Christianity
1
I don't care about what you've seen or not seen. These type of liturgies have become very common in Catholic Churches after Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. However, it is definitely a wrong form of worship. We have been shown through Church tradition, going all the way back to the Old Testament, how to properly worship God. You don't even mention the clown mass, by the way, which was done in the basilica of Buenos Aires, the second largest in the world. It is absolutely a mockery. Your accusations of Phariseeism are completely idiotic, too, seeing as Christ himself said the Pharisees are right in their teachings (Mat 23: 2-7). You, on the other hand, are of the spirit of the Saducees.Originally Posted by АКСИС
The reason Jesus would say, "...sy ei Petros kai epi tautē tē petra...", to quote the Greek, is because he's making a wordplay. It escapes you that the Bible frequently uses the rock symbolism to refer to Christ and Christians. Even St. Peter himself refers to CHRIST as the stone and to all Christian believers as the stones that make up the church structure in Peter 2: 1-8. This harkens back to the Old Testament, because Peter is quoting Isaiah 2: 16-17. And even if you were right in identifying the stone with St. Peter alone—which you are not, it's a massive misunderstanding—it would still not lead us to Papal Infallibility or some special 'succession of rockness'.
It also escapes you that somehow all the fathers, in your eyes, professed Papism, and yet in the early Church you never see anything even vaguely similar to what the Vatican is today. The reason why is because you impose heretical Papist beliefs on things you read from different fathers. That's why you mine for quotes without any regard if 1. if they are actually saying what you assume they say and 2. if they are taken out of context.
It also completely ignores what actually was the case throughout history, where there wasn't only one apostolic see, that of Peter, but several apostolic sees, where that of Rome was indeed given a position as first among equals, but not more, and most certainly not any heinous concept such as papal infallibility. It was a position of respect before anything else. This is why, by the way, St. Paul can REBUKE St. Peter. You know, because St. Peter thought at some point, and in a fashion which is condemned in the Bible, that Gentiles couldn't follow Christ without first converting to Judaism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will proceed to show you how you quote Church fathers and Saints wrongly. I will also quote other saints and church fathers to show how massively wrong and heretical your Papism is.
First I will quote St. Gregory the Dialogist, a bishop of Rome, i.e. a pope, "I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren."
Either the greatest of all the bishops of Rome, a great saint and a Church Father was contradicting himself and the Council of Chalcedon or he is maintaining what was always the Orthodox position that the bishop of Rome is first among equals, i.e., honoured but not more important in any way. A pope makes the most harsh possible condemnation of precisely the Papist position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You quote St. Cyprian as saying, ""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." but Cyprian never actually says this. Maybe you can perform some Papist alchemy like the Papist Church of the Renaissance on Cyprian's Epistle to Cornelius (54:9-14 actually, not 59:14). It isn't even vaguely similar to your misquote and suggests nothing similar to your Papist heresy. Your quote even uses ahistorical Papist terminology like sacerdotal unity!
If you weren't a Papist idiot mining for quotes and misquotes fitting your heresy, you would have known that St. Cyprian DENIED Papism in the Seventh Council of Carthage: "For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another." That you are just a fool who doesn't understand anything is also understandable along by the very fact that you quote St. Cyprian twice and separately as if there were two separate Cyprians, not knowing that it's the same person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You quote Origen's commentary on Matthew 16, but you only quote a small part of it out of context and not the whole which completely rejects Papism, too: "... And if we too have said like Peter, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, You are Peter, etc. Matthew 16:18 For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God." (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (book XII))
Here he says precisely what I had said! He continues in the same trajectory, showing you are simply misquoting and imposing your idiotic heresy on Origen's commentary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your quote of Optatus is completely off point. He was arguing against the Donatists and their setting up of a bishopric in Rome. What he is saying is that only the See of Peter, the Bishopric of Rome, is legitimate, apostolic—in the West!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You quote St. Irenaeus, who in fact isn't making the usual Papist claims in that quote. Even without any context to that quote it is completely in line with what the Orthodox believe. And notice he's not making the usual Papist claims about St. Peter being the sole foundation of the church. You idiot—he's saying St. Peter and St. Paul founded the Church of Rome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, you quote St. Augustine. However, St. Augustine in fact held the position I, the Church Fathers and even St. Paul and St. Peter have propounded, which is that Christ is the rock and that through our confession of Christ we also become the rocks that form the Church. Even what you quote him as saying is nothing like the Papist position.
And something I should comment before I start showing you some of the things St. Augustine said is that St. Augustine is divided into early Augustine and later Augustine because St. Augustine later on wrote a book called "The Retractions" where he rejects much of what he had earlier argued, including what you quoted. The same is true for Origen, just in reverse. Later Origen was condemned for espousing heresy, which is also why he isn't a saint.
Here St. Augustine retracts his former beliefs on St. Peter being the rock: "In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, Chapter 20, p. 151)
The very fact that St. Augustine finally says that it is up to the reader to decide which of the two opinions is more likely also shows definitely that it wasn't a dogma in his time like it is today with the Papist Church. This is what you consistently see throughout Church history, until about the Schism of 1054 (not really, but it's a nice date to make this more simple than it is).
Let me quote St. Augustine, again, by the way, "For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church."
One must wonder if the first part doesn't tie in with Mark 8:33. It really does seem so given the historical developments of Papism and especially its modern humanistic pretenses.
Bookmarks