OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 02:52:11 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ecclesiologies with pictures  (Read 10306 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 37,960



« Reply #135 on: July 13, 2010, 01:55:44 PM »

Surely an Orthodox ecclesiology sets the Bishop as the head of the diocese and the locus of unity for the diocese?

St Ignatius of Antioch says...

See that ye all follow the bishop...Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church....ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ....let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ.

Father Peter
Indeed! Each Orthodox bishop fullfills that role, and sees that role in his brother bishops on his Holy Synod, on those in the diptychs.
So each diocese has two heads?
Nice try: Christ fullfills the role the Vatican assigns for itself in relationship to its bishops. The only One Head is Christ.
More than a nice try. What is good for the goose is good for the Gander. Your church claims that it is a communion of Churches with The Church present in each diocese. If that is true, then each diocese has two heads, the bishop and Christ. What is more, since each diocese has its own bishop, then your church has many heads. By your logic, the best picture for the ecclesiology of your faith can be found here:

http://libcom.org/files/images/history/Hydra%5B1%5D.jpg

Of course, I do NOT think this is how the Eastern Orthodox Church actually is. You see I have more respect for your Church than that. But, I am just playing your game by your rules to demonstrate how silly your posts have been so far.
The problem is you can't produce a SINGLE Orthodox document, let alone an infallible one, that proclaims the twisting you do here, whereas there is no shortage of documents the Vatican has put out and claim as infallible which state the bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.

So, goose, get the Orthodox word on the matter before you gander.
Oh please Isa. You are playing games. In the same thread you claim that the Catholic Church can be represented as a two headed monster because of the Papacy.
No, on the basis of what it claims ex cathedra for itself.

Quote
Yet, you know very well that each Bishop is the head of his own diocese in your Church,

Lumen Gentium:
Quote
7....The Head of this Body is Christ. He is the image of the invisible God....

18....And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion...this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God....

21...Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head...

22...the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.  This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.  This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.  This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

23. This collegial union is apparent also m the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal Church. The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful...

24...The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or recognized be that the authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any office.

25...Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

The documents of recent Pontiffs regarding the jurisdiction of bishops must be interpreted in terms of this necessary determination of powers.

3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said "to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church." This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ's Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ's whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church's welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.

4. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church's Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always "fully active [in actu pleno]"; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase "with the consent of its head" is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term "consent" suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word "only" takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.

It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of "College." This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.

It doesn't explain how the image of the invisible God functions as the invisible head.

Oddly enough, it gets it right on the autocephalous Churches:
Quote
By divine Providence it has come about that various churches, established in various places by the apostles and their successors, have in the course of time coalesced into several groups, organically united, which, preserving the unity of faith and the unique divine constitution of the universal Church, enjoy their own discipline, their own liturgical usage, and their own theological and spiritual heritage. Some of these churches, notably the ancient patriarchal churches, as parent-stocks of the Faith, so to speak, have begotten others as daughter churches, with which they are connected down to our own time by a close bond of charity in their sacramental life and in their mutual respect for their rights and duties.(37*) This variety of local churches with one common aspiration is splendid evidence of the catholicity of the undivided Church. In like manner the Episcopal bodies of today are in a position to render a manifold and fruitful assistance, so that this collegiate feeling may be put into practical application.

Quote
yet you don't recognize the hypocrisy in your statements.

because there is none.

Quote
You know very well that these posts on your part are all about trying to score points in a polemical debate.

No, my point to enlarge the small print on your dogmatic statements.

Quote
However,  you don't like it when your own logic comes home to roost.

I wouldn't know. Hasn't happened yet.
Well Isa, its clear from this thread that you are not going to take an honest approach to this thread. Again, I refer you to what your logic leads to for you your Church:

http://libcom.org/files/images/history/Hydra%5B1%5D.jpg

Its unfortunate that you like to play these games. Sad You disappoint me alot lately. I had thought that this kind of behavior was above you. I will not engage you in this thread further until to you come to grips with reality on the matter.

Do let us know when you are ready to face what your own church says about itself in Lumen Gentium, a document it holds as infallible. And when you find a document of comparable double talk among the Orthodox.  Whichever comes first.
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: 37,960



« Reply #136 on: July 13, 2010, 02:05:52 PM »

However well-intended this may have started out (and I frankly doubt that it was well-intended), this degenerated almost immediately into a sneering contest. On the terms that are being applied to the unOrthodox, I could just as well represent the eastern churches with a bunch of Jesuses in a WWF tournament. Once you start putting the polity in the place of Jesus, you either committing an act of idolatry or forcing it on someone else. If you are honest about it, you do it to yourself as well, which is why I doubt that this was ever well-intentioned.

The truth, of course, is that every church thinks that their polity acts in the name of and at the direction of Jesus. That is why it is called ministry.


Not every church, of course, is correct.

As appealing as the WWF image is, it doesn't reflect Orthodox ecclesiology as embodied in dogma. And it is dogma that the images are picturing.

The problem with that claim is that you are claiming for Orthodoxy alone a dogma which all churches share (since after all they get it verse-for-verse out of St. Paul): that of Christ as the head and the Church as the body. Beyond that, it's all polity, and for the Orthodox to make claims about political unity is to discharge a shotgun in a greenhouse.

Your Protestantism is showing.  The hierarchal nature of the Church is not a governing policy anymore than the skeletal system of the human body is a person's choice as to how to run his body. I'd be interested is seeing the Swedish equivalent of the Act of Supremacy, the only other Protestant body to recognize this fact as the essence of the Church.
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
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #137 on: July 13, 2010, 03:32:01 PM »

However well-intended this may have started out (and I frankly doubt that it was well-intended), this degenerated almost immediately into a sneering contest. On the terms that are being applied to the unOrthodox, I could just as well represent the eastern churches with a bunch of Jesuses in a WWF tournament. Once you start putting the polity in the place of Jesus, you either committing an act of idolatry or forcing it on someone else. If you are honest about it, you do it to yourself as well, which is why I doubt that this was ever well-intentioned.

The truth, of course, is that every church thinks that their polity acts in the name of and at the direction of Jesus. That is why it is called ministry.


Not every church, of course, is correct.

As appealing as the WWF image is, it doesn't reflect Orthodox ecclesiology as embodied in dogma. And it is dogma that the images are picturing.

The problem with that claim is that you are claiming for Orthodoxy alone a dogma which all churches share (since after all they get it verse-for-verse out of St. Paul): that of Christ as the head and the Church as the body. Beyond that, it's all polity, and for the Orthodox to make claims about political unity is to discharge a shotgun in a greenhouse.

Your Protestantism is showing.  The hierarchal nature of the Church is not a governing policy anymore than the skeletal system of the human body is a person's choice as to how to run his body. I'd be interested is seeing the Swedish equivalent of the Act of Supremacy, the only other Protestant body to recognize this fact as the essence of the Church.

I do not see the accuracy of your analogy or even its relevance, and if you are going to point at hierarchy as the necessary mark, then the Roman have it and you do not. Or to put it in other words, you are making a claim to unity which is not realized in the world, especially considering the lack of communion among all the churches represented by their members in this forum who call themselves Orthodox.

It would be far better to abandon all the condescending analogies and deal with the worldly reality. Once you are claiming Christ as your head and refusing discussion of how that headship is realized in the world, you are making nothing more than a metaphysical claim which all churches make.
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #138 on: July 13, 2010, 03:49:10 PM »

Surely an Orthodox ecclesiology sets the Bishop as the head of the diocese and the locus of unity for the diocese?

St Ignatius of Antioch says...

See that ye all follow the bishop...Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church....ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ....let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ.

Father Peter
Indeed! Each Orthodox bishop fullfills that role, and sees that role in his brother bishops on his Holy Synod, on those in the diptychs.
So each diocese has two heads?
Nice try: Christ fullfills the role the Vatican assigns for itself in relationship to its bishops. The only One Head is Christ.
More than a nice try. What is good for the goose is good for the Gander. Your church claims that it is a communion of Churches with The Church present in each diocese. If that is true, then each diocese has two heads, the bishop and Christ. What is more, since each diocese has its own bishop, then your church has many heads. By your logic, the best picture for the ecclesiology of your faith can be found here:

http://libcom.org/files/images/history/Hydra%5B1%5D.jpg

Of course, I do NOT think this is how the Eastern Orthodox Church actually is. You see I have more respect for your Church than that. But, I am just playing your game by your rules to demonstrate how silly your posts have been so far.

You're forgetting the distinction that was made between iconic and ontological unity. Certainly, the Orthodox bishop is the 'head' of his diocese, in that he is an iconic representation of the headship of Christ. But the question was asked of Catholics, do you not hold that the Pope is more than just an icon of Christ? Do you not hold that he is God on earth'? (the popes have spoken of themselves thusly.  I think there might even be some interesting connections here to the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood, in which the priest is considered to act in persona Christi in the Mass. This idea seems to me to have different implications than the Orthodox idea of the priest acting as an icon of Christ, or in the case of bishops, the 'high priest'.

I'd also like to bring up something I read in ole Dom Gregory Dix a few years ago: that the bishop acting as the head of the Eucharistic assembly, and particular when he takes his seat, facing the people, on the 'high place', surrounded by his presbyters, is acting as an icon, not of Christ per se, but of the Father. At least that seems to have been the case in the early church. In that case I suppose Christ was chiefly to be seen in the Eucharist itself? I'm not sure. Anyway, interesting to say the least.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 03:51:26 PM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #139 on: July 13, 2010, 04:00:07 PM »

However well-intended this may have started out (and I frankly doubt that it was well-intended), this degenerated almost immediately into a sneering contest. On the terms that are being applied to the unOrthodox, I could just as well represent the eastern churches with a bunch of Jesuses in a WWF tournament. Once you start putting the polity in the place of Jesus, you either committing an act of idolatry or forcing it on someone else. If you are honest about it, you do it to yourself as well, which is why I doubt that this was ever well-intentioned.

The truth, of course, is that every church thinks that their polity acts in the name of and at the direction of Jesus. That is why it is called ministry.


Not every church, of course, is correct.

As appealing as the WWF image is, it doesn't reflect Orthodox ecclesiology as embodied in dogma. And it is dogma that the images are picturing.

The problem with that claim is that you are claiming for Orthodoxy alone a dogma which all churches share (since after all they get it verse-for-verse out of St. Paul): that of Christ as the head and the Church as the body. Beyond that, it's all polity, and for the Orthodox to make claims about political unity is to discharge a shotgun in a greenhouse.

Your Protestantism is showing.  The hierarchal nature of the Church is not a governing policy anymore than the skeletal system of the human body is a person's choice as to how to run his body. I'd be interested is seeing the Swedish equivalent of the Act of Supremacy, the only other Protestant body to recognize this fact as the essence of the Church.

I like the skeleton analogy. Smiley
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #140 on: July 13, 2010, 04:08:26 PM »

However well-intended this may have started out (and I frankly doubt that it was well-intended), this degenerated almost immediately into a sneering contest. On the terms that are being applied to the unOrthodox, I could just as well represent the eastern churches with a bunch of Jesuses in a WWF tournament. Once you start putting the polity in the place of Jesus, you either committing an act of idolatry or forcing it on someone else. If you are honest about it, you do it to yourself as well, which is why I doubt that this was ever well-intentioned.

The truth, of course, is that every church thinks that their polity acts in the name of and at the direction of Jesus. That is why it is called ministry.


Not every church, of course, is correct.

As appealing as the WWF image is, it doesn't reflect Orthodox ecclesiology as embodied in dogma. And it is dogma that the images are picturing.

The problem with that claim is that you are claiming for Orthodoxy alone a dogma which all churches share (since after all they get it verse-for-verse out of St. Paul): that of Christ as the head and the Church as the body. Beyond that, it's all polity, and for the Orthodox to make claims about political unity is to discharge a shotgun in a greenhouse.

Your Protestantism is showing.  The hierarchal nature of the Church is not a governing policy anymore than the skeletal system of the human body is a person's choice as to how to run his body. I'd be interested is seeing the Swedish equivalent of the Act of Supremacy, the only other Protestant body to recognize this fact as the essence of the Church.

I do not see the accuracy of your analogy or even its relevance, and if you are going to point at hierarchy as the necessary mark, then the Roman have it and you do not. Or to put it in other words, you are making a claim to unity which is not realized in the world, especially considering the lack of communion among all the churches represented by their members in this forum who call themselves Orthodox.

It would be far better to abandon all the condescending analogies and deal with the worldly reality. Once you are claiming Christ as your head and refusing discussion of how that headship is realized in the world, you are making nothing more than a metaphysical claim which all churches make.


With the risk of sounding like an ecumenist: the sin of disunity within the body is of a different order than holding to a false ecclesiology which makes the true, organic unity of the Church (one holy catholic and apostolic) an impossibility. Even in St Paul's day, there was disunity in the Church, and so he instructed the members of the Church to repent, put away discord and strife, and be of one mind with one another. But as has been pointed out, we're not speaking of practical hurdles to practical unity; we're speaking of dogmatic ecclesiology. Rome says the only way to unity is submission to the pope. The Orthodox respectfully but forcefully disagree.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 04:09:58 PM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
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: 37,960



« Reply #141 on: July 13, 2010, 05:13:32 PM »


Your Protestantism is showing.  The hierarchal nature of the Church is not a governing policy anymore than the skeletal system of the human body is a person's choice as to how to run his body. I'd be interested is seeing the Swedish equivalent of the Act of Supremacy, the only other Protestant body to recognize this fact as the essence of the Church.

I do not see the accuracy of your analogy or even its relevance, and if you are going to point at hierarchy as the necessary mark, then the Roman have it and you do not. Or to put it in other words, you are making a claim to unity which is not realized in the world, especially considering the lack of communion among all the churches represented by their members in this forum who call themselves Orthodox.

It would be far better to abandon all the condescending analogies and deal with the worldly reality. Once you are claiming Christ as your head and refusing discussion of how that headship is realized in the world, you are making nothing more than a metaphysical claim which all churches make.
Trying to bring the Church down to this?

I might as well accept the Muslim claims of being the true Christians.

I brought up the Swedish Church to make the argument less Anglocentric, and the worldly reality is that the Swedish Church is the best example of another Protestant body that claims Apostolic succession more clearly.  There are others (now, for the most part, conviently lumped together in the Porvoo Agreement), but most of them being Lutheran, and the Augsburg Confession/Book of Concord itself does not have a well defined dogma on the episcopacy, the dogmatic statements on this matter leave much to be desired: the historic practice of the Swedish Church, like the Anglican, fills in some gaps.  One might through the Methodists in (who claim apostolic lineage, oddly enough, through a visiting Greek bishop), but since Wesley never claimed episcopal consecration (he held presbyters could do it), that is not without its problems.  These Protestants (and various vaganti) basically sum up the Protestants who claim Apostolic succession. Have I forgotten anyone?

Of course, then there is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church (both EO and OO), the Vatican (which in reality has a bishop, not a hierarchy, but is close enough) and her daughters (Altkatholisch, Polish National), and the Nestorian Church(es).  Have I left out anyone here?

So back to "metaphysical claims all churches make": No, the pictures of each ecclesiology is NOT the same, and it is a mistake to say it is. Or rather, it is a stacking the deck in favor of Protestant eccleisology, and Radical Reformer Liberal Protestant at that.  Those "churches" which have no apostolic hierarchy exercise no headship in the world. None. There claims are as valid as the Muslims saying that they believe Jesus is the Christ, the Bahai's claiming Him in the succession of their continuing line of prophets, or the Mormons claim to restore His Church. No hierarchy tracing back to the Apostles, no Church. And no Church, no Christ. Period.

Among the Protestants who claim Apostolic Succession, the Anglicans place the greatest store in it, perhaps matched by the Swedes and Finns (their primates would not take part in the installation of the ELCA presiding bishop, because of the issue of apostolic succession). The Finns, with their Church Act, may be the closest to this

But they all have the problem that their statements lack precision (It would be nice if this
http://www.porvoochurches.org/whatis/resources-0201-english-4.php
could be a basis on which to have a discussion).  So the Anglicans et alia don't like the image given herein. So they say they depend on the Book of Common Prayer, the problem that it is not Common across their "communion," would result in a body with a book for a head, and is a rather odd position for a church that holds "sola scriptura" as a dogma. The problem with all the Anglicans and Lutherans is their "apostolic succession" came by way of Erastianism.  That is the historic, real word reality: headship was realized in the world through the crown (this is true of the other Lutheran churches as well).

(btw, as a side note, the Orthodox primate of North America, Bp. John, when the US took over secular control of his diocese
Quote
Bishop Johannes, of the Russo-Greek Church on the Pacific coast, has ordered the prayer for the President of the United States, contained in the Liturgy of the Episcopal Church, to be used by the Greek Priests.
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2010/07/prayers-for-the-president/
this was to fulfil the apostolic command to "pray for the emperor," not as part of the apostolic succesion of the Church.  But the PECUSA's BCP came about because the church had to be cut loose of the British king, who had already given the US its independence.  And then the Americans had to go to the nonjurors, a group of the church with no basis of distinction in the church but in politics).

So that leaves the so called "Apostolic Churches," so called because of their valid historic claims (whether they are theologically valid as proved by history is a different question, here put aside).  And the pictures for them do not match.  The OO and EO are identical, as, on this issue, can be said of the ACE. Perhaps the Altkatholisch can be said to be here too, though the Episcopi vagantes cast that into doubt.  The PNCC could be seen in that picture.  The Vatican's view, however, cannot.

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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #142 on: July 14, 2010, 10:27:48 AM »

Surely an Orthodox ecclesiology sets the Bishop as the head of the diocese and the locus of unity for the diocese?

St Ignatius of Antioch says...

See that ye all follow the bishop...Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church....ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ....let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ.

Father Peter
Indeed! Each Orthodox bishop fullfills that role, and sees that role in his brother bishops on his Holy Synod, on those in the diptychs.
So each diocese has two heads?
Nice try: Christ fullfills the role the Vatican assigns for itself in relationship to its bishops. The only One Head is Christ.
More than a nice try. What is good for the goose is good for the Gander. Your church claims that it is a communion of Churches with The Church present in each diocese. If that is true, then each diocese has two heads, the bishop and Christ. What is more, since each diocese has its own bishop, then your church has many heads. By your logic, the best picture for the ecclesiology of your faith can be found here:

http://libcom.org/files/images/history/Hydra%5B1%5D.jpg

Of course, I do NOT think this is how the Eastern Orthodox Church actually is. You see I have more respect for your Church than that. But, I am just playing your game by your rules to demonstrate how silly your posts have been so far.

You're forgetting the distinction that was made between iconic and ontological unity. Certainly, the Orthodox bishop is the 'head' of his diocese, in that he is an iconic representation of the headship of Christ. But the question was asked of Catholics, do you not hold that the Pope is more than just an icon of Christ? Do you not hold that he is God on earth'? (the popes have spoken of themselves thusly.  I think there might even be some interesting connections here to the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood, in which the priest is considered to act in persona Christi in the Mass. This idea seems to me to have different implications than the Orthodox idea of the priest acting as an icon of Christ, or in the case of bishops, the 'high priest'.

I'd also like to bring up something I read in ole Dom Gregory Dix a few years ago: that the bishop acting as the head of the Eucharistic assembly, and particular when he takes his seat, facing the people, on the 'high place', surrounded by his presbyters, is acting as an icon, not of Christ per se, but of the Father. At least that seems to have been the case in the early church. In that case I suppose Christ was chiefly to be seen in the Eucharist itself? I'm not sure. Anyway, interesting to say the least.
No faithful Catholic anywhere believes that the Pope is God on earth. This is just a stupid post.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #143 on: July 14, 2010, 04:23:58 PM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #144 on: July 14, 2010, 04:47:28 PM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

If you look at that quote in context he is speaking of the Church, the Body of Christ, not the Papacy. They're wrong on a lot of things, but you don't have to misrepresent their statements to win a debate, if Christ even cares about such debates.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,852



« Reply #145 on: July 14, 2010, 05:18:52 PM »

Among the Protestants who claim Apostolic Succession, the Anglicans place the greatest store in it, perhaps matched by the Swedes and Finns

Finnish Lutherans lost their apostolic succession on 1884 when all of their bishops died during the same year. Logically they chose a professor to ordain them new bishops after that. Roll Eyes

Nowadays they've got it back from the Anglicans though.
Logged

Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,654



WWW
« Reply #146 on: July 14, 2010, 06:06:14 PM »

Some Anglicans may place great store in it, many others don't accept it at all.

In my own town the local parish, where the priest is a family friend, is very Catholic in ritual, and over the other side of town is a parish which is essentially like a vibrant charismatic baptist church.

So it all depends.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #147 on: July 14, 2010, 08:17:47 PM »

Many things have happened since I last visited this thread. I'll try to deal with each subject. If I leave any untouched, please, do remind me.

1) The relation of the orthodox bishop and Jesus Christ as "heads";

The answer to that is twofold and rather simple.

a) The bishop is head of the diocese. Not of the whole Catholic church. Each diocese is an image of the whole Church. The head of the whole Church is one and visible: Jesus Christ. That is what to be "katta holos" means. Like in a hologram, each piece is an *icon* of the whole. What leads to the second point;

b) Because the Church is "holographic" ("kata holos") the relation of the bishop-head of the *diocese* and Christ-head of the Church, is iconic. Thus to the sylogism I mentioned before, unlike the RC, we have a straight-forward answer: the "identity" of Christ and Bishop is iconic. It remains to be seen how the RC finish the sylogism.

2) I have addressed Eliakin as a prefiguration of the primate. Please, do refer to the post here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28540.msg451627.html#msg451627

3) The image of many bishops in the church with no "pope" among them.

Quote
The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
Revelation 1:20

The *seven* churches represent the wholeness of the Church. A college of churches, not one alone, is the symbol of  unity and wholeness. Later, in the same book, the Word of God continues:

Quote
And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: {wonder: or, sign}
Apocalipse 12:1

This woman has consistently been associated with both the Theotokos and the Church. As a symbol of the Church, she is *crowned with twelve stars* which is a representation of the Apostolic College and by succession, the Episcopal College.

So yes, there *is* an image of "many" as the Church:




There is no star singled out from that crown sustaining the unity of them all.  And if there is any doubt of who was the "visible" foundation of the Church, Our Lord informs us clearly about that:

"And the wall of the city ("of God") had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."
Revelation 21:14

So, we have Christ as the "head", the "Sun" of the New Jerusalem, and this new city is not built upon one foundation, but upon *twelve" foundations.

And if there rests any doubt about the traditional understanding of the Church about that, let's see the Shepherd of Hermas, in one of his parables.

Quote
And in the middle of the plain he showed me a great white rock, rising up from the plain. The rock was loftier than the mountains, being four-square, so that it could contain the whole world. Now this rock was ancient, and had a gate hewn out of it; but the gate seemed to me to have been hewed out quite recently. And the gate glistened beyond the brightness of the sun, so that I marvelled at the brightness of the gate.

I saw six men come, tall and glorious and alike in appearance and they summoned a multitude of men. And the others also which came were tall men and handsome and powerful. And the six men ordered them to build a tower above the gate. And there arose a great noise from those men who had come to build the tower, as they ran hither and thither round the gate.

And the six men ordered stones to come up from a certain deep place, and to go to the building of the tower. And there went up ten stones square and polished, [not] hewn from a quarry.

And the six men called to the virgins, and ordered them to carry all the stones which should go unto the building of the tower, and to pass through the gate and to hand them to the men that were about to build the tower.

Now the building of the tower was upon the great rock and above the gate. Those ten stones then were joined together, and they covered the whole rock. And these formed a foundation for the building of the tower. And [the rock and] the gate supported the whole tower.

And, after the ten stones, other twenty-five stones came up from the deep, and these were fitted into the building of the tower, being carried by the virgins, like the former. And after these thirty-five stones came up. And these likewise were fitted into the tower. And after these came up other forty stones. and these all were put into the building of the tower. So four rows were made in the foundations of the tower.

"First of all, Sir," say I, "explain this to me. The rock and the gate, what is it?" "This rock," saith he, "and gate is the Son of God."

"But the tower," say I, "what is it?" "The tower," saith he, "why, this is the Church.

"Now, Sir," say I, "show me why the tower is not built upon the ground, but upon the rock and upon the gate." "Because thou art senseless," saith he, "and without understanding [thou askest the question]." "I am obliged, Sir," say I, "to ask all questions of thee, because I am absolutely unable to comprehend anything at all; for all are great and glorious and difficult for men to understand."

"Listen," saith he. "The name of the Son of God is great and incomprehensible, and sustaineth the whole world. If then all creation is sustained by the Son [of God], what thinkest thou of those that are called by Him, and bear the name of the Son of God, and walk according to His commandments?

Seest thou then what manner of men He sustaineth? Even those that bear His name with their whole heart. He Himself then is become their foundation, and He sustaineth them gladly, because they are not ashamed to bear His name."

"But the stones, Sir," say I, "that came from the deep, and were fitted into the building, who are they?" "The first," saith he, "even the ten, that were placed in the foundations, are the first generation; the twenty-five are the second generation of righteous men; the thirty-five are God's prophets and His ministers; the forty are apostles and teachers of the preaching of the Son of God."

"Wherefore, Sir," say I, "did the forty stones also come up with them from the deep, though they had already received the seal?" "Because," saith he, "these, the apostles and the teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after they had fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to them that had fallen asleep before them, and themselves gave unto them the seal of the preaching.

http://www.goodnewsinc.org/othbooks/hermas.html





« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 08:47:55 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
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: 37,960



« Reply #148 on: July 14, 2010, 08:37:23 PM »

Among the Protestants who claim Apostolic Succession, the Anglicans place the greatest store in it, perhaps matched by the Swedes and Finns

Finnish Lutherans lost their apostolic succession on 1884 when all of their bishops died during the same year. Logically they chose a professor to ordain them new bishops after that. Roll Eyes

Nowadays they've got it back from the Anglicans though.

I thought they got it back from the Swedes, from whom they got it in the first place (the Lutheran ones that is: the Orthodox came from the other direction of course).
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
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #149 on: July 14, 2010, 09:14:19 PM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

If you look at that quote in context he is speaking of the Church, the Body of Christ, not the Papacy. They're wrong on a lot of things, but you don't have to misrepresent their statements to win a debate, if Christ even cares about such debates.

So according to RC belief, the Pope holds upon this earth the place of God Almighty in the Body of Christ, according to the context? Indeed, if we read more of the text, we see that the Pope said that since he holds the place of God on Earth he felts "drawn to pray" thus, complementing Jesus' Sacerdotal Prayer: "(like you said) that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us."

So, as in the context, since the Pope holds the place of God on Earth, he thinks that the sacerdotal prayer of Jesus calling people to be one with Him, imply they should be one with the Pope as well. What does this context tell you?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #150 on: July 14, 2010, 09:33:01 PM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

If you look at that quote in context he is speaking of the Church, the Body of Christ, not the Papacy. They're wrong on a lot of things, but you don't have to misrepresent their statements to win a debate, if Christ even cares about such debates.

From what I can tell, he is, to the contrary, using the 'royal we' and referring explicitly to himself. He even mentions his old age (and I don't think he's referring there to the 2000 years of the church).

Quote
But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us.  And as this Divine Prayer and Supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this Prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the Unity of Divine Faith.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
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: 37,960



« Reply #151 on: July 14, 2010, 09:43:23 PM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

If you look at that quote in context he is speaking of the Church, the Body of Christ, not the Papacy. They're wrong on a lot of things, but you don't have to misrepresent their statements to win a debate, if Christ even cares about such debates.

From what I can tell, he is, to the contrary, using the 'royal we' and referring explicitly to himself. He even mentions his old age (and I don't think he's referring there to the 2000 years of the church).
LOL.
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
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #152 on: July 14, 2010, 09:57:37 PM »

From what I can tell, he is, to the contrary, using the 'royal we' and referring explicitly to himself. He even mentions his old age (and I don't think he's referring there to the 2000 years of the church).

I went and read everything again and I definitely misread the encyclical the first time. You are correct, and he indeed refers to himself as having the place of God Almighty on earth. I suppose this seemed so impossible to me that my brain had to read it another way. I am absolutely dumbfounded.
Logged
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: 37,960



« Reply #153 on: July 14, 2010, 10:45:13 PM »

From what I can tell, he is, to the contrary, using the 'royal we' and referring explicitly to himself. He even mentions his old age (and I don't think he's referring there to the 2000 years of the church).

I went and read everything again and I definitely misread the encyclical the first time. You are correct, and he indeed refers to himself as having the place of God Almighty on earth. I suppose this seemed so impossible to me that my brain had to read it another way. I am absolutely dumbfounded.

Quote
The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.  But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ's Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs.  Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood.  The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known.  Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth.

And, accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I sent his Legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, "in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report"; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest Confirmation of the Primacy of the Roman See with which the dissension then began.  Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as Dogma the Supreme Power of the Roman Pontiffs.

Notorious indeed.

A strict diet of such fare, and you see how the Ultramontanist vision builds, with no basis at all.
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
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #154 on: July 14, 2010, 11:28:31 PM »

http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/peters-confession-the-metaphor-of-the-keys-and-the-church-of-antioch/

A little piece by Fr Patrick Reardon on "thou art Peter". At the end he notes, as I think it should always be noted, that Peter did not found only one see. Why shouldn't we all be in submission to the Patriarch of Antioch?
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #155 on: July 15, 2010, 07:13:15 AM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

The Vatican website does not have the text of this encyclical, and I cannot find anywhere else the Latin text of this letter. But I'm willing to bet that this is a bad translation of the word vicar, so that a less brokenly literalized translation might read, "As the vicar of God Almighty on earth..."
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,654



WWW
« Reply #156 on: July 15, 2010, 07:40:01 AM »

The Latin text says,

Iamvero, cum Dei  omnipotentis vices in terris geramus...

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,852



« Reply #157 on: July 15, 2010, 08:08:09 AM »

Among the Protestants who claim Apostolic Succession, the Anglicans place the greatest store in it, perhaps matched by the Swedes and Finns

Finnish Lutherans lost their apostolic succession on 1884 when all of their bishops died during the same year. Logically they chose a professor to ordain them new bishops after that. Roll Eyes

Nowadays they've got it back from the Anglicans though.

I thought they got it back from the Swedes, from whom they got it in the first place (the Lutheran ones that is: the Orthodox came from the other direction of course).

I suppose they could have gotten it back from the Swedes but they didn't. Finland was a part of Russia in those days and I don't think Russians would have liked if they had asked help from their former rulers.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 08:13:15 AM by Alpo » Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #158 on: July 15, 2010, 10:09:13 AM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

If you look at that quote in context he is speaking of the Church, the Body of Christ, not the Papacy. They're wrong on a lot of things, but you don't have to misrepresent their statements to win a debate, if Christ even cares about such debates.

So according to RC belief, the Pope holds upon this earth the place of God Almighty in the Body of Christ, according to the context? Indeed, if we read more of the text, we see that the Pope said that since he holds the place of God on Earth he felts "drawn to pray" thus, complementing Jesus' Sacerdotal Prayer: "(like you said) that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us."

So, as in the context, since the Pope holds the place of God on Earth, he thinks that the sacerdotal prayer of Jesus calling people to be one with Him, imply they should be one with the Pope as well. What does this context tell you?
So you really think that we believe that the Pope is God? Really? You don't think, rather, that we believe in the words of Christ, "As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you" So that the each Bishops is Christ's vicar and the Pope so much more so?
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: 37,960



« Reply #159 on: July 15, 2010, 10:26:19 AM »

http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/peters-confession-the-metaphor-of-the-keys-and-the-church-of-antioch/

A little piece by Fr Patrick Reardon on "thou art Peter". At the end he notes, as I think it should always be noted, that Peter did not found only one see. Why shouldn't we all be in submission to the Patriarch of Antioch?

Or Alexandria: no less an authority than Pope St. Gregory the Great of Rome wrote to Pope Eulogos of Alexandria that he too sat on the throne of a Petrine see.

Quote
To appreciate the Matthean expansion (verse 17), it is useful to compare it to the Markan sequence. In Mark’s version, Peter’s confession leads directly, without interruption, to Jesus’ reprimand of Peter. In Matthew this sequence is completely abandoned, and Jesus first blesses Peter. What Peter confesses cannot be humanly known; it transcends “flesh and blood” (cf. 11:25-27—observing the same verb, “reveal”). What we have here is a description of the faith of the Church (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:6).

Since this promise to Peter is not found in Mark and Luke, it is worth inquiring where it was preserved, so as to end up in the Gospel according to Matthew. It is interesting that these words of Jesus do not appear in Mark, which was the specifically Roman Gospel, reflecting the preaching of Peter at Rome. The promise appears, rather, in Matthew, associated with the Church in Syria, and perhaps more specifically with Antioch, where Peter was important in the founding of the local Church. If the promise to Peter is to be understood as applicable to one local church in particular, that church would seem to be the one at 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
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: 37,960



« Reply #160 on: July 15, 2010, 10:33:54 AM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

The Vatican website does not have the text of this encyclical,

Seems they don't like things like that lying about.


Quote
and I cannot find anywhere else the Latin text of this letter. But I'm willing to bet that this is a bad translation of the word vicar, so that a less brokenly literalized translation might read, "As the vicar of God Almighty on earth..."

Using Father Peter's lead:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9rUMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA387&dq=%22Iamvero,+cum+Dei++omnipotentis+vices+in+terris+geramus%22&hl=en&ei=qxs_TJ34I8ignweW8ITkBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Iamvero%2C%20cum%20Dei%20omnipotentis%20vices%20in%20terris%20geramus%22&f=false
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: 37,960



« Reply #161 on: July 15, 2010, 10:34:43 AM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

If you look at that quote in context he is speaking of the Church, the Body of Christ, not the Papacy. They're wrong on a lot of things, but you don't have to misrepresent their statements to win a debate, if Christ even cares about such debates.

So according to RC belief, the Pope holds upon this earth the place of God Almighty in the Body of Christ, according to the context? Indeed, if we read more of the text, we see that the Pope said that since he holds the place of God on Earth he felts "drawn to pray" thus, complementing Jesus' Sacerdotal Prayer: "(like you said) that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us."

So, as in the context, since the Pope holds the place of God on Earth, he thinks that the sacerdotal prayer of Jesus calling people to be one with Him, imply they should be one with the Pope as well. What does this context tell you?
So you really think that we believe that the Pope is God? Really? You don't think, rather, that we believe in the words of Christ, "As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you" So that the each Bishops is Christ's vicar and the Pope so much more so?
the "Pope so much more so" is the problem.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #162 on: July 15, 2010, 10:39:35 AM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

If you look at that quote in context he is speaking of the Church, the Body of Christ, not the Papacy. They're wrong on a lot of things, but you don't have to misrepresent their statements to win a debate, if Christ even cares about such debates.

So according to RC belief, the Pope holds upon this earth the place of God Almighty in the Body of Christ, according to the context? Indeed, if we read more of the text, we see that the Pope said that since he holds the place of God on Earth he felts "drawn to pray" thus, complementing Jesus' Sacerdotal Prayer: "(like you said) that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us."

So, as in the context, since the Pope holds the place of God on Earth, he thinks that the sacerdotal prayer of Jesus calling people to be one with Him, imply they should be one with the Pope as well. What does this context tell you?
So you really think that we believe that the Pope is God? Really? You don't think, rather, that we believe in the words of Christ, "As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you" So that the each Bishops is Christ's vicar and the Pope so much more so?
the "Pope so much more so" is the problem.
I realize you have a problem with that. But my question to you is the following. Do you really think that Catholics believe that the Pope is God???
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #163 on: July 15, 2010, 10:58:51 AM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

The Vatican website does not have the text of this encyclical,

Seems they don't like things like that lying about.

If you go to the Vatican's webpage on Leo XIII, you will find it in a state of considerable lack of completion compared with those of more recent popes. It could simply be the case that they haven't gotten around to this encyclical. In any case, you attribute malice, and I attribute malice. Perhaps you could give them the benefit of the doubt, and I could then give you the benefit of the doubt.

My Latin is somewhere below poor, but I see in about the right place that word "vices". One can look at this page from the Catholic Encyclopedia for a brief summary of the notion of vicarage, together with enough etymology to see why someone might have mistranslated the passage. I am not impressed by the dogged determination to found a patently offensive dogma on a single phrase whose translation is at best dubious. The claim is so offensive, indeed, that someone less polemically inclined would be moved to seek out other corroboration or denial of the interpretation. It would make much more sense to ask a Catholic authority to explain this.

This bit is a perfect example of what's wrong with this thread. Telling others what the others' words mean is a patently illegitimate mode of discourse, but that's essentially the content of this thread from start to finish.

Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #164 on: July 15, 2010, 12:43:36 PM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

If you look at that quote in context he is speaking of the Church, the Body of Christ, not the Papacy. They're wrong on a lot of things, but you don't have to misrepresent their statements to win a debate, if Christ even cares about such debates.

So according to RC belief, the Pope holds upon this earth the place of God Almighty in the Body of Christ, according to the context? Indeed, if we read more of the text, we see that the Pope said that since he holds the place of God on Earth he felts "drawn to pray" thus, complementing Jesus' Sacerdotal Prayer: "(like you said) that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us."

So, as in the context, since the Pope holds the place of God on Earth, he thinks that the sacerdotal prayer of Jesus calling people to be one with Him, imply they should be one with the Pope as well. What does this context tell you?
So you really think that we believe that the Pope is God? Really? You don't think, rather, that we believe in the words of Christ, "As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you" So that the each Bishops is Christ's vicar and the Pope so much more so?
the "Pope so much more so" is the problem.
I realize you have a problem with that. But my question to you is the following. Do you really think that Catholics believe that the Pope is God???

That will be answered when you, at last, stop dodging the main question that has been brought up from the beginning:

1) RC dogma claims that Christ is the head of the Church in Heaven and the Pope is the Head of the Church on Earth;
2) At least three popes have been quoted as saying things like 'Christ and the Pope are one' and 'The Pope has the place of God on Earth'.

So what is your 3?

3a) The Pope and Christ are indeed one, literally. (That is the one you have been denying)
or
3b) This identity they state is a figure of language, meaning the identity of the Primate and God is iconic and so is his authority (This being the Orthodox answer, which you also deny).

So, what's your 3c if any?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #165 on: July 15, 2010, 12:47:43 PM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

If you look at that quote in context he is speaking of the Church, the Body of Christ, not the Papacy. They're wrong on a lot of things, but you don't have to misrepresent their statements to win a debate, if Christ even cares about such debates.

So according to RC belief, the Pope holds upon this earth the place of God Almighty in the Body of Christ, according to the context? Indeed, if we read more of the text, we see that the Pope said that since he holds the place of God on Earth he felts "drawn to pray" thus, complementing Jesus' Sacerdotal Prayer: "(like you said) that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us."

So, as in the context, since the Pope holds the place of God on Earth, he thinks that the sacerdotal prayer of Jesus calling people to be one with Him, imply they should be one with the Pope as well. What does this context tell you?
So you really think that we believe that the Pope is God? Really? You don't think, rather, that we believe in the words of Christ, "As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you" So that the each Bishops is Christ's vicar and the Pope so much more so?
the "Pope so much more so" is the problem.
I realize you have a problem with that. But my question to you is the following. Do you really think that Catholics believe that the Pope is God???

That will be answered when you, at last, stop dodging the main question that has been brought up from the beginning:

1) RC dogma claims that Christ is the head of the Church in Heaven and the Pope is the Head of the Church on Earth;
2) At least three popes have been quoted as saying things like 'Christ and the Pope are one' and 'The Pope has the place of God on Earth'.

So what is your 3?

3a) The Pope and Christ are indeed one, literally. (That is the one you have been denying)
or
3b) This identity they state is a figure of language, meaning the identity of the Primate and God is iconic and so is his authority (This being the Orthodox answer, which you also deny).

So, what's your 3c if any?
You really think I have dodged the question? Wow. You have not been paying attention. I have said that the Pope is Christ's representative and vicar. But so is every Bishop. Though, the Pope is so in a preeminent way. I think its stupid that anyone would even ask if I thought that the Pope and Christ were literally one.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #166 on: July 15, 2010, 01:10:46 PM »

This bit is a perfect example of what's wrong with this thread. Telling others what the others' words mean is a patently illegitimate mode of discourse, but that's essentially the content of this thread from start to finish.

On the contrary. As seen in the previous message, wherein I repeated the question that was first made concerning RC eclesiology, we are not putting words in anyone's mouth. The deadlock steams from the fact that the RC in this forum vehemently deny the traditional Catholic interpretation of the role of the Primate as iconic. They then, not on purpose but due to a habitual frame of mind, seem to not be able to see any other meaning to these words which are reduced to a mere catch phrase. They say "The Pope is Christ on Earth" meaning nothing. What they *really* have in mind is the King-Steward relationship, Caroligean in origin and not Catholic.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, can calmly say that the Primate does play the role of Christ among the bishops because we clearly state it is an iconic role. The phrase is then a figure of speech, a metaphor. The problem of assuming that explicitily, also puts in question many of the "rights" of the popes.

And here lies the troubles. Although RCs, do not believe the Pope is God, some of his "traits" *do* assume he is Christ manifested among men (being the source of legitimacy of Grace, being able to depose bishops, having universal jurisdiction, being infallible).

So, RCs *don't* believe he is God, but at the same time, concerning some core aspects of the Church, relate to him as if he was. This is called cognitive dissonance. And, although most have not seen it, *this* was the point of the discussion.

As for the translation, a couple of online translators translated "vicar of God" as "vicarius Deus" which makes, at least, declinational sense.

Now, we don't have to go too far to understand "vice". We have it in English in the Latin expression "vice-versa"

Latin vice vers : vice, ablative of *vix, position + vers, feminine ablative of versus, past participle of vertere, to turn.]

So yes, he is saying that he takes the place of God on Earth.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #167 on: July 15, 2010, 01:14:35 PM »

Quote
I have said that the Pope is Christ's representative and vicar.

How is that different from saying that his role is iconic?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #168 on: July 15, 2010, 01:30:35 PM »

Quote
I have said that the Pope is Christ's representative and vicar.

How is that different from saying that his role is iconic?

Did I say it was?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #169 on: July 15, 2010, 02:25:15 PM »

Quote
I have said that the Pope is Christ's representative and vicar.

How is that different from saying that his role is iconic?

Did I say it was?
Is it?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #170 on: July 15, 2010, 03:55:54 PM »

Quote
what's wrong with this thread. Telling others what the others' words mean is a patently illegitimate mode of discourse

Have you ever read a Platonic dialogue?

Quote
This is called cognitive dissonance.

Exactly.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 04:01:26 PM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #171 on: July 15, 2010, 04:20:50 PM »

This bit is a perfect example of what's wrong with this thread. Telling others what the others' words mean is a patently illegitimate mode of discourse, but that's essentially the content of this thread from start to finish.

On the contrary. As seen in the previous message, wherein I repeated the question that was first made concerning RC eclesiology, we are not putting words in anyone's mouth. The deadlock steams from the fact that the RC in this forum vehemently deny the traditional Catholic interpretation of the role of the Primate as iconic. They then, not on purpose but due to a habitual frame of mind, seem to not be able to see any other meaning to these words which are reduced to a mere catch phrase. They say "The Pope is Christ on Earth" meaning nothing. What they *really* have in mind is the King-Steward relationship, Caroligean in origin and not Catholic.

Perhaps I am being excessively literal about this, but the only place I can find this phrase spoken in the thread is from your mouth, similarly with the other statements you accuse them of saying. You are not an acceptable as an interpreter of Roman theological statements, particularly as you consistently come up with interpretations which it's obvious that any Catholic is going to object to. I give more weight to (for instance) Papist's objections than to your claims, because he is after all Catholic and you are not only not Catholic but are attacking Catholicism, particularly so as I find myself being able to the opportunities for misconstruing which present themselves here.

Let's return to your interpretation of the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi. I obviously do not accept the larger intent of the passage: that Christians owe obedience to the pope as the vicar of Christ. Nonetheless it does seem to me that he is arguing against the very image with which you tried to saddle the Catholic Church, and it seems to me that your response more or less admitted this. But in your need to attack Roman ecclesiology, you jumped to the most inflammatory interpretation you could come up with of his words. I think the way he said it was clumsy, but it seems to me that he did no more than state out the traditional vicarage position of his church. He did not say that the pope and Christ are one-- at least, I do not think he intended that interpretation to be drawn.

Quote
Now, we don't have to go too far to understand "vice". We have it in English in the Latin expression "vice-versa"

Latin vice vers : vice, ablative of *vix, position + vers, feminine ablative of versus, past participle of vertere, to turn.]

So yes, he is saying that he takes the place of God on Earth.

...and the problem again is that you are apparently willfully mistranslating. "Viceroy", after all, literally means "in place of the ruler" if you are that attached to the etymology. But that is not what it means. It's quite clear that Roman ecclesiology holds authority delegated to the pope; "in place of" here has a specific, circumscribed, and I might add quite well-known meaning. I cannot believe you do not know that meaning.

The deeper issue here is that you simply deny any analysis of Eastern ecclesiology. There is no way in which the bishops of Orthodoxy fail to function in the various headships you keep assigning to others; the church requires governance, after all. If you were true to your analysis of other churches, you would put a committee next to Jesus' head in the Orthodox picture.

Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #172 on: July 15, 2010, 04:28:06 PM »

Quote
what's wrong with this thread. Telling others what the others' words mean is a patently illegitimate mode of discourse

Have you ever read a Platonic dialogue?

Very well remembered.  Not only finding out that we have been using improper words is legitimate, it is the very beginning of any legitimate discussion. There are some serious consequences from seeing that in the context of the dialogues for the return of the heterodox to Orthodoxy. But I'll mature these.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #173 on: July 15, 2010, 05:10:11 PM »

Quote
what's wrong with this thread. Telling others what the others' words mean is a patently illegitimate mode of discourse

Have you ever read a Platonic dialogue?

Yes, I have, but there is rather a monologue here. Socrates asks the other what he means (often dishonestly, but that's another issue); Fabio is doing a lot of telling.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #174 on: July 15, 2010, 05:15:33 PM »

Quote
If you were true to your analysis of other churches, you would put a committee next to Jesus' head in the Orthodox picture.


Been there, done that.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28540.msg453676.html#msg453676

Which also applies to the rest of what you said. For the concept of "imposing an interpretation", please do refer to the request to finish the sylogism that is in the papal statements and the rather normal followup once it started to be directly addressed.  As for the legitimacy of using sylogisms to analyse all possible meanings, refer to Plato or any other modern book on discourse analysis (not the ones based on Frankfurtian deconstrutivism, though, these are just militant revolutionarism applied to academy).

Considering the use of "viceroy", it is linguistically wrong, because the English word "vice" and the Latin word "vice" are two different words. When we look at "vice" in that phrase, and try to find its Latin meaning, that's not "etymology", it's just translating from another language into English. The Latin meaning of "vice" is all there is in a Latin sentence.

According to online references (which may be wrong) "vice" comes from "vix" meaning "place", "position" - hence vice-versa, exchanged positions. The English translation we have seen says "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."  So there you have "vice" meaning "place" and "place" in English.

As for my understanding of RC king-steward relationship between Christ and Pope, I have also treated that even bringing a brief analysis of Eliakin as a prefiguration of the role of primate.

Just to make it more complete, we must remember that also Abrahan, Isaac, Esau, Jacob, Ruben (and then Judah), Moses, Joshua and Shebna are all prefigurations of the role of Primate. With Eliakin and Peter they share many things: a covenant with God, a proeminence in face of their equals, the conditioning of this convenant to the "righ glorification" from the human part, the possibility of falling (realized in Ruben, Shebna and Eliakin) and of this primacy moving to another, and the fact that the inheritance of this primacy is not automatic to its successors.

Indeed, of the primacy of Peter among the Apostles we can say the same thing St. John Baptist said of the inheritance of Abrahan, with the Popes in the place of the Jews and the Primacy in the place of the inheritance:

Quote
Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance:

and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire
St. Matthew 3:8-10

Here we have a prefiguration of the "bad primates". The high-priests come to St. John claiming prerrogatives for being successors of Abrahan. The Forerunner reproaches then saying their succession is not enough. Later we St. Paul saying that the Gentiles too can inherit that succession.

So, God *did* institute primacy, a kind of stewardship among the Bishops (but not over the whole Church), He did not make it ontologically related to a tribe, ethnicity, city or office. There is no direct succession of this particular gift. It is given to whom it is given, depending, as we saw with St. Peter, on the straight glorification of God.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
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: 37,960



« Reply #175 on: July 15, 2010, 05:15:59 PM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

The Vatican website does not have the text of this encyclical,

Seems they don't like things like that lying about.

If you go to the Vatican's webpage on Leo XIII, you will find it in a state of considerable lack of completion compared with those of more recent popes. It could simply be the case that they haven't gotten around to this encyclical. In any case, you attribute malice, and I attribute malice. Perhaps you could give them the benefit of the doubt, and I could then give you the benefit of the doubt.

My Latin is somewhere below poor, but I see in about the right place that word "vices". One can look at this page from the Catholic Encyclopedia for a brief summary of the notion of vicarage, together with enough etymology to see why someone might have mistranslated the passage. I am not impressed by the dogged determination to found a patently offensive dogma on a single phrase whose translation is at best dubious. The claim is so offensive, indeed, that someone less polemically inclined would be moved to seek out other corroboration or denial of the interpretation. It would make much more sense to ask a Catholic authority to explain this.

This bit is a perfect example of what's wrong with this thread. Telling others what the others' words mean is a patently illegitimate mode of discourse, but that's essentially the content of this thread from start to finish.


Uh, didn't the translation come from a supporter of the Vatican, and a traditionalist one at that?  Finding out how a "catholic" authority explains it away might be amusing, but of doubtful value. The language (particularly if you read the rewrite of history in the rest of it), is quite clear. Our Patriarchs understood him perfectly:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Pointing out that we are not speaking about the same things is the most legitimate mode of discourse. You can't claim to have a visible head, proclaim the king the head, or claim the body is invisible and claim that doesn't affect your ecclesiology.
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
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #176 on: July 15, 2010, 05:19:46 PM »

Quote
what's wrong with this thread. Telling others what the others' words mean is a patently illegitimate mode of discourse

Have you ever read a Platonic dialogue?

Yes, I have, but there is rather a monologue here. Socrates asks the other what he means (often dishonestly, but that's another issue); Fabio is doing a lot of telling.

Count how many times I have asked questions. Many. Concerning the Anglicans, answers came fast and with them my learning. The RCs, on the cotrary, resisted and only today the main question was partially answered. Let's see how it develops. Because I'm of much lower stature than Socrates, I'm accused of corrupting just a thread while he corrupted all the youth of the city. Fair enough. Smiley
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #177 on: July 15, 2010, 05:28:17 PM »

Quote
You can't claim to have a visible head, proclaim the king the head, or claim the body is invisible and claim that doesn't affect your ecclesiology.

I agree. These are *very* visual images. Whether or not rational discourse explains it away the *image*, the *icon* made of words used for heterodox eclesiologies are:

A Jesus that is partially invisible (just the head), thus requiring a strong leader to make up for that, a Jesus that is wholly invisible and substituted by the Scriptures, and finally a Jesus that is unable to stay whole and needs our dialogues and "love" to heal Him. It is even difficult *not* to see a progressive dissolution of the capacity to perceive the amazing concreteness of the Incarnation and of the sending of the Holy Spirit - not surprisingly, it was with the relativization of the meaning of this sending that this process started.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #178 on: July 15, 2010, 06:07:12 PM »

Quote
what's wrong with this thread. Telling others what the others' words mean is a patently illegitimate mode of discourse

Have you ever read a Platonic dialogue?

Very well remembered.

Is that an anamnesis joke?
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #179 on: July 15, 2010, 06:20:24 PM »

Quote
what's wrong with this thread. Telling others what the others' words mean is a patently illegitimate mode of discourse

Have you ever read a Platonic dialogue?

Yes, I have, but there is rather a monologue here. Socrates asks the other what he means (often dishonestly, but that's another issue); Fabio is doing a lot of telling.

Socrates does a lot of "telling" in the dialogues. (and no I'm not saying Fabio is Socrates.)

Socrates also frequently assumes that other people don't know what they mean by their own words. When he asks someone what they mean more often than not it is with the goal of revealing their meaning to be nonsense. Socrates frequently deals with what a modern might call "cognitive dissonance".

What we've had in this dialogue is Catholic intransigence a la Callicles.

For Socrates, truth is always highest. Those who hold something else than truth as the highest refuse to engage in dialogue, because they detect where Socrates is going, and they don't want to go there, precisely because they know that 'there' is the truth, and truth can be unpleasant.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 06:22:11 PM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.222 seconds with 72 queries.