OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 20, 2014, 10:59:10 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: Anyone read this: The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome & Modern E.O.?  (Read 2567 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
KATHXOYMENOC
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147



« on: July 07, 2006, 10:38:05 AM »

Has anyone here read this book? Any comments from those who have?

THE DIVINE PRIMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME AND MODERN EASTERN ORTHODOXY: LETTERS TO A GREEK ORTHODOX ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, by James Likoudis

http://credo.stormloader.com/letters.htm

The author, Likoudis, is a former Orthodox Christian, now a Catholic, and he (and the reviewers of the book - click on the links at the bottom of the page to read the reviews) feel this book adequately addresses and refutes Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic Church.

From the reviews:

"It [the book] is presented in the form of 51 [52?] letters to "Euthymios," a Greek Orthodox correspondent "who may be considered representative of yet others belonging to various Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions." In addition to the 51 letters, there is also a helpful bibliography and two appendices. The first appendix is comprised of excerpts from the "Tractatus de Processione Spiritus Sancti" written around AD 1273 by Matthew of Aquasparta, a disciple of St. Bonaventure who later became a cardinal and general of the Franciscan order. The second appendix is a translation of the 1871 explanation of Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility written by Bishop Wilhelm Emmanuel von Kettler. The 51 letters to Euthymios cover virtually every single objection that modern Eastern Orthodox level against Catholics. As would be expected, 11 of the letters deal with various aspects of the "Filioque controyersy," the theological dispute between Catholics and Orthodox over the Holy Spirit's procession from the Son as well as from the Father. At least 30 of the letters touch on Orthodox polemics dealing with papal primacy and infallibility in which the correction of historical distortions is a major concern. The remaining letters treat topics such as doctrinal development, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, and Palamism (the questionable mystical theology endorsed by many contemporary Orthodox)."

"In his latest work "The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox", Mr. Likoudis returns to explaining Catholic doctrines and defending them against the polemics of a number of Eastern Orthodox writers (former Catholics and Protestant converts to Byzantine Orthodoxy) who reject the "pan-heresy of ecumenism" and have renewed medieval grievances against the Catholic Church and the Papacy. He treats in great detail the defects in Eastern Orthodoxy's notion of the Church, and replies to objections hurled against the Pope's Primacy of Supremacy and Infallibility, the Procession of the Holy Spirit as explicated in the Filioque clause, the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos, the doctrine of Purgatory, and even the denial of a legitimate Development of Doctrine that must take place in a living Church."
Logged

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

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


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2006, 10:55:41 AM »

I have his other book "Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism" which has a rather peculiar methodology and which rejects Catholic teaching (i.e. calling St Gregory Palamas's theology heretical when in fact the CC now accepts St Gregory Palamas and his theology at least in the Byzantine Catholic Church).

That Likoudis had to self-publish his latter work makes one wonder if it is any good. I am certainly not willing to pluck down the money for something that is not even available in a bookstore or peer-reviewed.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

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

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2006, 11:00:42 AM »

would be an interesting read...but I think it would be wise to let someone with a VERY good understanding read it. Me? I'd just get lost Smiley
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,346


metron ariston


« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2006, 11:12:19 AM »

That Likoudis had to self-publish his latter work makes one wonder if it is any good. I am certainly not willing to pluck down the money for something that is not even available in a bookstore or peer-reviewed.

Amen. One has to wonder if Likoudis and the various reviewers who praise the book's (apparent) positions have read much of what their Magesterium and many well-known Catholic clergy/theologians have been saying about Orthodoxy, St. Photios, the filioque, the schism, etc. in the last 30 years. (Or, for that matter, the statements on the filioque and papal status coming from the various bi-lateral dialogues.)

But, then again, I suppose that (in this case!) only that which JP II and Benedict XVI say when speaking ex cathedra (i.e. nothing) is worth listening to if one is a faithful Roman Catholic, since taking the Pope's words to heart would put such a damper on one's chance to cast aspersions on others.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
KATHXOYMENOC
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147



« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2006, 11:18:57 AM »

Amen. One has to wonder if Likoudis and the various reviewers who praise the book's (apparent) positions have read much of what their Magesterium and many well-known Catholic clergy/theologians have been saying about Orthodoxy, St. Photios, the filioque, the schism, etc. in the last 30 years. (Or, for that matter, the statements on the filioque and papal status coming from the various bi-lateral dialogues.)

But, then again, I suppose that (in this case!) only that which JP II and Benedict XVI say when speaking ex cathedra (i.e. nothing) is worth listening to if one is a faithful Roman Catholic, since taking the Pope's words to heart would put such a damper on one's chance to cast aspersions on others.

What have the Magisterium and these well-known Catholic clergy/theologians been saying about Orthodoxy, St. Photios, the filioque, the schism, etc. in the last 30 years that might undermine Likoudis's rebuttal of Orthodoxy?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2006, 11:19:27 AM by KATHXOUMENOC » Logged

KYPIOCIHCOYCXPICTOC
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: July 07, 2006, 12:05:15 PM »

Well, I would be foolish to agree with Pen.'s assessment without some modifications as my own position as an Old Calendarist would in some cases make me the equivalent of him but in reverse; however, I think the problem with Likoudis is not that he represents traditional Catholicism over the Magisterium which is now ecumenist, but that traditional Catholicism is simply wrong about Orthodoxy.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

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

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


« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2006, 12:08:14 PM »

Oh no, not Likoudis again. Yada, yada, yada
Logged

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

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,346


metron ariston


« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2006, 12:11:19 PM »

What have the Magisterium and these well-known Catholic clergy/theologians been saying about Orthodoxy, St. Photios, the filioque, the schism, etc. in the last 30 years that might undermine Likoudis's rebuttal of Orthodoxy?

First: For an overview of all the arguments and historical periods Likoudis apparently covers, see the first few pages of this statement from the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, which includes several well-known hierarchs and theologians:
http://www.scoba.us/resources/filioque-p02.asp I think you will find the tone (and probably the content) of its description far removed from Likoudis.

Near the end of the section is the following summary of what the Magesterium and well-known Catholic clergy/theologians have been saying on these issues for the last 30 years:

Quote
A new phase in the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church began formally with the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the Pan-Orthodox Conferences (1961-1968), which renewed contacts and dialogue. From that time, a number of theological issues and historical events contributing to the schism between the churches have begun to receive new attention. In this context, our own North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation was established in 1965, and the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches was established in 1979. Although a committee of theologians from many different Churches, sponsored by the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, studied the Filioque question in depth in 1978 and 1979, and concluded by issuing the “Klingenthal Memorandum” (1979), no thorough new joint discussion of the issue has been undertaken by representatives of our two Churches until our own study. The first statement of the Joint International Commission (1982), entitled “The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Trinity,” does briefly address the issue of the Filioque, within the context of an extensive discussion of the relationship of the persons of the Holy Trinity. The Statement says: “Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn. 15:26) as the sole source of the Trinity, and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom. 8:15) since he is already the Spirit of the Son (Gal.4:6), is communicated to us, particularly in the Eucharist, by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and eternity (Jn. 1:32).” (No. 6).

Several other events in recent decades point to a greater willingness on the part of Rome to recognize the normative character of the original creed of Constantinople. When Patriarch Dimitrios I visited Rome on December 7, 1987, and again during the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew I to Rome in June 1995, both patriarchs attended a Eucharist celebrated by Pope John Paul II in St. Peter’s Basilica. On both occasions the Pope and Patriarch proclaimed the Creed in Greek (i.e., without the Filioque). Pope John Paul II and Romanian Patriarch Teoctist did the same in Romanian at a papal Mass in Rome on October 13, 2002. The document Dominus Iesus: On the Unity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on August 6, 2000, begins its theological considerations on the Church’s central teaching with the text of the creed of 381, again without the addition of the Filioque. While no interpretation of these uses of the Creed was offered, these developments suggest a new awareness on the Catholic side of the unique character of the original Greek text of the Creed as the most authentic formulation of the faith that unifies Eastern and Western Christianity.

Not long after the meeting in Rome between Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the Vatican published the document “The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit” (September 13, 1995). This text was intended to be a new contribution to the dialogue between our churches on this controversial issue. Among the many observations it makes, the text says: “The Catholic Church acknow-ledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value, as the expression of one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No confession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of faith taught and professed by the undivided Church.” Although the Catholic Church obviously does not consider the Filioque to be a contradiction of the creed of 381, the significance of this passage in the 1995 Vatican statement should not be minimized. It is in response to this important document that our own study of the Filioque began in 1999, and we hope that this present state-ment will serve to carry further the positive discussions between our communions that we have experienced ourselves.

Read the rest of the statement if you want to see the many theological/linguistic points made by the Consultation regarding the filioque. Among the major conclusions/recommendations, we find that the Consultation recommends:

Quote
that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.

that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.

You can find other statements (from the North American Consultation and from the International one) on the papacy, the Eucharist, etc. online (including here: http://www.scoba.us/resources/index.asp).
« Last Edit: July 07, 2006, 12:12:56 PM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
KATHXOYMENOC
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147



« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2006, 12:11:51 PM »

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=9465.msg127143#msg127143 date=1152288494]
Oh no, not Likoudis again. Yada, yada, yada
[/quote]

What does this mean? Is Likoudis a pariah around here? Is he a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal? Is he a polemical but misinformed/misinforming/reactionary Catholic apologist?
Logged

KYPIOCIHCOYCXPICTOC
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,346


metron ariston


« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2006, 12:21:53 PM »

I think the problem with Likoudis is not that he represents traditional Catholicism over the Magisterium which is now ecumenist,

But this certainly is a problem for one who makes much of the authority of the Petrine See, no? Sure, the Pope hasn't spoken ex cathedra on this (or almost ANY) issue, but if "traditional" Catholics can pick and choose what long-standing statements from the curia and the Pope are acceptable, then this rather undermines such "traditional" Catholics' talk of the important (even essential) role of the Vicar of Christ, no? (Why, for example, can't Sen. John Kerry decide, based on his Catholic convictions, that birth control is a great thing?)

Quote
but that traditional Catholicism is simply wrong about Orthodoxy.

Well, I don't disagree with you there. But, then again, neither does the extended leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

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


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2006, 01:05:52 PM »

But this certainly is a problem for one who makes much of the authority of the Petrine See, no? Sure, the Pope hasn't spoken ex cathedra on this (or almost ANY) issue, but if "traditional" Catholics can pick and choose what long-standing statements from the curia and the Pope are acceptable, then this rather undermines such "traditional" Catholics' talk of the important (even essential) role of the Vicar of Christ, no? (Why, for example, can't Sen. John Kerry decide, based on his Catholic convictions, that birth control is a great thing?)

Which is why I ultimately decided against traditional Catholicism.  At least in Orthodoxy, you have a precedent for the Old Calendarist resistance (even if you don't agree with it); in Catholicism, it's quite the opposite, the only logical outcome of it being 1) declaring recent moves in the CC to be unofficial as not "ex cathedra" or part of the ordinary magisterium or 2) sede vacantism (there is no valid pope).  I believe Mr. Likoudis would fall under #1, although he may have in fact softened his position in his new book.  The problem is, since he self-published, *I* will never be able to find out for myself since I won't pay 30 bucks for a non-peer reviewed book Smiley  Unless someone wants to buy it for me and send it to me. I accept donations  Tongue

Quote
Well, I don't disagree with you there. But, then again, neither does the extended leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.

They're wrong about Orthodoxy, too Wink But you already knew that Smiley  In all seriousness, I welcome RC attempts to move closer to Orthodoxy. I just think they're doing it for the wrong reasons, and as such, it will not bear fruit.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

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

Posts: 147



« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2006, 01:28:28 PM »

I found this response to Likoudis:

http://apologetika.tripod.com/likoudis.html

Part 2:

http://apologetika.tripod.com/likoudis2.html
« Last Edit: July 07, 2006, 01:49:32 PM by KATHXOUMENOC » Logged

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

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


« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2006, 01:40:56 PM »

What does this mean? Is Likoudis a pariah around here? Is he a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal? Is he a polemical but misinformed/misinforming/reactionary Catholic apologist?

 Cheesy Your salient post just above answers this. Thanks.
Logged

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

Posts: 486


« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2006, 02:32:42 PM »


They're wrong about Orthodoxy, too Wink But you already knew that SmileyÂÂ  In all seriousness, I welcome RC attempts to move closer to Orthodoxy. I just think they're doing it for the wrong reasons, and as such, it will not bear fruit.

Anastasios


What are the wrong reasons that the RC are doing it for?
I'm not sure what you mean.
I think personally, wrong reasons would be if there was an underhanded agenda to say all the right things to "woo" people into the fold and then pull the rug out from underneath once the agreement was final.
I have to say I would be concerned of this as a possibility because of the Power the Pope has and could abuse if he chose to.
Whereas in Orthodoxy- (please correct if I am wrong!!!) I think it would take only 1 good man to stop many men from error since there is no one man ruling over all in Orthodoxy.
I might be off base on this one - so please correct me if I am.
Logged
vasilisl
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greece
Posts: 52


« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2006, 04:54:52 PM »


great links Kathxoumene
Logged

Ο Σταυρός του Χριστού είναι η ζωή και η σω
vasilisl
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greece
Posts: 52


« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2006, 05:15:04 PM »

I have to say I would be concerned of this as a possibility because of the Power the Pope has and could abuse if he chose to.
Whereas in Orthodoxy- (please correct if I am wrong!!!) I think it would take only 1 good man to stop many men from error since there is no one man ruling over all in Orthodoxy.
I might be off base on this one - so please correct me if I am.

Dismus,

in preschism Orthodox Christianity, there whereÂÂ  5 patriarchates so we had 5 patriarchs.

Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria

All Patriarchs where EQUAL such as the Apostles of Christ. Rome's Patriarch (or Pope) and later Constaninople's Patriarch as the patriarch of the capital and eatern Roman Empire where the first among EQUALS.ÂÂ  As Peter could be conidered the first among the EQUAL apostles. Because there where 12 apostles not 11+1 like the RC seems to preach.

Orthodoxy is democratic. The Ecumenical Patriarch (EP) is the first among the Equal to him remaining patriarchs except Rome who left. Even the Bishops and archishops are Equal. But the have different roles.

The EP cannot directly interfere with any orther Patriarchate, except when he is really needed. Like in the case of the Jerusalem Patriarchate last year, where he leaded a Pan-Orthodox Synod which sacked the Patriarch.

Great decisions cannot be taken from one man, but democratically with the blessing of the Holy Spirit. The EP leads the synods, but they all make a decision, It was always like that and it will be. The true leader is Christ. His word (Logos) and the CHURCH established by Himself and on to the apostles to spread it to the world, are eternal. The applied back them and will beÂÂ  forever. Thats why the Orthodox Church which continues the apostolic work as the Christ and the apostles DEFINED will never need reforms like Protestandism or Vatican I, II, III or 50. Thats why Christianity doesnt need a human one man show, aÂÂ self claimed "infallible" humanÂÂ  Huh, a self claimed "Vicar of Christ on earth"ÂÂ  or as we would say in greek a human "trochonomos" (meaning a traffic police officer in greek) to decide Christs will.

Orthodoxy doesnt need one man, we have enough men, well defined procedures and of course our leader Christ who never abandons his children, to do the job.

How can one man decide? According to the RCC, the POPE inherits the holy spirit fromt he former Pope, and that goes all the way back to Peter.. But the Holy spirit is not inheritable.. You gain it through faith, love, praying and Humility, your way of life and sacrifices. You sacrifice eveything for HIM. And not all Popes have, and of course Orthodox patriarchs in the past..

« Last Edit: July 08, 2006, 05:50:44 PM by vasilisl » Logged

Ο Σταυρός του Χριστού είναι η ζωή και η σω
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

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


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2006, 08:03:47 PM »

Orthodoxy is most certainly NOT democratic. What an idea!

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

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

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greece
Posts: 52


« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2006, 09:05:33 PM »

An who makes the decisions in synods?

The archbishop? The Patriarchs? WOuldnt that be more like Papism?

When there is Equality, procedures can only be democratic..




« Last Edit: July 08, 2006, 09:06:21 PM by vasilisl » Logged

Ο Σταυρός του Χριστού είναι η ζωή και η σω
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: July 08, 2006, 09:57:11 PM »

An who makes the decisions in synods?

The archbishop? The Patriarchs? WOuldnt that be more like Papism?

When there is Equality, procedures can only be democratic..






When a synod reaches a decision, it is by consensus, not majority vote.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

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

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greece
Posts: 52


« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2006, 10:26:17 PM »

When a synod reaches a decision, it is by consensus, not majority vote.

Anastasios


I agree with you here. But what i meant is that the fact that they all come together to discuss issues and have to reach a consesus (or for lesser issues perhaps a vote), that is quite democratic. it is not like one man decides. Maybe i used and i am using the wrong words.

Thank you for your post
Logged

Ο Σταυρός του Χριστού είναι η ζωή και η σω
Bishop Paul Andrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: American Orthodox Catholic Church/ Holy Synod of North and South America.
Posts: 249



« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2006, 12:37:46 AM »

Which is why I ultimately decided against traditional Catholicism.ÂÂ  At least in Orthodoxy, you have a precedent for the Old Calendarist resistance (even if you don't agree with it); in Catholicism, it's quite the opposite, the only logical outcome of it being 1) declaring recent moves in the CC to be unofficial as not "ex cathedra" or part of the ordinary magisterium or 2) sede vacantism (there is no valid pope).ÂÂ  I believe Mr. Likoudis would fall under #1, although he may have in fact softened his position in his new book.ÂÂ  The problem is, since he self-published, *I* will never be able to find out for myself since I won't pay 30 bucks for a non-peer reviewed book SmileyÂÂ  Unless someone wants to buy it for me and send it to me. I accept donationsÂÂ  Tongue

They're wrong about Orthodoxy, too Wink But you already knew that SmileyÂÂ  In all seriousness, I welcome RC attempts to move closer to Orthodoxy. I just think they're doing it for the wrong reasons, and as such, it will not bear fruit.

Anastasios

Anastasios I agree what you have said  and from what I have read. (Getting the CC and the POPE) as some peopel had said The POOP that was only a funny pun with not disrespect to the POPE. (To Change it'll never Happen) what they need to do is get rid of the college of the Cardinals and send them packing to be Metropolitans and have the Pope change his Title from Pope to Patriarch of Rome and all Italy
Logged
Bishop Paul Andrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: American Orthodox Catholic Church/ Holy Synod of North and South America.
Posts: 249



« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2006, 01:08:31 AM »

Dismus,

in preschism Orthodox Christianity, there whereÂÂ  5 patriarchates so we had 5 patriarchs.

Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria


All Patriarchs where EQUAL such as the Apostles of Christ. Rome's Patriarch (or Pope) and later Constaninople's Patriarch as the patriarch of the capital and eatern Roman Empire where the first among EQUALS.ÂÂ  As Peter could be conidered the first among the EQUAL apostles. Because there where 12 apostles not 11+1 like the RC seems to preach.


[quote author=vasilisl link=topic=9465.msg127287#msg127287 date=1152393304
Orthodoxy is democratic. The Ecumenical Patriarch (EP) is the first among the Equal to him remaining patriarchs except Rome who left. Even the Bishops and archishops are Equal. But the have different roles.
[/quote]

The EP cannot directly interfere with any orther Patriarchate, except when he is really needed. Like in the case of the Jerusalem Patriarchate last year, where he leaded a Pan-Orthodox Synod which sacked the Patriarch.

I think this is wrong to remove the Patriarch of Jerusalem and all Israel


Great decisions cannot be taken from one man, but democratically with the blessing of the Holy Spirit. The EP leads the synods, but they all make a decision, It was always like that and it will be. The true leader is Christ. His word (Logos) and the CHURCH established by Himself and on to the apostles to spread it to the world, are eternal. The applied back them and will beÂÂ  forever. Thats why the Orthodox Church which continues the apostolic work as the Christ and the apostles DEFINED will never need reforms like Protestandism or Vatican I, II, III or 50. Thats why Christianity doesnt need a human one man show, aÂÂ self claimed "infallible" humanÂÂ  Huh, a self claimed "Vicar of Christ on earth"ÂÂ  or as we would say in greek a human "trochonomos" (meaning a traffic police officer in greek) to decide Christs will.

Orthodoxy doesnt need one man, we have enough men, well defined procedures and of course our leader Christ who never abandons his children, to do the job.

How can one man decide? According to the RCC, the POPE inherits the holy spirit fromt he former Pope, and that goes all the way back to Peter.. But the Holy spirit is not inheritable.. You gain it through faith, love, praying and Humility, your way of life and sacrifices. You sacrifice eveything for HIM. And not all Popes have, and of course Orthodox patriarchs in the past..


Logged
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2006, 05:49:26 PM »

I asked my Priest that if Peter was the Rock and left with the keys, then why was Paul gutsy enough to rebuke him?
Would that not make Paul an apostate for doing so?
So, I think that that was my first clue that Peter was not to go ahead and make all kinds of descisions without gathering everyone together first.
Logged
KATHXOYMENOC
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147



« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2006, 10:06:46 PM »

I asked my Priest that if Peter was the Rock and left with the keys, then why was Paul gutsy enough to rebuke him?
Would that not make Paul an apostate for doing so?
So, I think that that was my first clue that Peter was not to go ahead and make all kinds of descisions without gathering everyone together first.

Despite Jesus's words to Peter in Matthew 16 and John 21 seeming to give him a leadership position and attendant authority, other parts of the Scripture - Galatians as you pointed out, and Acts 15, and the fact that in Galatians Paul went to Cephas (most likely Peter, but there are some who argue for a different Cephas), James and John, and not Cephas/Peter alone - seem to show that the early church did not understand or view or regard Peter's role/authority as the present RCC does, IMO.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2006, 10:07:06 PM by KATHXOUMENOC » Logged

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

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


« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2006, 10:30:34 PM »


The EP cannot directly interfere with any orther Patriarchate, except when he is really needed. Like in the case of the Jerusalem Patriarchate last year, where he leaded a Pan-Orthodox Synod which sacked the Patriarch.

This is wrong - not what happened> The EP and the 'Pan-Orthodox Synod' did not "sack" the JP; they did all in their power - the synod (including the EP) refused to recognize him further as the patriach, thereby supporting the Jerusalem Synod which DID remove their patriarch.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2006, 10:31:50 PM by ΑριστÎÂà » Logged

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

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greece
Posts: 52


« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2006, 08:28:18 AM »

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=9465.msg127389#msg127389 date=1152498634]
This is wrong - not what happened> The EP and the 'Pan-Orthodox Synod' did not "sack" the JP; they did all in their power - the synod (including the EP) refused to recognize him further as the patriach, thereby supporting the Jerusalem Synod which DID remove their patriarch.
[/quote]

That is absolutely the case, thank you for correcting me!  .. i think i post sometimes way too late in the night Roll Eyes i get too general and should be more careful. I remember these events and was very concerned at the time, as all of us. Greek media was going nuts about this.
Logged

Ο Σταυρός του Χριστού είναι η ζωή και η σω
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,052


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2006, 03:53:41 PM »

When there is Equality, procedures can only be democratic..

Christianity (Orthodoxy) is not a democracy because:
- the voting is done by a small group of leaders (which means it's an oligarchy or republican/representative government)
- consensus is more important than majority
- veto power often times rests outside of the body in question (i.e. a non-member of the Archdiocese/Diocese in question)
- there is no popular determination of the form of "government" -> our system is the one the Lord set up with His Apostles
- really, there are different levels of responsibility; there were the 3 trusted disciples, the 12, the 70, and then the multitude; you can see parallels of this in the Church

In her infinite wisdom, the Church knows that popular rule (i.e. rule by the masses or mob rule) isn't necessarily divine rule and will not necessarily lead to the right outcome.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2006, 06:26:33 PM »

Divine Primacy?

Urgh. I guess I never heard that specific way of saying it before.

Sounds bad when put that way.

Sorry for intruding on this one. It just seems so bizzare. Divine Primacy that is.

No one on earth is Divine.
Logged
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 0.113 seconds with 55 queries.