OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 19, 2014, 12:05:02 PM *
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 28671 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 #225 on: January 05, 2011, 02:25:51 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.
One other point needs to be made, and that is that the East never accepted those titles as valid.

"[In the East] the primacy of Rome was seldom directly denied, in the sense of 'the primacy among her sisters, and the presidency in the first place of honor at General Councils,' but the Latin interpretation of the primacy in terms of jurisdiction revealed a difference between East and West in the doctrine of the Church. Attempts were made to relate this to the filioque, but these could not penetrate to the heart of the matter while the distinctive element in Latin theology was very little, if at all, understood in the East. St. Augustine was not translated into Greek before the fourteenth century. His De Civitate Dei and his anti-Donatist writings did much to determine the development of the Western doctrine of the Church, as his anti-Pelagian writings are the starting-point of all Western controversies on the nature of grace. Grace is the connecting link between theology (in the Byzantine sense of the doctrine of the Trinity) and ecclesiology, the doctrine of the Church. The Eastern Churches never had a doctrine of created grace, of the gifts of God apart from the gift of Himself to the baptized who are buried and risen with Christ and live and reign in the Holy Spirit. Therefore they could never understand the idea of the vicar of Christ ruling His Church in His absence. They thought of their bishops not in the first place as rulers, but as high-priests in the presence of Christ and the Spirit, witnesses to the truth, and stewards of the mysteries of God." [George Every, S.S.M., The Byzantine Patriarchate 451-1204, pages 191-192]
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 02:26:29 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
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #226 on: January 05, 2011, 02:33:15 AM »

Quote from: Apotheoun
Pontifex Maximus means Great (or Supreme) Pontiff.


And "Pontifex" means "Bridge-builder" from "Pons" (Bridge) and "Faecere" (To do or to make). Thus "Pontifex Maximus" is Great (or Supreme) Bridge-Builder.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 02:41:07 AM 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
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 #227 on: January 05, 2011, 02:35:44 AM »

Quote from: Apotheoun
Pontifex Maximus means Great (or Supreme) Pontiff.


And "Pontifex" means "Bridge-builder" from "Pons" (Bridge) and "Faecere" (To do or to make). Thus "Pontifex Maximus" is Great (or Supreme) Bridge-Builder.
Look up the etymology of the word "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
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #228 on: January 05, 2011, 02:40:34 AM »

I'm very well acquainted with both the Latin language and Roman history, thank you. I am well aware of what the Pontifex Maximus was.

The east's uneasiness with the western claims of dominance is not related to any airy doctrine of grace, but with the fact that from the Gothic War of A.D 535, the Byzantine Empire came to see western Europe generally and Italy specifically as alternatively a prospective target for military conquest or, after the rise of the Normans and the Holy Roman Empire, a threat to its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 02:42:41 AM 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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #229 on: January 05, 2011, 02:41:10 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.

I studied Latin...

A pontifex, coming from "pons, pontis : bridge", used for a priest, but also literally a "bridge builder". Maximus, the superlative of magnus (large, great, big, etc), does not mean supreme, but greatest. Therefore, Supreme Pontiff is not only a partial translation, but a mistranslation.
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 #230 on: January 05, 2011, 02:45:30 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.

I studied Latin...

A pontifex, coming from "pons, pontis : bridge", used for a priest, but also literally a "bridge builder". Maximus, the superlative of magnus (large, great, big, etc), does not mean supreme, but greatest. Therefore, Supreme Pontiff is not only a partial translation, but a mistranslation.
The apologetic attempts of some of my Roman Catholic friends borders on the nonsensical.
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 #231 on: January 05, 2011, 03:00:55 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.

I studied Latin...

A pontifex, coming from "pons, pontis : bridge", used for a priest, but also literally a "bridge builder". Maximus, the superlative of magnus (large, great, big, etc), does not mean supreme, but greatest. Therefore, Supreme Pontiff is not only a partial translation, but a mistranslation.
The apologetic attempts of some of my Roman Catholic friends borders on the nonsensical.

What's nonsensical? We know Latin and are therefore are nonsensical?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #232 on: January 05, 2011, 03:07:39 AM »

I think Apotheoun took you to mean that by clarifying the latin meaning of Pontifex Maximus you were thereby denying that the Popes were claiming to be the Supreme Priests of Christianity.
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
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 #233 on: January 05, 2011, 04:53:51 PM »

I think Apotheoun took you to mean that by clarifying the latin meaning of Pontifex Maximus you were thereby denying that the Popes were claiming to be the Supreme Priests of Christianity.
Yes, that is how I took what he wrote.  Be that as it may, the words "maximus" and "summus" can both be rendered into English as "greatest," "highest," or "utmost," and so the to say that the "pontifex maximus" and "summus pontifex" are unrelated really is pointless.
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
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: 37,626



« Reply #234 on: January 05, 2011, 05:08:35 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.
Maybe. I do know that the present Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow (in correct order, btw) believe everything in the Orthodox Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  As long as they do, they are Catholic.
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: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #235 on: January 05, 2011, 05:12:47 PM »

I think Apotheoun took you to mean that by clarifying the latin meaning of Pontifex Maximus you were thereby denying that the Popes were claiming to be the Supreme Priests of Christianity.
Yes, that is how I took what he wrote.  Be that as it may, the words "maximus" and "summus" can both be rendered into English as "greatest," "highest," or "utmost," and so the to say that the "pontifex maximus" and "summus pontifex" are unrelated really is pointless.

What the Pope claims is beside the point. I don't like arguments from false polemics (known or misconceived). It progresses nothing, but anger.

Greatest and Supreme mean similar things, but they are not perfect synonyms. They both have they're own type of baggage.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 05:13:38 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
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: 37,626



« Reply #236 on: January 05, 2011, 05:15:31 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.

I know many who have told me that they reject papal supremacy and infallibility, while still going to the Vatican's churches.  They simply do not see the great requirement on obeying the supreme pontiff that many "Catholic" believers depend upon for their daily dose of certitude.  In fact, a great many of the 90%+ of the Vatican's folllowers who practice birth control tell anybody these views.

Quote
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.

and what are they going to do when it doesn't?

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
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: 37,626



« Reply #237 on: January 05, 2011, 05:32:35 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?

Because he is not a member of the episcopate.  Since Vaticn I and II reduced your bishops to acolytes to the Supreme Pontiff, I can see how you are confused by the distinction.

Quote
If Constantinople ought not to interfere with Moscow, then why should any parish interfere with any other?

Because parishes all depend on their existence on the one bishop.

Quote
If there isn't to be a head of the Church,

The Church has a Head. The Head.

Quote
then it seems to me that the Protestants got it right on ecclesiology.

Since they are the other side of your coin, that doesn't come as a suprise.

Quote
It would be pointed out of course that it has been done this way in the past, but so what?

As the Fathers often state "Do not move the ancient boundary Which your fathers have set." Prov. 22:28

Quote
I can't think of any reason you'd want to have Bishops,

Because Christ sent them.

Quote
except that you'd want there to be some unifying power of authority within the Church,

Yes. Your point?

Quote
and it certainly seems bizarre to me that this chain of authority would just arbitrarily stop at the Patriarchs.

It doesn't, as the last Patriarch of Jerusalem found out the hard way.

Quote
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.


Quote
Orthodox say that Christ is the only head of their Church.

Because the Scriptures and Fathers tell us so.

Quote
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 man is stepping in?
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
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: 37,626



« Reply #238 on: January 05, 2011, 05:41:25 PM »

The Catholic position is Subsidiarity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism)
Your ecclesiastical community doesn't claim that a principle in your ecclesiology.

Quote
The word subsidiarity is derived from the Latin word subsidiarius and has its origins in Catholic social teaching.

The principle of subsidiarity was first developed by German theologian Oswald von Nell-Breuning.[2] His work shaped the social teaching of Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum and holds that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently.

So are you admiting that ecclesiastical order follows secular order?

Quote
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.
Pope St. Gregory of Rome argued that Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were one Petrine see.

And that St. Peter was the founder of the Chair of Antioch is admited even by the Vatican, whose calendar on the Chair of St. Peter was originally the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Antioch. Besides the fact that Scripture explicitly links St. Peter with Antioch.
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
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #239 on: January 05, 2011, 05:51:10 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.
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"

My mistake. Those are definitely much less flashy titles. Especially "Vicar of Jesus Christ" and "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church." Let's just ignore the half-billion-plus Christians who are not in any way associated with the so-called universal church and think the pope is just a kindly old German gentleman who's really, really smart.
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #240 on: January 05, 2011, 07:17:23 PM »

Quote from: Ialmisry
Because parishes all depend on their existence on the one bishop.

So what? Prove that in point of administrative fact Churches couldn't exist without earthly bishops. Protestants seem to do it alright. Indeed, there's a lot more Protestants than Orthodox in the world, so if anything their model is more effective than yours is.

Quote from: ialmisry
The Church has a Head. The Head.

Earthly head, obviously. Don't play dumb.

Quote from: ialmisry
As the Fathers often state "Do not move the ancient boundary Which your fathers have set." Prov. 22:28

So what? Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Quote from: Ialmisry
Because Christ sent them.

No, that's appeal to authority again. Why did Christ send them?

Quote from: ialmisry
It doesn't, as the last Patriarch of Jerusalem found out the hard way.

Be specific.

Quote from: Ialmisry
Because the Scriptures and Fathers tell us so.

Appeal to authority, again.

Quote from: Ialmisry
What man is stepping in?

If Christ can be depended upon to ensure the earthly unity of the Church, no men are needed to provide any structure. Just depend on Christ.

Quote from: ialmisry

39 years vs 1000
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 07:20:43 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #241 on: January 05, 2011, 07:20:10 PM »

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.

I studied Latin...

A pontifex, coming from "pons, pontis : bridge", used for a priest, but also literally a "bridge builder". Maximus, the superlative of magnus (large, great, big, etc), does not mean supreme, but greatest. Therefore, Supreme Pontiff is not only a partial translation, but a mistranslation.
The apologetic attempts of some of my Roman Catholic friends borders on the nonsensical.
This coming from the guy who attempts to provide apologetics for his own position of not professing the Catholic faith, while claiming to remain in communion with the Catholic Church.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #242 on: January 05, 2011, 07:33:18 PM »

Let's just ignore the half-billion-plus Christians who are not in any way associated with the so-called universal church and think the pope is just a kindly old German gentleman who's really, really smart.


LOL
Logged


I'm going to need this.
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: 37,626



« Reply #243 on: January 05, 2011, 08:57:12 PM »

Quote from: Ialmisry
Because parishes all depend on their existence on the one bishop.
So what? Prove that in point of administrative fact Churches couldn't exist without earthly bishops.
The antimens.

The corruption of the Vatican's priesthold into a personal possession of an "alter Christi," which can even be taken into heresy forever, would seem to lay at the source of your confusion.

Quote
Protestants seem to do it alright.
Well, as we say in Arabic, the pot has found its ladle.

Quote
Indeed, there's a lot more Protestants than Orthodox in the world,

Mat. 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Luke 12:32 "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."

Before 1517, Protestants (besides the Vatican, the original Protestant) were few and far between, whereas we been around since c. 27.

Quote
so if anything their model is more effective than yours is.

In proliferating heresy and schism, yes it is. Thousands of denominations in constant flux.

Quote from: ialmisry
The Church has a Head. The Head.

Earthly head, obviously. Don't play dumb.

It is not our fault your ecclassical body is severed from our Head, while we still have our Head on straight.

Quote from: ialmisry
As the Fathers often state "Do not move the ancient boundary Which your fathers have set." Prov. 22:28

So what? Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Care to square that with Pastor Aeternus?

Quote from: Ialmisry
Because Christ sent them.

No, that's appeal to authority again. Why did Christ send them?
"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you." John 20:21

Quote from: ialmisry
It doesn't, as the last Patriarch of Jerusalem found out the hard way.

Be specific.

The bishops of the Holy Synod deposed him.

Quote from: Ialmisry
Because the Scriptures and Fathers tell us so.

Appeal to authority, again.
Mat. 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Odd, you ultramontanists are usually big fans of authority. Only Rome's, of course.

Quote from: Ialmisry
What man is stepping in?

If Christ can be depended upon to ensure the earthly unity of the Church, no men are needed to provide any structure. Just depend on Christ.

"He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me." Luke 10:16.

"Jesus himself did not baptize, but His disciples." John 4:2

Quote from: ialmisry

39 years vs 1000
Just that bout. It's not the only schism you guys had.

And it is vs. 0, as we have never experienced anything like your Great Schism, nor your Reformation.
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: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #244 on: January 05, 2011, 09:22:26 PM »

Quote from: ialmisry
The Church has a Head. The Head.

Earthly head, obviously. Don't play dumb.

It is not our fault your ecclassical body is severed from our Head, while we still have our Head on straight.

Does a bishop replace God?

39 years vs 1000
Just that bout. It's not the only schism you guys had.

And it is vs. 0, as we have never experienced anything like your Great Schism, nor your Reformation.

Orthodoxy has internal communion problems, much less bodies completely separated (e.g. True Orthodoxy).

The comparison is apples to oranges, as Orthodoxy doesn't have a primate bishop to signify the point of unity beyond the local level, but Orthodoxy has had it's share of rogue Churches. The difference is the opportunity for these Churches to spread. Whether it be full state sponsorship or, like the US, countries  providing an environment fertile to relativist Bible interpretation.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 09:24:06 PM 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 #245 on: January 05, 2011, 10:02:01 PM »

I think Apotheoun took you to mean that by clarifying the latin meaning of Pontifex Maximus you were thereby denying that the Popes were claiming to be the Supreme Priests of Christianity.
Yes, that is how I took what he wrote.  Be that as it may, the words "maximus" and "summus" can both be rendered into English as "greatest," "highest," or "utmost," and so the to say that the "pontifex maximus" and "summus pontifex" are unrelated really is pointless.

What the Pope claims is beside the point. I don't like arguments from false polemics (known or misconceived). It progresses nothing, but anger.

Greatest and Supreme mean similar things, but they are not perfect synonyms. They both have they're own type of baggage.
As I see it supremacy belongs to Christ alone, but you may think whatever you wish on the matter.
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 #246 on: January 05, 2011, 10:14:03 PM »

I think Apotheoun took you to mean that by clarifying the latin meaning of Pontifex Maximus you were thereby denying that the Popes were claiming to be the Supreme Priests of Christianity.
Yes, that is how I took what he wrote.  Be that as it may, the words "maximus" and "summus" can both be rendered into English as "greatest," "highest," or "utmost," and so the to say that the "pontifex maximus" and "summus pontifex" are unrelated really is pointless.

What the Pope claims is beside the point. I don't like arguments from false polemics (known or misconceived). It progresses nothing, but anger.

Greatest and Supreme mean similar things, but they are not perfect synonyms. They both have they're own type of baggage.
As I see it supremacy belongs to Christ alone, but you may think whatever you wish on the matter.

*Jab!*

I don't believe in "Papal Supremacy".

You appear to assUme many things about me. That's twice.
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 #247 on: January 05, 2011, 11:55:04 PM »

I think Apotheoun took you to mean that by clarifying the latin meaning of Pontifex Maximus you were thereby denying that the Popes were claiming to be the Supreme Priests of Christianity.
Yes, that is how I took what he wrote.  Be that as it may, the words "maximus" and "summus" can both be rendered into English as "greatest," "highest," or "utmost," and so the to say that the "pontifex maximus" and "summus pontifex" are unrelated really is pointless.

What the Pope claims is beside the point. I don't like arguments from false polemics (known or misconceived). It progresses nothing, but anger.

Greatest and Supreme mean similar things, but they are not perfect synonyms. They both have they're own type of baggage.
As I see it supremacy belongs to Christ alone, but you may think whatever you wish on the matter.

*Jab!*

I don't believe in "Papal Supremacy".

You appear to assUme many things about me. That's twice.
I am glad that you reject papal supremacy, because I also reject it, and that is why I never refer to the bishop of Rome as "supreme pontiff" or by any other title that would imply some sort of papal absolutism.  Finally, as far as assuming something about your own personal position in connection with the topic under consideration is concerned, I did nothing of the sort, I simply said you may believe whatever you wish. 

Cheesy
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #248 on: January 06, 2011, 12:19:45 AM »

I think Apotheoun took you to mean that by clarifying the latin meaning of Pontifex Maximus you were thereby denying that the Popes were claiming to be the Supreme Priests of Christianity.
Yes, that is how I took what he wrote.  Be that as it may, the words "maximus" and "summus" can both be rendered into English as "greatest," "highest," or "utmost," and so the to say that the "pontifex maximus" and "summus pontifex" are unrelated really is pointless.

What the Pope claims is beside the point. I don't like arguments from false polemics (known or misconceived). It progresses nothing, but anger.

Greatest and Supreme mean similar things, but they are not perfect synonyms. They both have they're own type of baggage.
As I see it supremacy belongs to Christ alone, but you may think whatever you wish on the matter.

*Jab!*

I don't believe in "Papal Supremacy".

You appear to assUme many things about me. That's twice.
I am glad that you reject papal supremacy, because I also reject it, and that is why I never refer to the bishop of Rome as "supreme pontiff" or by any other title that would imply some sort of papal absolutism.  Finally, as far as assuming something about your own personal position in connection with the topic under consideration is concerned, I did nothing of the sort, I simply said you may believe whatever you wish.  

Cheesy

What's the point if you are still under the Bishop of Rome and your hierarchs all bow down to him and signed a bunch of papers saying he is such a thing  as a "supreme" bishop ? Join the Orthodox Church and be free of the unorthodox office of the pope.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 12:21:33 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #249 on: January 06, 2011, 12:28:37 AM »

Azurestone, Papal Supremacy is the Catholic position. The official title of the Pope is: 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.

Quote from: ialmisry
The antimens.

No, the antimens are not a logical necessity, they are an incidental fact of custom.

Quote from: ialmisry
In proliferating heresy and schism, yes it is. Thousands of denominations in constant flux.

Begging the question.

Quote from: ialmisry
Care to square that with Pastor Aeternus?

No need to. The argument in favor of Papal Infallibility is not itself an appeal to authority, except insofar as one accepts public reason (see Kant, Rawls, Habermas) as applicable to Christianity. We're not arguing about whether Bishops have authority, we're investigating the reasons for and nature of that authority.

Quote from: Ialmisry
"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you." John 20:21

Appeal to authority again. We aren't investigating whether bishops have authority, we're investigating why. Simply pointing out that Christ said so is not an argument, we are concerned with why Christ said so.

Quote from: ialmisry
Mat. 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Odd, you ultramontanists are usually big fans of authority. Only Rome's, of course.

See above. I doubt that you simply fail to understand the concept of a thought experiment.

Quote from: ialmisry
"He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me." Luke 10:16.

"Jesus himself did not baptize, but His disciples." John 4:2

See above.

The Orthodox position is that the role of a Priest is to ensure that the sacraments are served, the faith preached, and the canons enforced in his parish. They hold that the role of a Bishop is to ensure that this is done in his diocese, that the role of a Metropolitan is to ensure that this is done in his Metropolis, and that the role of a Patriarch is to ensure that this is done in his Patriarchate. At this point they feel the chain should arbitrarily stop, and Christ should be called in to ensure unity through divine intervention. If Christ can be relied upon to ensure unity at this level, there is no reason to believe he should not be relied upon to ensure unity at any level. Every individual parish ought to be autocephalous by this logic, at the very most every individual diocese.

Quote from: Ialmisry
Just that bout. It's not the only schism you guys had.

And it is vs. 0, as we have never experienced anything like your Great Schism, nor your Reformation.

Presumably then you'd hold to the idea that using unleavened bread in the mass constitutes a schismatic practice because of its "Judaizing"? We won't be entertaining the general Orthodox obfuscation of the reason for the schism of 1054 here.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 12:32:47 AM 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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #250 on: January 06, 2011, 12:39:44 AM »

Nobody except the RCC uses unleavened bread. The ACOE uses a leavening containing the bread from the last supper which soaked the blood and water flowing from the side of Christ when St. John put it on the Master's side, this bread was used in the first Holy Qurbana (Eucharist) in Edessa and was given by Mar Addai. All of the ENTIRE Church (in East and West) founded by the Apostles according to patristics I read used this bread for the leaven being given by the Apostles to it.  A little bit of each Holy Qurbana (Eucharist) is left to make the Holy Leaven for the next Eucharist. This is a sacrament in the ACOE.

Why is the RCC the only one to not leaven the bread...?
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 12:44:33 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #251 on: January 06, 2011, 12:39:59 AM »

Azurestone, Papal Supremacy is the Catholic position. The official title of the Pope is: 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.

Yet, I'm neither Catholic nor Orthodox.  Smiley

Besides, "papal supremacy", as the ultramontanist position describes, is not necessarily the "Catholic position", despite the similarities to the title. I can argue from history, especially first millennium, more for a "high Petrine" papacy, than the ultramontanist "papal supremacy" or the Orthodox "low Petrine". (to steal terms from the infamous Mardukm)
Logged


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

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



WWW
« Reply #252 on: January 06, 2011, 12:45:38 AM »

Nobody except the RCC uses unleavened bread. The ACOE uses a special type of leavening containing the bread from the last supper which soaked the blood and water flowing from the side of Christ, this bread was used in the first Holy Qurbana (Eucharist) in Edessa and was given by Mar Addai.  A little bit of each Holy Qurbana (Eucharist) is left to make the Holy Leaven for the next Eucharist. This is a sacrament in the ACOE.

Why is the RCC the only one to not leaven the bread...?

They aren't. Some OO churches do, as well.

Despite history showing leavened bread as more likely the original practice (until unleaven's use in the eighth century), to argue validity of the Sacrament over "Wonderbread" or "Crackers" is assinine.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #253 on: January 06, 2011, 01:00:09 AM »

Nobody except the RCC uses unleavened bread. The ACOE uses a special type of leavening containing the bread from the last supper which soaked the blood and water flowing from the side of Christ, this bread was used in the first Holy Qurbana (Eucharist) in Edessa and was given by Mar Addai.  A little bit of each Holy Qurbana (Eucharist) is left to make the Holy Leaven for the next Eucharist. This is a sacrament in the ACOE.

Why is the RCC the only one to not leaven the bread...?

They aren't. Some OO churches do, as well.

Despite history showing leavened bread as more likely the original practice (until unleaven's use in the eighth century), to argue validity of the Sacrament over "Wonderbread" or "Crackers" is assinine.


In the ACOE leaven mantains continuity with the last supper because of the fact I told you (of the leaven being made from the remains of the first Eucharist being the bread from the last supper soaked with the blood of Christ and water by St. John, the Blood and Water which flowed from his side, and the bread was brought to Edessa by the disciple Mar Addai and elsewhere by other Apostles. Every Eucharist the leaven has been renewed from the remains of the previous Eucharist.) All Churches at one point leavened EXACTLY like the ACOE.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 01:18:33 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #254 on: January 06, 2011, 01:28:34 AM »

Nobody except the RCC uses unleavened bread.

Obviously all of the daughter groups of Rome also do.

Beyond that, you are wrong. The Armenian church uses unleavened bread.

A little bit of each Holy Qurbana (Eucharist) is left to make the Holy Leaven for the next Eucharist. This is a sacrament in the ACOE.

Interesting. I've never heard of this practice outside of the East Syrian tradition.
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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #255 on: January 06, 2011, 01:31:04 AM »

They aren't. Some OO churches do, as well.

I believe only the Armenian church does.

(until unleaven's use in the eighth century)

I've also been told that the Armenian church was observed using unleavened bread before that point.
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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #256 on: January 06, 2011, 01:33:39 AM »

All Churches at one point leavened EXACTLY like the ACOE.

Including always making the qurban from the leaven from the last Eucharist? Like I said, I've never heard that being done outside the East Syrian church, so it would be interesting to see where you come up with the assertion that at one point everyone else did it.
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
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #257 on: January 06, 2011, 01:36:06 AM »

The Last Supper was a passover celebration, so it is with certainty that we can say Christ and the Twelve Apostles used unleavened bread.

Perhaps they were guilty of heretical Judaizing.
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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #258 on: January 06, 2011, 01:39:02 AM »

The Last Supper was a passover celebration

That's not really agreed upon here.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #259 on: January 06, 2011, 01:42:15 AM »


The Last Supper was a passover celebration, so it is with certainty that we can say Christ and the Twelve Apostles used unleavened bread.


This is not necessarily the case.  Scholars say that they do not expect to ever untangle the question as to whether the Last Supper used leavened or unleavened bread.
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #260 on: January 06, 2011, 01:52:48 AM »

"On the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked. "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the passover?" (Matthew 26:17)

"On the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover Lamb, Jesus' disciples asked Him, 'Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the passover?'" (Mark 14:12-26)

"Then came the day of unleavened bread on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed." (Luke 22:7)

I have no problem with the east's ritual of using leavened bread, but Cerularius' claim that the west using unleavened bread constituted "Judaizing" was an absurd pretext for a political manuever premeditated for the purpose of creating schism. Cerularius would later engineer the downfall of Emperor Michael VI Stratiotikos and his replacement with the puppet Isaac I Komnenos. His goal was to create schism with the west and reduce the Emperor to a puppet in order to centralize the political and religious rulership of the Empire under himself/
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 02:00:45 AM 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
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: 37,626



« Reply #261 on: January 06, 2011, 02:27:16 AM »

Quote from: ialmisry
The Church has a Head. The Head.

Earthly head, obviously. Don't play dumb.

It is not our fault your ecclassical body is severed from our Head, while we still have our Head on straight.

Does a bishop replace God?
No, which why we have no need of a "supreme pontiff."

39 years vs 1000
Just that bout. It's not the only schism you guys had.

And it is vs. 0, as we have never experienced anything like your Great Schism, nor your Reformation.

Orthodoxy has internal communion problems,

Such as?

Quote
much less bodies completely separated (e.g. True Orthodoxy).
Like Sede Vacantism? Old Catholics? Polish National Catholics?....

The comparison is apples to oranges, as Orthodoxy doesn't have a primate bishop to signify the point of unity beyond the local level,
That's the point.
but Orthodoxy has had it's share of rogue Churches.

LOL Yes, like Rome.

The difference is the opportunity for these Churches to spread. Whether it be full state sponsorship or, like the US, countries  providing an environment fertile to relativist Bible interpretation.
Not sure of what point, if any, you are trying to make here.
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
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: 37,626



« Reply #262 on: January 06, 2011, 02:32:16 AM »

The Last Supper was a passover celebration, so it is with certainty that we can say Christ and the Twelve Apostles used unleavened bread.

Perhaps they were guilty of heretical Judaizing.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25677.msg413150/topicseen.html#msg413150
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
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #263 on: January 06, 2011, 02:37:19 AM »

I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 02:38:04 AM 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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #264 on: January 06, 2011, 06:17:58 AM »

"On the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked. "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the passover?" (Matthew 26:17)

"On the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover Lamb, Jesus' disciples asked Him, 'Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the passover?'" (Mark 14:12-26)

"Then came the day of unleavened bread on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed." (Luke 22:7)

Is the reason that you do not quote John that you know his timing disagrees with the synoptics?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #265 on: January 06, 2011, 06:27:36 AM »

I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread.


Rome (the Pope and the Diocese of Rome) was not using unleavened bread, although its usage was spreading through the rest of the Western Church under Norman influence.  Rome, conservative as ever, preserved the use of leavened bread long after much of the Western Church had changed to unleavened.  Whatever interpretation they placed on Matthew, Mark and Luke it did not prevent the use of leavened bread for many long centuries in the Church of Rome.


Read Jungman and Emminghaus.

And please peruse message 27 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13375.msg185956.html#msg185956

« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 06:39:19 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #266 on: January 06, 2011, 06:38:14 AM »

I don't care if the east uses leavened bread.......

..... The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.

No, it is not laughable when you know the flow of the history of it. The Church universally used leavened bread. 

The great problem with unleavened bread is that the Church first encountered it as a phenomenon of heresy.  It was adopted by the Armenians as a way to asssert that Christ has only one nature.  So when the Churches of the East come upon unleavened bread in the Eucharist ancient warning signals go off for them...

Something interesting from  Fr John H Erickson, Dean of Saint Vladimir's Seminary

http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/John-Erickson/articles/beyond-dialogue.html/

"...... Particularly instructive are the ways in which certain distinctive Armenian liturgical practices, such as the use of azymes (unleavened bread) and a chalice unmixed with water in the eucharist, come to be linked to Christological doctrine.  The origins of these practices are unknown, but they certainly antedate any division of the churches.  By late sixth century, however, they were becoming symbols of Armenian identity vis-a-vis the Greeks, who used leavened bread and wine mixed with warm water in the eucharist. 

"Refusing an invitation from Emperor Maurice to come to Constantinople to discuss reunion, Catholicos Movses II in 591 declared:  “I will not cross the River Azat nor will I eat the baked bread of the Greeks or drink their hot water.” [9]   

"By the late seventh century these distinctive liturgical practices, already symbols of national identity, have become even more potent symbols of Christological doctrine.  Reflecting the aphthartodocetism of Julian of Halicarnassus, which was then in the ascendency in the Armenian Church, Catholicos Sahak III (d. 703) writes:  “Now we profess the body of Christ [to be] incorrupt and all-powerful always and constantly from [the moment of] the union of the Logos.  This is why we take azymes [unleavened bread] for the bread of holiness with which we offer the salvific sacrifice, which signifies incorruptibility.” [10]   Then, after a barrage of typological and moral arguments supporting the use of unleavened bread, Sahak goes on in like manner to associate the unmixed chalice, free from the adulteration of added water, with the incorruptible blood of Christ. 

"The Byzantine Church quickly enough responded in kind.  The Synod in Trullo (691-92) almost certainly had Sahak’s treatise in mind when it decreed that any bishop or presbyter who does not mix water with the wine in the eucharist is to be deposed, on the grounds that he thus “proclaims the mystery incompletely and tampers with tradition” (canon 32). [11]   Very possibly Trullo also had Armenian liturgical practice in mind when it decreed “Let no man eat the unleavened bread of the Jews...” (canon 11).  In any case, in subsequent  polemical literature the issue of the bread and wine of the eucharist figures prominently, frequently to the exclusion of deeper theological reflection. 

"Thus, despite their common rejection of Chalcedon and the generally Severan orientation of their shared Christology,  the Armenian and Syrian churches in the Middle Ages sometimes attacked each other precisely because of such liturgical differences.  So also, as schism yawned between the Byzantine and Latin churches in the eleventh century, Byzantine polemicists transferred their anti-azyme arguments from the Armenians to the Latins, notwithstanding the latters’ manifestly Chalcedonian Christology.  Use of leavened bread and mingled wine, or conversely of unleavened bread and pure wine, immediately marked a community as either heretic or orthodox, no matter what Christological doctrine the community in question actually held!"

Logged
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #267 on: January 06, 2011, 09:29:33 AM »

"On the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked. "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the passover?" (Matthew 26:17)

"On the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover Lamb, Jesus' disciples asked Him, 'Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the passover?'" (Mark 14:12-26)

"Then came the day of unleavened bread on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed." (Luke 22:7)

I have no problem with the east's ritual of using leavened bread, but Cerularius' claim that the west using unleavened bread constituted "Judaizing" was an absurd pretext for a political manuever premeditated for the purpose of creating schism. Cerularius would later engineer the downfall of Emperor Michael VI Stratiotikos and his replacement with the puppet Isaac I Komnenos. His goal was to create schism with the west and reduce the Emperor to a puppet in order to centralize the political and religious rulership of the Empire under himself/

I think you're assuming that the Eucharist is/was patterned upon the Last Supper. While that's a possibility, according to Paul Bradshaw (2002), it's debatable. If the early Church did not pattern their Eucharistic meal off of the Last Supper, or if they didn't feel bound to it in all it's detail, then it would proven nothing even if it could be established that unleavened bread was used at the Last Supper.
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #268 on: January 06, 2011, 07:16:40 PM »

"On the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked. "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the passover?" (Matthew 26:17)

"On the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover Lamb, Jesus' disciples asked Him, 'Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the passover?'" (Mark 14:12-26)

"Then came the day of unleavened bread on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed." (Luke 22:7)

Is the reason that you do not quote John that you know his timing disagrees with the synoptics?

John is the later source. When he disagrees with the other three on an issue such as historical timing, he should be disregarded.

The source you quoted from supports the notion that the Eastern attack on the west for using unleavened bread was nonsensical.

Quote
"So also, as schism yawned between the Byzantine and Latin churches in the eleventh century, Byzantine polemicists transferred their anti-azyme arguments from the Armenians to the Latins, notwithstanding the latters’ manifestly Chalcedonian Christology.  Use of leavened bread and mingled wine, or conversely of unleavened bread and pure wine, immediately marked a community as either heretic or orthodox, no matter what Christological doctrine the community in question actually held!"
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 07:28:54 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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #269 on: January 06, 2011, 07:23:40 PM »

It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread.

Such a generalization is not appropriate in this situation. OO by and large do not have a problem with unleavened bread, because of the Armenian use.
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
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 0.2 seconds with 72 queries.