Papalitatea

[eodor nastasa]

În prealabil postat de Mihnea Dragomir

Credeţi ori nu credeţi că sfinţii apostoli Petru, Paul, Ioan, Iacob, Luca, etc au fost infailibili când au scris Evangheliile şi Epistolele lor ? Credeţi sau nu că acestea sunt lipsite de eroare (infailibile). Dacă nu credeţi, ci dimpotrivă, susţineţi că documentele acestor sfinţi (Evanghelii, relatările Faptelor lor, Scrisorile şi Revelaţia) conţin erori, care sunt acelea şi în baza cărei autorităţi le consideraţi astfel ?

Apostolii cu pricina au fost oameni(deci in mod implicit, nu au fost infailibili), folositi de Divinitate ca si receptori/transcriptori, respectivii nu au scris(de capul lor ori de la ei putere), ci, au transcris/pus pe suport solid Cuvantul lui Dumnezeu(singurul care este infailibil).
Stiloul/reportofonul/pana de gasca/hartia/papirusul nu pot fi infailibile, informatia continuta de acestea, insa, da, poate fi infailibila, daca are ca si sursa Divinitatea insasi.

[kesarion_breb]

În prealabil postat de Mihnea Dragomir

Credeţi ori nu credeţi că sfinţii apostoli Petru, Paul, Ioan, Iacob, Luca, etc au fost infailibili când au scris Evangheliile şi Epistolele lor ? Credeţi sau nu că acestea sunt lipsite de eroare (infailibile). Dacă nu credeţi, ci dimpotrivă, susţineţi că documentele acestor sfinţi (Evanghelii, relatările Faptelor lor, Scrisorile şi Revelaţia) conţin erori, care sunt acelea şi în baza cărei autorităţi le consideraţi astfel ?

Intr-un final ati reusit sa va dati seama ca infailibilitatea nu este a unui singur om, ci a comunitatii apostolice in intregul ei, iar apoi a Bisericii in ansamblul ei !!!

[catalin_]

În prealabil postat de Mihnea Dragomir

Credeţi ori nu credeţi că sfinţii apostoli Petru, Paul, Ioan, Iacob, Luca, etc au fost infailibili când au scris Evangheliile şi Epistolele lor ? Credeţi sau nu că acestea sunt lipsite de eroare (infailibile). Dacă nu credeţi, ci dimpotrivă, susţineţi că documentele acestor sfinţi (Evanghelii, relatările Faptelor lor, Scrisorile şi Revelaţia) conţin erori, care sunt acelea şi în baza cărei autorităţi le consideraţi astfel ?

si ce treaba are papa cu Apostolii?Ce invatatura ,epistola,.evanghelie, traditie ..........il face pe papa infailibil? Hai ca sunteti chiar mai penibili ca sectantii!!!

În prealabil postat de catalin_

si ce treaba are papa cu Apostolii?Ce invatatura ,epistola,.evanghelie, traditie ..........il face pe papa infailibil? Hai ca sunteti chiar mai penibili ca sectantii!!!

Catolicii trebuie sa creada in ceea ce le spune papa. Nu e treaba noastra, a ortodocsilor.

[catalin_]

În prealabil postat de Miha-anca

Catolicii trebuie sa creada in ceea ce le spune papa. Nu e treaba noastra, a ortodocsilor.

da. ai dreptate ! Dar cand discutia e intre catolici. Ei n-au decat sa creada ce vor dar sa n-o spuna ortodocsilor. Ori esti ecumenist ori "ortostramb".

[TreciLaRugaciune]

Nu ascultati sfaturile catolicilor. Voi nu aveti ce invata de la ei, ci doar ei de la noi. Nu aveti voie sa vorbiti cu sectari, ia citit ce canon se da pentru acest lucru. Incercati sa-i indreptati odata maxim de doua ori si atat in rest nu mai puteti face nimic pentru ei decat sa va rugati Domnului sa ii intoarca la adevarata credinta. Spunteti nu ecumenismului.

[don Alex]

Rivalitatea dintre cultura greaca si cea latina a fost recunoscuta de-a lungul timpului. Se cunoaste ca, desi ortodoxia pe site-ul patriarhiei ecumenice de la Constantinopol afiseaza o lista a Patriarhilor incepand cu Sf. Andrei, orasul Constatinopol sau cetatea lai Constantin exista, ca atare dupa AD 300. In consecinta, o egalitate intre Roma si Constantinopol nu poate exista, asa cum se vede in timpurile noastre o intentia a Patriarhiei Moscovei de intaitate asupra celorlalte patriarhate ortodoxe. Deci, o egalitate intre patriarhatele apostolice poate exista, dar cum Patriarhia Romei (lasind la o parte pe Sf. Petru) este singura care a reusit sa duca la indeplinire indemnul Mantuitorului care isi trimite apostoli in lumea intreaga pentru a face ucenici (crestini) a obtinut un drept superior asupra celorlalte Patriarhate Apostolice care sunt Ierusalim, Antiohia, Alexandria si Roma. Daca le analizam pe fiecare remarcam ca Roma este singura care a reustit o organizare extraordinara. Sa ne imaginam ce s-ar fi intamplat daca Roma nu ar fi luat atitudine impotriva turcilor de a cuceri Europa si nu ar fi fost victoria din 7 octombrie 1571 de la Lepanto. Poate ca Catedrala Sf. Petru ar fi avut aceiasi soarta cu Catedrala Sf.Sofia din Constantinopol.
Pe de alta parte, este interesant, cum se face ca Sinoadele primului mileniu cand Biserica era nedespartita au avut loc in zona de influenta a Bisericii Orientale (Ortodoxe azi) si nu in cea a Bisericii Occidentale ( Catolice azi). Un raspuns poate fi acela ca un Sinod nu este organizat decat pentru a rezolva anumite probleme, ceea ce denota ca partea rasariteana a Bisericii Crestine avea probleme. Si atunci , ca la un meci de fotbal este nevoie de un arbitru, a aparut expresia #Roma locuta est, causa finita est".
Asa numiti "pocaiti" vin deseori cu intrebarea: "scrie in Biblie?". iar daca nu scrie inseamna ca nu este asa. Orodocsi sunt primi care recunosc o mare gresala in acel comportament.
Deci, este nevoie sau nu de Papalitate?
Pesonal am avut minunatul prilerj de "a da mana" ca Papa Ioan Paul al II-lea. Marturisesc ca nu m-am simtit deloc o persoana inferioara in acel moment. Nu emana deloc autoritate, Dimpotriva, am simtit o strangere de mana prietenoasa si parinteasca.
La Roma in anul 686 parca a fost un papa cu numele de Conone. Nu sunt multe date despre el, dar se pare ca era din Tracia, sau mai mult chiar, din zona Dobrogei. Daca acest lucru este adevarat, atunci pentru noi, romanii ar ytrebuii sa fie un prilej de bucurie extraordinara, si sa nu ne mai lasam dominati de mentalitatea slavo-greaca. Ne mandrim cu Muntele Athos, desi este interesant ca noi nu avem nici o manastire romanesca din cele 20 cate sunt acolo. 17 grecesti, 1 rusa, 1 sarba, 1 bulgara iar romani doar Schitul Podromul. Desi, asa cum se poate afla pe site-ul Multelui Athos, domnitorii romani au renovat, recladit, reparat multe dintre aceste manastiri. Ba mai mult, Romania a avut numeroase manastiri inchinate Muntelui Athos (isi trimiteau averile acolo)
Personal, nu pot sa inteleg de ce romanii sunt atat de potrivinici papalitatii.
In conflictul cu greco catolicii este invocata implicarea gen. Bukov. O simpla cautare pe internet, ne arata ca acest gen. a fost in Transilvania dupa 1760, pe cand Unirea cu Roma s-a facut prin 1700. S-a afirmat ca acest general a distrus mii de bisericii si manastiri atunci. Recent am descoperit in zona Beiusului (BH) circa zece biserici ortodoxe de lemn construite intre 1700 si 1750. Am o nedumerire. Cum se face ca aceste bisericii ortodoxe
din lemn care foarte usor puteau fi aprinse, acel general daca era atat de pornit impotriva ortodoxiei, nu le-a dat foc?
Daca poporul roman a fost asuprit de lungul timpului, cu siguranta acest lucru nu a venit din partea papalitatii. Sa ne reamintim de un fapt recent. A trebuit sa vina la noi Papa Ioan Paul al II-lea ca sa ne reaminteasca de doi mari sfintii romanii recunoscutii de toata biserica catolica : Sf Ioan Cassianul (http://www.univ-ovidius.ro/btcassian...an_romanul.htm) si Sfantul Dionisie Exiguul care a activat la Roma sub 10 papi (http://www.crestinortodox.ro/sfinti/...uul-73100.html)
Infailibilitatea Papei nu se refera la "a fi fara de pacat" ci la DREPTUL PAPEI DE A PROMULGA UN ADEVAR DE CREDINTA "ex catedra" adica de la altarul Sf. Petru.
Propun administratorului acestui forum sa posteze Crezul in limba greaca.

[IonelS]

Noi aici putem aduce argumente pro sau contra cat cuprinde...Adevarul este ca o convingere gresita se plateste...si pt aceasta tb sa asteptam ! Timpul le va cerne pe toate !

[Danut7]

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692)

[Danut7]

St. Irenaeus
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 33 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
The Little Labyrinth
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 53).
Cyprian of Carthage
"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. . . . � [Matt. 16:18]. 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. . . . If someone [today] 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; first edition [A.D. 251]).
"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him�when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter�s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 39�10 [A.D. 312]).
Pope Julius I
"[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20�35).
Council of Sardica
"[i]f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).
Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head�that is why he is also called Cephas [�Rock�]�of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).
Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: �You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven� [Matt. 16:18�19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).