alonso_castillo said:
deusveritasest said:
Alonso_castillo said:
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
Why?
Because St Peter, was Bishop of Antiochy and he was the First of Apostles there, but He didn't lasted there until he was died, so when moving to Rome, he remined as the First Apostle, and he died there  as the first Apostle.  So His place was not left in Antiochy but in Rome. look:


Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.
Irish Hermit said:
deusveritasest said:
Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.
Please have a look at this message. 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg371790.html#msg371790

It explains the belief of the Coptic Orthodox Church that Peter was not the founder of the Church in Rome but he travelled there only 2 years before his death, in pursuit of Simon Magus.

Today (20 January) is the commemoration of St. Fechin of Fobhar
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints
We have no evidence of St. Peter founding the Church of Rome. As the above thread quotes the Apostolic Constitutions, "Pope" Linus was ordained by St. Paul (and predeceased St. Peter).  St. Paul, writing to the Romans in 55, doesn't include St. Peter among the long list of those he greets. According to Suetonius and the Bible (Acts 18:2), Christians had already appeared in Rome 6 years earlier.  Although traditions refer to St. Peter pursuing Simon Magnus into Rome during Claudius' reign you would think that the NT would have thought it important enough to record, if St. Peter's eternal line was supposed to be enshrined there.
 
Top