Șocant, toți am fost romano-catolici

altul2, on 05 august 2014 - 15:30, said:

Ce e cu erezia asta infecta?

altul2, on 06 august 2014 - 08:58, said:

Vezi cum te contrazici?

Marx, on 05 august 2014 - 15:55, said:

Sfarsise prin a tolera punctul asta de vedere, atata vreme cat nu s-a enervat suficient cat sa se ajunga la Schisma.

Fumatorul, on 06 august 2014 - 10:35, said:

Vreti sa ne incurcati
In cadrul bisericii exista o ordine de importanta diplomatica intre episcopii.
Adica daca se intalnea episcopul Alexandriei cu cel al Romei cel al romei intra primul pe usa. Sau se ridica primul de la masa.
Dar nu mai mult

Asa cum azi intre Basescu si Obama, primul care da din maini e Obama si abia apoi Basescu, cel care are avionul cel mai mare e Obama si apoi Basescu etc
Dar asta nu inseamna absolut nimic

Noi azi ne confruntam cu primatul romei in sensul ca episcopul Romei e mai egal decat restul ceea ce e exclus, drept pentru care a si fost excomunicat de catre Patriarhul Constantinopolului

searcher-star, on 06 august 2014 - 10:43, said:

Pai ghici?
Pe vremea aia papa inca nu se gandise sa se numeasca vatican, adica un fel de stat, sau ce e el.
Deci papa ca si orice episcop de altfel era supus Imparatului, administrativ evident

searcher-star, on 06 august 2014 - 10:34, said:

Dar episcopul romei avea doar rol de spectator, la cele la care a fost ca sunt multe la care n-a fost

searcher-star, on 06 august 2014 - 10:34, said:

Intre ereticii lor, este adevarat, pe gotii din spania cum i-au fentat?: au schimbat crezul ca sa creada gotul ca Duhul Sfant vine si de la Hristos.
Si evident au ajuns si catolicii sa creada la fel.
Probabil uitase-ra de la mana pana la gura si s-au trezind zicand: ce facem noi aici? si mai cu seama unde suntem?

Edited by altul2, 06 August 2014 - 11:51.

altul2, on 06 august 2014 - 11:50, said:

1Spectator care insa avea ultimul cuvant.
2Intre toti.

Fumatorul, on 06 august 2014 - 10:35, said:

Da ?

SI ortodoxi cand o dau din pateric o dau din adevar nu ?


Bre .Ma lasi ?

Scriptura  care este Cuvantul lui Dumnezeu este singurul adevar

Nu popa, nici preacucernicul....

Edited by husand, 06 August 2014 - 13:12.

husand, on 06 august 2014 - 13:11, said:

Adevărul este Hristos, nu Biblia, m-aşteptam să ştii asta.

altul2, on 06 august 2014 - 11:50, said:

De ce le imbulesti?
Pai vorbim religie sau administratie?
Asa le dai cotite ca si cum faptul ca la Constantinopol exista un imparat ar fi implicat ca si-n plan religios Roma asculta de Constantinopol.
Nimic mai fals.

searcher-star, on 06 august 2014 - 12:34, said:

1. Nu intelegeti ca la sinodul al doilea papa nici n-a participat
2. Daca ar fi fost intre toti, n-ar mai fi fost acuzati occidentalii de catre rasariteni ca au modificat crezul de unii singuri. Crezul l-a modificat doar roma

searcher-star, on 06 august 2014 - 14:17, said:

De ce sunteti subversiv?
Primul sinod ecumenic a fost convocat de cine?
De Imparatul Contstantin Cel Mare evident.
Imparatul a trimis scrisori in toate colturile imperiului in care scria sa se prezinte la sinod.
Si au venit toti inclusiv de la Roma. Intelegeti?
Unii au facut minuni ca sa ajunga asa cum este Sfantul Spiridon.
Unul singur a refuzat sa se prezinte: Antonie cel Mare din pustia Schetica de langa Nil. A refuzat motivat pentru ca nu i-a dat binecuvantarea sa mearga Pavel cel Prost
Sinodul a fost pezidat de episcopii Alexandriei si al Antiohiei. Intelegeti?

Edited by altul2, 06 August 2014 - 15:06.

Fumatorul, on 06 august 2014 - 13:43, said:

Pai nu ma mir .


Era imbracat cu o haina inmuiata in sange. Numele Lui este: "Cuvantul lui Dumnezeu." (Apoc.19:13)

Ma gandesc acum ca-mi explici ....

- De fapt Scriptura nu-i Cuvantul lui.....





tineo asa stimabile.

Edited by husand, 07 August 2014 - 08:54.

Vorbim de situatia in general, nu de evenimentul x.
Sigur ca primul conciliu a fost exceptional.
Nu inseamna insa ca imparatul era si un soi de mare preot sau ceva.
Si nici ca statutul de capitala al Constantinopolului face si Patriarhia sa fie mai mare ca cea romana.

searcher-star, on 07 august 2014 - 08:54, said:

Nu stiu ce intelegi prin mai mare?
Patriarhia din Constantinopol era mai mare ca intindere decat cea din Roma
Fiind in capitala imperiului era mai mare si din aceasta cauza
Astazi de exemplu in Biserica Ortodoxa Patriarhia de la Constantinopol e cea mai mare. Exact ca atunci

Edited by altul2, 07 August 2014 - 12:40.

Pe dracu.
La inceput toata Europa, si Maghrebul, erau ale Romei.
Constantinopolul a primit Estul, prin decret neacceptat de Roma, mai tarziu.
Vestul insa a fost mereu mai mare.

Edited by searcher-star, 07 August 2014 - 14:16.

searcher-star, on 07 august 2014 - 08:54, said:

Între noi fie vorba, era isapostolos.
Deci mai mare decât orice preot sau epsicop.
Şi da, până târziu în sec. VIII, episcopul Romei are nevoie de învestitura împăratului ca să fie întronizat.

Marx, on 05 august 2014 - 13:52, said:

Stimabile, dupa acest principiu, ca ne nastem ortodocsi, catolici sau mameluci, ce ne facem ca inainte de Hristos erau toti pagani? Aia nu se mai pune? Si Petru conform acestui principiu ar fi fost evreu, nu crestin. Nu merge. Iar generalizarea in acest caz nu merge.
Fiecare este ce este INDIVIDUAL. In imparatia lui Dumnezeu nu se intra in gasca, contrar la ce zice biserica.

The Byzantine Papacy was a period of Byzantine domination of the papacy from 537 to 752, when popes required the approval of the Byzantine Emperor for episcopal consecration, and many popes were chosen from the apocrisiarii (liaisons from the pope to the emperor) or the inhabitants of Byzantine Greece, Byzantine Syria, or Byzantine Sicily. Justinian I conquered the Italian peninsula in the Gothic War (535–554) and appointed the next three popes, a practice that would be continued by his successors and later be delegated to the Exarchate of Ravenna.
With the exception of Pope Martin I, no pope during this period questioned the authority of the Byzantine monarch to confirm the election of the bishop of Rome before consecration could occur; however, theological conflicts were common between pope and emperor in the areas such as monotheletism and iconoclasm.
Greek speakers from Greece, Syria, and Byzantine Sicily replaced members of the powerful Roman nobles in the papal chair during this period. Rome under the Greek popes constituted a "melting pot" of Western and Eastern Christian traditions, reflected in art as well as liturgy.
After his invasion of Italy, the Gothic War (535–554), Emperor Justinian I forced Pope Silverius to abdicate and installed Pope Vigilius, a former apocrisiarius to Constantinople in his place; Justinian next appointed Pope Pelagius I, holding only a "sham election" to replace Vigilius; afterwards, Justinian was content to be limited to the approval of the pope, as with Pope John III after his election. Justinian's successors would continue the practice for over a century.
Although the Byzantine troops that captured Italy called themselves Romans, many inhabitants of the city had a deep seated mistrust of Greeks, and Hellenistic influence more generally. Before long, the citizens of Rome petitioned Justinian to recall Narses (who captured Rome in 552), declaring that they would rather still be ruled by the Goths. Anti-Byzantine sentiment could also be found throughout the Italian peninsula, and reception of Greek theology in Latin circles was more mixed.
The reign of Justinian also marked the beginning of serious differences on doctrine and Church organization with the papacy in Rome. Justinian was himself deeply interested in theological questions, and had no hesitation in dictating to the popes, who had to confine themselves to verbal protests. The chief Church official in Constantinople, the patriarch, was appointed by the emperor and could be dismissed by him. Although on certain occasions in Byzantine history the patriarch stood up to his imperial master, he could not long sustain his position without imperial support. Thus the Church in Constantinople had all the power of the state behind it, while the popes in Rome were usually able to act more independently. The emperors thus constantly came into conflict with the pope, who claimed jurisdiction over the patriarch. In the eighth century a controversy broke out between the Byzantine emperor Leo III and the pope concerning the use of icons or images in church worship, the emperor taking the position that the icons were an aid only to superstition while the pope claimed that they heightened religious feeling. When Leo and his successors forbade the use of images and ordered them to be broken, the pope was powerless to do more than protest; but the Iconoclastic Controversy embittered relations between Rome and Constantinople for a century, and undoubtedly contributed to the desire of the popes to be protected by the Franks rather than by the Byzantine emperors, who were in their own view little better than heretics. The controversy was at last settled in favor of the papal position in the ninth century. But only twenty-four years later a further schism developed between the two Churches, and a Church council dominated by the Byzantines anathematized the pope and rejected papal supremacy (867). Though this quarrel too was patched up, Greek national feeling became involved, and the pretensions of Rome became ever more abhorrent to the Byzantines. Finally in 1054 the split became permanent, ostensibly on a question of doctrine—though the competing interests of pope and patriarch in southern Italy, which had just been conquered by the Normans, were perhaps more important at the time. The Orthodox and Roman branches of the Church have diverged on doctrine ever since.

Ce-mi spune mie asta e ca imparatii au vrut sa-si IMPUNA o autoritate asupra curiei romane pe care NU o avusesera.

Edited by searcher-star, 08 August 2014 - 09:37.

Scriptura spune ca toti am fost pacatosi, fiind din Adam si Eva. Adam si Eva tot catolici au fost? Sau erau ortodocsi? Conform principiului enuntat, ca noi suntem ce erau inaintasii nostri, noi ce eram dupa Adam si EVa? Sau....nu se pune?

searcher-star, on 08 august 2014 - 09:31, said:

Asta e o ramura a concluziei
In acelasi timp ne spune ca roma era marginalizata afara din imperiu.
Motiv pentru care roma a si inventat prostiile alea cu superioritatea ei.

De asemenea trebuie despartita activitatea administrativa a bisericii de cea ecleziastica.
Pentru ca altfel o sa ajungi sa declari ca cine are mai multi credinciosi e mai superior si infailibil

altul2, on 08 august 2014 - 14:57, said:

1Era fiindca imparatul prefera Constantinopolul si patriarhul-lui-marioneta.
Roma a deviat de la ce a fost cu pretentiile ei de cvasi-imperialism papal dar trebuie recunoscut ca, in primele secole, perechea imparat-patriarh a facut multe s-o asmuta contra lor.
2Pai cam tu le amalgamezi, in discutia asta...

Edited by searcher-star, 11 August 2014 - 08:42.

Nu e nimic socant.