OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 27, 2014, 01:03:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: I have to admit  (Read 5672 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« on: June 06, 2005, 02:00:55 AM »

In all my attandances" to thinking in regard to primacy of the see of Rome I have always tried and managed to understand it in a view that Bishop of Rome is "just another Bishop" who because of the fact that Rome was the capital od the empire had the status that it had. I have talked about this with a group of friends and a priest yesterday after the Divine Liturgy and have heard some stunning comments that I just thought to be not correct. Mainly in regard of explanation of the full extent of Authority of the Ecumenical office.

My view that Bishop of Rome "is just another Bishop" is wrong!

The bishops of Rome did hold special place in the Church. This became obvious to me just through actually being explained and understanding what way are the Patriachs revered in Churches and how Ecumenical Patriarch is revered by the Church

I was always ready to use "protestant deduction" in regard to Primacy of Rome. I did acknowledge Papal "First-among-equality" but I really did not dealt with it. I think, now, that flatly using protestant deduction in dealing with Roman Primacy is wrong, stupid and heterodox.

Pope was the leader of the Church. Same way (and one can say even more) that Ecumenical Patriarch is today. This is not just "the title". This leadership and respect for it did manifest itself in real terms. I think (I might be wrong) but it seems to me that there is some level of "negative feelings" toward Ecumenical Patriarch today-and ever since some more dubious decisions have been made by this see. But Rome has excersized the "full authority" of Ecumenical Office.

I think, now, that I was very wrong in denying the Rome place that it had.

Also, is seems, now, that Primacy of Rome was not so limited as I wanted it to be, but at the same time was not so wide as modern RCC says it is. The truth is somewhere in between.

Also, at this point I would like to thank brother Maximus (I am not sure if he is a memeber of this particular forum) on saying stuff that actually made me start asking questions I never thought needed to be ask.



Without going into discussion, please can you post what you think on this matter?

I beg you to post your oppinion without agreement or disagreement, just so we can maintain NO-ARGUMENT spirit that I would like to have in this particular thread, if possible.

If you also require more clarification please ask, I will try to provide it.


in ICXC
stefan+
Logged

Lord have mercy.
ManSpider
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28

I'm from Catholicism.... I'm here to help.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2005, 02:15:31 AM »

I think Timothy Ware handles the subject of Roman Primacy well when, in "The Orthodox Church," when he notes that its time for the Orthdox to start talking about what primacy actually means.  Granted he wrote that back in the 50's, and there's probably been considerable work done here, but so far as I can tell it remains an open question.

As a Roman Catholic I'm reminded of John Paul II's Ut Unum Sinct (latin for that they may all be one) where he openly urged hierarchs of other Christian confessions to speak to him about how the office of Pope might function in a united Christian Church, so I think there's some wiggle room in Catholicism on the issue.  I also think that papal infallability isn't done being examined and explored in Catholic dogmatic theology.  Its explicit pronouncement is relativly new and its proper interpritation may be the subject of further reflection.
Logged

Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2005, 02:16:53 AM »

Are you referring to Maximus of the christianforums.com site? If so he posted here as Linus7.  There is another Maximus who posts on catholic-convert.com that is a Byzantine Catholic layman.

I think if you read Byzantium and the Roman Primacy by Francis Dvornik it becomes quite clear that Rome's primacy is just due to historical accident. Some people try to prove papal primacy either by a) citing appeals to Rome by other sees or b) showing how the Byzantine liturgical texts honor Rome. Problem is, a) doesn't work since many bishops appealed to MULTIPLE sees at once, not just Rome, yet we don't have people writing books showing that (instead they focus on Rome to prove a point) or b) they don't understand that a lot of those hymns are just fluffy and in a style that is very rhetorical.

Rome was honored because of its high degree of Orthodoxy in the early Church.  In 1014 it went into heresy due to the filioque and that was that.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2005, 02:18:50 AM »

Quote
Same way (and one can say even more) that Ecumenical Patriarch is today.

Sorry, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not the "leader" of Orthodoxy. That role belongs to Jesus Christ.  The Ecumenical Patriarch can call an ecumenical council or hear an appeal of another patriarch if asked. He can't do anything more than that, and as is, that is not much.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2005, 02:29:26 AM »

It is very interesting. Anyway one goes one gets smashed by the moderators.

Do I have a sign on my head HIT ME IF YOU ARE A MOD? Grin
« Last Edit: June 06, 2005, 02:41:15 AM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2005, 02:46:38 AM »

It is very interesting. Anyway one goes one gets smashed by the moderators.

Do I have a sign on my head HIT ME IF YOU ARE A MOD? Grin

Hey buddy I am not smashing you. I may be a moderator but I also am a poster who is interested in the subject. Why don't you post some of the source material you have and we can go through it. Maybe I will be proven wrong Smiley
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2005, 03:00:18 AM »

LOL and then what. If I prove you wrong (which no doubt I will   Smiley ) what then... you get angry and kick me out and close the forum...  Grin

I understand where you are coming from. I am not saying that you are wrong I just think that, well, I was very dismissive in regard to what Ecumenical or Patriarchal Office actually means (and so the office of Roman Pope in the past).

I know that they (either EP or other Patriarchs) have no real authority of power over other Orthodox bishops, be he of a big or a small place. In my mind it is all in respect and reverance for these offices. And not (I am sorry to say this) like you say "that is not much" when you are talking about what EP can do. I know that is not much. I know that many are sensitive about this office, but I do not really feel that is fair to say that because his "authority" does not extend in any "real" way we are to deny respect that belongs to him. I am saying this also from a perspective of Patriarchs (of Serbia for example, me being a serb). I love him (+Pavle) and really respect, and more so for the fact that he is the Patriarch. This is in my mind somehow mixed. I think, that maybe, that is the way that we ought to feel about EP.

Maybe I am wrong.

in ICXC
stefan+
« Last Edit: June 06, 2005, 03:05:43 AM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2005, 05:04:01 AM »


Do I have a sign on my head HIT ME IF YOU ARE A MOD? Grin


I have a hammer in my possesion with your name written on it Wink
Logged
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2005, 05:08:05 AM »

I know... nothing worse than an aussie with a bad greek attitude  Grin  And a mod at that... LOL

(running away and yelling to the arms, to the arms.. the greeks are coming!!! save yourselves  Smiley)
« Last Edit: June 06, 2005, 05:08:35 AM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2005, 07:19:11 AM »

Do I have a sign on my head HIT ME IF YOU ARE A MOD? Grin

(Winds up with a 2x4): <THWACK!!!>  Grin

Seriously, though; these are good questions.  Rome (to put it WAY too simply) did have a place of primacy in the Church and was deferred to in many situations as a Church of unquestionable and great (maybe, at the time, the greatest) strength of doctrine and apostolic worth.  That's undeniable.  But this is not to be confused with supremacy, where the see's given unquestioned sway over everyone else.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2005, 08:19:55 PM »

I agree with your post. The Papal office is more than the EO and Protestants want it to be and probably somehwat less than the modern Popes have made it. Let The Holy Spirit work in the Churches and The true place of The Bishop of Rome will be manifest and the Church reunited in love and mutual respect.



In all my attandances" to thinking in regard to primacy of the see of Rome I have always tried and managed to understand it in a view that Bishop of Rome is "just another Bishop" who because of the fact that Rome was the capital od the empire had the status that it had. I have talked about this with a group of friends and a priest yesterday after the Divine Liturgy and have heard some stunning comments that I just thought to be not correct. Mainly in regard of explanation of the full extent of Authority of the Ecumenical office.

My view that Bishop of Rome "is just another Bishop" is wrong!

The bishops of Rome did hold special place in the Church. This became obvious to me just through actually being explained and understanding what way are the Patriachs revered in Churches and how Ecumenical Patriarch is revered by the Church

I was always ready to use "protestant deduction" in regard to Primacy of Rome. I did acknowledge Papal "First-among-equality" but I really did not dealt with it. I think, now, that flatly using protestant deduction in dealing with Roman Primacy is wrong, stupid and heterodox.

Pope was the leader of the Church. Same way (and one can say even more) that Ecumenical Patriarch is today. This is not just "the title". This leadership and respect for it did manifest itself in real terms. I think (I might be wrong) but it seems to me that there is some level of "negative feelings" toward Ecumenical Patriarch today-and ever since some more dubious decisions have been made by this see. But Rome has excersized the "full authority" of Ecumenical Office.

I think, now, that I was very wrong in denying the Rome place that it had.

Also, is seems, now, that Primacy of Rome was not so limited as I wanted it to be, but at the same time was not so wide as modern RCC says it is. The truth is somewhere in between.

Also, at this point I would like to thank brother Maximus (I am not sure if he is a memeber of this particular forum) on saying stuff that actually made me start asking questions I never thought needed to be ask.



Without going into discussion, please can you post what you think on this matter?

I beg you to post your oppinion without agreement or disagreement, just so we can maintain NO-ARGUMENT spirit that I would like to have in this particular thread, if possible.

If you also require more clarification please ask, I will try to provide it.


in ICXC
stefan+
Logged

Peace
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2005, 08:46:09 PM »

Saint Polycarp's post demonstrates the legacy of ecumenism. Neither Church is right, and only by letting the "Holy Spirit" do his work, which we have presumably been preventing it from doing since 1054, will the truth be made manfiest.

No thanks; I'll take the fathers and the Orthodox tradition which has been proven to me to be true, and in no need of compromise.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2005, 09:20:55 PM »

I agree with your post. The Papal office is more than the EO and Protestants want it to be and probably somehwat less than the modern Popes have made it. Let The Holy Spirit work in the Churches and The true place of The Bishop of Rome will be manifest and the Church reunited in love and mutual respect.

I am sorry Saint Polycarp, please do not twist my words.
(you are probably not doing it on purpose,
in an case I need to correct what you imply what I said).


I did not say that view that Holy Chuches  have of the Pope of Rome, is wrong,
I said that my view, of the Pope of Rome, was wrong.



I said that:... that Primacy of Rome was not so limited as I wanted it to be, but at the same time was not so wide as modern RCC says it is. The truth is somewhere in between..
OR EXACTLY how Orthodox Church see it.

I WAS NOT correcting Churches  view(GOD FORBID), only mine.

Churches view need not correcting, ever.

in ICXC
stefan+


P.S.
You equalization of EO and Protestants is most disturbing.
I made THE POINT OF MY ORIGINAL POST here to make sure to present that Orthodox view IS NOT EQUAL to the view of protestants,
seems to me that you have ignored it!
« Last Edit: June 07, 2005, 11:16:41 PM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2005, 09:32:53 PM »

I don't think that Rome has a primacy, Peter does. Peter had cathedrae in two cities: Rome (traditionally) and Antioch (scripturally). So in a way, you can say that the sucessor of St. Peter is in the Orthodox Church in Antioch, whilst the Orthodox See of Peter at Rome lies vacant.

Just my thoughts. Of course Antioch is not the ecumenical patriarchate in the EO churches, but on the other hand, Canon 6 of Nicene 1 calls Rome's authority over other churches a custom, not Tradition, or from the Apostles.
Logged
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2005, 11:10:23 PM »

quote author=SeanMc link=topic=6341.msg82176#msg82176 date=1118194373]
I don't think that Rome has a primacy, Peter does. Peter had cathedrae in two cities: Rome (traditionally) and Antioch (scripturally). So in a way, you can say that the sucessor of St. Peter is in the Orthodox Church in Antioch, whilst the Orthodox See of Peter at Rome lies vacant.

Just my thoughts. Of course Antioch is not the ecumenical patriarchate in the EO churches, but on the other hand, Canon 6 of Nicene 1 calls Rome's authority over other churches a custom, not Tradition, or from the Apostles.
Quote



Ok,

The view of the EOC connected to Hierarchy is based on IMPORTANCE (SIZE) of the City NOT "Importance-Size" of an Apostle.
Always was (that is why Belgrade is Seat of the Serbian Patriarch and not Pech-where Serbs basically built their first Church- just an example, also this is same for all the Other Holy Churches of God).
Always will be.

It is ALWAYS the Biggest city that "hold" the Patriarchal Chair.


Now, what I said could be understandable ONLY to those who understand ORTHODOX view on this matter (and even they can argue differently)
It is very hard to explain what I meant to those who hold Latin teaching (especially since Vatican I... that is all of the Latin people today).

Primacy of Rome, as such, has nothing to do with St. Peter.
But, with the fact that Rome was the Capital of the empire.
If you read the history od why and how Constantinople took over the Alexandria, and why and how did Jerusalem become one of the Fivem you will see that Pentarchy is BASED ON SIZE OF THE CITY, on SIZE of the CHURCH not Apostle that formed it.

Also this is clear from the holy Canons.

What I had to admit was that Protestant Deduction is wrong, the deduction that I was using.
Not the teaching of the Holy CHurches of God.


My statement in no way, shape or form, not even for an inch gives way to what current Latin teaching states.
This teaching is simply wrong.
I beg of all the Latin faithfull here to understand that I am not siding with you, but with my own Church (given that I did hold an erroneus view).

Again, my initial statement DOES NOT mean that Latin view has any roots in canon Law or teaching of the Church, none what-so-ever.

It is simply adjustment of my personal view that Rome should have be treated with more respect than I had for it, in a way that Orthodox revere Ecumenical Patriarch or "our own" Patriarchs.
Not Iota more!

in ICXC
stefan+






Logged

Lord have mercy.
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2005, 11:39:47 PM »

Saint Polycarp's post demonstrates the legacy of ecumenism. Neither Church is right, and only by letting the "Holy Spirit" do his work, which we have presumably been preventing it from doing since 1054, will the truth be made manfiest.

No thanks; I'll take the fathers and the Orthodox tradition which has been proven to me to be true, and in no need of compromise.

Anastasios

I'll take The Holy Spirit over opinions and interpretations of the bickering leaders of our Church(s). Otherwise there is no hope of reconcilliation. Is it wrong to allow The Holy Spirit to be the final arbitor between us? Is my allowing for some concessions from Rome wrong? The way I see it both sides have some give and take on this and other issues. I'm open to The will of The Holy Spirit where ever it takes us.
Logged

Peace
ManSpider
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28

I'm from Catholicism.... I'm here to help.


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 07, 2005, 11:56:19 PM »

Sorry to hijack the thread a tad.

If primacy is linked to the importance of the city, then what since are we supposed to make of their present situation.  Niether Istanbul or Rome hold a signifigant sway or influence in world affairs.  Should the patriarchs move then?  Something tells me no.  But if primacy is only linked to the city, then why not?
Logged

sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2005, 12:17:39 AM »

"If primacy is linked to the importance of the city, then what since are we supposed to make of their present situation.  Niether Istanbul or Rome hold a signifigant sway or influence in world affairs.  Should the patriarchs move then?  Something tells me no.  But if primacy is only linked to the city, then why not?"


I am sorry Manspider, you are missing the point.

Some things can not be changed as the wind blows.
(In Orthodox view NONE CAN BE CHANGED, but that is another point).

The Pentarchy is connected with Ecumenical faith (Orthodox Faith as declared by Imperial Councils of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church).
Changing Order (of Pentarchy) can only be done by an Ecumenical Council (or by apostazy of one of the sees).
Changing Canon of an Ecumenical Council can only be done by Ecumenical Council (not by any of the single Churches).
Adding to/deleting from, the Catholic Faith is not authority of one man (born of a man and a woman), but of Council of the Church.

I hope this helps.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2005, 12:19:12 AM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2005, 12:29:52 AM »

I'll take The Holy Spirit over opinions and interpretations of the bickering leaders of our Church(s). Otherwise there is no hope of reconcilliation. Is it wrong to allow The Holy Spirit to be the final arbitor between us? Is my allowing for some concessions from Rome wrong? The way I see it both sides have some give and take on this and other issues. I'm open to The will of The Holy Spirit where ever it takes us.

The Holy Spirit is only known in an ecclesial context.  Christ promised us the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, not Church(s).  Only in the true Church is the Holy Spirit fully revealed.  If both sides have to give and take, then both are wrong, neither are guided by the Spirit.  The will of the Spirit is for the Catholic Church to return to Orthodoxy; it can be no other way from our point of view.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
ManSpider
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28

I'm from Catholicism.... I'm here to help.


WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2005, 12:37:42 AM »

"If primacy is linked to the importance of the city, then what since are we supposed to make of their present situation.  Niether Istanbul or Rome hold a signifigant sway or influence in world affairs.  Should the patriarchs move then?  Something tells me no.  But if primacy is only linked to the city, then why not?"


I am sorry Manspider, you are missing the point.

Some things can not be changed as the wind blows.
(In Orthodox view NONE CAN BE CHANGED, but that is another point).

The Pentarchy is connected with Ecumenical faith (Orthodox Faith as declared by Imperial Councils of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church).
Changing Order (of Pentarchy) can only be done by an Ecumenical Council (or by apostazy of one of the sees).
Changing Canon of an Ecumenical Council can only be done by Ecumenical Council (not by any of the single Churches).
Adding to/deleting from, the Catholic Faith is not authority of one man (born of a man and a woman), but of Council of the Church.

I hope this helps.


Not so much sin_vladimirov.  I understand that the primacies were set up by ecumenical councils, and like I said, they can't be changed.  But isn't linking primacy to importance of a city kind of contraditory to this?  After all the importance of city changes.
Logged

sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2005, 12:56:50 AM »

"I understand that the primacies were set up by ecumenical councils, and like I said, they can't be changed".
Very good.



"But isn't linking primacy to importance of a city kind of contraditory to this?"
I do not see how this can be contradictory.

If Council sets up the values (standard)
then those who are keeping those values (Orthodox Church) is not contradicting to the values by keeping them.

NOT KEEPING the values would contradict them,

You can not contradict by keeping something.
This is illogical.

You can only contradict if you are not keeping something.

If you agree with something and keep it that way it is, you are not contradicting it by agreeing and keeping it the way it is.


The only contradiction is IN WHAT YOU SAID:
"I understand that the primacies were set up by ecumenical councils, and like I said, they can't be changed".


IS CONTRADICTORY TO

"After all the importance of city changes".


It seems that you are saying:

Value of A, CAN NOT BE CHANGED.
But,
"After all" Value of A, CHANGES.

Sorry, you are wrong.

In my mind, Constaninople (see of Ecumenical Patriarch) is still more important then Belgrade (see of my Patriarch) (and more so than Washington, Paris, Peking.. etc).

Values of this world (today) have nothing do to with Christian Roman Empire (and values of Heaven).


in ICXC
stefan+
« Last Edit: June 08, 2005, 01:03:22 AM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
ManSpider
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28

I'm from Catholicism.... I'm here to help.


WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2005, 01:26:51 AM »

What are the values that determine how important a city is?

And, maybe I'm wrong, but no.  There's no contradicition here.  Setting up an unchanging condition that is based on a condition that does change is non-sensical.  It's possible that I'm wrong, or that I misunderstand the way these cities are supposed to be important.  But I didn't contradict anything.
Logged

Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2005, 01:38:06 AM »

It should also be remembered that Rome was never really seen as solely a Petrine See - Saint Peter and Saint Paul glorified it together by their martyrdom there.  They are seen together, thus their feast is celebrated together and are always depicted together iconographically. 
Logged
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2005, 01:46:31 AM »

"What are the values that determine how important a city is?"

During the time when Holy Pentarchy was "formed", and during Holy Imperial (Ecumenical) councils?
Well the size and importance of the City in the empire, of course!
Later, same principle but on a level of Local Churches of God.


"And, maybe I'm wrong, but no.  There's no contradicition here.  Setting up an unchanging condition that is based on a condition that does change is non-sensical.  It's possible that I'm wrong, or that I misunderstand the way these cities are supposed to be important.  But I didn't contradict anything."

LOL
No problems,
if you say so.
so be it.






Holy Spirit speaks through Ecumenical Councils.

If HE does so,
than it is implied that What HE thinks to be of importance, the Council will think to be of importance.
What Council thinks the Church thinks.
What the Church thinks the faithfull think.

"...that I misunderstand the way these cities are supposed to be important..."
HINT, if Council who is the voice of the Most Holy Trinity thinks something is important...... you finish the sentence...  Smiley
« Last Edit: June 08, 2005, 02:14:10 AM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
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 #24 on: June 08, 2005, 02:24:45 AM »

"But isn't linking primacy to importance of a city kind of contraditory to this?"
I do not see how this can be contradictory.
IS CONTRADICTORY TO
"After all the importance of city changes".

It seems that you are saying:
Value of A, CAN NOT BE CHANGED.
But,
"After all" Value of A, CHANGES.
Sorry, you are wrong.
In my mind, Constaninople (see of Ecumenical Patriarch) is still more important then Belgrade (see of my Patriarch) (and more so than Washington, Paris, Peking.. etc).
Values of this world (today) have nothing do to with Christian Roman Empire (and values of Heaven).
In ICXC
stefan+

I think what manspider is saying is that the Sees of Rome and Constantinople were given their places of honour (VALUE OF A) because of the importance of the Cities of Old Rome and New Rome (VALUE of B).  The Sees of Old and New Rome were given primancy of honour because Old and New Rome were Great Cities. Old Rome is no longer a Great City and New Rome is even worse- "sic transit gloria mundi", but this fact doesn't necessarily revoke the primacy of honour given to them by the Councils.
It is just as ludicrous to claim that the See of Rome is important because it was founded by St. Peter (there is some dispute as to whether Linus was bishop of Rome before St. Peter even arrived), as it is to claim that Constantinople is important because it was founded by St. Andrew the First-called. These were not the reasons they were given thier primacy of honour by the Councils.
I see no contradiction in what manspider wrote.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #25 on: June 08, 2005, 02:48:13 AM »

He is wrooooong!!! (crying aloud.. stomping feet into the floor)

He is wrong because I say so!!! (smahing his chest with his fists)

Nooooooooo, you are wrong toooo!!! (crying, big tears rolling down his cheeks)

I am right, me, me, meeeeeee !!! (jumping around, crying, eyes full of tears, can not see, smashing his head  into the wall knocking himself out)






 Smiley

« Last Edit: June 08, 2005, 03:12:40 AM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
ManSpider
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28

I'm from Catholicism.... I'm here to help.


WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 08, 2005, 02:55:39 AM »

Well, so long as you put it like that. Smiley
Logged

sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #27 on: June 08, 2005, 03:11:52 AM »

 Smiley
Logged

Lord have mercy.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #28 on: June 08, 2005, 05:29:21 AM »

there is some dispute as to whether Linus was bishop of Rome before St. Peter even arrived

I didn't think there was much debate on this matter at all. Every non-Catholic (and in this case I treat RC sources as suspect given their insistance the St. Peter was the first and longest reigning bishop of Rome, which is clearly nonsensical) source that I have ever come across has the first three bishops of Rome as Linus, Anancletus (both ordained by St. Paul) and Clement (ordained by St. Peter). Of course the RCC will dispute this but then they seem to dispute the plain words of the Ecumenical Councils as to why Rome was given her primacy in the first place, don't they?

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #29 on: June 08, 2005, 06:39:22 AM »

The Holy Spirit is only known in an ecclesial context.ÂÂ  Christ promised us the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, not Church(s).ÂÂ  Only in the true Church is the Holy Spirit fully revealed.ÂÂ  If both sides have to give and take, then both are wrong, neither are guided by the Spirit.ÂÂ  The will of the Spirit is for the Catholic Church to return to Orthodoxy; it can be no other way from our point of view.

Anastasios

Then according to The Council Rome holds the primacy. What Council changed that? What Council appointed another Bishop and city as holding Primacy?
Logged

Peace
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #30 on: June 08, 2005, 06:45:52 AM »

LOL...

Ah brother St.P., you are a funny man!
Logged

Lord have mercy.
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 #31 on: June 08, 2005, 07:35:26 AM »

Then according to The Council Rome holds the primacy. What Council changed that? What Council appointed another Bishop and city as holding Primacy?

The twenty-eighth Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.
See under the subheading "CANON XXVIII." at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.html
« Last Edit: June 08, 2005, 07:38:13 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #32 on: June 08, 2005, 09:58:31 PM »

The twenty-eighth Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.
See under the subheading "CANON XXVIII." at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.html

Constantinople is second to Rome as per the council. So what is the point you wanted to make?
Logged

Peace
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 08, 2005, 10:09:34 PM »

Then according to The Council Rome holds the primacy. What Council changed that? What Council appointed another Bishop and city as holding Primacy?

Rome held primacy until it was excommunicated from the Orthodox Church in 1014 for inserting the filioque into the Creed at the coronation of Emperor Henry II.  Once Rome was no longer Orthodox, primacy moved on to the next see on the list. If Rome returns to Orthodoxy, its primacy returns.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 08, 2005, 10:12:14 PM »

St Peter was not a bishop in Rome nor was he really the first bishop of Antioch. Apostles are not bishops--because each apostle has universal jurisdiction--whereas bishops are by definition tied to a locality. Hence, to say that any see is the successor of an Apostle doesn't really make sense but "everyone does it" now--Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox--so I can't push this too far; St James is considered the first bishop of Jerusalem, St Andrew of Constantinople, St Peter of Rome, etc. What I would say is that the Orthodox see such primacy as spiritual--of the tradition of Peter, of the tradition of Mark, etc., whereas the Roman Catholic take it very literally.

Anastasios
« Last Edit: June 08, 2005, 10:12:53 PM by Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
beewolf
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 43

In Thy Light we see Light


« Reply #35 on: June 08, 2005, 11:39:16 PM »

Sorry, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not the "leader" of Orthodoxy. That role belongs to Jesus Christ.ÂÂ  The Ecumenical Patriarch can call an ecumenical council or hear an appeal of another patriarch if asked. He can't do anything more than that, and as is, that is not much.

Anastasios

And this one of the reasons I chose Orthodoxy over RC when i began my journey out of protestantism. The true spirit of the ecumenical councils still prevails, at least i see it that way, but i am a newbie after all. I studied 3 years of theology and saw how power was arrogated to the Papacy well after the great schism. It seemed to me that the whole emphasis was upon gaining temporal power, the fake Donation of Constantine etc etc - hence Caesaro-Papism as some call it. I thank God that i will soon be in the bosom of Mother Church after wandering for so long.
Logged

Gospodi pomiluy
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #36 on: June 08, 2005, 11:43:03 PM »

Rome held primacy until it was excommunicated from the Orthodox Church in 1014 for inserting the filioque into the Creed at the coronation of Emperor Henry II.ÂÂ  Once Rome was no longer Orthodox, primacy moved on to the next see on the list. If Rome returns to Orthodoxy, its primacy returns.

Anastasios

What Ecumenical council excommunicated what ammounts to the overwhelming majority of Catholics who lived in the Western Church and remained in communion with Rome? Untill an Ecumenical council formally discusses the issue and returns a decision no one can claim that their decision is offical doctrine of The Church and further no one can claim their position is infallable and irrevocable, therefore reunification is possible and should be sought for with open minds and hearts.
Logged

Peace
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #37 on: June 08, 2005, 11:45:20 PM »

St Peter was not a bishop in Rome nor was he really the first bishop of Antioch. Apostles are not bishops--because each apostle has universal jurisdiction--whereas bishops are by definition tied to a locality. Hence, to say that any see is the successor of an Apostle doesn't really make sense but "everyone does it" now--Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox--so I can't push this too far; St James is considered the first bishop of Jerusalem, St Andrew of Constantinople, St Peter of Rome, etc. What I would say is that the Orthodox see such primacy as spiritual--of the tradition of Peter, of the tradition of Mark, etc., whereas the Roman Catholic take it very literally.

Anastasios

Yes we all agree that The Apostles held offices which were unique to them and bishops are those whom they appointed to be overseers of various parts of The Church.
Logged

Peace
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #38 on: June 08, 2005, 11:46:22 PM »

And this one of the reasons I chose Orthodoxy over RC when i began my journey out of protestantism. The true spirit of the ecumenical councils still prevails, at least i see it that way, but i am a newbie after all. I studied 3 years of theology and saw how power was arrogated to the Papacy well after the great schism. It seemed to me that the whole emphasis was upon gaining temporal power, the fake Donation of Constantine etc etc - hence Caesaro-Papism as some call it. I thank God that i will soon be in the bosom of Mother Church after wandering for so long.

Orthodoxy is definately a much better choice than Protestantism. A reunified Catholic Church would be even better.
Logged

Peace
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2005, 12:13:36 AM »

What Ecumenical council excommunicated what ammounts to the overwhelming majority of Catholics who lived in the Western Church and remained in communion with Rome? Untill an Ecumenical council formally discusses the issue and returns a decision no one can claim that their decision is offical doctrine of The Church and further no one can claim their position is infallable and irrevocable, therefore reunification is possible and should be sought for with open minds and hearts.

No, your church does not teach that as it has had 14 more ecumenical councils, and our church does not teach that because Rome was removed from communion in 1014 by all the other patriarchs; furthermore Rome falls under the anathema of the council of 879, the local council of 1285, and Rome was condemned at the council of 1484.  Furthermore the lack of communion with Rome since 1014 (except for brief exceptions such as after Florence) show that the Orthodox view Rome as fallen.  It is a mistake to assume that a council has to have the label "ecumenical" for it to be binding; we just don't work that way; local councils that preach the truth are then received by the whole church, such as the councils of Blachernae, Jassey, the local council of Constantinople that condemned phyletism in the 1880's, etc etc etc.  Al the fathers, all the teachers of Orthodoxy, all the councils, and all the encylicals of all of the patriarchs after 1484 have said Rome is in schism. Therefore there is no need for an ecumenical council to proclaim that which is already lived.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #40 on: June 09, 2005, 12:23:42 AM »

No, your church does not teach that as it has had 14 more ecumenical councils, and our church does not teach that because Rome was removed from communion in 1014 by all the other patriarchs; furthermore Rome falls under the anathema of the council of 879, the local council of 1285, and Rome was condemned at the council of 1484.ÂÂ  Furthermore the lack of communion with Rome since 1014 (except for brief exceptions such as after Florence) show that the Orthodox view Rome as fallen.ÂÂ  It is a mistake to assume that a council has to have the label "ecumenical" for it to be binding; we just don't work that way; local councils that preach the truth are then received by the whole church, such as the councils of Blachernae, Jassey, the local council of Constantinople that condemned phyletism in the 1880's, etc etc etc.ÂÂ  Al the fathers, all the teachers of Orthodoxy, all the councils, and all the encylicals of all of the patriarchs after 1484 have said Rome is in schism. Therefore there is no need for an ecumenical council to proclaim that which is already lived.

Anastasios

Obviously we are in schism. But all I'm saying is that no Ecumenical Council has defined any of the specific claims that the EO charge the Western Church with therfore all of the issues can be resolved if the leaders of both sides decide they wish to resolve them and reunifiy The Church. I'm not going to say how the issues must be resolved only that they can and should be resolved.
If that attitude is wrong then somehow I must totally misunderstand the central issue that Christ taught.
Logged

Peace
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #41 on: June 09, 2005, 12:55:27 AM »

Quote
Obviously we are in schism. But all I'm saying is that no Ecumenical Council has defined any of the specific claims that the EO charge the Western Church with therfore all of the issues can be resolved if the leaders of both sides decide they wish to resolve them and reunifiy The Church. I'm not going to say how the issues must be resolved only that they can and should be resolved.

The filioque was "officially" inserted into the creed at the Second Council of Lyons (II:1): "We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration."

Indulgences were considered in the Council of Trent in the 25th Session: "Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of [Page 278] by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them."

Papal Infallibility and Supremacy at Vatican I (4th Session): "Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

Let us also not forget the aberration that is Nostra Aetate from Vatican II: The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.  She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men."

However, Scripture teaches thus (Dt. 18:9): "When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations." There can be nothing holy in religions that do not have God's grace.

Again Nostra Aetate teaches: "The Church therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and
collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with
prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life,
they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and
moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men."

Whilst the Bible teaches (Rev. 18:4-5): "Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, ‘Come out of her, my people, so that you do not take part in her sins, and so that you do not share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities." What does this passage teach us? To have nothing to do with evil. Non-Christian religions must, logically, be evil as they stray people away from the One, True God.

Would St. Peter kiss the Koran? This is how far the Church of Rome has strayed.

PS. ... And I call myself a Catholic!  Smiley
Logged
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #42 on: June 09, 2005, 01:05:01 AM »

Lord is among us.


Unfortunately it is not that simple St. Polycarp,

Just the fact that you are out of communion for the last 1000 years is bad enough.

What is worse, and what seals that out-of-communion status is the fact that over those 1000 years RCC has developed (and dogmatized) so many teachings (docrines) that are not just against the Tradion of the Orthodox Church but simply wrong.
The problem is that there can not be any negotiation. It is not the question of "price is right".
There can not be any negotiation. It is simple.


"Negotiating" has nothing to do with what Lord tought (becuse neither HIM not anybody else, EVER thought that we should compromise faith for the sake of unity).

I am sorry, it just does not work like that.

There can no be unity with those who teach wrongly, until they declare erroneus doctrine the way it should be declared, wrong.
There are some anachronisms here, like Oriental Christians, but that is completely different stack of cards.

in ICXC
stefan+
Logged

Lord have mercy.
beewolf
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 43

In Thy Light we see Light


« Reply #43 on: June 09, 2005, 03:30:48 AM »

Orthodoxy is definately a much better choice than Protestantism. A reunified Catholic Church would be even better.

I agree, but that was not really my point. I do hope that i have not offended you Polcarp, I have nothing against RC, I have found many of them to be among the most loving Christians i have met.

Peace
Logged

Gospodi pomiluy
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #44 on: June 09, 2005, 04:21:53 AM »

Poly,

Could I just point out that whilst there may well be far more RCs than Orthodox nowadays, that is down to the combined results of Muslim and Communist persecution in the east and the extremely aggressive proselytism and empire building of certain RC countries (most notably Portugal and Spain). This most certainly was not the case at the time of the Schism when western Christians made up a minority of the Church, most being in the four Sees that remained Orthodox. Just thought that bit of historical clarification was warranted as with this:

Quote
What Ecumenical council excommunicated what ammounts to the overwhelming majority of Catholics who lived in the Western Church and remained in communion with Rome?

You appeared to be trying to play the wonderfully (in this case doubly - as in, numbers of believers prove nothing but in the 11th century the numbers were on our side) erroneous numbers game. I'm sure you weren't as your arguments are usually more reasonable than that, but I believe this needed pointing out.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #45 on: June 09, 2005, 09:00:35 AM »

James,

a very good point!

Logged

Lord have mercy.
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 09, 2005, 10:52:36 AM »

If we're going to play the "numbers game", then the Muslims have the Roman Catholics beat.

Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 09, 2005, 11:01:45 AM »

Anastasios,

Excellent points regarding genuine ecumenicity.  What RC polemicists fail to appreciate, is that the "seven great Councils" characterized a particular age of the Church, a decidedly Imperial one.  They were Imperial Councils, called and sponsored by Roman Emperors...not the Pope, but a guy living in Constantinople in purple robes.  That they were accepted by the Church is what is significant, since the Church also knows of "pseudo-councils" including those which were, sadly, sponsored by misguided Emperors.

Thus, given that the age of East-Roman Emperors has come to a close, or given the circumstances surrounding the years of their decline, it's not surprising that there haven't been "other Ecumenical Councils" in the same sense, though the Palamite Synods and certainly the often identified "8th Synod" (which was recognized by the Roman Pontiff contemporary to it, which anathematized the filioque clause in the Creed) come pretty darned close, and frankly don't lack any of the qualifications of the former (Imperial sponsorship, signatories representing the major Orthodox Patriarchates, etc.)

Also important to emphasize, is that the Church existed and struggled against heresies before 325 A.D. (Council of Nicea)!

All of these things are within God's hands, and are expressions of His providence.

Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #48 on: June 09, 2005, 11:21:41 AM »

The filioque was "officially" inserted into the creed at the Second Council of Lyons (II:1): "We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration."

Indulgences were considered in the Council of Trent in the 25th Session: "Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of [Page 278] by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them."

Papal Infallibility and Supremacy at Vatican I (4th Session): "Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

Let us also not forget the aberration that is Nostra Aetate from Vatican II: The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.ÂÂ  She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men."

However, Scripture teaches thus (Dt. 18:9): "When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations." There can be nothing holy in religions that do not have God's grace.

Again Nostra Aetate teaches: "The Church therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and
collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with
prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life,
they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and
moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men."

Whilst the Bible teaches (Rev. 18:4-5): "Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, ‘Come out of her, my people, so that you do not take part in her sins, and so that you do not share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities." What does this passage teach us? To have nothing to do with evil. Non-Christian religions must, logically, be evil as they stray people away from the One, True God.

Would St. Peter kiss the Koran? This is how far the Church of Rome has strayed.

PS. ... And I call myself a Catholic!ÂÂ  Smiley


Are you denying that anything that is found to be good and true is not from God or by the grace of God? If so what source other than God produces goodness or truth?

The Pope being a human made what most of us believe was an error in kissing the koran which he did when presented one as a gift from the head of a Muslim state he was visiting. Many people in Jesus' day thought Jesus made an error when he sat and ate with taxcollectors or spoke with Samaratan women. For Jesus his associating with sinners was to witness to the truth and invite them to come to the truth of The Gospel. Let us not think we are so high and mighty that we shouldn't speak with nonchristians.
Logged

Peace
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #49 on: June 09, 2005, 11:27:45 AM »

Lord is among us.


Unfortunately it is not that simple St. Polycarp,

Just the fact that you are out of communion for the last 1000 years is bad enough.

What is worse, and what seals that out-of-communion status is the fact that over those 1000 years RCC has developed (and dogmatized) so many teachings (docrines) that are not just against the Tradion of the Orthodox Church but simply wrong.
The problem is that there can not be any negotiation. It is not the question of "price is right".
There can not be any negotiation. It is simple.


"Negotiating" has nothing to do with what Lord tought (becuse neither HIM not anybody else, EVER thought that we should compromise faith for the sake of unity).

I am sorry, it just does not work like that.

There can no be unity with those who teach wrongly, until they declare erroneus doctrine the way it should be declared, wrong.
There are some anachronisms here, like Oriental Christians, but that is completely different stack of cards.

in ICXC
stefan+

Of course it's not that simple. However do we not desire to reunite The Church? Then the first step is dialogue, which has been going on but then slowed down. Perhaps not enough desire? Now that Pope Bennedict is elected it seems there is some renewed interest at proceeding again.
From what I have read it seems that The Russian Patriarch was the most adamately against reaproachment with Rome in the past years but now he has made some statements which seem to open up the door a crack.
Logged

Peace
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #50 on: June 09, 2005, 11:31:07 AM »

Poly,

Could I just point out that whilst there may well be far more RCs than Orthodox nowadays, that is down to the combined results of Muslim and Communist persecution in the east and the extremely aggressive proselytism and empire building of certain RC countries (most notably Portugal and Spain). This most certainly was not the case at the time of the Schism when western Christians made up a minority of the Church, most being in the four Sees that remained Orthodox. Just thought that bit of historical clarification was warranted as with this:

You appeared to be trying to play the wonderfully (in this case doubly - as in, numbers of believers prove nothing but in the 11th century the numbers were on our side) erroneous numbers game. I'm sure you weren't as your arguments are usually more reasonable than that, but I believe this needed pointing out.

James

Yes James thank you for clarifying my mistake. I was not thinking very throughly regarding the numbers in the 11th century. I assumed that because of the Muslim conquerors that the Eastern part of the Church was depopulated by the massive (forced?) conversions to Islam.
Logged

Peace
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #51 on: June 09, 2005, 11:37:29 AM »

Dear Augustine:

You expressed disdain for the "numbers game" but you, yourself, engendered the continuing commission of egregious errors by declaring that the "Muslims have the Roman Catholics beat!"

Taking the totality of Muslims against a major branch of Christianity is an incorrect "numbers game," unless you don't think the 700 million Protestants and 300 million Orthodox also make up wolrdwide Christianity?

Christianity has Islam beaten 2.1 Billion > 1.2 Billion! And, yes, Islam beats Catholicism 1.2 Billion > 1.1 Billion, but Catholic Christians (largest denomination) outnumber Sunni Muslims (largest sect) by about 300 million. Thankfully, Christianity is still the largest religious group in the entire world, constituting approximatley 33% of humanity!

Now, back to reality!

Amado
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #52 on: June 09, 2005, 12:20:36 PM »

Dear Augustine:

You expressed disdain for the "numbers game" but you, yourself, engendered the continuing commission of egregious errors by declaring that the "Muslims have the Roman Catholics beat!"

Taking the totality of Muslims against a major branch of Christianity is an incorrect "numbers game," unless you don't think the 700 million Protestants and 300 million Orthodox also make up wolrdwide Christianity?

Christianity has Islam beaten 2.1 Billion > 1.2 Billion! And, yes, Islam beats Catholicism 1.2 Billion > 1.1 Billion, but Catholic Christians (largest denomination) outnumber Sunni Muslims (largest sect) by about 300 million. Thankfully, Christianity is still the largest religious group in the entire world, constituting approximatley 33% of humanity!

Now, back to reality!

Amado

LOL funny Amado.  Kiss Wink
Logged

Peace
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2005, 01:05:57 PM »

Rome was removed from communion in 1014 by all the other patriarchs

Is there specific documentation for this excommunication in 1014?  I know that at some point prior to 1054 the Pope was dropped from the diptychs, but even the Pope was not excommunicated in 1054, just his legates, so it would seem that 40 years after 1014 the Eastern and Western churches still considered themselves in communion with each other.

James
Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #54 on: June 09, 2005, 01:33:41 PM »

Amadeus,

Sarcasm is wasted on some people.  I wasn't the one seriously suggesting popularity = authenticity.

Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2005, 02:09:38 PM »

Polycarp,

Quote
Are you denying that anything that is found to be good and true is not from God or by the grace of God? If so what source other than God produces goodness or truth?

I think what most people object to (including those Roman Catholics who were shoved out the door by the "great reforms of Vatican II", like the Lefebvrists), is that the text is imbued with an over-estimation of the goodness of infidelic/pagan religions, and does not clearly teach that while those "true elements" may be good, that if taken part-and-parcel with the infidelic religion, become utterly useless.  IOW, they point to salvation, but cannot grant it in the context of idolatry/atheism, etc.

Quote
The Pope being a human made what most of us believe was an error in kissing the koran which he did when presented one as a gift from the head of a Muslim state he was visiting.

That's the sad part - "most of us", as in to say there are actually people in your religion who defend this act in some wise.

Quote
Many people in Jesus' day thought Jesus made an error when he sat and ate with taxcollectors or spoke with Samaratan women. For Jesus his associating with sinners was to witness to the truth and invite them to come to the truth of The Gospel. Let us not think we are so high and mighty that we shouldn't speak with nonchristians.

(False) equivocation, and incredibly offensive at that, since there is no parity between Christ keeping company with those who society thought of as supersticiously "untouchable" (while we so called "righteous" are very often guilty of the same sins as they, even if not in degree, at least in kind...or perhaps are just better at hiding them!), and someone basically redefining what it is to be a "Christian" ala Karl Rahners ridiculous "invisible Christianity".

Yes, Christians should be speaking to non-Christians - precisely so that they may acquire the faith which comes by hearing, not so as to be lulled into believing their religions can grant them the remission of their sins or the hope of the world to come.

Quote
However do we not desire to reunite The Church?

As far as Orthodoxy is concerned, "the Church" in the dogmatic sense, has always been, and can only be "one".  Since your hierarchs and people cannot/will not provide evidence for professing the same faith as we, which is the same faith your fathers had and agreed do (which included a firm rejection of the filioque interpolation into the Creed), and are not in any wise in communion with the Orthodox Church, we have no evidence that you guys are part of the "one Church."  God can do as He pleases, but we little ones can only go by what has been revealed to mankind.

James2,

Quote
Is there specific documentation for this excommunication in 1014?  I know that at some point prior to 1054 the Pope was dropped from the diptychs, but even the Pope was not excommunicated in 1054, just his legates, so it would seem that 40 years after 1014 the Eastern and Western churches still considered themselves in communion with each other.

The estrangement of western Christendom began well before 1054, and did not become finalized until years following this (though 1054 was certainly a watershed year.)  More decisve would be the later Palamite Synods, which very clearly condemn propositions accepted by the Latins, at least during that period.

I think it's dishonest to try and portray an ongoing union via sophistry; sophistry being one of the hallmarks of lesser Roman Catholic polemics.  Legalisms, word-games, etc. cannot avoid the concrete fact that you profess things as dogmas which we consider leaven and "traditions of men" - we do not have the same Chalice, and have not for centuries, for precisely the reasons I've just mentioned.  Your forefathers broke faith with their brethren, and in outrageous vanity rent the Church asunder by trying to "lord over" others strange teachings which were never our own, and not even of your ancestors in most cases.

Pretending (and that's the operative word here) that none of that happened, and that this can be all ignored by virtue of the fact no great Council gathered together and excommunicated each and every last person in communion with the Pope is silly - not to mention that this isn't even how the formulas of anathematization typically worked anyway; they were typically far less specific than that, simply pointing at whoever rejected/denied this-or-that teaching/definition.  While heresairchs are often named, it's erroneous propositions which are attacked with an anathema directed at those who hold to them.

See, this is the sad and unique thing about the Latin schism - it was gradual, and in a key respect totally unlike previous major schisms.  How?  Unlike those schisms which involved ambiguities latent in pre-concilliar times regarding choices in terminology, and those who took certain "loose" ways of speaking (found in the Scriptures and the most ancient Fathers)  and infused them with novel understandings (materially removed from what right-believing Christians everywhere and always accepted, as given by Christ and the Holy Apostles), this one involved those whose ancestors had agreed to everything in the Seven Ecumenical Councils, but who for various reasons still fell away into private reasonings, which bred private theologies, and a private confession.  In other words, this is not about confused or simply stubborn people arguing over how to describe the fundamentals of the Christian revelation, but people who accepted all of that, but later due to isolation and political ills at home, apostacizing.  I use that word, because that's what happened - a "falling away."

And like any personal fall, such a large scale "corporate" fall (though not without it's points of Light, and those who held to the narrow path till the end) doesn't typically happen all at once - the seeds are there from early on and changes happen here and there, until you come to a point where you suddenly don't recognize what this person has become.  Tell me, just how do you give a specific, over arching anathematization of that?  I'll tell you when - when it's all too late. Sad

Such was not the case of the Arians, the Nestorians, the Monophysites, etc.  As odd as it will sound (since the Roman Catholic Church nominally accepts all of the Councils which they rejected), the reality is that these heretics actually accepted the same basic assumptions that the Orthodox did, where as self-alienated Latin Christianity came to not do this.  This is precisely why, there is at least a prospect for re-union between the Orthodox and the anti-Chalcedonians - where as this is (realistically speaking) unimaginable with the Latin Church.  Even in "superficial" matters, identifiable ancient heresies like Arianism or Monophysitism were nearly identical with their Orthodox neighbours - this cannot be said of Latin Christianity at all, now less than ever.

Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.186 seconds with 83 queries.