Who Started the Great Schism?

[concretecamper]

that is a short read, but is missing a lot of important history especially if claiming it’s “non-fiction.”

Yes, the fiction parts?

There is no "but". I said it's a short read, that doesn't make it not non-fiction.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes, the fiction parts?

There is no "but". I said it's a short read, that doesn't make it not non-fiction.

no, there is a “but.” when you leave out important stuff, you remove context. to say that link is accurate to history is like saying Rings of Power is faithful to Tolkien.

 

[WarriorAngel]

and even if He did, nowhere does He mention Rome.

All of Church history including St Clement 1 the chair is in Rome. I do not do quotes anymore.
But throughout...

 

[WarriorAngel]

you realize this post is very historically inaccurate

It does n.o.t matter historically or otherwise...
The main point is this - SIMON you are MY Rock and upon this Rock [Simon aka now Peter from Petros] I will BUILD My Church.

He did not give this to anyone else.
None of them.
Nobody.
No where
No how.

SO despite what seems like a lack of confidence in both Jesus and the ability of the Holy Spirit to keep the Church from heresy built upon the Chair of Peter...
IT is Peter and not the other chairs.

Through out history all the way back it is in Rome where Peter was crucified.

And to quote any man at any time regarding 'honor and deference' otherwise will not, does not change what the Lord unapologetically stated before all of them.

Simon, YOU are Rock.

Even in the first council, Rome is deferred to.

There is NO argument except man's argument.

 

[prodromos]

I rarely read fiction (such as the OP's video), so I thought I'd share a short read from the non-fiction section.

What part of the OP's video is fiction?
Please be specific.

 

[ArmyMatt]

All of Church history including St Clement 1 the chair is in Rome. I do not do quotes anymore.
But throughout...

that’s just an assertion.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It does n.o.t matter historically or otherwise...
The main point is this - SIMON you are MY Rock and upon this Rock [Simon aka now Peter from Petros] I will BUILD My Church.

He did not give this to anyone else.
None of them.
Nobody.
No where
No how.

SO despite what seems like a lack of confidence in both Jesus and the ability of the Holy Spirit to keep the Church from heresy built upon the Chair of Peter...
IT is Peter and not the other chairs.

Through out history all the way back it is in Rome where Peter was crucified.

And to quote any man at any time regarding 'honor and deference' otherwise will not, does not change what the Lord unapologetically stated before all of them.

Simon, YOU are Rock.

Even in the first council, Rome is deferred to.

There is NO argument except man's argument.

if it’s all about St Peter the way you say, why doesn’t Antioch make the same claim? St Peter was in Antioch first, and was there longer than when he was in Rome.

and nowhere does Christ say “you are my rock.” the majority of the Fathers say the rock is St Peter’s confession, not St Peter.

 

[prodromos]

The main point is this - SIMON you are MY Rock and upon this Rock [Simon aka now Peter from Petros] I will BUILD My Church.

I find it appalling that you continue to put words in Christ's mouth which He never spoke. Lord have mercy!

 

[concretecamper]

no, there is a “but.” when you leave out important stuff, you remove context. to say that link is accurate to history is like saying Rings of Power is faithful to Tolkien.

Ugh, it is accurate. If you want to get the whole picture, there are volumes of books that cover the Schism. To be upset that a short article doesn't cover everything is a bit naive.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ugh, it is accurate. If you want to get the whole picture, there are volumes of books that cover the Schism. To be upset that a short article doesn't cover everything is a bit naive.

it’s not accurate at all. and while covering everything would be foolish for anyone to demand, that link misses a lot of important stuff. it’s pretty a unserious thing to try to use to someone who has read even a little history.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I find it appalling that you continue to put words in Christ's mouth which He never spoke. Lord have mercy!

Those are His words, His intent and if it were not so, then the holy early fathers would not have said so.
Maybe it is not I who does not understand.... and perhaps not wishing to understand. I assure you this is easy to understand.

None of the historical Saints ever said otherwise. Until after the schism.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Ugh, it is accurate. If you want to get the whole picture, there are volumes of books that cover the Schism. To be upset that a short article doesn't cover everything is a bit naive.

Michael quarreled with Pope Leo IX over church practices in which the Roman Church differed from Constantinople, particularly the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist.[2] Dissenting opinions were also exchanged over other theological and cultural issues, ranging from the issue of papal supremacy in the Church to the filioque clause and other disagreements between the patriarchates.





*BECAUSE first of all Michael was presumptious, arrogant to think he could usurp the role of the Roman Pope.
Most of the time throughout history - these were the men excommunicated and nobody batted an eye but stayed with the ROCK of the Church.
But as time passes, men usually fall away and it was no different in 1054.

Scripture was firm. Jesus was firm and not only did He say what He said but said it was The Father Who chose.
AND now all Three if the Trinity are Involved in the statement of Jesus.

Matthew 16:

13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rockb I will build my church, and the gates of hellc shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosedd in heaven.” 20Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

To bind or loose is the LAWS of the Church. The laws of the teachings.

What Jesus DID NOT say was - whatever you bind or loose I will not allow....
I will have men argue against it, change it, remove it, fight it, disallow it, and usurp it.

It is always in deferring oneself to the Pontiff of Rome that things can metted out, but never can there be a case of justification to leave the Roman Pontiff without full on error/errors.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Those are His words, His intent and if it were not so, then the holy early fathers would not have said so.
Maybe it is not I who does not understand.... and perhaps not wishing to understand. I assure you this is easy to understand.

None of the historical Saints ever said otherwise. Until after the schism.

this isn’t correct. while it’s true that some said St Peter is the rock, more said it was his confession of faith.

 

[concretecamper]

it’s not accurate at all. and while covering everything would be foolish for anyone to demand, that link misses a lot of important stuff. it’s pretty a unserious thing to try to use to someone who has read even a little history.

As if a 23 minute video covers it all. You're funny

 

[ArmyMatt]

As if a 23 minute video covers it all. You're funny

I never said a 23 minute video did, but thanks for the compliment.

 

[prodromos]

Those are His words,

No they aren't. Everyone can see what you have added.

His intent

Your presumption. Your hubris.

and if it were not so, then the holy early fathers would not have said so.

None of the early Church Fathers have said what you claim. None of them add to the Scriptures as you have done.

Maybe it is not I who does not understand....

and maybe it is

and perhaps not wishing to understand.

That would explain your obstinance.

 

[prodromos]

As if a 23 minute video covers it all. You're funny

You are allowed to debate us here, but you are expected to do so in a civil and respectful manner. If you are just here to troll then your posts are likely to be reported.

 

[concretecamper]

You are allowed to debate us here, but you are expected to do so in a civil and respectful manner. If you are just here to troll then your posts are likely to be reported.

I offered an alternative view. So quick to dismiss a quick read and accept a short video as gospel. If that is reportable, be my guest.

 

[prodromos]

I offered an alternative view. So quick to dismiss a quick read and accept a short video as gospel. If that is reportable, be my guest.

You dismissed the short video as fiction. I've asked you to state which parts are fiction and why, to which you have not responded. Since you are not willing to support your claims your posts fit the definition of "trolling".

Have you watched the video? I've read your link and I agree with Fr Matthew's assessment.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Michael Cerularius and the schism