OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 08:01:53 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is there any good reason for many patriarchs?  (Read 3214 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« on: June 02, 2011, 02:05:35 PM »

Is there?
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,451


fleem
WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2011, 02:06:36 PM »

 Huh

I'm sorry, can you be a little more specific?
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,477


« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2011, 02:17:35 PM »

Yes, it is. You have 3 Patriarchs of Antioch  (Melkite, Syriac and Maronite) and two Patriarchs of Alexandria (Melkite and Coptic) and of Jerusalem (Latin and Melkite) so you shoul better have one.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 02:22:33 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,933



« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2011, 02:19:56 PM »

This could be a meaningful topic. Right now, we have no idea what the question is.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2011, 02:27:21 PM »

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,477


« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2011, 02:37:29 PM »

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Yes, it is. You have 3 Patriarchs of Antioch  (Melkite, Syriac and Maronite) and two Patriarchs of Alexandria (Melkite and Coptic) and of Jerusalem (Latin and Melkite) so you shoul better have one.

Maybe you'd like to answer.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2011, 02:38:40 PM »

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Why not direct your question to the Holy Apostles, to whom it seemed good to establish local churches, ruled by separate bishops, but in communion with one another in the Eucharist, in prayer, and in faith?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2011, 02:40:52 PM »

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Yes, it is. You have 3 Patriarchs of Antioch  (Melkite, Syriac and Maronite) and two Patriarchs of Alexandria (Melkite and Coptic) and of Jerusalem (Latin and Melkite) so you shoul better have one.

Maybe you'd like to answer.


I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don't understand the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

But in the case of EO, they all are greek tradition, and yet they are many
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 02:45:27 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2011, 02:44:06 PM »

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Why not direct your question to the Holy Apostles, to whom it seemed good to establish local churches, ruled by separate bishops, but in communion with one another in the Eucharist, in prayer, and in faith?

The saint apostles had a primus, that primus had the last word on matters of doctrine as we can see it in the Acts of the apostles.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,068


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2011, 02:44:41 PM »

in the beggining it was not that way.
Actually, it was.

as a Latin catholic I don understant the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates.
The church is not sectioned, it is headed on earth by many bishops who share one faith. Patriarchs are Bishops of important cities.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,068


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2011, 02:45:09 PM »

The saint apostles had a primus, that primus had the last word on matters of doctrine as we can see it in the Acts of the apostles.
No. And besides, a Primus and a Supremus are not the same. Constantinople Patriarch is our Primus but is not universally powerful.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 02:45:31 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,477


« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2011, 02:46:46 PM »

I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don understant the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

In the Roman Catholic Church there are also multiple Patriarchs:
Patriarch of the East Indies
Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
Patriarch of Lisbon
Patriarch of Venice
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 02:47:08 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,933



« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2011, 02:47:12 PM »

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Yes, that is the Roman Catholic approach and certainly is a logical one from Rome's perspective. The problem is it just does not follow the ecclesiology of the Church, which was and is a confederation of local churches. This situation does not conflict with the equally important principle that the Church, in other words, the Body of Christ, is one. I suppose the bottom line here is how one defines the word "one." As I said earlier, it seems logical for the word to mean one Patriarch/Pope/Archbishop/Metropolitan (all titles of the primate of a local church). However, that would be in human terms, but the Church is not a purely human institution. Don't forget that the Roman Church herself lived under the Orthodox understanding for 800 years?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,933



« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2011, 02:51:55 PM »

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Why not direct your question to the Holy Apostles, to whom it seemed good to establish local churches, ruled by separate bishops, but in communion with one another in the Eucharist, in prayer, and in faith?

The saint apostles had a primus, that primus had the last word on matters of doctrine as we can see it in the Acts of the apostles.

I am sorry but you may have a different edition of the Acts. The last word on matters of doctrine, as expressed in my version of the Book of Acts was the Council of Jerusalem, which in a conciliar fashion decided to side with Apostle Paul rather than Apostle Peter. Furthermore, it was the Bishop of Jerusalem and President of the Council, rather than Saint Peter, who announced the decision of this Council.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2011, 02:52:42 PM »

...

No it wasn't , Peter was the One who every body follow.

The many bishops in many cities was the way that Apostles organized local churches, but in the case of E.O. the patriarch is not a local bishop of a city, but is the head of a nationalistic church.
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,477


« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2011, 02:53:49 PM »

but in the case of E.O. the patriarch is not a local bishop of a city, but is the head of a nationalistic church.

In your Church too. Who the head of Vatican is?
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,068


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2011, 02:55:50 PM »

...

No it wasn't , Peter was the One who every body follow.
And Peter and Paul founded Antioch first so Antiochians are Supreme Primate of Church, right?

but is the head of a nationalistic church.
Nationalistic? Silly.

Besides, you don't understand what it means to be the head of a church, to you, that means Patriarchs are just minipopes who rule smaller territories.


But they are not the only bishops there, you know. And EO Bishops aren't puppets.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2011, 02:56:26 PM »

I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don understant the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

In the Roman Catholic Church there are also multiple Patriarchs:
Patriarch of the East Indies
Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
Patriarch of Lisbon
Patriarch of Venice

In the Latin Church to be patriarch is not a position but a honor title. their jurisdictions are as large as a dioceses.
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2011, 02:57:29 PM »

but in the case of E.O. the patriarch is not a local bishop of a city, but is the head of a nationalistic church.

In your Church too. Who the head of Vatican is?

Am I a Vatican Citizen?,
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,068


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2011, 02:57:47 PM »

I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don understant the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

In the Roman Catholic Church there are also multiple Patriarchs:
Patriarch of the East Indies
Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
Patriarch of Lisbon
Patriarch of Venice
In the Orthodox Church to be Pope is not a position but a honor title. their jurisdictions are as large as a dioceses.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,068


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2011, 02:58:12 PM »

but in the case of E.O. the patriarch is not a local bishop of a city, but is the head of a nationalistic church.

In your Church too. Who the head of Vatican is?

Am I a Vatican Citizen?,
Am I an Antiochian Citizen?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,933



« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2011, 02:58:43 PM »

...

No it wasn't , Peter was the One who every body follow.

The many bishops in many cities was the way that Apostles organized local churches, but in the case of E.O. the patriarch is not a local bishop of a city, but is the head of a nationalistic church.

Look here, Inquisitor, we all understand that that is the way that you were thought. No body here is trying to change your beliefs or convert you away from Roman Catholicism. However, you are in the odd position of being the champion for Papal Supremacy in an Eastern Orthodox forum. The question for us would normally be why in the world the Church of Rome believes in the heresy of Papal Supremacy and has chosen to schism from the One True Church? I apologize for having framed the situation in such stark fashion but I must tell you that you are barking the wrong tree here.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2011, 02:59:41 PM »

The many bishops in many cities was the way that Apostles organized local churches, but in the case of E.O. the patriarch is not a local bishop of a city, but is the head of a nationalistic church.

So was the Pope of Rome, at least in the early times:



Let's not be silly and anachronistic.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 03:00:31 PM by bogdan » Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2011, 03:00:41 PM »

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Yes, that is the Roman Catholic approach and certainly is a logical one from Rome's perspective. The problem is it just does not follow the ecclesiology of the Church, which was and is a confederation of local churches. This situation does not conflict with the equally important principle that the Church, in other words, the Body of Christ, is one. I suppose the bottom line here is how one defines the word "one." As I said earlier, it seems logical for the word to mean one Patriarch/Pope/Archbishop/Metropolitan (all titles of the primate of a local church). However, that would be in human terms, but the Church is not a purely human institution. Don't forget that the Roman Church herself lived under the Orthodox understanding for 800 years?


No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2011, 03:02:49 PM »

Lunch Time, Wait a minute, besides it is like 3 against 1, just take it easy, I'll be back to you in few minutes.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 03:03:12 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,477


« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2011, 03:17:28 PM »

besides it is like 3 against

It was you who has started it. Don't get surprised.

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

Like Cyprus?
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,068


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2011, 03:19:54 PM »

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.
Then why did Pope Gregory Diologos say that to claim to be Universal Bishop was blasphemy?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,816


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2011, 03:33:16 PM »

I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don understant the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

In the Roman Catholic Church there are also multiple Patriarchs:
Patriarch of the East Indies
Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
Patriarch of Lisbon
Patriarch of Venice

Don't forget about the Eastern Catholic  'sui juris' Patriarchs as well.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,816


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2011, 03:38:19 PM »

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Yes, that is the Roman Catholic approach and certainly is a logical one from Rome's perspective. The problem is it just does not follow the ecclesiology of the Church, which was and is a confederation of local churches. This situation does not conflict with the equally important principle that the Church, in other words, the Body of Christ, is one. I suppose the bottom line here is how one defines the word "one." As I said earlier, it seems logical for the word to mean one Patriarch/Pope/Archbishop/Metropolitan (all titles of the primate of a local church). However, that would be in human terms, but the Church is not a purely human institution. Don't forget that the Roman Church herself lived under the Orthodox understanding for 800 years?


No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

Interesting as your Church's learned North American theologians do not seem to share your understanding of history or Catholic ecclesiology. http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/conciliarityandprimacy.html
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 03:39:11 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2011, 03:40:03 PM »

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.
Then why did Pope Gregory Diologos say that to claim to be Universal Bishop was blasphemy?

And the forerunner of Antichrist.

The story of papal supremacy was invented in the 11th century when the papacy was the victim of a hostile takeover by a cabal of barbarians--a takeover which was, sadly, never reversed. Papal supremacy over the Church and over secular governments was the outgrowth of an entirely new policy, unseen and unheard of before. It was a heretical innovation, later passed off by papal apologists as the way things always were. All those who objected to the innovation were deposed, exiled, anathematized, killed, tricked or forced into submission. Even secular historians agree with this.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,068


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2011, 03:43:13 PM »

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.
Then why did Pope Gregory Diologos say that to claim to be Universal Bishop was blasphemy?

And the forerunner of Antichrist.
He even affirmed Orthodox Papal Primacy at the same time, explaining that while Peter was chief of the Apostles, he was not their universal despot.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2011, 04:03:18 PM »

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.
Then why did Pope Gregory Diologos say that to claim to be Universal Bishop was blasphemy?

And the forerunner of Antichrist.
He even affirmed Orthodox Papal Primacy at the same time, explaining that while Peter was chief of the Apostles, he was not their universal despot.

And neither St. Peter nor St. Gregory claimed to have authority over kings.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2011, 04:05:02 PM »

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.
Then why did Pope Gregory Diologos say that to claim to be Universal Bishop was blasphemy?

Would you mind to tell us what implies universal bishop?, do you know that Ecumenical meens that?, Do you know that Constantinople started to use such title and Pope rejected it by saying so?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:06:08 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,068


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2011, 04:06:27 PM »

do you know that Ecumenical meens that?, Do you know that Constantinople started to use such title and Pope rejected by saying so?
Yeah, I know that. But everything in Constantinople was Ecumenical (universal pertaining to the scope of the Roman Empire.) The palace chef would have been the Ecumenical chef.  Cool

Clearly Gregory didn't see it that way, and his criticism of claiming Universal Bishop-hood still stands.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:07:02 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2011, 04:06:51 PM »

besides it is like 3 against

It was you who has started it. Don't get surprised.

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

Like Cyprus?

Is that a Petrine see?
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,477


« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2011, 04:08:35 PM »

Would you mind to tell us what implies universal bishop?, do you know that Ecumenical meens that?, Do you know that Constantinople started to use such title and Pope rejected it by saying so?

It means but he doesn't act like one in contrary to yours.

Quote
Is that a Petrine see?
No but it was declared autocephalous in 431 what demolishes your theory.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:08:56 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,068


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2011, 04:09:08 PM »

Would you mind to tell us what implies universal bishop?, do you know that Ecumenical meens that?, Do you know that Constantinople started to use such title and Pope rejected it by saying so?

It means but he doesn't act like one in contrary to yours.
^

« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:18:01 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2011, 04:15:18 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Before all those Ecumenism accusations get thrown out I'd just like to say, "Stop Hatin."

Now..

We have so many different Patriarchs for the same reason we have many Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and Priests.  Simply put, we have a lot of very diverse Christians within Orthodox who have many convergent cultural, economic, political, psychological, emotional, and spiritual needs.  The Church is stratified across several layers of Apostolic Succession to fulfill the Apostolic Mission and dispensation as were Commissioned.  Now some will say we have many doctrinal, theological, or argumentative differences, and that so and so or such and such a Patriarch or Bishop is the only ONE, HOLY, APOSTOLIC, and TRUE priest of such and such Orthodox.  This is silly divisiveness and sectarianism.  Ones should be concerned with only the Orthodoxy of their own respective jurisdictions, and mind their business when it comes to others.  We should always assume the best of each other, and proffer the sincere benefit of the doubt.

I would say this, that in time when the Church is healed and reconciled in God's Grace, then we shall function as we did say before the splits in the 400s and the 1000s era, when the bishops served as equals. Realistically, it is only when folks get confused to think that the grace of Perfection applies to the clergy beyond the Mysteries themselves that things get twists into sectarianism.  Folks mistake the clergy and the Priesthood as in varying degrees of infallibility and this is where we fall.  Only the Mysteries themselves are perfect.  We should mutually respect each other so long which includes not necessarily stepping on each others toes, as it was in the distant past.

Stay Blessed,
Habte Selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #38 on: June 02, 2011, 04:31:14 PM »

Would you mind to tell us what implies universal bishop?, do you know that Ecumenical meens that?, Do you know that Constantinople started to use such title and Pope rejected it by saying so?

It means but he doesn't act like one in contrary to yours.

Quote
Is that a Petrine see?
No but it was declared autocephalous in 431 what demolishes your theory.

In 431, Which other Patriarchates existed already?
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #39 on: June 02, 2011, 04:33:12 PM »

Would you mind to tell us what implies universal bishop?, do you know that Ecumenical meens that?, Do you know that Constantinople started to use such title and Pope rejected it by saying so?

It means but he doesn't act like one in contrary to yours.

Quote
Is that a Petrine see?
No but it was declared autocephalous in 431 what demolishes your theory.

Why the Patriarch of Constantinople doesn't reject tu use the title Ecumenical?
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,068


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #40 on: June 02, 2011, 04:46:46 PM »

In 431, Which other Patriarchates existed already?
Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,068


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #41 on: June 02, 2011, 04:47:47 PM »

Why the Patriarch of Constantinople doesn't reject tu use the title Ecumenical?
Because it doesn't mean he has universal jurisdiction or infallibility superpowers, it means he's the patriarch of the former imperial ecumene city.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:47:58 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #42 on: June 02, 2011, 04:48:14 PM »

In 431, Which other Patriarchates existed already?
Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.

Right, and before that?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:49:47 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #43 on: June 02, 2011, 04:48:52 PM »

Why the Patriarch of Constantinople doesn't reject tu use the title Ecumenical?
Because it doesn't mean he has universal jurisdiction or infallibility superpowers, it means he's the patriarch of the former imperial ecumene city.

So what is the point in using such tittle? not even Istambul remains Constantinople, no empire at all.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:49:37 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #44 on: June 02, 2011, 04:49:44 PM »

In 431, Which other Patriarchates existed already?
Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.

Right, and beore that?

Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Your point?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  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 0.134 seconds with 72 queries.