Only the Orthodox Church can claim to have it's roots since the 1st century.

[Achronos]

It is not so much that Rome has lost it's lineage of apostolic succession but rather it has lost grace of apostolic succession by abandonment of the apostolic faith. The Orthodox Church can trace its externals and internals (doctrines, the Gospel) to the 1st century Church. For example St. Augustine, whom did not know Greek and was raised Gnostic and later converted to Christianity, and because he was unable to read Greek and read the Fathers in Greek nor read the New Testament in its original Greek, which he used a bad Latin translation of the Bible and had known Gnosticism for most of his life; certain ideas developed in Augustine's thought which were very harmful to the later development of the Western Church. Among these are original sin, predestination, irresistible grace and the filiqoue which eventually worked its way into Western thought and ultimately the bad will and further distortion by some men the Western Church separated from the Orthodox Church. And other further divisions can be expounded upon by the likes of St Jerome who I've heard argued did more harm than Augustine did.

It's not that the Roman church didn't exist in the 1st century, it is rather that the Roman church taught, preached, and proclaimed the Orthodox Christian understanding of the Gospel rather than the contemporary Roman Catholic understanding of the Gospel. To put it simply Rome abandoned the Fathers and replaced them with the Scholastics, that's why the modern Roman Catholic church cannot be traced to the 1st century.

 

[Wyatt]

Uhh...o............kay....................so.............................................................what's the point of this thread exactly?

 

[Cognomen]

It helps keep his stats up:

Total Posts: 1,476 posts
Total Topics Started: 187 topics

A healthy 7.89 posts per topic started. 

 

[CBGardner]

It helps keep his stats up:

Total Posts: 1,476 posts
Total Topics Started: 187 topics

A healthy 7.89 posts per topic started. 

Haha gotta love forum metrics.

 

[biro]

Is he writing a paper?
???

 

[wayseer]

Perhaps you are being too harsh.  I suspect Aposphet is struggling with some issue.

Aposphet - it may not that the Roman Church 'abandoned' the Fathers but was perhaps caught up in a series of events that impacted on its decision making process.  It is easy to look backwards with the vision of hindsight and make sweeping generalizations but any decision is cast within a historical context.

And while I can sympathize with the problems with Rome was wrestling with at the time, I suspect it was almost forced into a position of making a decision to 'take control' mainly because there was no other effective process of governance existing at the time.  It perhaps best to appreciate that context before making such pronouncements. 

 

[stanley123]

It is not so much that Rome has lost it's lineage of apostolic succession but rather it has lost grace of apostolic succession by abandonment of the apostolic faith. The Orthodox Church can trace its externals and internals (doctrines, the Gospel) to the 1st century Church.

You use the terminology of abandonment of the apostolic faith and you claim that Roman Catholicism is guilty of this. However, is it not true that using the same type of reasoning, a person could conceivably argue that the Eastern Orthodox Church is guilty of this also? Here are some examples as to how someone might argue that there is  a difference between the apostolic faith and the Eastern Orthodox teaching  of today:
1. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. But the Orthodox Church allows divorce.
2. Women are allowed to attend Church services with their heads uncovered, which is contrary to the apostolic faith.
3. Call no man Father.  This was the case in apostolic times, but is not true today.
4. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. However, now it is taught that a rich Orthodox man, who gives to the Church, may enter heaven.
5. Unless you hate your mother, father, your wife and your children, you cannot be a disciple of Christ. But today it is taught that you can be an Orthodox priest and love your mother, love your father, love your wife and love your children.

 

[Wyatt]

Just because the Roman Church doesn't view the teachings of the Fathers through the lens of Eastern Orthodoxy hardly means we have abandoned the Apostolic faith. The Eastern and Western Churches were very different from early on (long before the schism) and it was not an impediment to communion then. I would recommend you read the book His Broken Body. It is written by an Eastern Orthodox priest, but he is fair and does a pretty good job outlining the differences between our two communions and suggests things that could be changed on both sides to help return to a resumption of communion.

 

[ialmisry]

It is not so much that Rome has lost it's lineage of apostolic succession but rather it has lost grace of apostolic succession by abandonment of the apostolic faith. The Orthodox Church can trace its externals and internals (doctrines, the Gospel) to the 1st century Church.

You use the terminology of abandonment of the apostolic faith and you claim that Roman Catholicism is guilty of this. However, is it not true that using the same type of reasoning, a person could conceivably argue that the Eastern Orthodox Church is guilty of this also? Here are some examples as to how someone might argue that there is  a difference between the apostolic faith and the Eastern Orthodox teaching  of today:
1. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. But the Orthodox Church allows divorce.

So does the Vatican, although it smears it with Corban and calls it "annullment."  And divorce for adultry, for instance, did exist in the early Church, not only in patristic literary discussions, but surviving legal records in Egypt.

I'll give you that many Orthodox have become lax in applying the rule (but the Vatican is hardly the party to point that mote out to us), but bad pastoral practice is also nothing new.

2. Women are allowed to attend Church services with their heads uncovered, which is contrary to the apostolic faith.

This is quite an obsession with you. Why?

It has also been pointed out to you, repeatedly, that it remains overwhelmingly the practice, for whatever reason, in the Orthodox world.

Btw, the claim can be made that it is apostolic practice. The case that it is apostolic faith cannot be sustained.

3. Call no man Father.  This was the case in apostolic times, but is not true today.

Spiritual fathers have always been called fathers, so I don't know where, except from Protestant tracts, you are getting this.

The insistence of the Vatican that its bishop alone be called "Father," i.e. "pope," is a novelty.

4. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. However, now it is taught that a rich Orthodox man, who gives to the Church, may enter heaven.

We don't have indulgences, so I don't know where you are getting this.

5. Unless you hate your mother, father, your wife and your children, you cannot be a disciple of Christ. But today it is taught that you can be an Orthodox priest and love your mother, love your father, love your wife and love your children.

Now you are really grasping at straws.  Christ loved His mother, brothers and sisters, and they were there at Pentecost.  St. Peter loved his wife and daugher, as St. Clement tells us.

 

[Wyatt]

The insistence of the Vatican that its bishop alone be called "Father," i.e. "pope," is a novelty.

I don't know where you get that. I call the Pastor of my parish "father" and I don't commune at St. John Lateran nor St. Peter's.

 

[ialmisry]

Just because the Roman Church doesn't view the teachings of the Fathers through the lens of Eastern Orthodoxy hardly means we have abandoned the Apostolic faith. The Eastern and Western Churches were very different from early on (long before the schism) and it was not an impediment to communion then. I would recommend you read the book His Broken Body. It is written by an Eastern Orthodox priest, but he is fair and does a pretty good job outlining the differences between our two communions and suggests things that could be changed on both sides to help return to a resumption of communion.

Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster.  K?

Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.

 

[Wyatt]

Just because the Roman Church doesn't view the teachings of the Fathers through the lens of Eastern Orthodoxy hardly means we have abandoned the Apostolic faith. The Eastern and Western Churches were very different from early on (long before the schism) and it was not an impediment to communion then. I would recommend you read the book His Broken Body. It is written by an Eastern Orthodox priest, but he is fair and does a pretty good job outlining the differences between our two communions and suggests things that could be changed on both sides to help return to a resumption of communion.

Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster.  K?

Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.

I still think that the title has a blasphemous sound to it (because the Body of Christ cannot be "broken"), but the guy makes a lot of good points and it really is a good read, title aside.

 

[ialmisry]

The insistence of the Vatican that its bishop alone be called "Father," i.e. "pope," is a novelty.

I don't know where you get that. I call the Pastor of my parish "father" and I don't commune at St. John Lateran nor St. Peter's.

Oh, so you aren't a member of the ecclesiastical community of the sovereign of the Vatican City State Benedict XVI?

We come to your, Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ your Son. Through him we ask you to accept and bless + these gifts we offer you in sacrifice. We offer them for your holy catholic Church, watch over it, Lord, and guide it; grant it peace and unity throughout the world. We offer them for {Benedict} our Pope, for {name of Bishop in local diocese} our bishop, and for all who hold and teach the catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=46&catname=12
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/SedesUnCum.pdf

We went over that with you and Papist.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30958.msg494687.html#msg494687

 

[Wyatt]

I didn't say that, I said I don't commune aka receive communion at St. John Lateran or St. Peter's (i.e. neither one is my home parish). That doesn't mean that I'm not in communion with the See of Rome because I am. I also call my Priest father and everyone that I know calls their priests father. The Pope is often called "Holy Father" or "His Holiness."

 

[PJ]

It is easy to look backwards with the vision of hindsight

That's true, you don't have to turn your head.

 

[ialmisry]

I didn't say that, I said I don't commune aka receive communion at St. John Lateran or St. Peter's (i.e. neither one is my home parish). That doesn't mean that I'm not in communion with the See of Rome because I am.

IOW, you were too clever by half. And if you are in communion with the Vatican and not Rome's Orthdoox bishop

you are not in communion with the Roman see of SS. Peter and Paul, Linus, Clement....

I also call my Priest father and everyone that I know calls their priests father. The Pope is often called "Holy Father" or "His Holiness."

And THAT is what is being banned by Mat. 23:9.

 

[PJ]

Sometimes you actually make it too easy ...

I also call my Priest father and everyone that I know calls their priests father. The Pope is often called "Holy Father" or "His Holiness."

And THAT is what is being banned by Mat. 23:9.

So are we to believe that it's alright to call someone "Your All Holiness" and "Father", yet it's not alright to say "Holy Father"?

 

[Wyatt]

IOW, you were too clever by half. And if you are in communion with the Vatican and not Rome's Orthdoox bishop

you are not in communion with the Roman see of SS. Peter and Paul, Linus, Clement....

If by "the Vatican" you mean the Great Apostolic See of His Holiness Benedict XVI then yes, I am in communion with the Roman See because it and the See of Rome are one and the same.

Also, your communion does not have a Bishop of Rome...nice try though.

I also call my Priest father and everyone that I know calls their priests father. The Pope is often called "Holy Father" or "His Holiness."

And THAT is what is being banned by Mat. 23:9.

Alluding to what Peter J said...stop calling your Ecumenical Patriarch "His All Holiness" then because it is hypocritical to do so if you consider "Holy Father" and "His Holiness" terms that are banned by Scripture.

 

[deusveritasest]

It is not so much that Rome has lost it's lineage of apostolic succession but rather it has lost grace of apostolic succession by abandonment of the apostolic faith. The Orthodox Church can trace its externals and internals (doctrines, the Gospel) to the 1st century Church. For example St. Augustine, whom did not know Greek and was raised Gnostic and later converted to Christianity, and because he was unable to read Greek and read the Fathers in Greek nor read the New Testament in its original Greek, which he used a bad Latin translation of the Bible and had known Gnosticism for most of his life; certain ideas developed in Augustine's thought which were very harmful to the later development of the Western Church. Among these are original sin, predestination, irresistible grace and the filiqoue which eventually worked its way into Western thought and ultimately the bad will and further distortion by some men the Western Church separated from the Orthodox Church. And other further divisions can be expounded upon by the likes of St Jerome who I've heard argued did more harm than Augustine did.

It's not that the Roman church didn't exist in the 1st century, it is rather that the Roman church taught, preached, and proclaimed the Orthodox Christian understanding of the Gospel rather than the contemporary Roman Catholic understanding of the Gospel. To put it simply Rome abandoned the Fathers and replaced them with the Scholastics, that's why the modern Roman Catholic church cannot be traced to the 1st century.

Depends on what you mean by "the Orthodox Church".

 

[stanley123]

It is not so much that Rome has lost it's lineage of apostolic succession but rather it has lost grace of apostolic succession by abandonment of the apostolic faith. The Orthodox Church can trace its externals and internals (doctrines, the Gospel) to the 1st century Church.

You use the terminology of abandonment of the apostolic faith and you claim that Roman Catholicism is guilty of this. However, is it not true that using the same type of reasoning, a person could conceivably argue that the Eastern Orthodox Church is guilty of this also? Here are some examples as to how someone might argue that there is  a difference between the apostolic faith and the Eastern Orthodox teaching  of today:
1. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. But the Orthodox Church allows divorce.

So does the Vatican, although it smears it with Corban and calls it "annullment."  And divorce for adultry, for instance, did exist in the early Church, not only in patristic literary discussions, but surviving legal records in Egypt.

I'll give you that many Orthodox have become lax in applying the rule (but the Vatican is hardly the party to point that mote out to us), but bad pastoral practice is also nothing new.

2. Women are allowed to attend Church services with their heads uncovered, which is contrary to the apostolic faith.

This is quite an obsession with you. Why?

It has also been pointed out to you, repeatedly, that it remains overwhelmingly the practice, for whatever reason, in the Orthodox world.

Btw, the claim can be made that it is apostolic practice. The case that it is apostolic faith cannot be sustained.

3. Call no man Father.  This was the case in apostolic times, but is not true today.

Spiritual fathers have always been called fathers, so I don't know where, except from Protestant tracts, you are getting this.

The insistence of the Vatican that its bishop alone be called "Father," i.e. "pope," is a novelty.

4. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. However, now it is taught that a rich Orthodox man, who gives to the Church, may enter heaven.

We don't have indulgences, so I don't know where you are getting this.

5. Unless you hate your mother, father, your wife and your children, you cannot be a disciple of Christ. But today it is taught that you can be an Orthodox priest and love your mother, love your father, love your wife and love your children.

Now you are really grasping at straws.  Christ loved His mother, brothers and sisters, and they were there at Pentecost.  St. Peter loved his wife and daugher, as St. Clement tells us.

Hello:
1. So you do agree that the Orthodox Church has abandoned the teaching: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” BTW, I do think that the Roman Church has also abandoned this teaching, since they allow easy annulments at least in the USA.
2. I don’t regard this as an obsession, but as an obvious example of how the Orthodox Churhch has abandoned the apostolic teaching as given by St. Paul on this matter. The question I was considering was whether the apostolic  teaching has been abandoned ONLY by the Roman Church. But it has been abandoned by both the Roman Church and by many of the Orthodox Churches in the USA.
3. Where did I get this?: Matthew 23:9 The teaching in Apostolic times: “And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.”
4. Where am I getting this?: The teaching in apostolic times: Mark 10:25: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Also Matthew 19:24, Luke 18:25.
5. Here is the teaching in apostolic times: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.” Has not the Orthodox Church abandoned this teaching since Orthodox priests can be a disciple of Christ while he loves his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life.
.....
The question I was looking at here is whether or not the apostolic teachings have changed ONLY in the Roman Church.
An argument can be made that these teachings of apostolic times  have  changed in the Orthodox Church as well.

 

[FatherHLL]

It is not so much that Rome has lost it's lineage of apostolic succession but rather it has lost grace of apostolic succession by abandonment of the apostolic faith. The Orthodox Church can trace its externals and internals (doctrines, the Gospel) to the 1st century Church. For example St. Augustine, whom did not know Greek and was raised Gnostic and later converted to Christianity, and because he was unable to read Greek and read the Fathers in Greek nor read the New Testament in its original Greek, which he used a bad Latin translation of the Bible and had known Gnosticism for most of his life; certain ideas developed in Augustine's thought which were very harmful to the later development of the Western Church. Among these are original sin, predestination, irresistible grace and the filiqoue which eventually worked its way into Western thought and ultimately the bad will and further distortion by some men the Western Church separated from the Orthodox Church. And other further divisions can be expounded upon by the likes of St Jerome who I've heard argued did more harm than Augustine did.

It's not that the Roman church didn't exist in the 1st century, it is rather that the Roman church taught, preached, and proclaimed the Orthodox Christian understanding of the Gospel rather than the contemporary Roman Catholic understanding of the Gospel. To put it simply Rome abandoned the Fathers and replaced them with the Scholastics, that's why the modern Roman Catholic church cannot be traced to the 1st century.

Right, well, in defense of St. Augustine, he did refute his most questionable teachings in his Retractions and others of his later writings. 

 

[FatherHLL]

It is not so much that Rome has lost it's lineage of apostolic succession but rather it has lost grace of apostolic succession by abandonment of the apostolic faith. The Orthodox Church can trace its externals and internals (doctrines, the Gospel) to the 1st century Church. For example St. Augustine, whom did not know Greek and was raised Gnostic and later converted to Christianity, and because he was unable to read Greek and read the Fathers in Greek nor read the New Testament in its original Greek, which he used a bad Latin translation of the Bible and had known Gnosticism for most of his life; certain ideas developed in Augustine's thought which were very harmful to the later development of the Western Church. Among these are original sin, predestination, irresistible grace and the filiqoue which eventually worked its way into Western thought and ultimately the bad will and further distortion by some men the Western Church separated from the Orthodox Church. And other further divisions can be expounded upon by the likes of St Jerome who I've heard argued did more harm than Augustine did.

It's not that the Roman church didn't exist in the 1st century, it is rather that the Roman church taught, preached, and proclaimed the Orthodox Christian understanding of the Gospel rather than the contemporary Roman Catholic understanding of the Gospel. To put it simply Rome abandoned the Fathers and replaced them with the Scholastics, that's why the modern Roman Catholic church cannot be traced to the 1st century.

Depends on what you mean by "the Orthodox Church".

Are you implying it is the Zoroastrian Church? 

 

[FatherHLL]

Also, your communion does not have a Bishop of Rome...nice try though.

And your communion does not have a Bishop of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria or (drumroll please), the Holy Mother Church of all Christendom, Holy Zion, Jerusalem and the three Palestines.  That would be...the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem.  Orthodoxy's Patriarchate in these Sees traces all the way back to the Apostles.  Rome's, however, was created over a thousand years later as an alternative to those who actually had the Apostolic Succession in these Sees, the Orthodox Bishops. 

 

[Azurestone]

 

[Wyatt]

Also, your communion does not have a Bishop of Rome...nice try though.

And your communion does not have a Bishop of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria or (drumroll please), the Holy Mother Church of all Christendom, Holy Zion, Jerusalem and the three Palestines.  That would be...the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem.   Orthodoxy's Patriarchate in these Sees traces all the way back to the Apostles.  Rome's, however, was created over a thousand years later as an alternative to those who actually had the Apostolic Succession in these Sees, the Orthodox Bishops. 

Uhh...nice try. Our Holy Apostolic See was founded Ss. Peter and Paul, so don't try to claim Rome's origin isn't apostolic, because it is.

 

[ialmisry]

Also, your communion does not have a Bishop of Rome...nice try though.

And your communion does not have a Bishop of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria or (drumroll please), the Holy Mother Church of all Christendom, Holy Zion, Jerusalem and the three Palestines.  That would be...the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem.   Orthodoxy's Patriarchate in these Sees traces all the way back to the Apostles.  Rome's, however, was created over a thousand years later as an alternative to those who actually had the Apostolic Succession in these Sees, the Orthodox Bishops. 

Uhh...nice try. Our Holy Apostolic See was founded Ss. Peter and Paul, so don't try to claim Rome's origin isn't apostolic, because it is.

Rome is, the Vatican isn't.

 

[ialmisry]

IOW, you were too clever by half. And if you are in communion with the Vatican and not Rome's Orthdoox bishop

you are not in communion with the Roman see of SS. Peter and Paul, Linus, Clement....

If by "the Vatican" you mean the Great Apostolic See of His Holiness Benedict XVI then yes, I am in communion with the Roman See because it and the See of Rome are one and the same.

The Vatican isn't an Apostolic See.

Also, your communion does not have a Bishop of Rome...nice try though.

His Grace +Siluan, bishop of Italy of the Romanian Orthodox Diocese of Italy seated [that is what see means] at Rome.

I also call my Priest father and everyone that I know calls their priests father. The Pope is often called "Holy Father" or "His Holiness."

And THAT is what is being banned by Mat. 23:9.

Alluding to what Peter J said...stop calling your Ecumenical Patriarch "His All Holiness" then because it is hypocritical to do so if you consider "Holy Father" and "His Holiness" terms that are banned by Scripture.

HAH hasn't (yet at least officially, should he dare, it would be a different story) arrogated the title to his exclusive use (the Pope of Alexandria, the original Pope, has it as well for instance), unlike your supreme pontiff. So not hypocritical at all.

Nice try though.

 

[ialmisry]

Sometimes you actually make it too easy ...

I also call my Priest father and everyone that I know calls their priests father. The Pope is often called "Holy Father" or "His Holiness."

And THAT is what is being banned by Mat. 23:9.

So are we to believe that it's alright to call someone "Your All Holiness" and "Father", yet it's not alright to say "Holy Father"?

You don't say "Holy Father." You say "the Holy Father."  Your supreme pontiff has arrogated the title, excluding its use by others, e.g. his three "patriarchs of Alexandria," who couldn't use the traditional title of the See: "Pope."

 

[deusveritasest]

It is not so much that Rome has lost it's lineage of apostolic succession but rather it has lost grace of apostolic succession by abandonment of the apostolic faith. The Orthodox Church can trace its externals and internals (doctrines, the Gospel) to the 1st century Church. For example St. Augustine, whom did not know Greek and was raised Gnostic and later converted to Christianity, and because he was unable to read Greek and read the Fathers in Greek nor read the New Testament in its original Greek, which he used a bad Latin translation of the Bible and had known Gnosticism for most of his life; certain ideas developed in Augustine's thought which were very harmful to the later development of the Western Church. Among these are original sin, predestination, irresistible grace and the filiqoue which eventually worked its way into Western thought and ultimately the bad will and further distortion by some men the Western Church separated from the Orthodox Church. And other further divisions can be expounded upon by the likes of St Jerome who I've heard argued did more harm than Augustine did.

It's not that the Roman church didn't exist in the 1st century, it is rather that the Roman church taught, preached, and proclaimed the Orthodox Christian understanding of the Gospel rather than the contemporary Roman Catholic understanding of the Gospel. To put it simply Rome abandoned the Fathers and replaced them with the Scholastics, that's why the modern Roman Catholic church cannot be traced to the 1st century.

Depends on what you mean by "the Orthodox Church".

Are you implying it is the Zoroastrian Church? 

Oh goodness gracious. Does that seem like me? Just because I respect Zoroaster does not mean I am a Zoroastrian. No, I mean the same thing I would have before, that being the Oriental Orthodox Church.

 

[deusveritasest]

Also, your communion does not have a Bishop of Rome...nice try though.

And your communion does not have a Bishop of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria or (drumroll please), the Holy Mother Church of all Christendom, Holy Zion, Jerusalem and the three Palestines.  That would be...the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem.   Orthodoxy's Patriarchate in these Sees traces all the way back to the Apostles.  Rome's, however, was created over a thousand years later as an alternative to those who actually had the Apostolic Succession in these Sees, the Orthodox Bishops.  

Uhh...nice try. Our Holy Apostolic See was founded Ss. Peter and Paul, so don't try to claim Rome's origin isn't apostolic, because it is.

The Apostolic Church of Rome had Apostolic origins but your church does not (at least not in the mystical sense of Apostolic Succession).

 

[deusveritasest]

It is not so much that Rome has lost it's lineage of apostolic succession but rather it has lost grace of apostolic succession by abandonment of the apostolic faith.

But that has the implication of losing the lineage of Christian Overseer of the Church of Rome. Pope Benedict XVI is not the successor Pope Saint Clement I in the same sense as HH Pope Shenouda III is the successor of Pope Saint Cyril I.

It's not that the Roman church didn't exist in the 1st century,

What commonly passes as the Roman Church today did not exist in the 1st century.

 

[ialmisry]

It is not so much that Rome has lost it's lineage of apostolic succession but rather it has lost grace of apostolic succession by abandonment of the apostolic faith. The Orthodox Church can trace its externals and internals (doctrines, the Gospel) to the 1st century Church.

You use the terminology of abandonment of the apostolic faith and you claim that Roman Catholicism is guilty of this. However, is it not true that using the same type of reasoning, a person could conceivably argue that the Eastern Orthodox Church is guilty of this also? Here are some examples as to how someone might argue that there is  a difference between the apostolic faith and the Eastern Orthodox teaching  of today:
1. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. But the Orthodox Church allows divorce.

So does the Vatican, although it smears it with Corban and calls it "annullment."  And divorce for adultry, for instance, did exist in the early Church, not only in patristic literary discussions, but surviving legal records in Egypt.

I'll give you that many Orthodox have become lax in applying the rule (but the Vatican is hardly the party to point that mote out to us), but bad pastoral practice is also nothing new.

2. Women are allowed to attend Church services with their heads uncovered, which is contrary to the apostolic faith.

This is quite an obsession with you. Why?

It has also been pointed out to you, repeatedly, that it remains overwhelmingly the practice, for whatever reason, in the Orthodox world.

Btw, the claim can be made that it is apostolic practice. The case that it is apostolic faith cannot be sustained.

3. Call no man Father.  This was the case in apostolic times, but is not true today.

Spiritual fathers have always been called fathers, so I don't know where, except from Protestant tracts, you are getting this.

The insistence of the Vatican that its bishop alone be called "Father," i.e. "pope," is a novelty.

4. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. However, now it is taught that a rich Orthodox man, who gives to the Church, may enter heaven.

We don't have indulgences, so I don't know where you are getting this.

5. Unless you hate your mother, father, your wife and your children, you cannot be a disciple of Christ. But today it is taught that you can be an Orthodox priest and love your mother, love your father, love your wife and love your children.

Now you are really grasping at straws.  Christ loved His mother, brothers and sisters, and they were there at Pentecost.  St. Peter loved his wife and daugher, as St. Clement tells us.

Hello:
1. So you do agree that the Orthodox Church has abandoned the teaching: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” BTW, I do think that the Roman Church has also abandoned this teaching, since they allow easy annulments at least in the USA.

No, the historical record shows the practice of old was what the Orthodox preach. (whether they all follow it is another matter, but they all pay lip service to it, as the canons won't let them do otherwise.

2. I don’t regard this as an obsession,

you bring it up any chance you can, and many you can't.

but as an obvious example of how the Orthodox Churhch has abandoned the apostolic teaching as given by St. Paul on this matter. The question I was considering was whether the apostolic  teaching has been abandoned ONLY by the Roman Church. But it has been abandoned by both the Roman Church and by many of the Orthodox Churches in the USA.

Even if every single Orthodox woman in the USA "abandoned" the practice, that still wouldn't tell you a thing about the vast majority of Orthodox women today.

Odd if it was so important that Christ never aludes to it, and St. Paul only mentions it once.

3. Where did I get this?: Matthew 23:9 The teaching in Apostolic times: “And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.”

For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you. I Cor. 4:15. Btw. Corinthians predates Matthew.

The Apostles refered to their disciples and flock as their "children" (Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).

4. Where am I getting this?: The teaching in apostolic times: Mark 10:25: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Also Matthew 19:24, Luke 18:25.

Yes, you quote that before.  What you didn't cite was an Orthodox authority "that a rich Orthodox man, who gives to the Church, may enter heaven." Btw, the quotes you have say it is hard. They do not say it is impossible.

5. Here is the teaching in apostolic times: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.” Has not the Orthodox Church abandoned this teaching since Orthodox priests can be a disciple of Christ while he loves his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life.

I Timothy 3: 2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; 5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's church?

The question I was looking at here is whether or not the apostolic teachings have changed ONLY in the Roman Church.

No, they have changed in the Nestorian and of course the Protestant churches as well.

An argument can be made that these teachings of apostolic times  have  changed in the Orthodox Church as well.

not with justification it can't. Your number 5, for instance, is EXACTLY today among the Orthodox as it was among the Apostles.  I suspect the Vatican's refusal to ordain married men, as the Apostles did and the Orthdoox do, has skewed your viewpoint.

 

[PJ]

I also call my Priest father and everyone that I know calls their priests father. The Pope is often called "Holy Father" or "His Holiness."

And THAT is what is being banned by Mat. 23:9.

HAH hasn't (yet at least officially, should he dare, it would be a different story) arrogated the title to his exclusive use (the Pope of Alexandria, the original Pope, has it as well for instance), unlike your supreme pontiff. So not hypocritical at all.

Alright, that makes your meaning clear. (It would have saved time if you'd said what you meant the first time; but we Catholics are a generous sort, as I'm sure you know.  :angel

 

[PJ]

Also, your communion does not have a Bishop of Rome...nice try though.

And your communion does not have a Bishop of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria or (drumroll please), the Holy Mother Church of all Christendom, Holy Zion, Jerusalem and the three Palestines.  That would be...the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem.   Orthodoxy's Patriarchate in these Sees traces all the way back to the Apostles.  Rome's, however, was created over a thousand years later as an alternative to those who actually had the Apostolic Succession in these Sees, the Orthodox Bishops.  

Are you claiming that we don't have a Bishop of Jerusalem? Or that the Latin Bishop of Jerusalem shouldn't have the title "Patriarch"?

If the latter, the Melkites have been saying that for some time now.

 

[Wyatt]

Also, your communion does not have a Bishop of Rome...nice try though.

And your communion does not have a Bishop of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria or (drumroll please), the Holy Mother Church of all Christendom, Holy Zion, Jerusalem and the three Palestines.  That would be...the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem.   Orthodoxy's Patriarchate in these Sees traces all the way back to the Apostles.  Rome's, however, was created over a thousand years later as an alternative to those who actually had the Apostolic Succession in these Sees, the Orthodox Bishops.  

Uhh...nice try. Our Holy Apostolic See was founded Ss. Peter and Paul, so don't try to claim Rome's origin isn't apostolic, because it is.

The Apostolic Church of Rome had Apostolic origins but your church does not (at least not in the mystical sense of Apostolic Succession).

We are the same Church.

 

[Wyatt]

Sometimes you actually make it too easy ...

I also call my Priest father and everyone that I know calls their priests father. The Pope is often called "Holy Father" or "His Holiness."

And THAT is what is being banned by Mat. 23:9.

So are we to believe that it's alright to call someone "Your All Holiness" and "Father", yet it's not alright to say "Holy Father"?

You don't say "Holy Father." You say "the Holy Father."  Your supreme pontiff has arrogated the title, excluding its use by others, e.g. his three "patriarchs of Alexandria," who couldn't use the traditional title of the See: "Pope."

I sincerely doubt that Christ was talking about the Popes of Rome in the "call no man father" passage...but if he was and we are going to take it literally and apply it to this situation (the clergy) why not take it to its logical conclusion and stop with the honorific titles for hierarchs in your church as well? And why stop there? Maybe we should stop calling all Priests father as well, or perhaps even our biological father. One can interpret Scripture in a number of ways. Doesn't mean it is correct.

 

[FatherHLL]

Also, your communion does not have a Bishop of Rome...nice try though.

And your communion does not have a Bishop of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria or (drumroll please), the Holy Mother Church of all Christendom, Holy Zion, Jerusalem and the three Palestines.  That would be...the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem.   Orthodoxy's Patriarchate in these Sees traces all the way back to the Apostles.  Rome's, however, was created over a thousand years later as an alternative to those who actually had the Apostolic Succession in these Sees, the Orthodox Bishops. 

Uhh...nice try. Our Holy Apostolic See was founded Ss. Peter and Paul, so don't try to claim Rome's origin isn't apostolic, because it is.

I was referring to Rome's bishop of Jerusalem (originating during the crusades), not Rome's bishop of Rome. 

 

[Wyatt]

Also, your communion does not have a Bishop of Rome...nice try though.

And your communion does not have a Bishop of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria or (drumroll please), the Holy Mother Church of all Christendom, Holy Zion, Jerusalem and the three Palestines.  That would be...the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem.   Orthodoxy's Patriarchate in these Sees traces all the way back to the Apostles.  Rome's, however, was created over a thousand years later as an alternative to those who actually had the Apostolic Succession in these Sees, the Orthodox Bishops. 

Uhh...nice try. Our Holy Apostolic See was founded Ss. Peter and Paul, so don't try to claim Rome's origin isn't apostolic, because it is.

I was referring to Rome's bishop of Jerusalem (originating during the crusades), not Rome's bishop of Rome. 

Presumably our Patriarch of Jerusalem was ordained by one of our Bishops, therefore he did have Apostolic Succession as well.

 

[ialmisry]

Also, your communion does not have a Bishop of Rome...nice try though.

And your communion does not have a Bishop of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria or (drumroll please), the Holy Mother Church of all Christendom, Holy Zion, Jerusalem and the three Palestines.  That would be...the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem.   Orthodoxy's Patriarchate in these Sees traces all the way back to the Apostles.  Rome's, however, was created over a thousand years later as an alternative to those who actually had the Apostolic Succession in these Sees, the Orthodox Bishops. 

Uhh...nice try. Our Holy Apostolic See was founded Ss. Peter and Paul, so don't try to claim Rome's origin isn't apostolic, because it is.

I was referring to Rome's bishop of Jerusalem (originating during the crusades), not Rome's bishop of Rome. 

Presumably our Patriarch of Jerusalem was ordained by one of our Bishops, therefore he did have Apostolic Succession as well.

Not as the Apostles defined it.

 

[ialmisry]

Sometimes you actually make it too easy ...

I also call my Priest father and everyone that I know calls their priests father. The Pope is often called "Holy Father" or "His Holiness."

And THAT is what is being banned by Mat. 23:9.

So are we to believe that it's alright to call someone "Your All Holiness" and "Father", yet it's not alright to say "Holy Father"?

You don't say "Holy Father." You say "the Holy Father."  Your supreme pontiff has arrogated the title, excluding its use by others, e.g. his three "patriarchs of Alexandria," who couldn't use the traditional title of the See: "Pope."

I sincerely doubt that Christ was talking about the Popes of Rome in the "call no man father" passage...but if he was and we are going to take it literally and apply it to this situation (the clergy) why not take it to its logical conclusion and stop with the honorific titles for hierarchs in your church as well?

Because they do not arrogate titles to their exclusive use, particularly titles that belong to other sees.

And why stop there? Maybe we should stop calling all Priests father as well, or perhaps even our biological father.

Sooo if we call our human father "father," we have to accept your supreme pontiff's claim to "have the place on God on earth." OK. :

One can interpret Scripture in a number of ways. Doesn't mean it is correct.

Your "magisterium" is a collossal demonstration of that.