OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 08:48:50 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic  (Read 29408 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
LakaYaRabb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 209



WWW
« Reply #180 on: December 29, 2010, 01:24:45 PM »

Quote
I haven't been quite so peripatetic, but I've received communion across several jurisdictional lines. But where I am unknown I always try to contact the priest and clear it ahead of time. At least where I live, it's not always a foregone conclusion.

It is always a good idea to speak with the priest beforehand when visiting a parish not your own. Either by phone, during hours/matins or before Divine Liturgy.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #181 on: December 30, 2010, 03:00:52 AM »

Here are some examples of attacks:

Quote
Since you are in communion with Rome and Rome has always considered those councils ecumenical, AND, since there is no way papal supremacy and papal infallibility can be "local" dogmas, it follows that you should either subscribe to those dogmas or break communion. Your present position is deceitful and unprincipled.

Another:

Quote
If the Melkite Patriarch is in communion with Rome, he must have the faith of Rome. So either you are lying to us when you say "I don't subscribe to Papal supremacy", or you are lying to your church when you take communion.

Here:

Quote
Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.


It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.




fixed quote tags, nothing more -Schultz
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 01:43:39 PM by Schultz » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #182 on: December 30, 2010, 08:20:30 AM »

Quote
I haven't been quite so peripatetic, but I've received communion across several jurisdictional lines. But where I am unknown I always try to contact the priest and clear it ahead of time. At least where I live, it's not always a foregone conclusion.

It is always a good idea to speak with the priest beforehand when visiting a parish not your own. Either by phone, during hours/matins or before Divine Liturgy.

Exactly.
Logged
LakaYaRabb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 209



WWW
« Reply #183 on: December 30, 2010, 10:56:16 AM »

Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  Grin
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #184 on: December 30, 2010, 11:40:31 AM »

Here are some examples of attacks:

Quote
Since you are in communion with Rome and Rome has always considered those councils ecumenical, AND, since there is no way papal supremacy and papal infallibility can be "local" dogmas, it follows that you should either subscribe to those dogmas or break communion. Your present position is deceitful and unprincipled.

Another:

Quote
If the Melkite Patriarch is in communion with Rome, he must have the faith of Rome. So either you are lying to us when you say "I don't subscribe to Papal supremacy", or you are lying to your church when you take communion.

Here:

Quote
Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.


It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Dear Papist,

The best that you, a layman, can say is that it APPEARS that Todd Kasters is no longer in communion with the papal Church/Catholic Church.    You cannot and seriously ought not assert that he has removed himself.  We cannot do that at all.  We can best and only speak of appearances.

Mary



fixed quote tags, nothing more -Schultz
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 01:43:29 PM by Schultz » Logged

Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,942


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #185 on: December 30, 2010, 11:47:37 AM »

Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.

Papist,

Let's tone it done a bit.  In the East, excommunication must be imposed by one's hierarch.  By your definition the Melkite Synod isn't Catholic because I doubt you will find a one that agrees to any post schism council 100% and the Pope knows it.  So if the Pope has not deemed the Melkite's disagreement worthy of excommunication, I think you can stop throwing around excommunications your not entitled to make.

Fr. Deacon Lance 

Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #186 on: December 30, 2010, 01:13:17 PM »

Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.

Papist,

Let's tone it done a bit.  In the East, excommunication must be imposed by one's hierarch.  By your definition the Melkite Synod isn't Catholic because I doubt you will find a one that agrees to any post schism council 100% and the Pope knows it.  So if the Pope has not deemed the Melkite's disagreement worthy of excommunication, I think you can stop throwing around excommunications your not entitled to make.

Fr. Deacon Lance 



As I understand it, the agreements establishing relations between certain Byzantine jurisdictions and the See of Rome were based on political expediency more than on a detailed common belief. The Byzantines were until the moment of union with Rome fully Orthodox (as in their view they continued to be) and didn't suddenly turn around and subscribe whole-heartedly to doctrines that had divided the two halves of Christendom for half a millennium at that point. Inevitably, such an arrangement involves compromise and some turning of blind eyes. Priestly celibacy comes to mind. Words like "liar" or "deceitful and unprincipled" seem out of place and unhelpful here. (I was sanctioned for quite a bit less!)
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #187 on: December 30, 2010, 05:55:32 PM »

From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

No.

Sorry but I see completely no sense in this.

I wasn't defending any of this. I was lamenting it and how far we are from any real unity.
I have a friend who is a member of the OCA and he and his wife seemed to have no trouble going to confession and receiving communion at the ROCOR cathedral in San Francisco when they visited me last year.

That's good news.
Yes, it is, and if my memory serves me, an OCA priest from Marin County concelebrated the liturgy at the ROCOR cathedral that same morning.

Yeah, that's where the changes are happening, at the grass roots. Our priest, the local ROCOR, GOA, and Antiochian all concelebrate, which is very inspiring. Our Theophany celebrations nearly always include multiple jurisdictions.

Just this past Monday for the feast of St Stephen's the Kursk Icon of the Mother of God was brought to our Cathedral by a ROCOR Bishop who served along side of our bishop (Tikhon).  There were priests from both jurisdictions attending and concelebrating.  Because of bad weather I was unable to attend.

It's wonderful to see the wounds are healing.  It is not theology that separates us (which seems to be a problem within the RCC, but politics).  As someone has already mentioned, it seems the RCC will accept unity pruely on the basis of papal allegiance rather than theological unity and interpretation.  How sad!



Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #188 on: December 30, 2010, 07:30:22 PM »

From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

No.

Sorry but I see completely no sense in this.

I wasn't defending any of this. I was lamenting it and how far we are from any real unity.
I have a friend who is a member of the OCA and he and his wife seemed to have no trouble going to confession and receiving communion at the ROCOR cathedral in San Francisco when they visited me last year.

That's good news.
Yes, it is, and if my memory serves me, an OCA priest from Marin County concelebrated the liturgy at the ROCOR cathedral that same morning.

Yeah, that's where the changes are happening, at the grass roots. Our priest, the local ROCOR, GOA, and Antiochian all concelebrate, which is very inspiring. Our Theophany celebrations nearly always include multiple jurisdictions.

Just this past Monday for the feast of St Stephen's the Kursk Icon of the Mother of God was brought to our Cathedral by a ROCOR Bishop who served along side of our bishop (Tikhon).  There were priests from both jurisdictions attending and concelebrating.  Because of bad weather I was unable to attend.

It's wonderful to see the wounds are healing.  It is not theology that separates us (which seems to be a problem within the RCC, but politics).  As someone has already mentioned, it seems the RCC will accept unity pruely on the basis of papal allegiance rather than theological unity and interpretation.  How sad!



Orthodoc

I had heard of His Grace serving with the ROCOR bishop who was gracious enough to bring the icon. Very encouraging!
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #189 on: December 30, 2010, 09:32:15 PM »

Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.

Papist,

Let's tone it done a bit.  In the East, excommunication must be imposed by one's hierarch.  By your definition the Melkite Synod isn't Catholic because I doubt you will find a one that agrees to any post schism council 100% and the Pope knows it.  So if the Pope has not deemed the Melkite's disagreement worthy of excommunication, I think you can stop throwing around excommunications your not entitled to make.

Fr. Deacon Lance 


The canons of the First Vatican Council have not been repudiated.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #190 on: December 30, 2010, 09:42:13 PM »

Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.

Papist,

Let's tone it done a bit.  In the East, excommunication must be imposed by one's hierarch.  By your definition the Melkite Synod isn't Catholic because I doubt you will find a one that agrees to any post schism council 100% and the Pope knows it.  So if the Pope has not deemed the Melkite's disagreement worthy of excommunication, I think you can stop throwing around excommunications your not entitled to make.

Fr. Deacon Lance 


The canons of the First Vatican Council have not been repudiated.
What canons would those be?
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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,942


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #191 on: December 30, 2010, 11:09:29 PM »

What canons would those be?
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#CANONS
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #192 on: December 30, 2010, 11:43:58 PM »

Quote
1. On God the creator of all things

1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.
2. If anyone is so bold as to assert that
there exists nothing besides matter:
let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that
the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same:
let him be anathema.

4. If anyone says
that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or
that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally,
that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals:
let him be anathema.
5. If anyone
does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or
holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or
denies that the world was created for the glory of God:
let him be anathema.
Return to Table of Contents

2. On revelation
1. If anyone says that
the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty
from the things that have been made,
by the natural light of human reason:
let him be anathema.

2. If anyone says that it is
impossible, or
not expedient,
that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about
God and
the worship that should be shown him :
let him be anathema.

3. If anyone says that a human being
cannot be divinely elevated to a
knowledge and
perfection
which exceeds the natural, but
of himself can and must reach finally the possession of all
truth and
goodness
by continual development:
let him be anathema.


4. If anyone
does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of sacred scripture with all their parts, as the holy council of Trent listed them, or
denies that they were divinely inspired :
let him be anathema.
Return to Table of Contents

3. On faith
1. If anyone says that
human reason is so independent that faith cannot be commanded by God:
let him be anathema.

2. If anyone says that
divine faith is not to be distinguished from natural knowledge about God and moral matters, and consequently that
for divine faith it is not required that revealed truth should be believed because of the authority of God who reveals it:
let him be anathema.

3. If anyone says that
divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore
men and women ought to be moved to faith only by each one's internal experience or private inspiration:
let him be anathema.

4. If anyone says that
all miracles are impossible, and that therefore
all reports of them, even those contained in sacred scripture, are to be set aside as fables or myths; or that
miracles can never be known with certainty,
nor can the divine origin of the christian religion be proved from them:
let him be anathema.

5. If anyone says that
the assent to christian faith is
not free, but is
necessarily produced by arguments of human reason; or that
the grace of God is necessary only for living faith which works by charity:
let him be anathema.
6. If anyone says that
the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that
Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith:
let him be anathema.
Return to Table of Contents

4. On faith and reason
1. If anyone says that
in divine revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that
all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles:
let him be anathema.

2. If anyone says that
human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that
they may not be forbidden by the church:
let him be anathema.

3. If anyone says that
it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
let him be anathema.
What canons?
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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #193 on: December 31, 2010, 05:52:18 PM »

What canons?
I have actually run into Latin Catholics on the internet - but never in person - who support Dictatus Papae.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,268



« Reply #194 on: January 02, 2011, 10:23:51 PM »

As Thomist says, you are in fact not in communion with Rome, as you do not share their faith.
I am in communion with the Melkite Patriarch, who happens to be in communion with Rome.  That said, neither you nor Thomist, at least as far as I can tell, are in a position to bring about a schism between the bishop of Rome and the Melkite Catholic Patriarch.

If the Melkite Patriarch is in communion with Rome, he must have the faith of Rome. So either you are lying to us when you say "I don't subscribe to Papal supremacy", or you are lying to your church when you take communion.
Or union with Rome is merely lipservice and external?

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,942


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #195 on: January 02, 2011, 10:37:14 PM »

What canons?

Everything you just posted was under the title canons:

CANONS
1. On God the creator of all things


Perhaps Anathemas would have been better.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,026


"My god is greater."


« Reply #196 on: January 03, 2011, 09:57:47 AM »

Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.

Papist,

Let's tone it done a bit.  In the East, excommunication must be imposed by one's hierarch.  By your definition the Melkite Synod isn't Catholic because I doubt you will find a one that agrees to any post schism council 100% and the Pope knows it.  So if the Pope has not deemed the Melkite's disagreement worthy of excommunication, I think you can stop throwing around excommunications your not entitled to make.

A conscious rejection of some stated dogma of the faith is self-excommunication, or, to put it in Western terms, excommunication latae sententiae. It is not like some other canonical infringement where the hierarch's discretion is relied upon. It follows that those who deny the Vatican's dogma of Papal infallibility fall under its anathema and are not part of their self-styled "Catholic Church." The fact that Rome doesn't act on this doesn't indicate that this isn't true, it just proves how feeble in reality the "Supreme Pontiff" and the Magisterium are, how desperate they are to boost their numbers, and what a sham the "unity" is which is supposed to be guaranteed by the "See of Peter." It also indicates that the Melkites have some superstitious, magical view o the Church of Rome, so that unity with them is absolutely essential irrespective of the faith they hold.

 I would say one of the clearest and easiest arguments today against the Papal claims is to just point at the Melkites. Either repeal the dogma or enforce it- this current regime of mushiness makes it impossible to take Vatican apologists seriously. LIkewise, the Melkites need to decide whether they are "Catholics" or Orthodox- at present, they are neither.

« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 10:08:06 AM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #197 on: January 03, 2011, 10:13:34 AM »

Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  Grin
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #198 on: January 03, 2011, 10:15:59 AM »

Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.

Papist,

Let's tone it done a bit.  In the East, excommunication must be imposed by one's hierarch.  By your definition the Melkite Synod isn't Catholic because I doubt you will find a one that agrees to any post schism council 100% and the Pope knows it.  So if the Pope has not deemed the Melkite's disagreement worthy of excommunication, I think you can stop throwing around excommunications your not entitled to make.

A conscious rejection of some stated dogma of the faith is self-excommunication, or, to put it in Western terms, excommunication latae sententiae. It is not like some other canonical infringement where the hierarch's discretion is relied upon. It follows that those who deny the Vatican's dogma of Papal infallibility fall under its anathema and are not part of their self-styled "Catholic Church." The fact that Rome doesn't act on this doesn't indicate that this isn't true, it just proves how feeble in reality the "Supreme Pontiff" and the Magisterium are, how desperate they are to boost their numbers, and what a sham the "unity" is which is supposed to be guaranteed by the "See of Peter." It also indicates that the Melkites have some superstitious, magical view o the Church of Rome, so that unity with them is absolutely essential irrespective of the faith they hold.

 I would say one of the clearest and easiest arguments today against the Papal claims is to just point at the Melkites. Either repeal the dogma or enforce it- this current regime of mushiness makes it impossible to take Vatican apologists seriously. LIkewise, the Melkites need to decide whether they are "Catholics" or Orthodox- at present, they are neither.


For the most part I agree with you. If the Melkites don't accept the teachings of Vatican I, then they should be excommunicated. But, from what I understand, this is not the case.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #199 on: January 03, 2011, 12:09:42 PM »

Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  Grin
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #200 on: January 03, 2011, 12:12:06 PM »

Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  Grin
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #201 on: January 03, 2011, 12:22:26 PM »

Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  Grin
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #202 on: January 03, 2011, 12:40:08 PM »

Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  Grin
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.

Authority is irrelevant. If you only profess Orthodox faith, you're an Orthodox, not Catholic.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #203 on: January 04, 2011, 09:29:27 AM »

Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  Grin
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.

Authority is irrelevant. If you only profess Orthodox faith, you're an Orthodox, not Catholic.

I don't really understand the point of this comment, which I would have thought was obvious. But I will say: I have rarely found authority to be irrelevant.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 09:29:48 AM by Hermogenes » Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #204 on: January 04, 2011, 11:45:41 AM »

Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  Grin
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.

Authority is irrelevant. If you only profess Orthodox faith, you're an Orthodox, not Catholic.


Actually you are an Orthodox Catholic which most of us who post here are.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #205 on: January 04, 2011, 04:33:58 PM »

Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  Grin
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.

Authority is irrelevant. If you only profess Orthodox faith, you're an Orthodox, not Catholic.


Actually you are an Orthodox Catholic which most of us who post here are.

Orthodoc
Roll Eyes
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #206 on: January 04, 2011, 05:32:03 PM »

Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  Grin
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.

Authority is irrelevant. If you only profess Orthodox faith, you're an Orthodox, not Catholic.


Actually you are an Orthodox Catholic which most of us who post here are.

Orthodoc
Roll Eyes

The name of the OCA in 1962, when the cornerstone of my parish church was laid, was the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. (It had the same name in 1924, when the first cornerstone was laid for the first church.)
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #207 on: January 04, 2011, 05:32:56 PM »

Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  Grin
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

An EO who believed in papal infallibility would probably be called a heretic.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #208 on: January 04, 2011, 05:51:05 PM »

Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  Grin
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

An EO who believed in papal infallibility would probably be called a heretic.

 laugh laugh laugh

Only if he or she tells somebody.  I know many who have told me that they believe easily in the Immaculate Conception and who would be willing to accept papal primacy and also infallibility if it did not threaten the autonomy and existence of Orthodox conciliarity and sobornicity.  They simply do not see the great chasm that many Orthodox believers depend upon for their daily dose of certitude.

And as long as they keep their mouths shut and work on running the race, nobody is the wiser.  But they, or people like them,  will be the ones who will be the first to accept resumption of communion when it happens.

They are the ones that the Catholics who give a hoot will have to work to protect from the razor tongues of other Catholics who don't care so much.

There's going to be a great deal of work to be done eventually.  There are no souls that can simply be cast adrift simply because they are "difficult."

M.
Logged

Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #209 on: January 04, 2011, 07:15:14 PM »

Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  Grin
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.

Authority is irrelevant. If you only profess Orthodox faith, you're an Orthodox, not Catholic.

I don't really understand the point of this comment, which I would have thought was obvious. But I will say: I have rarely found authority to be irrelevant.

Azurestone was just pointing out that Papist wasn't making any claim about auctoritas inhering in those Patriarchs, but merely pointing out that if you believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church believes, and not what the Roman Catholic Church believes, then you are Eastern Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.

Though that does raise a question that interests me: Why should there be any Patriarchs at all? If a bishop can be autocephalous, why shouldn't every parish priest be autocephalous? If Constantinople ought not to interfere with Moscow, then why should any parish interfere with any other? If there isn't to be a head of the Church, then it seems to me that the Protestants got it right on ecclesiology. It would be pointed out of course that it has been done this way in the past, but so what? I can't think of any reason you'd want to have Bishops, except that you'd want there to be some unifying power of authority within the Church, and it certainly seems bizarre to me that this chain of authority would just arbitrarily stop at the Patriarchs. Especially since that's a model that would so obviously end up creating a schism over the issue of, say, whether the Patriarch of Rome or the Patriarch of Constantinople had authority in a place like Bulgaria where their Churches met. Orthodox say that Christ is the only head of their Church. Why can Christ be trusted to ensure unity without earthly authority on the level of various Patriarchates, but when you get down to the level of an individual Patriarchate or a Diocese, now we need man to step in?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 07:29:34 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #210 on: January 04, 2011, 07:48:26 PM »


Quote

Azurestone was just pointing out that Papist wasn't making any claim about auctoritas inhering in those Patriarchs, but merely pointing out that if you believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church believes, and not what the Roman Catholic Church believes, then you are Eastern Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.

Though that does raise a question that interests me: Why should there be any Patriarchs at all? If a bishop can be autocephalous, why shouldn't every parish priest be autocephalous? If Constantinople ought not to interfere with Moscow, then why should any parish interfere with any other? If there isn't to be a head of the Church, then it seems to me that the Protestants got it right on ecclesiology. It would be pointed out of course that it has been done this way in the past, but so what? I can't think of any reason you'd want to have Bishops, except that you'd want there to be some unifying power of authority within the Church, and it certainly seems bizarre to me that this chain of authority would just arbitrarily stop at the Patriarchs. Especially since that's a model that would so obviously end up creating a schism over the issue of, say, whether the Patriarch of Rome or the Patriarch of Constantinople had authority in a place like Bulgaria where their Churches met. Orthodox say that Christ is the only head of their Church. Why can Christ be trusted to ensure unity without earthly authority on the level of various Patriarchates, but when you get down to the level of an individual Patriarchate or a Diocese, now we need man to step in?

What a very unusual viewpoint, coming from a Roman Catholic.
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #211 on: January 04, 2011, 07:56:35 PM »

I was asking why from Orthodox logic. Of course that isn't my position.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #212 on: January 04, 2011, 08:05:58 PM »

I was asking why from Orthodox logic. Of course that isn't my position.

I'm not a theologian, so I invite replies from those who are. But I would imagine it is because the patriarchs are the direct successors of the apostles who founded their respective churches. So, Peter for the church of Antioch (and Rome); Andrew the First-Called for the See of Byzantium; Mark for Alexandria; etc. The patriarchs represent the apostolic succession. I'm sure there's a more profound answer than that.

Why the pope? Your arguments apply just as forcefully to him. And the hierarchy of the Western church aren't even considered equal, so why not do away with these bureaucratic intermediaries, these feudal remnants? What function do they actually serve?
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #213 on: January 04, 2011, 08:12:54 PM »

The Catholic position is Subsidiarity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism)

As for why Rome, it is because the successors of the Roman See are the successors of Peter. It is sometimes argued that Antioch and perhaps Alexandria (Through Mark) could claim the same honor, but it is clear from the first millenium, even if you reject Petrine and/or Papal Supremacy, at the Roman See was seen as the Petrine See.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 08:13:17 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #214 on: January 04, 2011, 08:27:51 PM »

The Catholic position is Subsidiarity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism)

As for why Rome, it is because the successors of the Roman See are the successors of Peter. It is sometimes argued that Antioch and perhaps Alexandria (Through Mark) could claim the same honor, but it is clear from the first millenium, even if you reject Petrine and/or Papal Supremacy, at the Roman See was seen as the Petrine See.

The Bishop of Rome was always accorded the prestige of his position as head of the church in the imperial capital. It started running of the rails when he started demanding a prestige very much in excess of that. Look at his titles: Christ's Vicar on Earth! Successor to the Apostles (all of them!)! etc. And while some of the medieval popes were exceptional, an awful lot of papal politics were the politics of Italy. I'm not saying the Eastern church didn't have plenty of the same squalid materialism an partisanship, but the patriarchs weren't simultaneously claiming for themselves Christ's exclusive vice-regency or the right to speak on behalf of all the Apostles for and to the entire church. Even today. the Catholic church refers to itself arrogantly and grandiosely as "the universal church," when it is clearly no such thing. If such a title even made linguistic sense.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,942


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #215 on: January 04, 2011, 10:10:07 PM »

The Bishop of Rome was always accorded the prestige of his position as head of the church in the imperial capital. It started running of the rails when he started demanding a prestige very much in excess of that. Look at his titles: Christ's Vicar on Earth! Successor to the Apostles (all of them!)! etc.

Incorrect.  The Pope' s titles in the Annuario Pontificio are: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God.  Patriarch of the West was used from 1863 to 2005.  Vicar of Peter was also used.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #216 on: January 05, 2011, 12:26:58 AM »

The Bishop of Rome was always accorded the prestige of his position as head of the church in the imperial capital. It started running of the rails when he started demanding a prestige very much in excess of that. Look at his titles: Christ's Vicar on Earth! Successor to the Apostles (all of them!)! etc.

Incorrect.  The Pope' s titles in the Annuario Pontificio are: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God.  Patriarch of the West was used from 1863 to 2005.  Vicar of Peter was also used.
Response of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the dropping of the ancient title "Patriarch of the West."

Announcement of the Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod Regarding the Denouncement by Pope Benedict XVI of Rome of the title "Patriarch of the West"
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,942


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #217 on: January 05, 2011, 01:23:16 AM »

I agree dropping Patriarch of the West was dumb in relation to the Orthodox.  On the otherhand, Rome never viewed the title of patriarch as a big deal as witnessed by the creation of "minor patriarchs" in Venice, Lisbon, and the East and West Indies.  Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff were always the titles Rome valued.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #218 on: January 05, 2011, 01:26:10 AM »

Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff were always the titles Rome valued.
Those titles are of later origin and they will never be accepted by the Orthodox, which is why they should be dropped.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #219 on: January 05, 2011, 01:49:29 AM »

I agree dropping Patriarch of the West was dumb in relation to the Orthodox.  On the otherhand, Rome never viewed the title of patriarch as a big deal as witnessed by the creation of "minor patriarchs" in Venice, Lisbon, and the East and West Indies.  Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff were always the titles Rome valued.

"Patriarch" didn't even have that much use before the 6th century and its introduction was much connected to the other innovation of the Pentarchy, which Rome also wasn't very fond of.

The common title before that time of a Bishop having authority over numerous metropolitical provinces, corresponding to the dioceses developed by Emperor Diocletian, was "Exarch".
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,942


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #220 on: January 05, 2011, 02:07:08 AM »

Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff were always the titles Rome valued.
Those titles are of later origin and they will never be accepted by the Orthodox, which is why they should be dropped.
Supreme Pontiff dates from the late 300s and Vicar of Christ from the late 400s.  On the otherhand, Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, confirming the supra-metropolitan powers of the archbishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Ephesus, Caesarea, and Heraclea called them exarchs, patriarch didn't become vogue till later.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #221 on: January 05, 2011, 02:07:12 AM »

Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  Grin
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.

Authority is irrelevant. If you only profess Orthodox faith, you're an Orthodox, not Catholic.

I don't really understand the point of this comment, which I would have thought was obvious. But I will say: I have rarely found authority to be irrelevant.

Azurestone was just pointing out that Papist wasn't making any claim about auctoritas inhering in those Patriarchs, but merely pointing out that if you believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church believes, and not what the Roman Catholic Church believes, then you are Eastern Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.

Though that does raise a question that interests me: Why should there be any Patriarchs at all? If a bishop can be autocephalous, why shouldn't every parish priest be autocephalous? If Constantinople ought not to interfere with Moscow, then why should any parish interfere with any other? If there isn't to be a head of the Church, then it seems to me that the Protestants got it right on ecclesiology. It would be pointed out of course that it has been done this way in the past, but so what? I can't think of any reason you'd want to have Bishops, except that you'd want there to be some unifying power of authority within the Church, and it certainly seems bizarre to me that this chain of authority would just arbitrarily stop at the Patriarchs. Especially since that's a model that would so obviously end up creating a schism over the issue of, say, whether the Patriarch of Rome or the Patriarch of Constantinople had authority in a place like Bulgaria where their Churches met. Orthodox say that Christ is the only head of their Church. Why can Christ be trusted to ensure unity without earthly authority on the level of various Patriarchates, but when you get down to the level of an individual Patriarchate or a Diocese, now we need man to step in?

This is the elephant in the living room.  And it is acknowledged as such by those Orthodox who are engaged in the formal bilateral discussions. 
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #222 on: January 05, 2011, 02:12:04 AM »

Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff were always the titles Rome valued.
Those titles are of later origin and they will never be accepted by the Orthodox, which is why they should be dropped.
Supreme Pontiff dates from the late 300s and Vicar of Christ from the late 400s.  On the otherhand, Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, confirming the supra-metropolitan powers of the archbishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Ephesus, Caesarea, and Heraclea called them exarchs, patriarch didn't become vogue till later.
That is not what I have read.  The popes originally held the title vicar of Peter as late as the 5th century (which they did not hold in a unique fashion), and the term vicar of Christ arose only after the 10th century.  As far as supreme pontiff is concerned, that pagan title was applied to the pope in the fourth century but was never accepted as legitimate in the East.

The title "pope" as exemplified in Alexandria is the equivalent of Patriarch.  The Roman bishop must drop his pretensions to glory and become a true servant.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 02:15:04 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #223 on: January 05, 2011, 02:17:42 AM »

Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff were always the titles Rome valued.
Those titles are of later origin and they will never be accepted by the Orthodox, which is why they should be dropped.
Supreme Pontiff dates from the late 300s and Vicar of Christ from the late 400s.  On the otherhand, Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, confirming the supra-metropolitan powers of the archbishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Ephesus, Caesarea, and Heraclea called them exarchs, patriarch didn't become vogue till later.
That is not what I have read.  The popes originally held the title vicar of Peter as late as the 5th century (which they did not hold in a unique fashion), and the term vicar of Christ arose only after the 10th century.  As far as supreme pontiff is concerned, that pagan title was applied to the pope in the fourth century but was never accepted as legitimate in the East.

The pagan title, that was later rejected, was Pontifix Maximus or "the Greatest Bridge-builder", not Supreme Pontiff. The title was originally given to the head of the pagan priests in Rome. The nature of a priest is to "build a bridge" between man and God. The name in and of itself is not heretical, however by association, is stiff-armed.

The title "pope" as exemplified in Alexandria, is the equivalent of Patriarch.  The Roman bishop must drop his pretensions to glory and become a true servant.

The ecclesiology of the Pope/Bishop is a higher Church mirror of the lower Church Bishop/Presbyter , i.e. where one is set over the others for unity of faith. The concept is not for "pretensions of glory". One I'm surprised a "Catholic" doesn't understand.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 02:22:10 AM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #224 on: January 05, 2011, 02:23:22 AM »

The pagan title, that was later rejected, was Pontifix Maximus or "the Greatest Bridge-builder", not Supreme Pontiff. The title was originally given to the head of the pagan priests in Rome. The nature of a priest is to "build a bridge" between man and God. The name in and of itself is not heretical, however by association, is stiff-armed.
Pontifex Maximus means Great (or Supreme) Pontiff.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »   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 0.194 seconds with 72 queries.