OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 09:42:52 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Is the Papacy anti-Christ?
Yes!!!! - 2 (3.6%)
Maybe... - 10 (17.9%)
Nope - 14 (25%)
Oh Please, Do we really have to go over this again???!!! - 30 (53.6%)
Total Voters: 56

Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pope is Antichrist yet again  (Read 6167 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #45 on: November 15, 2010, 10:43:56 PM »

The Pope has never claimed to be personally divine or sit in the place if God.
I would say that that his self appointment of Vicar of Christ is pretty cloase. At any rate I ask that my respondents please vote.
I thought that the Eastern Orthodox saw all bishops as Vicars of Christ.

St. Ignatius of Antioch:
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" —Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1


If only the Pope would hold to this teaching and acknowledge that he presides in the same manner as every bishop and has no higher privilege or authority than they do.  But the Pope's claim to preside in the place of God is quite different to what Saint Ignatius is writing to the Magnesians.

R. Catholics hold that all ordained are "Vicars of Christ" in respect to their position in the Sacraments. However, believing that the Pope holds a special place as physical head of God's Church on Earth, he is the Vicar of Christ.

Yes, that is where the heresy starts to seep in, with the belief that there is one bishop in Rome who has has a greater office (munus) than other bishops.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #46 on: November 15, 2010, 10:44:05 PM »

Some/many may agree that there have been anti-popes (those not fitting for the magnitude of responsibility and position of Pope), but to claim the office is in and of itself an attempt to destroy the Church of Christ can be construed as nonsensical.

The office of the papacy is as alien to the Church of Christ as the office of the female episcopate, and both are destructive.

The whole office of Papacy? I don't think all Orthodox are prepared to defend that. Perhaps in a Papal Supremacy role, but not the actual office of the Papacy.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,060



« Reply #47 on: November 15, 2010, 10:46:27 PM »

Some/many may agree that there have been anti-popes (those not fitting for the magnitude of responsibility and position of Pope), but to claim the office is in and of itself an attempt to destroy the Church of Christ can be construed as nonsensical.

The office of the papacy is as alien to the Church of Christ as the office of the female episcopate, and both are destructive.

I agree.  Azurestone, if by the papacy you mean anything more than a bishopric, something supra-apostolic, then it is, by its nature, destructive to the Church of Christ.    
Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #48 on: November 15, 2010, 10:48:15 PM »

R. Catholics hold that all ordained are "Vicars of Christ" in respect to their position in the Sacraments. However, believing that the Pope holds a special place as physical head of God's Church on Earth, he is the Vicar of Christ.

Yes, that is where the heresy starts to seep in, with the belief that there is one bishop in Rome who has has a greater office (munus) than other bishops.

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no
doubt: this dogma is the heresy of heresies."


Saint Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987

The first important work in creating unity between our Churches is really the abolishment of the papacy.  Until that occurs we are dancing on the fringes.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 15, 2010, 10:52:09 PM »

Some/many may agree that there have been anti-popes (those not fitting for the magnitude of responsibility and position of Pope), but to claim the office is in and of itself an attempt to destroy the Church of Christ can be construed as nonsensical.
The office of the papacy is as alien to the Church of Christ as the office of the female episcopate, and both are destructive.
I agree.  Azurestone, if by the papacy you mean anything more than a bishopric, something supra-apostolic, then it is, by its nature, destructive to the Church of Christ.    

Certaintly, that is not how the R. Catholics view the Papacy. It is not "supra-apostolic", but in fact seen as pro-apostolic as a successor of the head of the apostles. Where Peter is a chief of apostles, the Pope is a chief among bishops. Not for it's own sake, but for the sake of the Church, it's unity in thought, and purpose.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #50 on: November 15, 2010, 10:52:43 PM »

While Roman Catholics see a universal primacy as a fundamental need for the Church
the Orthodox believe that the institution of the papacy is a major aberration in the
ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, something which Christ never called into existence.  

Before there can be unity between us this institution must be destroyed.  It has no place in the Church.

I believe that the words of St. Justin (Popovich) the great modern Serbian
Teacher, are more than a propos:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."

Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 15, 2010, 10:55:19 PM »

R. Catholics hold that all ordained are "Vicars of Christ" in respect to their position in the Sacraments. However, believing that the Pope holds a special place as physical head of God's Church on Earth, he is the Vicar of Christ.

Yes, that is where the heresy starts to seep in, with the belief that there is one bishop in Rome who has has a greater office (munus) than other bishops.

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no
doubt: this dogma is the heresy of heresies."[/size]

Saint Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987

The first important work in creating unity between our Churches is really the abolishment of the papacy.  Until that occurs we are dancing on the fringes.

You are probably right. The papacy as it is commonly understood today will never serve unity. Who knows. However, I can only talk to today, for I am but a layman.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,844


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #52 on: November 15, 2010, 11:47:01 PM »

Why does this topic need to keep coming up?  The Pope isn't "the Antichrist," and therefore, IMO, we shouldn't use constructions like, "The Pope is Anti-Christ," or "The Pope is Antichrist," or "The Papacy is anti-Christ."  I'm the first to admit (and my sig bears this out) that I think the Papacy has been divisive throughout Christian history; but this does not, methinks, reflect a purposeful and continued desire or intent to rend the Church of Christ.  Thus, I'd be hesitant to use such charged language regarding the Papacy... Right or wrong, we'll be called to account for it some day.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #53 on: November 16, 2010, 02:39:54 AM »

Of course the Papacy as it exists now is anti-Christ.

So think feminist, Marxist, atheist, and homosexual activist groups. Hope you're enjoying the company!  Smiley

But beware, he has his Eye on you.

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #54 on: November 16, 2010, 02:54:04 AM »


The whole office of Papacy? I don't think all Orthodox are prepared to defend that. Perhaps in a Papal Supremacy role, but not the actual office of the Papacy.


These Orthodox pro-papalists would be hard put to defend their position.  In the thousand years when we were one, you will not find one canon of the Ecumenical Councils which addresses the rights and obligations of something called the papacy in the city of Rome, how it relates to other bishops, how it relates to the other 4 patriarchates

It is really in canon law that we look for the administrative structure of the Church.  But there is not the slightest mention of the papacy. For a thousand years the Church knew nothing of it.  So I cannot see that pro-papalist Orthodox have a leg to stand on, canonically or traditionally.  
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 02:56:07 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #55 on: November 16, 2010, 02:57:48 AM »


The whole office of Papacy? I don't think all Orthodox are prepared to defend that. Perhaps in a Papal Supremacy role, but not the actual office of the Papacy.


These Orthodox pro-papalists would be hard put to defend their position.  In the thousand years when we were one, you will not find one canon of the Ecumenical Councils which addresses the rights and obligations of something called the papacy in the city of Rome, how it relates to other bishops, how it relates to the other 4 patriarchates

It is really in canon law that we look for the administrative structure of the Church.  But there is not the slightest mention of the papacy. For a thousand years the Church knew nothing of it.  So I cannot see that pro-papalist Orthodox have a leg to stand on, canonically or traditionally.  
Oh my....
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 11,904


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #56 on: November 16, 2010, 03:01:42 AM »




That picture always cracks me up.  I can't help but think that Pope Benedict would get a laugh out of it.   Smiley
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #57 on: November 16, 2010, 03:06:06 AM »




That picture always cracks me up.  I can't help but think that Pope Benedict would get a laugh out of it.   Smiley
It is amusing  laugh ( I might have to say 100 Hail Mary's for that)
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 03:06:57 AM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #58 on: November 16, 2010, 10:02:40 AM »


The whole office of Papacy? I don't think all Orthodox are prepared to defend that. Perhaps in a Papal Supremacy role, but not the actual office of the Papacy.


These Orthodox pro-papalists would be hard put to defend their position.  In the thousand years when we were one, you will not find one canon of the Ecumenical Councils which addresses the rights and obligations of something called the papacy in the city of Rome, how it relates to other bishops, how it relates to the other 4 patriarchates

It is really in canon law that we look for the administrative structure of the Church.  But there is not the slightest mention of the papacy. For a thousand years the Church knew nothing of it.  So I cannot see that pro-papalist Orthodox have a leg to stand on, canonically or traditionally.  

Ecumenical Councils arise to settle theological disputes. Considering the east and west split, and never truly discussed unity until recently (despite the Eastern Catholics), I'm not surprised by this.

I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church) and relying on constitutional tradition (i.e. Positions in government are maintained by tradition not written word, which is more common than not [think British Monarchy constitution]) only helped aggravate later tensions in authority.

Because while the Pope may be divisive in history (as a major authority figure), all church authority has experienced it's share of dispute and split. Humans suck.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #59 on: November 16, 2010, 10:08:53 AM »

The councils don't speak of Mary's sinlessness either, but it is still  a belief held by the Eastern Orthodox. Fr. Ambrose, when you sound the call for the dogma of "Councils alone!" you sound like the protestants who cry, "Scripture alone!"
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #60 on: November 16, 2010, 10:15:52 AM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria.  There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #61 on: November 16, 2010, 10:17:43 AM »

The councils don't speak of Mary's sinlessness either, but it is still  a belief held by the Eastern Orthodox. Fr. Ambrose, when you sound the call for the dogma of "Councils alone!" you sound like the protestants who cry, "Scripture alone!"
Fr. Ambrose has never called for "Councils alone!" Quite the opposite. He has called for Councils, the Fathers, the liturgical texts, the calendar, etc. None of which support the IC, papal supremacy, the filioque, Vatican infallibility, etc. etc. etc.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #62 on: November 16, 2010, 10:22:37 AM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria.  There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Do you have a source, Father? I'd be interested in reading it.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #63 on: November 16, 2010, 10:31:02 AM »

The councils don't speak of Mary's sinlessness either, but it is still  a belief held by the Eastern Orthodox. Fr. Ambrose, when you sound the call for the dogma of "Councils alone!" you sound like the protestants who cry, "Scripture alone!"

Wrong!

1. Only a certain percentage of our dogma has been addressed and clarified by Councils.  They are called at moments of wide-spread crisis in the Church to deal with specific heretical challenges to the teaching of our salvation.  They do not include, and have never been seen as including, a comprehensive and complete compendium of our faith.   The Councils, in our mind, form a part of our Tradition.  And the Tradition is larger than the Councils.

2.  However, the Councils did produce, besides clear refutations of heretical teaching, quite a lot of canons which deal with the organisational structure and the good order of the Church.   These are also important for us and guide our Churches and bishops to the present day. 

So there is a place for the Councils in the life of our Church.  They come into existence at times of doctrinal crisis, they are held under the aegis of the Hoy Spirit whom Christ promised would lead His Church into all truth.  It is very strange that you would see any appeal to their authority as a sign of Protestantism.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #64 on: November 16, 2010, 10:32:05 AM »

The councils don't speak of Mary's sinlessness either, but it is still  a belief held by the Eastern Orthodox. Fr. Ambrose, when you sound the call for the dogma of "Councils alone!" you sound like the protestants who cry, "Scripture alone!"
Fr. Ambrose has never called for "Councils alone!" Quite the opposite. He has called for Councils, the Fathers, the liturgical texts, the calendar, etc. None of which support the IC, papal supremacy, the filioque, Vatican infallibility, etc. etc. etc.

Thank you, Ialmisry.  Right on the button!   Smiley
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 938



« Reply #65 on: November 16, 2010, 10:39:02 AM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria.  There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Do you have a source, Father? I'd be interested in reading it.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.viii.html
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #66 on: November 16, 2010, 10:39:09 AM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria.  There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Do you have a source, Father? I'd be interested in reading it.

Here you are

http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum01.htm
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #67 on: November 16, 2010, 10:39:48 AM »

Some/many may agree that there have been anti-popes (those not fitting for the magnitude of responsibility and position of Pope), but to claim the office is in and of itself an attempt to destroy the Church of Christ can be construed as nonsensical.

The office of the papacy is as alien to the Church of Christ as the office of the female episcopate, and both are destructive.
Actually, the Papacy was established by Jesus. Cheesy

I could be wrong, but I think when we say "the institution of the papacy", we are mostly talking about the system as instituted under the Franks. I'm sorry, but I don't think Jesus started the Cardinal system.

There was only one Patriarch of the west and so the only thing the western church knew was one super arch-diocese.

Under the Franks it would seem as if she started to see herself more and more as being the only Autocephalous church. The idea that we must all be integrated into her super arch-diocese is what's foreign to us.

Other than that I really don't have any issues with Rome. If I was rude or mean to you by saying this then I am sorry. I really don't mean to be.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 10:48:56 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #68 on: November 16, 2010, 10:53:54 AM »




That picture always cracks me up.  I can't help but think that Pope Benedict would get a laugh out of it.   Smiley
It is amusing  laugh ( I might have to say 100 Hail Mary's for that)


I always liked it myself. I saw alot of liberals on tv and rust belt Roman Catholics over here in Pa being upset when he was made Pope. And so I always thought that they(liberal Roman Catholics or nonchristian secularists) as being the ones who made that picture. But it would be interesting to find out who actually made it.

I actually like Pope Benedict the 16th! I like him more than I did JPII
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #69 on: November 16, 2010, 11:22:28 AM »

Why does this topic need to keep coming up?  The Pope isn't "the Antichrist," and therefore, IMO, we shouldn't use constructions like, "The Pope is Anti-Christ," or "The Pope is Antichrist," or "The Papacy is anti-Christ."  I'm the first to admit (and my sig bears this out) that I think the Papacy has been divisive throughout Christian history; but this does not, methinks, reflect a purposeful and continued desire or intent to rend the Church of Christ.  Thus, I'd be hesitant to use such charged language regarding the Papacy... Right or wrong, we'll be called to account for it some day.

Amen. Amen. Amen.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #70 on: November 16, 2010, 12:22:01 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople
Quote
Canon III.

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.iv.html

Then:

The Fourth Ecumenical Council.  The Council of Chalcedon.
Quote
Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

Quote
Bright.

After the renewal of this canon by the Council of Trullo, Gratian adds “The VIIIth Synod held under Pope Hadrian II., canon xxj.”  (Decretum Pars I., Dist. xxij., C. vij.)  “We define that no secular power shall hereafter dishonour anyone of these who rule our patriarchal sees, or attempt to move them from their proper throne, but shall judge them worthy of all reverence and honour; chiefly the most holy Pope of Old Rome, and then the Patriarch of Constantinople, and then those of Alexandria, and Antioch, and Jerusalem.

Notes: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

For Reference from the Bright quote:

Fourth Council of Constantinople 869-870 A.D.
Quote
21

We believe that the saying of the Lord that Christ addressed to his holy apostles and disciples, Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever despises you despises me, was also addressed to all who were likewise made supreme pontiffs and chief pastors in succession to them in the catholic church. Therefore we declare that no secular powers should treat with disrespect any of those who hold the office of patriarch or seek to move them from their high positions, but rather they should esteem them as worthy of all honour and reverence. This applies in the first place to the most holy pope of old Rome, secondly to the patriarch of Constantinople, and then to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Furthermore, nobody else should compose or edit writings or tracts against the most holy pope of old Rome, on the pretext of making incriminating charges, as Photius did recently and Dioscorus a long time ago. Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs.

If, then, any ruler or secular authority tries to expel the aforesaid pope of the apostolic see, or any of the other patriarchs, let him be anathema. Furthermore, if a universal synod is held and any question or controversy arises about the holy church of Rome, it should make inquiries with proper reverence and respect about the question raised and should find a profitable solution; it must on no account pronounce sentence rashly against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/8ecumen3.htm

The Robber Council of 869-870 was a council held in Constantinople called by Emperor Basil I the Macedonian and Pope Adrian II, meeting from October 5, 869 to February 28, 870. It deposed and condemned St. Photius the Great as patriarch and, of the four Eastern patriarchates, ranked Constantinople before Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

The acts of this council were eventually abrogated at the Eighth Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 879-880. This latter council was held to be ecumenical by both East and West until the 11th century, when Rome repudiated the council of 879-880 and retroactively regarded the council of 869-870 to be the Eighth Ecumenical Council, but which the Orthodox Church continues to regard as a robber council.  -Orthowiki http://orthodoxwiki.org/Robber_council_of_869-870

I included it for reference to thought of the time, despite it's contestability. The second council is seen (by RC) as mercy to reinstate St. Photius, but later the re-acknowledgment of the original council as being true in spirit.

I had trouble finding the canons of the Eighth Ecumenical Council (879-880), if you or another can help me find a copy, it would be appreciated.

As reference: Orthowiki
Quote
There are two misunderstandings of this Pentarchy that must be avoided:

    * the system of patriarchs and metropolitans is based on ecclesiastical structure
    * the Bishop of Rome (Pope) has supremacy over the other bishops

Regarding the first misunderstanding, the Orthodox do not view the Church from the standpoint of ecclesiastical order, but from the perspective of divine right. They see all bishops as essentially equal, regardless of the prominence of the city which they oversee. They are all divinely appointed teachers of the faith, they all share in Apostolic succession and they all have sacramental powers. If a dispute arises, it is not enough for any one bishop to express his opinion; all diocesan bishops have the right to attend a general council, express their opinion and cast a vote. The system of the Pentarchy does not impair the essential quality of each bishop nor does it strip the local community of the significance Ignatius assigned it.

Regarding the second misunderstanding, the Orthodox do not accept the doctrine of Papal authority as established in 1870 by the Vatican Council and taught in the Roman Catholic Church today. But neither do they deny Rome its place of primacy, as she is first in honor as set up by the second Council. It was Rome, after all, who stayed most true to the faith during many of the heresies over the centuries. Where the Orthodox see Rome going wrong is when they turned this place of 'primacy' in love (as St. Ignatius called it) into a place of supremacy of external jurisdiction and power. And so the primacy assigned to Rome does not overthrow the essential equality of all bishops. The Pope may be the 'first Bishop in the Church,' but he is first among equals.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Fourth_Ecumenical_Council

Interesting article on Orthodox Wiki about Primacy: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Primacy_and_Unity_in_Orthodox_Ecclesiology



...I feel like Isa  ...I need a shower  Grin
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 12:28:25 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #71 on: November 16, 2010, 12:32:53 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople

I must be incredibly blinkered/acculturated in Orthodoxy because I truly see nothing in any of the citations you give which provide any support for the concept of a papacy.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #72 on: November 16, 2010, 12:33:09 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome.  

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople
Quote
Canon III.

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.iv.html
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 12:33:57 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #73 on: November 16, 2010, 12:53:37 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople

I must be incredibly blinkered/acculturated in Orthodoxy because I truly see nothing in any of the citations you give which provide any support for the concept of a papacy.

Really? Does Papacy mean something else to you?

I read it as "physical leader of the church". If a patriarch (being physical leader of a regional church) has primacy over other patriarchs, that Patriarch with Primacy is referred to as the Papacy.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #74 on: November 16, 2010, 12:53:58 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople
Quote
Canon III.

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.iv.html
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.


Sorry, I don't follow.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 12:55:05 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #75 on: November 16, 2010, 01:04:11 PM »

The councils don't speak of Mary's sinlessness either, but it is still  a belief held by the Eastern Orthodox. Fr. Ambrose, when you sound the call for the dogma of "Councils alone!" you sound like the protestants who cry, "Scripture alone!"
Fr. Ambrose has never called for "Councils alone!" Quite the opposite. He has called for Councils, the Fathers, the liturgical texts, the calendar, etc. None of which support the IC, papal supremacy, the filioque, Vatican infallibility, etc. etc. etc.
You know very well that the Fathers are very strong supporter of the concept of papal primacy. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #76 on: November 16, 2010, 01:05:00 PM »

Some/many may agree that there have been anti-popes (those not fitting for the magnitude of responsibility and position of Pope), but to claim the office is in and of itself an attempt to destroy the Church of Christ can be construed as nonsensical.

The office of the papacy is as alien to the Church of Christ as the office of the female episcopate, and both are destructive.
Actually, the Papacy was established by Jesus. Cheesy

I could be wrong, but I think when we say "the institution of the papacy", we are mostly talking about the system as instituted under the Franks. I'm sorry, but I don't think Jesus started the Cardinal system.

There was only one Patriarch of the west and so the only thing the western church knew was one super arch-diocese.

Under the Franks it would seem as if she started to see herself more and more as being the only Autocephalous church. The idea that we must all be integrated into her super arch-diocese is what's foreign to us.

Other than that I really don't have any issues with Rome. If I was rude or mean to you by saying this then I am sorry. I really don't mean to be.
No one ever said that Jesus started the Cardinal system. And, no, I don't think you were rude. Thanks for  your concern.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #77 on: November 16, 2010, 01:06:30 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople
Quote
Canon III.

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.iv.html
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.


Sorry, I don't follow.
This was when the East tried to adopt this idea that the primacy was based on politics rather than on the keys given to St. Peter. In fact, Rome did not accept Constantinople's jumping to number two for a long time, and then only as a matter of Church politics, and not as a matter of dogma.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #78 on: November 16, 2010, 01:11:17 PM »

The councils don't speak of Mary's sinlessness either, but it is still  a belief held by the Eastern Orthodox. Fr. Ambrose, when you sound the call for the dogma of "Councils alone!" you sound like the protestants who cry, "Scripture alone!"
Fr. Ambrose has never called for "Councils alone!" Quite the opposite. He has called for Councils, the Fathers, the liturgical texts, the calendar, etc. None of which support the IC, papal supremacy, the filioque, Vatican infallibility, etc. etc. etc.
You know very well that the Fathers are very strong supporter of the concept of papal primacy. Smiley
but committed opponents of Vatican supremacy, and having no knowledge of Vatican infallibility.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #79 on: November 16, 2010, 01:16:16 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople
Quote
Canon III.

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.iv.html
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.


Sorry, I don't follow.
This was when the East tried to adopt this idea that the primacy was based on politics rather than on the keys given to St. Peter.
the idea of primacy based on St. Peter's keys doesn't even begin to appear until 254 (btw, by then the title of pope had already been bestowed on the bishop of Alexandria). The organization of the Church on the secular order was centuries old by then.

Quote
In fact, Rome did not accept Constantinople's jumping to number two for a long time,
And the Church ignored Rome's protests.

Quote
and then only as a matter of Church politics, and not as a matter of dogma.
It isn't dogma, no matter what Pastor Aeternas tells you.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #80 on: November 16, 2010, 01:17:01 PM »

The councils don't speak of Mary's sinlessness either, but it is still  a belief held by the Eastern Orthodox. Fr. Ambrose, when you sound the call for the dogma of "Councils alone!" you sound like the protestants who cry, "Scripture alone!"
Fr. Ambrose has never called for "Councils alone!" Quite the opposite. He has called for Councils, the Fathers, the liturgical texts, the calendar, etc. None of which support the IC, papal supremacy, the filioque, Vatican infallibility, etc. etc. etc.
You know very well that the Fathers are very strong supporter of the concept of papal primacy. Smiley
but committed opponents of Vatican supremacy, and having no knowledge of Vatican infallibility.

Despite appearing very pro-RC in many of my posts, I am merely playing the devil's advocate in my indecision to find 'truth'.

I, too, despite finding truth in Primacy of Rome, have a problem with supremacy and infallibility.

Therefore, if there is another RC that could take that and run with it, I'd be appreciative of the argument.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #81 on: November 16, 2010, 01:22:21 PM »

[
Really? Does Papacy mean something else to you?

I read it as "physical leader of the church". If a patriarch (being physical leader of a regional church) has primacy over other patriarchs, that Patriarch with Primacy is referred to as the Papacy.

Ah, I see that we may have different perceptions of the role of a Patriarch

Sandro Magister, Roman Cathoic journalist, puts it well, not fully accurately, but well enough.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7014?&eng=y

The patriarch´s role

In general the role of the Orthodox patriarch is not well understood in the West. He is often seen as another pope. Yet according to Orthodox ecclesiology, the Church´s patriarch is only its top bishop. It is almost sacrilegious to call him the Church´s chief or head, since only Jesus Christ can be the head of the Church.

As a symbolic figure of the Church the patriarch has an enormous responsibility, but is imbalanced by his prerogatives. He is not the only protector of the Orthodox faith, since the faith in entrusted to the whole Church, both to its pastors and laity. According to the very same faith, however, it is only the patriarch who can intercede for the Church´s flock of faithful and is the chief administrator of the Church in terms of its institutional aspects.

His responsibility is threefold: before God, the Church itself (represented by the synod, the ranks of bishops, and all the faithful whom the faith must safeguard and protect through its dogmatic purity) and before fellow brothers and sisters in the faith and other patriarchs of local Churches with whom he is in communion.

The weight of such responsibility sometimes poses a problem for his personal freedom, which is quite different than that of the Roman Catholic pontiff. The Catholic pope has real freedom in decision making. Many innovations and changes, though not completely approved of by the Roman curia, are the fruit of the pope´s intuition and charisma. Yet if the Orthodox patriarch were to dare reform tradition, he would be simply ousted by the Synod or even directly by the Orthodox faithful themselves.

We must forever bear in mind this possibility, when referring to gestures (made or not made) or to meetings (which have not occurred) between the pope and Moscow´s patriarch. Even if we are reminded much more often and much more solemnly so in the liturgy that the patriarch not the pope of the Roman Catholic faith, indeed he does not have a great opportunity to express his personality in the Church of which he is its highest representative

The patriarch alone cannot touch any part of the faith´s sacred inheritance, handed down by the fathers of the Church. Not event local Church councils can do this, despite having the highest power. Only an Ecumenical Council can: in terms of doctrinal matters it has the highest authority, that is, the power of the Holy Spirit (according to Acts 15: 28). The Ecumenical Council has the right to change or "update" such sacred teachings and traditions, yet only under a spirit of fidelity to past councils. One small particularity, however: the seventh and last Ecumenical Council of then undivided Church of God was called ages ago in the year 787 in order to defeat and condemn the iconoclasts. (v.z.)

__________
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #82 on: November 16, 2010, 01:22:30 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople

I must be incredibly blinkered/acculturated in Orthodoxy because I truly see nothing in any of the citations you give which provide any support for the concept of a papacy.

Really? Does Papacy mean something else to you?

I read it as "physical leader of the church". If a patriarch (being physical leader of a regional church) has primacy over other patriarchs, that Patriarch with Primacy is referred to as the Papacy.

I could be wrong but I always thought historically the Bishop of Rome was seen as being the Patriarch of the west. Do you have any sources to share that would show the bishop of Rome as being the Patriarch over other Patriarchs? We see a difference between Primacy & Supremacy. The Roman Catholic view is one of Supremacy, not Primacy.

Also, the Bishop of Rome isn't the only Pope. The Bishop of Alexandria is also called Pope.
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #83 on: November 16, 2010, 01:34:19 PM »


I read it as "physical leader of the church". If a patriarch (being physical leader of a regional church) has primacy over other patriarchs, that Patriarch with Primacy is referred to as the Papacy.

You bring us back to the point I have been making from the beginning of the discussion.

There has never been any Patriarch who had a primacy over other Patriarchs,  Therefore there has never been any papacy.  It is a beast unknown to the Church.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #84 on: November 16, 2010, 02:38:19 PM »


I read it as "physical leader of the church". If a patriarch (being physical leader of a regional church) has primacy over other patriarchs, that Patriarch with Primacy is referred to as the Papacy.

You bring us back to the point I have been making from the beginning of the discussion.

There has never been any Patriarch who had a primacy over other Patriarchs,  Therefore there has never been any papacy.  It is a beast unknown to the Church.

What is your response/understanding of the Orthodox Wiki articles regarding the Primacy among Patriarchs?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #85 on: November 16, 2010, 02:42:56 PM »


I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome.  

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria. There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have not found this to be accurate.

The Second Ecumenical Council:  The First Council of Constantinople

I must be incredibly blinkered/acculturated in Orthodoxy because I truly see nothing in any of the citations you give which provide any support for the concept of a papacy.

Really? Does Papacy mean something else to you?

I read it as "physical leader of the church". If a patriarch (being physical leader of a regional church) has primacy over other patriarchs, that Patriarch with Primacy is referred to as the Papacy.

I could be wrong but I always thought historically the Bishop of Rome was seen as being the Patriarch of the west. Do you have any sources to share that would show the bishop of Rome as being the Patriarch over other Patriarchs? We see a difference between Primacy & Supremacy. The Roman Catholic view is one of Supremacy, not Primacy.

Also, the Bishop of Rome isn't the only Pope. The Bishop of Alexandria is also called Pope.
Also? Alexandria is the original. Btw, the Vatican has not let the three lines it has for patriarch there take the title pope.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 02:43:16 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #86 on: November 17, 2010, 01:16:18 AM »

Quote
Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

If New Rome was given equal privileges with Old Rome, then on what basis does the Papacy claim exclusive privileges?
Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #87 on: November 17, 2010, 01:24:54 AM »

Quote
Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

If New Rome was given equal privileges with Old Rome, then on what basis does the Papacy claim exclusive privileges?
Here you go :

The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Flavian's successor, Anatolius, at Pope Leo I's urging, to set aside the 449 Second Council of Ephesus, better known as the "Robber Council". The Council of Chalcedon repudiated the idea that Jesus had only one nature, and stated that Christ has two natures in one person. The Chalcedonian Creed describes the "full humanity and full divinity" of Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity. The council also issued 27 disciplinary canons governing church administration and authority. In the famous 28th canon passed by the council, the bishops sought to raise the See of Constantinople (New Rome) in stature, claiming that Constantinople enjoyed honor and authority similar to that of the See of (the older) Rome. Pope Leo's legate opposed the canon but in 453, Leo confirmed all the canons, except the 28th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_chalcedon
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #88 on: November 17, 2010, 01:28:09 AM »

Quote
If only the Pope would hold to this teaching and acknowledge that he presides in the same manner as every bishop and has no higher privilege or authority than they do.  But the Pope's claim to preside in the place of God is quite different to what Saint Ignatius is writing to the Magnesians.

I agree with you Irish on this (good to see you again by the way!) If only every Bishop could preside in the same manner and stop these unscriptural un-Apostolic claims to higher privilege or authority. By the way, the ACOE did not sign up to Chalcedon in part due to this I believe.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 01:31:55 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #89 on: November 17, 2010, 02:37:45 AM »

Quote
Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

If New Rome was given equal privileges with Old Rome, then on what basis does the Papacy claim exclusive privileges?
Here you go :

The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Flavian's successor, Anatolius, at Pope Leo I's urging, to set aside the 449 Second Council of Ephesus, better known as the "Robber Council". The Council of Chalcedon repudiated the idea that Jesus had only one nature, and stated that Christ has two natures in one person. The Chalcedonian Creed describes the "full humanity and full divinity" of Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity. The council also issued 27 disciplinary canons governing church administration and authority. In the famous 28th canon passed by the council, the bishops sought to raise the See of Constantinople (New Rome) in stature, claiming that Constantinople enjoyed honor and authority similar to that of the See of (the older) Rome. Pope Leo's legate opposed the canon but in 453, Leo confirmed all the canons, except the 28th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_chalcedon

It does not alter the fact that the council clearly believed that there could be a bishop with equal authority to Rome. The Illyrians actually did subscribe to the 28th Canon. The issue was finally brought back to the table in the Quinisext Council, which approved it. Of course, the Pope rejected that council, so that makes little difference to you.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html

The point is that is shows that the bishops outside of Old Rome's archdiocese did not believe in exclusive rights for the Papacy.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.21 seconds with 75 queries.