A fost Sfantul Apostol Petru episcop in Roma?

[Mihnea Dragomir]

Extrase din ceea ce spun Sfinţii Părinţi apuseni şi răsăriteni despre faptul că scaunul Romei a fost mereu văzut drept scaunul lui Petru avem aici: http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.c...llibility.html

Din păcate, observăm azi cât de des ortodocşii rejectează învăţătura Sfinţilor Părinţi. De fapt, dacă fac astfel cu cele spuse de însuşi Domnul nostru în faţa colegiului apostolilor, zicând că Isus nu a vrut să spună ceea ce a spus, de ce ar face altfel cu cele spuse de Maxim Mărturisitorul, de Teodor Studitul ori de alţi sfinţi catolici ?

[Danut7]

În prealabil postat de Mihnea Dragomir

Extrase din ceea ce spun Sfinţii Părinţi apuseni şi răsăriteni despre faptul că scaunul Romei a fost mereu văzut drept scaunul lui Petru avem aici: http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.c...llibility.html

Din păcate, observăm azi cât de des ortodocşii rejectează învăţătura Sfinţilor Părinţi. De fapt, dacă fac astfel cu cele spuse de însuşi Domnul nostru în faţa colegiului apostolilor, zicând că Isus nu a vrut să spună ceea ce a spus, de ce ar face altfel cu cele spuse de Maxim Mărturisitorul, de Teodor Studitul ori de alţi sfinţi catolici ?

Se pare ca nu toti credeau asa cum zici tu, ca scaunul lui Petru se afla numai la Roma.

Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair. (Scrisoarea Sf.Grigorie cel Mare catre Eulogius episcopul Alexandriei din Cartea a VII - a Scrisoarea nr 40 : http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm )

[Danut7]

As John Meyendorff explained:

A very clear patristic tradition sees the succession of Peter in the episcopal ministry. The doctrine of St Cyprian of Carthage on the “See of Peter” being present in every local Church, and not only in Rome, is well-known. It is also found in the East, among people who certainly never read the De unitate ecclesia of Cyprian, but who share its main idea, thus witnessing to it as part of the catholic tradition of the Church. St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, affirms that Christ “through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of the heavenly honors,” and the author of the Areopagitica, when speaking of the “hierarchs” of the Church, refers immediately to the image of St Peter. A careful analysis of ecclesiastical literature both Eastern and Western, of the first millennium, including such documents as the lives of the saint, would certainly show that this tradition was a persistent one; and indeed it belongs to the essence of Christian ecclesiology to consider any local bishop to be the teacher of his flock and therefore to fulfill sacramentally, through apostolic succession, the office of the first true believer, Peter... There exists, however, another succession, equally recognized by Byzantine theologians, but only on the level of the analogy existing between the apostolic college and the episcopal college, this second succession being determined by the need for ecclesiastical order. Its limits are determined by the Councils, and - in the Byzantine practice – by the “very pious emperors.”
—The Primacy of Peter, p. 89

St.Cyprian On the Unity of the Church chp. 4-5 :

Chapter 4

If anyone considers and examines these things, there is no need of a lengthy discussion and arguments. Proof for faith is easy in a brief statement of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter: 'I say to thee,' He says, 'thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.' Upon him, being one, He builds His Church, and although after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the Apostles, and says: 'As the Father has sent me, I also send you. Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be forgiven him; if you retain the sins of anyone, they will be retained,' yet that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one. Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power, but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one. This one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Canticle of Canticles designates in the person of the Lord and says: 'One is my dove, my perfect one is but one, she is the only one of her mother, the chosen one of her that bore her.' Does he who does not hold this unity think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against the Church and resists her think that he is in the Church, when too the blessed Apostle Paul teaches this same thing and sets forth the sacrament of unity saying: 'One body and one Spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God'?

Chapter 5

This unity we ought to hold firmly and defend, especially we bishops who watch over the Church, that we may prove that also the episcopate itself is one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by lying; let no one corrupt the faith by a perfidious prevarication of the truth. The episcopate is one, the parts of which are held together by the individual bishops. The Church is one which with increasing fecundity extend far and wide into the multitude, just as the rays of the sun are many but the light is one, and the branches of the tree are many but the strength is one founded in its tenacious root, and, when many streams flow from one source, although a multiplicity of waters seems to have been diffused from the abundance of the overflowing supply nevertheless unity is preserved in their origin. Take away a ray of light from the body of the sun, its unity does not take on any division of its light; break a branch from a tree, the branch thus broken will not be able to bud; cut off a stream from its source, the stream thus cut off dries up. Thus too the Church bathed in the light of the Lord projects its rays over the whole world, yet there is one light which is diffused everywhere, and the unity of the body is not separated. She extends her branches over the whole earth in fruitful abundance; she extends her richly flowing streams far and wide; yet her head is one, and her source is one, and she is the one mother copious in the results of her fruitfulness. By her womb we are born; by her milk we are nourished; by her spirit we are animated. http://orthodoxmetropolisportland.or...ic_church.html


Pope St. Gregory:
“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a God, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, p. 226).

Pope St. Gregory to the Pope of Alexandria:
“Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, ‘as you have commanded me.’ I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity” (Ibid., p. 227).

[Danut7]

si cele mai dureroase citate..

St. John Chrysostom, 53rd Homily on St. Matthew:
"The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession."



St. Augustine, Retractions, 13th Sermon:
"Christ said to Peter... I will build thee upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee. Those who wished to be built
among men said, 'I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas' -
however, those who did not wish to be built upon Peter but upon
the Rock say, I am of Jesus Christ."

St. Ambrose ("On the Incarnation"): "Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavor then, thyself to be a rock - thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock."

Cata vreme tu episcope esti piatra (ai credinta ortodoxa) esti parte din Biserica.. Biserica a fost zidita pe ortodoxie.. Roma e heterodoxa, Roma a picat.

[Erethorn]

În prealabil postat de Danut7

Se pare ca nu toti credeau asa cum zici tu, ca scaunul lui Petru se afla numai la Roma.

De unde se naste problema: unii credeau asa, ceilalti credeau altfel. Care aveau dreptate ?

"Apologetica" unor asa zis ortodocsi suna cam asa: "noi dovedim adevarul ortodoxiei cu Sfintii Parinti, pentru ca Sfintii Parinti au intotdeauna dreptate, cu exceptia cazurilor cand Sfintii Parinti dau dreptate catolicilor, caci atunci nu au dreptate".

[Danut7]

În prealabil postat de Erethorn

De unde se naste problema: unii credeau asa, ceilalti credeau altfel. Care aveau dreptate ?

"Apologetica" unor asa zis ortodocsi suna cam asa: "noi dovedim adevarul ortodoxiei cu Sfintii Parinti, pentru ca Sfintii Parinti au intotdeauna dreptate, cu exceptia cazurilor cand Sfintii Parinti dau dreptate catolicilor, caci atunci nu au dreptate".

cam toti credeau cum credem noi.. singura problema e lipsa cadrului si contrafacerile in cazul unor citate produse de catolici..

În prealabil postat de Mihnea Dragomir

Extrase din ceea ce spun Sfinţii Părinţi apuseni şi răsăriteni despre faptul că scaunul Romei a fost mereu văzut drept scaunul lui Petru avem aici: http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.c...llibility.html

Din păcate, observăm azi cât de des ortodocşii rejectează învăţătura Sfinţilor Părinţi. De fapt, dacă fac astfel cu cele spuse de însuşi Domnul nostru în faţa colegiului apostolilor, zicând că Isus nu a vrut să spună ceea ce a spus, de ce ar face altfel cu cele spuse de Maxim Mărturisitorul, de Teodor Studitul ori de alţi sfinţi catolici ?

Sa le spunem sfinti universali, ca sa nu creem confuzie.

[catalin2]

În prealabil postat de Mihnea Dragomir

Extrase din ceea ce spun Sfinţii Părinţi apuseni şi răsăriteni despre faptul că scaunul Romei a fost mereu văzut drept scaunul lui Petru avem aici: http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.c...llibility.html

Stim de la subiectul cu Filioque ca doctor-faustus (de vrednica pomenire, ca vad ca a fost banat) a aratat ca unele citate din Sfintii parinti erau aranjate de catolici.
Chiar intr-un mesaj mai sus spuneam ca presupusele scrieri ale Episcopului Romei Clement (sfant) erau falsuri din decretele pseudo-isidoriene. Nu stiu daca citatul acesta face parte din acele scrieri, dar nu are importanta, pentru ca nici nu se refera la vreun primat.

Marea majoritate sunt citate din Patriarhi ai Romei (papi), care daca nu fac parte din acele decrete false oricum nu au relevanta in discutie, fiind pareri subiective. Finalul cuprinde sinodul din 869, declarat nul de catre Papa Ioan si sinodul din 879. Stim ca sinodul din 869 e singurul in care s-a acceptat ceva din primat.
Sfantul Maxim stim ce spunea in arhicunoscuta scrisoare, nu are nicio legatura cu primatul. Si nici aici nu prea are, de fapt aproape toate citatele nu spun de un primat, ci lauda episcopul Romei si scaunul Romei, intemeiat de cei doi sfinti Apostoli, Petri si Pavel (cum scrie si in citatul din Sfantul Iustin). Stim ca unii Episcopi romani au venit cu ideea unui primat petrin (chiar Sf. Papa Leon), dar nimeni nu baga in seama ideea asta, ba chiar s-a luat atitudine la unele sinoade.