OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 22, 2014, 05:21:21 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Which church is more open to reuniting??  (Read 15157 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Samson4ll
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantium
Posts: 22



« Reply #225 on: April 06, 2012, 04:21:17 PM »

--instead of demonstrating that you don't understand Orthodoxy's teachings,...
This is why I am on this board, to try to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Does the Orthodox Church believe that St. Peter was one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church or not? Does the Orthodox Church today believe that slaves should submit to their harsh masters? 

If you want to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church, I would not recommend the Internet.

The Orthodox Church venerates St. Peter as an apostle. Bishops rank below apostles. Canonically, bishops cannot be rulers of several different sees, as St. Peter was Apostle in Antioch and Rome.

You are not seeking the Church's teachings, but throwing out red herrings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Meletius_IV_of_Constantinople
"Meletius IV (Greek: Μελέτιος Μεταξάκης) was the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople from 1921 to 1923.[1] He also served as Greek Patriarch of Alexandria under the episcopal name Meletius II from 1926 to 1935.[2] He was the only Eastern Orthodox hierarch in history to serve successively as the senior bishop of three autocephalous churches (before his election to the Ecumenical Patriarchate he had briefly headed the Church of Greece in Athens)."

Funny you should put this hear as if most didn't already know about this controversial figure, a Free Mason, and someone who trampled on several canons.

Anyway, it's a moot point. St. Peter was an Apostle.

St James was an apostle too, and also a bishop.

But not one of the Twelve.

It does not matter, he was both an apostle and a bishop. To be part of the 12 is irelevant, what matter is the office held.
Logged

"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."
St. Augustine
Samson4ll
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantium
Posts: 22



« Reply #226 on: April 06, 2012, 04:25:17 PM »

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=100018

Holy Apostle James(...) When the Savior began to teach the nation about the Kingdom of God, St James believed in Christ and became His apostle. He was chosen as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

So an Apostle can also be a bishop, there is no dilema.
Logged

"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."
St. Augustine
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #227 on: April 06, 2012, 05:46:52 PM »

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=100018

Holy Apostle James(...) When the Savior began to teach the nation about the Kingdom of God, St James believed in Christ and became His apostle. He was chosen as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

So an Apostle can also be a bishop, there is no dilema.

Yes, but the earliest lists given by Irenaeus and Eusebius do not include Peter. Therefore, it simply is not part of the tradition to claim that he was.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #228 on: April 06, 2012, 05:57:16 PM »

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=100018

Holy Apostle James(...) When the Savior began to teach the nation about the Kingdom of God, St James believed in Christ and became His apostle. He was chosen as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

So an Apostle can also be a bishop, there is no dilema.

Yes, and a monk can be a priest. The point is they are two different, if non-exclusive, positions.

Out of curiousity is anyone aware of the earliest reference to St. Peter (or any other Apostle other than St. James) as 'bishop of X'? Because as Cavaradossi points out, it does *not* appear to be part of the language of the earliest writers--the bishops were successors to the Apostles, not successors to the first bishops.


[edit for leaving out the critical negative]
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 06:17:13 PM by witega » Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #229 on: April 06, 2012, 06:03:08 PM »

Further to the above:

LBK can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in the iconographic tradition of the Church, St. James is the only Apostle ever represented as a bishop (i.e., wearing episcopal vestments however anachronistic they may be). The Twelve + St. Paul are always represented in 'normal' clothing in every image I can recall seeing.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #230 on: April 06, 2012, 06:11:15 PM »

Further to the above:

LBK can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in the iconographic tradition of the Church, St. James is the only Apostle ever represented as a bishop (i.e., wearing episcopal vestments however anachronistic they may be). The Twelve + St. Paul are always represented in 'normal' clothing in every image I can recall seeing.

Witega, you are quite correct.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,694



WWW
« Reply #231 on: April 06, 2012, 08:55:22 PM »

the RC church sees the Patriarchs as the Pope's direct subordinates. And it is hard to "agree to disagree" on this matter.

Haven't we done that in communion with each other before? Rome tries to assert authority that it believes it has while the other churches don't recognize the authority of Rome to go the extent claimed while still maintaining communion? The only difference would be that Rome did not officially dogmatize it's stance on the subject before the schism, and when it was dogmatized it was done in isolation from those who they knew reject it.

Melodist,

That is a good point. Perhaps Rome felt it had this absolutist authority over everyone even at the time the other Patriarchs were in communion with it. Well, I am not sure of that, but it's foreseeable to me. But still, the difference you mention is an important one- that Rome at that time didn't officially dogmatize such a viewpoint.

In this case it would be like signing a work contract with someone where your positions about the other person's authority over you are hugely qualitatively different.

The contract simply says you are in the same company together and doesn't decide ownership or who employs whom.

On one hand, you believe you are two partners in a joint venture, two owners of a company, where the other person is the "senior partner".

But the person you are signing it with believes he is your employer- he pays you wages, he decides the company's policies, he can veto your decisions and you must obey him as he wishes.

What kind of business arrangement would you really have?
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 08:56:46 PM by rakovsky » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #232 on: April 06, 2012, 09:08:15 PM »

A stance I find puzzling, honestly. Why offer communion to someone (someones)- the symbol of, well, communion- if you're not really in communion?
I thought that the Moscow Patriarchate had decided at one time to admit Romans to Holy Communion under certain circumstances. If Romans are not really in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church, why would the Moscow Patriarchate give Holy Communion to Romans in certain circumstances?

It is my understanding and please correct me if I am wrong, but it is what we refer to as "economia", ie, Lacking a Catholic priest at time of death or near death situations an Orthodox priest may administer Holy Unction, Confession and Holy Communion to a Roman Catholic.   But, keep in mind, we are talking about extreme situations and not the norm, and can only be used with the discretion of the priest.  There is no guarantee that this will happen under these situations.
I thought that in the 1970s, Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad allowed intercommunion with the Roman Catholic Church within the borders of his diocese.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #233 on: April 06, 2012, 09:28:32 PM »

A stance I find puzzling, honestly. Why offer communion to someone (someones)- the symbol of, well, communion- if you're not really in communion?
I thought that the Moscow Patriarchate had decided at one time to admit Romans to Holy Communion under certain circumstances. If Romans are not really in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church, why would the Moscow Patriarchate give Holy Communion to Romans in certain circumstances?

It is my understanding and please correct me if I am wrong, but it is what we refer to as "economia", ie, Lacking a Catholic priest at time of death or near death situations an Orthodox priest may administer Holy Unction, Confession and Holy Communion to a Roman Catholic.   But, keep in mind, we are talking about extreme situations and not the norm, and can only be used with the discretion of the priest.  There is no guarantee that this will happen under these situations.
I thought that in the 1970s, Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad allowed intercommunion with the Roman Catholic Church within the borders of his diocese.
I've never heard that before, but it is very interesting.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,359


fleem
WWW
« Reply #234 on: April 06, 2012, 09:35:06 PM »

the RC church sees the Patriarchs as the Pope's direct subordinates. And it is hard to "agree to disagree" on this matter.

Haven't we done that in communion with each other before? Rome tries to assert authority that it believes it has while the other churches don't recognize the authority of Rome to go the extent claimed while still maintaining communion? The only difference would be that Rome did not officially dogmatize it's stance on the subject before the schism, and when it was dogmatized it was done in isolation from those who they knew reject it.

Melodist,

That is a good point. Perhaps Rome felt it had this absolutist authority over everyone even at the time the other Patriarchs were in communion with it. Well, I am not sure of that, but it's foreseeable to me. But still, the difference you mention is an important one- that Rome at that time didn't officially dogmatize such a viewpoint.

In this case it would be like signing a work contract with someone where your positions about the other person's authority over you are hugely qualitatively different.

The contract simply says you are in the same company together and doesn't decide ownership or who employs whom.

On one hand, you believe you are two partners in a joint venture, two owners of a company, where the other person is the "senior partner".

But the person you are signing it with believes he is your employer- he pays you wages, he decides the company's policies, he can veto your decisions and you must obey him as he wishes.

What kind of business arrangement would you really have?

It's funny how people seem to be so afraid of the supposed all-consuming powers of that oh so bossy RCC Pope, when he can't get most of the people in his own church to listen to him on birth control, divorce and many other issues.

Also, no one posits that the Orthodox would try to impose undesirable conditions on the RCC. I wonder...

I used to think the shadow of the coat rack in my room was a monster. It wasn't.


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
Samson4ll
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantium
Posts: 22



« Reply #235 on: April 06, 2012, 09:40:30 PM »

Witega

Quote
"The point is they are two different, if non-exclusive, positions."

If James could be both an apostle and a bishop, then there is no dilema at all, and that is the point i made.

Logged

"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."
St. Augustine
Samson4ll
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantium
Posts: 22



« Reply #236 on: April 06, 2012, 09:41:55 PM »

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=100018

Holy Apostle James(...) When the Savior began to teach the nation about the Kingdom of God, St James believed in Christ and became His apostle. He was chosen as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

So an Apostle can also be a bishop, there is no dilema.

Yes, but the earliest lists given by Irenaeus and Eusebius do not include Peter. Therefore, it simply is not part of the tradition to claim that he was.

Eusebius:

b Peter the Apostle, by nation a Galilean, first high priest of the Christians, after he had been the first to found a church at Antioch, proceeded to Rome, where as bishop of the same city he remains, preaching the gospel for 25 years.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm
English translation of Jerome's Chronicon - book 2 of Eusebius with Jerome's additions.
Logged

"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."
St. Augustine
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #237 on: April 06, 2012, 09:46:55 PM »

Also, no one posits that the Orthodox would try to impose undesirable conditions on the RCC. I wonder...

Then I guess I'm the first.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,167


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #238 on: April 06, 2012, 10:02:50 PM »

Nevermind, found it
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 10:03:45 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,359


fleem
WWW
« Reply #239 on: April 06, 2012, 10:05:21 PM »

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=100018

Holy Apostle James(...) When the Savior began to teach the nation about the Kingdom of God, St James believed in Christ and became His apostle. He was chosen as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

So an Apostle can also be a bishop, there is no dilema.

Yes, but the earliest lists given by Irenaeus and Eusebius do not include Peter. Therefore, it simply is not part of the tradition to claim that he was.

Eusebius:

b Peter the Apostle, by nation a Galilean, first high priest of the Christians, after he had been the first to found a church at Antioch, proceeded to Rome, where as bishop of the same city he remains, preaching the gospel for 25 years.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm
English translation of Jerome's Chronicon - book 2 of Eusebius with Jerome's additions.


Wink Don't you know St. Peter was never photographed wearing a shiny hat, and therefore he didn't exist?
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
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #240 on: April 07, 2012, 12:18:22 AM »

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=100018

Holy Apostle James(...) When the Savior began to teach the nation about the Kingdom of God, St James believed in Christ and became His apostle. He was chosen as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

So an Apostle can also be a bishop, there is no dilema.

Yes, but the earliest lists given by Irenaeus and Eusebius do not include Peter. Therefore, it simply is not part of the tradition to claim that he was.

Eusebius:

b Peter the Apostle, by nation a Galilean, first high priest of the Christians, after he had been the first to found a church at Antioch, proceeded to Rome, where as bishop of the same city he remains, preaching the gospel for 25 years.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm
English translation of Jerome's Chronicon - book 2 of Eusebius with Jerome's additions.


Wink Don't you know St. Peter was never photographed wearing a shiny hat, and therefore he didn't exist?

No this is an admission from serious Roman Catholic historians, that Peter was simply never seen as the first bishop of Rome during the first three centuries or so. See Francis Dvornik's Byzantium and the Roman Primacy ,for example (I posted an excerpt here in this post on CAF). Your quickness to dismiss mockingly the points of others, which can usually be supported with a reference to a scholarly work is becoming incredibly annoying.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 12:25:41 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,359


fleem
WWW
« Reply #241 on: April 07, 2012, 12:46:59 AM »

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=100018

Holy Apostle James(...) When the Savior began to teach the nation about the Kingdom of God, St James believed in Christ and became His apostle. He was chosen as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

So an Apostle can also be a bishop, there is no dilema.

Yes, but the earliest lists given by Irenaeus and Eusebius do not include Peter. Therefore, it simply is not part of the tradition to claim that he was.

Eusebius:

b Peter the Apostle, by nation a Galilean, first high priest of the Christians, after he had been the first to found a church at Antioch, proceeded to Rome, where as bishop of the same city he remains, preaching the gospel for 25 years.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm
English translation of Jerome's Chronicon - book 2 of Eusebius with Jerome's additions.


Wink Don't you know St. Peter was never photographed wearing a shiny hat, and therefore he didn't exist?

No this is an admission from serious Roman Catholic historians, that Peter was simply never seen as the first bishop of Rome during the first three centuries or so. See Francis Dvornik's Byzantium and the Roman Primacy ,for example (I posted an excerpt here in this post on CAF). Your quickness to dismiss mockingly the points of others, which can usually be supported with a reference to a scholarly work is becoming incredibly annoying.

That's funny, I've never heard that from anyone, and I was Roman Catholic for longer than you've been alive. You incredibly annoy me too.
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
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #242 on: April 07, 2012, 12:52:47 AM »

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=100018

Holy Apostle James(...) When the Savior began to teach the nation about the Kingdom of God, St James believed in Christ and became His apostle. He was chosen as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

So an Apostle can also be a bishop, there is no dilema.

Yes, but the earliest lists given by Irenaeus and Eusebius do not include Peter. Therefore, it simply is not part of the tradition to claim that he was.

Eusebius:

b Peter the Apostle, by nation a Galilean, first high priest of the Christians, after he had been the first to found a church at Antioch, proceeded to Rome, where as bishop of the same city he remains, preaching the gospel for 25 years.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm
English translation of Jerome's Chronicon - book 2 of Eusebius with Jerome's additions.


Wink Don't you know St. Peter was never photographed wearing a shiny hat, and therefore he didn't exist?

No this is an admission from serious Roman Catholic historians, that Peter was simply never seen as the first bishop of Rome during the first three centuries or so. See Francis Dvornik's Byzantium and the Roman Primacy ,for example (I posted an excerpt here in this post on CAF). Your quickness to dismiss mockingly the points of others, which can usually be supported with a reference to a scholarly work is becoming incredibly annoying.

That's funny, I've never heard that from anyone, and I was Roman Catholic for longer than you've been alive. You incredibly annoy me too.


Then I suppose we are at an impasse. You will continue to be dismissive, and I will continue to annoy you with facts.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,359


fleem
WWW
« Reply #243 on: April 07, 2012, 01:06:50 AM »

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=100018

Holy Apostle James(...) When the Savior began to teach the nation about the Kingdom of God, St James believed in Christ and became His apostle. He was chosen as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

So an Apostle can also be a bishop, there is no dilema.

Yes, but the earliest lists given by Irenaeus and Eusebius do not include Peter. Therefore, it simply is not part of the tradition to claim that he was.

Eusebius:

b Peter the Apostle, by nation a Galilean, first high priest of the Christians, after he had been the first to found a church at Antioch, proceeded to Rome, where as bishop of the same city he remains, preaching the gospel for 25 years.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm
English translation of Jerome's Chronicon - book 2 of Eusebius with Jerome's additions.


Wink Don't you know St. Peter was never photographed wearing a shiny hat, and therefore he didn't exist?

No this is an admission from serious Roman Catholic historians, that Peter was simply never seen as the first bishop of Rome during the first three centuries or so. See Francis Dvornik's Byzantium and the Roman Primacy ,for example (I posted an excerpt here in this post on CAF). Your quickness to dismiss mockingly the points of others, which can usually be supported with a reference to a scholarly work is becoming incredibly annoying.

That's funny, I've never heard that from anyone, and I was Roman Catholic for longer than you've been alive. You incredibly annoy me too.


Then I suppose we are at an impasse. You will continue to be dismissive, and I will continue to annoy you with facts.

No, no facts to be had. Just your smarminess. And your willingness to ignore people who don't agree with you. Including, apparently, Eusebius and Jerome. So you're outnumbered- not by me, just by a couple of saints, that's all. Notice how Eusebius suddenly becomes unscholarly when he says that St. Peter was, in fact, a bishop.

Funny, that.

I've heard Orthodox make their case that St. Peter was bishop at Antioch first, not Rome. Even the priest at my Orthodox parish says the RCC pre-schism was Apostolic. I've never heard them try to erase him as a bishop entirely. These different things can't all be true at the same time, after all.

Of course, people don't make fun of each other's points on OC.net; there is no satire, and there is no spoon.

Sigh.

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
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #244 on: April 07, 2012, 01:54:40 AM »

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=100018

Holy Apostle James(...) When the Savior began to teach the nation about the Kingdom of God, St James believed in Christ and became His apostle. He was chosen as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

So an Apostle can also be a bishop, there is no dilema.

Yes, but the earliest lists given by Irenaeus and Eusebius do not include Peter. Therefore, it simply is not part of the tradition to claim that he was.

Eusebius:

b Peter the Apostle, by nation a Galilean, first high priest of the Christians, after he had been the first to found a church at Antioch, proceeded to Rome, where as bishop of the same city he remains, preaching the gospel for 25 years.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm
English translation of Jerome's Chronicon - book 2 of Eusebius with Jerome's additions.


Wink Don't you know St. Peter was never photographed wearing a shiny hat, and therefore he didn't exist?

No this is an admission from serious Roman Catholic historians, that Peter was simply never seen as the first bishop of Rome during the first three centuries or so. See Francis Dvornik's Byzantium and the Roman Primacy ,for example (I posted an excerpt here in this post on CAF). Your quickness to dismiss mockingly the points of others, which can usually be supported with a reference to a scholarly work is becoming incredibly annoying.

That's funny, I've never heard that from anyone, and I was Roman Catholic for longer than you've been alive. You incredibly annoy me too.


Then I suppose we are at an impasse. You will continue to be dismissive, and I will continue to annoy you with facts.

No, no facts to be had. Just your smarminess. And your willingness to ignore people who don't agree with you. Including, apparently, Eusebius and Jerome. So you're outnumbered- not by me, just by a couple of saints, that's all. Notice how Eusebius suddenly becomes unscholarly when he says that St. Peter was, in fact, a bishop.

Funny, that.

I've heard Orthodox make their case that St. Peter was bishop at Antioch first, not Rome. Even the priest at my Orthodox parish says the RCC pre-schism was Apostolic. I've never heard them try to erase him as a bishop entirely. These different things can't all be true at the same time, after all.

Of course, people don't make fun of each other's points on OC.net; there is no satire, and there is no spoon.

Sigh.



You are wandering off topic. This is not to erase Peter from the history of Rome, this is simply asserting that the earliest commentators in the Church did not regard the apostle who founded a see as being the first bishop of the see. If you read through Eusebius' Church History, for example, he presents a completely different story. He calls Anencletus the Second bishop of Rome, and Clement the third bishop of Rome. Unless St. Peter was the zeroth bishop of Rome (a number that Eusebius probably did not comprehend, much less one he would have begun to count from), I'm pretty sure Eusebius did not think Peter was the first bishop of Rome. He also counts Annianus as being the first bishop of Alexandria, not St. Mark. Irenaeus does similarly, if I recall.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

This is one point that Priest Francis Dvornik makes in his book, a quote from which can be found in the post I linked above.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 01:58:08 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #245 on: April 07, 2012, 02:15:31 AM »

I'm pretty sure Eusebius did not think Peter was the first bishop of Rome. He also counts Annianus as being the first bishop of Alexandria, not St. Mark. Irenaeus does similarly, if I recall.

Uh...in chapter 24 of book 2 of his history, Eusebius writes "Annianus succeeded Mark the Evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria." Seems pretty clear to me. It's hard to be a successor of anyone if you're the first guy in the position, but whatever. Coptic tradition remains as it is, and St. Mark would still be rightly honored as the founder of the Church in Egypt even if Eusebius had written that the first Bishop of Alexandria had been Imhotep.
Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,167


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #246 on: April 07, 2012, 02:34:23 AM »

I'm pretty sure Eusebius did not think Peter was the first bishop of Rome. He also counts Annianus as being the first bishop of Alexandria, not St. Mark. Irenaeus does similarly, if I recall.

Uh...in chapter 24 of book 2 of his history, Eusebius writes "Annianus succeeded Mark the Evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria." Seems pretty clear to me. It's hard to be a successor of anyone if you're the first guy in the position, but whatever.

If St. Mark was a bishop wouldn't it have said that "Annianus succeeded Mark the Evangelist in the bishopric of the parish of Alexandria"? Why the word "administration"? What is the word used here in the original Greek?
Logged
Nicene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 615


« Reply #247 on: April 07, 2012, 02:35:14 AM »

I think the RC want recommunion again, but neither side wants to compromise.
Logged

Thank you.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #248 on: April 07, 2012, 03:37:15 AM »

I'm pretty sure Eusebius did not think Peter was the first bishop of Rome. He also counts Annianus as being the first bishop of Alexandria, not St. Mark. Irenaeus does similarly, if I recall.

Uh...in chapter 24 of book 2 of his history, Eusebius writes "Annianus succeeded Mark the Evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria." Seems pretty clear to me. It's hard to be a successor of anyone if you're the first guy in the position, but whatever. Coptic tradition remains as it is, and St. Mark would still be rightly honored as the founder of the Church in Egypt even if Eusebius had written that the first Bishop of Alexandria had been Imhotep.

In chapter 14 of book III of his Church History, Eusebius writes, "In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus, the first bishop of the parish of Alexandria, died after holding office twenty-two years, and was succeeded by Abilius, the second bishop."
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #249 on: April 07, 2012, 03:52:10 AM »

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=100018

Holy Apostle James(...) When the Savior began to teach the nation about the Kingdom of God, St James believed in Christ and became His apostle. He was chosen as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

So an Apostle can also be a bishop, there is no dilema.

Yes, but the earliest lists given by Irenaeus and Eusebius do not include Peter. Therefore, it simply is not part of the tradition to claim that he was.

Eusebius:

b Peter the Apostle, by nation a Galilean, first high priest of the Christians, after he had been the first to found a church at Antioch, proceeded to Rome, where as bishop of the same city he remains, preaching the gospel for 25 years.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm
English translation of Jerome's Chronicon - book 2 of Eusebius with Jerome's additions.



That would make the first person Jerome, not Eusebius (who as Cavaradossi has pointed out starts counting Roman bishops from St. Linus
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 03:54:14 AM by witega » Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #250 on: April 07, 2012, 04:12:30 AM »

I'm pretty sure Eusebius did not think Peter was the first bishop of Rome. He also counts Annianus as being the first bishop of Alexandria, not St. Mark. Irenaeus does similarly, if I recall.

Uh...in chapter 24 of book 2 of his history, Eusebius writes "Annianus succeeded Mark the Evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria." Seems pretty clear to me. It's hard to be a successor of anyone if you're the first guy in the position, but whatever. Coptic tradition remains as it is, and St. Mark would still be rightly honored as the founder of the Church in Egypt even if Eusebius had written that the first Bishop of Alexandria had been Imhotep.

In chapter 14 of book III of his Church History, Eusebius writes, "In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus, the first bishop of the parish of Alexandria, died after holding office twenty-two years, and was succeeded by Abilius, the second bishop."

I guess I should be more clear. In pre-Nicene times, it seems that the convention was not to list the founder of a see as its first bishop. Eusebius' listings simply reflect this older convention. This is not denying that St. Mark founded the Church of Alexandria, just that he was the first bishop.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Samson4ll
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantium
Posts: 22



« Reply #251 on: April 07, 2012, 07:22:18 AM »

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=100018

Holy Apostle James(...) When the Savior began to teach the nation about the Kingdom of God, St James believed in Christ and became His apostle. He was chosen as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

So an Apostle can also be a bishop, there is no dilema.

Yes, but the earliest lists given by Irenaeus and Eusebius do not include Peter. Therefore, it simply is not part of the tradition to claim that he was.

Eusebius:

b Peter the Apostle, by nation a Galilean, first high priest of the Christians, after he had been the first to found a church at Antioch, proceeded to Rome, where as bishop of the same city he remains, preaching the gospel for 25 years.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm
English translation of Jerome's Chronicon - book 2 of Eusebius with Jerome's additions.



That would make the first person Jerome, not Eusebius (who as Cavaradossi has pointed out starts counting Roman bishops from St. Linus

No it would not make Jerome, because this book is from Eusebius, only the notes are from st Jerome.
I simply didn't find online the book of Eusebius without Jerome's additions.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 07:30:45 AM by Samson4ll » Logged

"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."
St. Augustine
Samson4ll
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantium
Posts: 22



« Reply #252 on: April 07, 2012, 07:24:39 AM »

@Cavaradossi

Quote
"If you read through Eusebius' Church History, for example, he presents a completely different story. He calls Anencletus the Second bishop of Rome, and Clement the third bishop of Rome. Unless St. Peter was the zeroth bishop of Rome (a number that Eusebius probably did not comprehend, much less one he would have begun to count from), I'm pretty sure Eusebius did not think Peter was the first bishop of Rome. "

And elsewhere, as i pointed out, Eusebius says that st Peter was the bishop of Rome for 25 years.

" Peter the Apostle, by nation a Galilean, first high priest of the Christians, after he had been the first to found a church at Antioch, proceeded to Rome, where as bishop of the same city he remains, preaching the gospel for 25 years. "
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm English translation of Jerome's Chronicon - book 2 of Eusebius with Jerome's additions.

But the fact is that it's not because st John Chrysostom or Origene or saint Basil said that the blessed Virgin Mary had sinned that we should follow their opinion that she did. If most of the saints of the pre-schism thought st Peter was the first bishop of Rome, we and you are not forced to follow the opinion of isolated writers who were ambiguous about it.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 07:29:18 AM by Samson4ll » Logged

"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."
St. Augustine
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,167


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #253 on: April 07, 2012, 07:43:22 AM »

Anyway, I think the question in the title isn't quite as helpful as another question: "Which Church is in a better position to reenter communion with the other?" That's a more relevant question, IMO, and the answer, obviously, is Orthodoxy. But that also puts the ball in the hands of Catholicism. Their move.
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #254 on: April 07, 2012, 08:34:16 AM »

I'm pretty sure Eusebius did not think Peter was the first bishop of Rome. He also counts Annianus as being the first bishop of Alexandria, not St. Mark. Irenaeus does similarly, if I recall.

Uh...in chapter 24 of book 2 of his history, Eusebius writes "Annianus succeeded Mark the Evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria." Seems pretty clear to me. It's hard to be a successor of anyone if you're the first guy in the position, but whatever. Coptic tradition remains as it is, and St. Mark would still be rightly honored as the founder of the Church in Egypt even if Eusebius had written that the first Bishop of Alexandria had been Imhotep.

In chapter 14 of book III of his Church History, Eusebius writes, "In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus, the first bishop of the parish of Alexandria, died after holding office twenty-two years, and was succeeded by Abilius, the second bishop."

I guess I should be more clear. In pre-Nicene times, it seems that the convention was not to list the founder of a see as its first bishop. Eusebius' listings simply reflect this older convention. This is not denying that St. Mark founded the Church of Alexandria, just that he was the first bishop.

Ah, thank you. I did not know that. Interesting. Like I wrote, it wouldn't bother me either way, but it's good to know that this was the convention at the time.
Logged

Samson4ll
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantium
Posts: 22



« Reply #255 on: April 07, 2012, 09:02:31 AM »

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=100018

Holy Apostle James(...) When the Savior began to teach the nation about the Kingdom of God, St James believed in Christ and became His apostle. He was chosen as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

So an Apostle can also be a bishop, there is no dilema.

Yes, but the earliest lists given by Irenaeus and Eusebius do not include Peter. Therefore, it simply is not part of the tradition to claim that he was.

Eusebius:

b Peter the Apostle, by nation a Galilean, first high priest of the Christians, after he had been the first to found a church at Antioch, proceeded to Rome, where as bishop of the same city he remains, preaching the gospel for 25 years.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm
English translation of Jerome's Chronicon - book 2 of Eusebius with Jerome's additions.



That would make the first person Jerome, not Eusebius (who as Cavaradossi has pointed out starts counting Roman bishops from St. Linus

No it would not make Jerome, because this book is from Eusebius, only the notes are from st Jerome.
I simply didn't find online the book of Eusebius without Jerome's additions.

But i believe that the fact that St Peter was a bishop is a pious Tradition of the Church:

"but that greatest of disciples among disciples, and of teachers among teachers, who presided and ruled over the Roman Church, and held the chief place in the priesthood as he did in the faith. "
On the Incarnation (John Cassian) > Book III http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/35093.htm

To understand what st John Cassian means by priesthood:

"And finally, now that the mystery of this Divine priesthood has descended to human agency, it runs not by the line of birth, nor is that which flesh and blood created, chosen, but without regard to the privilege of paternity and succession by inheritance, those men are received by the Church as its rulers whom the Holy Ghost prepares: so that in the people of God's adoption, the whole body of which is priestly and royal, it is not the prerogative of earthly origin which obtains the unction , but the condescension of Divine grace which creates the bishop."
 Sermons of St. Leo the Great > Sermon 3 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360303.htm

This is confirmed later in the same sermon by st leo:

'And hence the presence of my venerable brothers and fellow priests, so much desired and valued by me, will be the more sacred and precious, if they will transfer the chief honour of this service in which they have deigned to take part to him whom they know to be not only the patron of this see, but also the primate of all bishops. "

Here he calls st Peter the primate-bishop and confrims that Rome was and still is Peter's epicsopal see.

"African synod in opposition to Stephen,41444144    Bishop of Rome from May 12, a.d. 254, to Aug. 2, a.d. 257. See note on ch. 25. who was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the see of Rome."
The Dialogue Against the Luciferians. St Jerome; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.iv.html

"But the highest prince of the Apostles fought with us: for we had on our side his imitator and the successor in his see"
Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III

"In his see" means an episcopal see, meaning st Peter's episcopal see.

"You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter"

"Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit."
Those 2 quotes are from st Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists;  http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm#C2

So  yes, i think both catholics and eastern orthodox can agree that the Tradition accepts and confirms that st Peter was not only an apostle, but also a Bishop.

And i think that the Holy Scriptures also agree with this Tradition. Peter 5:1, Peter refers to himself as a “fellow elder” or presbyter.

 "Presbyter and episkopos appear to be used interchangeably at other points in the New Testament and in I Clement. This usage makes it difficult to accept the thesis that Peter would not have been considered a bishop or episkopos while resident in Rome."
www.catholic-convert.com/documents/PeterInRome.doc
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 09:10:50 AM by Samson4ll » Logged

"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."
St. Augustine
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #256 on: April 07, 2012, 09:32:48 AM »

Anyway, I think the question in the title isn't quite as helpful as another question: "Which Church is in a better position to reenter communion with the other?" That's a more relevant question, IMO, and the answer, obviously, is Orthodoxy.

For those who don't find it obvious, could you explain?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #257 on: April 07, 2012, 12:28:44 PM »

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=100018

Holy Apostle James(...) When the Savior began to teach the nation about the Kingdom of God, St James believed in Christ and became His apostle. He was chosen as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

So an Apostle can also be a bishop, there is no dilema.

Yes, but the earliest lists given by Irenaeus and Eusebius do not include Peter. Therefore, it simply is not part of the tradition to claim that he was.

Eusebius:

b Peter the Apostle, by nation a Galilean, first high priest of the Christians, after he had been the first to found a church at Antioch, proceeded to Rome, where as bishop of the same city he remains, preaching the gospel for 25 years.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm
English translation of Jerome's Chronicon - book 2 of Eusebius with Jerome's additions.



That would make the first person Jerome, not Eusebius (who as Cavaradossi has pointed out starts counting Roman bishops from St. Linus

No it would not make Jerome, because this book is from Eusebius, only the notes are from st Jerome.
I simply didn't find online the book of Eusebius without Jerome's additions.

But i believe that the fact that St Peter was a bishop is a pious Tradition of the Church:

"but that greatest of disciples among disciples, and of teachers among teachers, who presided and ruled over the Roman Church, and held the chief place in the priesthood as he did in the faith. "
On the Incarnation (John Cassian) > Book III http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/35093.htm

To understand what st John Cassian means by priesthood:

"And finally, now that the mystery of this Divine priesthood has descended to human agency, it runs not by the line of birth, nor is that which flesh and blood created, chosen, but without regard to the privilege of paternity and succession by inheritance, those men are received by the Church as its rulers whom the Holy Ghost prepares: so that in the people of God's adoption, the whole body of which is priestly and royal, it is not the prerogative of earthly origin which obtains the unction , but the condescension of Divine grace which creates the bishop."
 Sermons of St. Leo the Great > Sermon 3 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360303.htm

This is confirmed later in the same sermon by st leo:

'And hence the presence of my venerable brothers and fellow priests, so much desired and valued by me, will be the more sacred and precious, if they will transfer the chief honour of this service in which they have deigned to take part to him whom they know to be not only the patron of this see, but also the primate of all bishops. "

Here he calls st Peter the primate-bishop and confrims that Rome was and still is Peter's epicsopal see.

"African synod in opposition to Stephen,41444144    Bishop of Rome from May 12, a.d. 254, to Aug. 2, a.d. 257. See note on ch. 25. who was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the see of Rome."
The Dialogue Against the Luciferians. St Jerome; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.iv.html

"But the highest prince of the Apostles fought with us: for we had on our side his imitator and the successor in his see"
Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III

"In his see" means an episcopal see, meaning st Peter's episcopal see.

"You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter"

"Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit."
Those 2 quotes are from st Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists;  http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm#C2

So  yes, i think both catholics and eastern orthodox can agree that the Tradition accepts and confirms that st Peter was not only an apostle, but also a Bishop.

And i think that the Holy Scriptures also agree with this Tradition. Peter 5:1, Peter refers to himself as a “fellow elder” or presbyter.

 "Presbyter and episkopos appear to be used interchangeably at other points in the New Testament and in I Clement. This usage makes it difficult to accept the thesis that Peter would not have been considered a bishop or episkopos while resident in Rome."
www.catholic-convert.com/documents/PeterInRome.doc

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned! You are all over the place here and not addressing the argument. We know that after the fourth century, this convention changed (hence we start seeing claims that St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and Antioch, etc.). My point is that in the very earliest times it was not conventional to include the founder of a see as its first bishop.

As for the Eusebius/Jerome thing. Given that we already have another work by Eusebius in which he calls Linus the first bishop, are we then to assume that Eusebius was inconsistent or that Jerome (whom we already know believed that St. Peter was thee first bishop of Rome from his other writings) edited Eusebius' book? We don't know what Jerome's additions are to that book, because no extant Greek version of Eusebius' original book remains.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 12:52:13 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,167


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #258 on: April 07, 2012, 12:38:32 PM »

Anyway, I think the question in the title isn't quite as helpful as another question: "Which Church is in a better position to reenter communion with the other?" That's a more relevant question, IMO, and the answer, obviously, is Orthodoxy.

For those who don't find it obvious, could you explain?

I don't think it's necessarily obvious, I just didn't know if I could compete with the bishop discussion, so I threw that word in there to add some sizzle to the claim  Grin  But part of what I was thinking that many things Orthodoxy would have to do would be more passive, essentially accepting or rejecting what Catholicism taught or believed (though working together is helpful of course), but the Catholics for their part would have to do more theological leg work in figuring out just how far they were willing to go to accomodate the Orthodox. It's generally Catholic doctrines and the Orthodox refusal to affirm them that's the problem. In this way, little about Orthodoxy per se will change, they just have to be willing to accept that Catholics are different in some ways; it's the Catholics who have to go to their flock and explain why this or that doctrine (e.g., about the Pope) is still the true and the same as they were taught before, even though there seems to be a new finessed version being put on the table for the sake of EO/RC unity. Or something like that... (this made more sense to me when I posted it this morning... after staying up all night  Cheesy )
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,359


fleem
WWW
« Reply #259 on: April 07, 2012, 01:49:29 PM »

I remember an episode of "Come Receive the Light" in which they said some Church historians said St. Peter was the first Pope. There are exceptions, but some do say that. Funny how people tend to believe or not, depending on in what church they were raised, i.e. "what side they are on."

There's a painting of St. Peter conferring the miter on St. Linus. What's funny is, some Orthodox seem to accept St. Peter as an authoritative leader of the Church at that time, but not before that, and not after that. He just magically had enough clout to write an Epistle, be a leader in Antioch, move to Rome, ordain St. Linus and then, who knows what, until he got killed. Yes, he was so unimportant in the Church by that time, that the Romans picked him up- and crucified him. For what, then?

Samson posts a big bunch of sources and they don't count. Cavaradossi posts one or two, but they count. I get it...

Again, I am reminded of Michael Davies and his quote about "the fantasies of the Greeks." 
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
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,167


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #260 on: April 07, 2012, 02:16:48 PM »

There's a painting of St. Peter conferring the miter on St. Linus. What's funny is, some Orthodox seem to accept St. Peter as an authoritative leader of the Church at that time, but not before that, and not after that. He just magically had enough clout to write an Epistle, be a leader in Antioch, move to Rome, ordain St. Linus and then, who knows what, until he got killed. Yes, he was so unimportant in the Church by that time, that the Romans picked him up- and crucified him. For what, then?

What are you talking about?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #261 on: April 07, 2012, 02:21:02 PM »



May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned! [SIC]You are all over the place here and not addressing the argument. We know that after the fourth century, this convention changed (hence we start seeing claims that St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and Antioch, etc.). My point is that in the very earliest times it was not conventional to include the founder of a see as its first bishop.

As for the Eusebius/Jerome thing. Given that we already have another work by Eusebius in which he calls Linus the first bishop, are we then to assume that Eusebius was inconsistent or that Jerome (whom we already know believed that St. Peter was thee first bishop of Rome from his other writings) edited Eusebius' book? We don't know what Jerome's additions are to that book, because no extant Greek version of Eusebius' original book remains.

Keep your mind on the season and let that flow into your keyboard.  Your opening salvo was absolutely unnecessary and unwelcome and unhealthy for you.

You are not entirely correct here.  It was, in the early decades and centuries of the Church more important that the Apostles be apostles.  Even today it is more important to remember them as Apostles.

But to suggest that they were not ALSO known to be bishops is simply not realistic given the rise of the episcopacy and its meaning then, and now.

Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #262 on: April 07, 2012, 03:09:07 PM »

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned!
Is that just your opinion or is it more widely held in your Church?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #263 on: April 07, 2012, 03:11:07 PM »

I think the RC want recommunion again, but neither side wants to compromise.
On March 4, 2012, Orthodox Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus "said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2012/04/orthodox-patriarch-hits-at-unacceptable-attacks-on-ecumenism/
It does not look too good for reunion between EO and RC when an Eastern Orthodox bishop anathematizes all Roman Catholics in the world today.  
Generally, what are the consequences for a Catholic if he is anathematized by an Eastern Orthodox bishop?  Would it affect his eternal salvation?
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 03:12:21 PM by stanley123 » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,230


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #264 on: April 07, 2012, 03:40:43 PM »

I think the RC want recommunion again, but neither side wants to compromise.
On March 4, 2012, Orthodox Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus "said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2012/04/orthodox-patriarch-hits-at-unacceptable-attacks-on-ecumenism/
It does not look too good for reunion between EO and RC when an Eastern Orthodox bishop anathematizes all Roman Catholics in the world today. 
Generally,A. what are the consequences for a Catholic if he is anathematized by an Eastern Orthodox bishop?  B. Would it affect his eternal salvation?


A.  Uh...let's see...he can't receive communion from an Orthodox priest?  Oh, yeah...he already can't (except when he can  Wink).  Oh well....
B.  Why would it?

Do you see any Catholics (or anyone else [except maybe the EP], for that matter) quaking in their boots, wailing and gnashing their teeth, pulling out their hair, or having anxiety attacks over this?

Interesting that he was severely criticized by the EP for his statements: “Critical voices about ecumenism, long heard in the bosom of the church of Greece, have hitherto been limited in scope – but what has occurred recently has reached unacceptable levels,” said Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople.

“Such opinions evoke anguish and sorrow by running counter to the Orthodox ethos. They risk unforeseen consequences for church unity in general, and the unity of our holy Orthodox church in particular,” he wrote."
http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2012/04/orthodox-patriarch-hits-at-unacceptable-attacks-on-ecumenism/

Although I'm sure there are plenty of Netodox and True Orthodox (or whatever the various vagante groups call themselves) who would agree with Met. Seraphim--unfortunately  Sad.

Interesting, too, that the EP expressed concern about the unity of the Orthodox church.  Is Met. Seraphim about to take his metropolitanate in the direction of other vagante groups, thus dividing Orthodoxy even more?  Or, is he just howling in the wind?
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 03:59:12 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #265 on: April 07, 2012, 04:07:17 PM »

I think the RC want recommunion again, but neither side wants to compromise.
On March 4, 2012, Orthodox Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus "said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2012/04/orthodox-patriarch-hits-at-unacceptable-attacks-on-ecumenism/
It does not look too good for reunion between EO and RC when an Eastern Orthodox bishop anathematizes all Roman Catholics in the world today. 
Generally,A. what are the consequences for a Catholic if he is anathematized by an Eastern Orthodox bishop?  B. Would it affect his eternal salvation?

B.  Why would it?
Because I thought that an anathema was a formal ecclesiastical curse involving an imprecation of severe divine punishment ...an official declaration that the person is in a state of hardened evil and must repent or else suffer the painful consequences of eternal damnation.  Or is there a different definition of the term?
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,230


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #266 on: April 07, 2012, 04:14:07 PM »

I think the RC want recommunion again, but neither side wants to compromise.
On March 4, 2012, Orthodox Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus "said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2012/04/orthodox-patriarch-hits-at-unacceptable-attacks-on-ecumenism/
It does not look too good for reunion between EO and RC when an Eastern Orthodox bishop anathematizes all Roman Catholics in the world today. 
Generally,A. what are the consequences for a Catholic if he is anathematized by an Eastern Orthodox bishop?  B. Would it affect his eternal salvation?

B.  Why would it?
Because I thought that an anathema was a formal ecclesiastical curse involving an imprecation of severe divine punishment ...an official declaration that the person is in a state of hardened evil and must repent or else suffer the painful consequences of eternal damnation.  Or is there a different definition of the term?


What authority does Met. Seraphim have over *anyone* other than Orthodox Christians except to not allow them to commune with Orthodox Christians?

« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 04:22:14 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #267 on: April 07, 2012, 04:16:36 PM »

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned! [SIC]You are all over the place here and not addressing the argument. We know that after the fourth century, this convention changed (hence we start seeing claims that St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and Antioch, etc.). My point is that in the very earliest times it was not conventional to include the founder of a see as its first bishop.

As for the Eusebius/Jerome thing. Given that we already have another work by Eusebius in which he calls Linus the first bishop, are we then to assume that Eusebius was inconsistent or that Jerome (whom we already know believed that St. Peter was thee first bishop of Rome from his other writings) edited Eusebius' book? We don't know what Jerome's additions are to that book, because no extant Greek version of Eusebius' original book remains.

Keep your mind on the season and let that flow into your keyboard.  Your opening salvo was absolutely unnecessary and unwelcome and unhealthy for you.

Also heretical. Only persons can be damned, not memories.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #268 on: April 07, 2012, 04:23:40 PM »

I have not followed this thread because I thought the answer was rather obvious. Now that it has gone on and on, I think may be I should throw my two cents in. The answer is: the Roman Church because She is in a stronger position in numbers and organization. I do not see how the big fish does not eventually swallow the little fish, even if it may be an accident.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #269 on: April 07, 2012, 04:45:57 PM »

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned!
Is that just your opinion or is it more widely held in your Church?
That is the logical conclusion of the other person's argument, that we should ignore the first lists, produced by the pre-nicene fathers and base our conclusions off of only what came later. Then why read them at all? Let's just consign them to oblivion, since their opinions are so unimportant and inconvenient. Nice out of context quotation, by the way. Are you always this dishonest when arguing against others?
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   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 0.219 seconds with 72 queries.