OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 01:35:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Do Orthodox Christians submit totally to a Patriarch ? Re: Roman Pontiff  (Read 3304 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« on: December 23, 2004, 06:36:49 PM »

This subject topic has been rolling around within myself lately, I should give credit to Orthodoc for igniting my thought.

So please be free to chime in, I'm anxiously waiting.

james
« Last Edit: December 23, 2004, 06:38:24 PM by Jakub » Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2004, 07:09:33 PM »

This subject topic has been rolling around within myself lately, I should give credit to Orthodoc for igniting my thought.

So please be free to chime in, I'm anxiously waiting.

james

I'm not sure what you mean by sumit totally. Each autocephaleous and automonous Orthodox Church recognizes a specific bishop as the highest authority which may be either a Patriarch or a Metropolitan. If this Bishop started to preach heresy then chances are that the people under his authority would not blindly folow him. And there have been examples in history that can be given. One would be what happened when the Orthodox Bishops returned to Constantinople & Moscow after the 'Council of Florence'.

No bishop or priest within the Orthodox Catholic Church is infallible and in the ordination of a priest or bishop the people have a say in whether the ordiantion should continue when the clergyman is being vested. If the people reply to the Bishop 'Unaxios' the ordination is not supposed to continue.

I don't know if I've answered your question because I am not sure what you are asking.

Orthodoc

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2004, 07:20:32 PM »

Orthodoc,
I see where you're coming from (terrible cliche), but as far as I am concerned I look no further than my own bishop. How he reacts with his brothers is his job, not mine.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2004, 07:55:55 PM »

What I'm asking is do all Bishops etc within the jurisdiction of say the MP or EP submit to their rulings/interpretations as say the Roman Bishops & Pope ?

Mind you, I'm not trying to start a battle especially so close to the Nativity of the Lord, but submitting ones spirituality/soul to "one earthly human" bothers me at times.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
gphadraig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 220

OC.net


« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2004, 08:59:48 PM »

The Roman pope behaves like a monarch, and one far above those who would be 'normally' his brother bishops. This is in itself anti-Christian and was a major contribution to the falling away of the west from Orthodoxy. What binds us all is a concilliar, i.e. love.

Logged

Age is honourable and youth noble
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2004, 09:15:15 PM »

I have found the references I was seeking, thanks for the responses.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
SaintShenouti
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 224


« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2004, 03:07:30 PM »

No, not at all.  We orthodox Christians do not hold the Roman pope as the highest authority, nor are we subordinate to him as respective churches.  We in the Oriental Orthodox family do not believe in any sort of papal primacy.  We accept the notion that all popes/patriarchs are equals and are as brothers.  The twelve were seen as equals to the Lord Christ, and Christ is the head, the Rock upon which the church is founded.  For if church is established on man, it will crumble.

May the Lord keep the life and standing of our honored father Papa Abba Shenouda III, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria, and the See of St. Mark, all Egypt, the Pentapolis, and all Africa. 
Logged
Ntinos
Σαλός
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


« Reply #7 on: April 01, 2005, 12:56:30 PM »

I have a question too: I am a Greek Orthodox, born in a parish that belongs to the Church of Greece (the Archdiocese of Athens), so who is my final superior before Christ? The Patriarch of Constantinople or the Archbishop of Athens? I'm asking this because the Archdiocese of Athens in autocephalous.
Logged

Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #8 on: April 01, 2005, 01:25:03 PM »

Konstantinos,
I am not sure about the phrase, "final superior befre Christ" or what it means, but my answer could be your direct local bishop (Archbishop of Athens, if you actually live there, perhaps another bishop). There's a difference in ecclesiastical administration and the equal concilarity of Orthodox bishops.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Ntinos
Σαλός
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2005, 01:41:30 PM »

Yes, I understand that it is a Bishop after the priest in my parish, but after him is the Archbishop of Athens (I live in Peloponnesse, so there is no 'New Countries' issue). After him, do I submit to the Patriarch of Constantinople like, for example, a Russian Orthodox Christian submits to the Patriarch of Moscow, or do I only submit to the Archbishop? In other words, the Head of my Church, immediately following Christ, is the Archbishop of Athens or the Patriarch of Constantinople (neglecting his Ecumenical status)?
Logged

TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2005, 01:46:38 PM »

... like, for example, a Russian Orthodox Christian submits to the Patriarch of Moscow, ...

ummmm...yea  Grin Cheesy
« Last Edit: April 01, 2005, 01:46:49 PM by TomS » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2005, 01:48:46 PM »

Ntinos, the head of your church is the Archbishop of Athens.
As to this submission-thing, you're going to have to define that for us as it relates to you, a layman.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2005, 02:03:34 PM by +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2005, 03:11:44 PM »

Ntinos, from the information I have gathered the Church of Greece is in an interesting situation (all of it, but for now let's ignore the situation in the New Territories). Technically the Archbishop of Athens is not the Primate of the Church of Greece, the Patriarch of Constantinople is, and it supposed to be commemorated accordingly. The Archbishop of Athens is simply the president of the Synod of the Church of Greece, which is autocephalous insofar as it elects all the metropolitans and bishops in the synod, as well as the president of the Synod. This situation arose out of the beginnings of the Church of Greece, which had the King as the head of the Synod, though, of course, he was not regarded as the Primate of Greece, Constantinople was...part of the terms of the Granting of Autocephaly by Constantinople was that the Archbishop of Athens become the President of the Synod...however he did not become the Primate of the Church, that Honour remains with the Patriarch of Constantinople to this Day. As far as authority goes, it has been entrusted to the Synod of the Chruch of Greece.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Ntinos
Σαλός
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2005, 05:26:19 PM »

Ah... Complex Church rules... Just my priest and let it be!!!  Grin
Logged

Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #14 on: April 01, 2005, 06:29:31 PM »

greekischristian,
While I was aware of the specific COG situation (and perhaps that was the intent of Ntinos's question), I just didn't want to confuse a short answer.
So, had he asked that question as if his church was Alexandria or Jerusalem, how would you have answered it?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #15 on: April 01, 2005, 07:14:28 PM »

greekischristian,
While I was aware of the specific COG situation (and perhaps that was the intent of Ntinos's question), I just didn't want to confuse a short answer.
So, had he asked that question as if his church was Alexandria or Jerusalem, how would you have answered it?

In that situation I would have said that one is directly under their Bishop, who is subject to the Authority of his Synod, which is the Ultimate Authority in the Jurisdiction. The Archbishop/Patriarch is simply the Primate of the Church (which as the situation in the Church of Greece manifests does not always translate into actual administrative role) and President of the Synod, influential over the entire Jurisdiction, but only directly has authority within the Geographical bounds of his Archdiocese (i.e. Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc.). In short, the Synod is the ruling body in the Church.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2005, 12:26:43 AM »

Thank you. This is as I understand it, but I wished for you to state it lest I appear to be argumentative - something I never maybe sometimes am.  Wink
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
catholickid
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40

Totus Tuus Maria


« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2005, 04:21:14 PM »

The Roman pope behaves like a monarch, and one far above those who would be 'normally' his brother bishops. . . . What binds us all is a concilliar, i.e. love.



What I would like to point out is that the Pope ususally is and ought to be just as his title says, a Father, and we are bound not by laws of servitude but filial love. The only Ruler of the "Catholic Monarchy" is Christ the King. I've said it before, the Pope in a political sense is the Prime Minister of the Kingdom. That is what the Keys represented in the eyes of Jews at the time period. My father is a very devout Jew, (GOD Bless him, please pray for him) I know what i'm talking about.

See Isaiah 22 for a prefigurment.
Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #18 on: April 28, 2005, 12:54:17 PM »

Catholickid,

Quote
I've said it before, the Pope in a political sense is the Prime Minister of the Kingdom.

I am curious about this. As a Prime Minister, he is subject to having 'no confidence' votes within his parliament and then potentially be replaced. He also cannot unilaterally implement legislation but certainly can get it started, but may have it defeated when debated.

The 'no confidence' vote is interesting, since it has happened before:

http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/346coun.html

Decree Sacrosancta, 1415.

In the name of the Holy and indivisible Trinity; of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen. This holy synod of Constance, forming a general council for the extirpation of the present schism and the union and reformation, in head and members, of the Church of God, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, to the praise of Omnipotent God, in order that it may the more easily, safely, effectively and freely bring about the union and reformation of the church of God, hereby determines, decrees, ordains and declares what follows:

- It first declares that this same council, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, forming a general council and representing the Catholic Church militant, has its power immediately from Christ, and every one, whatever his state or position, even if it be the Papal dignity itself, is bound to obey it in all those things which pertain to the faith and the healing of the said schism, and to the general reformation of the Church of God, in bead and members. It further declares that any one, whatever his condition, station or rank, even if it be the Papal, who shall contumaciously refuse to obey the mandates, decrees, ordinances or instructions which have been, or shall be issued by this holy council, or by any other general council, legitimately summoned, which concern, or in any way relate to the above mentioned objects, shall, unless he repudiate his conduct, be subject to condign penance and be suitably punished, having recourse, if necessary, to the other resources of the law. . . .

This is how the medieval mess of three simultaneous popes was worked out within Catholicism.

Before someone comes in here arguing that this Decree was not considered Ecumenical, the following information applies:

http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm

"...The decrees notably those of sessions 3-5 and the decree Frequens (session 39), appear to proceed from the council's teaching. Objection has been made to them on the grounds of the primacy of the Roman pontiff. There is no doubt, however, that in enacting these decrees there was solicitude and care to choose the true and sure way ahead in order to heal the schism, and this could only be done by the authority of a council."

The above decree is from Session 4.

Getting back to your quote... do you agree that all popes ashould be subject to the decisions of Councils?
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
catholickid
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40

Totus Tuus Maria


« Reply #19 on: April 28, 2005, 03:28:21 PM »


I am curious about this. As a Prime Minister, he is subject to having 'no confidence' votes within his parliament and then potentially be replaced. He also cannot unilaterally implement legislation but certainly can get it started, but may have it defeated when debated.

The 'no confidence' vote is interesting, since it has happened before:

http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/346coun.html


This is how the medieval mess of three simultaneous popes was worked out within Catholicism.
 
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm

Getting back to your quote... do you agree that all popes ashould be subject to the decisions of Councils?

Thanks for the reply. The Links aren't working on my computer- are they for other people?

We must remember that todays Democratic Prime Ministers and the Old Testament Prime Ministers are drastically different. Let me post a link: http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/papacy.htm

Now about the 3popes in power... That was settled because the legitimate Pope convinced the others to resign and let an undisputed Pope be elected by a Council which he had ordained.

I've got a quote which I think is from the Council of Nicea... but I wont post it untill I can confirm the source. Check back on Monday.
Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #20 on: April 28, 2005, 06:33:14 PM »

Catholickid,

Thank you for your time in researching this question. While the Pope offered to resign in Session 2, there is no mention of this in the Decree which was formulated after this resignation offer. In all seriousness, can you point out a source regarding why?

Also, if Rome is to be a more absolute Old Testament Prime Minister, how does this fit in with canon 28 of the Trullo Council? How do you envision the 'government' should work with 2 absolute prime ministers?

Gotta go, as the evening service is about to start!
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #21 on: April 28, 2005, 06:38:16 PM »

Sorry...I meant Chalcedon (Council 4), not Trullo....


I've been doing a lot of work on the Penthekte Council and was distracted in my rush...
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
catholickid
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40

Totus Tuus Maria


« Reply #22 on: April 29, 2005, 08:05:26 AM »

This is the book I got my info from in regards to the council of Constance and the three popes. (Yeah I know its only a High School textbook)
http://www.bywayofthefamily.com/seriesresults2.cfm?strSeriesCode=Carroll

And from what I understand about Canon 28 of Chalcedon is that Legates of Rome at the time rejected it.
 http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8920/churchcouncils/Ecum04.htm#28
Logged
lpap
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 228

I stopped participating in this forum.


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 29, 2005, 09:44:53 AM »

This subject topic has been rolling around within myself lately, I should give credit to Orthodoc for igniting my thought.

So please be free to chime in, I'm anxiously waiting.

james

Brother Jakub,

Your question is implying that "the totalitarianism" has a place in Church because the Truth can not stand in two places. It has to be One Truth.

It may not be so. The Truth is One, not by having a totalitarian way to be expressed by an authentic authority. The Truth is One, because the Truth is One Person, Christ.

Let's see an incident from the bible:

Acts 15:36-41

36After some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us return and visit the brethren in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are."
37Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also.
38But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.
39And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.
40But Paul chose Silas and left, being committed by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.
41And he was traveling through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.


In this case Paul and Barnabas had a God given mission to accomplish by the Spirit: Acts 13:2 2While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." . But they "separated from one another", because the Truth is a personal experience that can not be shared by others. This separation is not against the Union under the One Truth that is experienced inside Church in (One) Christ.

This case is showing that not only "total submission" to a man is not accepted at all but contrariwise "total defiance" is an essential prerequisite to hold the Truth as a personal relation with Christ, inasmuch you must be as a Person in order to have a personal relationship (in case someone is actually forces you to deny your Personality).
« Last Edit: April 29, 2005, 09:59:14 AM by lpap » Logged

Life is to live the life of others.
catholickid
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40

Totus Tuus Maria


« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2005, 09:26:02 AM »

I've got a quote which I think is from the Council of Nicea... but I wont post it untill I can confirm the source. Check back on Monday.

Actually it was Chalcedon.

"This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!'" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]). Smiley

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a35.htm
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2005, 09:58:02 AM »

"This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!'" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

This has been dealt with many times on many threads. For example, see: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php/topic,4602.msg60576.html#msg60576 If you have AcrobatReader, you can download the book "The Papacy" by Abbe Guetee (who was a Roman Catholic priest) at http://www.odox.net/The%20Papacy%20Guettee%20-%20Kirwan.pdf . I highly recommend it, because if you are going to present apologetics for Papal Supremecy, infallibility etc, you are going to have to be able to address the issues this book raises.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2005, 09:58:37 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #26 on: May 02, 2005, 12:04:07 PM »

And from what I understand about Canon 28 of Chalcedon is that Legates of Rome at the time rejected it.
 http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8920/churchcouncils/Ecum04.htm#28

Canon 28 of Chalcedon may have been Rejected by Rome, but ultimately that fact is irrelevant. Chalcedon did not give any one Patriarchate the right to approve or dismiss their Synod, it was an Oecumenical Synod, and the Synod viewed itself as the Highest Authority in the Church, and rightly so, there are no line-item vetos or further approvals necessary, the Synod is an Expression of the will of the Church as a whole, and those who stand opposed to her decrees stand outside the Church.

Furthermore, Old Rome's argument that New Rome does not enjoy equal Rights and Privilege to her, on the Basis that Old Rome does not want to give up these rights is absurd, for as I said, the Church as a whold spoke through the Oecumenical Synod...unless you are prepared to Reject the Authority of Chalcedon...in which case you stand outside the Church anyway.

Finally, there is the Historical Realization that Constantinople traditionally has Exersized the Rights given to her by Chalcedon ever since the time of the Synod itself. It is a historical reality that Constantinople was held as the Highest See of appeal, did become Oecumenical Patriarch, giving her Patriarch the right to set the agenda for and preside over all Oecumenical Synods (yes, even above the Bishop of Rome or his legates). This role was exersized by the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople from Chalcedon until the Great Schism, and she has continued in this Role ever since. Looking at the practical implications of Canon 28 from the Historical context between Chalcedon and the Great Schism, we see that Constantinople effectively gained and maintained Administrative Primacy in the Church (not Supremacy, but Primacy), in large part thanks to the service our God-Beloved Emperors and Empresses gave to the Church. So what primacy is due to Rome? Rome maintains the right of Liturgical Primacy, her Patriarch (if in communion with the Church) has the Right to be the first bishop in any liturgical celebration, has the right to take the posistion of honour in processions, and has the Right to have his name listed first in the Dyptics of the Church (if he is in communion with the Church). This does not, however, translate to the right to preside over synods with the Patriarch of Constantinople, or his Chartophylax (legate), present (unless allowed to do so by the Patriarch of Constantinople) or the right to hear an appeal of a decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

These are not only canonical and legal realities, but they are Historical realities, that are apparent in the History of the Church. The claims of the Patriarch of Rome are not only illegal and uncanonical, but are unhistorical and contrary to the tradition of the Church.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #27 on: May 02, 2005, 12:07:40 PM »

Canon 28 of Chalcedon was not accepted by Rome until AFTER it had installed a Latin patriarch in Constantinople in 1205..., then in was OK for them. Humph.

We know them by their actions. I did assume this was part of the last pope's apology to the Orthodox Catholics.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2005, 12:08:23 PM by +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #28 on: May 02, 2005, 12:22:37 PM »

Canon 28 of Chalcedon was not accepted by Rome until AFTER it had installed a Latin patriarch in Constantinople in 1205..., then in was OK for them. Humph.

We know them by their actions. I did assume this was part of the last pope's apology to the Orthodox Catholics.

Quite true, but by that point Rome had firmly established themselves well outside of the Body of Christ...so their rejection or acceptance of the canonical decrees of the Oecumenical Synods became relatively insignificant.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2005, 12:23:29 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.098 seconds with 56 queries.